Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 6456

 1                           Thursday, 10 January 2013

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone in and around this

 6     courtroom.

 7             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.

 9             This is the case IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             Before we start with the next witness there are a few

12     preliminaries, both from the Chamber and, as I understand, also from the

13     Prosecution.

14             First of all, I would like to raise the matter of sitting times

15     on Tuesday, the 15th of January.  The Chamber has not received any

16     complaints from the parties about the suggested sitting times for next

17     Tuesday, and, as a result, the Chamber confirms that it will sit on this

18     day from 7.30 in the morning, until 11.55, with three 75-minute sessions,

19     and 20-minute breaks.

20             Then there's one remaining matter in relation to the upcoming

21     witness.  The Chamber would like to give an oral decision.

22             The Chamber will deliver its decision on the addition of three

23     documents to the Prosecution's 65 ter list.

24             On the 10th of December, 2012, the Prosecution filed its fifth

25     motion to add exhibits to its 65 ter exhibit list.  The Defence did not

Page 6457

 1     file a response.  The Prosecution contends that the three documents it

 2     seems to have added to the 65 ter exhibit list are relevant and probative

 3     to the incident detailed in Schedule F11 of the indictment.  The

 4     Prosecution seeks to amend its 65 ter exhibit list at this stage as it

 5     only recently identified the documents after having questioned another

 6     witness in the proceedings.  The Chamber considers, as conceded by the

 7     Prosecution, that this does not amount to a showing of good cause.  The

 8     Chamber considers, however, that the documents are, prima facie,

 9     probative and relevant to the incident at Schedule F11 of the indictment.

10             The Chamber further notes that the Defence has not contested

11     their addition to the 65 ter exhibit list.  The Chamber considers that

12     the Defence has had sufficient time to study the three documents, since

13     the Prosecution filed its motion on the 10th of December 2012 and further

14     notes that, according to the Prosecution, the documents were disclosed to

15     the Defence on the 16th of November of last year.  The Chamber find s

16     that the accused will therefore not be unduly prejudiced by their

17     addition.

18             Moreover, the Defence will be able to further address any

19     prejudice it may have suffered from the late addition to the Rule 65 ter

20     list when the documents are used and tendered by the Prosecution.

21             Therefore, and despite the absence of good cause, the Chamber

22     finds it to be in the interests of justice to allow the addition of the

23     documents bearing provisional Rule 65 ter numbers 28603, 28604, and 28605

24     to the Prosecution's Rule 65 ter exhibit list.

25             And this concludes the Chamber's decision.

Page 6458

 1             Having dealt with these matters, I also want to convey on behalf

 2     of the Chamber the best wishes for 2013 for everyone in this courtroom,

 3     how different the situations may be in which we find ourselves in.

 4             Then the Prosecution had one matter to raise, Mr. Groome.

 5             MR. GROOME:  Good morning, Your Honour, and the Prosecution

 6     appreciates the Chamber's well wishes.

 7             Your Honour, we have a request with respect to the next witness,

 8     Dr. Milan Mandilovic scheduled to commence his testimony tomorrow.

 9     Your Honours, he is a surgeon who has worked at the Sarajevo state

10     hospital from May 1992 until the end of the war and currently still works

11     there.  The Prosecution has given notice by e-mail that it intends to ask

12     the witness about a number of medical documents additional to the

13     documents already addressed in the witness's statement.  The primary

14     evidential value of these documents is the information they provide on

15     their face about the medical condition pertaining to victims of scheduled

16     sniping and shelling incidents.  Dr. Mandilovic is able to address the

17     issue of authenticity of these documents.

18             In order to deal with these documents in a more efficient way,

19     the Prosecution seeks to employ the mechanism of a chart in the same way

20     we have used this device in the past.  As we have in the past, we would

21     not tender the chart or the underlying documents until the Defence has

22     had a full opportunity to examine the doctor.  I have previously

23     undertaken to seek advanced approval from the Chamber prior to using this

24     mechanism and do so now, believing that it is an appropriate and

25     efficient way to proceed with respect to these particular documents.  I

Page 6459

 1     discussed the matter with Mr. Stojanovic prior to the commencement of

 2     today's proceedings and he will not be objecting to the use of it as

 3     well.

 4             So, Your Honour, I ask you to consider that.  We have prepared

 5     the chart, so if the Chamber at some point today could advise us whether

 6     we would be able to use that with this witness, it would be appreciated.

 7     Thank you.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome, the Chamber will consider your request

 9     and let you know today.

10             MR. GROOME:  Thank you, Your Honour.

11             Ms. Hochhauser has a brief matter she wants to inform the Chamber

12     of, but I believe it could be done while the witness is being brought in.

13                           [Trial Chamber confers]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Before I give her an opportunity to do so, the

15     Chamber, from the silence of Mr. Stojanovic, understood that Mr. Groome

16     has well reflected the position of the Defence on the matter of the use

17     of the chart.

18             Can the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

19             Ms. Hochhauser, meanwhile, you have an opportunity to address the

20     Court.

21             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Thank you, and good morning, Your Honours.

22             Your Honours, we will be offering ultimately tendering a public

23     redacted version of this expert report as well as a version under seal.

24     However, during the course of my examination, I will be calling up the

25     under seal version and will state explicitly when the pages are safe to

Page 6460

 1     broadcast outside of the courtroom.  I have informed Mr. Ivetic of the

 2     reasons for this so that he is aware of them.  As well, it's that -- in

 3     the redacted version due to the way that has to be scanned to be

 4     redacted, the pictures are degraded and so the quality of the picture in

 5     the under seal version is the one that should be used where there's no

 6     protected information on that sheet.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  So we will look at the redacted version although you

 8     will tender the unredacted version as -- in evidence, I take it.

 9             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  We'll be -- I'm sorry, I'll be tendering both a

10     redact -- sorry.  Both an under seal version with redactions as well

11     as -- I'm sorry.  An under seal version without the redactions which I

12     will be also showing during the course of the examination because the

13     pages that I'm showing do not have any protected information on them.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  And those pages can be broadcast to the public

16     so that they can also see the photos on those pictures.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

18             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Additionally, it's my intention - and I've

19     informed Mr. Ivetic of this well - to tender the report after the Chamber

20     has heard the entire examination of the witness if that -- if that is

21     acceptable to the Chamber so that we can put off any necessary

22     conversation until after the witness has gone.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  That seems to be a very practical approach.

24     Mr. Ivetic, since you have not jumped up I take it that Ms. Hochhauser

25     has represented your views correctly.

Page 6461

 1             MR. IVETIC:  She has.

 2             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  And finally, Your Honours, as I'm sure you see

 3     in front of you - and I apologise to the witness because he's here in the

 4     room - I have handed out hard copies of the report and those are the --

 5     that is the under -- the confidential version that would be under seal.

 6                           [The witness entered court]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 8             Good morning, witness.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. van der Weijden, I take it.  Before you give

11     evidence in this Court, the rules require that you make a solemn

12     declaration, the text of which is now handed out to you.  May I invite

13     you to stand and to make that solemn declaration.

14             THE WITNESS:  I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

15     whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. van der Weijden.  Please be seated.

17                           WITNESS:  PATRICK VAN DER WEIJDEN

18             JUDGE ORIE:  You will first be examined by Ms. Hochhauser.

19     Ms. Hochhauser is counsel for the Prosecution.

20             Ms. Hochhauser you may proceed.

21             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Thank you.

22                           Examination by Ms. Hochhauser:

23        Q.   Good morning.

24        A.   Good morning.

25        Q.   Can you please put your name on the record.

Page 6462

 1        A.   Yes.  My name is Patrick van der Weijden.

 2        Q.   And, Mr. van der Weijden, how are you currently employed?

 3        A.   I'm currently employed by the Dutch Ministry of Defence.

 4        Q.   And in what capacity?  What are your responsibilities in your

 5     current position?

 6        A.   I'm an officer in the Dutch army special forces and in that

 7     function I am a team leader of a special force unit.

 8        Q.   Okay.  And what is your current rank?

 9        A.   My current rank is captain.

10        Q.   Now if I could please see 65 ter 28556 on the monitor.

11             THE INTERPRETER:  The speakers are kindly asked to slow down and

12     to pause between questions and answers for the sake of interpretation.

13     Thank you.

14             MS. HOCHHAUSER:

15        Q.   And captain, we've been asked by the interpreters to slowdown and

16     pause between question and answer, so I will be making my best effort and

17     if you could do the same.

18             The document that is on the monitor now, 65 ter 28556, is that

19     your curriculum vitae?

20        A.   Yes, it is.

21        Q.   And does it accurately reflect your civilian and military

22     education as well as your postings and deployment?

23        A.   Yes, it does.  Although I have left out some military course that

24     I deemed irrelevant for this subject.

25        Q.   Now, in -- in your current job function, are you -- you said you

Page 6463

 1     were the team leader of a special forces unit.  Does that also involve

 2     the teaching and training of other members of the military and of snipers

 3     in particular?

 4        A.   It might.  Although my main function is team leader, but I can be

 5     called upon to -- as a sniper instructor to instruct other snipers in

 6     training.

 7        Q.   And the role of sniper instructor, we see it on your CV under

 8     selection of military courses that you received that certificate in 2004.

 9     Is that something that you have continued to do since then, to instruct

10     and train other people in that skill?

11        A.   Yes, I have.

12             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Your Honours, I'm -- I'd like to tender please

13     28556 into evidence.

14             MR. IVETIC:  No objection.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 28556 becomes Exhibit P669,

17     Your Honours.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

19             MS. HOCHHAUSER:

20        Q.   Captain, you have testified as an expert witness before this

21     Tribunal in the Prlic et al, Dragomir Milosevic, Perisic, and Karadzic

22     cases.  Is that correct?

23        A.   That is correct.

24        Q.   And did you prepare expert reports for both the

25     Dragomir Milosevic and Karadzic cases?

Page 6464

 1        A.   Yes, I did.

 2        Q.   And was one of those expert reports also used in the Perisic

 3     case?

 4        A.   I believe it was, yes.

 5        Q.   Were you asked to prepare a report in this cases?

 6        A.   Yes, I was.

 7             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  If we could please place 65 ter 28541 on the

 8     monitor and just show the first page although, as I said earlier, this

 9     will be a document that I will ultimately ask be placed under seal.  The

10     first page can be broadcast.

11        Q.   Is this the report that you prepared for this case?

12        A.   If this report is the same one as the one I've provided in a hard

13     copy, then it will be the same report.

14        Q.   Do you have a hard copy of your report with you?

15        A.   Yes, I have one here.

16             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  And with the Chamber's permission, can the

17     witness maintain that copy during his testimony?

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  No problem.  Please proceed.

19             MS. HOCHHAUSER:

20        Q.   Now can you describe how the report that you prepared for this

21     case relates to the report that you prepared for -- for the earlier cases

22     that we discussed?

23        A.   For the -- this report is a mix of some of the incidents of the

24     Milosevic case and the Karadzic case, and, in addition, some of the

25     incidents that were left out earlier have been put in this report as

Page 6465

 1     well.  So this report is more of an update on the -- both reports.

 2             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Now, if we could turn, please, to the second

 3     page in e-court in both the English and B/C/S versions.  And in the hard

 4     copy, that's the page marked 1 of 84, the page after the cover page.

 5        Q.   Now, what we see is an index of the sections contained in the

 6     report, and I'm going to begin with asking you some questions about the

 7     section that you have entitled at number 1, an introduction to sniping.

 8             Now within that section you explain that there are different

 9     definitions of the term "sniper" and "sniping" that are in use.  And you

10     write on page 2 -- sorry.  It would be two of the hard copy, page 3 in

11     e-court in both the English and B/C/S, that:

12              "'Sniper Alley' in Sarajevo is known to the whole world.  Since

13     that conflict the word sniper is used to indicate a shooter who shoots at

14     whoever he gets in his sights men, women, children, combatant or

15     non-combatant."

16             And I'd like to ask you in light of what you've written in this

17     section about the various definitions of "sniper" versus "sniper!"  And

18     what I've just read out to you, if we can start out by defining the terms

19     that you are going to use in your testimony.  So if you could please

20     explain to the Chamber what definition of the words "sniper" and

21     "sniping" you are using when you use those words?

22        A.   If I'm using the word "sniper" I refer to the -- to the military

23     sniper that I'm familiar with --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could I -- if you look at your screen, you

25     will see that there's another request to slow down.

Page 6466

 1             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Yes, and I apologise.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could you, please, you started your answer,

 3     that you were using the word sniper referring to the military sniper that

 4     you're familiar with.  Could you continue from there.

 5             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

 6             The military sniper is an expert marksman that has been trained

 7     tactically as well and should be able alone or in a team to approach his

 8     targets, to observe his targets, and to eliminate his targets, and then

 9     get away unseen from the target area.  That's my definition of the

10     military sniper.

11             And the sniper that -- the sniping incidents in general that what

12     most people refer to as a sniping, is, in my view, or are in my view the

13     incidents where people are fired upon by an unseen shooter regardless of

14     what kind of weapon has been used or level of training that the shooter

15     has received.  So I don't -- the military sniper might be the sniping of

16     the sniper that people refer to, but not necessarily so.

17             MS. HOCHHAUSER:

18        Q.   And when you say regardless of the weapon that is used, are you

19     referring to small arms as well as larger calibre arms or can you clarify

20     that, expand on that?

21        A.   Yes, I will.  Small arms would be all handguns up to rifles and

22     machine-guns up to the calibre of 12.7 millimetre, so all the weapons

23     that -- that are have that calibre or below are considered small arms and

24     would be the weapons that I would -- would refer to.

25        Q.   Can you please explain to us the difference between a

Page 6467

 1     sharpshooter and a sniper.

 2        A.   The sharpshooter and a sniper both receive their technical

 3     training as for shooting.  That training would be the -- more or less the

 4     same.  The sniper only has advanced training in field tactics so that

 5     would enable him to approach target unseen.  The sharpshooter receives

 6     the same technical training on shooting and is usually -- usually

 7     operates within a team and doesn't go out with a small team or by

 8     himself.

 9        Q.   For the incidents that you examined, the individual -- excuse me,

10     the individual incidents that you examined in your report.  Did you

11     examine whether they would require in your opinion the specialised skill

12     and training of a sharpshooter or a sniper?

13        A.   Well, some would require a -- at least a shooting background.  So

14     a sharpshooter or a sniper might be the one who have -- who would have

15     shot.  But -- and a hunter would have an extensive background or some

16     people with a sporting shooting background would also be able to fire

17     some of the shots.

18        Q.   And can you tell us when you -- when you -- excuse me.  Can you

19     tell us what factors you would consider in taking into -- into account

20     the best -- excuse me.

21             Can you tell us what factors you would consider in assessing the

22     necessary skill level for a particular shooting?

23        A.   They would be the distance, as -- as the main factor, but also

24     the time that the -- that the target would have been visible.  But mostly

25     it's distance, wind conditions, and everything that comes with those.

Page 6468

 1        Q.   And are there certain distances and certain conditions in which,

 2     in your opinion, the use of specialised equipment would also be

 3     necessary?

 4        A.   Yes, there are.  I believe that above 300 metres then you would

 5     already need a very experienced shooter with a standard rifle to be able

 6     to fire those shots.  So I believe that above 300 metres you would need

 7     specialised equipment.  The only exception is if machine-guns have been

 8     used -- well, machine-guns are sort of standard equipment, so you

 9     wouldn't need an accurised [sic] weapon for those.

10        Q.   And can you explain, please, how setting up -- setting up in and

11     continuing to operate from a known location would affect the necessary

12     skill required for the shooter in a particular instance?

13        A.   Well, I think the longer the shooter is able to stay in a certain

14     position and can operate from that position he will gather more data on

15     the shooting conditions for that location, which would enable him to,

16     over time, make more accurate shots.  The downside for the shooter would

17     be that -- that position would be compromised and that would be a bigger

18     threat for him to say in that position.

19        Q.   And can you tell us what measures one could take in order to

20     improve the accuracy of a weapon at longer ranges?

21        A.   First of all, would be the -- the position that he would be in.

22     So if he is in a supported position, he can improve his position by

23     putting his weapon in a supported position, so not free offhand shooting

24     but perhaps put his rifle or whatever -- whatever weapon he is using on

25     sandbags.  Shooting from a prone position would be more accurate, but if

Page 6469

 1     in time it shows that it's very difficult to get better results, you

 2     would need optics or a better weapon.

 3        Q.   And to -- to define optics?

 4        A.   Optics would be an optical sight with at least three to four

 5     times magnification which enables the shooter to -- to spot targets,

 6     identify targets, and to engage targets.

 7        Q.   Now moving to section 2 of the report which you title "Incident

 8     Files," can you briefly explain to the Chamber your methodology in

 9     examining each of these incidents?

10        A.   Yes.  I was asked by the OTP.  I was given a list of incidents

11     with the general area GPS co-ordinates, a date, and a brief description

12     of the incident.  I then asked the -- I asked if I was able to visit the

13     location to get a better feel of the incident, and when I visited the

14     location I worked on -- on the location itself.  I would get to the level

15     at which the -- according to the witness statements or the evidence that

16     the bullets had hit the victim, so if it -- the bullet would be at knee

17     height, I would kneel down at knee height and see where the bullet might

18     have come from.  And then limits -- eliminate positions that would be

19     tactically unwise or technically [realtime error read in transcript

20     "tactically"] impossible.

21        Q.   And can you tell us specifically what it was you were seeking to

22     determine for -- or seeking to reach an opinion on for each incident?

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I before we continue, the transcript reads now

24     "eliminate positions that would be tactically unwise or tactically

25     impossible," but I think you -- I heard you say "technically."

Page 6470

 1             THE WITNESS:  Technically, that's correct, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Both or -- "technically unwise," I don't know what

 3     that means.

 4             You would say that it would for "technical" reasons unwise to use

 5     such a position and not "tactically," because "tactically unwise" seems

 6     to be an option as well.

 7             THE WITNESS:  That is correct, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  So --

 9             THE WITNESS:  The -- tactically unwise would be if somebody would

10     be out in the open shooting from that position which would completely

11     compromise his own safety, so that would be tactically unwise and it

12     should be technically impossible.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14             THE WITNESS:  So if there would be a building in the way, that

15     would be technically impossible.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So your testimony is now it would be

17     tactically unwise or technically impossible.

18             THE WITNESS:  That's correct, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

20             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Thank you.

21             THE WITNESS:  Referring back to the question I was asked by

22     the --

23             MS. HOCHHAUSER:

24        Q.   Yes.  The question was what was it that you were seeking to reach

25     an opinion about for each incident.

Page 6471

 1        A.   I was trying to establish where the shooter must have been firing

 2     from to be able to -- in the -- in the incident.  What kind of weapon he

 3     would -- would have used, what distance he would have been at.  And if he

 4     would be able to identify the target as combatant or non-combatant.

 5        Q.   And you referenced witness statements as -- did you accept as

 6     fact in witness statements the witnesses' perception of the origin of

 7     fire?

 8        A.   Not necessarily so because I believe that for people who haven't

 9     been under fire it would be very difficult, especially in urban

10     environment where sound bounces off walls and down streets, to establish

11     the exact shooting positions.

12        Q.   So you made an independent determination?

13        A.   Yes, I did.

14        Q.   And how were you able to determine the ammunition and weapons

15     type when no ammunition was found?  Can you give the Chamber an example?

16        A.   The factors that I used are the distance.  I believe that over

17     300 metres, the standard ammunition that was used in the conflict which

18     is the 7.62 times 39, which is the round that is used in the AK-47 series

19     of rifles, is inaccurate for ranges over 300 metres.  So that would be --

20     I could -- it's the same if -- I would eliminate ammunition that I

21     thought was very unlikely to have been used.  It also depends on the kind

22     of wounds that were sustained.  If you would have 12.7 millimetres or a

23     large calibre bullet that would hit a child, the child would have

24     sustained far bigger wounds than some of the cases.

25        Q.   I'd like to -- well, just referencing your last -- the last part

Page 6472

 1     of your answer.  Can you, for example, comment in regards to incident F1,

 2     the shooting of Anisa Pita, and I'm just referring to the last part of

 3     your answer where you said if you would have a 12.7 millimetre or larger

 4     calibre bullet that would hit a child, the child would have sustained far

 5     bigger wounds.

 6        A.   Yes.  The distance that I think the shooter has fired from in

 7     case F1, it's over 900 metres, so that would eliminate small

 8     calibre of -- short range ammunition like the AK-47 ammunition.  If the

 9     child would have been hit, she was three years at the -- at that time,

10     then her leg wouldn't have been bigger than my wrist, and she was wounded

11     in her right leg by a 12.7 millimetre bullet, she probably wouldn't have

12     her leg anymore.  So that's -- it's almost impossible then for her leg to

13     have been like this.  Is she still -- she's still alive.  Her leg is

14     still on, so I believe that the 12.7 millimetre bullet wouldn't -- wasn't

15     used in this instance.

16        Q.   I would like to turn now to the -- to Incident F11, which is the

17     8 October 1994 injuring of passengers on a tram.

18             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  For Your Honours' and counsel's information,

19     examination of this incident begins in the hard copy on the page marked

20     39 of 84 and continues onto page 49.  In e-court it begins on page 40 of

21     the English and page 49 of the B/C/S, although I'm not asking that it be

22     shown on the monitor at this time.

23        Q.   Now, did you receive, captain, conflicting information about the

24     location of the tram in that F11 incident when it was fired upon?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 6473

 1        Q.   Okay.

 2             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  And can I please have on the monitor 65 ter

 3     10047.  And this is the translation of a French language report of the

 4     investigation into the 8 October 1994 incident, F11.  And if we could

 5     turn, please, to page 6 in the English, which is page 5 in the B/C/S.

 6        Q.   Can you explain, captain, generally the conflicting information

 7     about the location of the tram that you received?

 8        A.   Yes, I can.  The victim mentions an S-curve in the tracks of the

 9     tram.  That S-curves -- S-curve is right in front of the Holiday Inn

10     hotel.  But if I look at the map that the UNPROFOR report has attached,

11     that position is S2 while in the UNPROFOR report they mention spot number

12     2 which is one intersection to the east.

13             So they mention in the report an incident that took place in

14     front of the Holiday Inn hotel, but then later on they refer to S1 which

15     is an intersection east of that location.

16        Q.   So let me refer back to the document that's -- that's on the

17     screen, 65 ter 10047.  This is a report by a French -- by members of the

18     French Battalion who were on the scene at F11 and contains their

19     conclusions about the incident and location and origin of fire; is that

20     right?

21        A.   That is correct.

22        Q.   And page -- pages 5 through 7 of this report in the English and

23     B/C/S gives a chronology of events.  And on the page that we were looking

24     at, which was page 6 in the English and page 5 of the B/C/S, there

25     appears to be a key to the map identifying certain spots; is that right?

Page 6474

 1        A.   That is correct.

 2             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Now, if we could please bring up on the monitor

 3     the French version of the document which is uploaded as the original in

 4     e-court and turn to pages -- we can start with page 4.

 5             Sorry, we can start -- if we can just move to page 4, please.

 6        Q.   And, sir, I'll continue as it comes up.  It's just come up.  But

 7     in the original French version of the document at pages 4, 5, and 6,

 8     there is a map.  Is that the map to which the -- the key that we referred

 9     to in the other versions pertains?

10        A.   Yes, it is.

11        Q.   And did you use this map and the conclusions in this report in

12     your analysis of F11?

13        A.   I -- I used this map and I took into account the conclusions in

14     this report.

15        Q.   Okay.  And so would -- does this -- does this map assist in

16     understanding the analysis of F11 in your report and the diagrams that

17     you've drawn in your report?

18        A.   I believe it does.

19             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Your Honours, I would tender this document, 65

20     ter 10047 at this point.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

22             MR. IVETIC:  No objection.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 10047 becomes Exhibit P670,

25     Your Honours.

Page 6475

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  P670 is admitted into evidence.

 2             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Thank you.

 3             Now, if we could again please see 65 ter 28541 on the monitor,

 4     which is the report, and turn to page 49 in e-court.  Again, this can be

 5     broadcast.  It's page 61 in the B/C/S in e-court, and it is page 48 of 84

 6     in the hard copy.

 7        Q.   Now, captain, can you please explain using this -- the diagram in

 8     your report the conclusions you drew regarding the origin of fire for

 9     each location that you -- each location of the incident occurrence that

10     you examined and - sorry - and explain this diagram to the Chamber.

11        A.   The diagram is a cutout of some satellite imaginary, which -- on

12     which I have imposed the markings of the map that we were just shown.

13     The S0 to S3 are the spots mentioned in the French report and in black

14     above the vehicles that were -- the UNPROFOR vehicles that were present

15     at that location.  Then the Metalka is -- the name Metalka is a name

16     given to an angled building south of -- in -- in the same line as the

17     Holiday Inn hotel in the S-curve, and the yellow area shows the -- the

18     firing zone that would be able -- that would have been if the shooter

19     would have been in the Metalka building.

20             The Jewish cemetery with houses 9 to 14, those are the houses

21     mentioned in the French report, and the yellow area would be the firing

22     zone from that area to spot 1.  I believe that S spot 2 is the location

23     where the tram was hit initially, but I also believe that -- since

24     there's also a video footage of shooting at spot 1 that spot 1 was also

25     under fire.  So I believe that the differences in my findings and the

Page 6476

 1     UNPROFOR findings come from the fact that there was a prolonged incidents

 2     and that shooting took place from both locations, so the Metalka as well

 3     as the Jewish cemetery.

 4        Q.   And so the -- just to follow up on that, the FrenchBat conclusion

 5     was that the shooting was from the Jewish cemetery.  Is that what this

 6     reflects?

 7        A.   That is correct.

 8        Q.   And that -- that the origin of fire was from Metalka.  Is that

 9     your conclusion?

10        A.   The conclusion where the tram was hit, that is my conclusion.

11     From the Metalka building.

12        Q.   And do those two -- those two different conclusions, do those

13     reflect two different beliefs about where the location of the tram was,

14     either at spot 1 or spot 2?

15        A.   The exact location of the tram is not the same in -- in most of

16     the reports.  However, the witness who was in the tram and the victims,

17     they described the location at the S-curve, as well as the -- the initial

18     lines -- the first lines of the UN report, and I do believe that the tram

19     was at that location when it was hit.

20        Q.   And --

21        A.   But since the tram was moving it would also automatically move

22     aware from that spot towards spot 1.

23        Q.   And that location that you've just described is reflected by S2;

24     is that correct?  The location by the Holiday Inn.

25        A.   That is correct.

Page 6477

 1        Q.   Now, did you, despite your conclusion that -- that the tram was

 2     likely located closer to S2, did you analyse the origin of fire if the

 3     spot -- if the tram was located at S1 where the FrenchBat report has it

 4     located?

 5        A.   Well, if the tram had been located at S1, then the FrenchBat

 6     report would be accurate in identifying houses 9 to 14 as the origin of

 7     fire.

 8        Q.   So if -- if it was at S1, you would agree with their conclusion,

 9     but you find your analysis leads you to the opinion that it was located

10     at S2 with an origin of fire at the Metalka building.

11        A.   Yes, that's true.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I, at this point in time, put an additional

13     question for my better understanding.

14             You mentioned the possibility that the tram was moving while it

15     was shot at.  Was it moving from S1 to S2 or the other way around in your

16     view?

17             THE WITNESS:  The tram line, the tracks that the tram was on,

18     those are the -- it's a track that is going from west to east, so towards

19     the city centre.  That's also the direction that is described in the

20     witness reports and the UN report, so the tram was moving from west to

21     east and that would be from S2 to S1.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

23             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  I would like to turn now, please, to incident --

24     the incident labelled F12 which is the 18 November 1994 shooting of

25     Mrs. Sokolovic and the killing of her son, Nermin.  For everyone's

Page 6478

 1     information, in the hard copy of the report the analysis begins at page

 2     50.  In e-court it begins on page 51 in the English and page 63 in the

 3     B/C/S.

 4        Q.   Now, did you receive information -- I'm sorry.  Did you receive

 5     differing information for the exact location of these victims when they

 6     were shot?

 7        A.   Yes, I did.

 8             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  And I -- I'll ask Ms. Stewart to please play

 9     65 ter 22452J, which is a segment of a video of investigator Barry Hogan

10     with Ms. Sokolovic, and I'll ask if you could play it, please, from 40

11     seconds, to one minute and two seconds.

12             And, Your Honours, with this witness I'm not going to rely on the

13     audio and so it does not need to be played twice.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then we'll not listen, but, rather, look.

15                           [Video-clip played]

16             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Sorry, it actually occurs to me that we could --

17     we don't have to play the entire segment.  I just said we can stop it

18     right there, since we're just looking at it.  And I've just stopped it at

19     48.5.

20        Q.   Captain, does the location we see in the video that has just been

21     played correspond with the GPS co-ordinates that you list in your report

22     with regard to this F12 incident?

23        A.   Yes, it does.

24        Q.   Okay.  And did you consider that location on the street as a

25     possible location of the -- of the shooting, where it occurred?

Page 6479

 1        A.   Did location -- this location would be a possibility.

 2             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Now, I'll ask Your Honours that -- that 22452J

 3     be marked for identification.  The Prosecution will seek to tender it at

 4     a later time through another witness when the audio portions will also be

 5     relevant.

 6                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar informs me that she hasn't received

 8     any video.

 9             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Sorry, I apologise.  That we do have --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the usher assist --

11             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  We do have it here.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the usher assist in...

13             Madam Registrar, the number to be assigned to a video of which we

14     only saw a still at 48.5 seconds would receive number ...

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Video 22452J receives number P671, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  And is marked for identification.

17             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Now, I will also -- I'll now ask Ms. Stewart to

18     play the first 13 seconds of what is already in evidence as P136, and I

19     would just note that on -- this is a duplicate of what's listed on the

20     exhibit list for this witness as 65 ter 22352.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  But there's no need to uses the duplicate.  We

22     just show the --

23             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Yes.  Just P136.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's look at the portion played.

25                           [Video-clip played]

Page 6480

 1             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Yes.  Okay.  Yes.  And that video was just

 2     stopped at 20.9 seconds.

 3        Q.   The location in which we saw the -- the boy on the ground in the

 4     zebra crossing in that video, did you also consider that as a possible

 5     location of where the actual incident occurred in F11 when assessing the

 6     origin of fire?

 7        A.   Yes, I did.  I believe that this location on the zebra crossing

 8     is the exact location where that boy was shot.

 9        Q.   Now, if we, again, could look at 65 ter 28541, which is the

10     report on the monitor, in e-court at page 52 of the English and 64 of the

11     B/C/S, and this can be broadcast outside of the courtroom.  And it's on

12     page 51 of the hard copy.

13             Now, is the range of distance between -- between and including

14     the two different locations we have just seen in these two videos

15     reflected in your analysis and diagrams on page 51?

16        A.   I haven't listed the location that is visible in the video of

17     the -- of the witness interview, so the location of the victim is

18     the -- is -- the only one that I have used in this diagram is the one

19     that was visible from the video footage of the boy on the zebra crossing.

20        Q.   And when you say this diagram, can you tell us -- there are two

21     on the page.  Can you just tell us which you're referring to?  Or both.

22        A.   It would be the close-up of the incident site that's -- on the

23     layout of the incident site.  There it's slightly more to the west.

24        Q.   So the layout -- the -- the first diagram, titled "Layout of the

25     Incident Site," is the blue circle marking the location of the victim is

Page 6481

 1     slightly more toward where the GPS co-ordinates that you considered based

 2     on the mother's interview with Barry Hogan; is that right?  Does that

 3     accurately state that?

 4        A.   The GPS co-ordinates were given to me by the OTP and are the same

 5     as the location where the investigator had the interview.  So that

 6     would -- that is correct.  And that circle is more that position.

 7        Q.   Now, can you tell us, did you analyse the entire range from where

 8     the interview took place to where we see the boy laying in the street for

 9     the origin of fire and direction of fire?

10        A.   Yes, I did.  I believe that on either one of -- either of the

11     locations the boy would have been visible from someone in the Metalka

12     building, and the more he would move -- walk towards the road, so towards

13     the east, the more he would be visible.

14        Q.   So is -- are -- do the differing locations change your opinion in

15     this incident?

16        A.   No, they do not.

17             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Your Honours, it's been pointed out to me that

18     this might be time to break.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  It is the appropriate time to have a break.

20             Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom first.

21                           [The witness stands down]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  We take a break, and we resume at 10 minutes to

23     11.00.

24                           --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.

25                           --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.

Page 6482

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, Mr. Lukic, the Chamber was

 2     informed that Mr. Mladic doesn't feel well and that he would prefer to

 3     return to the UNDU and lie down; but also that he wants to waive his

 4     right to be present at trial.

 5             Could we seek confirmation from Mr. Mladic.  Mr. Mladic, is that

 6     your position at this moment, that you would prefer to return to the UNDU

 7     and that you waive your right to be present in court at this moment?

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Sir, I feel very poorly in terms of

 9     my health.  I need hospital treatment.  I have grown weaker and weaker in

10     the last 10 to 15 days.  I have lost my appetite.  I should go to

11     hospital as soon as possible and receive treatment.  This is unbearable

12     for me.  I'd sooner go there and be bedridden and die there than stay

13     here listening to foolishness, to NATO propaganda.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  I didn't invite you to comment on the testimony of

15     the witness.

16             Have you reported your not being well to the medical service of

17     the United Nations Detention Unit over the last ten days?  Mr. Mladic,

18     did you report it over the last ten days?

19             Mr. Lukic, do you have any information about it being reported?

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yesterday I was in touch with

21     Dr. Falke and with the lady doctor, the English woman, who asks for me to

22     sign statements about how I feel.  I told them that I urgently needed to

23     go to hospital to undergo a thorough check, a medical check.  I have lost

24     my appetite, and in the last ten days I spent most of my time in bed.

25     And if this isn't enough...

Page 6483

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Well whether that is not enough or not, we would

 2     wait for any medical report which we did not receive.

 3             Now my next question is you had said you prefer to go back to the

 4     UNDU, and as I understand now, you would urge the doctors to send you to

 5     hospital.

 6             The next question is when you leave this courtroom, do you want

 7     us to -- do you waive your right to be present so that we can continue,

 8     or would you say, No, I insist on being present during the remainder of

 9     the testimony of this witness, to start with?

10             What is your position?  If you want to consult with counsel, you

11     have an opportunity to do so.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic --

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, rather than talk

15     extensively about it, I will try and remain seated here in this chair

16     even if I should die here.  Your procedure here will not help me.  I will

17     not waive my right to defend myself until the very last moment to defend

18     myself from NATO lies and this so-called court of yours.  You are no

19     court of law.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You are a corrupt group --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, Mr. Mladic should further remain silent.

23     I do understand from his last answer that he would prefer to stay in this

24     courtroom.  We'll then proceed.

25             MR. LUKIC:  Can you give me one more minute, please.

Page 6484

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 2                           [Defence counsel confer]

 3             MR. LUKIC:  We'll continue with Mr. Mladic in the courtroom for

 4     now, Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Lukic.

 6             Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

 7             Meanwhile, Ms. Hochhauser, revisiting the matter of the

 8     confidential exhibits and the redacted public version, the public version

 9     should be filed, not be tendered.  That is the practice in this Chamber.

10                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

11             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  As we're waiting for the witness to be brought

12     in, can we -- can I ask for to 28609 to be placed on the monitor.  That

13     will be the next exhibit that we start with.  Thank you.

14                           [The witness takes the stand]

15             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  May I?

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you may proceed, Ms. Hochhauser.

17             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Thank you.  I'd like to turn now briefly to the

18     scheduled -- the scheduled occurrence F3, which is the 11 July 1993

19     shooting of Munira Zametica on the banks of the Dobrinja river.

20        Q.   And in front of you on the monitor should be -- is -- is, 65 ter

21     28609.  And this is an information report from Sadija Sahinovic, dated

22     14 September 2001.  And I draw your attention to where it states that:

23     "On the day that Zametica was killed, the water level was lower than

24     today.  It was so low that Munira had to be further out toward the middle

25     than it is possible to mark on the bank today."

Page 6485

 1             Does the analysis of F3 in your report, which for everybody's

 2     information begins at page 17 in the hard copy of the report, does your

 3     analysis as contained in the report account for this information; and, if

 4     so, how does it affect your opinion?

 5        A.   It does affect the report.  The lower the water level, the more

 6     you are in a kind of a tunnel formed by the banks of the canal and the

 7     more precise the direction is where the shooter must have been, and so I

 8     took into account the water level and I lowered myself down to the water

 9     level, which was also low at the time that I visited that location.  It

10     was approximately knee level, the water of -- the depth of the water, and

11     checked from there from the banks at eye height that -- to see if -- to

12     try to determine the point of origin.

13        Q.   And does the difference in the water level as described here

14     change your conclusion as to the point of origin?

15        A.   No, it doesn't.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I put an additional question.  What we see now

17     on the screen is on the day that Zametica was killed, the water level was

18     lower than today.

19             Now do you have any idea about how much lower it was?

20             THE WITNESS:  Well, the water level --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  I mean, 1 centimetre, 10 centimetres?

22             THE WITNESS:  I have no idea, Your Honour, how low the level

23     would have been.  But if you had to walk out to it, almost to the middle

24     of the canal -- the canal is not that wide, it's only a few metres wide

25     from bank -- from top of the bank to the other bank, and --

Page 6486

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  You say if.

 2             THE WITNESS:  If, yes.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But you have got no idea about the quantity

 4     of --

 5             THE WITNESS:  No, I don't know exactly what the depth at the time

 6     was.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Not at the time of the --

 8             THE WITNESS:  Incident.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  -- incident.  Not at the time of this report which

10     we see on the screen where it says the water level was lower than today.

11     How much lower, you have no idea?

12             THE WITNESS:  Though -- I know it was lower because when I

13     visited the water level was about knee depth and with the markings on the

14     side of the water you can see the algae, you can see that the markings on

15     the side of the canal, what the water levels are like, and there were --

16     was a lot of markings above the water level that -- when I visited it.

17     So it can't have been much lower because it was already below knee depth

18     when I visited.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  But that is on an assumption --

20             THE WITNESS:  That is correct, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  -- that these higher levels would have been reached

22     at any time at all, which is just an assumption.

23             THE WITNESS:  That is correct, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  I've seen on a lot of these scales untouched levels

25     for very long time.  So you don't have any knowledge about the level at

Page 6487

 1     the time.  You don't have any knowledge about the difference of level on

 2     the day this report was made on the 8th of October, 2001.  Neither do you

 3     have any specific knowledge about the water level when you visited the

 4     place, apart from that in your guess, estimate, it was relatively low.

 5             THE WITNESS:  That is correct, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Which -- would you agree with me that this

 7     makes it very difficult to make any accurate calculations which whether

 8     or not and to what extent it would have affected your findings.

 9             THE WITNESS:  I wouldn't agree, Your Honour, because the -- it's

10     not a natural canal.  It's man-made, it's concrete banks, and the banks

11     themselves, even if they are at the top of the concrete, it's already --

12     there's an earth bank all the way to the top, and even if you're already

13     at the level of the concrete bank, then that is already forms a --

14     already forms a natural tunnel in -- no.  Let's see.  What was it?  In

15     general east or west direction.  So, yes, there is -- it's difficult to

16     exactly determine how deep the water was at the time, but the banks

17     themselves, they still form a natural tunnel which would -- it only makes

18     it more accurate to know what the -- what the level was exactly at the

19     time.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Because that would be -- would determine most likely

21     the position of the victim.

22             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  That's correct.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Who approached the water to take water out of the

24     canal.

25             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

Page 6488

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.

 2             Please proceed, Ms. Hochhauser.

 3             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Perhaps if we look at Exhibit P3, which is the

 4     Sarajevo map book.  That's page 9 in the hard copy.  I'm just, sorry,

 5     looking for the e-court page.

 6             Sorry.  As I'm looking for the e-court page, I'll just continue

 7     to ask a question.

 8        Q.   Which is:  Captain, your assessment of the line of sight for that

 9     F3 incident from the building that you determined as the origin of fire,

10     how does it -- how does the line of sight change depending on how far you

11     are up the bank?

12        A.   It doesn't change.  It doesn't matter how far you were up or down

13     the bank, you would still be visible, in clear view of that building.

14        Q.   Thank you.  And it's on page 13 in e-court, is the map I was

15     looking for.

16             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Thank you, Janet.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask one additional question in this respect.

18             Couldn't you climb up the bank that much that you'd be covered by

19     the bridge?

20             THE WITNESS:  Only if you would be -- if only you would be able

21     to get the bridge between you and the -- and the building.  But if you

22     would be under the bridge, you would still be silhouetted in the shadows.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Which means that your previous answer that it

24     doesn't matter is incorrect.  If you climb high enough to be behind the

25     bridge on the bank, although that most likely could not be the water

Page 6489

 1     level, because the level of the water would then be higher than the

 2     bridge allows it to be.  But the higher you climb, the more there is a

 3     chance that you will be covered by the bridge, that the line of sight

 4     would be interrupted by the bridge itself.

 5             THE WITNESS:  You would have to climb really high because it's

 6     only a very small bridge which doesn't have any reinforcements on either

 7     side.  It's just a -- well, like a big slab of concrete.  But if there

 8     were -- there were people hiding under the bridge, so she might -- if she

 9     would be high enough, the shooter would have to shoot through other

10     people to -- to hit the target.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  But I have not -- I don't know whether that's

12     material which was given to you.  But people said, Don't go that down

13     because you might be hit by a sniper, whereas if you stayed a bit higher

14     up the bank that people felt safe and not being sniped at.

15             THE WITNESS:  Well, the only explanation that I -- I might have

16     is that at that time I can't imagine that people were cutting the grass

17     on the banks of the river a lot because it was in a -- it was in a

18     dangerous area, so the grass might have been higher for people to hide

19     in.  They would still be vulnerable to fire -- to shooting but less

20     visible.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Through the grass.

22             THE WITNESS:  Through the grass, yeah.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Any information about the -- I mean, if grass, in my

24     experience, is usually up to, well, anything between 5 and 25

25     centimetres, whereas persons sitting in the grass usually are at least

Page 6490

 1     half a metre if not more up.  So I'm slightly surprised by your

 2     explanation.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Well, I don't mean grass exactly but just -- trying

 4     to find the English word for it.  Just undergrowth in general,

 5     neglected -- just wild flowers.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Whatever kind of bush --

 7             THE WITNESS:  Nettles, they grow a lot higher than regular grass.

 8     So -- if the -- but it's again an "if."  If the banks weren't cared for

 9     for a longer time, then you might have vegetation that would reach up to

10     a metre, approximately [Overlapping speakers] --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

12             THE WITNESS:  -- at the most.  It's a guess.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  It's speculation.

14             THE WITNESS:  Yes, it is.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Hochhauser.

16             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Okay.  Thank you.  I had put the -- the

17     photograph on the monitor from the map book at page 13.

18        Q.   I don't want to belabour the point, but if that assists at all

19     in -- in pointing out on the -- on that image where it was approximately

20     that you were standing when you went and where it was that the GPS

21     co-ordinates that were given to you indicated in terms of height up on

22     the bank?

23        A.   The photo itself, it helps.  The GPS co-ordinates, it's always --

24     there's always an inaccuracy, that's why the combination of the GPS

25     location and the location that was pointed out by the investigator and

Page 6491

 1     therefore the witnesses, so the victims, the water level was lower when I

 2     visited because here it's -- it's pretty high.  But it's -- that's the

 3     same building that I determined to be the point of origin.  Although

 4     according to the witness statements, the building wasn't finished at that

 5     time.  It was more only the structure itself.

 6        Q.   And is it -- can you give us a description on this image that

 7     we're looking at of where you would have been standing in reliance on the

 8     GPS co-ordinates that were given to you by the investigator?

 9        A.   If I would be down at the -- describe the location that I took

10     the photograph from, it would be up to ankle level in the water.  So it

11     would be on the -- if I look at this photo, at the left side of the

12     water, and then with my feet in the water.

13        Q.   Okay.  Captain, in you're Appendix A to the report, you list

14     weapons and ammunition used by the VRS along with their effective ranges,

15     and if we could put, please, 65 ter 28500 on the monitor.  And that is

16     the 1st Sarajevo Mechanised Brigade, document number 3-1335/2,

17     information on sniper rifles, silencers, passive and infrared equipment,

18     dated 29 October 1993.

19             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  And for everybody's information, Appendix A

20     begins at 86 in e-court and is the first page is directly following --

21     unnumbered, directly following page 84 in the hard copy.

22             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, we would object to the use of this

23     document in so far as the same was not identified in the expert report

24     prepared by this witness and was not discussed in any detail in the

25     findings of the expert report, so we believe that this is a direct

Page 6492

 1     violation of Rule 94 bis, and a very serious one at that.

 2             We have brought this objection to the attention of Your Honours

 3     in our response to the Rule 94 bis submission of the Prosecution, and

 4     this is one of the 31 documents that were disclosed to us recently which

 5     are of the nature that they were not identified in the expert report nor

 6     was the subject matter of the same discussed in the expert report, and we

 7     believe for an expert witness that all findings, all conclusions are

 8     supposed to be in the expert report if Rule 94 bis is to have any

 9     significance or meaning.

10             Thank you.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Hochhauser.

12             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Your Honours, the witness was asked to -- asked

13     for his comment on this document during a subsequent proofing and those

14     comments were disclosed to the Defence, an initial comment on the

15     proofing note of 27/28 November 2012.  It can be found in point 7K, and,

16     again, a comment in -- on 7 January 2013 of just one sentence at point 4.

17             The -- I would just add to that, while the document is not one

18     that the witness relied on in coming to his conclusion, I think that the

19     comments that were provided show that it substantiates and supports his

20     conclusions and provides illustrative information to the Chamber.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  In what way does it support the conclusions and -- I

22     mean, if the witness doesn't use it in support of his conclusions.

23             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Well, Judge, there is an appendix in his report

24     that lists weapons and calibre typings along with their maximum effective

25     range.  In fact, I think that inclusion of some of this information was a

Page 6493

 1     point raised by the Defence in their objection, that he doesn't have the

 2     expertise to talk about this, and this report, just for an example, lists

 3     weapons that -- it's -- it's an SRK document that would support what is

 4     written in his report about what weaponry was available to the SRK at

 5     that time and his -- his -- what he says about their maximum effective

 6     ranges and abilities, and I think that is material information that this

 7     witness is qualified to comment on.  His comment has been provided to the

 8     Defence, and I think it would -- it is information that could assist the

 9     Chamber in its analysis.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, if I understand the Prosecution well,

11     they say, well, to the extent, and perhaps they would expect that you

12     would challenge the information provided in appendix A, that this

13     document could be relevant to assess the merits of such a challenge.

14             MR. IVETIC:  Well, Your Honours, the challenge was to the source

15     of the witness's findings and conclusions.  I want to know what he looked

16     at to make these conclusions.  They cannot use a document he has not

17     looked at to say this is where he got the information from, so it's

18     actually going at the issue from the wrong side, from the back end

19     instead of the front end.

20             The comments of the witness as to this document from 7 January,

21     2013, are merely that the M48 7.9 rifle, listed at number 1, is the most

22     accurate long-distance rifle.  There is no additional information as to

23     how this relates to the findings in his -- in his appendix and his

24     conclusion; and, again, the objection was where did this information come

25     from so as to see whether his methodology was an appropriate one for an

Page 6494

 1     expert witness.  And I think that saying, Well, look, we now have a

 2     document that he didn't look at does not address that objection, which

 3     was the thrust of our objection.

 4             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  If I just might, because I gave an example of

 5     what the witness could comment on this from this document, but I would

 6     also say that there is an additional comment from the -- on that document

 7     in the November proofing note, which -- in which the witness stated that

 8     it demonstrates that the listed sniper rifles, scopes, and silencers were

 9     issued to sharpshooters and shooters without specialised training, again

10     something that is directly related to topics in his report.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let me ...

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Hochhauser, we should clearly distinguish

14     between the sources used by the witness when preparing and drafting his

15     report and any other evidentiary material which the witness may have seen

16     at a later stage and may be able to comment on.

17             So Mr. Ivetic's objections are dealt with in the following way.

18     We should clearly find out what is the source of what the witnesses

19     wrote.  For example, in Appendix A about these -- the availability of

20     this weaponry for the VRS at the time, and then once we've done that, we

21     may revisit the use of the document you asked to be brought to the

22     attention the witness.  But that's the proper order of dealing with the

23     matter.

24             And then, Mr. Ivetic, once we have followed this procedure we

25     will, at that point in time, then further discuss the appropriateness of

Page 6495

 1     using the document.

 2             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 3        Q.   Captain, turning to Appendix A, can you tell us, please, what the

 4     source of that information is?

 5        A.   The source of the information in Appendix A is most of all the

 6     Jane's Infantry Weapons which is the --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Van der Weijden, again I have to intervene.

 8     There are distinct issues there.  I think that perhaps not the most

 9     important one is what is the calibre rate of fire, et cetera, which is

10     all technical stuff.  The first and most important question is:  What is

11     the source of knowledge of this witness that these weapons were used by

12     the VRS.  That's the first question.

13             Could you please answer that question.

14             THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.  The Jane's Infantry Weapons 2000/2001,

15     it lists the weapons produced in countries and its use by the main

16     armies, so it specifies that the -- that these weapons were used in

17     Yugoslavia during that time.  It doesn't describe -- it doesn't mention

18     by which units they were used.  I have been in Yugoslavia during UNPROFOR

19     times myself and I have driven through several VRS check-points and I

20     have witnessed those weapons in the hands of combatants by myself.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  All of them.

22             THE WITNESS:  All of them.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  All of them.  So you say it is not specified as to

24     be used by the VRS in your written sources but by personal observation

25     you saw all of these weapons in the hands of VRS soldiers during your

Page 6496

 1     tenure in Sarajevo.

 2             THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir, because that's -- that's why I limited it

 3     to those weapons while there are other possibilities.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  That is an answer to the -- yes,

 5     Judge Fluegge may have one more question.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Just in relation to the record, can you please

 7     repeat the title of this document you mentioned in page 38, line 21.

 8     It's not recorded properly.

 9             THE WITNESS:  It's "Jane's Infantry Weapons, 2000/2001."

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

12             Mr. Ivetic, would you also need further sources of information

13     about the calibre maximal effective range or?  I mean, that seems to be

14     very technical, if -- would you insist Ms. Hochhauser to first explore

15     that?

16             MR. IVETIC:  She can do her direct the way she wants,

17     Your Honours.  I might raise some matters in cross.  It's a matter for

18     Your Honours to consider the totality of the evidence and to determine

19     the -- whether the reports meets the specifications to be an expert

20     report and what weight to be given to it itself.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we should ask the witness what is the source of

22     the column dealing with the calibre and the maximum effective range.

23             THE WITNESS:  The calibre and the rate of fire described in the

24     same source, so in Jane's Infantry Weapons, as well as the maximum

25     effective range.  The text that I've added is my own experience.  I fired

Page 6497

 1     most of the -- of these weapons myself, and I've -- in a version or

 2     other, but I've fired most of those calibres.  So it's from personal

 3     experience that I added some of the text.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for those answers.  One second, please.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, your objection against the use of the

 7     document still stands or ...

 8             MR. IVETIC:  I guess it will now depend on what questions are

 9     asked from the document.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's then first hear the questions.

11             Ms. Hochhauser, please proceed.

12             MS. HOCHHAUSER:

13        Q.   Captain, if I could just ask one follow-up about the source that

14     you cited, Jane's Infantry Weapons.  Is that -- is that a document that's

15     commonly used or source that's commonly used in your field of small

16     armaments?

17        A.   The Jane's Infantry Weapons is a renowned source for information

18     in this field.

19        Q.   And do you keep up on advancements in the field of infantry

20     weapons and specifically small arms?

21        A.   Yes.  Constantly.

22        Q.   And is this a -- was this -- sorry, back in the time of the

23     conflict and continued to be a source that is used commonly in the

24     field -- in your field and relied upon?

25        A.   Yes, it is.

Page 6498

 1        Q.   So turning to the document that is on the screen, 28500, I'd like

 2     to draw your attention to the list of weapons there at 1 through 9 and

 3     ask you whether there are weapons that appear on that list with a range

 4     of 800 metres -- well, withdrawn.  I'll actually rephrase the question.

 5             Are those weapons listed at 1 through 9 consistent with what we

 6     see listed in your report at Appendix A?

 7        A.   The -- there would be -- the only deviation would the M48 because

 8     the M48 is not listed on the first page.  It's only listed on the fourth

 9     page of the appendix because at the time of the conflict the M48 was

10     already out of the regular inventory.  So it was -- they were in older

11     stocks but available.

12        Q.   Okay.  And the M48 -- sorry.  Excuse me, I'll begin the question

13     again.

14             Again, drawing your attention to that list, are there weapons on

15     that list with a range of 800 metres or greater?

16        A.   Yes, there are.  I do see a mistake.  It's not in the translation

17     because the original also states -- for number 3 it mentions the M48,

18     7.62 machine-gun, but that most likely would be the M84, 7.62 machine-gun

19     because there was no M48 machine-gun in that conflict.

20        Q.   And are you referring to the English translation on the document

21     at point 3?

22        A.   Both.  Because I see in the original document that number 3 also

23     states M48.

24        Q.   Now -- I'm sorry, did someone -- I'm sorry.

25        A.   I tried to -- sorry.  For number 2 and number 6, I would not be

Page 6499

 1     able to determine what kind of rifles they were.  If they were of the

 2     calibre 7.62 times 39, then they would be inadequate for ranges over 300

 3     metres.

 4        Q.   And the ones that are listed as sniper rifles are those

 5     specialised equipment?

 6        A.   Sniper rifles per definition is specialised equipment.

 7        Q.   Now I'd like to also draw your attention --

 8             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  And Your Honours, I would move on still within

 9     this document to a different topic within it.

10        Q.   So I'd like to draw your attention to the sentences below that

11     list which begins:

12             "As we don't have a special sniper unit, we have issued the

13     sniper rifles" --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.  To draw our attention to certain

15     matters is argument rather than eliciting testimony.  If the document is

16     in evidence --

17             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Oh, I'm sorry, Judge.  I was going to call the

18     witness's attention to it and ask him for comment, but I was drawing the

19     Chamber's attention to the fact that I was moving off of the -- the

20     Appendix A-related information.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If the witness can tell us anything about what

22     remains, then please -- you have drawn his attention to the two lines

23     following the list of weaponry, yes.

24             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Correct.  So --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  If the witness has read that, you may ask questions

Page 6500

 1     about it.

 2             MS. HOCHHAUSER:

 3        Q.   Beginning with "As we don't have a special sniper unit" and

 4     ending with "in the subordinated units," if you could look at that.

 5        A.   I have read it.

 6        Q.   And I would like to ask for your comment on that portion of the

 7     document given your -- what your report addresses about the equipment and

 8     training for snipers.

 9        A.   Well, here they state they don't have a special sniper unit.

10     That would indicate they don't have people within the unit that have

11     sniper training and that they have issued those weapons to combatants in

12     the subordinated units.  That's probably -- they probably issued the

13     rifles to the most experienced riflemen for them to use it.

14        Q.   And, Your Honours, at this time I would tender that document

15     28500?

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Before doing so could I ask a few questions, a

17     more thorough analysis of these two lines.

18             As we don't have a special sniper unit, it seems that you

19     conclude from that, that in other units, perhaps not special sniper

20     units, there were no trained snipers.

21             THE WITNESS:  I think I conclude that in this unit they didn't

22     have snipers because usually it's an assumption, of course, snipers are

23     combined into a -- into teams, so that's why I concluded that they issued

24     the sniper rifles to the most experienced marksmen instead of snipers.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But the most experienced marksmen could have

Page 6501

 1     had specific sniper training.

 2             THE WITNESS:  He could have.  He could also be an experienced

 3     hunter.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we just don't know.

 5             You tendered the document.

 6             Mr. Ivetic.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  No objection based on the discussions that the

 8     witness has had with the document.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 28500 becomes Exhibit P672,

11     Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  P672 is admitted into evidence.

13             You may proceed, Ms. Hochhauser.

14             MS. HOCHHAUSER:

15        Q.   Now, I would like to turn to document 1550 on the monitor.

16             And, again, this is a document that was commented on in -- in --

17     in proofings, and the witness provides comment on but was not relied upon

18     by the witness.

19             MR. IVETIC:  It is on their list, Your Honours, as one of the 31

20     documents that was the subject of our objection in the response to the

21     94 bis submission of the Prosecution and would be for the same reason

22     that, again, this is -- does not appear to be a document that has been

23     utilised by this witness in the preparation of his report, and I will

24     leave any further objections based upon questions that are raised, if, in

25     fact, they are ones that are not within the report.

Page 6502

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we'll first listen to the questions.

 2             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  And that is number 15550.  Sorry, if I miss -- I

 3     left out of a 5, I believe.  And as that's going up on the monitor, it's

 4     the VRS Main Staff situation report, dated 5 November 1995.

 5             I'm not sure if anybody else is seeing the document.  I'm not.

 6     Ah --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I had already on my second screen but now we

 8     have it.

 9             MS. HOCHHAUSER:

10        Q.   And, captain, are you seeing this document in front of you?

11        A.   I'm seeing it, yes.

12        Q.   And if we could -- if you could just take a look at the whole

13     document and I'll also specifically draw your attention to

14     paragraph on -- if we could turn to page 2.

15             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  I'm sorry, it's page 2 in the English but

16     remains page 1 in the B/C/S.  Titled:  "Combat Readiness Situation."

17             And in your report, you discuss how snipers are generally

18     organised and deployed from your knowledge and experience.  And in light

19     of that experience, can you give us your comment on that paragraph that

20     I've drawn your attention to in 65 ter 15550?

21        A.   Yes, I can.  On section B combat readiness situation, the last

22     lines it is mentioned that Igman Infantry Brigade carried out sniper

23     rifle shooting with 28 soldiers.  After the practice in the sniper

24     brigade, the shooting was assessed as good.

25        Q.   I'm going to ask you to just slow down.

Page 6503

 1        A.   Sorry.  Those lines do indicate that there's organised sniper

 2     training as -- as is common practice for snipers.

 3        Q.   Okay.  And does it indicate anything to you about the -- the

 4     organisational form in which they are working?

 5        A.   Could you --

 6        Q.   Yeah, I'm sorry.  Whether -- are they -- how they're being

 7     deployed, whether they're working in a unit or some other function?

 8        A.   Well, I would say that they are working in a unit because they

 9     are -- the training has been done by their -- at brigade level.  So

10     that's -- that's not something in -- individual.

11        Q.   And drawing your attention to the paragraph -- to page -- sorry.

12     Page 2 of that document.  If we could turn to:  "The Situation in The

13     Field."

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It's on the screen in both languages.

15             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  It's on the screen -- I'm sorry.  So it's

16     actually paragraph 1.  The first paragraph appearing on that page.

17             THE WITNESS:  It's at the top of the page?

18             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Yes.  If we could actually flip back to the page

19     before in the English.

20             THE WITNESS:  Are you --

21             MS. HOCHHAUSER:

22        Q.   Yes, I'm sorry, if you can take a look at the text under (a)

23     where it says:  "Enemy:", the text going onto the second page.  If you

24     can just review that.  So those two paragraphs and then the beginning of

25     the next page.

Page 6504

 1        A.   Could I see the next page.

 2             Well, the only thing I would say that from this report -- from

 3     this report, it would seem that the -- the position of the report is

 4     quite accurate with details of -- I don't know if it's accurate but

 5     there's a lot of details in the report.

 6        Q.   And what is that -- what does that tell you in your experience

 7     about the -- about the control over the sniper units?

 8             MR. IVETIC:  Objection, Your Honour.  It calls for speculation

 9     and there is no foundational bases for any such knowledge of the command

10     and control of snipers in this armed formation by this witness from this

11     document.

12             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Perhaps I can rephrase the question, Judge.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Please do so.

14             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Yeah.

15        Q.   Captain, are you familiar with how -- with how sniper and sniper

16     units operate on -- in -- on confrontation lines?

17        A.   More or less over my own experience, yes.

18        Q.   And is there -- can you -- are you --

19             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Actually, Your Honours, I'll withdraw the

20     question.  I'm just going to tender this exhibit based on this -- 65 ter

21     number based on the prior answers.  One -- I'm tendering 65 ter number

22     15550.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

24             MR. IVETIC:  [Microphone not activated] No objection.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

Page 6505

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 15550 becomes Exhibit P673,

 2     Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  P673 is admitted into evidence.

 4             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  I -- I do see that it's time for the break, and

 5     if Your Honours would allow me the indulgence I have maybe perhaps four

 6     or five more minutes after the break.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I suggest that we take these four or five

 8     minutes now and then take the break.  You have until five minutes to

 9     12.00.

10             MS. HOCHHAUSER:

11        Q.   Can we turn to a moment back to a particular incident, which is

12     incident scheduled F16, and that's the shooting of 14 year old

13     Tarik Zunic, wounded on 6 March of 1995.

14             And if we could have, please, 65 ter number 11213 on the monitor,

15     and that is a UNMO daily sitrep for March 1995.

16             And at page 3 of the document in both of the English and B/C/S,

17     we see under point 8 subparagraph (a)3, it says:

18             "Civilian male, aged 14 years, injured by," and there it says "SA

19     RD in the left forearm at 061350 A," March 1995, "MAR 1995."  And it

20     gives a grid reference.

21             And it says in the document there that the origin of fire was

22     assessed at Sharpstone.  And I'd like to go back to page 1 if we can for

23     a moment and draw your attention to paragraph 3(b) which begins with:

24             "During the activity in the area of Sharpstone," and goes on to

25     say that "the Vogosca team received a telephone call from the CD R Radava

Page 6506

 1     BN," continues on that:  "If the Egypt APC and his target practice area

 2     (Sedrenik) is not removed within 30 minutes it will be fired upon."

 3             Can you tell us, captain, what is -- what are the usual

 4     requirements for a chosen target practice area?

 5        A.   If I had to work in a target practice area I would -- for small

 6     arms, I would use an area where I could visit the target I was shooting

 7     at, preferably a paper target to accurately know of -- write down my

 8     results and to be able to correct my sights.

 9        Q.   And can you give us your comment based on your -- well, in your

10     experience, have you -- do you choose target practice areas and actually

11     practice your skills?

12        A.   Yes, we do.

13        Q.   And given that, can you comment on that -- the -- on the portions

14     of the paragraph -- the portions of the document that I've drawn your

15     attention to?

16        A.   Well, I don't know the -- the exact situation at the time, but I

17     do believe that there's -- the target practice area where the shooting

18     of -- the bullets ended up.  It was separated from the origin of fire, so

19     there was no way to check your results.  So, for me, that would be an

20     inaccurate target practice area.

21        Q.   And would a target -- would a usual target practice area be a

22     civilian area, an area where civilians were living?

23        A.   For me, that would be not possible.

24             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Your Honours I would like to tender, please,

25     this document, 65 ter 11213.

Page 6507

 1             MR. IVETIC:  No objection.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 11213 becomes Exhibit P674,

 4     Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 6             Ms. Hochhauser.

 7             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  And my final question is --

 8        Q.   In your report you discuss the training for target -- for -- at

 9     target identification, the training and the norms of target

10     identification, and in your training and experience:  If a sniper or a

11     sharpshooter is not certain whether a target is a combatant or a

12     non-combatant, what do -- what do the rules of engagement tell them to

13     do?

14        A.   Usually the rules of engagement would tell the shooter not to

15     engage, but he could go higher up the chain of command to ask for

16     permission.

17        Q.   Okay.

18             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  That concludes my examination.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Ms. Hochhauser.

20             Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom.

21                           [The witness stands down]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll take a break, and we'll resume at 20 minutes

23     past 12.00.

24                           --- Recess taken at 11.57 a.m.

25                           --- On resuming at 12.21 p.m.

Page 6508

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Hochhauser, or -- the Chamber has considered the

 4     use of the chart.  There's no problem with that, Mr. Groome.

 5             Did I understand well that it was mainly for authentication of

 6     the documents?

 7             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Because the Chamber would like to avoid that charts

 9     are used to circumvent our guidance in terms of associated exhibits.  But

10     if it's about authentication, then there's no problem.  But the Chamber

11     will, if at any later stage other charts are used, always clearly keep in

12     mind its own guidance on number of associated exhibits and the importance

13     of associated exhibits, but that apparently plays no role here.

14             MR. GROOME:  No, Your Honour.  These are purely medical records

15     with respect to victims of some of the shelling and sniping victims

16     incidents.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And mainly that they are authentic.

18             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Then leave is granted.

20             MR. GROOME:  Thank you, Your Honour.

21                           [The witness takes the stand]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. van der Weijden, you'll now be cross-examined by

23     Mr. Ivetic.  Mr. Ivetic is a member of the Defence team of Mr. Mladic.

24             Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.

25             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 6509

 1                           Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:

 2        Q.   Good day, sir.

 3        A.   Good day.

 4        Q.   I will have some questions today for you to try and clarify

 5     portions of your testimony and better understand your opinions and the

 6     bases for the same.  First of all, I do want to stress and remind you

 7     that since we both are speaking the English language, it is critical that

 8     we observe a pause between question and answer to permit the court

 9     reporter and translators to do their jobs.  Is that understood, sir?

10        A.   Yes, it is.

11        Q.   And, likewise, I would ask to have you try and pay close

12     attention to exactly what my questions are to try and ensure that the

13     answers you provide are the most complete and most accurate answers

14     possible to that question.  Is that understood?

15        A.   That is understood.

16        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Then I would like to first spend some time going

17     over your background.

18             Could you tell the Court on how many other occasions have you

19     testified as an expert in other legal proceedings, specifically on the

20     topic of ballistics or forensic ballistics?

21        A.   They have all been for the ICTY.  The first one has been in 2004,

22     and it was -- some incidents concerning Mostar and the rest of the cases

23     of the -- the testimonies have been related to Sarajevo, and I believe

24     that they were on Mr. Dragomir Milosevic, Mr. Karadzic, and -- I'm not

25     that good with the names, and on one other occasion.

Page 6510

 1        Q.   With respect to those incidents apart from Mostar, would those be

 2     essentially most of the same incidents that are the subject matter of the

 3     report in this case?

 4        A.   Most of them, yes.

 5        Q.   Can you tell us how many times you have testified as an expert

 6     witness in legal proceedings on the topic of weapons and ammunition used

 7     either by the JNA, by the VRS, or the Army of BiH?

 8        A.   They would be the same as the ones listed above.

 9        Q.   Can you tell me how many prior times you have testified as an

10     expert on the topic of forensic criminology or crime-scene investigation

11     in other legal proceedings?

12        A.   I have not.

13        Q.   And can you tell me apart from this report that you authored for

14     the Prosecution in these proceedings, how many prior times have you

15     testified in legal proceedings as an expert witness on the topic of

16     performing analysis of probable locations of shooters based upon

17     descriptions of incidents?

18        A.   No prior times.

19        Q.   I'd like to now take a look at your education and training.  If

20     we can first call up Exhibit P669.  And that will be, I hope, your

21     curriculum vitae, that you just looked at in direct.  Thank you.

22             And if we can first focus on the civilian education aspect.  You

23     list two institutions which you attended.  And for the second one you

24     identify that you graduated.  Does that mean that you did not complete

25     your studies and graduate from the TU Delft, because I do not see a

Page 6511

 1     similar notation for that institution?

 2        A.   That is correct.

 3        Q.   And could you confirm for us, sir, the Dr. Mollercollege in

 4     Waalwijk, is that a university or a secondary school?

 5        A.   It is a secondary school.

 6        Q.   Can you please tell us, sir, with regards to these two

 7     educational institutions, did you have any course work or obtain any

 8     degrees or certificats relating to the topic of mechanical engineering or

 9     any other type engineering?

10        A.   I did not get any documents concerning those.

11        Q.   With relation to these two educational institutions, can you tell

12     us if you completed any course work or obtained any degrees or

13     certificates relating to the topics of ballistics or forensic ballistic

14     analysis?

15        A.   As for forensic ballistic analysis, I did not get any, but for

16     ballistics that is included in the sniper course and the fire-arms

17     instructor course that did at the police academy.

18        Q.   With regard to the topic of ballistics or -- of ballistics,

19     including but not limited to forensic ballistic analysis, did you offer

20     any theses or papers on these fields?

21        A.   No, I did not.

22        Q.   With respect now to these two civilian institutions, did you ever

23     have any course work or obtain any degrees or certificates from either in

24     any scientific field which you believe assists you in the performance of

25     the work you did in analysing the sniping incidents in the current case?

Page 6512

 1        A.   Both degrees -- the secondary school that I visited -- that I

 2     attained, physics was in my exams, so physics does help with my analysis.

 3        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Now if we can focus for a moment on the listing

 4     of the military courses that you have in the middle of the page of your

 5     CV, and if you could first clarify for us if any of the course work or

 6     studies that resulted in these diplomas and certificates involved a

 7     course of study in the engineering field or ballistics including but not

 8     limited to forensic ballistic analysis?

 9        A.   Several.  The -- starting from the bottom up, because it's in

10     chronological order, is [indiscernible] Sharpshooter course involves

11     ballistics, the KCT sniper course involves ballistics, the KCT

12     counter-terrorism course involves ballistics, the KCT fire-arms

13     instructor as well as the sniper instructor course all involve ballistics

14     and the teaching of it.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you again to slow down.

16             THE WITNESS:  Sorry.

17             MR. IVETIC:

18        Q.   And I apologise, I'm waiting for the transcript to catch up with

19     us.  With respect to these courses that you have now identified for us,

20     could you tell me what type of instructors there were?  Were these fellow

21     soldiers, were they professors, were they officers, et cetera?

22        A.   It would be a mix of those.  So there would be fellow members of

23     the military, one professor, and some officers.

24        Q.   With respect to specifically these courses that you have now

25     highlighted for us on these topics, how long did those courses last?  Was

Page 6513

 1     it a matter of days, a matter of weeks?

 2        A.   Starting again from the bottom up:  The sharpshooter course lasts

 3     for three weeks at that time; the sniper course at that time lasted four

 4     weeks; the KCT counterterrorism course, it lasts ten weeks; the firearms

 5     instructor course lasted four weeks; and the sniper instructor course

 6     lasted ten weeks.

 7        Q.   Did any of the course work or training that you underwent in th

 8     military to obtain these identified degrees and certificates involve

 9     training in forensic criminal investigation or crime scene analysis of

10     shooting incidents; that is to say, the activities that would normally be

11     undertaken by police or military police organs?

12        A.   No, it did not.

13        Q.   In the course of either your military career or your civilian

14     career, did you have occasion to participate in or assist professionals

15     in forensic criminal investigation of crime scenes where a shooting was

16     involved, and, if so, in what capacity?

17        A.   No, I have not.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, if you would slow down, equally that

19     would be appreciated.

20             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.  I apologise.  I will

21     endeavour to do so.

22        Q.   And just so that we can be clear, am I correct that you have

23     never had any type of medical training or education in the fields of

24     forensic pathology or anthropology?

25        A.   That is correct.

Page 6514

 1        Q.   With regard to that study and training which you have had,

 2     particularly in the realm of sniper, sharpshooter, and fire-arms

 3     diplomas, would you agree that that was based upon the Dutch military

 4     protocols and standards and those of the NATO forces?

 5        A.   They would be based upon but not -- but also include foreign

 6     weapons.

 7        Q.   And when we're talking about these diplomas or certificates, they

 8     are all issued by Dutch military institutions; am I correct?

 9        A.   Excluding the fire-arms instructor because that was issued by the

10     Dutch police academy.

11        Q.   Did any of your military training or course work, including that

12     for which you obtained these diplomas and certificates, involve

13     instruction about or study of the armed forces of Yugoslavia, the

14     Yugoslav People's Army either in terms of their structure and

15     organisation or their military doctrine?

16        A.   Not in those courses.  It did include -- it was -- there was some

17     study involved for the deployments during UNPROFOR and IFOR in the

18     mid-1990s.

19        Q.   Let's talk about the deployment with UNPROFOR.  You say there was

20     some study involved.  Could you elaborate for us how extensive was that

21     study in terms of, I guess, the time taken?

22        A.   The study was limited to the Bosnia country -- country handbook

23     that I was provided at the time.

24        Q.   And what kind of topics were included in the Bosnia country

25     handbook that was provided to you at that time?

Page 6515

 1        A.   I do not recall all the topics but -- as it was quite a long time

 2     ago, but I do remember that there was a list of weaponry used in the

 3     conflict by all sides listed in the -- in the book.

 4        Q.   Did you utilise that book in framing your opinions in drafting

 5     this report, in particular as to the armaments and ammunitions that would

 6     have been available to the parties?

 7        A.   No, I haven't listed it, so I didn't use it.

 8        Q.   What about now before your deployment as part of IFOR.  Was there

 9     any additional instruction or training that you underwent at that time in

10     relation to the specific circumstances of the Yugoslav People's Army, the

11     Army of the Republika Srpska, or the armija of BiH?

12        A.   There was some additional instruction but that would be mostly

13     limited to intelligence updates.

14        Q.   Am I correct, sir, that you are neither relying upon the

15     instruction you received prior to your deployment as part of UNPROFOR,

16     nor the instruction you received prior to your deployment as part of IFOR

17     for purposes of the report that you generated for this proceeding?

18        A.   That is correct.  I do rely on the experience that I had during

19     those times.

20        Q.   Did any of your military training or course work deal with the

21     topic of the JNA tactics or training or deployment of snipers?

22        A.   No, they -- not specifically.

23        Q.   I see that some of the diplomas and certificates are dated after

24     the wars for succession in the former Yugoslavia.  Did any of those

25     courses touch upon the -- either the rules of engagement or target

Page 6516

 1     acquisition protocols utilised by the Army of the Republika Srpska or the

 2     Army of BiH?

 3        A.   No, they did not.

 4        Q.   Okay.  If we can focus for a moment on the Royal Military Academy

 5     and the Royal Military School that you have listed here on your CV as

 6     part of these diplomas or certificates, could you please confirm for me,

 7     sir, that you did not, in fact, complete the full course at these

 8     institutions that be would given for professional contract soldiers but,

 9     rather, you completed an abbreviated course?

10        A.   That is not correct.  I did complete the whole course that was

11     necessary at the time.  For the military school at that time for my field

12     it was five months, and for -- and as a professional, to become a

13     professional officer, the Military Academy had six months.  But it's

14     still for the -- as a professional soldier, only the difference in course

15     between long-term or short-term courses is more towards the -- the

16     future.  So I did complete them.

17        Q.   Okay.  When you say that the only difference is between long-term

18     and short-term courses is towards the future, could you please explain

19     that?  What precisely is the difference between the full course that they

20     have for contract soldiers and the shorter-term course which you

21     finished?

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the counsel please slow down for the sake

23     of interpreters, thank you.

24             THE WITNESS:  There is no difference between the course for

25     contract soldiers and the short-term courses.  All courses are now for

Page 6517

 1     professional soldiers.  The difference is that if you do the full course

 2     at the military academy, you're more likely to end up at the

 3     General Staff level and for the -- for the military who do the short

 4     course, they will not get to the General Staff.  Only after additional

 5     studies.

 6             MR. IVETIC:

 7        Q.   I would like to now examine your professional background and

 8     experience.  Looking again at the CV, first of all, a general question:

 9     Did you have an occasion to perform services for or at the behest of any

10     intelligence or counter-intelligence organ of either the Dutch military

11     or some other NATO military or civilian body, especially when deployed in

12     the former Yugoslavia?

13        A.   No, I did not.

14        Q.   In the course of the various deployments with the Dutch military

15     that you have listed, did you have occasion to experience or eye-witness

16     live combat situations?

17        A.   Yes, I have.

18        Q.   Before getting into specifics from your report and the prior

19     testimony as to combat situations, in regards to those combat situations

20     that you experienced or eye-witnessed personally, were you engaged at any

21     time in the role of a sniper or anti-sniper capacity?

22        A.   I was -- my function at the -- those days during UNPROFOR was as

23     a sharpshooter.  I did not -- I was not involved in the combat

24     operations -- situations as sharpshooter.  And for the IFOR deployment, I

25     was a sniper but I was not the -- I was not functioning as a sniper in

Page 6518

 1     a -- the combat situation.

 2        Q.   Would you agree with me that during combat situations snipers or

 3     sniper teams often a faced with less than ideal circumstances and, thus,

 4     are required to operate outside of textbook experiences without the

 5     benefit of all the best equipment and best supplies that would be

 6     foreseen and taught in training for the performance of their duties?

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, that's five questions in one, isn't it?

 8             MR. IVETIC:  I guess it is, Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  And apart from that is not very specific.

10             MR. IVETIC:  Would -- perhaps I'd rephrase it.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  And not very clear either.  Less than ideal

12     circumstances.  I lived 90 per cent of my life in less than ideal

13     circumstances.  So if that is your criteria, could you please be concrete

14     and ...

15             MR. IVETIC:

16        Q.   Let's -- let's limit it, sir, to combat situations.

17             Would you agree with me that in combat situations there are

18     occasions where personnel have to operate without all of the best

19     equipment or best supplies that had been foreseen as part of their

20     training.

21        A.   I think that would be an accurate description of most of the

22     combat situations.

23        Q.   And, now, if I can tie that to part of your report.

24             MR. IVETIC:  If we can turn to 65 ter number 28451 and page 5 of

25     the English in e-court, and page 8 in B/C/S, and these pages can be

Page 6519

 1     broadcast as they do not have any of the redacted information.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Excuse me, Mr. Ivetic.  Is it 28451 or 28541?

 3             MR. IVETIC:  I apologise.  Maybe it's 28541.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  28451 is P316, Your Honours.  Document 28451 is

 5     P316, already admitted in October 2012.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  It's 28541 that we need.  I apologise.  And again,

 7     it will be page 5 of the English; page 8 of the B/C/S.

 8        Q.   And, sir, if you have the hard copy in front you it's obviously

 9     page 4 of 84 in the hard copy.

10             And here you talk about the equipment of a sniper team.  And now

11     tying this together with the question that I just asked you and you just

12     answered, have you experienced or have you heard of others in your field

13     having experienced combat situations where they were forced to operate as

14     a sniper without benefit of all the full inventory of equipment and/or

15     personnel that you have listed here?

16        A.   Yes -- yes, I have.

17        Q.   Would you therefore permit the possibility that either Army of

18     Republika Srpska or Armija BiH snipers operating in Sarajevo during 1992

19     to 1995 may have experienced circumstances where they, too, did not have

20     access to a full inventory of equipment, such as a spotting scope,

21     binoculars, or even did not have a spotter?

22        A.   Yes, I would permit that possibility.

23        Q.   And, for the record, this part of your report is limited to your

24     knowledge of NATO armies and you are not suggesting any expertise on your

25     part as to how a sniper in either the Armija of BiH or Army of

Page 6520

 1     Republika Srpska would be equipped as a matter of standard issue.  Am I

 2     correct?

 3        A.   That is correct.

 4        Q.   If we can clear up one more item from this section of your

 5     report.  At page 4 in the English, and page 6 of the B/C/S, you outline

 6     tasks and deployment of the sniper and training of a sniper.  And among

 7     these items, you include several times the necessity of a sniper team to

 8     consist of two persons.  So, again, I want to make sure that this is in

 9     relation to your experience and knowledge as to NATO armies and that you

10     are not suggesting any expertise or knowledge of such factors in relation

11     to the Army of Republika Srpska or the Armija of BiH.  Is that accurate?

12        A.   Not completely.  The knowledge is not limited to NATO armies.  It

13     does not include, as you say, the Army of Republika Srpska or the Army of

14     BiH, but it does include other armies outside of NATO.

15        Q.   Would you expect, sir, that such things would be regulated by

16     other armies including by the Army of Republika Srpska or the Armija of

17     BiH by manuals and regulations that would be promulgated and published?

18        A.   I would believe so.

19        Q.   Have you yourself studied or reviewed any manuals or regulations

20     that were promulgated by either the Army of Republika Srpska of the Army

21     of BiH as to the standard-issue equipment or standard structure of sniper

22     teams?

23        A.   No, I have not.

24        Q.   Do you feel, therefore, that would you have to defer to other

25     professionals in your field for these precise factors who have had access

Page 6521

 1     to or did study those publications, regulations and/or manuals?

 2             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  I would --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Ms. Hochhauser.

 4             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  I was just going to object to the formulation of

 5     that question, but I interrupted Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  The question is unclear to the extent it is not

 7     obvious.  If you haven't done something yourself, you should ask someone

 8     else who has done it, but that doesn't need -- unless you wanted to focus

 9     on which you have to defer as a duty.  That is a different question.  So

10     the question is both unclear and -- but if you would rephrase it,

11     Mr. Ivetic, so that we understand what you actually are asking, please do

12     so.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

14        Q.   For purposes of acting as a -- in an expert capacity providing

15     testimony here today, sir, do you feel that would you have a duty to

16     defer on questions of the issuance of equipment and the composition of

17     sniper teams to other persons who have actually reviewed those

18     publications, manuals, and/or regulations?

19             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Your Honour, I maintain an objection to this

20     question.  The witness has been asked about what his -- what his

21     knowledge is.  I don't think it's for him to be asked whether he would

22     defer to another expert in the area.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, all depends on how much you would need

24     that information for the expertise you're providing, it seems.  So if you

25     would be more precise and a bit more concrete, then we could proceed.

Page 6522

 1     But please move on.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  Let's try and be more precise.

 3        Q.   If you look at page 6 in the English and page 9 in the B/C/S of

 4     your report, sir, you have at the top -- near the middle of the page in

 5     the English, a section entitled: "Rules of Engagement."  And here you

 6     refer to Appendix B of your report as well.  Have you had occasion to

 7     become familiar with and are you holding yourself out as an expert on the

 8     rules of engagement that were effective and in existence in either the

 9     Army of Republika Srpska or the Armija BiH from 1992 to 1995?

10        A.   I'm not claiming to be an expert on those rules of engagement.

11        Q.   Okay.

12             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  I'm sorry to interrupt the flow, but I saw the

13     witness was struggling with the page numbers, so I would just like to

14     note that the page numbers in the hard copy are behind by one for the

15     e-court number in -- when -- when counsel cites the English e-court

16     number, it's always one page behind in the hard copy.

17             MR. IVETIC:  I apologise.  I should have made that clear as I did

18     earlier.

19        Q.   If we can now turn to Appendix B of your report which in the

20     e-court version should be page 93 of the English and page 135 of the

21     B/C/S.  In the hard copy, is the ERN 06699993, which is labelled as page

22     1 of 3.

23             Now, sir, this appendix, if you have located it, is three pages

24     long, and I have been unable to locate a single reference or citation to

25     any authorities upon which you rely for the information that you have

Page 6523

 1     contained herein.  With respect specifically to this appendix and these

 2     three pages of your report, can you identify for us any and all source

 3     materials and/or references which you either consulted when drafting this

 4     appendix or relied upon in reaching the conclusions contained therein?

 5        A.   I admit a lot of it is based on experience, but on the matter of

 6     camouflage and observation, that would be out of any handbook for

 7     sniping.  Or camouflage in general.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic [sic], just for the record, the page

 9     refreshes you gave for the B/C/S should be 119 instead of 135.  If I ...

10             MR. IVETIC:  I apologise.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Because it's only a 122-page document in e-court in

12     B/C/S.  And the part of the identification of targets starts at page 119

13     and continues 120 and 121.

14             MR. IVETIC:  I apologise for the confusion.  These long reports

15     always seem to have issues with that.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  There's no issue with the report.

17             MR. IVETIC:  With me counting the pages is the issue, Your

18     Honours.  I apologise.

19        Q.   With respect to this appendix on target identification, in

20     particular, the section where you talk about the keeping of log-books,

21     the taught techniques of identification, would I be correct in stating

22     that this, too, is based on your knowledge and experience of NATO forces

23     and is not meant by you to be held out as an expertise relating to these

24     same topics within the doctrine of the Army of Republika Srpska or the

25     Army of BiH?

Page 6524

 1        A.   It is based on my knowledge and experience of long-range shooting

 2     in general, not only NATO forces.

 3        Q.   Okay.  Could you answer the second part of that question whether

 4     it is intended to be held out as an expertise relating to those same

 5     topics, i.e., the keeping of log-books and taught techniques of

 6     identification as it pertains to the Army of Republika Srpska and the

 7     Armija BiH?

 8        A.   I would split that question in two.  The keeping of log-books

 9     would very much surprise me if it wasn't used, since for long-range

10     shooting, without the keeping of log-books, you'd be a very poor shooter.

11     The taught techniques of identification is not something that is

12     regularly in a course.  Everything is based on camouflage and on

13     observation and it is not -- the identification is not something that is

14     taught.  It is something that is -- comes out of experience.

15        Q.   Thank you, sir.  If we can now return to Exhibit P669.  And while

16     we wait for that, sir, I'll again be asking you about your experiences in

17     the former Yugoslavia.  If I read your CV correctly, you have listed a

18     deployment to Bosnia under the auspices of the IFOR from August to

19     December of 1996 on the first page of your CV.  And then, on page 2, you

20     also have a deployment to Bosnia under the auspices of UNPROFOR from

21     January 1995 to June 1995.

22             Could you tell me if either of these deployments included any

23     significant time in Sarajevo?

24        A.   There was no significant time other than passing through Sarajevo

25     in the first deployment.  The second deployment I didn't visit Sarajevo

Page 6525

 1     at all.

 2        Q.   Am I correct, sir, that the bulk of your deployment in Bosnia as

 3     parts of UNPROFOR was as part of the DutchBat in the Srebrenica enclave?

 4        A.   That is incorrect.  My company was based in Simin Han, east of

 5     Tuzla.

 6        Q.   I apologise.  I misread the question.  You only passed through

 7     the enclave of Srebrenica and spent two days there; is that accurate?

 8        A.   That is correct.  On a convoy escort.

 9        Q.   As for the actual factual situation in Sarajevo from 1992 to

10     1995, that is the time-period of your report, do you feel that you would

11     have to defer as to -- to someone who was actually on the ground in

12     Sarajevo as to the position of forces, the position of the confrontation

13     line, and the combat and sniper activity ongoing at the time?

14             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Again, I object to -- to these -- the

15     formulation of all this as a deference to somebody else.  I think counsel

16     can just ask whether he has knowledge of those particular subject

17     matters.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, that would bring us quicker to useful

19     answers.

20             Please proceed.

21             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

22        Q.   Sir, do you, in fact, have knowledge as to the position of forces

23     and the position of the confrontation line in Sarajevo from the

24     time-period of 1992 to 1995?

25        A.   Yes, I do.

Page 6526

 1        Q.   What is that knowledge based upon?

 2        A.   The knowledge is based upon my visit to Sarajevo where I passed

 3     through several check-points, and it's based on remnants of the war still

 4     visible in Sarajevo during the visits that I did.

 5        Q.   Do you feel that passing through several check-points gave you a

 6     full picture of the position of forces or just with respect to those

 7     check-points?

 8        A.   That would be just around those check-points.

 9        Q.   And -- well, again, I would ask you:  Do you think that you would

10     have to defer to persons who were on the ground as to the position of

11     forces and the type of combat activity that was ongoing at the time?

12        A.   I have deferred to persons for the situation as for witness

13     statements and other information, maps.

14        Q.   I'd like to ask you, have you ever -- strike that.  I've already

15     asked that.

16             If we can turn back to your report.  So that's number 28541.  And

17     hopefully my pages are right.  I'm looking for page 84 of the same in

18     English, which should be page 83 in the hard copy, and it should be page

19     106 of the B/C/S.

20             Here, sir, we have a selection from your report entitled

21     "Ballistics and Shooting," and this is approximately a page and a half in

22     length in the English.

23             With respect specifically to this portion of the report, did you

24     have this part of your report peer reviewed by any colleagues in the

25     field of your expertise?

Page 6527

 1        A.   No, I have not.

 2        Q.   Did you have occasion to consult with anyone trained

 3     professionally in the field of ballistics or forensic ballistics analysis

 4     to assist you in preparing this part of the report?

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, why always remain on the abstract level?

 6     If there's anything wrong with this part, attack it directly because it's

 7     wrong with or without peer review.  If there's anything.  Because

 8     otherwise we spend ages on theoretical matters rather than on whether

 9     this is reliable information for the Chamber.  Again, peer review is not

10     a guarantee.  If there's anything wrong, point at it.  I mean, if the

11     gravity is not existing in your view, let's attack the gravity part or

12     wind drift or is it the details that for this bullet it would be

13     different.  Then by attacking that, we'll know what the quality of his

14     expertise is rather than to know whether it was ever peer reviewed, yes

15     or no.

16             Please proceed.

17             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  But we also have to again

18     address whether the methodology applied this person with regard to this

19     report is appropriate for the standards in the industry, Your Honours,

20     and that -- you left that decision open and deferred for it in the

21     decision on the 92 bis submissions, so I have to go through it.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  That is best done by pointing at where things are

23     wrong in the report as a result of wrong methodology.

24             Please proceed.

25             MR. IVETIC:

Page 6528

 1        Q.   In relation to this part of the report, can you please identify

 2     for us the source materials and/or references upon which you rely or

 3     which you consulted in drafting this section of the report.

 4        A.   The source materials would be the -- the several manuals that we

 5     have for sniping or for fire-arms instruction and just general knowledge

 6     on shooting in -- that's available to the general public.

 7        Q.   Could we first address the several manuals that we have for

 8     sniping and for fire-arms instruction.  Which manuals in particular are

 9     you talking about?

10        A.   The base of my knowledge would be, of course, the Dutch army

11     sniper manual.  I do have to mention that most of the -- that about 50

12     per cent of knowledge is transferred verbally during courses, that not

13     everything is written down in manuals.  So a lot of it, a lot of

14     information that I have gathered for the report is done by studying more

15     sources or through the Internet.

16        Q.   With respect first to this Dutch army sniper manual, could you

17     tell us its publication date and if a copy was provided to the

18     Prosecution?

19        A.   It was not.  There is no Dutch army sniper manual since it's

20     Dutch army by itself does not have any snipers.  It is within our special

21     forces unit there is a sniper manual.

22        Q.   Could you please provide us with a publication date for that

23     manual so that we may do our diligence to review that?

24        A.   I could not.  I couldn't.

25        Q.   Could you tell us where that manual could be obtained?

Page 6529

 1        A.   That would have to go to through the Dutch Ministry of Defence.

 2        Q.   In so as far as you stated that you relied upon it, do you have a

 3     copy of the same?

 4        A.   I have a copy at my work.

 5        Q.   Do you have a problem locating and providing those to the

 6     Defence?

 7        A.   I think so.  I would have to go through my superiors and ask

 8     permission.

 9        Q.   Okay.  Are there any other manuals -- I may have cut you off.

10     Any other manuals or publications that you rely upon as source materials

11     or references for the material that you have set forth in this selection

12     relating to ballistics and shooting?

13        A.   The publications are widely available on the Internet, so I would

14     have to go on the Internet to get a list of all the sources.  For

15     manuals, the other source material that I have used - because most of it,

16     the information is inside my head instead of straight out of a book - is

17     in course material for the fire-arms instructor, the ballistics part.

18        Q.   Is that course material different from the -- from the manual

19     that we discussed from the Dutch special forces?

20        A.   The material is different, since it's -- it's not a course for

21     snipers, it's a course for fire-arms instructors and it includes general

22     ballistics, and it's taught by the police academy.

23        Q.   Would that be a manual that you have in your possession that you

24     would be able to give to the Defence?

25        A.   Again, I would have to get a request to the police academy, if

Page 6530

 1     they have objections to -- to hand it over.

 2        Q.   Okay.  You start off this section of your report with the

 3     assertion that there are really no such thing as stray bullets.  With

 4     respect to this specific assertion, is it something which other textbooks

 5     or reference books that you are aware of have stated or supported?

 6        A.   Would you allow me to explain myself for the sentence?

 7             A lot of the report is based -- I could go in very specific

 8     details about technical stuff on the subject matter, but I thought it

 9     would be -- would it be wiser to -- to try to explain the subject matter

10     to people with less experience in that field.  And stray bullets, like

11     the word "sniper," are things that are known to a lot of people but

12     everybody has a different feel for it.  So that's why I included the line

13     "there are no stray bullets" because a bullet doesn't travel on its own

14     or just -- a bullet follows a path.

15        Q.   Okay.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Did you mean to say that bullets are always subject

17     to the laws of physics?

18             THE WITNESS:  They certainly are.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

20             MR. IVETIC:

21        Q.   In the middle of page 83 of 84 in the hard copy, which is page 84

22     in e-court, and it should be the page -- in B/C/S that is on the screen.

23             You say:

24             "The above is just to show that for a long-range shot a shooter

25     must either be well trained or very experienced to make first-round

Page 6531

 1     hits."

 2             Would you agree with me that shorter-range shots are much easier

 3     to accomplish first-round hits with?

 4        A.   Yes, I would agree.

 5        Q.   If you can follow my hypothetical now, if you have a situation

 6     where there are two or more potential sources or possible sources for

 7     fire that has resulted in damage or injury, would you agree that

 8     statically the more probable source of fire, if a single-shot scenario,

 9     would be the location nearer to the victim or target rather than the

10     longer-range shot?

11        A.   I don't believe that could be put in a statistic because it

12     depends on the person behind the weapon and the weapon and ammunition

13     combined.  If I would put the same person with the same weapon, the same

14     ammunition, at several ranges and have him fire from there, then a

15     shorter range would provide better results.

16        Q.   Let's approach it this way, sir, theoretically speaking.

17             Where you have multiple potential locations of a shooter when you

18     are investigating an incident, or analysing an incident, I should say,

19     and you have one that is a long-range target, a long-range shot, and one

20     that is a shorter range shot, do you believe that it would be prudent and

21     within the expected expertise of your field to ignore the shorter range

22     shot and to focus only on the longer range shot as the potential source

23     of the incoming fire?

24             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  I'm going to object to that.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, I could answer that question.  It's

Page 6532

 1     always not wise to ignore possibilities when you investigate something.

 2     That's a general answer to this.  And I think the witness could not give

 3     any other answer.  But what you want to say is:  Wouldn't it be wise to

 4     focus first on the short range, isn't it?  That's what you are seeking to

 5     establish, that that would be the best way to?

 6             MR. IVETIC:  I think both should be reviewed.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's what I -- we agree on that at least.  I

 8     don't know about my colleagues, but we agree that it's best to explore

 9     all possibilities and certainly not to ignore the short range.  Please

10     proceed.

11             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

12        Q.   If we can turn to the next page of your report in the English, it

13     is also on the next page in the B/C/S, I believe, you give us here an

14     example of moving targets and the speed of the 7.62 mm by 51 mm NATO

15     bullet.  Am I correct that you do not have sufficient knowledge and

16     experience to quote with us with certainty as an expert the speed of all

17     standard non-NATO munitions that would have potentially been in use in

18     the former Yugoslavia?

19        A.   I don't think you are correct.  I have the sufficient knowledge.

20     And given a few minutes, I would find on the Internet, because there are

21     excellent tables and calculations for all ammunitions, barrel length and

22     all.

23        Q.   Can you then perhaps identify for me what manuals or references

24     have you had at your disposal or reviewed to determine or verify the

25     speeds of various types of ordnance, whether NATO or other?

Page 6533

 1        A.   Some of it is general knowledge in -- in my experience, but

 2     otherwise I would have to go to the Internet and get some of the web

 3     sites that I might use.

 4        Q.   Could you tell us what some of the web sites are?  Are we talking

 5     about Wikipedia, are we talking about Google?  I mean, are we talking

 6     about specific specialised web sites or the general Internet, sir?

 7        A.   It's a -- for specific web sites.  But, again, I could not give

 8     you the web sites now.  I would have to go on the Internet and locate

 9     them.

10        Q.   Let's return to the long-range shot again, the type that you

11     discussed on the prior page.

12             Would you agree with me that, due to all the factors that you

13     list on this prior page --

14             MR. IVETIC:  Sorry, page 84 in e-court on the English, page 100

15     and -- well, the prior page in the B/C/S as well.

16        Q.   With respect to all the factors that you list, is it more likely

17     for a long-range shot to miss its intended target on a first round?

18        A.   Compared to a short range shot?

19        Q.   Correct.

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   And practically speaking, such missed shots would still hit up --

22     hitting something or someone; isn't that right?

23        A.   If that -- that something or someone would be in the vicinity,

24     then that might happen, that's correct.

25        Q.   And if they miss and continue on a trajectory affected by these

Page 6534

 1     ballistics elements you have listed, they could potentially hit

 2     unintended targets, including, civilians; is that right?

 3        A.   That -- that is possible, yes.

 4        Q.   And would you agree with me that you cannot exclude with a

 5     reasonable degree of certainty the possibility of a long-range shot

 6     missing its intended target and ricochetting off a hard object and taking

 7     a new trajectory, can you?

 8        A.   I would like to say that ricochetting is not something that would

 9     alter the path of the bullet.  At a 90 degree angle, it would be just

10     slight deviation of the path, but it would be a new trajectory since the

11     speed will have slowed down and the bullet would have given -- taken a

12     new shape, so there would be a new trajectory, yes.

13        Q.   And for the report the ricochet effect would apply to both

14     shorter range and longer range shots; is that correct?

15        A.   The ricochet effect is, of course, affected by the type of

16     material that is hit, the speed of the bullet, the weight of the bullet,

17     and a lot of other factors.  But it's possible.  It's applicable to any

18     bullet.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, I'm looking at the clock.  We are about

20     to have a break.  Most of the last questions I would say are all common

21     sense, isn't it?  If a bullet doesn't hit its target, hits something

22     else, which it inevitably will do - I've never seen a bullet flying

23     around for the next century - then of course that changes the path and

24     the energy and -- I mean, do we really need this to be further explored?

25     It should --

Page 6535

 1             MR. IVETIC:  In light of this report I think we do because this

 2     report acts as if there's only one possible explanation for all this

 3     and since --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then go to the findings of the report and

 5     challenge those on the basis.  Ask for F1 or F10 or whatever, is there a

 6     possibility that it was a ricochet, and then, of course, we'll all

 7     understand what that means.  That it's a bullet fired somewhere else,

 8     hitting not its target, or hitting its target and continuing its

 9     trajectory in a different way with different energy.

10             Therefore, focus on the concrete matters rather than on the

11     theoretical side of it, and refer to the three to the extent it becomes

12     apparent that it has affected the findings.

13             We take a break, and we resume at a quarter to 2.00.

14             Witness first to be escorted out of the courtroom.

15                           [The witness stands down]

16                           --- Recess taken at 1.25 p.m.

17                           --- On resuming at 1.47 p.m.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

19                           [The witness takes the stand]

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.

21             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

22        Q.   Sir, could you explain for us so we understand your use of the

23     term, what range of distance between target and shooter would you

24     understand and consider to be a "long-range shot" as you've used in your

25     report?

Page 6536

 1        A.   Long-range, in my opinion, would be over 600 metres.

 2        Q.   Now I'd like to turn to another portion of your report dealing

 3     with the Unscheduled Incidents.  It starts at page 69 in e-court which

 4     would be page 68 of the hard copy, with the text actually beginning on

 5     page 69 of the hard copy, and page 88 and onwards in the B/C/S.

 6             And, first of all, before we get to the specifics of these

 7     incidents, we have been provided a supplemental information sheet from

 8     your proofing session with the Prosecution wherein at number 11 it

 9     states:

10             "The witness states that, to the best of his recollection, he was

11     only provided the incident description, not the underlying written

12     documents for the Unscheduled Incidents which he first evaluated in the

13     Dragomir Milosevic case."

14             First of all, sir, can you confirm whether, in fact, this

15     representation by the Prosecution is accurate and truthful?

16        A.   It is accurate but not complete.  I was not provided more than

17     the incident description for writing this report.  However, for the

18     previous report in which the incidents also were mentioned, there I did

19     have another of the -- extra documents, only I've handed them back to the

20     OTP at that time, and I haven't been able to find them -- to locate them

21     again.

22        Q.   Just so that we are clear, we are right now talking about the

23     Unscheduled Incidents, the three incidents that are on the screen on your

24     report.  Is that -- is your answer also relating to those three

25     incidents?

Page 6537

 1        A.   Yes, exactly, for the Unscheduled Incidents.

 2        Q.   Fair enough.  And now the findings that you have for these

 3     Unscheduled Incidents that are contained in this report for this trial,

 4     are you now telling me that that is based on something more than just the

 5     incident descriptions, that is to say that you had other material when

 6     drafting this?

 7        A.   That is correct.

 8        Q.   And that other material is the material that you cannot find.

 9     Can you at least identify for us what that material would be?

10        A.   I do refer in the first one for Nedzarici in the additional

11     information, there I do recall that there was a witness statement by the

12     two friends of the victim.  But for -- since the initial document was

13     written in 2009 -- no, 2006, the end of 2006, I -- I wouldn't -- I

14     couldn't exactly state which documents I -- I had at my disposal at the

15     time.

16        Q.   Do you know if the Prosecution kept any list of documents that it

17     provided for you or which you stated that you relied upon for purposes of

18     these three incidents, these three Unscheduled Incidents?

19        A.   I would not know that.

20        Q.   Okay.  With respect to the written descriptions or summaries that

21     are mentioned, did you ever ask the Prosecution what the sources were for

22     this information that was contained in these summaries or descriptions?

23        A.   Since I don't remember exactly what the documents were, I could

24     not -- I could not form a question [sic].  I do remember that when

25     visiting the locations, I was provided with information by the

Page 6538

 1     investigator with -- and the information that he had was from witness

 2     statements and other documents.

 3             So I did have the information from the investigator, but as for

 4     the documents, I don't know where that information came from.

 5        Q.   Let me see if I can understand you correctly.

 6             First of all, when you went out into the field to examine these

 7     locations, am I correct that the investigator from the Office of the

 8     Prosecutor is the one that told you where the purported shooter came

 9     from, where -- the direction from which the shots came from?

10        A.   Well, he was amongst one of the sources that -- that told me

11     of --  that gave information about the direction of the -- of the

12     location of the shooter, but in the -- in the -- I think it is list of --

13     the indictment list with -- which states -- or the initial list that I

14     got was an incident number, a date, a brief description, in most of the

15     cases also mentioned the point of origin for the shooter, and a GPS

16     co-ordinate.  So it was not something that I had heard for the first time

17     but it was something that was, again, pointed out to me by the

18     investigator.

19        Q.   This brief description which had a point of origin for the

20     shooter and also had a GPS co-ordinate, is that -- is that the

21     documentation that you no longer have, or is that something that you do

22     still have access to?

23        A.   I -- I still -- I also don't have that documentation.

24        Q.   And, to be clear, when you say that documentation had the point

25     of origin for the shooter and the GPS co-ordinates, are those point of

Page 6539

 1     origins -- point of origin and GPS co-ordinates that you determined or

 2     that were given to you by the Office of the Prosecutor?

 3        A.   Well, this was -- the point of origin in the documentation, it

 4     had the point of origin according to witnesses, from witness statements

 5     and the GPS co-ordinates as given, they came from the same source, so

 6     from the -- the investigator.  And if the point of origin would coincide

 7     with my findings, then I would use the same co-ordinates and that point

 8     of origin.

 9        Q.   Okay.  And were there instances where the co-ordinates that were

10     given to you by the OTP Prosecutor -- investigators did not correlate

11     with that which you have found?  I mean, how do we know that?  Where is

12     that reflected in your report?

13        A.   I would refer to case F12, which is the incident that was

14     discussed earlier this -- this morning.

15        Q.   Again, we're focussing now on the Unscheduled Incidents.

16        A.   Oh, the unscheduled.

17        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] ...

18        A.   Just a moment.

19             No, for the Unscheduled Incidents, I didn't change the GPS

20     co-ordinate.

21        Q.   Okay.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you, did you verify them?

23             THE WITNESS:  I verified them.  Yes.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.

25             MR. IVETIC:

Page 6540

 1        Q.   For the first of these Unscheduled Incidents - that would be at

 2     page 73 in the English in e-court, page 72 in the hard copy before us -

 3     you talk about the witness having civilian clothing.

 4             For the second incident - unscheduled, at page 78 in e-court,

 5     page 77 in the hard copy - you also focus on the victim wearing civilian

 6     clothing.  And, lastly, at page 83 in e-court, 82 in the hard copy, of

 7     the English, for the third incident, and the position -- the third

 8     incident, you mention that the victim was not wearing a uniform?

 9             The question I want to ask you is as follows:  Did this

10     information -- did the information that the Office of the Prosecutor gave

11     to you, which I understand that you no longer have and can no longer

12     identify for us, did it include any information or descriptions from

13     other witnesses as to the extent that combatants in Sarajevo during the

14     relevant time-period were dressed in civilian or military clothing?  The

15     extent to which combatants would have been dressed in civilian clothing.

16        A.   No.  It was solely the information for the -- for the victims

17     themselves.

18        Q.   Did you have any independent information or undertake any

19     independent investigation to determine the prevalence of combatants

20     wearing civilian clothing in Sarajevo during this time-period?

21        A.   Well, I clearly remember from items on the -- on the daily news

22     at that time that there was a mix, at least, of military and civilian

23     clothing.  On both sides.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, please assist me.  This -- does this

25     witness give any specific opinion about the status of the victim?  Or

Page 6541

 1     does he just say civilian clothing, therefore, you could think of that

 2     person to be a civilian.

 3             Does he make any determination on the basis of his expertise?

 4     Because, otherwise, it's -- it's useless to ask him about this.  He

 5     receives information which comes from third sources that people were

 6     wearing civilian clothes.  Whether it is complete or not, the witness

 7     couldn't tell us.  He doesn't draw any conclusions apart from that, in

 8     general terms, clothing may be an element in identifying a victim, as a

 9     child, as a woman, as -- even perhaps as a civilian.  But are there any

10     conclusions on that?

11             MR. IVETIC:  Well, I'm confused, Your Honour.  On page -- I'm at

12     page 77 of the hard copy right now, and I believe it has a very specific

13     conclusion that says, This would have enabled the shooter to identify her

14     as a civilian.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, would enable.  Of course, not she was a

16     civilian, is it?

17             MR. IVETIC:  Right.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So as he has explained in other parts of the

19     report, clothing may assist.  And "would have enabled," is, of course, is

20     a very soft language, isn't it?

21             MR. IVETIC:  Well, if it's in an expert report that's being

22     presented for criminal liability, I don't think anything is very soft,

23     Your Honour, to be honest with you.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, then, perhaps there's a difference of

25     interpretation of what the report says here, that it was an element which

Page 6542

 1     would lead rather in the direction of the person being a civilian than a

 2     military person.  That seems to be the issue.

 3             The point you wanted to make seems to be clear to me.  Please

 4     move on.

 5             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

 6        Q.   Would you agree with me that for all three of these

 7     Unscheduled Incidents that we have in this section of your report the

 8     source of fire given to you by the Prosecution was exclusively VRS

 9     positions, Army of Republika Srpska positions?

10        A.   I wouldn't agree.  I was given the location only, so I know that

11     the Sharpstone was the point of origin.  At that time of the report, I

12     wasn't provided with a map that showed the positions, so I only point

13     where the -- where I think the shooter must have been, and if that

14     coincides with VRS positions, then he might have been VRS.  I don't

15     anywhere indicate that the shooter was VRS.

16        Q.   Well, let me see if I can understand your methodology.

17             You obtained from the Prosecution's investigator a set of

18     coordinates for a probable sniper location, or shooter location; let's

19     keep it simple.  You go into the field, you do your analysis, and you

20     either verify that that position is possible, or you exclude that

21     position as being a possibility.

22             In the event that you verify a possibility for that location to

23     be the source of fire, do you stop looking for other potential sources of

24     fire that could also be potentially possible sources for the fire.  That

25     is, also have an equal line of sight to the target, that also are within

Page 6543

 1     ranges that weapons and ammunition could reach?

 2             That's what I'm asking, sir.

 3        A.   I take into account all possibilities and then eliminate them on

 4     technical possibility, and after technical, I will go to tactical

 5     possibilities.

 6        Q.   And when you say you eliminate -- that you take into account all

 7     possibilities and then eliminate them, how could you take into account

 8     the BiH positions and either eliminate them or verify them, if you were

 9     not given those positions by the Office of the Prosecutor?

10        A.   Well, the reports -- I visited the village of Sedrenik and

11     Sharpstone twice.  The first time I wasn't able to visit Sharpstone

12     itself, since it was -- there was still mine clearing going on at the

13     location, and there was a heavy fog.  I did see trenches at the -- around

14     Sharpstone, so that it's a indication there were at least positions from

15     either party.

16             And for the BiH positions, I was given a general line where

17     the -- of where the BiH positions had been which was at the -- at the

18     base of Sharpstone, and unless the BiH positions would have been in

19     houses immediately bordering on the square where the incident took place,

20     then it could have been from those positions.

21             But from what I understood, the information provided to me, was

22     that the -- that the BiH didn't have any positions on that -- on that

23     intersection where the incident took place.

24        Q.   Would you agree with me that for each of these

25     Unscheduled Incidents, your conclusions presuppose that the victims were

Page 6544

 1     the intended targets of the shooter?

 2        A.   Yes, I would.

 3        Q.   Would you further agree with me that for each of those three

 4     Unscheduled Incidents, your conclusions presuppose that the shooter was a

 5     trained sniper, rather than a marksman or ordinary soldier?

 6        A.   No, I don't agree.

 7        Q.   Would you further agree with me that for each of these three

 8     Unscheduled Incidents, your exclusions presuppose that the shooter used a

 9     weapon equipped with an optical sight capable of magnification of at

10     least four times?

11        A.   Presuppose, I don't know if that's the correct word for it.  I do

12     believe that if the shooter wouldn't have a optical sight, he would have

13     great difficulty in even spotting the target.

14        Q.   If we can turn to the second of the Unscheduled Incidents.

15     Page 73 in the hard copy, page 74 of the e-court in English, and I have

16     page 94 in B/C/S, if that is accurate.

17             And, for this incident, we see here that you have listed the

18     alleged shooting position being 850 to 950 metres away from the target?

19     Based upon our earlier discussion, would you agree that this would be

20     what you had termed a very difficult long shot -- long-range shot?

21        A.   It's a difficult long-range shot, I agree.

22        Q.   Would you agree with me that you cannot know if there are any

23     other targets in the area on that day that may have been the intended

24     target which resulted in a missed shot that could have struck this victim

25     in the manner we discussed before?

Page 6545

 1        A.   No, I don't agree.

 2        Q.   Okay.  If we can turn to page 78 in the hard copy, 79 in the

 3     English in e-court, page 100 in the B/C/S in e-court, we should be

 4     looking at the third Unscheduled Incident.

 5             And I'd like to ask you with respect to that incident -- I guess

 6     it's actually page -- yeah.  79 in e-court, 78 in hard copy.  The alleged

 7     shooting position was 950 to 1.050 metres from the victim.  Would this

 8     also qualify as a long-range shot scenario?

 9        A.   Yes, it would.

10        Q.   And, in this case, would you agree with me that you cannot know

11     if there were any other targets in the area on the day of the incident

12     that may have been the intended target which resulted in a missed shot

13     that could have struck this victim in the manner we discussed before?

14        A.   No, I wouldn't agree.

15        Q.   Here, on this page, it is recorded that the victim heard 20 or

16     more shots.

17             Now, you attribute this to being a machine-gun that was firing at

18     her.  I put it to you, sir, that you have missed a very plausible and

19     common-sense explanation that there was an exchange of gun-fire between

20     combatant forces and that the 20 shots didn't have to come from the same

21     weapon.  Would you agree with me that you cannot exclude to a degree of

22     scientific certainty that this, in fact, was the case?

23        A.   Could you rephrase that question, please.

24        Q.   Sure.  Would you agree with me that another plausible possibility

25     for this woman hearing 20 shots is that there was an active exchange of

Page 6546

 1     gun-fire between combatant forces and that the 20 shots did not come from

 2     the same weapon?

 3        A.   I agree that if someone hears 20 shots there is a possibility.

 4     However, with the positions on top of Sharpstone and positions on the

 5     lower slopes of Sharpstone, the difference in sound would have been a lot

 6     different -- would have been very different than if she -- if the victim

 7     would have positions very close by.  I don't believe that as in the other

 8     incidents that it's a possibility that there was a missed shell because

 9     of the geographical situation on the ground.

10        Q.   I'm asking you a different question, sir.  You have gone on

11     record in your report basing the fact that the weapon that must have been

12     used in this incident was a machine-gun, and you based that on the fact

13     that the victim states hearing 20 or more shots just after she was hit.

14             My question for you, sir, is how did you exclude the possibility

15     that the 20 or more shots she heard was return fire or some other type of

16     fire as opposed to being from the same weapon?  What scientific method

17     did you use to exclude that possibility?

18             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  I would, Your Honour, just object to the form of

19     the question that he has gone on record as saying that it must be this.

20     Because that is not exactly what he says in his report.  Where it says

21     "it indicates."

22             JUDGE ORIE:  We are talking about Unscheduled 2?

23             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  Page 78 in the hard copy.  And it

24     says --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  One of the two machine-guns left is the weapon that

Page 6547

 1     must have been used in this incident.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

 3             Ms. Hochhauser, seems to be rather strong conclusion.  Nothing

 4     but one of the two machine-guns.

 5             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  I apologise, Your Honour.  I missed that

 6     sentence.  I was looking at the first sentence of that paragraph.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 8             Please proceed.

 9             MR. IVETIC:

10        Q.   Sir, I would ask you to please answer my question.

11             As an expert trained in your field, what scientific method did

12     you utilise to exclude the possibility that the 20 or more shots she

13     heard were from other weapons.

14        A.   What scientific method is something that I would not really call

15     it, but it's -- it's based on the sound and distance, so the time -- the

16     time-lapse between them is she heard 20 or more shots.  If there were

17     weapons that had been fired at the same time at other targets in her

18     area, she would experience those 20 shots possibly from more weapons.

19     That's a -- that's true.  But if there had been an exchange of fire at

20     that distance because the -- the fighting line was -- the front line was

21     approximately 750 metres away from her position, she would hardly be able

22     to hear shooting that was going on at short range with other calibre

23     weapons.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, I'm looking at the clock.  We have to

25     conclude for the day.

Page 6548

 1             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, we do.  Thank you.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you give us an estimate as to how much time

 3     you would still need tomorrow?

 4             MR. IVETIC:  I believe I'll still on track to finish within the,

 5     I believe, three and a half hours that we had anticipated for this

 6     witness.  I believe we have used up an hour and a half today, so that

 7     would mean two hours tomorrow.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Two hours -- two sessions tomorrow.

 9             Mr. Van der Weijden, I would like to instruct you that you should

10     not speak or communicate in any other way, with whomever, about your

11     testimony, and we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.30 in this

12     same courtroom, I.

13             You may follow the usher.

14                           [The witness stands down]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  We adjourn for the day, and we resume tomorrow,

16     Friday, the 11th of January, at 9.30 in this same courtroom, I.

17                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.16 p.m.,

18                           to be reconvened on Friday, the 11th day of

19                           January, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.