Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 18789

 1                           Tuesday, 5 November 2013

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused not present]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.35 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             First, I would like to put on the record that Mr. Mladic is not

12     present in court.  He waived his right yesterday to be absent for the

13     remainder of yesterday's session and for today's session.

14             Mr. Weber, the Chamber was informed that you wanted to raise a

15     preliminary matter.

16             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honour.

17             If it's acceptable to the Court I did speak with Mr. Lukic about

18     this also.  I was wondering if we could please provide to the witness

19     during today's testimony copies of his report.  I have prepared clean

20     copies.  He did not have them with him yesterday.  The two documents that

21     I prepared to provide to the witness are Exhibit P2605, marked for

22     identification, the report in this case; and 65 ter 10221, which was the

23     Karadzic report that was being prepared -- or that was being discussed

24     yesterday.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Leave is granted.

Page 18790

 1             Mr. Lukic, I do understand that you have no problems with it.

 2             Then could the witness be -- yes, Mr. Weber.

 3             MR. WEBER:  The only thing that the Prosecution would request is

 4     that during today's proceedings there are many references to a group or

 5     collection of documents and also previous transcript.  As much as

 6     possible and to assist our ability to actually follow the proceedings, it

 7     would be appreciated if we could use precise transcript references to

 8     previous testimony or specific documents so that I could follow along

 9     with what is going on.  It would be appreciated.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, the request is clear?

11             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  We got the chart from the

12     Prosecution this morning, so we do not object to this procedure.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, no problem.

14             Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

15             I, meanwhile, use the opportunity to ask your attention for the

16     following:  Mr. Weber, in its Rule 92 ter motion for Witness Higgs dated

17     the 14th of August, the Prosecution tendered five associated exhibits,

18     namely, Rule 65 ter 18013, 11190, and 14296 up to and including 14298.

19     Now, only number 11190 was tendered and admitted yesterday.  Can the

20     Prosecution confirm that the remaining four documents are withdrawn?

21             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, you're correct in the fact that I only

22     tendered one.  I did review the similarity of material in the document

23     and made the decision based on that.  We are not tendering them at this

24     time.  However, we are not officially withdrawing them from our exhibit

25     list.


Page 18791

 1             I would also note since we're discussing some housekeeping

 2     matters that the Prosecution has prepared a final version of that

 3     Milosevic testimony transcript.  There's a corrected -- non-corrected

 4     version used yesterday, and it's available under 30277A.  This was

 5     Exhibit P2606, marked for identification.

 6                           [The witness takes the stand]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, please.

 8                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, withdrawal, in the understanding of the

10     Chamber, meant withdrawal from tendering them now, not to remove them

11     from the 65 ter list.

12             Good morning, Mr. Higgs.

13             THE WITNESS:  Good morning, Your Honours.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  I'd like to remind you that you're still bound by

15     the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony,

16     that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

17                           WITNESS:  RICHARD HIGGS [Resumed]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic will now continue his cross-examination.

19             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, I'm sorry to pop up.  If there's any

20     way we can please provide the documents discussed before the witness --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  You may.  Could the usher assist.

22             Mr. Lukic, please proceed.

23             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

24                           Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]

25        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Higgs.

Page 18792

 1        A.   Good morning.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Actually, I forgot yesterday to ask for the admission

 3     of the report from Karadzic case, it's 65 ter 10221, and I spoke with

 4     Mr. Weber.  If we do not do that, they would be tendering the same

 5     document.

 6             MR. WEBER:  That's correct we would be asking for the admission

 7     of the full report.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Since the Defence is now first, it will be

 9     assigned a D number.

10             Madam Registrar.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 10221 receives number D395,

12     Your Honours.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  D395 is admitted into evidence.

14             MR. LUKIC:  And, also, in connection with that, this enlarged map

15     we provided yesterday under number 1D1379.  It's just the same map used

16     in this report just admitted, only blown up, so that actual area is more

17     clear.

18             MR. WEBER:  No objection.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 1D1379 receives number D396,

21     Your Honours.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The number on the record is not absolutely

24     correct.  It should be D396.

25             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 18793

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  And it's that -- under that number that 1D1379 is

 2     admitted.

 3             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have 1D1380 in e-court,

 4     please.

 5        Q.   This was provided from the Google Earth, and the bearing of the

 6     curb in front of Markale has been determined.

 7             Would you agree, Mr. Higgs, with this estimate?

 8        A.   Yes.  As per my re-submitted report it is nearer to 255 or

 9     260 degrees, correct.

10             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We ask for this document to be

11     admitted into evidence.

12             MR. WEBER:  We would object based on the limited questions asked

13     so far.  I know the -- I think the witness has a stand, and it's a

14     demonstrative exhibit, but I don't have foundation as to how this was

15     calculated precisely and by whom it was calculated.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Calculated.  It's just ... no, is there any dispute

17     about where north is?

18             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I -- this is taken from Google Earth.

19     If it was created by someone else, I would like the opportunity to the

20     ask that other person about how this was calculated and in what manner.

21     That's not --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, are you serious that we need someone to

23     be called just to identify where north is?  Because that seems to be the

24     only thing that counts.  All the rest is 165.  You take care, what do you

25     call it?  A -- geo -- I mean, it's ... fifth grade primary school.

Page 18794

 1     That's what it is.

 2             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, in terms of the calculation of north and

 3     the depiction of north on maps or Google Earth, no, that's not my issue.

 4     My issue is that there's determinations of angles and other things based

 5     on that, that is not as simple as one would purport.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  The only thing that is added to north is

 7     165 degrees.  I'll show you after the break how to do that.  And we don't

 8     need the witness for that.  And the document is admitted.  But I'll show

 9     you after the break how to do it, Mr. Weber.

10             The number has not been assigned.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 1D1380 receives number D397,

12     Your Honours.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

14             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Mr. Higgs, would you agree that this bearing was determined by

16     the 4th French Battalion who was at the scene and that they reached a

17     very approximate value to this one?

18        A.   Could you just confirm which bearing.  Do you mean the bearing of

19     the crater?

20        Q.   [In English] The direction of fire.

21        A.   Yes, that's correct.  By the French examination team on the day.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  That's the -- is it the 165 degrees or the 255,

23     Mr. Lukic?  Because that's the issue.

24             MR. LUKIC:  They said 2800, if -- if we remember -- if I remember

25     correctly.  And -- I have it further in the questions so ...

Page 18795

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, just, we have two bearings, two angles on the

 2     sheet.  Is it the one or is it the other?  That's the simple question.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Give me one second.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps could the witness answer what the French

 5     examination team determined.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

 8             THE WITNESS:  [Overlapping speakers] ... the French examination

 9     team examined the crater, and from their examination they got the

10     170 degrees.  That is not the same as on this picture here where they've

11     given this 165 to north, because that is an incorrect number.  Because

12     between 255 degrees and north, it is not 165.  It's actually only 105, so

13     on this picture here north is actually displayed in totally the wrong

14     place.

15             But going back to the original question, it was -- the French did

16     the crater examination where they came up to 170 degrees, Your Honour.

17             MR. LUKIC:  Can we see P797.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I must say, I'm totally lost with the following

19     sentence you spoke, Witness.

20             You said:

21             "... they got the 170 degrees.  That is not the same as on the

22     picture here where they've given this 165 to north ..."

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

24             JUDGE ORIE:  And I do understand that 170 and 165 is not the

25     same.  But then you said:

Page 18796

 1             "... that is an incorrect number.  Because between 255 degrees

 2     and north, it's not 165."

 3             THE WITNESS:  Correct, Your Honour.  We have 360 degrees in a

 4     circle, so it should be 105 degrees, not 165.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  But the difference between the 165 and the 255 is

 6     not indicated as -- by number.  So, therefore, to say it should be 105

 7     where nothing appears there is surprising.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I mean, you're talking about the angle between the

10     red line that goes, if I could say so, more or less south of south-west,

11     or south-west approximately, and the red line that goes down, although a

12     little bit, if I could say so, an easterly direction.  Nothing is

13     indicated there what that angle is.  So I have difficulties in

14     understanding your explanation why it is wrong.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  But perhaps I pointed at the wrong red lines, but

19     what we see on this picture is an angle, 165 degrees from north.  Is that

20     more or less correct?

21             THE WITNESS:  The road bearing given, which is 255, is actually

22     only 105 degrees from north rather than 165.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I am afraid that either I totally

24     misunderstand the picture or you do.

25             MR. LUKIC:  I -- I think I do.  I think -- no, I do understand

Page 18797

 1     the picture.  I think the witness does not understand the picture.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  That is my preliminary feeling as well.

 3             Mr. Weber.

 4             MR. WEBER:  I understand what the witness is saying.  I don't

 5     agree with that.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Is it possible to mark this map?  Then we could

 7     ask the witness to mark the angle which he indicates has 105 degrees.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Perhaps this one is admitted but we'll now ask

 9     the witness to mark what he just wanted to tell us.

10             Could the usher assist.

11             Could you please explain by marking what you meant.  And we can

12     always rub it out if there's any need to do so.

13             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honours.  Relating to the 165 on this

14     picture, so if the road as we've talked about is on a line of 255 --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Which road?  That road, yes.

16             THE WITNESS:  That is on the angle of 255.  Then --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  It's indicated as 165.

18             THE WITNESS:  Okay --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I think, as a matter of fact, that the first more

20     than half a circle depicts the angle between north and the line that goes

21     to the left.

22             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  So just to clarify, we're saying that the --

23     the road which is on 255 is that road, is that correct?

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

25             THE WITNESS:  I now understand, Your Honour.  Thank you.

Page 18798

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then I don't think, as a matter of fact,

 2     there's a common understanding of everyone about what is depicted and we

 3     don't need the marked version of it.

 4             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.  [Interpretation] Can we now have P797 in

 6     e-court.

 7        Q.   You have seen this report, haven't you?  This document, I mean.

 8        A.   I believe so, yes.

 9             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we have page 7 in the English.

10     Let's rotate it by 90 degrees.

11        Q.   You said today that the French found 170 degrees; is that

12     correct?

13        A.   That's correct.

14        Q.   Can you please take a look at this sketch and tell us what this

15     report says about the findings by the French.

16        A.   These give a direction of 2850 mills.

17        Q.   [In English] Yes.

18        A.   Which equate to approximately 160 degrees.

19        Q.   [Interpretation] Would you agree that a minute ago you made an

20     error when you said that they came up with 170 degrees?

21        A.   Obviously I'm basing my replies on the evidence I was given,

22     where it is wrote as 170 in some reports, and here, in this one here, you

23     can see it is 160.

24        Q.   Actually, what was read on the spot, which is 2800 equals 175.5

25     degrees; is that correct?

Page 18799

 1        A.   I haven't got the calculation in front of me, but I believe that,

 2     yeah, 2850 is nearer 170 degrees.

 3        Q.   But it's not 170.  It's 160, as the sketch shows.

 4        A.   I can see on this sketch here, yes.

 5        Q.   Where did you find the information that the French finding was

 6     170 degrees?  Can you tell us the source?

 7        A.   From the documentation listed in my report.  there is the video,

 8     the local Bosnian investigation, as well, and with all those other

 9     reports.

10        Q.   I'm asking you about the French.  Where did you find specifically

11     that the French finding was 170 degrees?

12        A.   Again, my belief -- I can't remember now, but from the -- all

13     those different pieces of evidence, and, again, here, on the mills

14     measurements, so I would have taken it from all of those different

15     sources.

16        Q.   We are dealing with various sources.  Again, are you going to

17     give me an answer or not?  Where did you find the fact that the French

18     came up with 170 degrees?  Because this was part of your today's

19     evidence.

20        A.   Mm-hm.  I can only answer that it was from the evidence I was

21     given here, as you've rightly said, if I had taken it from the mills

22     measurement that is nearer to the 170 to 160, so taken it from all those

23     pieces of evidence.

24        Q.   So you are challenging the fact that the mills of

25     1800 [as interpreted] equals 160 degrees; right?

Page 18800

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Did you say 1800 or 2800.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Maybe I misspoke.  [Interpretation] 2800.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And to be very precise it should be 2850.  You say

 4     that is not 160 degrees.

 5             THE WITNESS:  It's nearer 170, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay, the Chamber would like to see the -- how many

 7     mills are there in 360, Mr. Higgs?

 8             THE WITNESS:  6400, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  6400.  We'll check it.  As far as I am aware of,

10     it's 160, 3125, which is closer to 160 than it is to 170.

11             Would you please check that?  Could you make the calculation

12     during the break.  It's quite simple.  2850 divided by 6400, and then

13     that set out on a scale of 360 degrees.

14             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I'll do that calculation for Your Honour, yes.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

16             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   In your new report, you moved the curb bearing by 15 degrees.

18     This has resulted in a changed -- in the direction from which the shell

19     came by only 5 degrees.  How is that possible?

20        A.   I'm -- changed the direction of the -- the road to an accurate

21     direction, so nearer to 260 degrees.  I then looked at the right angle to

22     that, which is approximately 170, and then looked at the position of the

23     crater and then made that point that the crater is still closely aligned

24     to that direction.  I have not done an accurate crater analysis to find

25     out the exact direction as I was just trying to determine whether it is

Page 18801

 1     facing in the general direction of 170 or whether it is facing towards

 2     the 220/240 which was also mentioned in other reports.

 3        Q.   And did you then find that there is no inclination to the left.

 4     Previously your calculation was 100 degrees.  Now it is 90 degrees.  This

 5     is what we discussed yesterday.  Did you change anything in your overall

 6     findings?  Is there still an inclination to the left or not?  And what

 7     was the basis, why did you make the change that you did?

 8        A.   There is still a slight inclination to the left of the square.

 9     So that is still evident.  But the general direction of the crater does

10     still face towards the -- closer to the direction of 170 rather than 220.

11        Q.   And did you demonstrate that in your new sketch in the new

12     report?  Did you change anything in your sketch with respect to what you

13     did in the Karadzic case?

14        A.   I changed the angle on the -- on the road, the bearing of the

15     road, to make that correct.  I then showed a different right angle, which

16     is now 170.  So I changed that as well, to give now a far more realistic

17     picture of the bearings in relation to the road.

18        Q.   I don't know whether my question got lost in translation.

19             I asked you about the conclusion, whether that was changed; and

20     then I asked you about the sketch, whether your conclusion, your new

21     conclusion, was reflected in your sketch.  Did you change your sketch to

22     match your new conclusion?

23        A.   My conclusion didn't change.  My conclusion is still that the

24     round has come from a direction closely around 170 degrees.  So that has

25     not changed.  I then just altered -- updated the bearings along the road

Page 18802

 1     and the right angles so then it does bear true resemblance to the picture

 2     of the road.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we have a look at the picture we're discussing

 4     at this moment.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  I have -- I think I have one -- 1D document where we

 6     can compare both pictures from the previous and from the new.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  That would assist.  Because we have on our screens

 8     still --

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Can we have --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  -- the Markale market.

11             MR. LUKIC:  Can we have 1D1391, please.  If we can turn it by

12     90 degrees counter-clockwise.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Higgs, on the right-hand side you can see a

14     photo that you used in the Karadzic case.  On the left-hand side is a

15     photo from the Mladic case.  We drew the lines.  We moved the photo a bit

16     further off -- up.  And we have found that nothing, nothing has been

17     changed in these photos.  Are the lines are parallel, just like before in

18     the old photo.

19             And this is what I have asked you:  Did you change anything in

20     the way you plotted or made sketches of the situation, or did you just

21     made alterations to your overall conclusion?

22        A.   No.  Can you see that, obviously the line of the curb is still

23     the same.  The right angle bearing that I have taken through on the

24     left-hand picture, D1, is 170 degrees.  But can you see from the

25     left-hand picture the blue --

Page 18803

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.  You say on the left-hand picture it is

 2     170 degrees.  Is it indicated on that picture or is it not?

 3             THE WITNESS:  On the original picture, yes, it is, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  What is the original one?  Is that the left one or

 5     the right one?

 6             THE WITNESS:  On my picture on my report for this case, which is

 7     the left-hand picture --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             THE WITNESS:  -- I do have the -- the bearings are all part of

10     the picture.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  I -- I do not see them at this moment.  But perhaps

12     I should have a look at the ... I should look at the report, perhaps.

13     Because nothing is indicated on what we see on our screen at this very

14     moment.

15             MR. LUKIC:  It's only picture.  It's page 14 in English version.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  One second, please.  Yes.  There I am.

17             Yes.  One of the confusing things is, Mr. Lukic, is that --

18             MR. LUKIC:  It's not cut out.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  It's cut out.  We see the line which -- with an

20     arrow on the left picture, which goes in almost northerly direction,

21     slightly to the west, if I could use that terminology, although it may

22     have got nothing to do with north or west, but top of the picture and

23     slightly to the left.  That is indicated in the Mladic report as close to

24     170 degrees.  Whereas, in the old sketch - that's the sketch to the right

25     on our screen - it indicates 175 degrees.  Yes.

Page 18804

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

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  You said you changed not the line but you changed

 3     the number related to that line from 175 into 170.

 4             THE WITNESS:  I changed the line very slightly to line it up with

 5     the centre of the crater in the new picture, which is more in line with

 6     170.

 7             Also in the new picture, I have changed the line of -- with the

 8     line of 220 degrees may appear.  You'll notice that that is completely

 9     different on both pictures.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can you help me, why did you change that?

11             THE WITNESS:  Because when I'm now using the accurate bearings to

12     the road, where 220 will appear will, of course, now move from using the

13     old direction where it was on 275 now to a bearing of 260, it is moved to

14     the right, and you'll notice it has moved quite significantly to the

15     right.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  To make it clear, the lines, 275 and 175, or

17     in your newest report, 170, are plotted on the basis of the features we

18     see on the picture; whereas, the other line, the 220 degrees, is plotted

19     on the basis of a compass measurement still taking the centre of the

20     crater as its pivotal point.

21             THE WITNESS:  Correct, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

23             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24        Q.   And now we can see how things are moved in a photo, and we can

25     also see in the report that was updated for our case where it says -- you

Page 18805

 1     can see in the Karadzic case that upper line, 275 degrees, in our case

 2     is -- it is now 260 degrees.  There's a difference of 15 degrees in that,

 3     isn't there?  And we can see that it did have an impact when you

 4     determined 220 degrees.

 5             How come that you changed the calculation by only 5 degrees?  And

 6     we're talking about the centre of the crater.  You changed the right

 7     parameter by 15 and the middle by only 5.  How is that possible?  I do

 8     not understand.  Could you please explain?  Because there are no changes

 9     in the sketch.  The only changes that actually happened, happened to the

10     calculation.

11        A.   Yes.  As we discussed yesterday, the -- the picture, the old

12     picture, the one to the right here, was based upon not this particular

13     part of the road.  So the bearings don't relate directly to the picture

14     as we -- as we discussed.

15             So that is why I then amended the picture for this case to use

16     the real bearings aligned to this picture and the curb.  So the bearings

17     on the original picture of 275 and 175 don't bear any direct connection

18     to the picture on the left, because I have used new bearings.  I have

19     slightly altered the line through the centre of the crater to line it up

20     as best as possible to the line of fire, and, of course, changed the --

21     the compass bearing to 220 to align to the new picture.

22             So there is no direct relationship between the old picture and

23     the new one.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Higgs, the picture in the newest report which

25     gives the approximately 260 degree shows a line with an arrow pointing to

Page 18806

 1     left and to right.  What you're telling us, if I understand you well, is

 2     that the approximately 260 degrees is not what that line depicts but it's

 3     the direction of the street you've taken from a map and not from this

 4     photograph.

 5             THE WITNESS:  Correct, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, in order to have accurate calculations,

 7     wouldn't you agree that if you want to make any calculations or make any

 8     measurements, you don't need the general direction of the street.  You

 9     need what you see; that is, the exact direction of the curb zones -- of

10     the curb on this part of the street?

11             THE WITNESS:  Correct, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, why do you plot on such a photograph

13     which is meant to prepare for calculations something we do not see in

14     this photograph but, rather, something you took from a map which, as far

15     as direction is concerned, does not necessarily reflect the direction of

16     the curb stone in this specific part of that street?  That's confusing.

17             THE WITNESS:  Regarding the -- the original photograph, I would

18     agree, Your Honour.  You are correct.  As I used a -- as we know, a

19     different part of the street, which does cause confusion.  And that was a

20     mistake on my behalf -- on my part for doing that, which is why I wanted

21     to correct that in the picture for here.

22             But I am -- a key point is I am not carrying out here a direct

23     crater analysis.  I'm using approximate bearings to just determine

24     whether or not the crater is aligned to an approximately 170 or whether

25     it is aligned to the 220/240.  So I am not trying to determine the exact

Page 18807

 1     direction of the crater.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  The way in which you present it is confusing.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 5             Let's also keep in mind that if there's a difference of

 6     10 degrees, the witness has explained what it's based on, that the

 7     difference between either 160, 170, or even 180, to 220 to 240 requires

 8     an additional 40, 50, or 60 degrees.

 9             Please proceed.

10             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Would you agree with me that you made a mistake here?

12        A.   On the original picture, I used -- yes, the way in which the

13     numbers are displayed on this picture would be a mistake to show them in

14     that way.

15        Q.   Let's ignore 220 degrees.  Let's focus on the blue line in the

16     double photo and the line that goes through the centre of the crater.

17     Between the original sketch and the updated sketch, or the new sketch,

18     what is the biggest difference?  Can you tell us what has been changed in

19     the way the sketch was made?  And let me tell you before you answer:

20     Nothing has been changed.  Would you agree with that?

21        A.   They do look very similar because I was trying to get a line as

22     near as possible through the centre of the crater.  So, yes, I would

23     agree.

24        Q.   The only thing that has changed is the calculation.  The right

25     line by 15 degrees less, that's the blue line, and the middle line, which

Page 18808

 1     goes through the centre of the explosion and which should determine the

 2     direction of fire, has been changed by no more than 5 degrees.  Would

 3     that be correct?  And that's where I'm going to leave it off.

 4        A.   On the -- the new picture, as I -- I notate in the report, I put

 5     down as a close to 170.  I did not actually say that is actually 170.

 6        Q.   This is precisely what we are trying to -- we have been trying to

 7     say, because this should have read 155 or 160 degrees.  275 minus 15 is

 8     260, and 175 minus 15 is 160; right?

 9        A.   Yep, that is correct.  That is why I put down in the report it is

10     close to 170.  Because with the accuracy of the photograph then to be

11     more accurate than that would be really impossible.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you to explain and perhaps to mark on

13     the double photograph, but perhaps we should have it admitted into

14     evidence first, Mr. Lukic, since that's what you seek.

15             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, the number of the double photograph

17     comparing the -- comparing the picture in the Karadzic report to the

18     right with the picture in the Mladic report to the left would receive

19     number?

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Number D398, Your Honours.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  D398 is admitted into evidence.

22             Could the witness be provided with a marker so that he can

23     explain exactly how he changed the upgoing arrowed line in the left

24     picture, red, to go more precisely through the centre of the crater

25     compared to the right one.

Page 18809

 1             THE WITNESS:  Well, the changes are minimal, Your Honour, because

 2     I have used -- it's approximately this -- the same line.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  But you say it explains the difference of

 4     10 degrees, as Mr. Lukic put to you, because if it is the same line, then

 5     if the blue, more or less, horizontal line moves from 275 degrees and if

 6     that other line doesn't really change - you say it's approximately the

 7     same line - then I would share Mr. -- I would be inclined to share

 8     Mr. Lukic's view that the 175 should go down to 160.

 9             THE WITNESS:  That -- that could be the case, Your Honour, yes.

10     The -- it could be closer to 160.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Why did you then put it close to 170?

12             THE WITNESS:  I was just, again, trying to make the point that

13     not on accurate crater examination exactly where this is pointing but

14     just making the point that this crater is facing closer to 170 than again

15     to the 220.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  There's nothing you have to demonstrate.  You have

17     to provide us measurement, calculations, as precise as possible.  That's

18     what we expect an expert to do and not to say, Well, rather, if I could

19     say, discretionary change the direction of one by 15 degrees and the

20     other one just by 5 degrees.

21             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

23             So we don't need any marking because the witness now says it's

24     the same line.  I don't know whether that is accurate, but let's leave it

25     to that.  It's at least approximately the same line.

Page 18810

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Now I'm going ask you something else.

 3             Could people hear any noise when the shell was launched, and at

 4     what distance?  In your report, you say that the observers -- and, if you

 5     will, this is in English, page 15, spilling over to page 16.

 6             You say that the UN observers could hear the sound of the shell

 7     which was launched at at distance of 1600 metres, and that if the shell

 8     had been launched at a distance of 2400 metres, it could not have been

 9     heard due to the configuration of the terrain, i.e., due to the hills and

10     valleys.

11             Can you see that in your report?

12        A.   Yes.  In this particular case, no sound was heard.  So I make the

13     point there on the report that when trying to ascertain a probable range,

14     that if it was fired at 1600 where the observer was located, he should

15     have heard it; where at the longer ranges, because of the configuration

16     of the land, then he may not have heard it.

17        Q.   Did you inspect the area?  Did you ever go to Trebevic mountain?

18        A.   Yes, I went to the mountain area there to the south.

19        Q.   [In English] Okay.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Higgs, do you understand the difference between

21     they would not have heard it and they may not have heard it?  Because the

22     first is the language you use in the report.  The second is the language

23     you use now in your testimony.

24             THE WITNESS:  With the lay of the land, the observer had a range

25     of approximately 1600 direct line of sight.  So in that case, they should

Page 18811

 1     have heard a sound.  But the distances further to the rear, because of

 2     the mountains and the hills and so on, probably they -- hearing the sound

 3     would have been far more difficult.  That's why I say they may not have

 4     heard it.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Although the report says "they would not have

 6     heard it," which is a far more definitive conclusion than "they may not

 7     have heard it."

 8             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour, yeah.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  So you withdraw that conclusion that they would not

10     have heard it and change it in they may not have heard it.

11             THE WITNESS:  I think that it's probably more realistic,

12     Your Honour, to change to they may not have heard it in this particular

13     case.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  More realistic, based on what?

15             THE WITNESS:  How sound travels around hill-sides, mountains, and

16     so on.  It depends on many, many, factors and difficult to be a definite

17     one or the other.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Can you refer us to either any studies on how sound

19     travels in a mountainous area, at what distances, at what -- how strong

20     the sound is?  Do you have any sources or references or reports for that,

21     or is it just an overall impression you've gained during your life?

22             THE WITNESS:  It's based on my experience in firing in these sort

23     of conditions over the years, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And that was when you were working in England?

25             THE WITNESS:  When I was working in different countries around

Page 18812

 1     the world supporting different armies.  It's never a cut-and-dried case

 2     whether or not you may hear it or you may not.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  What you tell us is:  The more mountainous it

 4     is and the further the distance, it may be more difficult to hear that?

 5             THE WITNESS:  Correct, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 7             Please proceed.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  I think it's break time.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, we could take the usual -- we have the short

10     sessions mainly -- and the short breaks as well mainly because that's the

11     preference of Mr. Mladic.  But if it would be your preference as well, we

12     will follow it.

13             MR. LUKIC:  No, no, we can continue.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

15             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   You know that the observation post, OP-1, UN observation post was

17     very close to Colina Kapa?

18        A.   I haven't got that information here on the map.

19             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let us take a look at 1D13912.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we do so, Mr. Lukic --

21             Have you studied the locations of observation posts in some

22     detail closest to where the fire may have some from?

23             THE WITNESS:  When I was over there, yes, Your Honour, I

24     travelled around that area in the vehicles and visited both sites,

25     roughly the area where OP-1 was and then the areas up to the hills where

Page 18813

 1     some of the locations were as well.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And where OP-1 was, how did you find out?

 3             THE WITNESS:  I was taken there by -- the ICTY investigators took

 4     me to that location.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 6             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I had prepared a map but I'm not sure

 7     whether the number is correct.  65 ter 23086.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  That doesn't look very much like a map, Mr. Lukic.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  No, it does not.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps we should have taken the early break.

11             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, please.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you want to continue, or what do you want --

13             MR. LUKIC:  I'd rather take the break.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we'll take the break under the present

15     circumstances.

16             The comedy of errors turns out to be a tragedy of errors.

17     That's --

18             We take a break and resume at five minutes to 11.00.

19                           [The witness stands down]

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

21                           --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

23             Mr. Weber, Mr. Weber, at the cost of two or three euros, you'll

24     buy such a thing, and whatever angle is there, on whatever map, you can

25     immediately verify whether it's accurate or not.

Page 18814

 1                           [The witness takes the stand]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Higgs, did you have an opportunity to verify

 3     whether 2850 mills comes closer to 170 or 160?

 4             THE WITNESS:  It's closer to 160, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  In my calculation, it's 160.3125.

 6             Please proceed.

 7             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 8             I have checked the number for our next document.  I didn't have

 9     it previously because it was not uploaded but we managed to do that

10     during the break, and I would like to inform both the Chamber and the

11     Prosecution that this document hadn't been on the list, since this is a

12     map into which we plotted some confidential information.  We shall try,

13     with Mr. Higgs, whether he is able to comment on it or not.

14             Therefore, can I please have 1D1420.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Lukic, if you say "confidential information,"

16     can it be broadcast or --

17             MR. LUKIC:  No, it's not confidential.  It's some information

18     from the report of this witness and some other information.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  But there's no need to -- not to be shown to the

20     public.

21             MR. LUKIC:  No, no, no.  It's just a map.  Actually, it's a

22     Google photo.

23        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Higgs, we took an image from the

24     Google Earth and we plotted 170/160 degrees bearings.  We have also

25     plotted 2400 metres distances, which corresponds to the distance that you

Page 18815

 1     have indicated as the VRS position where the fire originated.  We also

 2     plotted the location of Colina Kapa and Bistrik Kula.

 3             Colina Kapa is the position at which OP-1 observation post was

 4     situated.  Would this correspond to what you know?  Because you said you

 5     have toured the area, is it this true reflection of the ground that you

 6     have visited?

 7        A.   From what I can remember, I would say yes.

 8        Q.   These two red lines converge and meet at the point where the

 9     Markale market is.  Can you confirm that?  Or if you cannot see it, we

10     are fine with that.

11        A.   It's -- seems to be in the approximate location from what I can

12     see on this picture.

13        Q.   When you said that the first position of the Serbian forces would

14     be at 2400 metres, did you visit that specific area, and did you notice

15     whether there was any access road to that location, and also whether

16     there was a convenient place to put a mortar?

17        A.   We drove generally round that -- that hilled area where you have

18     2400-metre symbols.  We looked at some of the roads, and -- and some

19     areas where there could possibly be mortar locations, but we didn't do an

20     extensive survey of the whole area.

21        Q.   Are you familiar with Mr. Hogan's work who made some very

22     detailed visits to the area and who checked where the possible locations

23     could be?  He was, just to mention it by the way, an ICTY investigator

24     and a witness.

25        A.   I have not seen any report or paperwork concerning that, no.

Page 18816

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We would like to tender this image

 2     from the Google Earth into evidence because we are going to need it in

 3     future, in order to show some other Google images.

 4             MR. WEBER:  I asked that remain marked for identification so I

 5     can check the information.  Also if Mr. Lukic could provide me with

 6     whatever the confidential information that is the -- is the basis of this

 7     over the next break so I could further check that at this time.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  If you want to borrow it, just tell me, Mr. Weber.

 9             MR. WEBER:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

10             MR. LUKIC:  It's okay.  There is no -- any confidential

11     information.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  That must be then some kind of confusion because --

13             MR. LUKIC:  There is no confidential information entered on this

14     map.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, the number would be?

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 1D1420 receives number D399,

17     Your Honours.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  And is marked for identification.

19             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20             Can we please now have 1D1392.

21        Q.   Mr. Higgs, by a simple click on Google Earth one can get a

22     cross-section of the ground, and this is what our expert did in --

23     indeed.  In the upper part, you see the image.  You see the market-place

24     at 170 degrees angle to 2400 metres distance.  We can see Colina Kapa and

25     Bistrik Kula as well in the lower part is the cross-section of the ground

Page 18817

 1     from the position at 2400 metres towards the Markale market-place.

 2     Since, as say you, visited this area, would you agree that between these

 3     two locations, there is no obstacle whatsoever?

 4        A.   Could I just confirm.  The cross-section, is that from the

 5     market-place to the position of 2400, or is it a cross-section looking

 6     across this picture?

 7        Q.   [In English] What do you mean by cross-section?  Sorry?

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You used the word, Mr. Lukic, first.

 9             THE WITNESS:  So is this cross-section of how the picture at the

10     bottom, the cross-section of how the land rises, is this taken from the

11     market-place up to where the possible firing position could take place?

12             MR. LUKIC:

13        Q.   Yes.  Yes.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Possible firing position.  I do understand 170

15     degrees.

16             MR. LUKIC:  170 degrees [Overlapping speakers] ...

17             JUDGE ORIE:  170 degrees --

18             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  -- over a distance of 2400 metres and that

20     is [Overlapping speakers] ... projected 2400 metres, I take it, not

21     because you know that the distance projected is shorter, if you go

22     upwards.

23             MR. LUKIC:  It's projected from 2400 up to Markale market-place.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. -- Mr. Lukic, if I measure a distance, if I do

25     it on a map, then, on the map, it shows to be shorter that in reality it

Page 18818

 1     may be because it also has to cover an inclination, also has to cover a

 2     difference in altitude.

 3             Now is the 24 [sic] metres, the real distance or is it the

 4     projected distance on a map?

 5             MR. LUKIC:  It's projected distance on the map, as I understand

 6     it.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then we know what we are talking about.

 8             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   So, Mr. Higgs, since you have been to the area, does this

10     correspond to what you saw, that is to say, that between the location at

11     2400 metres distance to the Markale market, there are no natural

12     obstacles that would prevent the spread of the sound?

13        A.   There's no hills in the way, as such, just the -- the vegetation,

14     the tall trees, on that particular slope.

15             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we tender this exhibit into

16     evidence, please.

17             MR. WEBER:  The Prosecution would object at the time.  We ask

18     that it remain marked for identification until the expert comes and

19     testifies.  The Prosecution will also express its concern about using

20     angled views on Google Earth to actually depict, in fact, elevations.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll mark it for identification.  It was just to

22     illustrate, Mr. Lukic, that you took this angled projection because you

23     can't make measurements in that respect.

24             MR. LUKIC:  I think measurements would be included as well, so

25     probably our expert would testify on that issue as well.

Page 18819

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  But that is certainly unclear at this moment.

 2     Angles, et cetera, of course, change if you change the projection from

 3     anything else than 90 degrees rectangular.

 4             It will be marked for identification.

 5             Madam Registrar.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 1D1392 receives number D400,

 7     Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  And is marked for identification.

 9             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10        Q.   When you said that a distance was 2400 metres, did you measure it

11     by walking down the road, or did you take your measurement on the map?

12     What was the basis for this assertion of yours?

13        A.   The distance was taken off the flat distance off the map.

14        Q.   Again, you made your measurement from the map without taking the

15     elevation of the ground into consideration; is that correct?

16        A.   The measurement was done directly off -- off the map.

17        Q.   [In English] Okay.  Thanks.

18             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have 1D1393, please.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we look at that, Mr. Lukic, could I ask you

20     to carefully also verify the markings on the map you showed us a minute

21     ago, indicating lines for 160 and 170 degrees, because it seems that

22     there's more than 10 degrees of difference there.

23             Could you please check that very carefully.  It seems that the

24     plotting is not accurate.  To me, at least.

25             MR. LUKIC:  I don't have that gadget in my hands.

Page 18820

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  You can buy it for two or three euros in every shop

 2     where -- it's not that difficult.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  I'm sure that both Mr. Weber and I will do that.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  You haven't listened carefully enough at secondary

 5     school, I'm afraid.  Please proceed.  But I'm quite willing to borrow it

 6     to you.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  And I will check that as

 8     well but I have to work with what I have in my hand.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I do understand.

10             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.  So the next one we need is 1D1393.

11        Q.   [Interpretation] The same procedure is applied here.  Only now by

12     using a Google Earth photograph, I applied -- or we applied a 160-degrees

13     angle.

14             Do you know whether this is also consistent with what you saw on

15     the ground?

16        A.   Well, the area is -- is -- we're still looking at the same area.

17     I obviously cannot verify or deny your line you have for 160 degrees

18     there.  Just seemed to be a picture of the same area, yes.

19             MR. LUKIC:  We would offer this one to be marked for

20     identification as well, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 1D1393 receives number D401,

23     Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  And is marked for identification.

25             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

Page 18821

 1        Q.   In your report, you marked this distance as the distance from

 2     which a mortar shell could have been fired with charge 3 - is that

 3     correct? - and I'm talking about the distance of 2400 metres.

 4        A.   Correct.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask the witness, have you taken into

 6     consideration the difference in elevation when you --

 7             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  -- calculated?

 9             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.  Because, although we have a

10     distance of 2400 metres we draw on the map, when a mortar is elevated

11     above the horizontal, it actually gives the mortar longer range.  It's

12     actually -- in the range tables there was a calculation where you can add

13     and increase an altitude onto the distance that the mortar can actually

14     achieve.  So I took that into account when looking at the areas around

15     this -- on the map of this area around 2400.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Just -- so it was considered.  Thank you.

17             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   In your report, you relied on Mr. Eric Bleakely's statement; is

19     that correct?

20        A.   In regard to which parts?

21        Q.   In regard of the market-place incident of the

22     28th of August, 1995.

23        A.   That is one of the statements I looked at, but obviously not the

24     only one.

25        Q.   [In English] I understand that.

Page 18822

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In order to avoid some misquotation,

 2     I would prefer for us to look at 1D1394.  Let us look at 1D1394.

 3        Q.   That's the statement that you had relied upon.  In the English is

 4     Mr. Bleakely's statement, and we need page 11; and in the B/C/S, we need

 5     page 13.

 6             Here, Mr. Bleakely says that the HALO system was in use on the

 7     ground which is the Royal Artillery system, which involves the

 8     disposition of sound sensors for artillery and mortar fire.  This system

 9     would have registered in Sarajevo all firing from the city.  Excessive

10     noise would hamper the sensors who are unable to deal with excessive

11     noise, and it is also said that HALO cannot make a distinction between

12     the detonation of a round against a firing.

13             Is it true that this particular system -- are you aware that on

14     that particular day, this system did not register any firing?

15        A.   All I have to base that on would be this report.  And I believe

16     in this report they did not pick up anything.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

18             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, just so we have some precise

19     information, I read that -- that the statement here says that it would

20     have picked up anything that had been fired from inside the city.  And I

21     just warranted to make that clear just because it wasn't incorporated in

22     the previous -- so ...

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, you agree?

24             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Mr. Higgs, are you familiar with this system?  And is it possible

Page 18823

 1     that with its beam it can pick up only the sound coming from one

 2     direction, or should it pick up the sounds coming from all directions?

 3        A.   I am aware of the system, but I'm not a technical expert on this

 4     piece of equipment, so I'm afraid I couldn't give you a -- an answer to

 5     that question.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I saw you nodding yes where the

 7     transcript -- after my question whether you agreed or not has no answer

 8     in the transcript.  But you apparently agreed.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  If the gentleman cannot tell us --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  I mean the previous one, reading the statement.

11     Mr. Weber said something about it.  I asked you whether you agreed.

12             MR. LUKIC:  I read the same.  I think, it's in the transcript

13     that I read that part of the --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  There's no disagreement on that.  Let's put

15     it in a negative way.

16             MR. LUKIC:  Then it's what it says in the statement.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May I just interrupt.  Unfortunately, Mr. Lukic,

19     what is recorded on the transcript is not what is said in the statement.

20     The statement talks of picking up firing from inside the city and what is

21     recorded is this system could have registered inside in Sarajevo all

22     firing from the city.  Not firing from inside the city.

23             Your question to the witness was directions, not source of the

24     noise, but the direction of the noise.

25             MR. LUKIC:  That's difference in the translation, Your Honour.  I

Page 18824

 1     was reading from B/C/S.  And it says:  From the city.  And the fact is

 2     that, in English, it is:  Inside the city.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

 5        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Higgs, let me ask you something about the

 6     traces on the tarmac and the position of the stabiliser following an

 7     explosion of a mortar shell.

 8             According to you, what kind of charge is required for a

 9     120-millimetre shells for the stabiliser to become embedded into the

10     pavement?  And I'm talking about the pavement of the same texture as the

11     one in front of the Markale market-place, so to be either embedded or to

12     remain at the point of impact.

13        A.   The issue of whether a tail-fin will embed in the ground is

14     dependant on many factors.  And the hardness of the ground, of course, is

15     one of those factors.  And it's also dependant the velocity the round is

16     travelling.  Normally, the higher the velocity on the higher charges, and

17     by that I mean charges 5 and 6, would normally have a higher probability

18     that the tail-fins will still be lodged in the crater.  But this is not

19     always the case.  It's just a higher probability that that will be the

20     case.

21        Q.   Charge 4, according to you, would not necessarily be embedded in

22     the asphalt.

23        A.   That's correct.

24        Q.   So I assume that the same applies to a charge 3, in your view; is

25     that correct?

Page 18825

 1        A.   Yes.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Higgs, could I ask you, if you say charge 4

 3     would not necessarily be embedded in the asphalt.  You earlier said that

 4     there are many factors to be considered.  What speed at impact did you

 5     have in mind when you're talking about charge 4?

 6             THE WITNESS:  I have not got the velocity in front of me, but

 7     normally for the charges 3s and 4s, the -- the middle charge of

 8     velocities that can be fired, for their tail-fins to be in the ground we

 9     normally expect that to be in very soft ground, and, again, the

10     probability of happening is quite low.  The probability goes up when you

11     fire the higher charges, i.e., charges 5 and 6, because they have fire --

12     greater muzzle velocities.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  This is a rather general statement.  The

14     higher the velocity, muzzle velocity, and therefore the higher velocity

15     at impact would enhance the chance that the tail-fin would embed in the

16     grounds.

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

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

19             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   And let me ask you something about radar Cymbeline.  You have

21     perused the comprehensive UNPROFOR report that was done at the request of

22     the UN, about the same event.  Let's look at 65 ter 30280.

23             Perhaps it is already part of the evidence --

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honours, this is document MFI'd as

25     P2605, Your Honours.

Page 18826

 1             MR. LUKIC:  I apologise.  [Interpretation] In this report, we

 2     would like to look at page 11 in English and page 17 in B/C/S.  This is

 3     just to show that -- or, rather, what materials were used, what sources

 4     were used, for the purpose of this report.

 5             And now we would like to see bullet point 4 in this report.

 6     Unfortunately, I do not have the page number for -- for this paragraph.

 7     In English, I would like to look at page 3, and the same page in -- in

 8     the B/C/S version, please.

 9             The page numbers do not tally, although this is how I recorded

10     them in preparing my questions.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Next page in -- next page in B/C/S, therefore.  Yes,

12     there we are.

13             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] However, this is not what I need.

14     There must have been some error.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I think you said you wanted to look at paragraph --

16     at item 4, or bullet point 4, which is fuses.

17             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, but --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  All the fuses are there now in B/C/S, unless you

19     wanted to address any other part of the report.

20             MR. LUKIC:  Can we see the top of the page?  Maybe I can

21     calculate, since I have ERN numbers.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  What's the subject you want to address?

23             MR. LUKIC:  I want to talk about Cymbeline --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Cymbeline.

25             MR. LUKIC:  -- radar.  And I want to read one portion from this

Page 18827

 1     report, but ... I will continue without the document, since I cannot

 2     locate.

 3             Give me one second.

 4             I have one document.  That's why I cannot locate the page.

 5     Sorry.  I need P797.  I'm sorry.  I apologise.

 6             So from -- from this document, we need page 3 in English and in

 7     B/C/S.  And point 4.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  There we are, with the Cymbeline radar.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

10        Q.   [Interpretation] It says here:

11             "The evidence from the Cymbeline radar was used by the

12     HQ UNPROFOR G2 staff to ascertain the firing range of the mortars."

13             At the time of the firing incident which happened on the

14     28th August, 1995, the radar was in operation on a direction arc and at

15     an elevation that would have detected the trajectory of any mortar fired

16     at a range of 950 metres or less:

17             "Analysis showed that a round fired from 900 metres would have

18     reached a vertex height on its trajectory, which would have been

19     registered on the radar beam.  The assessment was that the mortars were

20     fired at a lower trajectory which passed under the radar beam.  Any round

21     fired at such a trajectory to pass under the radar beam would have come

22     from a firing position, dependent on the charge, at a range between 1550

23     to 3500 [Realtime transcript read in error "5300"] metres.  The

24     difference of the confrontation line from the impact point is 1050

25     metres."

Page 18828

 1             Do you agree with these UNPROFOR findings?

 2        A.   All I can do is take what he said here in this report, as I am

 3     not a Cymbeline expert.  So I have to take what it says here.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I think we have to correct one number in the

 5     transcript.  Page 39, line 7, "1550," sorry, "to" --

 6             MR. LUKIC:  3500.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  "3500."

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Thanks.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That would be correct.

10             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Even without not being an expert, do you find any contradictions

12     in these findings?  Because it says here for that radar -- that radar

13     could have registered the trajectory of any shell that would have been

14     fired at a distance of 250 metres or less?

15             JUDGE ORIE:  950, I think it is.

16             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] 950 metres, yes.

17        Q.   And would it have been possibly easier to establish or determine

18     the direction of a mortar that had come from a higher elevation and a

19     further distance, in your view, if a shell was fired from 2400 metres

20     under any angle with a charge that could have reached Markale, could have

21     passed under the radar beam, in your view?

22        A.   Obviously I don't have the technical information on how the

23     Cymbeline was set up on this particular day.  It could have been set up

24     just looking at a particular area, so I find it very difficult to answer

25     the question because I don't have the technical knowledge or how they

Page 18829

 1     were set upon this particular day to give you a definitive answer.

 2        Q.   Did you analyse this conclusion reached by UNPROFOR?  Did you

 3     accept it?  Did you reject it?  And did this conclusion make it into your

 4     report and into your conclusion?

 5        A.   I used this report just as one of the background pieces of

 6     information to try and come to a -- an informed conclusion in my report.

 7     Whereas, it says here that they were aiming the Cymbeline to pick up

 8     obviously the mortars fired at the short ranges of 950 metres with a --

 9     would have picked it up.  That is one of the ranges the mortar could have

10     been fired from.  So I use this report then to remove that range from one

11     of the possible ideas.  So I did use this report just to help me in

12     trying to reduce the options down of where the mortar could have been

13     fired from.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic, if I may just ask a question for my own

15     clarification.  I'm not sure whether to ask it to the witness because he

16     said he doesn't know anything about Cymbeline radars, but I'm putting the

17     question on the record nonetheless.

18             The last sentence of this paragraph that we read says:

19             "The distance to the confrontation line from the impact point is

20     1050 metres."

21             Now, is it the distance from the front -- confrontation line that

22     we need to look at, or is it the distance of the 2400 metres that we're

23     looking at, which should fall between 1050 and 3500?

24             I thought we're talking here about the distance from the firing

25     point to Markale, not the distance from the confrontation line to

Page 18830

 1     Markale.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Of course, that we are discussing the firing point to

 3     Markale, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It would be 2400 metres that we are working with.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  We'll work with a different distances, if you want --

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Fair enough.  Fair enough.  But if we are

 7     analysing whether a mortar fired from 2400 would have come below the

 8     radar or -- and be caught by the system or not, then we've got to put in

 9     2400 here.  And then, of course, we can put in any other number and,

10     according to this formula, decide whether it would be below the radar or

11     above the radar.

12             MR. LUKIC:  I will do that.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

14             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

15        Q.   [Interpretation] And one more clarification, please.  Did you

16     establish whether the distance from Markale to the confrontation line was

17     established correctly and that it was 1050 metres, or perhaps the

18     confrontation line was at a distance of approximately 1950 metres?

19        A.   All I had to use this time was the maps which I had been supplied

20     which had the confrontation lines drawn on them.  How accurate those

21     lines are, obviously I don't know.  So I was just basing it on the

22     confrontation lines on those -- on the -- on the maps.

23        Q.   And on those maps that you used, what was the distance of the

24     confrontation line as it was marked on those maps, if you remember?

25        A.   From what I can remember, it seemed to be between about 1200 and

Page 18831

 1     1700 metres, if I remember correctly.

 2        Q.   Very well.  You're familiar with the fact that both UNPROFOR

 3     members and investigation of the BiH established that due to the height

 4     of the building, the angle of descent should have been more than

 5     67 degrees; right?

 6        A.   Correct.

 7        Q.   We will go on using this information from now on.

 8             Did you analyse the firing tables that UNPROFOR used when coming

 9     up with their conclusions?

10        A.   Yes, I did.

11        Q.   And using those same firing tables, were you able to verify the

12     UNPROFOR findings and conclusions?

13        A.   I can't remember if I was clarifying or supporting theirs.  I use

14     those tables then to come up with my own distances, which were here in

15     the report.  I can't remember if that confirms exactly with the other

16     reports without re-reading them.

17        Q.   Very well.  And now let's just briefly look at Eric Bleakely's

18     statement, which is 1D1394.  I am interested in page 10 in English and

19     page 12 in B/C/S.  As you can see, this is Mr. Eric Bleakely's statement.

20             Somewhere in the middle, it says, "The tables give you ..."

21             Mr. Bleakely explains the operation of a radar, and he says:

22             "The tables give you the height with different charges.  We

23     combined this information with the ceiling of the Cymbeline radar, and I

24     think that we came to two charges.  The radar was looking at that part of

25     the city.  The second charge would have cut the beam.  We then went to

Page 18832

 1     the Cymbeline radar.  WO2 Andy Harris was the WO2 in charge of the

 2     facility.  He took me to the back of the radar.  I went with Powers.  He

 3     showed me the arc on the map that the radar was looking at.  At

 4     170 degrees or 240 degrees ... the shell would have cut the beam.

 5     Gunner Rooney was the operator in the back of a vehicle.  He was glued to

 6     the screen," as it were.

 7             And then looking at the same report, page 11 in English,

 8     paragraph 7.  In B/C/S, this will be paragraph 5 on page 13.

 9             It says here:

10             "I had the firing table for a Yugoslavia 120-millimetre mortar

11     and I used them to calculate the maximum and minimum ranges."

12             In other words, what he used for this analysis were the firing

13     tables for a -- Yugoslavia 120-millimetre mortars.  Did you find that to

14     be correct as well?

15        A.   What are you asking me to verify?

16        Q.   Did you also establish that UNPROFOR members, those who operated

17     a Cymbeline radar, had the firing tables for a Yugoslavia 120-millimetre

18     mortar?

19        A.   I -- I don't know whether they did or not.

20        Q.   Very well.  We can see that Mr. Bleakely says here that with a

21     different charge -- or, rather, the second charge would have cut the

22     beam, according to Mr. Bleakely.

23             In your report, you say that the first charge could have been

24     used to fire at a distance of 900 metres from the point of impact, the

25     second charge would have been 1600 from the point of impact, and that

Page 18833

 1     only the third charge could have propelled the shell to a distance of

 2     2400 metres, and so on and so forth.

 3             We will come to the firing tables.

 4             Is it correct that Mr. Bleakely's findings were not incorporated

 5     in the comprehensive UN report?

 6        A.   I can't remember whether these are in the comprehensive report or

 7     not.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 9             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I'm just having trouble finding the

10     reference to where Mr. Bleakely talks about it being fired from the

11     second charge.

12             If Mr. Lukic could please direct me.

13             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.  I'm sorry if it wasn't clear enough.  It's

14     English version of his statement, 1D1394.  It's page 10.  It's line 3 of

15     the paragraph starting with, "Tables."  It says:

16             "The second charge would have cut the beam."

17             MR. WEBER:  Thank you very much.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, you're using Mr. Bleakely's statement.  I

19     don't think it's in evidence at this moment.  And if I read lines like:

20     Angle of descent, I did not have the range tables with me but when I

21     looked at the scene, I could not imagine the round coming in at that

22     angle, et cetera.

23             That, at least, asks for a further detailed analysis of this

24     statement before we -- we take it as a statement of reference for what

25     this witness tell us.

Page 18834

 1             We've struggled this morning with a lack of accurate

 2     measurements.  Well, that -- these lines, and, of course, I have not seen

 3     the whole of the report, but ... it doesn't make me very optimistic about

 4     the accuracy of what that witness states.

 5             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would like to call up something

 6     that will clarify the matter in a more exact way.  1D1293.  These are the

 7     firing tables for 120-millimetre mortar shells, and I believe that we

 8     have the document in the system.  It used to be a 65 ter document, a

 9     Prosecutor's document.

10             [In English] Yes.  It's 65 ter 30261.  Maybe it's better in

11     fuller version with the translation.  It's the first document from the

12     list for this gentleman.

13             [Interpretation] I know for a fact that in B/C/S I'm interested

14     in page 57.

15             [In English] I'm sorry, then we'll have to go back to the

16     document I called first.  It's 1D11293.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Isn't this the document, Mr. Lukic?

18             MR. LUKIC:  It should be the same document.  But obviously the

19     pages are not arranged the same way.  Or at least the first one does not

20     correspond with the line numbers.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  This is the document that came after you asked for

22     1D1293 which you said is 30261, 65 ter.

23             MR. LUKIC:  I don't know if it's in the system arranged the same

24     way.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

Page 18835

 1             MR. WEBER:  The first document called up in B/C/S is the firing

 2     table for the 120-millimetre.  The second one is an operations manual for

 3     that.  I believe they're two different manuals.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Sorry.  Then it's not the same document.  I

 5     misunderstood that it's the same document.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, how about the break?

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Excellent idea, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom.  We take a

10     break of -- no, as a matter of fact, we are -- yes, we took the first

11     break early as well.  Let's stick to the -- as if Mr. Mladic would be

12     present.

13             MR. LUKIC:  Obviously I'm tuned up to that schedule.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And you need some time perhaps.

15             Could the witness follow the usher.

16                           [The witness stands down]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  We resume at 20 minutes past 12.00.

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

19                           --- On resuming at 12.23 p.m.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, I'd like to raise a matter in

21     relation to the scheduling of this witness, and we received a message

22     from VWS.

23             I think Mr. Higgs would very much like and would hope that the

24     testimony could be concluded on Thursday.  Now, in view of the time

25     you've asked for, Mr. Lukic, that seems to be at least a bit problematic.


Page 18836

 1             Now, there are various solutions.  One is that we say, Well,

 2     unfortunately we can't finish on Thursday.  Another solution would be on

 3     the basis of a very accurate scheduling that by taking some extra time on

 4     Thursday we might be able to conclude, but that, of course, may meet

 5     objections by the Defence in view of Mr. Mladic's condition.  Another

 6     option would be to nevertheless to sit tomorrow but then the Chamber

 7     already can tell you that we would only be able to sit 15 bis.

 8             The Chamber is open to accommodate the witness but sees all kinds

 9     of problems and invites the parties to give their views on it.

10             MR. LUKIC:  If I may, Your Honour, I would maybe ask the witness

11     first, is it really necessary for him to leave?  And if he says that it

12     is, then we would rather -- because I have already one of my previous

13     clients is testifying in Mr. Karadzic case and I'm visiting him

14     tomorrow [Overlapping speakers] ...

15             JUDGE ORIE:  So you're not available for tomorrow.  That's clear

16     and is a good reason.  Our scheduling order says that we're not sitting

17     on this Wednesday.  So, therefore, that's fully accepted.

18             Then, extended time on Thursday might not help us out in view of

19     your request to cross-examine the witness for eight hours which most

20     likely effectively would have three and a half hours on Thursday.  You

21     used a little bit over two hours today.  There's --

22             MR. LUKIC:  Two more hours, maybe more, three hours more.  Two

23     and a half hours [Overlapping speakers] ...

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that would be adjusted --

25             MR. LUKIC:  That would be the whole day, two sessions almost.


Page 18837

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We'll first inquire with the witness how

 2     compelling the reasons are and also tell him that we tried to accommodate

 3     him but that, until now, we see no possibility.

 4             Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

 5             Mr. Lukic, you and I, we should not overlap, because the

 6     transcriber is missing all our important words.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  I apologise.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  So do I.

 9                           [The witness takes the stand]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Higgs, before we continue, I'd like to inform

11     you that we received a message from VWS whether there was any chance that

12     we could complete your testimony by Thursday.  Although all parties and

13     the Chamber are quite willing to accommodate you, unfortunately, there

14     are no possibilities for that and it is not to be expected that we could

15     finish your examination by Thursday.  We tried to do our best, but

16     commitments elsewhere make it impossible, and we cannot sit for more than

17     four days a week.

18             I thank you for your understanding for the situation, because

19     from your nodding yes, I understand that you accept that we cannot

20     accommodate you.

21             Mr. Lukic, could you please continue.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

23             Can we have on our screens now Mr. Higgs's report in both

24     versions, since I was warned by them -- booths that they don't have this

25     in front of them.


Page 18838

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Can we have a number, please.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Sure, it's P2605.  We will need page 15 in English

 3     version, and page 23 in B/C/S version.

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Higgs, I will first ask you to give me an

 5     explanation under letter (i), entitled: "Summary."  In the second

 6     paragraph, it reads as follows, and I'm going to quote:

 7             "With a direction of 170 degrees and an angle of descent of

 8     approximately, it is possible to plot several locations of the origin of

 9     fire."

10             Do you think that there is something missing here?  What does

11     this "approximately" mean and was it maybe just a typo?

12        A.   Because we had some small discretion with the angle of 67 to

13     clear the building and another report said 70 degrees.  It could also be

14     I've had to approximate, therefore then, what ranges we may be able to

15     achieve.  So that's what I mean by the word "approximate."

16        Q.   [In English] It says approximately.

17        A.   Yeah.

18        Q.   You think 70 is missing maybe, 70 degrees?

19        A.   Angle of approximately 70 degrees, it says.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  In the previous paragraphs -- paragraph you say:

21             "The angle of descent, as suggested, was greater than 67 degrees

22     and was probably nearer 70 degrees as explained in the report by the

23     Bosnian authorities."

24             So I don't know what your basis was for your -- later it says

25     that an angle of approximately 70 degrees.  So I take it that you took

Page 18839

 1     that as a starting point for your explanation.

 2             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, who do you calculate on an approximate number?

 4     I mean, would then not be the outcome be approximately 900 metres or ...

 5             THE WITNESS:  Yes -- yes, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  What would be the difference if you start --

 7     well, let's say, an angle of descent of 67 degrees compared to

 8     72 degrees, what would be the difference in outcome approximately, as far

 9     as the distance of fire is concerned?

10             THE WITNESS:  That would be dependant on what charge you're

11     firing.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Let's -- let's start with charge 3, which you

13     consider to be the more probable one.

14             THE WITNESS:  It could be quite a distance you're talking.  About

15     3 degrees there --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Five degrees.

17             THE WITNESS:  Five degrees [overlapping speakers]...

18             JUDGE ORIE:  The difference between 67 and 72 is 5, yes.

19             THE WITNESS:  It could be as much as 50, or in some cases even

20     probably up to 100 metres.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Some cases would -- isn't it true that you look at

22     the firing table that you get an answer and not --

23             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  In some case this is, and in some cases that.

25             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  You'll get a distance, a figure from the

Page 18840

 1     firing tables, yes.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  So your answer was 50 or in some cases 100.  I mean,

 3     what's -- if you say, I would have to look that up, that's a fair answer.

 4     But --

 5             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  From the range tables there will be a set

 6     figure.  In reality -- when you fire a mortar in reality, the distance

 7     actually could be smaller or greater, depending upon other factors.  But

 8     in the range tables, they will give you a set figure.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Of course, what I was looking for was what the

10     average difference in distance would be.  But perhaps if we look at the

11     tables we could see whether the difference is 50 to 100 metres.

12             Please proceed.

13             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14        Q.   And then you list charges.  Charge number 1, 900 metres;

15     charge 2, 1600 metres; charge 3, 2400; and charge 4, 3.000 metres.

16             Well, I will have to start with charge 1, even though you said

17     that this firing position was inside the perimeter of the confrontation

18     line.  But in order for you to understand further on, because I'm going

19     ask you to make some markings in the tables, can we now move from your

20     statement to 1D1293, which is the firing table.  We don't have it in

21     English, but we are going to deal with numbers mainly.  Therefore, I

22     think it won't be difficult to follow.

23             So this is the firing table for a light mortar, 120-millimetre

24     M74.

25             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need page 58, please.

Page 18841

 1        Q.   Here, we can see the table for charge 1.

 2             In the first column it says in B/C/S, "Distance in metres."  So

 3     please focus on the line which starts with 900.

 4             We can see here, and we'll find the same number later on in the

 5     table, the table angle of 1 over 6.000, and then below you can see the

 6     figure 1101, 66.5 degrees, which is less than 67, as had been found - is

 7     that right? - and the trajectory peak in metres is 522.  As for the table

 8     angle or elevation of 1100 metres, that is the data.

 9             Have you had an opportunity to see this table?

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, would you allow me either to repeat

11     reading that line and see what it actually is --

12             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  -- or to give me an opportunity to re-read the

14     transcript in this respect.

15             MR. LUKIC:  900 line --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I see 900.  And the first is?

17             MR. LUKIC:  It is "daljina," [interpretation] distance.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Distance.  And then it says 1-2 on the top.  Let me

19     just check whether I ...

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  In the meantime, can I request, Mr. Lukic that we

21     get a translation of this.  It's all very well for you to say it's just

22     numbers, unless I understand the labelling of the columns, and I have to

23     wait for you to explain for me which I forget two minutes later I'm just

24     not able to work with this.

25             So if we can get a translation.

Page 18842

 1             MR. LUKIC:  Your Honour, we are in the process of agreeing with

 2     the Prosecution what exactly we need from this table.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I understand.  I understand.  When you have

 4     agreed, if can you -- [Overlapping speakers] ...

 5             MR. LUKIC:  We will do it as soon as possible.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I nevertheless ask you to go again -- we see

 7     the line with the 900 "daljina," distance, 900.

 8             Second column was.

 9             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Distance gauger, 1/6.000.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  What does that mean?  Is that a kind of a --

11             MR. LUKIC:  We are not going to use this line at all.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But where is that?  I see 6-49.

13             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Yes, whether you use it or not, if you give it

15     as an example, I want to understand what the example is.

16             Mr. Weber.

17             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, just to add on to the translation

18     concern.  I might be wrong here, but I see on the top line it says "mijna

19     M49 P1," which, I believe, is the type of mine at issue in this table and

20     M49.  And I just -- there are many different types of tables from many

21     different types of shells in this -- in this table, and I just don't know

22     -- I just -- according to the report it says an M62.  So I just -- I have

23     a little concern whether or not we're using the correct table associated

24     to the mine at issue.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, what made you choose this example, or is

Page 18843

 1     it just to set out the layout of the tables?

 2             MR. LUKIC:  It was provided by our experts, and they told me that

 3     it is actually the table that should be used with checking with this

 4     incident on Markale.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Do can we find that anywhere?  Then that

 6     should have a basis.  Because your expert cannot do anything else than to

 7     look at the statements or photographs or whatever in order to take that

 8     as a starting point for applying their expertise.  So, therefore, I think

 9     you should have asked them:  What is the basis for that assumption.

10             But, nevertheless, in order to understand the tables I'd

11     nevertheless like to go through it.  So the first was 900, apparently,

12     metres; then the second column was -- for where we read 6-49 represents

13     what?

14             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Range finder.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Range finder.  1-6.000 means what?

16             MR. LUKIC:  I don't know.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, Mr. Lukic, you're not presenting us a table

18     and then say look at it and when we ask you what it stands for that you

19     do not know.

20             But let's move.  On third column, 1-6.000, what does it read at

21     the top.

22             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Table angle.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Table angle.

24             MR. LUKIC:  We heard that it's different, 6.000 and 6400.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If we're talking about angles, the --

Page 18844

 1     apparently there is a scale which uses the number 6.000.  Now, for

 2     angles, earlier, we talked about mills, and we took 6400 as the division

 3     of 360 degrees in mills.  We ignored, more or less, that there are other

 4     tables of mills as well; for example, if I remember well, the Russian

 5     one.  But we took it that that was the mills system used.

 6             Now, here we see a -- angles which is in one system 1 to 6.000,

 7     and my recollection from the past is that 6.000 is often the system used

 8     in the Russian army, opposed to 6400 to be used in western armies.  Okay.

 9     But you couldn't explain to us what it is.

10             Now, the next one, could you read what column 4 has as its title.

11             MR. LUKIC:  [No interpretation]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Which means?

13             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Degrees.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Degrees.  That may be then the degrees as we usual

15     them.

16             MR. LUKIC:  It comes to the same as the

17     degrees [overlapping speakers] ...

18             JUDGE ORIE:  So that would be 66 degrees.

19             Then the next column reads?

20             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] An ordinate of the trajectory peak.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could you tell us what that means?

22             MR. LUKIC:  It's, as I understand it, and Mr. Higgs could help

23     us, is the highest point of the trajectory, of the -- of the line on

24     which this mine travels.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And that is then the horizontal distance or is

Page 18845

 1     it the peak --

 2             MR. LUKIC:  The peak.  It's the peak.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, 522 metres at an angle of -- that's -- okay.

 4     But, still, whether it's the horizontal or the vertical distance --

 5     Mr. Higgs, could you help us out.  The --

 6             MR. LUKIC:  It's from the firing point -- from the firing point.

 7             THE WITNESS:  If -- if --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, everything is always calculated from the firing

 9     point, either horizontally or vertically.

10             MR. LUKIC:  It's vertically.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  It's -- well, that's what you tell us, yes.

12             MR. LUKIC:  But maybe Mr. Higgs [overlapping speakers]...

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Would Mr. Higgs tell us whether the highest peak is

14     usually explained in terms of horizontal distance or the elevation

15     reached by the projectile.

16             THE WITNESS:  It is the vertical distance that the projectile

17     will reach when fired at that angle.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Okay.

19             And the next one, Mr. Lukic.  What does the column 7 reads to be?

20             MR. LUKIC:  We are not going to use that but it says

21     [Interpretation] Flight time. [In English] self-explanatory.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Are those seconds or minutes or hours or days or

24     months?

25             MR. LUKIC:  Seconds.

Page 18846

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             MR. LUKIC:  It says seconds.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Above the number 7, we see an S, which is

 4     likely to reflect that it is in seconds, I take it.

 5             Would you agree, Mr. Higgs?

 6             THE WITNESS:  Yes, they're normally in seconds.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  They're normally in seconds.

 8             Next column, Mr. --

 9             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Descent angle.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Descent angle in what?

11             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In mills.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  In mills.  Descent angle in mills.  Let me see

13     where --

14             MR. LUKIC:  Mills -- mills -- mills

15     here [Overlapping speakers] ...

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, yes, I see that.  Let me just try to

17     understand.

18             Yes, the shorter the range, the higher the descent angle appears

19     to be.  If the range becomes longer because the projectile is fired in a

20     more horizontal -- horizontal trajectory, the angle of descent decreases.

21             Yes, please.

22             MR. LUKIC:  That's how I understand it as well, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm just trying to think aloud what I see so that we

24     know what these tables are telling us.

25             MR. LUKIC:  Then we have the last two columns.

Page 18847

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  The first one at the top says [Interpretation]

 3     Probable deflection along.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  What does that mean?  Perhaps we could ask the

 5     witness.

 6             Mr. Higgs --

 7             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Then we have a long longitude and the

 8     next one is along the direction.

 9             THE WITNESS:  If I'm understanding this correctly, that is the --

10     or the accuracy of the rounds, that you have a figure for longitudinal

11     distances and the horizontal one.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I do understand what the range of error is more

13     or less.

14             And the further.

15             MR. LUKIC:  And it's in metres.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  That is apparently in "metare," metres.  Yes, now at

17     least I understand the left page of what I'm looking at.  Whether the

18     other page needs attention, I leave it to you, Mr. Lukic.

19             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Mr. Higgs, we are now going to look at the previous page, which

21     is page 57 in this document.

22             We saw that for 900 metres, in mills, 1/6.000, the table angle is

23     1100.  And that the peak of the curve --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, Mr. Lukic, one by one, I want to see

25     every single reference you're making.

Page 18848

 1             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah, okay.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  So we are looking -- first of all, are we looking at

 3     the same type of projectile.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  We are.  Okay.  And we were, you said, at page ...

 6             MR. LUKIC:  It's for mine, 120 millimetres, is for first

 7     charge --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  First, I'm asking you on what page we are

 9     exactly so that I can see in which context it appears.  Page in the

10     document.

11             MR. LUKIC:  It's page 57.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Fifty-seven.  One second, please.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I, in the meantime, ask for one

14     clarification.  On the top of this page we see 120-millimetres, M74.  But

15     that is not the same as we looked at, the page following this one.

16             MR. LUKIC:  It's the same table so why is it marked differently?

17     I really don't know.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Weber pointed to that, that on the top of

19     that page we don't have a translation.  There's a reference to another

20     one.  Not M74.

21             MR. LUKIC:  I think it's M49, P1.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Exactly.

23             MR. LUKIC:  It's the same manual so probably the same

24     calculations.  It's 120 millimetres.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, 120 millimetres doesn't say anything about the

Page 18849

 1     exact shape, et cetera, and the flying features.  Mr. Lukic, let's

 2     proceed for the time being, but let's be aware that what is probably the

 3     case is not what we are seeking.  We are seeking what is the case.

 4             Okay.  Now we -- you give the table and you start with what?

 5             MR. LUKIC:  I start with the point mark with 0.00 on an epsilon

 6     on Y.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's the firing

 8     point [Overlapping speakers] ...

 9             MR. LUKIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ... firing position.  Yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Firing position.  Okay.  Next.

11             MR. LUKIC:  Next, we seek to -- the witness to see this 1.100.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  And what does that stand for, or do you want to know

13     from the witness [Overlapping speakers] ...

14             MR. LUKIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ... that -- that, actually,

15     line should mark the trajectory of mine fired with first charge that

16     should reach 900 metres on zero altitude.  The same altitude it is fired

17     from.  Of course, it would go further --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So what we need to establish first is whether

19     this is a table relating to charge 1.  Because it seems that the table

20     mainly shows the different angles of firing and then we still do not know

21     with what -- with what charge they are fired.  Unless the witness could

22     tell us, or unless you could give a hint, Mr. Lukic.

23             THE INTERPRETER:  Speakers are kindly not to overlap for the sake

24     of interpretation.

25             MR. LUKIC:  I was just presented by our experts that that's it.

Page 18850

 1     So I didn't inquire further and --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, do you really want the Chamber to

 3     interpret these tables without understanding them?  Because just to say,

 4     Well, that's what the experts say.  The clear issue here is that

 5     apparently, that's how I understand it, this table shows the trajectory

 6     of projectiles fired, and it relates to 120 millimetre.  And it -- I have

 7     not found any reference to a specific charge.  Whereas, you assume that

 8     it is with charge 1.  But then I would like to know on what basis you

 9     make that assumption.

10             MR. LUKIC:  I should sit and read all these tables now, and

11     I [Overlapping speakers] ...

12             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

13             MR. LUKIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ... clear if you see the next

14     charge, charge 2, charge 3, it would change.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  If it changes then where's the indication what

16     charge is depicted in the other ones?

17             MR. LUKIC:  If we looked at page for charge 2, there is also no

18     indication on that page that it is charge 2 or charge 3.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Then the question arises whether that is a page

20     about charge 2 or charge 3.  I'm not saying it's not --

21             MR. LUKIC:  I understand you.  But, unfortunately, I don't have

22     the solution for this situation I am right in now.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I suggest that you continue with this tomorrow,

24     this exercise tomorrow, after you've oriented yourself in more detail.

25             The Chamber will have hardly any opportunity to check everything

Page 18851

 1     because there is no English translation, Mr. Lukic.  Otherwise, I would

 2     have gone through it this afternoon as well.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.  I was -- I thought that there is English

 4     translation, so I really was not aware until very beginning of my cross

 5     that there is no one.

 6             But I will move on in accordance with your guidance, Your Honour.

 7                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, one second, please.

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, the Chamber has considered whether we ask

11     you to continue later, after you have looked at it.  We also allow you to

12     continue now, but then to gather the relevant information so that we can

13     verify, after we've looked at these materials, whether the assumptions

14     were right or wrong.  You'll not get more time.  It's your own risk that

15     if you're wrong, if that takes more time, then it's a pity for you, but

16     that's then the result of the way in which you prepared.

17             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  So, therefore, I would leave it to you.

19             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I would then continue on the

20     same subject.

21        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Higgs, we are still looking at the same

22     sketch of the curve, or the trajectory.  When the elevation is

23     1.100 mills, could you draw a horizontal line through the vertex of the

24     curve to the point marked as Y, the vertex of the curve to the point

25     marked as Y?

Page 18852

 1             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, I do -- I guess I do have an objection

 2     as to continuing right now.  It has not been established, at least

 3     through the witness, whether we're talking about the right type of mine

 4     or shell.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we'll verify that at the end.  We have some

 6     provisional confidence in that Mr. Lukic is not wasting his time on a

 7     wrong mine if that turns out to be a wrong mine.  It would damage his own

 8     case, and if we takes that risk, but, as I said before, it will have to

 9     be verified.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

12        Q.   [Interpretation] This is the elevation, therefore, a minimum for

13     which a shell could have had a descent angle of 67 degrees in order to

14     fall on the market, i.e., to miss the building.  Is that your

15     understanding of the situation?

16        A.   What this picture shows is the flight paths of a particular round

17     and the -- pictorially shows the maximum vertex heights.  The one I've

18     drawn across here is just above the -- the point 5 on the vertical scale,

19     which is similar to the table you -- we looked at previous, where I

20     believe it was 500, and I think, 22 metres, and then the rest of the

21     shape then shows the path that that particular round will take until it

22     strikes the ground, which is on the line 00.  And then if you are -- if

23     the mortar is higher than ground level, it then shows the path the round

24     will take, striking a piece of ground, in this case, as low as .5 below

25     the horizontal.

Page 18853

 1        Q.   [In English] And can you please draw the vertical line from the

 2     end of this line with marking of 1100 to the X line.  So just to

 3     join [overlapping speakers] ...

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I'm -- I'm already lost.  Apologies for

 5     that.  We are looking at a picture -- this is a charge 1.  Yes?

 6             MR. LUKIC:  I was told.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But nothing was included in your question

 8     about the -- the projectile being fired with charge 1.

 9             So, therefore -- and then the link to the 67 degrees is also not

10     clear to me.

11             Could you please explain to us exactly what you meant there.

12             MR. LUKIC:  It was established that the angle of descent was

13     67 degrees necessary to miss the building that was close --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             MR. LUKIC:  -- to market [Overlapping speakers] ...

16             JUDGE ORIE:  I see that.  And how does this relate to this table?

17     I mean, where do we see the angles?  Is the 1100, does that -- you link

18     it to the 1100 line or what does the --

19             MR. LUKIC:  We link it -- we link it to 1100 line.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  And 1100 is linked to 67 degrees.

21             MR. LUKIC:  It's -- yes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  And where do we find that?  Do we find that in one

23     of the previous paragraphs?

24             MR. LUKIC:  Tables.  It says 6605.  So at least it has to be --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  And let me just have a look.

Page 18854

 1             You say you have taken that from the table we looked at before?

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.  That's how I understand it.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And what 1100 is -- is what then exactly?  I mean,

 4     what is the --

 5             MR. LUKIC:  [Overlapping speakers]...

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  What is the --

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Use.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  -- unitarian?  67 degrees, I understand.  I go back

 9     to that table.  That table was at what --

10             MR. LUKIC:  I wanted to ask the witness --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Fifty-eight.  One second, please, Mr. ...

12             I'm just trying to ... you are referring to 1101 with 66.05

13     degrees.  Is that in the previous table?  You asked us to look at the

14     900 metres line --

15             MR. LUKIC:  I link it to 900 metres.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17             MR. LUKIC:  Definitely.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  You linked it to 900 metres and you assumed that the

19     1101 was equivalent to the 66.05.  And then you understand this table to

20     reflect all that.

21             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Whether it is true or not, I do not know, but at

23     least I can now follow your reasoning.

24             Okay.  And then your question was, you were talking about the

25     angle of fire.  And is it -- angle of descent is not necessarily the

Page 18855

 1     same?  And the 67 degrees is an angle of descent.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And you're now referring to an angle of firing.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  So, therefore, I do not know whether your question

 6     can be answered on the basis of what we've seen now.  But perhaps you

 7     rephrase your question with such accuracy that we can see whether the

 8     witness can answer it.

 9             Witness, have you been able to follow the inquiries I made with

10     Mr. Lukic as to the background of his question?

11             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, please put the question again in an

13     understandable way.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Before do you that, Mr. Lukic, if we could perhaps

15     have the table on the half of the screen and then ...

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             MR. LUKIC:  It's marked "marked."  So if we can save this and

18     then we can accommodate.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yeah, let's do that, because otherwise we have

20     forgotten what's on that table.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, for the time being, and if we

23     want -- if we need to look further at the table, we'll do so soon.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Can we save this drawing although it's just one line.

25     But it will be explanatory later.

Page 18856

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  The vertical line has not been drawn yet.  Should we

 2     not ask the witness to do that before we save it.

 3             MR. LUKIC:

 4        Q.   Please, Mr. Higgs, if you can draw the line by which you would

 5     connect this line of 1100 with X with a horizontal on the -- on the

 6     bottom of your screen.

 7        A.   Do you want me to draw a vertical line from the vertex point,

 8     i.e., the top where I have just drawn that other line from, or where this

 9     round meets the horizontal.

10        Q.   It's minus 050 right, that it meets horizontal, so just put an X

11     so we can read the distances later.

12        A.   The horizontal would be that position --

13        Q.   Yes.

14        A.   The line zero.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Is that what you intended or would you like to --

16     the witness to draw a line from [overlapping speakers] ...

17             MR. LUKIC:

18        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] ... you can draw that line and draw the

19     line from minus. -- minus .50 as well.

20        A.   Minus .50.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you --

22             MR. LUKIC:

23        Q.   Could you join it with the X?

24        A.   Okay.

25        Q.   And if you can do the same with the previous dot.

Page 18857

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the speakers kindly not overlap for the

 2     sake of interpreters.  Thank you.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  If we can --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  The interpreters are complaining again, and rightly

 5     so.  I hope they have some understanding for our struggle with this

 6     technical materials, but that is not of great help to them.

 7             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Can we save this as the next exhibit.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Document as marked by the witness receives number

11     D402, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And is there any way that we could have pages

13     60 and page -- no, page 59 and page 58 together on the screen?

14                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Now we have the table and the graphics on the

16     screen.

17             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

18             MR. LUKIC:  I can read now from the UN report, and we don't have

19     it on the screen.  I would read from P797; B/C/S page 3, and English

20     version, page 3, all point 4.

21             I will read one sentence where in that report, it -- it says, and

22     I will quote -- I only have B/C/S version in front of me.  I'll quote in

23     B/C/S:

24             [Interpretation] "The analysis has shown that a round which would

25     have been fired from a distance of 900 metres reached the vertex of its

Page 18858

 1     trajectory that the radar beam could have registered."

 2        Q.   Would you agree, Mr. Higgs, that the Cymbeline radar system could

 3     have registered everything that went above the trajectory; i.e., which we

 4     marked in the previous sketch with 522 metres.  Everything else that

 5     would have been fired and I claim that this is the first charge, so the

 6     radar should have kept everything else marked as 1200, 1300, and 1400?

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 8             MR. WEBER:  I'm just going to object to the form of the question

 9     because it's assuming a lot of greater facts than what has been

10     established so far.  There is a particular type of mine that has been --

11     elevations for and this is broadening it to all types.  So --

12             MR. LUKIC:  I'm sorry if I was vague.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] If we take into account the fact that I asked

14     you about 120-millimetre mortar shell, which, according to us and we hope

15     that we will be able to explain that in further detail, was represented

16     by charge 1, is it correct that the radar beam would have caught every

17     such round whose elevation would have been more than 1100?

18        A.   Again, as I said before, I'm not a Cymbeline expert.  But from

19     that report which we read previously, they said that they had it pointing

20     over the city and would have picked up the vertex heights for charge 1.

21     So, from that, I can only assume that what they mean is at a vertex

22     height of, in this case here, approximately 500 metres, that the radar

23     would have picked up a round passing through it.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Is it time for our break or we still have to --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  It depends on what you --

Page 18859

 1             MR. LUKIC:  I can continue but [overlapping speakers] ...

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps it's better to take a break and to resume at

 3     20 minutes to 2.00.  That's what we'll do.

 4             We'll first ask the witness to be escorted out of the courtroom.

 5                           [The witness stands down]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  We take a break, and we resume at 20 minutes to.

 7                           --- Recess taken at 1.18 p.m.

 8                           [The witness takes the stand]

 9                           --- On resuming at 1.41 p.m.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, before you continue, I think I had not

11     yet pronounced a decision on the tendering of D402, that is, the marked

12     graph.  D402 is admitted into evidence.

13             Please proceed.

14             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15        Q.   And now I would like to call up -- perhaps it is not even

16     necessary.  I will read it.

17             Mr. Higgs, you said that -- for the second charge, you said that

18     it could have been fired from approximately 1600 metres and that that

19     place would have been somewhere on the confrontation line and that the UN

20     observers could have heard that round being fired.

21             Do you hear that -- do you remember that?

22        A.   Yes, I do.

23        Q.   And now let's look at the document that we have on the screen

24     already, which is 1D1293.  I'm interested in page 59.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  When waiting for that, Mr. Lukic, could you assist

Page 18860

 1     me.  Could you tell me what "drugo punjenje" means.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Second charge.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Second charge.  Then we have looked at a map because

 4     it is indicated what it is.  But it is apparently the second charge, the

 5     graph we looked at, at page 59, reads in the right top corner

 6     "drugo punjenje, VO," is 153 metres per second.

 7                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  What is now on our screen, which is page 59.  And I

 9     that's the one we looked at, didn't we, Mr. --

10             MR. LUKIC:  Before we looked, and now when you saw this

11     "drugo punjenje," I can see then on the previous one on the same place it

12     says "prvo punjenje."

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So on page 57 we look at the first charge with

14     an initial speed of 113 metres per second.  And on page 59, we looked at

15     the second charge.  And let me now just -- yeah.  Yeah, that's clear now.

16     So that problem has been resolved.

17             MR. LUKIC:  I'm a bit relieved.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, a few remaining, but ...

19             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Mr. Higgs, look at the table.  Look at charge 2.  Would you again

21     be kind enough and draw a horizontal line through the ordinate between

22     500 and 500 metres, and can you mark that line with number 1.

23        A.   Is that what you -- line across at the height?

24        Q.   [In English] Now we have to erase that.  I need your line on 500

25     and it's approximately -- you've drawn 900.  500 to 522 metres.

Page 18861

 1        A.   Oh.  500 ... yes, 500 metres.  So a line --

 2        Q.   Yes.

 3        A.   -- about --

 4        Q.   That's it.  Thanks a lot.

 5             [Interpretation] And now can you encircle the elevation of 1100

 6     and mark it with number 2.

 7        A.   1100.

 8        Q.   Yes.

 9        A.   That one.

10        Q.   [In English] Yes.  And top, can you mark the top with number 2.

11        A.   [Marks]

12        Q.   There.  Thank you.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, perhaps you could enquire with your

14     expert whether the number 1100 would perhaps, where it is linked to 1 to

15     6.000, whether these are Russian or Warsaw Pact mills which would be

16     equal to approximately 66 degrees --

17             MR. LUKIC:  67, yeah.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  -- well, more or less.  If that would explain then

19     we slowly start understanding --

20             MR. LUKIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ... my next question would

21     clarify, I think --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

23             MR. LUKIC:  -- for me and everybody else.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please proceed.

25             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

Page 18862

 1        Q.   Mr. Higgs, do you agree with me that all the trajectories with an

 2     angle lower than the trajectory of 1100 mills, according to this

 3     nomenclature would have a descent angle less than 67 degrees and that a

 4     projectile with such a trajectory would have fallen or would have hit the

 5     building in the market-place and could have not ended up on the road in

 6     front of the market-place?

 7        A.   Yes, with those angles where there -- the lower angles where the

 8     descent angle would be less than 67 degrees, it would have hit the

 9     building.

10        Q.   As a matter of fact, this sketch shows rounds which, according to

11     the UNPROFOR report, should have been caught by the radar.  All of the

12     calculated trajectories could -- should have been caught because they are

13     all higher than 522 metres.

14        A.   Yes.  In this case, the charge 2 vertex height is higher than

15     that for charge 1.  So, again, not knowing why, what happened to the

16     Cymbeline, that -- it is higher than the previous vertex height for

17     charge 1.

18        Q.   In that case, we might agree that Mr. Bleakely was right when he

19     said that each shelled fired with charge 2 would have been picked up by

20     the radar beam; is that correct?

21        A.   If that is where the Cymbeline was pointing, and I don't have

22     that information, but, yes, I think that is probably a correct

23     assumption.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, it is not an assumption, but it was a

25     conclusion.  You make an assumption.  What you say is not knowing how the

Page 18863

 1     Cymbeline was oriented, then you can't say anything about it.  That's --

 2             THE WITNESS:  Correct, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Apart from that, you do not have technical knowledge

 4     about the Cymbeline system.

 5             So the two, Mr. Lukic, should make us cautious in asking the

 6     witness to support conclusions on matters of which he has no thorough

 7     knowledge.

 8             MR. WEBER:  If Mr. Lukic could just assist me.  I'm just having

 9     trouble finding something again.  The 522 metres in the UN report, which

10     report is he referring to and what page?  I'm just having trouble finding

11     it.

12             MR. LUKIC:  If we read P797, page 3 in English and also in B/C/S,

13     under number 4, what we have --

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  If you are calling that up you should first

15     [Overlapping speakers] ... marked.

16             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah, then we save this marked drawing.  Thank you,

17     Your Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Document as marked by the witness receives number

20     D403, Your Honours.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

22             MR. LUKIC:  So it says in that report:

23             [Interpretation] "The analysis shows that a projectile fired from

24     900 metres would reach the vertex of its path that could be registered by

25     a radar beam."

Page 18864

 1             And one should read this together with the findings that the

 2     descent angle must exceed 67 per cent -- degrees.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Lukic, could you assist me whether the

 4     Cymbeline was at the same elevation as the firing point you suggest?  Is

 5     that an assumption?

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Cymbeline beam, as I understood it talking about this

 7     issue, was actually positioned at the airport, and its beam was all the

 8     way across the city, not on one position [Overlapping speakers] ...

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I see that [Overlapping speakers] ...

10             MR. LUKIC:  Covering the whole city.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  It was at ground level at the airport, yes.

12             MR. LUKIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ... beam.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And then in pointing in easterly direction.

14     And do we have the details exactly of how that Cymbeline was positioned?

15             MR. LUKIC:  I don't have it here with me, Your Honour.  I cannot

16     show it now.  But I think it would be easy to present it --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

18             MR. LUKIC:  -- as an evidence.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But it's of vital importance for understanding

20     the whole issue, you would agree with me?

21             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then --

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I just want to find out from Mr. Weber whether he

24     has been assisted by Mr. Lukic with respect to the question about which

25     you asked for assistance.  Are you able to establish where 520 is after

Page 18865

 1     what Mr. Lukic has done?

 2             MR. WEBER:  Thank you for asking, Your Honour.

 3             No, it's not clear from what I've been referred to in the G2

 4     report which is admitted in being referenced in item number 4.  It's just

 5     that there's a base of 522 being used here in terms of metres.  I'm just

 6     asking where Mr. Lukic is getting that from, and it's not been

 7     established at all with the witness.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic.

 9             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Mr. Higgs, you have heard what is perplexing my colleague,

11     Mr. Weber.  Do you accept that this is the height, the distance, and the

12     angle that corresponds to the findings that you have checked?

13        A.   Could you just repeat exactly what you want, please?

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I try to -- to seek --

15             The issue is where does the 522 metres come from?  That's the

16     issue.

17             Mr. Weber, we looked at the 900-metre table, and Mr. Lukic

18     explained to us that the highest point reached is 522 metres.  So

19     assuming that a charge 1 was used, that would have been -- that would

20     have travelled up to the elevation of 522.  And that is at the basis of

21     Mr. Lukic's theory that reaching that altitude, it must have been caught

22     by the Cymbeline, of which we do not know a lot of things, but that is

23     where it comes from, I think, Mr. Lukic, correct me when I'm wrong.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Only it's not my theory.  It's the finding in a bit

25     different way, by the UN, telling about these 900 metres.

Page 18866

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  So we just converted it into this chart.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I -- no, yes.  I thought that the theory was

 4     that on the basis of these tables and having heard how the Cymbeline

 5     system was working at that time, that if you reach an altitude of

 6     522 metres, it would have been caught by the radar.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  That's your theory.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  I think it's calculation, not theory.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Let's leave that for another day.

11             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If I might just ask, maybe from the witness,

13     line 2 on D403 at page 59 which you drew as the line representing 522,

14     how did you establish that, sir?

15             THE WITNESS:  Is it possible to have the picture back up that you

16     just related to?

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yeah.  If could you do that -- do that.  D403.

18             That line 2, the horizontal line 2.

19             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I was asked by Defence to draw a line --

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm sorry.  I'm sorry, it's line 1.

21             THE WITNESS:  Oh.  Line 1 is drawn across -- I was asked to draw

22     a line across at approximately 522 metres, so that's why it has been

23     drawn across just above the -- the .05 line.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 18867

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Lukic, you would agree with me that the

 2     figure of 522 doesn't appear in the paragraph you indicated in the UN

 3     report; is that correct?

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Absolutely, Your Honour.  You are right.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.  Just to make the record clear.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  And let's proceed.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

 8        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Higgs, in your report on page 24, or,

 9     rather, 23, for 2400 metres distance, you cited charge 3.

10             Now, back to the tables, and I would like to show you page 61

11     which pertains to charge 3.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This is 1D1293.

13             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, I missed that part.  Thank you.

14        Q.   [Interpretation] I would kindly ask you that we repeat the same

15     exercise, that you mark a line between 500 and 522 metres.

16        A.   A horizontal line as before?

17        Q.   [In English] Yes.  Yes, please.

18        A.   [Marks]

19        Q.   [Interpretation] Thank you.  And then draw the same line at the

20     top of 1100.

21        A.   [Marks]

22        Q.   Thank you.  Would you agree with me that, according to these

23     tables, a shell that would be fired with charge 3 and would have a

24     descent angle of 67 degrees, provided the findings from the UNPROFOR

25     report are accurate, must have been caught by the radar beam?

Page 18868

 1        A.   As I said before, whether it was or wasn't caught before, I

 2     haven't got the information on that.  But you can see from this that it

 3     does give you a higher vertex height.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Can you again, please, mark the line between 500 and

 5     522 metres with the number 1.

 6        A.   [Marks]

 7        Q.   And the line passing through the vertex height of 1100 with the

 8     number 2.

 9        A.   [Marks]

10        Q.   Looking at this graph -- but let first save it and tender it into

11     evidence.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Document as marked by the witness receives number

14     D404, Your Honours.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

16             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   This will relate to the previous ones as well, but I omitted to

18     ask you if it is correct that all the paths to the right, from the 1100

19     one, have a smaller angle of descent than 67 degrees.

20        A.   Yes, they will have.

21        Q.   Thank you.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Again, angle of firing, angle of descent?

23             MR. LUKIC:  Angle of descent of 67.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Is -- yes.  But is what -- the 1100 line, is that

25     reflecting the --

Page 18869

 1             MR. LUKIC:  That one is more than 67, so there is possibility

 2     that one -- that one and --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  My question is:  Is the 1100 line, is that

 4     reflecting the angle of firing or is it reflecting the angle of descent?

 5             MR. LUKIC:  It is basically in connection of angle of descent

 6     of -- with that 67 degrees.  It has to have that angle at least to miss

 7     the building.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I see that.  But what is the -- we are looking at

 9     the table.  We are looking at a line reflecting ...

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  The sketch.  Yes, now -- I mean, the sketch related

12     to the table at the line, which seems to reflect an 1100 indication,

13     which I thought might be linked to an angle, and that's what you do as

14     well.  My single -- simple question is:  Is it reflecting the angle of

15     descent or is it reflecting the angle of firing?

16             MR. LUKIC:  That angle of firing changes, and I didn't show maybe

17     because it might cause confusion because I was mostly focussed on this

18     67 degrees.  And this 1100 is in connection of 67 degrees and more --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  67 degrees is the angle of descent.

20             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And I'm not saying that there's not a link or a

22     relation between the angle of firing and the angle of descent, but the

23     question is whether they are the same.  Perhaps we could ask the witness.

24             Is the angle of firing exactly the same or slightly different or

25     considerably different from the angle of descent, if the shell lands at

Page 18870

 1     the same altitude as from where it was fired?

 2             THE WITNESS:  The angle of descent is slightly different from the

 3     angle of firing.  This graph here, the 1100, does relate to the angle of

 4     firing.  The angle of descent will be slightly different, slightly

 5     steeper in angle as the round falls to slightly deeper angle to the -- to

 6     the upward trajectory, as you saw, I think, in one of the earlier --

 7     from -- excerpts from the range tables where the angle of descent figures

 8     were slightly bigger to the firing angles.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.

10             MR. LUKIC:  Just to be clear on that, we can see page 58.  That's

11     table for second charge.

12             This is first charge.  Sorry.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  In theory, it should be the same.  The angle of

14     descent -- apparently because the horizontal speed diminishes during

15     flight, the angle of descent will be steeper.  Is that well understood?

16             THE WITNESS:  Correct, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  So I'm not saying there is no relation

18     but what is reflected in the table, the 1100, seems to be the angle of

19     firing.

20             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.  Yes, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Resulting in a slightly steeper angle of descent.

22             MR. LUKIC:  That's how I understand it and how witness explained

23     it to us.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

25             Please proceed.

Page 18871

 1             MR. LUKIC:  If we can have 65 ter 14297, please.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   This is a report dated 8th September 1995 compiled by UNPROFOR.

 5     The subject is - let me see what is written here - under heading subject:

 6     "28th of August, 1995, Sarajevo firing incident."

 7             And it says here, and I quote:

 8             "The Cymbeline radar was another important factor in the

 9     investigation.  The Cymbeline radar operates 24 hours a day and was

10     operating on the 28th of August, 1995, at the time of the mortar firing.

11     The Cymbeline was fully operational and manned by an experienced crew who

12     would have detected at least several of the mortars if they passed

13     through the Cymbeline's radar beam.  The Cymbeline crew did not detect

14     any of the five mortars fired, however, was able to provide

15     circumstantial information."

16             And now it goes on to say that:

17             "The high terrain partially blocked the line of sight of the

18     Cymbeline radar dish; hence, the angle of the radar dish was fixed at a

19     higher angle.  At this angle, it detects mortars fired in a higher

20     trajectory, but not in a lower trajectory."

21             So what we see here that there were no obstacles to detect any

22     shells flying above the indicated point.  Did you bear in mind and did

23     you take into consideration this UNPROFOR report?

24        A.   Yes, I've seen this report.  Again, I don't know why it didn't

25     detect any of the rounds.  So I -- on my report it continued with the --

Page 18872

 1     the evidence I had and therefore came to the -- the -- the conclusions I

 2     made in the reports.

 3        Q.   After reviewing the firing tables which you did not -- an

 4     opportunity to do when you testified in the Karadzic case, and after you

 5     have seen this UN report, would you alter your findings and your

 6     conclusions?

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 8             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the witness just said he wasn't sure

 9     about something.  And just -- if Mr. Lukic is going to ask that question,

10     if he could just provide the full information in the report because I do

11     see there's information continuing on the next page.  I can arrange to

12     have that available for the witness tomorrow.  I do see the time.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14             And, Mr. Lukic, perhaps it would be good to -- to be very

15     specific on altering findings and conclusions.  Does that mean that the

16     whole -- all conclusions, all findings are invalidated, or do you invite

17     the witness to -- or certain portions that should be --

18             MR. LUKIC:  I have the whole day tomorrow to specify that.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  You don't have the whole day tomorrow because we are

20     not sitting [Overlapping speakers] ...

21             MR. LUKIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ... to work on it.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  To work on it.  That's -- that's appreciated,

23     Mr. Lukic.

24             Then we quickly will adjourn for the day, so as to allow you to

25     start working immediately, but not until after I have instructed the


Page 18873

 1     witness, again, not to speak with anyone about your testimony, or

 2     communicate in whatever other way, whether testimony already given, or

 3     testimony still to be given, and we'd like to see you back on Thursday at

 4     9.30 in the morning.

 5             You may follow the usher.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 7                           [The witness stands down]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  We adjourn for the day, and we resume Thursday, the

 9     7th of November, at 9.30 in this same courtroom, III.

10                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.18 p.m.,

11                           be reconvened on Thursday, the 7th day of November,

12                           2013, at 9.30 a.m.