Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 18704

 1                           Monday, 4 November 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             Mr. 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             Thank you.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

12             There seem to be no preliminaries, which means that we go into

13     closed session to hear the remainder of the testimony of the present

14     witness.

15                           [Closed session]

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)


Page 18705











11 Pages 18705-18748 redacted. Closed session.
















Page 18749

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11                           [Open session]

12             THE REGISTRAR:  We're back in open session, Your Honours.  Thank

13     you.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

15             May I take it, Mr. Groome, that the Prosecution is ready to call

16     Mr. Higgs after the break?

17             MR. GROOME:  That's correct, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we take a break, and we resume at 20 minutes

19     past 12.00.

20                           --- Recess taken at 11.59 a.m.

21                           --- On resuming at 12.22 p.m.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  The witness may be escorted into the courtroom.

23             MR. GROOME:  Your Honours, if I can deal briefly with a residual

24     matter from the last witness.

25             We have uploaded a corrected version of the document.  It can be


Page 18750

 1     found in 65 ter 13858A, so at this time we would move that into evidence.

 2     The Chamber's already assigned the number, P2603.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 4             Mr. Registrar, 65 ter 13858A is admitted into evidence, and

 5     appears under the number P2603 already reserved for that purpose.

 6                           [The witness entered court]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  No need to have it under seal, Mr. Groome, I take

 8     it.

 9             MR. GROOME:  No, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Higgs.

11             THE WITNESS:  Good morning, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Higgs, before you give evidence, the Rules

13     require that you make a solemn declaration.  The text is now handed out

14     to you.  May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.

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

16     whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

17                           WITNESS:  RICHARD HIGGS

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please be seated, Mr. Higgs.

19             Mr. Higgs, you'll first be examined by Mr. Weber.  Mr. Weber is

20     counsel for the Prosecution and you'll find him to your right.

21             Mr. Weber, you may proceed.

22             MR. WEBER:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Thank you.

23                           Examination by Mr. Weber:

24        Q.   Mr. Higgs, could you please introduce yourself to the

25     Trial Chamber?

Page 18751

 1        A.   Good morning.  My name is Mr. Richard Higgs.

 2        Q.   Is it correct that you served in the British Army for 22 years

 3     from 1980 to the year 2002?

 4        A.   That is correct.

 5        Q.   Could you please give the Trial Chamber a general overview of

 6     your duties between 1987 and 2002.

 7        A.   During that time I worked for a specialist branch within the army

 8     called the Small Arms School Corps, which specialises in technical

 9     weaponry and the training of those weapons.  I started, first of all,

10     using and training small arms weaponry, but then transferred across to

11     dedicated mortar training, and then finished my time with the army as the

12     senior technical expert for the British Army on mortars.

13             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 30280 for

14     the witness.

15        Q.   Mr. Higgs, is this the report that you completed for the Mladic

16     case on the 8th of October, 2012.

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   On this first page of the report, you indicate that in the course

19     of your duties you supervised the firing of over 14.000 rounds a year and

20     conducting the firing of as many as 4.000 rounds in one day.

21             Could you please explain to us the purpose of these firing

22     exercises.

23        A.   These exercises spanned from small training exercises with

24     individual mortar platoons in some cases, right up to a battalion, corps,

25     and divisional level exercises in many countries around the world.

Page 18752

 1        Q.   Throughout the remainder of this report, do you provide analysis

 2     concerning the general functioning of mortars in five particular shelling

 3     incidents?

 4        A.   Yes, I do.

 5        Q.   Did you personally visit the five locations discussed in your

 6     report?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Have you testified before this Tribunal as an expert witness on

 9     three previous occasions in the Galic, Dragomir Milosevic, and Karadzic

10     cases?

11        A.   Yes, I have.

12        Q.   Did you have the opportunity to review portions of your previous

13     testimony from the Milosevic and Karadzic cases before today?

14        A.   Yes, I have.

15        Q.   In the Milosevic case, did you provide additional testimony

16     concerning your experience with mortar investigations?

17        A.   Yes.

18             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 30277,

19     page 5, for the witness.

20        Q.   Mr. Higgs, this is a transcript from your previous testimony in

21     the Milosevic case.  Directing your attention to line 14, do you have any

22     corrections or clarification to your answer that begins, "When they can

23     obtain ..."

24        A.   Yes, I think that's possibly due to translation, what that should

25     say is "when they cannot obtain a direct line of sight."

Page 18753

 1        Q.   Are there any other corrections or clarifications to your

 2     previous testimony that you would like to make in either the Milosevic or

 3     Karadzic cases?

 4        A.   No.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, is there any reason why you use a not

 6     official, not corrected version of the transcript, rather than an

 7     official one?

 8             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I can check into that.  But ... if I

 9     could just have one moment.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

11                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

12             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I'd be happy to look into it and I will

13     get back to you as soon as I possibly can.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             Please proceed.

16             MR. WEBER:

17        Q.   If you were asked the same questions that you were asked during

18     these previous testimonies, would you provide the same answers, in

19     substance?

20        A.   Yes.

21             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution would

22     tender five items.  The Prosecution requests admission of the curriculum

23     vitae for the witness under 65 ter 11036; the report of the witness under

24     65 ter 30280; portions of the previous testimony of the witness from the

25     Milosevic case under 65 ter 30277; and the Karadzic case under

Page 18754

 1     65 ter 30278; lastly, the Prosecution tenders one not admitted associated

 2     exhibit form the Karadzic case.  It is an UNMO sitrep from 30 August 1995

 3     after the Markale II incident under 65 ter 11190.

 4             And, Your Honour, in light of your inquiry, if the Milosevic

 5     testimony could remain marked for identification I'll check the official

 6     version.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, let's take them one by one CV to start

 8     with.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  No objections.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Report.

11             MR. LUKIC:  We object to those three report and to excerpts from

12     the transcript in the line with our motion from 98th [sic] of

13     August 2013.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And then the last one was the 11190.

15             MR. LUKIC:  No objections.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections.

17             Mr. Registrar, we'll take them one.  11036, CV of the witness.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Shall be assigned Exhibit P2604.  Thank you.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

20             The next three will be marked for identification, both because a

21     decision will be taken only after the end of the examination of the

22     witness, but, also, as far as the Milosevic transcript is concerned

23     because there is a -- in view of the version that has been used until now

24     for which we will further -- we'll receive further information.

25             30280, the report will receive, Mr. --

Page 18755

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P2605, MFI.  Thank you.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  P2605 is marked for identification.

 3             30277, Milosevic excerpt of Milosevic transcript.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Shall be P2606.  Thank you.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  P2606 is marked for identification.

 6             Excerpts from the Karadzic testimony, 30278.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Shall be assigned P2607.  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Marked for identification.

 9             Finally, 65 ter 11190.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Shall be assigned Exhibit P2608.  Thank you.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  P2608 is admitted into evidence.

12             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution requests

13     leave to present a public summary of witness's evidence.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Please read it for the public.

15             MR. WEBER:  Mr. Richard Higgs provides expert evidence regarding

16     the overall capabilities, operation and effects of mortars as well as the

17     methods of determining the source and direction of mortar fire.  The

18     witness provides opinion, observations, and assessments of scheduled

19     shelling incidents in Sarajevo, including the 1 June 1993 shelling of a

20     football match in Dobrinja, G4; the 22 January 1994 shelling in the area

21     of Alipasino Polje, G6; the 4 February 1994 shelling of a humanitarian

22     distribution location in Dobrinja, G7; and both Markale I and Markale II.

23             This concludes the summary of the witness.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Weber.  Could I ask clarification for

25     something I really did not understand until now already.

Page 18756

 1             Mr. Higgs you said that your supervised the firing of over 14.000

 2     rounds in a year, and you conducted the firing of as many as 4.000 rounds

 3     in one day.

 4             It came to my mind that after three and a half days you're done.

 5     Is that -- how could I -- how should I your testimony in this respect?

 6             THE WITNESS:  The two figures are not directly related in -- in

 7     the same year, Your Honour.  It was just making the point that in some of

 8     the exercise I was supervising we were firing in excess of 4.000 rounds a

 9     day.  And over a period of a year, in most years, in excess of 14.000

10     round.  Some years would be more than that and some years would be less.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So when you said and conducting the fire of as

12     many as 4.000 rounds you were still talking about supervising them and

13     that you had very busy days, but easy days as well.

14             THE WITNESS:  Exactly, Your Honour.  So I was responsible for all

15     the firing that was taking place.  That is not me personally firing a

16     single mortar firing 4.000 rounds.  That's me possibly supervising one or

17     two or three battalions firing many mortars on the same day.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed.

19             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

20        Q.   Today, I like to beginning by discussing with you the purpose of

21     mortars.

22             On page 5.000 of your previous testimony in the Milosevic case,

23     you state:

24             "A mortar round is designed primarily to kill personnel.  They

25     are not destruct weapons, i.e., for blowing up large targets, buildings,

Page 18757

 1     and so on."

 2             In this respect, could you explain how mortars are designed to

 3     kill personnel.

 4        A.   The general design of a mortar round is one where the body of the

 5     round is manufactured in a way where it is maximised to fragment into

 6     small pieces, and therefore cause the maximum damage possible to

 7     personnel, infantry in the open.  Mortar rounds break up into the smaller

 8     pieces; whereas your larger artillery rounds predominantly break up into

 9     large pieces of shrapnel.  So that is the main difference between them.

10        Q.   You indicate that they are not destruct weapons.  From a military

11     perspective, would firing one or two mortars be an effective means of

12     targeting buildings in urban areas where civilians are present?

13        A.   No, this wouldn't, for the reason I have already mentioned.  Even

14     with the larger mortars, i.e., the 120-millimetres, if you are trying to

15     destruct a building then you would need to fire far more than just one or

16     two rounds.  It would require many, many, more rounds to get them the

17     destruct capability that you're trying to achieve.

18        Q.   On page --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, you were mixing up two things in your

20     question, I think.  You asked whether mortars be an effective means of

21     targeting buildings in urban areas and then you added where civilians are

22     present.

23             Would it make any difference in the destructive power whether

24     civilians are present or not?  I mean, I did understand that it is a

25     feature of the weapon which makes it unfit to destroy buildings so

Page 18758

 1     irrespective or whether there are -- who is around.

 2             MR. WEBER:  I was going ask another question.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please proceed.

 4             MR. WEBER:

 5        Q.   It one would fire one to two rounds in an urban area where

 6     civilians were present, do you have any views of the intended purpose of

 7     such firings?

 8        A.   When firing mortar ammunition because you want to have the

 9     maximum effect when the round lands, if we were trying to neutralise a

10     target, for instance, a larger military target, then we would fire far

11     more than one or two rounds.  We would normally concentrate our fire.  So

12     higher numbers, so then get maximum effect on the ground.  The only time

13     we fire small numbers of rounds is when we are trying to harass the

14     target.  So by firing small numbers into an area then prevents movement

15     of people in that area.  So firing small numbers rounds is more of a

16     harassing-type mission than a killing or a destruction-type mission.

17        Q.   Thank you.  On page 3 of your report, you list the general type

18     of available fuses.  You indicate that air-burst fuses are for personnel

19     in the open or for trenches without overhead cover.  Could you please

20     briefly explain to us how these fuses operate and what is their purpose.

21        A.   There are different types of air-burst fuses which can either

22     work on a mechanical time-type fuse or on an electronic-type proximity

23     fuse.  And these are set then to detonate the round above ground level.

24     So they'll detonate in the air above the troops, so that then the

25     shrapnel from those rounds would then go downwards into the ground

Page 18759

 1     causing the maximum casualties possible.

 2        Q.   Do air-burst fuses leave any type of crater?

 3        A.   No, these fuses will not leave a crater as they don't hit the

 4     ground.  They will leave shrapnel marks on the ground, from where the

 5     shrapnel lands, but there will be no crater.

 6        Q.   Were air-burst fuses used in any of the incidents you reviewed

 7     for this case?

 8        A.   Not on the cases I reviewed.

 9        Q.   Another type of fuse you describe is a direct action fuse.  Could

10     you please explain how this type of fuse operates.

11        A.   This type of fuse detonates when it hits a surface, hence the

12     word direct action.  And the fuse on striking the ground will then

13     detonate and some of these fuses also have the compatibility to be set on

14     what is called a delay setting, which will cause the fuse to have a small

15     delay before the round then detonates.

16        Q.   Were direct action fuses used in any of the incidents you

17     reviewed in this case and, if so, were you able to determine whether

18     these fuses were set for an instantaneous or a delayed explosion?

19        A.   It appears from the investigations that I carried out that on the

20     cases that direct action fuses were used, and they were set on to their

21     Super Quick function.

22        Q.   When you say "Super Quick" function what does that mean?

23        A.   Not delay.

24        Q.   What is the primary effect that is achieved by using such a fuse?

25        A.   The primary effect is that this round will burst at ground level

Page 18760

 1     on contact with a surface, and due to the way the round is constructed,

 2     then, of course, the blast will go out sideways giving maximum effect of

 3     a single round.  If it was set on delay, then the rounds would dig into

 4     the ground and therefore have less of -- the shrapnel would have less

 5     effect.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask one question.

 7             You said this round will burst at ground level if the ground is

 8     the first obstacle it finds on its way.  Would it be above ground level

 9     if it hits a building or ...

10             THE WITNESS:  Correct, Your Honour.  So it will detonate when it

11     hits its first obstacle in its flight path, whether that be a roof of a

12     building or the ground.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

14             MR. WEBER:

15        Q.   If a direct action fuse is set for delayed explosion, would the

16     crater pattern be different?

17        A.   Yes, they would.

18        Q.   How so?

19        A.   Because the ground -- the mortar round is now digging into the

20     ground, the crater or the burst pattern is completely different because

21     the round now is not above the ground level when it is detonating.  It is

22     now dug into the ground, so you get more of a deep crater as opposed

23     to -- which you may see in some of your pictures like a flash where it

24     has gone off at ground level.  So you would expect to see a deeper hole

25     in the ground if it has been set on to delay.

Page 18761

 1             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have P644, page 9 of the

 2     English original and page 8 of the B/C/S translation.

 3        Q.   Mr. Higgs, while this next exhibit is coming up, I just want to

 4     let you know for the remainder of today I'm going to focus on some

 5     particular aspects of the individual shellings.  I will start with the

 6     football match in Dobrinja on 1 June 1993, incident G4.

 7             The UNPROFOR crater analysis for this incident is now before you.

 8     Did you review this report by Captain Houdet as part of your analysis?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   In the analysis for crater 1 and crater 2, the report indicates

11     that the splinter patterns show that there is a minimum calibre of

12     81 millimetres.  Do you agree with these conclusions?

13        A.   Yes, from when I visited the site and seeing the craters that

14     were there, they resembled what I would call a medium mortar, i.e., one

15     of 81- or 82-millimetre calibre.

16        Q.   Directing your attention to conclusion number 1, which states:

17             "The distance between crater 1 and the roof of the buildings

18     indicates a minimum angle of descent of 40.5 degrees."

19             Is this consistent with your own personal observations of the

20     minimum angle of descent between these craters and the buildings to the

21     east?

22        A.   Yes, it is.

23        Q.   In your report on this incident, you can conclude that:

24             "The mortar rounds must have been fired from the Serb side of the

25     confrontation lines."

Page 18762

 1             Could you please explain what you base this conclusion upon.

 2        A.   Looking at the pattern of the -- the craters in the ground,

 3     indicated an approximate angle that the mortar rounds would have struck

 4     the target, as they gave an indication that the mortar rounds did not

 5     arrive at an extremely low angle of descent and they did not arrive in an

 6     extremely high angle of descent.  So they arrived in, what I would call,

 7     a common angle of descent, somewhere between the two extremities.  Using

 8     this and then looking at range tables, either ranges, the mortars could

 9     achieve this sort of pattern, gives you ranges of 300 metres plus because

10     a mortar could achieve that sort of angle with any of the charges

11     available to it but with a minimum range of 300 metres.  And in this

12     case, the confrontation lines being so close, I think the estimation was

13     only 200 to 250 metres away, would mean that to get that pattern on the

14     ground the mortar would have to have fired from somewhere -- where the

15     other side of the confrontation line.

16             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution now please have P865, page 21

17     of the B/C/S version only.

18        Q.   Mr. Higgs, while this is being called up, I'm going to move on

19     and discuss with you briefly the shelling on 22 January 1994 in the area

20     of Alipasino Polje - this is incident G6 - where the children were

21     sledding.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  This is a confidential document, thank you.

23             MR. WEBER:  Thank you.

24        Q.   Do you recognise this photograph from the BiH MUP investigation

25     of this incident?

Page 18763

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Based on this photograph, can you determine what calibre of

 3     mortar caused this crater?

 4        A.   From the -- the picture we have, the crater seems to be very

 5     small, with minimal damage to the top of the surface, which would

 6     indicate it's more possible or likely to have been a medium mortar, i.e.,

 7     around 82-millimetre calibre, rather than the 120-millimetre.

 8        Q.   Would the pattern of this crater have been different if it was

 9     caused by a 120-millimetre round?

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, has that question not been answered by

11     the answer of the previous question?

12             MR. WEBER:  It has, but if the witness -- I'm just asking in case

13     the witness has an opinion as to some different characteristics that

14     would not have been present.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  If it would not have been different, of course, he

16     could not have said that the pattern is most likely of a medium mortar, I

17     mean, otherwise he would have said, I can't see the difference.

18             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  If the witness wants to add anything to his previous

20     answer, he can do so.

21             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

22        Q.   On page 9 of your report you state that the two 82-millimetre

23     rounds "fell exactly as the mortar crew would have intended and will have

24     caused maximum casualties among those trying to take cover."

25             Could you please explain to us how you reached this conclusion.

Page 18764

 1        A.   The two mortar rounds in this case here were fired in the -- the

 2     open -- the street in front of buildings with one round landing short

 3     time before the second and again with a dispersion -- a -- a distance

 4     apart.  So to cause maximum casualties one way of doing this would be to

 5     fire one round, first of all, then knowing that people will move around

 6     in that area on finding out what is going on or running for cover and

 7     then fire the second round, of course, to make maximum use of that

 8     particular case.  So that's how you would, in this case here, if that was

 9     the plan, by firing these two rounds at slightly distance apart with a

10     shall time gap between them as well.

11        Q.   I'd like to move on and discuss with you the shelling of the

12     humanitarian distribution line on 4 February 1994, incident G7.

13             You make the observation on page 9 of your report that:

14             "When I visited the scene, you become aware that the distances

15     between these rounds falling is actually not very far.  In all, a

16     distance of approximately 40 metres radius from the first to the last

17     rounds."

18             What does the distance between these impacts indicate to you?

19        A.   Because these rounds are reasonably close together, it could

20     indicate that it could have all been fired from a single mortar because

21     the distances then between the rounds could quite easily be within the

22     acceptable accuracy of a single mortar barrel firing all three rounds.

23        Q.   You indicate in the report that these rounds were fired

24     deliberately.  This is a comment that you repeat also in other parts of

25     your report.

Page 18765

 1             Could you please just generally explain to us what you mean by

 2     the term "deliberate"?

 3        A.   In firing of mortars, the word deliberate means that on firing a

 4     mortar that a charge has been selected, a bearing has then been placed

 5     onto the sight, then to allow the fire, of course, then to impact the

 6     ground where he intended to be.  So that is what we call a deliberate

 7     fire.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, could I ask --

 9             I take it that you always have to select the bearing.  You can't

10     fire a mortar without selecting a bearing.

11             THE WITNESS:  No, Your Honour, that is not true.  You can fire

12     mortars in different ways.  You can fire a mortar by direct fire, first

13     of all, if you happen to have a mortar that can see the target from

14     the -- the mortar position.  They can actually use their sight to engage

15     directly and so they won't have to use an observer.  So that is one

16     method.

17             The second method using an observer is where you have correct

18     charges, bearings and elevations that you have set on the sight from

19     information given to you from an observer.  And in some cases it could be

20     possible to fire a mortar just into an area where you are not putting any

21     particular bearings onto the sight but to -- but just by pointing into an

22     area and selecting a charge so that you would know that a round is going

23     to land in just in a -- a large area but a known area, so you really can

24     fire the mortar in three ways, so direct fire by using correct charge

25     bearing and elevations or by just pointing into a general direction if

Page 18766

 1     that is the wishes of the persons who is firing it.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then I must have misunderstood you.  Because

 3     even if you do it by direct fire, then you're still determining a bearing

 4     where it should go, et cetera, but you do it in a different way.

 5             THE WITNESS:  Yeah, you do it in a different way --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  That's the reason why I asked you this.  Because is

 7     there any firing of a mortar which is not deliberate?  That means you

 8     want to hit a target or an area or whatever, that's all always

 9     deliberate, opposite to firing at random or just not knowing what you're

10     doing.

11             THE WITNESS:  Well, if you wasn't targeting a specific area, if

12     for some reason you just wanted to fire a round into a general area for

13     harassment or something like that, then you actually wouldn't have to put

14     on precise bearings onto the mortar because purely from that work you

15     could just point in the general direction, you know how far it is going

16     to go per charge, and you could, if you wanted to, just fire a round into

17     a general area.  This, however, for reasons we've already mentioned would

18     not be a very accurate way of firing the weapons system.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  But it still would be deliberately doing

20     something.

21             THE WITNESS:  You would still - yes - be deliberately doing

22     something.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  That is not to clearly select an area but just to

24     take a wide area or an approximate area which is still a decision-making

25     process as well.

Page 18767

 1             THE WITNESS:  Yes, correct.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  So, therefore, I'm a bit puzzled by deliberate and

 3     non-deliberate firing, but I know do understand, more or less, what you

 4     meant by that.

 5             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 7             MR. WEBER:

 8        Q.   I just have a few more incidents to discuss with you.  Have you

 9     previously reviewed materials and analysed the shelling that occurred on

10     18 June 1995 at a water distribution point in the Simon Bulevar school

11     located in Dobrinja?

12        A.   Yes.

13             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have P997, page 8 of the

14     English original.  Your Honours, the B/C/S translation of this, I see, is

15     incomplete and I will be working of the English translation.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  If there's any portion you would like to use, then

17     you should briefly read it so that it will be translated for the accused.

18             Please proceed.

19             MR. WEBER:  [Overlapping speakers] ... thank you.

20        Q.   Mr. Higgs, this is the UNMO daily sitrep dated 19 June 1995, a

21     day after the shelling of the Simon Bulevar school.  Directing your

22     attention to the 7th entry from the top the one that states:

23             "1146B," then in the next column, "OP-4," then, "one explosion or

24     XPL," then the word, "unknown," then going across it states, "Dobrinja

25     with a grid reference."  And then in the column to the far right, it

Page 18768

 1     says, "fired BSA."

 2             Does the time of this entry correspond to when the shelling of

 3     the water collection point at the Simon Bulevar school occurred?

 4        A.   Yes, it does.

 5        Q.   With respect to the six-digit grid reference which for the record

 6     states B, as in boy, P865564 under the word Dobrinja, does this grid

 7     reference correspond to the approximate location where the shell impacted

 8     upon a wall of the school?

 9        A.   Yes, it does.

10             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please move forward to page 12

11     of the English version of this exhibit.

12        Q.   Mr. Higgs, I had be drawing your attention to the section that

13     states:

14             "UNMO team SW-2 carried out investigation of 120-millimetre mor,

15     origin approx 320 MAG.  Difficult to confirm, fragments removed by local

16     CIVPOL, and impact was on concrete wall 4 had M above ground level.  The

17     impact site was a water collection point.  UNMOs were allowed to Kosovo

18     hospital and the morgue where they could confirm 7 Civ killed."

19             Do these findings of the UNMO investigation team with respect to

20     that 320 MAG correspond to the findings of the BiH MUP related to this

21     shelling?

22        A.   Yes, they do.

23        Q.   Before asking you a few specific questions about Markale I on

24     5 February 1994, could you please explain to us the kinetic forces that

25     are created when a mortar impacts upon a surface and explodes, both in

Page 18769

 1     terms of the shell which you've generally already explained and the

 2     stabiliser.

 3        A.   When a round is striking the ground, it is obviously through the

 4     air at a specific velocity, and the velocity for this impact on the

 5     ground will depend upon the charge that it's been fired at.  So the

 6     higher the charge, the faster the velocity, so the faster the round will

 7     impact the ground.

 8             When the round hits the ground and explodes, the force then will

 9     drive the -- the fuse part of the round into the ground which sometimes

10     gives what is known as a fuse furrow or a hole in the ground where the

11     fuse impacts itself into the ground.  The round explodes, forcing the

12     shrapnel out to the side because the rounds are designed for most of the

13     blast to go sideways to cause the maximum casualties.  And the tail-fin,

14     of course, at the rear of the round is also travelling forward at the

15     same speed as the round.  So this has the same velocity as it's

16     travelling forward as the round exploded, and so, therefore, again, at

17     the higher velocities because it is moving forward with a higher kinetic

18     energy which is why, as I explain in my earlier reports, is one of the

19     reasons we tend to see tail-fins in some of the craters as opposed to not

20     being in others because of the kinetic forces as round explodes and the

21     velocity of the ground.

22        Q.   With respect -- with respect to Markale I, do you have any views

23     on the distance to which the mortar came from based on the depth of the

24     stabiliser that was embedded into the ground?

25        A.   In Markale I, the tail-fins were embedded deeply into the ground,

Page 18770

 1     which would tend to indicate that that particular round was fired on a

 2     higher charge rather than being fired on a low charge.

 3        Q.   And when you say higher charge, what do you mean with respect to

 4     this incident?

 5        A.   With respect to this incident and the type of ground, i.e., being

 6     a hard surface, the higher charges would be charges 5 and charge 6.

 7        Q.   I'd like to finish today with discussing briefly with you your

 8     evidence about Markale II.  And, actually, since most of it is a part of

 9     your previous testimony, I'm going to show you just one exhibit.

10             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have P2055 for the

11     witness.

12        Q.   Mr. Higgs, did you review the still images and the video from

13     which they come prior to today?

14        A.   Yes, I have.

15        Q.   Based on these images, do they appear to show the same stabiliser

16     or a different stabiliser?

17        A.   From these two pictures, the damage caused to the tail-fins and

18     the body of the tail-fin, they appear to be the same stabiliser.

19        Q.   Are there any particular portions that are notable to you or

20     particular observations that you have that correspond between those two

21     photos?

22        A.   There is the -- the flattened nature of the tail-fins which

23     appears in both.  There is a polished upper surface to one of the

24     tail-fins which you can see on both, and also to the bottom right-hand

25     side corner of the main stem, you can see damage to the bottom right-hand


Page 18771

 1     corner which again appears on both.

 2             MR. WEBER:  I have no further questions for the witness.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Weber.

 4             Mr. Lukic, is it you or is it Mr. Ivetic who will cross-examine

 5     the witness.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  I will cross-examine the witness, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  You're pretty far away from the witness, and I have

 8     difficulties -- you are hidden more or less behind a pillar.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  I will move forward, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You know this Chamber always wants everyone to

11     move forward.  If you would not mind that -- to move to a place where our

12     communication is more direct.

13             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, I would, Your Honour.  I don't mind.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Higgs, bear with us for a moment, so that

15     Mr. Lukic is in full view.

16             Mr. Higgs, you'll be cross-examined by Mr. Lukic.  Mr. Lukic is

17     counsel for Mr. Mladic.

18             Mr. Ivetic, I think Mr. Mladic is seeking to consult with you.

19             MR. LUKIC:  Your Honour, I have one proposal.  If we can make

20     earlier break, since Mr. Mladic should leave the courtroom and he would

21     waive his right to be present today and tomorrow.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If that is -- I'm looking at Mr. Mladic.

23             Mr. Mladic, counsel tells us you would waive your right to attend

24     the proceedings from after the break we are about to take up till and

25     including tomorrow.  Could you -- I take it that counsel has expressed

Page 18772

 1     your views on the matter?

 2             In that case, we would take an early break, and we would start

 3     cross-examination after the break.

 4             I see you're nodding yes in respect of everything I said the last

 5     minute.  Yes.

 6             Then, Mr. Lukic -- could the witness first be escorted out of the

 7     courtroom.

 8                           [The witness stands down]

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll then take the break, and we resume at

10     25 minutes to 2.00.

11                           --- Recess taken at 1.14 p.m.

12                           [The accused not present]

13                           --- On resuming at 1.37 p.m.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  While we are waiting for the witness to be escorted

15     in the courtroom, I'd like to inform the parties that, to the extent

16     we'll need to sit in the first weeks of December, that we'll not sit on

17     Wednesdays; so, therefore, the 4th of December, and the 11th of December,

18     we would not sit.  We do not know yet whether we use those days around

19     these dates, but already to inform you that -- about this.

20                           [The witness takes the stand]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  I put on the record that Mr. Mladic is not present

22     in court.  Before the break, he explicitly waived his right to attend the

23     proceedings.

24             Mr. Lukic, if you are ready.

25             MR. LUKIC:  I am, Your Honour.


Page 18773

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Higgs, you'll now be cross-examined by

 2     Mr. Lukic.  Mr. Lukic is counsel for Mr. Mladic.

 3             Please proceed.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

 5                           Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:

 6        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Higgs.

 7        A.   Good afternoon.

 8        Q.   I will continue in B/C/S.  I think you don't mind.  I go swiftly

 9     in that way.

10             [Interpretation] In your report, P2605, you say that:

11             "It must be emphasised that I have been using evidence provided

12     only by third parties and that I arrived at my conclusions based on the

13     photographs of incidents and my experience with mortar incidents."

14             Now, I'm going to start with Markale II of 28th August 1995,

15     marked in the indictment as G18.

16             In the report, you say that:

17             "Based on the evidence presented to me, there is no reason for me

18     not to trust the reports compiled by other organisations.  They concluded

19     that the bearing of the round made -- and the crater made by the round is

20     170 degrees."

21             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we briefly have 65 ter 10221.

22        Q.   This is your report, as you can see, dated 3rd August, 2006.  We

23     need page 9 in B/C/S and page 10 in English.  Under sub-item E, second

24     paragraph you say:

25             "I looked at all of these reports and by using data supplied,

Page 18774

 1     pictures of the scene and maps of the area, I was able to confirm the

 2     correct trajectory by using these methods."

 3             Do you stand by this?

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 5             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, before we get too confused of a record,

 6     I would just note that the same sentence appears in -- on page 13 of the

 7     witness's current report in this case, which is P2605.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  With one exception.  Not in the report, we can

 9     read bearings instead of tragedy.

10             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Lukic, to the extent possible, please

12     include the report which was prepared for this case.

13             MR. LUKIC:  We will discuss both reports, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

16        Q.   [Interpretation] So, do you stand by this?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Does this mean that you have decided the bearing, the

19     angle of ascent, the angle of descent, the trajectory, and the flight

20     time of the projectile?

21        A.   There was nothing in the report to my recollection regarding the

22     flight time.

23        Q.   As for the other elements, is it correct that you have defined

24     them?

25        A.   Yes.  In my report, I looked at the evidence regarding the

Page 18775

 1     direction and the angle of descent.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Let us now briefly take a look at 65 ter 10233.

 3             This is a sketch indicating how the Sarajevo police determined

 4     the minimum angle of descent.  You had an opportunity to review this

 5     document, didn't you?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Did you check whether this angle of descent was correctly defined

 8     by them?

 9        A.   Yes.  I had a look at this, the measurements taken, and agreed

10     with their calculations.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

12             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, again, so we don't have too confused a

13     record, this document is contained in Exhibit P00498.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, it's part of an exhibit.

15             MR. LUKIC:  It's a large document, so ...

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17             MR. LUKIC:  Can -- can we have the page in that document so it's

18     clear for the record, please, if you can.

19             MR. WEBER:  I'd be happy to provide it.  I'm just looking it up.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll hear in a minute.

21             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Would you agree that if the angle of descent is less than

23     67 degrees, that shell would have hit a building or the building on the

24     market?

25        A.   Yes, that would be correct.  It would have hit somewhere on that

Page 18776

 1     building.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  And now let's briefly look at the direction from

 3     which the shell came or, rather, let's look at the way to establish the

 4     bearing of the pavement.

 5             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Therefore, I would like to go back to

 6     10221.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 8             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, before moving on to the next document,

 9     for the record, what was on our screens is P498, page 24 in the B/C/S and

10     page 22 in the original -- or in the English translation.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

12             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]  Thank you.  And now could the Court

13     produce the sit-report from the 26th of August -- or, rather, the

14     3rd of August, 2006, and let's look at page 12 in the English version.

15        Q.   Is it true that you determined the direction by looking at the

16     photo of the place of impact and the pattern on the asphalt, and, thus,

17     you determined an approximate direction of the flight based on the way or

18     the shape of the curb?

19        A.   Using the information, I was trying to determine which direction

20     the crater was facing, so I used the -- the picture and the line of the

21     curb and the edge of the buildings to see if the crater was facing

22     towards the buildings or, for instance, facing down the road so I could

23     then try and ascertain which direction is -- was more likely.

24        Q.   Look at the figure "185 deg."  What does that represent?  It is

25     degrees, I suppose.

Page 18777

 1        A.   That angle just represents the right angle to the curb, the

 2     right-angle direction.

 3        Q.   We have received a somewhat odd interpretation.  Is this the

 4     right angle, the normal angle of 90 degrees, with respect to the curb?

 5     We did not understand you in the interpretation, sir.

 6        A.   Yes.  90 degrees to the curb, yes.

 7        Q.   The direction of the line, which is marked as 175 degrees, this

 8     is what you based on the pattern of the fragments on the asphalt, and

 9     that represents the direction from which the shell had come; right?

10        A.   Yes.  I was looking at the general pattern of the crater and

11     seeing in which kind of general direction it lines up.

12        Q.   In that case, when you drew a line which is normal with respect

13     to the curb, the 176, you looked whether the angle was to the left or to

14     the right, with respect to that line; is that correct?

15        A.   Yes, I took the line -- a general line which in this case the 275

16     is just a fixed point.  It is not an accurate representation of the road.

17     It's a fixed point that I then used as a reference point, as what I was

18     trying to show in this diagram was the disparity between two reports,

19     where we had a direction of 170 degrees and a direction of 220 and 240

20     degrees being suggested.  So by using, then, this fixed line, I could

21     then see which direction the mortar crater is facing which, in this case

22     here, it is facing towards the building.  Because if the crater had been

23     fired from a direction more towards 220 or 240, then you'd expect to see

24     the direction or the position of the crater facing more to the right down

25     the road.

Page 18778

 1        Q.   Did you use the same methodology in this case?

 2        A.   In this case -- I'm sorry, could you just explain the question?

 3     Sorry.

 4        Q.   What we are looking at is a photo from the Karadzic case, i.e.,

 5     the report that you prepared for that case.

 6             Now have you been commissioned to do a report for the --

 7     General Mladic case.  Did you used the same methodology.  This was my

 8     question.

 9        A.   Yes.  In my report, I made the point that the bearing of 275

10     degrees here is not a representative bearing of exactly where the road

11     faces.  It was a fixed point that I could more accurately draw on a map

12     at the time just to give me a rough direction to find out whether this

13     crater was facing towards 170 or nearer to 220/240.

14             Due to the fact that the -- the Karadzic case that did cause a

15     little bit of confusion how I had done this, I, therefore, changed it for

16     this particular case here to try and estimate the actual direction that

17     the road faces along, and those bearings are in my up-to-date report.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Higgs, I still have some difficulties in

19     understanding what you meant exactly by:  I took a fixed point.  I mean,

20     a line is not a point and it's apparently what you wanted with the

21     275 degrees.  What you wanted to do is the -- establish the direction of

22     the curb stones.

23             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  On the maps that I had at the time, and with

24     the direction of the road, a little bit further on down the road here, we

25     have a nice, really straight line which I could see on the map to give me

Page 18779

 1     a really clear direction, which was the 275, which I used in the Karadzic

 2     case, which is about -- I think it's is about 10 degree different from

 3     the true road.  But it was close enough to -- for be able to just give an

 4     impression of, is this crater facing toward the building, or is it

 5     actually facing down the road, to find out whether it's nearer 170, or is

 6     it facing towards 220/240.  So that's why I took that particular bearing

 7     at that time.

 8             But as you said, in the Karadzic case, it caused a little bit of

 9     confusion, so I then went back to the report and to a more accurate

10     reading of this particular road and this particular point, that is the

11     direction that is in my up-to-date report.  I think I -- I haven't got

12     the report in front of me, but I believe it is nearer -- 265 degrees is

13     the true direction of the curb, as close as I could make it with the maps

14     I have.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's just assume that it is 265, although it says

16     260 in the present report --

17             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Which means that the difference is 15 degrees.

19             THE WITNESS:  Mm-hm.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, with what seems to me to be the same line going

21     through the heart of the crater which, in your previous report as we see

22     it on our screens now, was 175 degrees, and now you say crater direction

23     close to 170 degrees; whereas, if the curb stones move for 15 degree, I

24     would expect the crater direction, which is just a calculation, to be --

25     to move 15 degrees as well and not just 5.

Page 18780

 1             THE WITNESS:  The calculation of the direction of the -- the

 2     mortar crater here, I am just obviously basing that on this picture and,

 3     of course, the findings of the examination team on the day, when they

 4     came up with that direction of being approximately 170.  I have not used

 5     the angle of the curb or any mathematical calculation to then take one

 6     from the other.  So I'm just using this picture just to represent that

 7     the crater is facing more towards an angle of 170 than it is to a

 8     direction of 220/240.  I am not using this picture to accurately plot the

 9     exact direction of the crater because I don't have enough information to

10     do that.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

12             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

13             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Based on this photo, you estimated that the line that goes to the

15     crater as -- slightly inclines to the left so the trajectory had to have

16     been 170 degree, i.e., 10 degrees to the left; is that correct?

17        A.   I don't really understand the question.  Could you just start

18     again, please.

19        Q.   Based on this photo, you estimated that the angle of the

20     trajectory leans 10 degrees to the left, i.e., that it is 175 rather than

21     185, and 185 would have been a 90-degree angle with respect to the curb;

22     right?

23        A.   In this case, yes.

24        Q.   So we can therefore conclude that with respect to the curb, based

25     on your findings, the projectile did not arrive at an angle of 90 degrees

Page 18781

 1     but, rather, at an angle of 100 degrees; right?

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 3             MR. WEBER:  Objection.  I don't think that's accurately stating

 4     the witness's evidence.  If I could have a point where he might have

 5     referred that.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, could you please explain how -- in the

 7     new picture, I see the direction of the curb to be 260 degrees.  The

 8     crater direction close to 170 degrees, surprisingly, because I would

 9     expect even less, which makes a difference of 90 degrees rather than 100.

10             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as we can see, the angle

11     of the curb is marked here as 275 degrees.  When you deduct 90 degrees

12     from that, you arrive at 185 degrees.  Using the same analogy, in order

13     to arrive at an angle of decent of 175 degrees, you have to subtract

14     175 degrees from 275 degrees.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me try to follow you.

16             You start with the Karadzic drawing.  275 degrees --

17             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, we see it on the right-hand side on this -- on

18     this picture.  275 degrees.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

20             MR. LUKIC:  That's the line of the curb.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  That's the line of the curb.  And the line of the

22     origin of fire is estimated, or, at least, is written down as

23     175 degrees.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Which makes a difference of --

Page 18782

 1             MR. LUKIC:  One hundred.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Of 100, yes.

 3             Now you want to compare that with what exactly?

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Now we have to come to the -- this -- the position of

 5     this curb, whether it's correctly --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I now see your point.  It's exactly the same

 7     point as you had pointed at before, that the -- if you change the angle

 8     slightly, then you would expect something different.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah.  Only we'll show it in more details, if you

10     allow us.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And I would have similar concerns about the

12     220 degrees, as a matter of fact, but I have not raised that yet.  I

13     leave it to you.

14             MR. LUKIC:  Mm-hm.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

16             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

17        Q.   [Interpretation] When you testified in the Radovan Karadzic case,

18     it was established that you had erroneously calculated the bearing of the

19     curb and that's why in your report dated 8 October 2011, you made a

20     correction of that mistake; right?

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

22             MR. WEBER:  Objection to the form of the question.  He can ask

23     that in a much more straightforward --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I think the question is clear.

25             Objection denied.  What you intended to say, Mr. Lukic, is that

Page 18783

 1     the correct -- he now used the correct calculation.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  He is trying to correct it.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  He calculated it now according to his new

 4     views on the matter.

 5             Please proceed.

 6             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Mr. Higgs, do you accept that you made a mistake in the Karadzic

 8     case?

 9        A.   No, I did not make a mistake.  I was just using a different point

10     of reference because I was not trying to directly ascertain the direction

11     this crater was facing.  I was just trying to work out whether or not it

12     was nearer the 170, as put forward in one case, or nearer to 220/240, as

13     put forward in another argument.  So -- and from the picture, you can see

14     that the crater is lined up facing the building and not pointing down the

15     road.  So this is not an accurate mathematical calculation on my behalf,

16     just a guide to see which of the two reports I was faced with is actually

17     the crater faces nearer towards.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, the Chamber would have to read the other

19     report to see whether it was inaccurate because the drawing suggests

20     otherwise, but without having read the report, we're unable to make any

21     further conclusion, unless you take us through this alter report,

22     Mr. Lukic.

23             MR. LUKIC:  I will, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

25             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

Page 18784

 1        Q.   [Interpretation] I have to tell you the position of our Defence,

 2     Mr. Higgs, and we will take it from there.

 3             It is our position that you intentionally calculated the --

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the -- Mr. Lukic please slow down.  It is

 5     impossible to interpret.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, Mr. Lukic --

 7             MR. LUKIC:  It's the position of our Defence.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I wanted to convey to you the message of the

 9     interpreters --

10             MR. LUKIC:  Okay.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  --- that if you would not slow down --

12             MR. LUKIC:  The message wouldn't be translated.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  That no message would come ever to our ears.

14             MR. LUKIC:  I will repeat.  Thank you.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

16             MR. LUKIC:  I wasn't aware that I was reading too fast.

17        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Higgs, the position of our Defence is this:

18     You intentionally miscalculated the bearing of the curb in order to

19     arrive at an angle of 175 degrees because this is the bearing on which

20     the Prosecutor located several positions from which the shell could have

21     allegedly been fired.  And now we are going to show you yet another

22     excerpt from a map which you omitted from your report, although you did

23     use it in your report that you drafted for the Radovan Karadzic case.

24             We would like to call up 65 ter 100221.  We are interested in the

25     English page 13.

Page 18785

 1             Is this the map based on which you worked out the position of the

 2     curb?

 3        A.   This is the one.

 4        Q.   [In English] Okay.

 5             [Interpretation] On the left-hand side, we can see the angle of

 6     275 degrees.  And in order to increase the visibility we have enlarged

 7     one part so you will see that written within the map.

 8             Now I'm going to show you 1D1379.

 9             We can see the curb here and its position near the

10     Markale market.  You will see it marked as "Markale market."  And we can

11     see the direction of 275 degrees.  This was plotted from your map, this

12     line was plotted from your map onto this map.

13             Is it true that in your first report, you used this map and this

14     direction to establish the line of the curb in front of the Markale

15     market and you arrived at a degree of 275 -- at an angle of 275 degrees?

16        A.   Yes, for the reasons I've already mentioned.

17        Q.   You said that you changed that because it confused some people.

18     People were not confused.  You made a mistake; right?

19        A.   No.  I used the straighter line of road as it is further along to

20     give me a line to work from, because I was only trying, as I said before,

21     to work out or to disprove one bearing or the other whether it would be

22     170 or the angle of 220/240.  Actually, by me using line 275 actually

23     instead of helping or me trying to mislead, in some respects, it helps

24     the Defence's case rather than the Prosecution's because now I have

25     changed it to 265 --

Page 18786

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Higgs, Mr. Higgs, you don't have to explain

 2     whether it was favourable for the Defence or the Prosecution.  First of

 3     all, we expected an expert --

 4             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  -- to be accurate and not -- perhaps through

 6     mistakes, favour one of the two parties.

 7             Therefore, you would agree that if you plot on a photograph a

 8     direction in which a street runs, and if there's a considerable

 9     difference between the actual direction and the direction plotted, that

10     that is a mistake.

11             THE WITNESS:  Probably a mistake in -- in interpretation but I

12     was clear what I was trying to achieve.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Higgs.  Mr. Higgs, if I see a line plotted on a

14     picture, which says whatever number, I expect that to be the real

15     direction in which that street runs.

16             THE WITNESS:  Mm-hm.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Any other explanation needs more than what you are

18     telling us.  Because your purpose of what you are doing in itself does

19     not allow for inaccuracy.

20             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

21             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22        Q.   We checked or, rather, experts in the field checked the mistakes

23     that you made on this occasion.  And we measured the bearing of the --

24     city market on Google Earth, and the mistake was as much as 20 degrees.

25             Do you now see as well that the error was 20 degrees?

Page 18787

 1        A.   The difference is approximately 15 degrees on my calculations.

 2        Q.   And let's quickly look --

 3             MR. LUKIC:  That's the end of our day.  We will show more on this

 4     issue probably tomorrow.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You may do that tomorrow.

 6             But, Mr. Higgs, one final question.  It's not only a matter of

 7     calculation.  You calculate the difference between the two indicated on

 8     your maps, whether it's 275 or whether it's 260.  How did you measure the

 9     260?

10             THE WITNESS:  The 260, I then using this map here, to the best of

11     my ability --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  You did it on the basis of this map?

13             THE WITNESS:  On this map, to the best of my ability, yeah.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  And do you think that a cut-out of - how much is

15     it? - just a couple of metres of 10, 15 metres would necessarily always

16     be the same as what you find on a map with a totally different scale?

17     Wouldn't you think that what you -- what we really need is to be with a

18     compass at that specific point where the two bicycles are and measure it

19     from there?

20             THE WITNESS:  That would be the ideal way.  Yes, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  No, because you said that you had visited the

22     locations.

23             THE WITNESS:  Mm-hm.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Did not do the measurements --

25             THE WITNESS:  Not at that time.  No.


Page 18788

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  No -- not any later?

 2             THE WITNESS:  No.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We'll adjourn for the day, Mr. Higgs.  But

 4     before doing so, I'd like to instruct you that you should not speak,

 5     communicate in whatever way, with whomever about your testimony, whether

 6     that is testimony you've given today, or whether that's testimony still

 7     to be given in the days -- in the coming days.

 8             You may follow the usher, and we'd like to see you back tomorrow

 9     morning at 9.30.

10             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

11                           [The witness stands down]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll adjourn for the day.  We'll resume tomorrow,

13     Tuesday, the 5th of November, at 9.30 in the morning, in this came

14     courtroom, III.

15                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.17 p.m.,

16                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 5th day of

17                           November, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.