1 Tuesday, 4 June 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone. Good morning, Mr. Poparic.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
8 JUDGE KWON: We continue with the cross-examination but this time
9 by Ms. Edgerton.
10 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
11 WITNESS: MILE POPARIC [Resumed]
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 Cross-examination by Ms. Edgerton:
14 Q. Good morning, Mr. Poparic.
15 A. Good morning.
16 Q. I want to ask you to begin with some questions about your
17 testimony in chief. Now, in that testimony, when Dr. Karadzic asked you
18 things like, tell us what was said about an incident, tell us what was
19 said and what's being alleged about an incident, what was claimed about
20 an incident, how an incident was portrayed, the answer you usually gave
21 him was to summarise the evidence related to those sniping incidents,
22 wasn't it?
23 A. Yes. That's the way it was basically.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We can barely hear the
25 witness. Could he please be asked to speak closer to the microphone.
1 Thank you.
2 MS. EDGERTON:
3 Q. Did you understand that, Mr. Poparic? The interpreters have
4 trouble hearing you. So they are asking if you could lean a little bit
5 closer to the microphone when you give your answers.
6 And then when Dr. Karadzic would ask you, for example, to tell us
7 what was officially said in the documents, you would do the same thing,
8 you would summarise what the document said; right?
9 A. Yes. For the most part, yes.
10 Q. But actually, Mr. Poparic, you don't do that and you haven't done
11 that completely, and you haven't always done that accurately, have you?
12 A. To tell you the truth, I didn't understand your question. What
13 does that mean, accurately? You mean did I interpret exactly the way
14 things happened? I don't quite understand your question.
15 Q. When I ask you whether you did something accurately, I'm asking
16 you whether or not you got it right or wrong. So when you summarise the
17 evidence, you haven't always got it right, have you?
18 A. I claim that what I said was correct but I don't really
19 understand what this refers to, whether I gave some additional comments.
20 I mean, in addition to the summary. But basically I stand by what
21 I said, that it was correct. Now, whether that qualifies as my comment
22 or a summary, that is something I cannot precisely distinguish.
23 Q. All right. I'll give you an example. You told the Court at
24 transcript page 38964, that it was your opinion that sniping incident F6,
25 which took place on the 6th of January, 1994, happened at around 4.30
1 that day and you said that that was on the basis of the testimony of the
2 victim, Sanija Dzevlan. You told the Chamber at that same page that
3 Mrs. Dzevlan claimed she had set out to visit her mother at the hospital
4 at around 3.00 p.m. and the hospital was some ten minutes away. And your
5 evidence on what might have been the visibility at 4.30 p.m. that date is
6 based on your estimate of how long she would have spent visiting her
7 mother in the hospital before she got shot. Do you remember that because
8 it's paragraph 81 of your report at page 65 in English and 92 and 93 in
9 your language. So you remember that analysis?
10 A. Certainly. Certainly. I do remember. I already said that the
11 problem regarding that incident is that the exact time is unknown, when
12 it happened. There are statements to the effect that it happened around
13 3.00 and then in another statement she said about 1630. So this incident
14 occurred within that period of time, but what is important there is the
15 time that --
16 Q. You've answered part of my question, but if we can go further,
17 I'd like to stay focused on my first question to you, which was about the
18 accuracy of your summaries of the evidence. Now, you said that the
19 witness claimed she had gone out to visit her mother in the hospital. In
20 fact, her mother wasn't even in the hospital and she didn't go there to
21 visit her, she went there to get medicine. And she said that in her
22 testimony in the Galic case, Mr. Poparic. And then before she concluded
23 her testimony, just to be perfectly clear about that, His Honour
24 Judge El Mahdi even asked her why -- in fact, and that's in the Galic
25 case at transcript page 3556, he asked her, Why, in fact, did you go out
1 and she said she only went to the hospital to get medicine for her
3 A. The problem regarding all of these incidents is that there is
4 lots of information. One statement she said that she went to hospital to
5 see her mother. I'm not denying that that statement may exist, too, but
6 I don't know. I haven't come across it. I mean that she said that she
7 was going to get medicine. So I based my assessment on her statement
8 that she went to the hospital to visit her mother because her mother was
9 in hospital, so there are several statements. Also, there are different
10 statements about the time involved. So perhaps there are also different
11 statements about the incidents themselves, but basically that doesn't
12 really matter. The important thing is when the incident happened.
13 Regardless --
14 Q. So, Mr. Poparic, are you saying that when you prepared your
15 analysis about this incident, you didn't review the witness's testimony
16 in the Galic case? Is that what you're saying?
17 A. No. That's not what I'm saying. I read the part where she spoke
18 about the incident itself. Perhaps I missed that detail, that finesse,
19 whether she was carrying medicine or whether she was going to get
20 medicine because I thought that wasn't important. I thought that what
21 was important was that she was going to the hospital and the time when
22 she was on the bridge. That is the most important thing in relation to
23 this incident. So all of these estimates can remain regardless of
24 whether she went to the hospital to get medicine or whether she went to
25 visit her mother. I don't see that that has anything to do with the
1 incident itself. The only thing that is important is --
2 Q. Well, Mr. Poparic, I'd submit to you it has everything to do with
3 your estimate as to the time at which this evidence -- this incident took
4 place. You said -- I'll tell you what you said in your report. You
5 said, at paragraph 81, halfway through the paragraph, Sanija Dzevlan went
6 to visit her mother in the hospital at Dobrinja after lunch at around
7 1500 hours. It could have taken her about five minutes to cover the
8 distance between her flat and the Dobrinja hospital by bicycle. It is
9 common knowledge that hospitals normally allow visitors from 1400,
10 2.00 p.m., to 1600, 4 p.m., and that would usually be prolonged by an
11 extra 15 minutes or so. Sanija Dzevlan would have kept an eye on the
12 visibility outdoors and chosen the right time to leave so that she would
13 not have to cycle in the dark. It's twilight on 6 January at 4.30 in the
14 Sarajevo, but there is sufficient visibility to ride a bicycle. And you
15 even go on. You say she was aware of the hospital's visiting hours and
16 knew what time it was when she left the hospital after the visiting hours
18 So, Mr. Poparic, it's not me who is finessing the evidence,
19 I would suggest it's you who is finessing the evidence?
20 A. It is correct that that is indispensable in order to establish
21 the time. She said she went to the hospital, so it's based on the
22 premise that she said she was going to the hospital to see her mother.
23 I repeat once again that all of this fits into this period from 15- to
24 1630 hours. The question is only whether it was 15 minutes or half an
25 hour earlier or later, things like that. I never said that the incident
1 was exactly at 1630 hours or exactly at 1500 hours. I'm saying in that
2 period. So that's why we gave these images in terms of visibility. At
3 any rate, in that period of time in Sarajevo it's already dusk.
4 Q. So your premise is based on something wrong. She never said she
5 was going to visit her mother at the hospital. She never said she stayed
6 at the hospital. In fact, she told Judge El Mahdi in the Galic case she
7 only went to the hospital to get medicine for her mother. Your premise
8 and your summary of the evidence is incorrect, isn't it?
9 A. I'm telling you that there is part of her statements where she
10 says that she went to see her mother in hospital, and I based my
11 assumption on that, that she was going to the hospital to visit her
12 mother. But again I'm saying that is totally irrelevant. It's just the
13 time that is important. If it's not 1630 then it was 1600 hours. It's
14 in these findings. And we are not saying exactly that it was at
15 1630 hours, we are just giving a time range and we are analysing
16 visibility in that period. It is totally irrelevant whether she was
17 going to get medicine or -- or whether she had visited her mother. It's
18 just -- how do I put this. It's just this half hour. At that time it's
19 already dusk in Sarajevo so there is less visibility.
20 Q. We'll move on. I suggested to you that you weren't summarising
21 the evidence completely as well. And when I say that I mean you left out
22 relevant material. And I'm going to give you an example: It's about the
23 tank that you spoke about in your testimony at transcript page 38959 to
24 38960. You said that Mrs. Ramiza Kundo -- this is in relation to
25 scheduled incident F5. You said that Mrs. Ramiza Kundo had said that
1 there was a tank near a church on Brijesce Brdo and a military observer
2 named Brennskag had said that as well. And you also referred to this
3 tank in your report at paragraph 71. Now, what you didn't say in both
4 your testimony and your report is that Mrs. Kundo actually testified that
5 she didn't even know what year the tank was there. Could have been 1993
6 or could have been 1994. That's relevant, isn't it?
7 A. Mrs. Kundo, the tank is totally irrelevant for this incident.
8 The fact is that she did say that there was a tank there and she also
9 said that she never heard it fire and so on. But we did not quote that
10 because we thought that that had nothing to do with this incident. The
11 only thing that was said was that there were -- there were some military
12 forces there at Brijesce Brdo. That's the only thing that was said in
13 that sense, that there were members of the BH Army, I mean at
14 Brijesce Brdo, and the tank has no direct link to the incident itself.
15 And that's why we thought that we didn't have to go into all these
16 details regarding the tank. Also, I mean, well, statements are
17 different. Now, dealing with the tank, I don't see why we would do that
18 in relation to this incident. The tank has nothing to do with this
19 incident. It just shows that in that area, there were some forces of the
20 BH Army. That is the point, why the tank was mentioned, but not in terms
21 of firing. I mean when it was there, we didn't deal with that when it
22 was there and whether the --
23 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not understand the end of
24 the sentence.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is only logical when you see the
1 configuration of the train terrain.
2 MS. EDGERTON:
3 Q. The interpreters, and it's probably my fault, didn't understand
4 the end of your sentence that finished with "... we didn't deal with that
5 when it was there and whether the --" Could you finish the sentence for
6 us and I apologise if I interrupted you.
7 A. Yes. The tank is totally irrelevant regarding this incident. We
8 just mentioned it, I mean, as a fact that is being mentioned. I mean
9 that there was a tank on this hill and that indicates that in that area
10 there were members of the BH Army. It was only for that purpose, whether
11 it fired or not, Mrs. Kundo said that she never heard it fire, and so on
12 and so forth. That's a fact. But it's totally irrelevant regarding this
13 incident, in our view.
14 Q. And do you also think it was irrelevant that Mrs. Kundo said that
15 the tank was only there on that site for about seven days, sometime
16 within the two year period?
17 A. It's not for us to say when this happened. We just mentioned
18 that there was a tank there. Now, when this happened, we could not
19 investigate that period, when it was there. I hope that it was stated
20 somewhere during this trial. It's not for us to establish how the tank
21 was there. It's for us to deal with the incident. And if some evidence
22 was adduced earlier, then that can be used, but we cannot present this
23 kind of evidence and we did not deal with that and that was not the
24 subject of our expertise, the tank I mean. So this is just a fact that
25 we came across in the materials involved and we mentioned that. Evidence
1 was probably presented through these proceedings; right? If that is
2 useful for us, it wasn't useful at all.
3 Q. But, Mr. Poparic, if you summarise evidence, it's important to do
4 it as fully as possible and to avoid any risk of misleading the parties
5 or anyone who is going to be listening to those summarise, don't you
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think that
9 I mischaracterised it at all. She said it was a tank.
10 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. What objection at all, Mr. Karadzic?
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that the distinguished
12 Madam Edgerton is lecturing the witness and telling him what he is
13 supposed to do and how he's supposed to do it. She is supposed to
14 establish what it is that he did do.
15 JUDGE KWON: Objection overruled.
16 Yes, please continue, Ms. Edgerton.
17 MS. EDGERTON:
18 Q. Perhaps you'd like repeat the answer you just gave before
19 Dr. Karadzic's intervention. I'm not sure we caught that.
20 A. What we summarised, we summarised part of Ramiza Kundo's
21 statement. She stated that there was a tank there. And we did not
22 convey each and every detail because then it wouldn't have been a
23 summary. A summary is something that is presented in brief. So the tank
24 itself does not really matter with regard to this incident and that's why
25 we thought that this didn't have to be looked into. Nobody said that the
1 tank had fired and that she was perhaps injured from an explosion or
2 something, so that's why I think it was not important at all to present
3 each and every detail. It was only mentioned in the sense that she had
4 said that there was a tank there. Namely, that there was a BH Army
5 presence there. I mean, we did not have more material than that, or
7 Q. All right. Then in any case --
8 JUDGE KWON: But, Mr. Poparic, you said that the existence of
9 tank is totally irrelevant.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Totally irrelevant in the sense of
11 assessing this incident. But --
12 JUDGE KWON: Why do you mention it at all in your report?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, we just mention it because
14 Ramiza Kundo said there was a tank there. In our view if there was a
15 tank there, then that means that they were on this hill Brijesce Brdo,
16 that there were members of the BH Army, and that is the only thing that
17 has to do with the tank and us. So --
18 JUDGE KWON: So it's relevant. It's relevant or irrelevant?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For the incident, irrelevant. We
20 never said that Mrs. Ramiza Kundo was injured due to a shell being fired
21 from the tank or something like that. It's relevant from the point of
22 view that it may be considered that there were members of the BH Army on
23 that hill, only in that sense.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes, continue, Ms. Edgerton, please.
25 MS. EDGERTON:
1 Q. In any case, whether or not there was a tank there, that wouldn't
2 give -- a tank there at whatever time, that doesn't mean you could snipe
3 at civilians engaged in civilian activities, does it?
4 A. We never said that.
5 Q. I think next I'd like to talk about some of your methodology.
6 Now, you in your report referred to site visits to Sarajevo in
7 September 2010 and May 2011, and you told my colleagues when they
8 interviewed you on my behalf before your testimony in chief that this
9 first visit was a three-day visit; correct?
10 A. I think that's correct. We left on Thursday morning and returned
11 on Saturday. I think that was it.
12 Q. And that was together with Mrs. Subotic and the object of that --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. The object of that visit was to help the Defence for the
15 cross-examination of the OTP witnesses. Have I accurately put to you
16 what you told my colleagues?
17 A. Not only to help the Defence but for us to see what the site
18 looked like and basically, well, yes.
19 Q. And you told my colleagues that the second visit in May 2011 was
20 with Mr. Sladojevic to help prepare for the Trial Chamber's site visit;
22 A. No. Not to help prepare for the Trial Chamber but to help
23 Mr. Sladojevic because he wanted to familiarise himself with these places
24 beforehand and we helped him in that.
25 Q. All right. Now, when you say, "We helped him," that kind of
1 leads me to my next question. When you went with my colleagues or when
2 you met with my colleagues, they asked you how you were able to find the
3 correct locations to visit, and you said, you told them, you did that in
4 two ways: The Defence provided a local person who lived there and had
5 knowledge of the locations, and you had the case file documents; right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you couldn't tell my colleagues the name of that local
9 A. I could tell them but they didn't ask.
10 Q. All right. Could you tell us who he was?
11 A. I can but maybe it would be a good idea to do it in closed
12 session. I don't know whether that person would want this to be heard.
13 If possible, closed session, just for a second so that I tell you?
14 JUDGE KWON: Shall we go into private session briefly.
15 [Private session]
10 [Open session]
11 THE REGISTRAR: We are back in open session.
12 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
13 Q. Now, this individual, did he have or get knowledge of the
14 locations because he'd been in the Bosnian Serb army?
15 A. He knew it because he was a member, he was very familiar with the
16 area, he was born there, he lived there, so he didn't have any problem.
17 Q. So my question was whether he had acquired his knowledge of the
18 locations to visit because he'd been in the Bosnian Serb army, and I take
19 it your answer is yes; correct?
20 A. Amongst other things, yes. That would be the answer.
21 Q. And when that individual, during his service with the
22 Bosnian Serb army, was that as a member of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps?
23 A. [No interpretation]
24 Q. I'm sorry, could you repeat your answer?
25 A. The way I understood you was whether I was a member, or was it
1 perhaps that you were asking me that person was a member? What was it?
2 Q. Correct. I was asking you whether that person acquired his
3 knowledge or during his service with the Bosnian Serb army was a member
4 of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps.
5 A. He was a member of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps. I assume that he
6 acquired some of that information in the course of his service there.
7 Q. All right. Did he get that knowledge because he had been a
9 A. No.
10 Q. Did he get that knowledge because he had manned a mortar or
11 artillery positions?
12 A. No. I believe that he was a member of a tank crew, as far as
13 I could understand from conversations with him; however, we did not
14 mention his specific position during the war but, yes, he was a member.
15 Q. So his job was to take you to locations where his forces, people
16 he served with, are alleged to have shot the victims; right?
17 A. No, his task was to help us to get to the location which was
18 given in the indictment as the place from which fire was opened in one of
19 the specific incidents.
20 Q. So the answer to my question is yes, isn't it?
21 A. Yes, if you're talking about the places that are referred in the
22 indictment. He was supposed to help us to get to the locations which are
23 alleged in the indictment as the places from which fire was opened on the
24 citizens of Sarajevo, and all that according to the indictment. We were
25 familiar with those places. However, it was hard to get to those places.
1 His assistance consisted primarily in showing us the best way to get to
2 Spicasta Stijena, to Baba Stijena, and so on and so forth. The locations
3 themselves were not a problem. The problem was how to get to them, how
4 to choose the best way to get to those places. He was of great
5 assistance to us with that. When it comes to the identification of those
6 locations, we had materials that helped us. He did not say, This is
7 where it was. There were materials that accompany the indictment and we
8 realised that that was the place. His task was only to help us to get to
9 those places. If you were ever there, you could see that the roads are
10 narrow and curvy so he was of great assistance to us with that.
11 Q. You told my colleagues when you met them and you were discussing
12 these site visits, that you personally went to two locations for each
13 sniping incident: The place where the victim was at the moment they were
14 hit, and the place from which the shot might have originated. That's
15 right, isn't it?
16 A. Yes. I apologise. On several occasions, I went there on my own
17 in situations when things needed to be clarified and we couldn't do it
18 just based on the materials. On those occasions - I believe that I said
19 that when your colleague was questioning me - I met with some victims,
20 which is something that I didn't mention in my report because I thought
21 that it wouldn't be fair.
22 Q. Well, you didn't tell my colleague this when he was questioning
23 you, and you have never said, as you've just acknowledged, that you met
24 with some victims in your report. As an expert --
25 A. Let's clarify. I said to your colleagues that I was there, that
1 I met with the victims, and I explained the circumstances. It was not on
2 my initiative. It was just the way things happened. They contacted me.
3 And I did not enter that into the report because I didn't think it would
4 be fair to convey a statement who contacted me with best of intentions.
5 I didn't want to convey that because I didn't think it would be fair or
6 human to do that.
7 Q. Did you meet with victims or survivors of any of the scheduled
8 sniping incidents that are dealt with in your small arms report during
9 any of your visits to the area?
10 A. Not with the victims. The people who I talked to were victims of
11 the shelling at Markale II and the humanitarian aid. When it comes to
12 sniping incidents, we had contacts with the person who helped a victim to
13 be rescued. I believe that I said that and it is also contained in the
14 report. That person told us where the exact location was. It was our
15 assumption that --
16 Q. We will come there, all right?
17 A. I did not have contacts with victims from sniping incidents.
18 I contacted the person who helped one of those victims to be transported
19 to hospital and you will find that in my report.
20 Q. Now, when I asked you if it was correct that you personally went
21 to two locations for each sniping incident, you said that you also went
22 there on your own on several occasions when -- in situations when things
23 needed to be clarified. Now in your evidence-in-chief, you mentioned an
24 additional visit to the area in December 2012, and in relation to
25 scheduled incident F4 you mentioned further visits to the area. Are we
1 missing any other visits to the area than those on -- in December 2012
2 and in relation to scheduled incident F4? What else did you do that you
3 haven't mentioned in your report?
4 A. Well, in September 2012, I was on Brijesce Brdo, that's the
5 location that you mentioned. I wanted to see once again whether there
6 were any traces of the source that is mentioned in the documents. A
7 witness stated that that source had dried up and is no longer active.
8 I tried to see whether there were any natural traces pointing to the
9 place where that source had been. On that occasion I couldn't see
10 anything. I have some photos that I took. However, since I did not find
11 anything, I never mentioned it in my report. In any case, the report had
12 already been in by then. Subsequently, I went there just to put my mind
13 at ease and to see for myself whether I was right the first time.
14 Q. Sorry, I almost interrupted you and I apologise for that. You
15 just said subsequently you went there. Does that mean that after
16 September 2012 you went back to Brijesce Brdo again?
17 A. No, no. In September 2012 I went there. My objective was to see
18 the place again, it is a hill, there is a lot of grass, and I assumed
19 that even if the source had dried up, it would have left some traces
20 because if there is a source in an area, there are always traces of the
21 erosion of the soil. But I could not see anything of the kind.
22 Q. Right. So you went to visit this scheduled sniping incident
23 sites in September 2011 -- pardon me, in September 2010, May 2011,
24 September 2012, December 2012, and on a date we've not gotten into or
25 several dates we have not gotten into with respect to sniping incident
1 F4. Have you made any other visits to those sites that you haven't told
2 us about in your testimony or your report?
3 A. As for sniping incidents, no, but for some shelling incidents,
4 I was there even before the official visit in 2010. I went to
5 Spasenija Cana Babovic street, for example, for the following reason: In
6 the documents, that place was described so that it could not fit within
7 the contemporaneous map of Sarajevo. The names of the streets, the house
8 numbers, everything was so confusing that it did not allow me to pinpoint
9 the place of the shelling incident. So I went there to see what the
10 street names were and what was what, and it was made very easy when I got
11 there because there were a lot of reports with erroneous house numbers
12 and street names, and based on those reports it was impossible to
13 pinpoint the location with any precision. That's why I went there, to
14 save time. And then in 2010, when we made the official visit, I just
15 confirmed my initial findings. This is why I never mentioned that
16 previous visit because it wasn't important. Our objective was primarily
17 to see what the situation was precisely. That's why I didn't find it
18 hard to get on a bus in the evening in Belgrade, I arrived in Sarajevo in
19 the morning, I took stock of the situation, and went back home. I just
20 wanted to make sure that my direction was not erroneous, that the
21 analysis that we were going to make was not based on erroneous
22 information. That was very important.
23 Q. When you went to the sniping incident locations, you told my
24 colleagues that you didn't use a GPS to identify those locations even
25 though you had GPS co-ordinates from Mr. van der Weijden's report; right?
1 A. It is correct, we did not use the system. We did not have to.
2 I don't see a reason why I should have used the system. We had photos.
3 We had exact addresses and everything else that we needed. That system
4 would not have made a big difference. It would not have helped us a lot.
5 We had the exact picture, we knew exactly what the situation was, and a
6 GPS would have, for example, helped us in locating the position of the
7 place but since that was not a problem we didn't really need the system
8 at all. When you have photos and when you have all the other exact
9 information, a GPS doesn't mean much. You can go to the place, you can
10 measure the co-ordinates and you say -- you can say, These are the
11 co-ordinates, but they don't mean anything. The GPS has been used for
12 25 years, and before it came into use the analyses were done in this way.
13 Q. So if having a GPS doesn't actually mean much when you have
14 photos -- let me ask you this another way. You would agree, though,
15 wouldn't you, in cases of sniping, that differences of small metres can
16 make a dramatic difference in assessing an angle of fire or an origin of
17 fire? Isn't that the case?
18 A. No. No. In sniping incidents, a few metres do not mean much,
19 and let me tell you why: A trajectory of a sniping round or sniping
20 bullet is very straight, very horizontal. The ordinate is very low.
21 Several metres do not mean much to us, if we do not have precise
22 information about the nature of the hit, or rather, the nature of the
23 wound. In none of the cases we had that. So the precision which is
24 measured in terms of 1 or 2 metres even if we had a GPS system we
25 wouldn't know where the bullet had come from. It could be 2 metres to
1 one side or the other. And the possibility of the error is the same with
2 or without a GPS because we did not have the precise information on the
3 origin of the fire. It was just an assumption. Mr. Weijden, when he
4 went there, he assumed that it was from there. He saw a trench and he
5 assumed that the fire had come from that trench. It could have been some
6 other trench. In concrete terms, let's try and remind ourselves of
7 Spicasta Stijena. There were four trenches there that were used by the
8 VRS. How can we know what trench the fire was opened from if we don't
9 know the nature of the wound? That GPS system would not have been much
10 of assistance in determining the origin of the fire in that incident.
11 Q. All right. What about a laser rangefinder? Would that have been
12 of assistance to you in the specific task that you had?
13 A. Under the conditions when we had information about the nature of
14 the wound, but we didn't have any. So the laser beam would not have
15 helped us a lot, because we did not know the exact origin of the fire
16 because we could say it was -- the bullet was fired from 2 metres to the
17 left or 2 metres to the right. We used the laser finder to measure, but
18 that doesn't mean anything because we are not sure that the place was the
19 exact place where the fire came from. So in all of these cases you can
20 only talk about the approximate place from which the fire originated.
21 There is another thing. We are talking about differences in the
22 positions of one or the other side. When those differences are
23 significant, then this can be of assistance, and this can help us to
24 determine where fire had come from. But you have to know the exact
25 position of fire in order for the laser rangefinder to give you the exact
1 information in centimetres, and we can be off by 1 or 2 or even 3 metres
2 because we don't know where the shooter was exactly.
3 Q. So the only equipment you had with you, as far as I understand it
4 now, is a compass, and you didn't use that compass in your analysis of
5 sniping incidents and I see from your evidence-in-chief that you must
6 have had a camera because you told Dr. Karadzic that you took some of the
7 pictures in your report; correct? That's all the equipment you had, a
8 compass and a camera?
9 A. We had a camera, a measuring tape, a compass, a measuring tape is
10 very important. Actually, it was a military compass, M-1, which we used
11 to determine the axis. We used it but it was not of much use in sniping
12 incidents because the place of the incident was located in terms of
13 facility. We knew what the facility was and its exact position, so there
14 were no disputes about that. The compass was of more use in the shelling
15 incidents where we could see traces so we could determine the trajectory
16 or the direction from which the shell had arrived. Here we have the
17 exact position of the facility where the incident happened. We took
18 measurements but those measurements were of no practical use to us.
19 Q. All right. Now, I want to talk about some of these locations
20 that you visited. For example, you talked in your testimony in chief
21 about the white skyscrapers in Grbavica and that was in a number of
22 places, transcript page 38994 and -996 to -998. Have you ever actually
23 been up in those skyscrapers to the locations of the alleged sniper
25 A. We didn't go to those skyscrapers but we had a set of photos
1 which were taken from those skyscrapers when the Trial Chamber in the
2 Milosevic case visited the location. So we had a clear picture of what
3 could be seen from those skyscrapers. We were aware of the concrete
4 situation. That's why we thought that it was not necessary for us to go
5 back there and take the exactly same photos.
6 Q. So any analysis and calculations with respect to those
7 skyscrapers as potential firing locations, you made on the basis of
8 photographs; right?
9 A. No. The analysis was based on the height of the skyscrapers.
10 That was what was important for the analysis. Even if we had visited the
11 place, it would not have been of much use for our analysis. It could
12 only help us to assure ourselves that it was possible to open fire from
13 the skyscraper, but we don't know where the fire was opened for, from
14 which floor, the 5th or the 10th. And then in our analysis, we used some
15 bench-mark values, and since we are talking about the differences in the
16 positions of the Army of Republika Srpska and the BiH army, and those are
17 great, then the analysis of the angle of descent is very important. We
18 had a case on the 27th of February when the traces showed that the bullet
19 was fired at a large angle and it could not have been fired from the
20 white skyscrapers. This is just an example of such an analysis. When we
21 are talking about big differences then we can make our assessments with
22 full reliability. When it comes to the skyscrapers, we don't know from
23 which floor fire was opened.
24 Q. How do you arrive at your bench-mark values?
25 A. Well, you know the distance between the skyscrapers; for example,
1 the skyscrapers are involved in the incidents with the tram so we know
2 the distance between the skyscrapers and the trams, we know the height of
3 the skyscrapers, so the maximum height is the maximum angle which is
4 about 10 degrees, if I remember it properly. And when you open fire from
5 a building that is closer, the descent angle is much higher, there is
6 drastic difference there. And based on that you can form your opinion as
7 to whether fire was opened from a skyscraper or from somewhere else.
8 Some positions were photographed there but we don't know on what floor,
9 we do not deny that there were positions there. [Indiscernible] The
10 white skyscrapers are across the street from the Marsal Tito barracks and
11 I'm sure there were positions there facing the barracks.
12 Q. Have you ever personally been inside the Metalka building to take
13 a view of the area south down Franje Rackog Street?
14 A. I don't know what I was supposed to see. What do you mean? Do
15 you mean that I went there to see the view of the street of
16 Zmaja od Bosne? What was I supposed to see in the Metalka building?
17 Q. Did you go into the Metalka building or not?
18 A. I was next to the Metalka building in order to gauge the view
19 down Franje Rackog Street. We also had a set of photographs taken in
20 2001, I think, when there was a visit concerning the Milosevic case.
21 Those photographs were more useful because they were taken at a time when
22 there was no vegetation, perhaps in November or so. There were no
23 leaves, there was no foliage, so the view was better. At the time when
24 we were there, all was green, so the view is more restricted than in the
25 case when they were on their visit. In any case, even if we had gone to
1 the Metalka building we wouldn't have been able to see anything, in order
2 to determine whether there were positions there or not. It was 15 years
3 after the war. The situation was changed completely. We could only see
4 what the view is, which is perfectly clear to us, and we took it into
5 account in all of our analyses. We did not deny that there was no
6 visibility or anything of the sort. We simply conducted our analyses as
7 if the visibility was 100 per cent, irrespective of the fact that there
8 may have been a tree hampering the view.
9 Q. So, actually, when you told my colleagues that you had been to
10 the victim location and the place from which the shot might have
11 originated for each scheduled sniping location, that wasn't entirely
12 correct, was it?
13 A. Yes. We did not establish that a victim was shot from the
14 Metalka building or from the white skyscrapers. Our analyses indicate
15 that no victim was hit from the Metalka building, save for the disputed
16 case when a mother and her son became casualties, I think in
17 November 1994. We cannot ascertain with any degree of certainty what
18 happened, and where fire came from, given the contradictions that exist
19 in our -- in the results of our findings, of our analyses, we did not
20 establish, we did not find evidence that the Metalka was the source of
22 Q. So when we talk about locations, and you told my colleagues you
23 went to the place from which each shot might have originated, I want to
24 know where you went. You didn't go to the origin of fire that the
25 victim --
1 A. [No interpretation]
2 Q. Can I just finish my question? It seems like you didn't go to
3 the origin of fire that the victims identified, you didn't go to the
4 location the shooting -- the shooting position, the potential shooting
5 position that Mr. van der Weijden identified. So where did you go?
6 A. We went to all those locations. If you have the Metalka in mind,
7 we were next to it. We just didn't enter the building. And what was
8 there to be gained by entering it? We don't know the exact place.
9 Metalka is 50 metres in length. That is why we limited ourselves to such
10 parts of the building that were visible, and from which we believed it
11 was potentially possible to fire a bullet from any of those parts as
12 provided in the analyses. The fact of entering the building would not
13 have assisted our analysis. We took such facts into account where it was
14 stated that the Metalka was the source of fire. And it was included in
15 full in that part of the building which has a view of
16 Franje Rackog Street, so it is not correct that we were not there. We
17 just didn't go up the white skyscrapers, but we had the photographs taken
18 from the high-rises in all directions, providing a clear indication of
19 what could be seen and what could not be seen. We also didn't know which
20 floor was used and nor did Mr. van der Weijden. However, it does not
21 diminish the value of analyses at all. We did not deny it at any moment.
22 We did not deny that something could be seen from the white skyscrapers
23 or from the Metalka building. We took it into account. I even said that
24 we did not limit ourselves to such positions where there were trees in
25 the way. We believed we took into account that visibility was perfect,
1 and on the basis of that we conducted our analyses.
2 Q. So in your report, at paragraph 14 (b), which is on page 36 in
3 English, when you said, "We were unable to find concrete evidence of the
4 presence of a sniper's hide in the Metalka building," that's not on the
5 basis of any visit to the building itself, that's only on the basis of
6 review of some material, some of your sources; is that correct?
7 A. Absolutely. It is understandable that 15 years down the road we
8 cannot find traces. People live there now. In the documents we had at
9 our disposal we did not find a piece of information which would indicate
10 that someone saw a sniper position there.
11 Q. But --
12 A. Let me add this: I do not claim that someone may not have said
13 it but in the material we had, we did not come across it. If there is
14 someone who said that, I will not dispute it, but we did not have such
15 information, which doesn't mean that no one included such information.
16 However, it is -- it was unavailable to us.
17 Q. But it's misleading, isn't it, to present this information
18 without any clarity as to whether that was from your own personal
19 investigations of the scene or from a review of some second-hand
20 information? It's misleading.
21 A. It is not. It cannot be misleading because we were there in 2010
22 which is 15 years later. Given the fact that the building was
23 refurbished and people live there, how could that mislead anyone? It is
24 reasonable to expect that we said so on the basis of the documents we had
25 and not on the basis of an insight. It would be unreasonable to say that
1 we were there in 2010 and to say, Yes, we were in the building but we
2 didn't see a sniping position. Of course the building was renewed,
3 people lived there, and there are no sniping positions there.
4 Q. So you didn't say that to clarify your report because you thought
5 it would be unreasonable?
6 A. We expected that everyone would understand that. I see nothing
7 controversial in it, in order to put a particular stress on it. 2010,
8 it's 15 years down the road, and I expect anyone reading it would
9 understand that there were no such things then. As I explained we didn't
10 find it because we couldn't have found it in 2010. If the building had
11 caved in and had not been refurbished then it would have been logical to
12 stress that, to say the building was not rebuilt, et cetera. In any
13 case, Mr. van der Weijden didn't say either that he found snipers there.
14 He couldn't have. He was there a few years before us, and even then
15 there were no traces, nor could there have been any.
16 Q. No. But Mr. van der Weijden, Mr. Poparic, having gone to the
17 building was able to say that there were possible shooting positions down
18 Franje Rackog Street at all levels of the building, and that was at
19 transcript page 7097 and you can't say that. The only evidence you have
20 about possible shooting positions comes from you standing somewhere near
21 the building at a location you've not identified for us yet.
22 A. No, no. You completely misinterpreted. We did not say anywhere
23 that in the Metalka building there were such places from which fire could
24 not be opened. Had we said that, then this activity of yours would have
25 had a basis. What we said, as we analysed, was that from the Metalka
1 building it was possible to open fire from the 1st, 2nd or 5th floor, we
2 don't know that, but we know the extreme left and extreme right position.
3 From those positions it was possible; that is to say, from any part of
4 the Metalka building it was possible to open fire. We did not deny
5 anything that Mr. van der Weijden said. We completely took it into
6 account, as if each and every window had a sniping position from which
7 fire was opened. That -- those were the conditions in which we carried
8 out our analysis. I think that is clearly visible in the report.
9 Q. All right. Just a few more questions about your sources.
10 I think that it's fair to say now, having talked about this for a little
11 while, that apart from some general references to other documents during
12 your testimony in chief, and even today and during your cross by my
13 colleague, it seems obvious that the documents you cited in your small
14 arms report represent only a small part of everything you reviewed in its
16 A. Of course, we went through much more of the material. In order
17 to arrive at what you need, you need to go through very voluminous
18 material, but we did not mention all of it. We only referred to such
19 documents that we relied on, that were important to us.
20 Q. And almost all of the material that you reviewed in connection
21 with this report was material given to you by Dr. Karadzic's Defence - in
22 fact, you told my colleagues it was a big pile of CDs full of material -
23 and the only additional material you took steps to secure for yourself
24 was what you downloaded off the ICTY website from the Galic and
25 Dragomir Milosevic cases; is that right?
1 A. Well, for the most part, it is right. We downloaded it from the
2 Tribunal website. We downloaded some things. Since there was this
3 technical possibility, we relied on it so as not to ask for everything
4 from the Defence because it was a burden to them. So we relied on that,
5 we relied on the material we located ourselves, and we used the
6 photographs and footage made on the visit -- during the visit.
7 Q. So otherwise you felt that the collection of material you had
8 received from Dr. Karadzic's Defence counsel was pretty complete; is that
10 A. No. No. We do not believe so. It is in the report. In the
11 material, what is missing is a lot of documentation that has to do with
12 injuries, with forensic evidence, court evidence. There is material
13 missing but that was not part of the case file. It would have been
14 useful if we had had it but it wasn't there.
15 Q. Did you take independent steps to go and get it?
16 A. We did. We asked Defence to see whether they can locate it but
17 they couldn't. In some cases, they did find some documents but in others
18 they did not. As far as I can see, Mr. van der Weijden did not have such
19 information either so I supposed that there was no extra information in
20 that regard. So he didn't use the forensic pathology documentation which
21 may be crucial in order to ascertain exactly what happened. It is very
22 important in a few cases.
23 Q. Let me ask you just a bit about that since you got on the topic.
24 You told us in your evidence-in-chief that you consulted with a forensic
25 medicine professor from the university, Dr. Jovan Dunjic, and that was
1 according to what you said in regard to sniping incident F12. That's not
2 in your report, is it, that consultation? You don't mention it anywhere
3 in your report.
4 A. I did not mention it in the report because based on the
5 consultation, I did not base any of my assertions on it. We did not
6 state anything explicitly. The professor himself told me that based on
7 what he could see, he could agree with some of my assumptions, that it
8 was more likely that it came from the left, but that he could only
9 provide his final determination based on a forensic -- on the forensic
10 analyses done at the time. It is completely unimportant because we did
11 not decidedly say that it was so. I simply wanted, because we do not
12 have that analysis, to have it for myself because I created my
13 conclusions based on the photographs and the footage. I'm an engineer so
14 I have an eye for the geometrical differences. I also went to see an
15 expert, a professor, who could tell us, You were off completely, or, You
16 may well be right. But that needs to be proven. And that was the answer
17 we received. In terms of the photographs he said that, I would say your
18 conclusions were correct. However, without a full analysis I can't say
19 anything for sure.
20 Q. When did you go and consult with this Dr. Dunjic? Do you even
21 remember the year?
22 A. It was sometime when we were drafting the report.
23 Q. So you don't have any notes of your consultation --
24 A. [No interpretation]
25 Q. I'm trying not to interrupt you but, please, don't interrupt me.
1 So you don't have any notes of your consultation with Dr. Dunjic?
2 A. I don't. I went to his office. We sat down for about two or two
3 and a half hours. I showed him the material. It was in the stage where
4 we were still working on the material. It was during the summer, perhaps
5 July. I can't say exactly. In any case, I did not keep notes. It was
6 an informal visit so that the two of us could meet to see if he could
7 help me. We simply sat down and talked. I did not keep notes precisely
8 because I did not cite it as a reference to the report. It was just an
9 assistance to -- for me to have a calm conscience, clear conscience.
10 I wanted to receive an opinion from an expert in the field.
11 Q. Have you consulted with any other forensic or legal or
12 investigative or military or other experts when you were preparing this
13 report that you haven't told us about?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Have you spoken with any of Dr. Karadzic's Defence witnesses?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Including Mr. Slobodan Tusevljak whose name you mentioned in your
19 A. No. Mr. Tusevljak? I don't know. I saw him for the first time
20 during his testimony when I watched it. I don't even know what his
21 position was. I was interested since an incident that we considered was
22 discussed. But I don't know whether you see Mrs. Subotic as a witness
23 but I did speak to her. We worked together.
24 Q. Have you spoken with any snipers?
25 A. What do you mean snipers, from the VRS or in general?
1 Q. Let's start with in general. Did you consult with any snipers,
2 any trained snipers, in the preparation of this report?
3 A. In the process of compiling the report, I did not, but I did have
4 some conversations with sharp shooters in the course of my career. I was
5 in frequent contact with professional sharp shooters who were engaged in
6 such things throughout their career at firing ranges, training ranges, in
7 the war.
8 Q. That's fine. But that wasn't what I asked you. I asked you
9 about the preparation of this report and you answered that question.
10 Now, I want to go back to the material you received from
11 Dr. Karadzic's Defence. You said that the only steps you took
12 independently to inquire about additional documents was to direct your
13 queries to Dr. Karadzic's Defence. You only asked them for what you
14 thought might be missing; right?
15 A. Yes. I don't know who else I could have asked anything. They
16 were the only connection. I don't know who else I could have consulted
17 on that issue.
18 Q. Okay. I want to just look at one of the documents that you
19 referred to in preparing your report, and that's the military map that
20 you cited as image 12, at page 42, and then you cite it again as image 49
21 and then again at image 52. And I don't want to call up a document just
22 yet but that map - and I see you have your report open in front of you in
23 the Serbian version with the images in it - was that map given to you by
24 Dr. Karadzic's Defence?
25 A. Yes. It was in the documents. Perhaps we misquoted and instead
1 of the 14th it should have been the 12th Division. The first time you
2 make that mistake you just carry it on.
3 Q. All right.
4 MS. EDGERTON: Now, I'd actually like to look at the whole map
5 which is P1764 for a minute, please, and once it's called up just to zoom
6 in on the top left-hand corner.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't have e-court.
8 JUDGE KWON: I'm sorry, I don't follow. You don't have e-court?
9 It's not -- it's coming.
10 Yes, Mr. Robinson?
11 MR. ROBINSON: Our e-court isn't displaying the map yet, but
12 maybe it's still loading.
13 MS. EDGERTON: It's a big file, so it takes a moment and time.
14 THE ACCUSED: I don't have e-court at all, the whole morning.
15 JUDGE KWON: Well, we haven't used it. Probably it's time to
16 take a break then. So I'll ask the technician to take a look at it.
17 Yes, Ms. Edgerton, it's coming but you haven't -- you're not
18 seeing that?
19 MS. EDGERTON: There is no point if Dr. Karadzic can't see it.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes, then we shall take a break for half an hour and
21 resume at 11.00.
22 --- Recess taken at 10.27 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.
24 JUDGE KWON: I take it, Mr. Karadzic, your e-court is now
1 THE ACCUSED: Yes, Excellency. Thank you.
2 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
3 Please continue, Ms. Edgerton.
4 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
5 Q. Now, Mr. Poparic, you should see a part of the military map that
6 you took the cut-outs in your report from, P1764, on the screen in front
7 of you. Now, if you look at the top left-hand corner of this map, you
8 see that the operative date is March 1st to 14 September 1995; right?
9 Maybe we could zoom it in a little bit more.
10 A. That's fine.
11 Q. So nowhere in your report did you point that out, did you?
12 Instead, you used this map from 1995 as evidence of the positions of the
13 front lines in relation to an incident dated September 1993 in Hrasno and
14 another one dated November 1993 in Brijesce Brdo?
15 A. Well, I would not agree that I never said that. I quoted it in
16 the footnote, which document was used, that is. I mean, well, as far as
17 the relevance of this map is concerned, I did bear in mind that the dates
18 differed, and then I tried to see in the documents whether there were
19 some documents that would indicate that the situation on the ground was
20 different at the time of the incident, and I did not find any such
21 documents. As for Brijesce Brdo, I found some witness statements to the
22 effect that the separation lines in that area were roughly the same, like
23 on this map. The terrain itself shows -- shows, I mean -- well, that
24 this map -- well, roughly depicts the situation as we did in the report
25 because there are some natural obstacles.
1 Q. You have, with respect, a tendency to give very long answers and
2 I understand that you're trying to be helpful, but my time to do this is
3 limited, so sometimes I may have to direct you a little bit more strongly
4 than I have been. Mr. Poparic, you, in the footnote to this map, every
5 time you used it, referred to it as something other than what it was.
6 You didn't disclose that it was a map from 1995 and that's misleading,
7 isn't it?
8 A. Well, I think no. This map was introduced and what is written
9 there is written there. If the date is the problem, 1995, I mean that's
10 what is written there, that cannot be concealed by anyone. In the parts
11 that we used that was the situation. In Ozrenska Street we accepted the
12 situation from this map and the only thing that could have happened was
13 that the BH Army units were close her to Ozrenska, not further down,
14 that's for sure. Once you get to the ground, it's clear.
15 Q. We will talk about Ozrenska Street when we talk about the
16 incidents, but, Mr. Poparic, you've -- what you've said today shows that
17 you've considered and deliberately omitted relevant information from your
18 report repeatedly. You've developed premises based on incorrect
19 information. Your sources, Mr. Poparic, are not transparent. You've not
20 disclosed consultations and conversations that you had relative to this
21 report in the report. All of that is misleading, isn't it?
22 A. Absolutely not, absolutely not. This is a map that is evidence
23 and I disagree, and I'm telling you that we did not do anything that
24 would have changed the situation. We considered the positions of the
25 Army of Republika Srpska to be where you claim they were, where that
1 photograph was made, and we accept that. Also for Brijesce Brdo, we
2 accept that the building from which it is claimed the fire came was in
3 the territory of the VRS, just as this map shows, and I don't see what we
4 used there that was not relevant. As for your assertion that I concealed
5 some consultations, I could not accept that because if I talked to
6 Professor Dunjic, I talked personally to check some of my own
7 observations. I did not insist that this was Mr. Dunjic's opinion. He
8 will be here and you can ask him. As for consultations about the visit,
9 I mean as for talking to the witness, I mean, I did not even include that
10 in the report so I would not accept --
11 Q. Mr. Poparic, I'm sorry, I want to go back before you go on very
12 far to something you've just said. You've just said Mr. Dunjic will be
13 here and you can ask him, but I asked you earlier whether or not you had
14 spoken with Defence witnesses and you said no. Is Mr. Dunjic a Defence
15 witness that you spoke with?
16 A. Yes, but I found out about that only later. I omitted that,
17 sorry. Well, don't -- I mean I talked to Mr. Dunjic as a professor and
18 as a forensic medicine expert. That's how I talked to him. I did not
19 talk to him about his testimony and I don't know what he's going to
20 testify about. That's the point. So for me at the point in time when
21 I talked to him he was not a Defence witness. He was a professor and a
22 forensic medicine expert.
23 Q. Right. I'd like to go on to some of the scheduled incidents you
24 discussed in your testimony and report and I'd like to begin with one
25 that happened on the 1st of July, 1993, that's the killing of
1 Munira Zametica as she was trying to get water from the Dobrinja River.
2 And you discuss it at pages 48 to 52 of your report, in English, and
3 paragraphs 39 to 52.
4 Now, you told the Trial Chamber that we had no reliable
5 information about the time of this incident, and between your report and
6 your testimony, as I understand your position on this, you discarded the
7 evidence of an eyewitness and the victim's daughter who testified before
8 this Tribunal, which placed the time of the incident between 2.00 and
9 3.00 on the one hand and 2.00 and 2.30 on the other, and you discarded a
10 hospital death certificate setting out Mrs. Zametica's time of death at
11 4.00 p.m., and instead you told the Court that the police had registered
12 the incident between 7.00 and 7.30, and a witness mentioned that she and
13 the victim had set out for the river just before night fall. So
14 I understand your position correctly, do I? That's kind of a yes-or-no
16 A. I cannot give you just a yes or a no answer. I took all the
17 times into account. But my assumption is on the basis of everything that
18 it is more probable that it was at dusk, and I can explain why, but all
19 the times were looked at and nothing was concealed.
20 Q. All right. But you didn't tell the Judges in your report or in
21 your testimony that the very same witness who mentioned that she and the
22 victim had set out for the river before night fall, that's
23 Mrs. Sahinovic, was shown the police report, and she specifically -- she
24 specifically in her testimony before the Judges in the Galic case, said
25 that the time on the document was incorrect and that she and the victim
1 had gone to the river in mid-afternoon. And she said that at Galic
2 transcript page 3440. You omitted that, didn't you?
3 A. Well, I didn't mention that detail but I did say that during her
4 testimony she said that she went to fetch water when night was supposed
5 to fall. That was rather descriptive, this testimony. And then at the
6 intervention of the Prosecutor, she corrected that assertion and she gave
7 this time, between 2.30 and 3.30, so that's not being contested, and
8 I did not conceal that, that Mrs. Sahinovic said that she was there at
9 that time. But in her statement, both is stated, so that's a fact. And
10 this other thing she said, that when night would fall, I mean that
11 coincides with what the police report says. So I did not base the report
12 on that, rather -- actually these are only facts that were before me.
13 I said that I analysed both cases which is important. And now which time
14 exactly, I wouldn't want to go into all of that.
15 Q. No?
16 A. I just believe that --
17 Q. Mr. Poparic --
18 A. More accurate --
19 Q. You agree that you didn't mention in your report the fact that
20 Sadija Sahinovic corrected the information in the police report that she
21 specifically said that it was incorrect. You didn't mention her
22 correction at all. And for the record that police report the witness
23 referred to in his own report is D672.
24 A. It's correct that I didn't mention that but I did mention that
25 she corrected her statement that she set out as night was supposed to
1 fall so that coincides with that time so I did not confirm that fact, but
2 I did not conceal that she had said both and that she said this time. So
3 she corrected her time and I did not conceal that. You cannot say that
4 I concealed that.
5 Q. What I'm saying is, again, you omitted relevant information. The
6 specific document you choose to rely on to support your contention that
7 this incident took place between 7.00 and 7.30 was corrected by the
8 witness on the witness stand.
9 A. No, I wouldn't agree, because she corrected her testimony in the
10 courtroom when namely that she had set out that when it was supposed to
11 be night-time and she corrected it, and I don't see any significant
12 difference there, and later on she denied that particular time of 19- to
13 1930 hours, and she said that it's not correct that she went out to get
14 water as night was supposed to fall. So there is no problem in terms of
15 me concealing something.
16 Q. Thank you. Now, in regard to this incident, you talked about the
17 Orthodox Church at Bijeljina in your testimony, and you said that you
18 were in the church tower, and about that you said you would personally
19 never put a sniper there in the church tower for a couple of reasons, and
20 that was at transcript page 38953. First of all, you said the space is
21 very little in the tower, it's insufficient to secure the place, and the
22 place was too exposed. That's your personal opinion; right?
23 A. It's my personal opinion, yes. Otherwise I did not have any
24 information as to what the church tower looked like at the time and
25 whether there had been a sniper positioned there but we conducted this
1 analysis as if there had been a sniper there in that place.
2 Q. So you didn't receive in all the material that you received from
3 Dr. Karadzic's Defence counsel or his Defence team, you haven't received
4 any information that would go to show that the Sarajevo Romanija Corps
5 had a sniper in the church tower at Veljine?
6 A. No. I did not have such information, but that is why we did not
7 rule out that possibility. So we looked at all of that as if there had
8 been a firing position there and that it had been fired from, and that is
9 the only thing that matters for this incident, and I assumed that through
10 other evidence this will be either confirmed or denied.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please
12 speak into the microphone. Thank you.
13 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Poparic, interpreters didn't catch your answer
14 in full.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did catch the entire
16 answer but with great difficulty. Thank you.
17 JUDGE KWON: Appreciate it. Mr. Poparic, could you kindly come
18 closer to the microphone, so that the interpreters can hear you better?
19 THE WITNESS: Okay.
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
21 MS. EDGERTON: Could we have 65 ter number 25108, please? Thank
22 you. Could you make the B/C/S -- enlarge the B/C/S original a little
23 bit, please?
24 Q. Mr. Poparic, this is a report from the intelligence organ of the
25 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, 5th Motorised Brigade,
1 1st Motorised Battalion, and it's dated 2 October 1993 and that's three
2 months after this incident. If we go down to the bottom of page 1 in
3 B/C/S and the last sentence on the -- your indulgence for a moment --
4 I've omitted to mark the reference in the English version.
5 MR. ROBINSON: I think it's at the top of page 2.
6 MS. EDGERTON: Yes, last sentence in the bottom of page 1 in
7 English and we stay on page 1 in B/C/S.
8 Q. This report says that from Dobrinja 4 towards the church at
9 Veljine the enemy has made a connection trench, and in the area behind
10 the garage a bunker was built. Do you see it, Mr. Poparic? It's about
11 in your language almost halfway down the page.
12 A. I cannot see it. Could you please zoom in a bit? I can't see
14 Q. No, that's the wrong portion. Move up to where you see the words
15 Dobrinja 4, please. Thank you. So the enemies made a connection trench
16 and in the area behind the garage a bunker was built from which they
17 opened fire only at night. And further it says -- further it says the
18 enemy uses the church at Veljine exclusively as an observation post.
19 According to our information till now there are six observers per shift.
20 The observers are armed with snipers and one anti-aircraft machine-gun
21 which is in a well-fortified nest in the church, and from the church fire
22 is rarely opened and when it's opened a sniper with a silencer is used.
23 So --
24 A. Yes, I see that.
25 Q. This is evidence which tends to confirm that
1 Sarajevo Romanija Corps firing position at the church was operative and
2 that sniper rifles were used from that location. So based on this
3 contemporaneous military document, it looks like your personal opinion as
4 to where you might put a sniper is actually unreliable, because this is
5 evidence that, one, was located in the Orthodox Church tower.
6 A. I don't think that this document refutes my opinion. I think it
7 confirms it, as a matter of fact. It is stated here that at the church
8 tower there was an observation post, an observation post, which is only
9 logical because it's high up and an observation post is used as a hidden
10 place from which one can observe the activities of the other side.
11 I mean, this is a BH Army source, and they can assume that they had
12 snipers, but they say themselves, I mean, that it is rarely used for
13 opening fire. There is something illogical here. It says here, armed
14 with snipers and a PAM that is in a well-fortified nest in the church. A
15 PAM is an anti-aircraft machine-gun. It's not a sniper. And they say
16 that fire was opened seldom. That means it wasn't really opened. So
17 this information about the weapons, I mean, about these observers on the
18 church tower, it is like my assumption, and this is now their assumption,
19 but I see here that they are not saying when they fired and -- I mean an
20 observer, as a person who is supposed to be hidden, of course, should be
21 armed --
22 Q. Mr. Poparic, does it confirm your point or not? You said, when
23 you first looked at this document, it confirms it, and what are you
24 trying to say now? It doesn't?
25 A. This confirms that this was not a typical sniper position but it
1 was an observation post rather, which according to the impression that I
2 had at this church was quite possible. It says here that these observers
3 were armed. All observers are armed, right? But an observer by
4 definition does not use his position for opening fire but only for
5 observing. That's why he's called an observer.
6 Q. Mr. Poparic, you actually have already told my colleague that you
7 have never worked as a sniper and it's obvious that you have no tactical
8 know-how relating to sniper deployment or operations other than the
9 conversations you've had in the past over the course of your career;
11 A. I wouldn't agree with that. I'm an officer. You shouldn't
12 forget that. I had been trained as officer. I completed the necessary
13 school. I know what the sniper's role is, what fighter's role is. An
14 observer is always posted in a forward post which is risky and he doesn't
15 open fire unless absolutely necessary.
16 Q. We'll get into that when we go into other scheduled incidents.
17 I want to draw your attention to something that you said in your report
18 at page 49 of the English, paragraph 42. You concluded that because the
19 eyewitness Mrs. Sahinovic saw bullets hitting the water which prevented
20 any rescue of Mrs. Zametica but didn't hear any gunfire, either her
21 hearing was impaired or the weapon used had a silencer. So if you read
22 this document, it looks like Mrs. Sahinovic's hearing on the
23 1st of July, 1993, was working perfectly fine. Couldn't that have been
24 the case?
25 A. It is a possibility, but it cannot be claimed for a fact that
1 that was what really transpired. We don't know what Mrs. Sahinovic's
2 hearing was, what she heard either. This is just an assumption of the
3 circumstances. If it was a silencer, that doesn't mean that fire had to
4 be opened from the church. There is not enough evidence to corroborate
5 that. This is just one of the options.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MS. EDGERTON: Could I have this as a Prosecution exhibit,
9 MR. ROBINSON: No objection.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 MS. EDGERTON:
12 Q. If you --
13 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll receive it.
16 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6360, Your Honours.
17 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
18 Q. You have -- you told my colleague -- never served in combat;
20 A. Yes, that's correct.
21 Q. You never served in the Bosnian army; right?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. You were never in Sarajevo during the conflict, let alone
24 Dobrinja; right?
25 A. Correct.
1 Q. So you have actually no idea how forces defending Dobrinja were
2 organised on July 1st 1993 other than what you might have read; right?
3 A. That is correct. However, I had an occasion to see statements
4 provided by the commander of the Dobrinja Brigade; therefore, I know how
5 it was organised.
6 Q. Mr. Poparic, that's what I asked you. I said you have no idea
7 how they were organised other than what you might have read. You've not
8 spoken yourself to any of the local commanders; right?
9 A. No. Actually, the answer is yes. I never did. I didn't speak
10 to them.
11 Q. And you haven't been able to identify any of the soldiers who
12 suddenly appeared and opened fire from the bridge in the direction of the
13 church that Mrs. Sahinovic referred to?
14 A. Of course, of course not. Nobody ever identified them so
15 I couldn't do it either.
16 Q. But you mean for us to infer that they were on duty on the
17 bridge; is that right?
18 A. In view of the fact that they were armed, actually those detail
19 here which does not tally with the description of the events.
20 Q. No, you're not answering my question. Do you mean for us to
21 infer that they were on duty on the bridge? Is that why you wrote about
22 that in your report?
23 A. It doesn't really matter. Not about that but about the fact that
24 they were close by and that they opened fire from the bridge, which means
25 that there was an opening on the bridge from which they could open fire,
1 given the fact that there were sandbags on the bridge, and that's the
2 point. Maybe you want me to describe how the defence was organised. I
3 believe that General Vahid Karavelic spoke about the organisation of the
4 defence. They had the first, they had the forward defence line, the --
5 Q. I don't --
6 A. Very well, okay.
7 Q. -- because General Karavelic spoke about that under oath in front
8 of another Trial Chamber in this building. I want to know what you know.
9 A. I know what he said.
10 Q. That's fine. So when you talked in your report about these
11 soldiers - and that's at paragraphs 45, 46 and 47 of English page 50 -
12 and said that the soldiers were on duty, that was only on the basis of
13 what you read from what other witnesses might have given evidence about;
15 A. No, no. I said that they had probably been on duty because they
16 were armed. Whether they were deployed there or somewhere nearby it's
17 neither here nor there, but since they had weapons and since they opened
18 fire it's only logical that they were on duty. We heard several
19 testimonies to the effect that the soldiers would leave the weapons
20 behind when they were sent home.
21 Q. I don't want you to talk about what the other testimonies might
22 have said in your answer. What you've said effectively is that your
23 assertions that they were on duty were actually nothing but guess-work.
24 You've never been in Dobrinja, you don't know how the forces were
25 organised, you haven't spoken to the commanders, you don't even know who
1 the soldiers were, so your conclusion that they were on duty is a leap of
2 logic that has no foundation.
3 MR. ROBINSON: Excuse me, Mr. President. I don't think
4 Ms. Edgerton is being fair to the witness when she tells him, I don't
5 want you to talk about what the other testimonies might have said in your
6 answer. If he has information from whatever source he's entitled to give
7 it as part of his answer. She can't restrict that. In fact, she's been
8 criticising him for not taking into account testimony which contradicted
9 an earlier report. So you can't preface a question by that, and I think
10 it gives the witness a misleading impression that he's not able to make a
11 complete answer.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes. I think he's trying to answer that his
13 conclusion was based upon other evidences, other witnesses' testimony.
14 But, Mr. Poparic, could you make your answer a bit simpler?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll do my best. My basic
16 conclusion based on which I thought that they were on duty is that they
17 were armed. Second of all, I came across statements by several persons
18 who were members of the BiH army who said that they had left their arms
19 behind in the units when they were sent home. And based on that,
20 I assumed that they were on duty because they were armed. In wartime it
21 can happen that a soldier takes weapons home. That's a fact. However, I
22 know that they claim that they didn't have enough weapons and that they
23 left weapons behind when they were sent home and they would go home
24 unarmed. And the fact is that those soldiers opened fire.
25 JUDGE KWON: Back to you, Ms. Edgerton.
1 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
2 Q. Just a couple more questions briefly before we leave this
3 incident. Have you gone to the specific incident location where this
4 witness was at the time she was shot, between 2.00 and 3.00 p.m. on any
5 date at all?
6 A. Yes.
7 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the end of the
8 witness's answer. Could the witness be asked to speak clearly into the
9 microphone, please?
10 JUDGE KWON: Did you say anything else after having said yes?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I said, "Yes, I did."
12 MS. EDGERTON:
13 Q. Could you tell us when that was, because it's not in your report?
14 A. That was in September 2010, either on the 17th or the 18th, but
15 I'm not sure.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I ask which witness this refers
17 to on line 15 on page 47?
18 MS. EDGERTON: Paragraph 50 of Mr. Poparic's report.
19 THE ACCUSED: Thank you.
20 MS. EDGERTON:
21 Q. Did you take any photographs at that moment?
22 A. I've already said that I did take photos. However, they would
23 have been little use of those photos because a new building has sprung up
24 in front of the church. The photo that may be of use was taken by the
25 OTP. In that photo you can see the church from a position somewhere
1 below the bridge, and I believe that zoom was used. We did not report on
2 that. I suppose it may have been useful if we did report on that. In
3 any case, one can see the church from the place where that photo was
5 Q. Mr. Poparic, in paragraph 50 of your report, you said that if the
6 incident took place between 2.00 and 3.00 p.m., the sun made a shadow in
7 the place where Munira Zametica was shot. Now you've just said you were
8 at that location, the precise location that -- where she was when the
9 bullet hit her, and you took photographs. Where are the photographs?
10 A. First of all, I have to clarify something. I was there and the
11 position of the sun is such that it creates a shadow. Even if I had
12 taken a photo at that time it would not have been useful because there
13 was a row of sandbags 2 metres high which cast an additional shadow.
14 Second of all, I was in a place below the bridge at -- more or less where
15 she was, but I was not in the place where she was hit because she was in
16 the riverbed. The riverbed is concrete and at a high slant. The only
17 thing that was never said is this: How did people descend into the
18 river? There must have been a staircase there. We don't know how they
19 were -- it was made, whether people were sheltered by the staircase or
20 not. I could not --
21 Q. I didn't ask you anything about the staircase. We are talking
22 about the photographs. So my question is, and I'm trying to find the
23 source to support the evidence you set out in paragraph 50 of your
24 report. My question is: Did you take photographs of the area between
25 2.00 and 3.00 p.m. so we can see whether the sun made a shadow in the
1 place where Mrs. Zametica was shot? Now, as I understand your answer
2 now, it's no, you didn't take photographs; is that correct?
3 A. That's correct. I did not take photos. Those photos would not
4 have been relevant because the 2-metre high sandbag wall was not there,
5 and at the time it made a shadow, and as for the position of the sun and
6 the shade, it's easily checked if you look at the map of Dobrinja.
7 Q. Okay. And you weren't in Dobrinja during the war. You've said
8 that. You weren't at this location during the war. So actually you
9 don't know what kind of shadow the sandbags would have made, if at all,
10 do you?
11 A. That has nothing to do with war. The position of the sun and its
12 shadow are astronomic terms and that can be checked at any moment. Look
13 at a map orientation, weather conditions, time, and everybody will
14 understand what the position of the sun was at that time.
15 Q. And how the sandbags may or may not have been stacked, what
16 height, what depth, where along the bridge they were located has nothing
17 to do with that. Is that what you're saying?
18 A. According to statements.
19 Q. I'm sorry, I don't think the interpreters caught your answer.
20 The sentence seems incomplete because I read here, "According to
22 A. The position of the sandbags was such that they were distributed
23 on both sides of the bridge and they were 2 metres high, and if the sun
24 came from that side, they had to made a shadow on the opposite side. And
25 if those sandbags had not been there, the shadow would not be -- would
1 not have been as big. It's easily proven by simple geometry. A photo
2 taken in 2010 would have been pointless because those sandbags were not
3 there and the situation was completely different. And this is the main
4 reason why we didn't take any photos at that time.
5 Q. Right. Thank you. I'd like to go to another part of Sarajevo
6 now and incident F17 which took place in Sedrenik, and you deal with this
7 incident at paragraphs 198 to 206 of your report.
8 JUDGE KWON: But before going further, what's the date of this
9 incident, F3, Ms. Edgerton?
10 MS. EDGERTON: 1st of July, 1993.
11 JUDGE KWON: Is it not 11?
12 MS. EDGERTON: Oh, pardon me.
13 JUDGE KWON: Let's continue, yes.
14 MS. EDGERTON:
15 Q. Now, with respect to this incident, I'd like to look at a couple
16 of the documents you cited as your sources. You said, in paragraph 199,
17 that no on-site investigation into this incident was conducted due to
18 combat operations. So by that you mean combat between the warring
19 factions; right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Let's have a look at one of your sources, 65 ter 10367, which you
22 cite in footnote 348. And this is a police report on the incident. The
23 English translation should be coming. Paragraph 3 of this document says:
24 "Due to firing from the aggressors' positions at the place where
25 Tarik Zunic was wounded, we could not conduct an on-site investigation."
1 So the document, on its face, says absolutely nothing about
2 combat, does it?
3 A. Well, this document says due to fire from aggressors' positions,
4 there are, however, UNPROFOR documents that speak about ongoing fighting.
5 There is a document which says that the Egyptian Battalion got involved
6 in the fighting.
7 Q. Mr. Poparic --
8 A. This does not rule out fighting at all.
9 Q. Mr. Poparic, I'm just asking you about this document for the
10 moment and we are going to come to the UNPROFOR document. Is it correct
11 that this document says absolutely nothing about combat?
12 A. No, it says here that there was fire from the aggressors'
13 positions, which does not rule out the possibility that fire was
14 returned. They could not approach because of the fire which was opened
15 from the aggressors' positions. This does not rule out the possibility
16 that fire was returned, that fire was opened against those aggressors's
17 positions but maybe that was done from another position.
18 Q. But that's an assumption that you've made; right?
19 A. Well, yes. I'm just saying how things would be interpreted, that
20 this does not rule out different possibilities -- does not rule out a
21 different possibility because he explains in the report why they didn't
22 immediately rescue the boy because of the fire. It is only logical that
23 the BH Army did not open fire on them.
24 Q. So that is actually the only document that you footnote to
25 paragraph 199, which says due to combat operations no on-site
1 investigation was conducted. So just leaving the UNPROFOR document aside
2 for the moment, this document, on its face, doesn't support your
3 assertion in paragraph 199, does it? Because it doesn't say anything
4 about combat.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection, objection.
6 JUDGE KWON: On what basis and what objection do you have,
7 Mr. Karadzic?
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I object to the fact that the
9 footnote in paragraph 199 is not cited in order to prove whether there
10 was combat going on or not. It is cited in order to prove the nature of
11 the wound. We received information that the boy was slightly wounded
12 through the palm of his hand. This is why this document is cited. This
13 is not to prove that there was combat going on.
14 JUDGE KWON: Shall we move on?
15 MS. EDGERTON: As this is one of the witness's sources, could I
16 have this as Prosecution exhibit, please.
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we will receive it.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6361, Your Honours.
19 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
20 Q. Now, could we go over to the UNPROFOR report that you just talked
21 about, it's P1619 and it's cited in footnote 349 to paragraph 200. You
22 say that the UNPROFOR document from this day confirms claims that the
23 document that we've just looked at confirms claims from this document
24 that ongoing combat operations, as it states, there was much fighting
25 going on in the area. So what you cite to is paragraph 4(c) of this
1 UNPROFOR document. And that's at page 2 in B/C/S and in English,
2 although in English paragraph 4(c) begins at the bottom of page 1. So
3 what you do is you cite to the report of eight explosions, seven
4 machine-gun bursts and 93 rounds of small arms fire. And do you see --
5 could we go over to the next page in English? Thank you. Do you see the
6 asterisk after the mention of 93 rounds of small arms fire? And the
7 asterisk then at the end of this table of small arms violations says, see
8 paragraph 3(a). Do you see that asterisk? Mr. Poparic, do you see the
9 asterisk on the table that you cite to?
10 A. There are four. I don't know which one.
11 Q. The asterisk is a small star shape symbol and it appears in this
12 document after the mention of 93 -- the reference to 93 rounds of small
13 arms fire. Do you see that? It's the little star shaped symbol and it's
14 at the top middle of the page that's in front of you on the screen. My
15 colleague has put the cursor right beside it so you can see the asterisk.
16 A. Yes. I can see that, yes.
17 Q. That asterisk --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- tells us to refer to paragraph 3(a) of the same document. So
20 I'd like to do that and go back over to page 1, please, in both versions.
21 Now, paragraph 3(a) says, "While assisting casualties reported at
22 paragraphs 8," and that - I'm sure you would agree, we can check it if
23 you don't - includes Mr. Zunic, "UNMOs came under occasional small arms
24 fire. Number of rounds unknown but origin of fire assessed at being
1 All right? So that gunfire you cited to is assessed as coming
2 from Sharpstone by the UNMOs. And I'd like to go down to paragraph 3(b),
3 which says:
4 "As a result of coming under fire while assisting sniper
5 casualties, the UNPROFOR EgyptBat anti-sniping team returned fire on
6 Bosnian Serb army positions at Sharpstone. Following this, the UNMO
7 Vogosca team received a telephone call from the commander of the Radava
8 Battalion Vogosca Brigade saying that if the EgyptBat APC in his target
9 practice area wasn't moved within half an hour, it would be fired upon."
10 So this document also says nothing about combat, does it? What
11 it reports is direct targeting of the rescue of wounded civilians by SRK
12 forces from Spicasta Stijena.
13 A. I would disagree that it doesn't mention any combat. One can see
14 here that fire was returned from the Egyptian APC. If there is no
15 information on any combat with the ABiH, there is information on combat
16 with members of the Egyptian Battalion. There was an exchange of fire.
17 In addition to what was stated there, we indicated that there was a lot
18 of firing, which is confirmed by the report. We saw all of the
19 activities concerning the incident. In our view, such activity does not
20 entail individual sniper fire at the boy. It seems the boy was hit in an
21 exchange of fire opened in a general area from machine-guns, infantry
22 weapons, and what not. So there is information on the opening of fire.
23 In our view, the boy, under such circumstances, could not have been an
24 isolated target intentionally targeted by a sniper. That is what was
25 concluded on the basis of those activities. This confirms that there was
2 Q. When I asked you at the beginning of our discussion about this
3 incident whether you meant combat between the warring factions, in
4 reference to your report, you said yes. So now you are changing your
5 evidence to suit your -- the point you're trying to make, aren't you?
6 Because now you're talking about combat between UNPROFOR and the SRK. So
7 what you're saying is victim here Tarik Zunic was wounded in cross-fire
8 between UNPROFOR and the SRK? Is that what you're saying?
9 A. No. When I say that there was an exchange of fire, you said that
10 there was no specific evidence that there was. There was an exchange of
11 fire which is indicated in the document. Of course, when there is an
12 exchange of fire, someone may get caught in cross-fire between the
13 parties engaged. It is only logical. I don't know, though, why it is
14 not specifically addressed here. We see that there was a fierce exchange
15 of fire as confirmed to me by the man who was present. He said that
16 there was fierce combat.
17 Q. Let's just talk about that man for a minute. Now, you went to
18 this street, Sedrenik Street, at some point in your site visits,
19 I understand. You didn't speak with the victim at that time, did you?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So even though his family home was about four houses away from
22 the scene of the incident, you didn't go there and ask to be taken to the
23 exact incident location, did you?
24 MR. ROBINSON: Excuse me, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
1 Yes, Mr. Robinson?
2 MR. ROBINSON: I think that's an unfair question. Had he done
3 that he would have been in violation of our protocols concerning contacts
4 with Prosecution witnesses. He's not allowed to do that. So to
5 criticise him for not doing that is unfair.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Edgerton, would you like to respond?
7 MS. EDGERTON: I'd just like to move on actually, Your Honours,
8 if I may.
9 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
10 MS. EDGERTON: All right.
11 Q. When you went to the area, you didn't go to the house immediately
12 behind the location where Tarik Zunic was shot, the house with the red
13 fence that he identified in his evidence in the Dragomir Milosevic case,
14 did you? You didn't go there to ask about the incident location.
15 A. No. It was our intention to go in front of the house because we
16 had the photographs at our disposal which he had marked. We identified
17 the house and we were approached at that moment by a man who resides in
18 the next house.
19 Q. All right. Let's just talk about how you identified the house
20 for a minute. Could we have a look at -- your indulgence for a moment --
21 P451 in this case, please. Thank you.
22 Now, in his testimony in the Dragomir Milosevic case, the victim
23 marked the X on this location on the street in front of the house where
24 he was shot. So did you go to the house behind that red fence that we
25 see on the right-hand side of this photo?
1 A. No. We did not. We had no authority to go into people's homes.
2 But we were on location. It was the first location that we visited.
3 Q. But you were with members of the police forces of
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina at that time, during that site visit in September,
5 weren't you?
6 A. Yes, but before the tour we had a meeting with the SIPA director,
7 the organisation in charge of the visit, and we agreed on the terms of
8 the visit. We had no authority to go into people's homes. We could talk
9 to people, and in the course of such conversations, we were not supposed
10 to introduce ourselves as representatives of Defence. We were told for
11 security reasons to introduce ourselves as a team which has a connection
12 with The Hague Tribunal. That was the arrangement with the SIPA director
13 and that is how we approached it.
14 Q. That's fine and that's fair enough. So without going into
15 somebody's home, your evidence is you didn't ask to go knock on the door,
16 you didn't ask the police to knock on the door of this specific house
17 immediately in front of the location where the boy has marked he was
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. All right. So when you met my colleagues on the 27th of May, you
21 told them about this man and woman who you spoke with from a house down
22 the street. Who else was present at the time?
23 A. Ms. Subotic was, then the man who served as our escort, there
24 were policemen. Everyone was there. I can explain the circumstances.
25 It wasn't our plan to visit it. Why didn't we go there? Because we
1 recognised the location.
2 Q. I'd like you to listen to my questions actually. Did you record
3 the names of this man and woman and their contact details?
4 A. No. I did not. The man offered his services. However, I abided
5 by the agreement we had with the SIPA director and I did not introduce
7 Q. So you --
8 A. We were not supposed to reveal our identity, and that is why
9 I did not want to take any information from him. It would have been
10 unfair. In any case, I did not contact the man first. He approached us.
11 Q. So nobody took notes of the interview either? Is that right?
12 A. It is right. I believe I said so. He came to us.
13 Q. Now, at this specific location, from this specific location where
14 the victim marked he was shot, you then -- and you've confirmed it in
15 your report -- you were able to see that Spicasta Stijena was visible
16 from that site, and you confirmed it, if you want to double check, in
17 paragraph 204; right? You took a view from that spot and you could see a
18 clear line of sight to Spicasta Stijena?
19 A. Correct. One can see it from this position. However, as for the
20 other position shown to us by the man, visibility is less. The first
21 location has better visibility.
22 Q. Okay. Your indulgence for a moment, please. All right. I'd
23 like to go on to another incident but stay in the area of Sedrenik, and
24 that's scheduled sniping incident F2. You talked about this in
25 paragraphs 31 to 38 of your report and that is at pages 45 to 48 of the
1 English translation.
2 Now, just before we get into some of the physical details, you
3 said in your analysis of this incident that the victim who was shot was
4 kneeling down with her back turned towards the house and her head was
5 facing the street. And you footnoted this to her testimony in the Galic
6 case. But -- and the footnote is to transcript page 4036. But,
7 Mr. Poparic, in fact, there is no reference on that page or anywhere in
8 her testimony that she was facing the street. She says, at lines 5 to 6
9 of that page, and she clarified at transcript pages 4042 and 4047, that
10 she was facing spiky rock which is Spicasta Stijena at the moment she was
12 A. That's it. If she was turned in the direction of
13 Spicasta Stijena, it is understood that she was looking in that
14 direction. The position itself was explained by Mr. Barry Hogan in the
15 footage. One can clearly see her indicating where she was turned to. It
16 corresponds to the description provided, although perhaps we did not
17 convey it in as much detail, but that was her position. She was kneeling
18 down with her back to the house.
19 Q. Thank you for clarifying that, or correcting that. So it's
20 clear, when I read your report, that you've read the victim's witness
21 statement, you've included that in one of your -- as one of your sources,
22 her statement of 25 June 2001, so you would have read her evidence that
23 the bullet hit the wall of the house behind her and the chipped cement --
24 and chipped the cement and the mark of that was still visible. You would
25 have read that evidence. Do you remember that?
1 A. Yes. It is in the report.
2 Q. Mr. van der Weijden's report has the same evidence at page 22 and
3 in particular page 23. He even has a photo of the preserved bullet
4 strike. You didn't go to the specific location of the incident where you
5 could see the preserved bullet strike mark, did you?
6 A. The house had a part added on to, as you can see in Barry Hogan's
7 footage from 2001. In all likelihood we wouldn't be able to find it. We
8 didn't go to see where it was but we were in the area and that's where
9 the photograph was made. We did not see the trace itself, though, and I
10 don't know if it still exists.
11 Q. Did you not ask to go see it? Because it would have been an
12 ideal situation and an excellent opportunity from which you could analyse
13 direction of fire, wouldn't it?
14 A. It wouldn't. It wouldn't. According to our information, that
15 part is now fenced in. I think there is a garage there nowadays. It is
16 no longer the same place. It doesn't look the same, and I don't know how
17 much we would be able to see from there in the first place. In the
18 footage, you see that something was added and that there is some material
19 in the room. I think it probably would not have been useful, and an
20 analysis indicates something different. It would be useful in the final
21 stage of analysis if it is shown that things could have been possible the
22 way as described.
23 Q. So a crime scene from almost 20 years before your visit is, as
24 far as you know, on the basis of the information you have preserved and
25 you determine that it wouldn't be useful to go to the crime scene to
1 assess direction of fire? You did it on the basis of photographs
2 instead; right?
3 A. No. No, no, no. I didn't say that. I only said that I suppose,
4 in the meantime, the location changed. Now, as for the trace existing or
5 not, we don't know that, and we don't know how we could ascertain that.
6 If you look at the footage there is a room under construction, full of
7 material. As for the nature of the damage and all the rest, that is a
8 separate matter. Even in Barry Hogan's footage, he marked a location but
9 it is not very clear that it is precisely the trace of a bullet.
10 Q. And you didn't want to go there to see that?
11 A. We wanted to see it, but then we realised that the place itself
12 is not visible from Spicasta Stijena which was the basic precondition to
13 any further discussion in deciding whether the bullet came from
14 Spicasta Stijena or not.
15 Q. Ah-hah. So you didn't -- you went first to Spicasta Stijena to
16 identify the incident site rather than to the area of the incident site?
17 A. Yes. And then we went to the location itself. We were at the
18 location as well. But we were not looking for the trace that you
19 referred to. I doubt we would have been able to identify it given the
20 room and the amount of material. All sorts of damage is possible under
21 such circumstances. How could have we been able to determine which one
22 was the trace? In any case, in the footage it is quite low. That's the
23 only relevant thing.
24 Q. So just -- you've just mentioned that you determined that the
25 incident site was not visible from Spicasta Stijena but that evidence
1 certainly doesn't exclude the possibility that there was a line of site
2 from Spicasta Stijena in 1993, at the time of the incident?
3 A. It excludes the possibility, because one cannot see
4 Spicasta Stijena from the location because of nearby building which
5 existed at the time. The girl itself in one of her statements said that
6 she and her mother thought originally that they could not be hit from
7 Spicasta Stijena. They believed that there was no line of sight. The
8 building which hindered the view of Spicasta Stijena existed at the time.
9 No one provided any evidence that the building did not exist at the time.
10 We do not have such information.
11 MS. EDGERTON: Could we have a look at 65 ter number 24147? It's
12 a photo taken from the area of Sedrenik on 18 August 1993, from
13 Spicasta Stijena.
14 JUDGE KWON: Date of the photo again, Ms. Edgerton?
15 MS. EDGERTON: 18 August -- pardon me, 18 August 1996,
16 18 August 1996.
17 Q. Do you recognise, having taken photographs of the area of
18 Sedrenik from Spicasta Stijena, do you recognise the general area? And
19 by the way, the photo was taken at a magnification of 200.
20 A. Could you enlarge the upper part?
21 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't hear the last part of
22 the sentence. The witness trailed off.
23 MS. EDGERTON:
24 Q. Mr. Poparic, the interpreters didn't hear the last part of your
25 sentence after you said, "Could you enlarge the upper part."
1 A. I think I recognise it.
2 Q. Do you recognise the witness's house without the addition on it?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Could I invite you to take a marker and indicate which house
5 you're able to identify? I remember from your examination-in-chief you
6 became quite skilled with the marker.
7 A. I will mark it with a 1. Do you want me to mark the house?
8 Q. I think you could probably put a circle around the house as well
9 as the 1.
10 A. [Marks]
11 Q. Thank you very much. Do you agree based on this photo from 1996,
12 so much more contemporaneous to the date of the incident, that there is a
13 much clearer line of sight at that time than there was when you took your
14 photos in 2010?
15 A. The only difference is concerning the terrace. What is
16 important, though, is that the building existed - it still does - the one
17 that is only partially visible from Spicasta Stijena. We mentioned what
18 the distance of the building was supposed to be for the girl to be hit at
19 such a low height as compared to Spicasta Stijena. What is important is
20 that the building you can see in our photograph existed at the time as
21 well. The one I'm marking it with 2. That building existed then and
22 exists now. It covers the view of the location.
23 Q. That's fine. But you haven't answered my question. My question
24 was: Do you agree that a much clearer line of sight existed at that time
25 than was the case when you took your photos in 2010?
1 A. I don't see -- well, it's not necessarily a matter of line of
2 sight. You say that the magnification here was 200 whereas we worked
3 with 5. We don't see the entire door. We only see it partially. The
4 girl was wounded in a squatting position, so very low, up to half a metre
5 at the most. At that height, she could not have been hit from
6 Spicasta Stijena. It is true, we can see it, as we can see it in the
7 photograph, but we cannot see the ground floor. At least I don't see it.
8 MS. EDGERTON: Could I have this as a Prosecution exhibit,
10 JUDGE KWON: Shall we ask the witness to date and initial this
12 MS. EDGERTON: Oh, of course. Apologies.
13 Q. Would you be able to do that, Mr. Poparic?
14 A. Yes.
15 JUDGE KWON: Today is 4th of June.
16 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
17 JUDGE KWON: We will receive this.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6362, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE KWON: How much more would you need to conclude your
20 cross-examination, Ms. Edgerton?
21 MS. EDGERTON: [Microphone not activated]
22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
23 MS. EDGERTON: I would need the rest of the day. And probably
24 after lunch I could provide Your Honours with a more accurate estimate of
25 what I might be requesting in terms of time tomorrow.
1 JUDGE KWON: But do you know how much time in total the
2 Prosecution has spent so far for the cross-examination?
3 MS. EDGERTON: For the cross-examination related to the two
4 reports, it is over five hours, Your Honours, and I do recall the order
5 that Your Honours issued with respect to time before Mr. Poparic began
6 his testimony. I would note, should Your Honours be inclined to
7 reconsider, that Dr. Karadzic took far and away in excess of the five
8 hours that he had originally estimated for his examination-in-chief, and
9 although Dr. Karadzic spent almost no time, if I recall, on the
10 inconsistencies report in the examination-in-chief, the cross-examination
11 on that report occupied I think the better part of two hours. Virtually
12 the entire examination-in-chief was about sniping incidents.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Edgerton. Do your best to conclude your
15 cross today. We will have a break --
16 MS. EDGERTON: I will do that.
17 JUDGE KWON: -- for 45 minutes and resume at 1.17.
18 --- Recess taken at 12.32 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 1.19 p.m.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Robinson?
21 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Your Honour, this is Pauline Wilson from
22 Australia, one of our interns who will be joining us during this session.
23 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
24 Yes, Ms. Edgerton, please continue.
25 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
1 Q. Mr. Poparic, I'd like to move on to another incident now and it's
2 incident F4, that's the first one that you spoke about in your
3 examination-in-chief, and it's at paragraphs 53 to 61 of your report.
4 And just a couple of brief questions: In paragraph 59, when you say that
5 the line shifted towards Ivana Krndelja Street by about 100 metres, your
6 basis for that is the pencil mark on the cut-out of the 1995 dated map we
7 discussed earlier today; right?
8 A. That's right. But when we come to the site itself, then we see
9 that it couldn't have been any different in view of the configuration of
10 the terrain. It either could have been there or up there in Ozrenska.
11 Q. Thank you for that, but I want you to focus on my questions. My
12 next question about that map is: Do you know who made the pencil mark?
13 A. I cannot see. I cannot see the map. I can't see anything
15 Q. It's in your report.
16 A. Just a moment.
17 Q. Image 49.
18 A. Yes. That is the map that was cited. The working map of the
19 Chief of Staff of the 12th Division, Risoplek [phoen].
20 Q. One question: You don't know who made the pencil mark, do you?
21 A. I see those markings in blue and red. Is that what you mean?
22 Q. No. I was referring to the pencil mark, but that's fine. Rather
23 than spend any more time on this, I'll move on.
24 A. There is a straight line, if that's what you mean. I don't know.
25 I did not mark anything on this map, if that's of any assistance.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MS. EDGERTON: 65 ter number 25078, please, next. And page 1 of
3 25078. You can just make one photo of it and you can enlarge it.
4 Q. Mr. Poparic, this is one of the photos used with the victim in
5 this case, during her testimony in this incident, during her testimony in
6 the Galic case, and this has her hand drawn renderings of anti-sniper
7 barricades and she has marked what she believes to be the origin of fire
8 in this case with an X. That's at the top of the horizon, and then the
9 location where she was shot and where she crawled with her daughter to
11 You never actually went to that precise location on the horizon
12 marked with an X to see whether the scene of the incident was actually
13 visible; correct?
14 A. Of course, there are photographs that we took there and the
15 report -- in the report. And we checked whether there was visibility.
16 Visibility is something that was dealt with in a considerable part of the
18 Q. All right. Fine. Let's look at D666 and this is a photo, a
19 marked photo, from the scene of -- of the scene of the incident, which
20 Mr. van der Weijden took from the area identified and marked by the
21 witness with the X on the horizon of the photograph in front of us,
22 D666 - if we could enlarge it, please - so Mr. van der Weijden went up to
23 the location identified by the witness as the origin of fire and he took
24 this photo from Ozrenska Street at street level standing on the sidewalk
25 between the houses, and he marked the incident site in blue with
1 number 1. So Mr. Poparic, if you had gone to that location, you would
2 have seen that even today there is a clear line of sight to the spot
3 where Mrs. Taric and her daughter were shot.
4 A. No. The photographs that are presented in the report, image 45,
5 show -- or rather, the left-hand photograph shows the level at which the
6 buildings can be seen at Hrasno Brdo and the photograph on the right-hand
7 side that was taken from a bigger distance, actually, the building cannot
8 be seen in Hrasno Brdo including Jagorska Street. I don't know where
9 Mr. Weijden took this photograph from because this is zoomed in so I
10 don't know exactly where it was taken from.
11 Q. Well, the GPS co-ordinates where he took the photograph from are
12 on the top. Right there, so --
13 A. These co-ordinates do not say a thing about the photograph. They
14 speak about the place where he did the measuring but we don't have a
15 photograph that shows -- I mean, a normal image so we can see where it
16 was taken from.
17 JUDGE KWON: Because we do not have the image with us -- on the
18 English version does not have the image, can we see the image 45 the
19 witness referred to?
20 MS. EDGERTON: That's on page 75 of his report. 1D7902. Oh, you
21 have it. Thank you.
22 JUDGE KWON: So what did you say about this, Mr. Poparic?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that these GPS co-ordinates
24 do not say a thing about the photograph itself. They say something about
25 the place where the photograph was taken. I don't know how Mr. Weijden
1 could go to that place, according to the sketch, as it is marked there.
2 It is a fact that there are photographs from another place from which the
3 incident site is visible and I assume that Mr. van der Weijden took
4 photographs from there. In the first photograph where the victim
5 indicated the direction, we can just take this in tentative terms because
6 she could not have known exactly where the fire had come from. She can
7 just say where the fire came from in a general sense. Mr. Weijden's
8 photograph is just zoomed in. I don't know where it was taken from.
9 JUDGE KWON: Please continue.
10 MS. EDGERTON: Could I have 65 ter 25078, please, marked as a
11 Prosecution exhibit?
12 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President, I don't mind it being marked
13 for some limited purpose but I don't think it would be right to take this
14 as the evidence of what the victim has asserted.
15 JUDGE KWON: Hmm.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we will admit it to the extent necessary to
18 understand the -- this witness's evidence.
19 MS. EDGERTON: The only purpose for which it was offered.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P6363, Your Honours.
21 MS. EDGERTON:
22 Q. Now I want to go on to an incident at a location we have talked
23 about a couple of times, or we've talked about a couple of times today,
24 and that's the sniping incident that took place on Brijesce Brdo,
25 incident F5. And you've said a couple of times today that you went to
1 that incident site, so you would agree with me, having gone there, that
2 that incident location is at the end of a natural tunnel with the -- a
3 line of sight blocked on the right-hand side by a hill with a radio tower
4 and on the left-hand side by an elevation supported with a concrete wall.
5 Having been there, I'm sure you would be able to agree to that.
6 A. Well, roughly. If you meant the left side, we are talking about
7 towards Rajlovac, towards the depot in Rajlovac, that side. On that
8 side, there is this hill, this pile of earth, and it's not visible from
9 the direction of Rajlovac, wouldn't be clear, or, rather, the western
10 side, let us be --
11 MS. EDGERTON: I'm sorry, Madam Interpreter.
12 Q. Let me help you, Mr. Poparic. If we could go to page 80 of your
13 report, image 50.
14 A. Yes. On the right side of this photograph, that can be seen, the
15 transmission line, the pole, that's the western side. On that location,
16 that's where the depot is, the railway depot in Rajlovac.
17 Q. All right. Now, you would agree with me, looking at this image,
18 that any potential field of fire is bounded by this tunnel, this natural
19 tunnel; right?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. All right. Then I'd like to go over to image 53 in your report
22 that is at page 85, where you map out what you see as the potential field
23 of fire, using Google earth. But, Mr. Poparic, my concern is looking at
24 the tunnel we've just seen that your markings actually double up the
25 actual potential field of fire from the incident site, and you ignored,
1 when you made those markings, the existence of the natural tunnel.
2 A. No.
3 Q. And before answering, if you could go to the enlarged box on the
4 top right-hand corner of your photo, you see that marking, the boundary
5 line furthest to the right, even crosses over the top of the natural
6 tunnel that we saw on the left-hand side of the picture which was
7 image 50.
8 A. I don't think so, because in that area the slope is rather steep,
9 and you can see across that, that's the reason why it's there. So let us
10 correct that, too, by 2 degrees again. Basically it doesn't change
11 anything. Even 5 degrees basically doesn't change anything. In order to
12 see what the situation is on the ground -- of course, all of this should
13 be taken as not being exactly accurate but there cannot be much
14 deviation, if you will.
15 Q. All right. Then I'd like us to have a look at 65 ter 25129,
16 which is, Mr. Poparic, your image 53 with Mr. van der Weijden's measured
17 image of the potential field of fire from that incident location
18 transposed over the top in green. The top image on this 65 ter number in
19 light green shows the measured field of fire from Mr. van der Weijden's
20 report, P1620 at page 35, overlaid on top of your markings.
21 It represents, Mr. Poparic, not a minor deviation but it shows,
22 as I put to you, that your assessed field of fire actually ignores the
23 natural reality on the ground and doubles up what actually exists.
24 A. No. Absolutely not. Nothing is being denied in any way. As you
25 see here, what I marked is basically -- well, actually even this area
1 that I marked is perhaps wider than the one marked by Mr. Weijden except
2 Mr. Weijden did not mark what was visible from BH Army positions. He
3 dealt with one side only. If there is some deviation, it's not
4 significant. The point is that we are not denying the fact that fire
5 could have been opened from the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska
6 because no one precisely specified the location involved. My report
7 didn't, Mr. Weijden's report is not denying the fact that fire could
8 have been opened from the direction of the positions of the
9 Army of Republika Srpska except that Mr. van der Weijden did not deal
10 with the possibility of fire having been opened from the positions of the
11 BH Army. That is the essence of this matter. Now, whether I made a
12 mistake by 2 degrees or whether he did, I think -- I mean, it doesn't
13 really matter here because the exact location is unknown. The only
14 important thing is whether it was possible to open fire from there, and
15 yes that possibility did exist.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MS. EDGERTON: Could I have this as a Prosecution exhibit,
19 MR. ROBINSON: No objection.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript, I'm not sure that it
21 was recorded, line 14, that the witness said that he meant that from the
22 Muslim side, I mean that fire could have been opened from the Muslim side
23 too. The entire spectrum that he provided provided for that possibility
25 JUDGE KWON: Well, you may take up that issue in your
1 re-examination. I think the transcript is clear enough at the moment.
2 Yes, we'll admit this.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P6364, Your Honours.
4 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
5 Q. Now I'd like to go over to another area of Sarajevo and that's in
6 Hrasno, and I'd like to ask you about scheduled sniping incident F10.
7 And - I'm sorry - I'll just get you the paragraph numbers. Paragraph 134
8 of your report, going all the way over to paragraph 146.
9 Now, in relation to this incident, you don't know -- you don't
10 actually know where the Przulj house is, do you?
11 A. There is no reference to where the Przulj house is. It says that
12 it's in Zagorska Street that is now called Posavska. On the spot we
13 tried to find the house, and we identified a house that -- that is at the
14 end of this street, that is dominant in that area, and we assumed that
15 that was the house. The lady who owned the house could not confirm to us
16 whether -- actually, what the name of the owner was, but she said that
17 the house had been seriously damaged and that they even changed that side
18 of the house that was facing the centre of Sarajevo, rather Cengic Vila,
19 so we assumed that that is the only house that could have been dominant
20 and from where fire could have been opened in view of what was seen on
21 the spot. No one identified it as being the exact house concerned.
22 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, you said, in your testimony in
23 chief, that based on your image which is image 89 at page 128 of your
24 report, the damage to the awning of the area cafe wasn't a bullet trace,
25 and in your report you're actually more specific. You argued that the
1 bullet-hole that we see in image 89 was probably made by a screwdriver,
2 and the dark spot on the wide angle photo of the cafe, which is image 88,
3 is the real bullet-hole. So just to be clear, the only basis you have
4 for saying that the enlarged left-hand photo on image 89 is a bullet-hole
5 is that photo; right?
6 A. This is claimed on the basis of photo documentation and we showed
7 this in this photograph, and the second basis is my vast experience
8 precisely with hits in several targets. I saw hundreds or thousands of
9 such hits and the penetration that is shown here with an arrow that the
10 police identified as a bullet-hole is not a bullet-hole. I claim that
11 with full responsibility. This is some kind of mechanical damage
12 sustained by the awning, and in my view the police misidentified the
13 place where the bullet entered the awning.
14 Q. And that's based on your examination of this photo; right?
15 A. The examination of the photo and the familiarity with the
16 characteristics of the bullet which pierces fabric or cloth of this kind.
17 Q. Okay. So can you explain why, for example, looking at the real
18 bullet-hole, the left hand picture, of image 89, explain why you can be
19 sure that that left-hand image isn't a crease or a piece of dirt or a
20 shadow or a puckered stitch or bird dropping or some other dark spot on
21 the basis of that photo?
22 A. Of course I took all that into consideration. However, if it is
23 true, and it is true, that the glass was shattered, that the bullet
24 pierced the glass, it had to exit the awning at some place and the only
25 place we saw is this place and it corresponds to the characteristics of a
1 bullet piercing an awning of this kind. This was not done subsequently.
2 This is a hole probably produced by a bullet. And in terms its size, the
3 size of the opening, it may be assessed that this was indeed a bullet or
4 a projectile.
5 Q. And it's based on your analysis of these photos that you came up
6 with an angle of descent for the bullet of 45 degrees; right?
7 A. We have to say something with a reservation. We could not be
8 precise because we did not have all the measurements. This is an
9 estimate. The descent angle was rather large and that drastically
10 differs from a descent angle of a bullet if such a bullet had been fired
11 from positions in Zagorska-Posavska Street, as it is known now. If it
12 had been fired from Zagorska, the descent angle would have been 4 to 5
13 degrees and here it is much larger. It doesn't really matter whether it
14 is 45, 35 or 50. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that it
15 deviates drastically from an angle it would have had if the bullet had
16 been fired from a position in Zagorska Street, and that is how things
17 should be interpreted in this case.
18 Q. Right. So if we assume in this case that the witnesses who told
19 the investigators that the shots came in immediately one after the other
20 are accurate, the conclusion we would draw from your analysis is that the
21 victim was fired on from one position and at almost the exact same time a
22 stray bullet that someone else fired in the air landed in almost the
23 exact same place going through the awning and the window; right?
24 A. No. I would not say that. I wouldn't deal with that. I'm not
25 sure that there were two bullets which were fired at the same time. We
1 have to bear in mind the sequence of events. The police came, the boy
2 was transferred to the hospital. Based on the traces on the awning, they
3 stated that the bullet had come from Zagorska Street. I cannot be sure
4 that that was created on that particular day. Maybe it preexisted the
5 event. We don't have any information about that. All the options are
6 possible. Maybe the bullets were fired from the same weapon on the same
7 day, maybe these two events are not connected at all. In any case, the
8 police erred in the identification of the entry hole in the awning, and
9 there is no doubt about that.
10 Q. Well, let's assume actually that it happened on the same day at
11 the same time as the witnesses say. That would mean that your stray
12 bullet would have had to have made a turn in mid-air after it went
13 through the awning because otherwise coming out of the sky at a 45-degree
14 angle it would be impossible for it to have gone through the cafe and hit
15 the cafe wall at the back; right?
16 A. No, no. That's not correct. It could have travelled that route
17 without any problems. Based on the traces we established that the angle
18 was 45 degrees. There is no doubt about that. If this is the entry
19 point as given in image on the left-hand side, then the descent angle of
20 the bullet that hit the cafe is what it was. There is a photo depicting
21 the boy's wounds. Actually, not the wounds themselves, but in any case,
22 it's very hard to say based on that photo that the boy was hit by a
23 bullet that followed that trajectory and descended that the angle.
24 Q. All right. Talking about the boy, actually, you stated in your
25 report that the boy wasn't shot in front of the cafe, and so what I'd
1 like to know -- and by the way that was at paragraph 144 of your report.
2 So what I'd like to know is what is your theory about how the big pool of
3 blood that was on the ground in front of the cafe came to be there?
4 A. First of all, nobody said that he was shot in front of the cafe.
5 Second of all, he was shot across the street near a shop. What you say
6 that there was a pool of blood there, it seems to me that there was some
7 water, at least judging by the photo that I had. The boy sustained a
8 very small wound. I really don't see how that wound could have created
9 such a big pool of what you say is blood. He had a slight wound and he
10 was transferred to the hospital immediately. The pool of blood is too
11 big to have been caused by such a small wound.
12 Q. That's your personal opinion, isn't it, because you're not a
14 A. I'm not a doctor. However, based on the photo, that looked --
15 looks like water to me. The photos are not very good. However, I paid a
16 lot of attention to that data, and I believe that it was a pool of water,
17 not a pool of blood.
18 Q. Right. We'll go on to another incident because you talked about
19 all of them in your evidence-in-chief, and this incident is F16, and you
20 deal with it in your report at paragraphs 191 through to 197. Now, as
21 I understand your claim about this incident in your report, you say that
22 based on the picture you have in figure 110, image 110, you assume that
23 Mr. Agovic was seated facing directly forward in his seat at a 45-degree
24 angle vis-a-vis the tram, and as a result, for the bullet to have entered
25 his left side and exited his right side, it had to have been fired from
1 an angle of 45 degrees or less. Do I understand you correctly?
2 A. That's correct. What is a characteristic is the chair where the
3 wounded person was sitting. In this case, it is placed at 45 -- at a
4 45-degree angle. It is to be assumed that his sitting position was
5 normal. There is no data showing that he was sitting in any other way.
6 Q. All right. So you have no idea how he was actually seated at the
7 time, do you?
8 A. We only know that he was seated. It is to be assumed that his
9 sitting position was normal.
10 Q. Fine. We can actually leave that incident and move on.
11 Criss-crossing the city of Sarajevo, I'd like to deal with an incident in
12 Nedzarici, and that's sniping incident F7. And you address that at
13 paragraphs 93 all the way through to 111 of your report. Now, with
14 regard to this incident, you said in your evidence-in-chief that you went
15 to the faculty of theology in Nedzarici and while you were there you got
16 some photos and it was clear from those photos that there were some
17 firing positions but it was impossible to see the incident site from
18 there. You said that at transcript pages 38969 and 38972. And that was
19 because, as I understand your report, a tree was blocking the line of
20 sight; right?
21 A. No. The tree was there and it was blocking the line of sight
22 partially. However, what we can see here are only the houses, or rather,
23 their roofs. Owing to the tree, we managed to come up with the analysis
24 of the position of the school of theology and the place where the bus was
25 and we show it in image 69. We can see that this is the place where the
1 school of theology was, and that it is lower than the place where the bus
3 Q. Okay. Let's stick with the tree for a moment. Could we have a
4 look at page 103 of your report?
5 A. Yes, we can do that.
6 Q. Image 67. Could we enlarge image 67? All right. So first of
7 all, the gun holes that we see in this photo facing us in the wall of the
8 faculty of theology, don't -- have no exposure to the incident site;
10 A. That's correct. I said that that side was facing
11 Alipasino Polje.
12 Q. Actually in the text box under your photograph you say it's
13 facing Vojnicko Polje.
14 A. That's one and the same. Vojnicko Polje and Alipasino Polje are
15 next to each other, following each other on the same axis, if you will.
16 Q. All right. Are you able to mark on this photograph where you
17 took the photo which is image 67A from? Where on this building, the
18 faculty of theology, did you take that photo with the tree from?
19 A. I marked that with number 1. I was on the terrace and I turned
20 in the direction of the place of the incident. This is the direction
21 from which the photo was taken, or rather the direction towards which the
22 photo was taken here.
23 Q. So just if I can just a moment, Mr. Poparic.
24 MS. EDGERTON: For the record the witness has circled and marked
25 with a number 1 a terrace or balcony on image 67 as being the location
1 that he took image 67A from, and with an arrow marking number 2 he's
2 indicated where he had to turn to take that photo from.
3 Q. Sorry, I interrupted you but I think you hadn't finished your
5 A. I just wanted to explain why we took the photo from that terrace,
6 because we had assumed that the firing position may have been on a window
7 on that side, which means that the view that we had corresponded to a
8 possible firing position on a window facing Dobrinja and the place of the
10 Q. So you're not trying to say that because a tree blocked your line
11 of sight in 2010, that we should infer that there was no line of sight 16
12 years earlier?
13 A. I've already explained that. In order to eliminate those
14 suspicions we carried out an additional analysis based on the elevations
15 where those places, those two places, are. We confirmed that the level
16 from which the photo was taken almost matched the level of the place
17 where the bus was. Since there are a lot of buildings --
18 Q. I'm sorry. I don't want you to repeat yourself. So this
19 analysis that you made, as to the potential firing position, completely
20 excludes the possibility that the shot in this case could have come from
21 the roof, for example; right?
22 A. Yes. It could not have come from a roof. When we were taking
23 the photo I would like to say that I did not take photos at the level of
24 the openings but from my height, I'm about 172, and the roof is 1 to 1
25 and a half metre higher than that; however, that would not have impacted
1 the visibility at all.
2 Q. So can you explain in --before we go further, could I have this
3 image marked as a Prosecution exhibit, please, Your Honours? Could you
4 sign it and date it, please, Mr. Poparic?
5 A. [Marks]
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, next Prosecution exhibit.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P6365, Your Honour.
8 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
9 Q. So when you talked in your report and in your evidence-in-chief
10 about the difference in altitude or elevation between the specific
11 incident site and location on the faculty of theology, what does that
12 practically mean? Does that mean that you couldn't see the incident site
13 from anywhere on the faculty of theology?
14 A. Correct. We could not see it from anywhere.
15 Q. Because of the difference in altitude or elevation?
16 A. That would have been a subsequent explanation of the fact. We
17 simply did not see it on the day because it could not be seen.
18 Q. And you're not excluding the possibility that there was a line of
19 sight from the faculty of theology to the incident location on the date
20 of the incident, 25 May 1994, are you?
21 A. I completely exclude that possibility.
22 Q. All right. Let's have a look at another photograph. It's
23 65 ter 25124. This is a photo, Mr. Poparic, taken on 17 August 1996, and
24 you could see the date on the bottom right-hand corner of the film, from
25 the top floor of the faculty of theology, and if my colleague can enlarge
1 the space between the apartment buildings on the right-hand side of the
2 picture. And again, Mr. Poparic, you see in front of you a clear line of
3 sight down the street towards the incident location where the bus was hit
4 on the 25 May 1994. So it looks like you were wrong.
5 A. This photo has been zoomed in. We don't know where it was taken
6 from. According to what I saw, in and around the school of theology,
7 this photo could not have been taken from there. Look at photo 67. You
8 will see that a similar image is not seen from there. Even if there was
9 line of visibility, you could only see above what we see now, above the
10 line of what we see now.
11 Q. You're disputing -- you're disputing that this photo was taken
12 from the faculty of theology? Is that what you're saying?
13 A. I am not convinced that it was taken from the faculty of
15 Q. And are you disputing that the path through these two apartment
16 buildings or these apartment buildings, the street that we see, is the
17 street down which the bullet flew on 25 May 1994 to hit the bus?
18 A. Can this part here be zoomed in where we can see the street next
19 to the white building? Can you zoom in, please? Okay. What doesn't
20 make sense to me here is the fact that in the background you can't see
21 any other buildings. There is no single building there, although we know
22 that there indeed is a building in the background. I can't recognise
23 this area. There are a lot of similar buildings in Dobrinja so
24 I wouldn't be sure that that is the street in question. There should be
25 another building across the street in which the bus was.
1 Q. And just to underscore, you were never in Dobrinja during the
2 war, you have no idea, then, what the terrain and features would have
3 been like in 1996?
4 A. I have a very good idea. I'm familiar with Dobrinja as it was
5 before the war. All of those buildings were built before the war. This
6 white building at the end of it is a street and across the street there
7 is another building which was built before the war. That was the first
8 part of Dobrinja that was ever built, and that happened before the war,
9 and I can't see that building here. I don't know why.
10 Q. Fine. We'll deal with this with another witness. I'd like to go
11 now still -- your indulgence for a moment, Your Honour.
12 I'd like to go over to scheduled incident F12, which you dealt
13 with in paragraphs 162 to 174 of your report. That's the incident
14 dealing with the sniping death of Nermin Divovic and his mother -- the
15 injury of his mother, Mrs. Dzenana Sokolovic. Now, with respect to this
16 incident, you make the inference that Nermin Divovic and his mother were
17 caught in a cross-fire. You do that in paragraphs 173 and 174 of your
18 report. If you could just clarify something for me, you base that
19 inference solely on the film that we saw in your evidence-in-chief;
21 A. No.
22 Q. Well, there is no evidence of any gunfire other than what we hear
23 on that film, Mr. Poparic, so can you identify this specific source apart
24 from that film that you relied on to support your inference that they
25 were caught in the cross-fire?
1 A. There is a statement by Dzenana Sokolovic. She provided it in
2 2006, I believe. In that statement, she clearly stated that when she had
3 left Hrasno Brdo and when she had arrived close to the municipal
4 building, the building of the municipality of Nova Sarajevo, she heard
5 shots, everybody lied down, and she felt that she had been hit, that her
6 son fell on the ground. This is what Mrs. Sokolovic said. I don't know
7 whether it's accurate or not. I can't be the judge of that. However, we
8 have to take into consideration that option as well. That's why we said
9 that there was a possibility that that was how things happened.
10 Q. Well, first of all, just to deal with what you've said, you've
11 just told the Chamber that Dzenana Sokolovic in a statement said that
12 when they arrived close to the municipal building, the building of the
13 municipality of Novo Sarajevo, she heard shots. She never in her
14 statement referred to the building of the Novo Sarajevo municipality.
15 It's your analysis that that's the building she referred to; right?
16 A. Perhaps it wasn't translated well. I simply provided an
17 additional comment. She said the municipal building and it was my
18 comment that it was the municipal building of Novo Sarajevo municipality.
19 That is the only municipal building on her route. That was my comment to
20 her statement, just to make that clear. Perhaps there was a
22 Q. Thank you. So leaving her statement aside, which -- no, actually
23 let's deal with her statement. In this statement, it's correct, isn't
24 it, that despite whatever municipal building she might have referred to,
25 Dzenana Sokolovic identified the Metalka building as the origin of fire.
1 A. It's difficult to say. Ultimately she did but --
2 Q. Thank you. Now --
3 JUDGE KWON: But what? Yes, please continue, Mr. Poparic.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To continue? She identified it.
5 However, what is not disputed, that she on different occasions provided
6 different statements. In my view, it cannot be easily overlooked. She
7 also only identified it. She did not provide a clear indication which
8 would convince us that her assessment was correct. It may well be her
9 assessment but it is undisputed that she provided different statements.
10 That is why we need to take all that into account, and it makes that case
11 that much more complicated, because of the contradictory documentation
12 pertaining to medical records, the witness statements, et cetera. That's
13 the problem of that particular case. We cannot identify the reliable
14 information. That's the underlying problem. Forensic medication --
15 forensic analysis, forensic documentation would have resolved many an
16 issue but it was unavailable to me. There is only that excerpt from the
17 autopsy report. I don't know exactly what was done, but it was far from
18 sufficient. It only contradicts what --
19 MS. EDGERTON:
20 Q. All you're doing is repeating the contents of your report now and
21 to get back on track to my original question regarding cross-fire, I'd
22 like ask you this: You don't exclude that any reports of gunfire
23 following the injury of Mrs. Sokolovic could have come from UNPROFOR's
24 anti-sniping teams responding to the source of fire, do you? You don't
25 exclude that at all?
1 A. Nothing can be excluded. That's the problem in the case. The
2 case is problematic because we have data which is not always reliable and
3 that could be used to exclude something that is not reliable, obviously
4 some of it is unreliable.
5 MS. EDGERTON: Well, let's have a look at another document,
6 65 ter 11359. And unfortunately I don't think it's available in B/C/S.
7 This is an UNPROFOR daily sit-rep for 18 November 1994 -- oh, it is. How
8 nice. In English -- we will just wait a moment.
9 If we could go over to English page 8, I'll try and find the
10 corresponding paragraph number so we can go to the appropriate page in
11 the B/C/S. English page 8, paragraph 3. So if we could find paragraph 3
12 in the B/C/S version, this is a report on events in, among many other
13 places, Sarajevo for the 18th of November, 1994. And in subparagraph (a)
14 that you see in the top of the page in English, it says:
15 "In the area of the Tito barracks, a sniping incident left a
16 5-year-old child dead and his mother injured. The origin of the fire was
17 Bosnian Serb army, FreeBat 4 --"
18 JUDGE KWON: Just a second, do we have it in B/C/S?
19 MS. EDGERTON: I think what you need to do is go -- I'm sorry,
20 Your Honour, I didn't realise there was a translation or else I would
21 have indicated the paragraph numbers. I think we need to go further in
22 the page. Could we go over to the next page in B/C/S, please?
23 JUDGE KWON: I think it's page 11 in B/C/S.
24 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you, and apologies. Top paragraph on the
25 page in B/C/S.
1 Q. So the last sentence reads:
2 "The original of the fire was BSA, FreeBat 4 returned
3 14.5 millimetre fire."
4 Do you find that a reliable report, Mr. Poparic?
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did not understand the
6 witness. Could he please be asked to speak clearly.
7 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Poparic, could you repeat your answer more
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no reason to question its
10 reliability. However, in the report it is stated that fire was opened
11 close to the Marsal Tito barracks. That could also be a location or the
12 location. I have no reason to distrust it. It addresses somewhat more
13 the origin of fire in this incident.
14 MS. EDGERTON:
15 Q. So then you don't exclude the possibility that rather than an
16 exchange of fire, what might have been going on was the UNPROFOR
17 anti-sniping teams neutralising the origin of fire in Bosnian Serb-held
19 A. It tells me that fire was open on both sides. As for the real
20 reason of it, that is something I don't know.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: It seems that the B/C/S
22 version does not correspond to the English version.
23 JUDGE KWON: Then my mistake. No. I think we have correct page.
24 MS. EDGERTON: I think so. If I can read it in my poor accent in
25 B/C/S, it reads:
1 [Interpretation] "In the area of Tito Barracks a sniping incident
2 left a 5-year-old child dead and his mother insured. The origin of the
3 fire was BSA. FreeBat 4 returned 14.5 millimetre fire."
4 [In English] Thank you very much.
5 Q. Mr. Poparic, on its face this document does not say anything
6 about fire being opened on both sides. It talks about UNPROFOR
7 neutralising the source of fire on Bosnian Serb-held territory. Can we
8 agree on that?
9 A. It is true that that is what we find in the document. It is also
10 true that in the footage that was shown, one could hear bursts of fire.
11 However, judging by the footage I wouldn't say it was 14.5-millimetre
12 calibre, it was a smaller weapon. This case cannot be resolved based on
13 documents such as this one. It can be used as an aid but the main point
14 would be forensic analysis. It would be of great assistance if we knew
15 the height of the wound in the case of the lady wounded on the left side,
16 and the one wounded on the right side. That would have been of
17 assistance but we don't have that. Documents such as this one can give
18 us a general picture but they do not resolve the problem.
19 Q. All right, then.
20 MS. EDGERTON: If this in the witness's view could be used for an
21 aid, I'd like to have it as a Prosecution exhibit, please.
22 MR. ROBINSON: No objection.
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we will admit it.
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6366, Your Honours.
25 MS. EDGERTON:
1 Q. I'd like to deal with the tram sniping incident next,
2 Mr. Poparic. And that's incident F11, from October 1994. And you can
3 find it at paragraphs 147 right through to 161 of your report.
4 Now, you've written extensively about this in your report and
5 I want to focus on a couple of points from your argument. As
6 I understand your contention, you say that there was a shooter in the
7 Executive Council building who was firing on these trams, and because
8 there were two hit that day and who fired on passers-by on the street
9 afterwards. Do I understand it correctly?
10 A. It is correct. It is obvious from the traces left behind by the
11 bullets hitting the ground, there was a plume of dust created at a sharp
12 angle. It could only have been created by an angle of descent of a
13 projectile and the bullet had a high force causing dust to rise into the
14 air, and that in turn means it was fired from a short distance away.
15 Q. Right. Now, your evidence on these dust clouds that you gave in
16 your report, and by the way that's at paragraph 161 of the report, your
17 evidence about these dust clouds, that's not based on any published
18 studies or trials or anything like that; right?
19 A. It is based on experience. I see no reason for conducting a
20 study. It would be irrelevant. If one was ever in a position to observe
21 situations like that, then one knows.
22 Q. Well, did you conduct any trials yourself to try and establish
23 that dust clouds differ based on the angle of entry of a bullet?
24 A. It happened many times in my career, in my practice, but I had
25 more experience with level trajectories and of course, the more
1 horizontal the trajectory, the cloud of dust is -- follows the line of
2 the trajectory and is more level too. I had many such occasions to see.
3 Q. So you must have something in mind when you say, like, high angle
4 of descent. So if we assume that a zero degrees is a straight vertical
5 downward shot and 90 degrees is a straight horizontal shot that's
6 parallel to the ground, what's a high angle of descent for you? Are we
7 talking about something greater than 45 degrees or greater than
8 60 degrees? Like, what type of angle of entry can cause those dust
9 clouds to look like they do in that video still?
10 A. It would be precisely the angles of descent you mentioned,
11 between 45 and 60 degrees, if it had come from BSA positions which were
12 in the famous silver building which was divided in half by the VRS and
13 the ABiH then the angle would have been far less. To tell you the truth,
14 I did not make any calculations in that regard but it would not have come
15 at a 45-degree angle. In that case, the trace would follow the
16 trajectory. It would have been closer to the ground and could you see
17 the top of the APC and perhaps it was above that height.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The transcript.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Line 4, it seems that it would not
21 have gone over 45 degrees whereas I seem to have heard it would not have
22 been more than 10 degrees.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, not more than 10 degrees.
24 JUDGE KWON: If could you repeat your answer then.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I confirm that I said it would not
1 have been in excess of approximately 10 degrees.
2 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
3 MS. EDGERTON:
4 Q. Do you know, Mr. Poparic, that UNPROFOR soldiers were on the
5 scene and they were on the scene during the shooting, by the way, and
6 they went to the impact points of the bullets; because you talked about
7 the traces, they went to the impact points of the bullets and they stuck
8 an antenna in the holes on the ground, which had a furrow of about
9 10 centimetres, to check the angle of entry, and for each of the six
10 holes in the ground, the antenna always pointed to the same spot across
11 the river in SRK-held territory. Did you know that?
12 A. I was unaware of that piece of information. However, what you
13 explain does not tell me much. It doesn't tell me the angle of the
14 antennae. It would be a very important piece of information because on
15 the other side, as I said, there was an ABiH position as well as VRS
16 positions in the same building. Half of the building went in the hands
17 of one side, the other half in the hands of the other. It would have
18 been far more important to determine the angle of descent and I doubt
19 that it was a small angle. If it had been small, the antennae would have
20 been close to the ground, very close to the ground, and then the question
21 would be how they would be able to orient themselves.
22 Q. Well, those kind of measurements of actual traces on the ground
23 at the time would be far more accurate measurement than an analysis of
24 dust clouds on a video still 20 years after the fact?
25 A. Well, it depends on the crater. Well, if they could stick the
1 antenna in, it confirms the argument that the hits came at a high angle
2 of descent and that the bullet went into the ground. If it had been a
3 small angle, a sharp angle, it would have just skimmed the earth and no
4 antenna could be placed in. If they were able to place antennae it is an
5 indication that it was at a high angle and that the bullet had gone deep.
6 The trace, the opening, was not dishevelled. At a sharp angle it would
7 resemble the trail of a plough and then there would be nothing to hold
8 the antenna. If the antenna could stand on its own as stated in the
9 report it indicates that the degree of descent was a high one which in
10 turn means it could not have arrived from VRS positions.
11 MS. EDGERTON: Let's have a look at a document, P2421 and it's
12 the UNPROFOR report on the incident. Now, Your Honours, the original of
13 this document is in French. There is an English translation that doesn't
14 include all of the sketches in the document, and B/C/S as well. If
15 Your Honours wouldn't mind, I would propose to display the French one and
16 the B/C/S one.
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
18 MS. EDGERTON: So we see the original on the right-hand side.
19 Thank you. And I'd like to go over to page 3 in both of these documents.
20 So you should have on the B/C/S the -- there we go, you should have the
21 tags. You see on the original French.
22 Q. They are translated for you, Mr. Poparic, and what you see in
23 this diagram is that the bullet entered the exterior wall of the tram and
24 it passed through the top part of the wheel, which makes the second hole,
25 and then passed through one side of that cone-shaped seat support next to
1 the wall, and then struck the other side of the seat support. And
2 Mr. Poparic, you can see on the right-hand side of the schema, that the
3 line created or you can see the line created by the path of entry and the
4 UNPROFOR officer indicated the angle in mils as 1450. And 1450 in a mils
5 system of 6.000 is the same as an 87-degree angle of entry. So by your
6 own explanation, then, it's impossible that these shots came from the
7 Executive Council building; right?
8 A. Yes. It is impossible they could have arrived from VRS
9 positions. Otherwise, the angle would have been far smaller. From the
10 Executive Council building --
11 Q. No, sorry. I don't mean to interrupt you but there might be an
12 issue with the transcript. My question to you was: By your own
13 explanation, given this angle, it's impossible that these shots came from
14 the Executive Council building, by your own definition of high angle of
16 A. When I discussed the definition of high angle of descent, it had
17 to do with the case when projectiles were falling and creating clouds of
18 dust. That's what I said was a high angle of descent. This angle
19 indicates, however, that the bullet came at an angle which indicates that
20 the bullet could not have been fired from VRS positions. It could have
21 been fired from the Executive Council building, at a lower or higher
22 angle. It doesn't necessarily mean that the same shooter opened fire in
23 all three cases, on the first, second and third streetcar. We never
24 claimed that. However, this kind of fire excludes the possibility of
25 fire coming from across the Miljacka. Not at this angle, a projectile
1 would not have had this angle had it had come from across the
2 Miljacka River and impacting a streetcar.
3 MS. EDGERTON: Your Honour, I'm just looking at the clock, and
4 having done my best, I'd like to indicate to Your Honours I would
5 appreciate some time tomorrow morning to finish with this incident and
6 incident F1 and probably two more tram sniping incidents.
7 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Before we adjourn, I'd like to issue an
8 oral ruling, on the request to withdraw Exhibits D1098 and D1179, and the
9 request to reclassify Exhibit D3030 which were filed by the accused on
10 the 30th of May, 2013.
11 First, the accused submits that the photograph of Markale I
12 stabiliser admitted at D1098 was already admitted into evidence as
13 Exhibit P1940, and second, that D1179 was first marked for identification
14 and later the same document was fully admitted as D2768.
15 Therefore, the accused requests that D1098 and MFI D1179 be
16 withdrawn. With regard to D3030, the Chamber placed it provisionally
17 under seal pending the parties' agreement as to its status. The accused
18 now requests that it be made public after the parties agreed that there
19 are no Rule 70 restrictions that require that it remain under seal.
20 On 30 May, the Prosecution informed the Chamber that, via e-mail,
21 that it would not respond to the requests. The Chamber has reviewed the
22 three documents and notes that P1940 does not contain the same photograph
23 as D1098. Instead the Chamber notes that it is P1970. Otherwise, the
24 Chamber is satisfied with the accused's submission and instructs the
25 Registry to mark D1098 and MFI D1179 as not admitted and to change the
1 status of D3030 from confidential to public.
2 We will continue tomorrow at 9.00. The hearing is adjourned.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.47 p.m.,
4 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 5th day of June
5 2013, at 9.00 a.m.