1 Friday, 8 November 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
8 This is the case IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
10 Mr. Weber, the Chamber was informed that you'd like to put
11 something on the record.
12 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours and good morning.
13 There's just one brief matter I wanted to put on the record with
14 respect to Exhibit D399 currently marked for identification. With
15 respect to this annotated photograph, the Prosecution asked the Defence
16 for the basis of its assertion made to the witness at transcript
17 page 18815, line 3, that the area marked as Colina Kapa in this photo is
18 the position at which OP-1 was situated. The Defence has not provided us
19 with the source of this information. The Prosecution notes at this time
20 that it also checked its evidence, in particular, P1751, and that it does
21 not agree that this annotated photograph accurately depicts the location
22 of OP-1.
23 Thank you, Your Honours for letting me put that on the record.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
25 Mr. Lukic, I take it that you will take care of it.
1 Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom. But before --
2 yes, please.
3 Have the parties reached an agreement on how to divide the time
4 this morning?
5 MR. LUKIC: I think Mr. Weber asked for one hour, so I will leave
6 that last hour for him.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If that's the agreement, then we'll stick to
9 Meanwhile, I use the time to deal with a follow-up on
10 Witness RM038.
11 In court, on the 31st of October of this year, the Prosecution
12 indicated that it would inform the Chamber in the week of the
13 4th of November whether it would maintain its Rule 92 bis application for
14 Witness RM038 that is part of the 28th Rule 92 bis motion. This can be
15 found on transcript pages 18539 and 40, and could the Prosecution advise
16 on its position.
17 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honours, if you would allow us to just give
18 you an answer at the next break, we will be able to do that.
19 JUDGE ORIE: We'll wait for that.
20 [The witness takes the stand]
21 Good morning, Mr. Higgs.
22 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps needless to say but I nevertheless remind
24 you that you're bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the
25 beginning of your testimony.
1 WITNESS: RICHARD HIGGS [Resumed]
2 JUDGE ORIE: And Mr. Lukic will now continue his
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]
5 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Higgs.
6 A. Good morning.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have P867 in e-court,
8 please. We need page 12 in English and 11 in B/C/S.
9 Q. Mr. Higgs, this morning, we are probably going to dwell upon --
10 on the issue of humanitarian aid of the 14th of -- 4th of February, 1994.
11 According to the police report, the explosions took place on a
12 Oslobodilaca Sarajevo Street and Mihajlo Pupin number 3, and on the
13 pavement between the playground and the garage. In the report that we
14 see before us, the forensic and anti-sabotage department says that an
15 explosion took place on Dzavarahalal Nehura Street. Did you make any
16 comparison of the data and how come that we have a different address now
17 in this police report?
18 A. I'm not sure why there would be a different address. I didn't
19 check the -- the specific numbers or the addresses while looking at
20 the -- the reports I was given.
21 Q. Do you know that this location, the Dzavarahalal Nehura Street,
22 is 200 metres away from the location indicated as the point of impact in
23 other reports?
24 A. No, I don't.
25 Q. Thank you. Let us now focus our attention to the incident of
1 22nd January 1994 in Alipasino Polje. During this incident, according to
2 the reports, three shells fell. The first one landed in the park on
3 Rade Koncar Square; the second in Cetinjska Street 3; and the third one
4 on Klara Cetkin number 4. Is that correct? Is that what the report
6 A. I can't see the report in front of me, and I can't remember if
7 the -- that was mentioned in the reports that I looked at.
8 Q. We have this in document P865 --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Lukic please slow down when reading
10 the numbers. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you're invited to more slowly read the
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] So Exhibit P865, we are not going to
14 call it up. English page 4; B/C/S page 8.
15 Q. Have you established the azimuth or the bearing angle from which
16 the shells arrived?
17 A. In this case, when I was able to visit the scene, the
18 deterioration of the craters was such that it was impossible to use them
19 for any way of confirming a direction.
20 Q. Due to that, you decided to give your confidence to the forensic
21 CSB Sarajevo team; is that correct?
22 A. Yes. All I had to go off was the -- the reports I had been
23 given, so I based my report on -- on those.
24 Q. Did you take into consideration the fact that the CSB findings
25 concerning the shell calibre were contrary to the findings of the
1 forensic technician who conducted the investigation alongside them?
2 A. I was aware of the conflict between the forensic investigation
3 and that of, I believe it's a Captain Verdy but I wasn't aware of any
4 other conflicts.
5 Q. [In English] Okay, well, I'll give the reference.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
7 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I just believe it's not an accurate
8 statement in counsel's just -- previous question on page 4, lines 18 to
9 20 that the investigation conducted alongside one another.
10 MR. LUKIC: Let's see P865, English page 7 and B/C/S page 12.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Did I hear you say 865?
12 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Here, we see again a document produced by the forensic and
16 counter-terrorism department. It says under item 4 that on the
17 22nd January 1994 at around 1320 hours, two mortar shell came from the
18 west, of calibre 120-millimetres, on a Klara Cetkin Street number 4 and
19 the second one hit Cetinjska Street at number 3.
20 So, in addition to Captain Verdy's findings, we have these
21 findings as well. Did you take that into account?
22 A. From looking at this report, I can't be certain that this is
23 actually relating to the same incident.
24 Q. [In English] It's the same date; right? It talks about
25 22nd January 1994.
1 A. It's the same date, correct.
2 Q. And it does come under the number we received from the
3 Prosecution in relation of this incident. But I will not dwell on it
4 anymore, since we are a bit tight with the time.
5 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I can ask Ms. Stewart to possibly print
6 out pages 7 to 9 which is the complete report --
7 MR. LUKIC: Mr. Weber has the time in his redirect. I will move
9 MR. WEBER: If it will assist [Overlapping speakers] ...
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber -- Mr. Weber is offering assistance and
11 you say you don't need it.
12 MR. LUKIC: I don't need it. Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. You also compared the ballistics CSB Sarajevo report with the
16 findings of UNPROFOR team - is that correct? - and in the process you
17 mentioned Captain Verdy; is that correct?
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] So could we please have 65 ter 10570.
19 Q. In this report, Captain Verdy, just like in the previous one we
20 saw, says that on that day three 120-millimetre shells also exploded; is
21 that correct?
22 A. Yes, in this report he refers to three rounds exploding, correct.
23 Q. Would you agree that an experienced ballistic expert could easily
24 distinguish between a 120-millimetre shell explosion and that of
25 82-millimetre explosion?
1 A. Depending on the ground and what it hits, yes, he should be able
2 to tell the difference.
3 MR. LUKIC: We would offer this document into the evidence,
4 Your Honour. If it's not already.
5 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, if I could check if it's already been
6 admitted. I think it might be actually under a Defence exhibit number
7 but I can check and get back to you on the first break.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please check and then we will deal with it.
9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
10 [Interpretation] Can we now have 1D672 in e-court, please.
11 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, Ms. Stewart very quickly checked and she
12 has it admitted as D178. D178.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, no need to decide --
14 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: -- on the tendering.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] So can we please have 1D672 in
18 Q. In this photograph, one can see the point of impact on
19 Klara Cetkin Street in front of number 4?
20 MR. WEBER: I'm just going to -- just my concern with what
21 counsel is continuing with in this photograph is just the foundation:
22 Who took it, when it took, what it depicts. And I'm concerned that
23 counsel is going to be testify as to what it represents, so --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, where does it come from, when was it
1 MR. LUKIC: I don't have this with me right now.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just proceed on an assumption, and if the
3 assumption turns out to be wrong - and Mr. Lukic you should inform us in
4 more detail about where it is - and then you would have lost time.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. LUKIC: I will move on since I'm not sure about the source.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You always can revisit the matter after the
9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. [Interpretation] Do you agree to take a look at P865? We need
11 page 8 in English and 15 in B/C/S.
12 You can see in the penultimate paragraph on the screen, this is a
13 record on the forensic investigation of the scene, the artillery
14 projectile that fell on Klara Cetkin and Cetinjska Streets and it says
15 that the star-shaped traces are around 120 centimetres in length.
16 You have visited the scene, haven't you?
17 A. I have visited the scene, yes.
18 Q. Would you agree that on the spot, the length of these star-shaped
19 traces is actually around 3 metres?
20 A. I cannot obviously determine that from just this report and from
21 the previous picture. I am a little confused because, in the same
22 paragraph, it says that the traces of the primary crater are barely
23 visible. But in the previous picture, they were visible. So I'm a bit
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
1 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution is just seeking to avoid
2 confusion. We have printed a whole copy of this report, if it would
3 assist. It's a rather dense report. If it would assist the witness in
4 looking at it. And I believe the picture was dropped by Mr. Lukic and
5 wasn't proceeded with. I don't know if that's the same picture that the
6 witness is now thinking about.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I do not know. If the witness needs to see more of
8 the report, please do not hesitate to ask for it.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'm going to continue. I
10 have a lot to do today.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel kindly wait for the B/C/S
12 interpretation to finish before continuing to read in B/C/S. Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you're invited to wait for the B/C/S
14 translation to be finished before you go on reading.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. In your report, you wrote that 82-millimetre shells had been
17 fired from the direction of Nedzarici, westerly direction. On what basis
18 did you reach this conclusion?
19 A. That was from the basis of the -- the -- the forensic report.
20 Because of the -- the poor quality of the craters, they could not
21 accurately identify a precise direction, only an approximate direction.
22 And they gave that as westerly in the direction, as you have just
23 mentioned, as indeed this report on the screen here says so.
24 Q. In various documents produced by the CSB, there are different
25 values for this bearing. In the document that you see in front of you on
1 the screen, the CSB ballistic expert established, and you can see that
2 beneath this figure of 120 centimetres that we mentioned, they claim that
3 the shell fell on Klara Cetkin Street in front of number 4 came slightly
4 to the north with respect to the west.
5 A. Yes, it does say that.
6 Q. This is in contravention of the finding that it had come from the
7 westerly direction; is that correct?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
9 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I just -- I don't know if I'm reading it
10 the same as him. I see that the report says: Most clearly visible in a
11 westerly direction, i.e., north in relation to the true west. Is that
12 what Mr. Lukic is referring to?
13 MR. LUKIC: Yes, that's right.
14 THE WITNESS: That is what it says, yes.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. I asked you whether this is not precisely the west; is that
18 A. That -- that would be correct.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just be enlightened, Mr. Lukic. What
20 does northerly direction in relation to the west mean, and how does that
21 become west?
22 I'm asking Mr. Higgs.
23 THE WITNESS: Could you repeat your question, sorry, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: What I read on this report says that the fire came
25 from a slightly northerly direction in relation to the west. I don't
1 understand that phrase myself. Now, Mr. Lukic says, suggests to you,
2 that is that not west. And you agree with him that it is west. And I
3 said: What does this phrase mean and how does this phrase equal west?
4 THE WITNESS: I think in way this report has been written is what
5 they mean is the general direction was to the west, but for this
6 particular round it has come in a few degrees just to the north of west.
7 And, again, they're approximating because obviously the poor quality of
8 the craters in this case. So I read it to read that probably just
9 slightly north of where true west would be.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: And slightly north of where west could be, then
11 that becomes west?
12 THE WITNESS: I think it's in that general westerly direction,
13 but probably just a few degrees probably north of west is what they are
14 suggesting here.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. However, as for the firing position, the report indicates
20 Nedzarici or, rather, the institution for visually impaired persons.
21 Do you know what is the bearing between the institute and the
22 point of impact on Klara Cetkin Street number 4?
23 A. No, I don't.
24 Q. Can we -- or can we agree that 200 degrees equals west, with
25 regard to the north; is that correct?
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 270 degrees.
2 MR. LUKIC:
3 Q. [In English] 180 plus 90.
4 A. Yes. West would be 270 degrees.
5 Q. [Interpretation] Captain Verdy -- can we look at RN 10570, whilst
6 in fact we have heard that it has already become an exhibit, D178.
7 Captain Verdy found that the bearing of one shell was 4200 mills.
8 Between 4200 and 4250 even. This is actually 236 degrees. We are
9 talking about the southwesterly direction.
10 Did you manage to establish where this difference of over
11 30 degrees may have come from?
12 A. No, that was not possible because I could not do a detailed
13 investigation, but from looking at the -- the forensic report, which is
14 far more detailed, then I am a little bit suspicious that Captain Verdy
15 has -- can be such a precise angle of approach when we know that the
16 craters were not of a good quality. So I don't know how he has come to
17 these readings.
18 Q. You will agree with me that the same quality of the crater was
19 found by the members of the CSB who carried out the investigation. The
20 quality of the traces was the same for them, wasn't it?
21 A. It -- it should have been. If I remember correctly, the forensic
22 investigation was carried out on the day, and this one, I believe, was
23 the following day, so they should have had similar crater information to
24 work from.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would like to call up 1D667.
1 Q. This is a photo which depicts a view from the institute for the
2 blind to the place of the incident behind the buildings that we will see
3 in the photo.
4 Do you remember that if you were there, that the place of the
5 incident was sheltered or obstructed from view by these buildings; i.e.,
6 you didn't have a clear sight from the institute for the blind towards
7 the place of the incident because of these buildings?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
9 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, that is a compound question. There's
10 many submissions in there too. I believe it would be just prudent to go
11 step by step and just know whether or not the witness is, one, familiar
12 with this location.
13 MR. LUKIC: The witness is free to answer whatever he wants.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's one question taken altogether; that is,
15 whether the view was obstructed. That is what we are talking about.
16 Could the witness answer the question if he is able to do so.
17 THE WITNESS: I cannot remember if this is the view of the area
18 that I would have seen at the time. I can't remember if this is the same
19 place or not.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Do you remember whether there was a line of view
21 between the point of impact and the institute for the blind? If you
22 don't remember, tell us.
23 THE WITNESS: I can't remember, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
25 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. And now let's focus on the incident that happened in Dobrinja on
3 the 1st of June, 1993. We're talking about a football game, of course.
4 Did I understand you properly when you said that you didn't take
5 any measurements? You did not measure the distance between the craters,
6 you didn't take the bearings or any such thing?
7 A. I took approximate bearings of the craters that were there at the
8 time, although they were not good quality, but did not take any of the
9 measurements to the buildings, that's correct.
10 Q. At the time when you were there, the area was still the same.
11 Nothing had been reconstructed; right?
12 A. I'm not aware of whether anything had or had not.
13 Q. Could you still see the traces of the explosions?
14 A. Yes. There was two craters in the ground which had been filled
15 with some form of red substance that I was taken to and shown.
16 Q. Do you know where the shells had fallen in relation to the
17 football pitch; i.e., the place where the football game was taking place
18 at the time? Did somebody show that place to you?
19 A. Not where the football pitch was. It was commented in -- in --
20 in the reports where they thought they had landed, but I wasn't shown it
21 physically on -- on the ground.
22 Q. Would you agree with me that those people who manned the Serbian
23 position could not see the place where the football game was taking place
24 due to the fact that that place --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the Serb position refers to what? There
1 are many areas where -- which were under Serb control. So, therefore,
2 it's difficult to understand your question.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let me rephrase the question. Thank
4 you. I'll try and be more precise.
5 Q. Is it correct that the football pitch in question is surrounded
6 by eight-storey buildings from three sides, and those buildings
7 completely sheltered the football pitch from the positions of the
8 Army of Republika Srpska. The only open side faced the Mojmilo hilltop,
9 which at the time was under the control of the BiH army?
10 JUDGE ORIE: That's many questions in one. Could we first ask
11 about the buildings.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, to my recollection there are buildings on
13 three sides.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And not on the fourth side. May I take it that
15 there's no dispute between the parties about which was the open side and
16 which were the built-up sides? We've seen photographs many, many times.
17 MR. WEBER: That's correct, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 Q. Will you please tell us how did you establish that you had
21 arrived at the place where UNPROFOR had been on the day of the incident?
22 A. The investigators took me to the site, showed me the craters in
23 the ground, then showed me where that was in relation to the map.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to call up 1D1398.
25 Q. In this report drafted by UNPROFOR, which is actually a crater
1 analysis, UNPROFOR also determined the co-ordinates. And we can see what
2 the co-ordinates are.
3 On page 1, it says what the crater's position was for both crater
4 1 and crater 2.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
6 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, just for the record, I have this exhibit
7 admitted -- or this document admitted as part of P644, e-court page 9.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Did you check the co-ordinates in question? Did you do it when
11 you were there at the scene?
12 A. Yes, I checked the approximate co-ordinates. It's one grid
13 reference given, so it won't be a grid reference of the precise craters
14 because there's only one grid reference.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would like to call up 1D1399,
17 Q. We have plotted the co-ordinates on the map of Sarajevo and we
18 can see that this is actually outside of the neighbourhood in question.
19 Is this what you established? And what you established, does it
20 correspond to our depiction on the map, or, alternatively, did you find
21 something else?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
23 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I'm going to object to the use of this
24 diagram. I see in the UNPROFOR report that -- that was just used that
25 the scale of map used to determine the grid reference was 1:50.000 and
1 this looks like it comes from our map book which is a different scale.
2 And based on that, the grid references might be in place in different
3 locations. I ask that [Overlapping speakers] ...
4 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Mr. Weber, Mr. Weber, are
5 you really telling us that grid references change with the scale of the
6 map? Is that seriously your position?
7 MR. WEBER: Based on the scale, and I see the one attached to it
8 and I've compared these two, slight, yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Grid references are absolute. They have got nothing
10 to do with a scale of a map, I would say, but if we would have a map with
11 a sufficient precise scale, we could check it easily. I cannot
12 understand that the parties, if there's such an issue, Mr. Lukic, that
13 you have not discussed it with the Prosecution because if you're right,
14 the Prosecution would have to -- perhaps to reconsider its position.
15 Therefore, these are absolute numbers, apart from that it's
16 always an area, depending on the -- how many digits we have in the grid
17 references. So, therefore, a small square indicating where it is, you
18 should be able to agree on that. And another matter is, is this the only
19 grid references in any reports on the matter, or are there others?
20 The Chamber would be interested to know if all the grid
21 references mentioned in reports give a different location compared to
22 what we see in the photographs.
23 So, therefore, -- but, of course, the -- I take it that the
24 witness is unable to say anything about it until -- unless provided with
25 a clear map.
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. To have a more accurate estimate
2 of these grid references, we really need to use ideally the map that was
3 used by the investigators, the same type of map and also the map series
4 number because they do sometimes slightly differ depending what map was
6 JUDGE ORIE: That's not dependant on the scale, I take it.
7 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honour. As long as you are
8 using the same map series, then the scale is immaterial. Obviously the
9 bigger the scale, the more accurate you can be.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, Mr. Lukic, this map on which you plotted
11 the grid reference, where do we find -- is -- is this the -- the lines on
12 it, are these the exact grid lines or -- because this seems to be --
13 not to be taken from a military map but, rather, from a civilian map.
14 MR. LUKIC: I suppose it's civilian map, yes. But --
15 JUDGE ORIE: And have you checked whether there's any difference
16 between the maps, or military maps, which would ordinarily be used by
17 military people?
18 MR. LUKIC: If I were here to testify maybe I would be obliged to
19 answer. I asked this witness, has he checked. If he hasn't, that's fine
20 with us. We'll move on.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the first question is: Did you ever consult
22 this map?
23 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honour. I used the map that was in the --
24 in the report, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Did you check the UNPROFOR's claims? Did you try to establish
4 whether the grid reference points that they had established were actually
6 A. Using the map on the -- the report, which is a lot smaller scale,
7 it indicated the -- the general area where these rounds are -- landed.
8 Q. Were you able to establish whether there is a correspondence, or
9 could you not establish that, or did you establish that the two did not
10 correspond to each other?
11 A. They don't correspond exactly, no. It -- it -- it is in the same
12 general area, but I would not say the grid reference is pin-point
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And let's just go back briefly to
16 Q. Do you remember, or perhaps we should wait for the document to
17 appear, that, according to UNPROFOR, those rounds had landed on a macadam
19 A. That is what was reported here, correct.
20 Q. We can also see that they noted two directions: One of 143
21 degrees, and the other of 138 degrees. If this were correct, would that
22 mean that the rounds did not come from the same place, that they didn't
23 originate from the same -- same place?
24 A. Not necessarily. It would depend how far away the mortar could
25 be, 138 and 143, it's only a 5-degree difference, and the two rounds did
1 not land in exactly the same place. So depending how far away the mortar
2 was, which we don't know, one bout could have fired these two. But just
3 as easily it could have been fired by two separate mortars as well.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, Witness, on the basis of a pattern
5 of impact or, as it said here, splinter pattern, what would be the margin
6 of error in establishing the direction of the origin of fire?
7 THE WITNESS: With good craters, at least plus or minus
8 5 degrees, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
10 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. You know, don't you, that the CSB Sarajevo carried out an
13 investigation on the 21st November 1995 at the request of the
14 Prosecutor's office of the ICTY; right?
15 A. Not aware of an investigation in 1995. It was not one I used as
16 part of my report.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let's look at P872, page 3 in English
18 as well as in B/C/S.
19 Q. What we have before us is a record of forensic investigation of
20 the scene of a shelling attack at a parking lot in 36 Dobrinja
21 neighbourhood where it says:
22 "On 20 November 1995 an investigator of the International
23 Criminal Tribunal in The Hague, Jan van Hecke, conducted an interview
24 with Zlatko Medjedovic in RBiH MUP offices. On this occasion, Mr. Jan
25 van Hecke delivered Zlatko Medjedovic a request for a forensic
1 investigation of the scene of a shelling attack and we can see that the
2 incident happened on the 1st of June, 1993, because it is claimed that at
3 the time of the incident a forensic investigation was not carried out due
4 to incessant attack operations."
5 And now I would like to look at page 5 in English and page 4 in
6 B/C/S. In the last paragraph on this page, it says:
7 "The point of impact of the second shell was not forensically
8 examined due to the changed appearance of the soil adjacent to the
9 parking lot ..."
10 Would you be able to explain how you managed to find the traces
11 of the second shell a few years later when even those investigators
12 couldn't do it before you?
13 JUDGE ORIE: What do you mean that reference to "those
14 investigators couldn't do it"? Is that related to what is reported that
15 the ongoing operations would not allow to do that investigation? Is that
16 a reference to that, Mr. -- yes.
17 MR. LUKIC: In 1995, they found only one trace.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And where do we find that? I'm just -- you
19 read --
20 MR. LUKIC: Exactly in this paragraph. It says: Second one.
21 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] "The point of impact of the second
23 shell was not forensically examined due to the altered appearance of the
24 place of impact and the soil adjacent to the parking lot (various
25 agricultural plants have been planted there in the meantime). A photo
1 file was created during the making of this record."
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Not -- what confused me, as a matter of fact,
3 is that you read that the investigation could not take place and the day
4 [overlapping speakers] --
5 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- after that you have not read that.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Would the speakers kindly not overlap.
8 MR. LUKIC: In 1993.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Whereas the report says that what was not possible
10 on the -- I think it was the 20th of November, that that investigation
11 took place on the 21st of November.
12 MR. LUKIC: 21st of November, 1995.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. LUKIC: The investigation was not -- performed on
15 June 1st, 1993.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Let me have a look.
17 MR. LUKIC: It's the first paragraph on -- if we can move back,
18 it's page 3 in this document.
19 JUDGE ORIE: What I read is that - and that's what you read - is
20 that on the -- let me see. Oh, that date is the 1st of June, yes. And
21 then the investigation took place not on the 20th but on the
22 21st of November, 1995. Yes.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
25 Q. [Interpretation] My question was this: How do you account for
1 the fact that when you inspected the place of the incident a few years
2 after 1995, you found two craters there?
3 A. I'm not obviously aware that in this investigation if they were
4 even looking at the same craters that I did, but when I was taken to the
5 location, there were two craters clearly marked, both filled in with this
6 red substance which I have mentioned before.
7 Q. Do you know, were you told when those craters that you found
8 there were created?
9 A. Sorry, could you repeat the question?
10 Q. Do you know where the craters were created; i.e., when the
11 explosions took place? And I'm talking about the craters that you
12 inspected. Did anybody expressly tell you the craters were created at
13 that specific point in time?
14 A. The -- the investigator took me to the scene. They directed me
15 to those two craters and informed me that these were the two craters used
16 in this incident.
17 Q. I can't ask you whether you compared the craters because you have
18 just told us that you were not even aware of this report that we have
19 before us at the moment.
20 A. That's correct.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We can go back to 1D1398.
22 Q. You know that UNPROFOR did not determine the angle of descent
23 because there was no fuse furrow. We will see that when the document
24 appears and the -- both are valid for -- and -- and that -- that
25 information is valid for both crater 1 and crater 2.
1 A. Correct. No -- no measurement of the angle of descent was taken.
2 Q. The angle of descent was determined based on the height of the
3 buildings, as you can see in paragraph 1; right?
4 A. He based it on a minimum that would have been required to clear
5 the buildings, and then from the -- the general pattern on the ground has
6 come up with quite a -- a wide span of which the rounds could have come
8 Q. Precisely so. Under item 2, there is nothing specific relating
9 to the incident. They just copied data from the firing table that the
10 smallest --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Lukic please give us figures slowly.
12 Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic. Mr. Lukic, you are again invited to give
14 numbers slowly.
15 But perhaps --
16 MR. LUKIC: It's in point 2 in this document, what I'm reading.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But that doesn't change the request.
18 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps it's time for a break.
20 MR. LUKIC: It's time for the break.
21 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a break, and could the witness be
22 escorted out of the courtroom.
23 [The witness stands down]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Meanwhile, I used the time for the following:
25 The Chamber will now turn to a matter related to its decision on
1 the Prosecution's first intercept bar table motion.
2 On the 2nd of May of this year, the Chamber issued its decision
3 on the Prosecution's bar table motion for the admission of intercepts
4 related to the Srebrenica segment of its case.
5 On the 3rd of October, the Prosecution indicated by way of
6 informal communication that it had complied with the Chamber's
7 instructions concerning the uploading of particular documents related to
8 this decision, with the exception of further identifying those that could
9 be made public. As of today, the Chamber has not received such
10 additional information and, therefore, the Chamber asks the Prosecution
11 when it intends to comply with this instruction. Furthermore, the
12 Chamber additionally instructs the Prosecution to provide by way of a
13 filing the reasons that the remaining intercepts should retain their
14 confidential status.
15 And before we finally take the break, I would like to briefly
16 move into private session.
17 [Private session]
9 [Open session]
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session. Thank
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
13 We take a break, and we resume at five minutes to 11.00.
14 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
16 JUDGE ORIE: While we are waiting for the witness to be escorted
17 in the courtroom, I would briefly address the following matter:
18 The Chamber turns to a matter related to -- let me see. I am
19 afraid I have the wrong copy before me.
20 I refrain from doing it at this moment.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Lukic.
23 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
24 Q. [Interpretation] I'm going to read again from the document that
25 we have before us, 1D1398, where, under item 2, it says:
1 "The minimum angle of descent for 81-millimetre and
2 120-millimetre mortars is 45.71 degrees. At that angle, the minimum
3 range is 1120 metres for 81-millimetre mortar, and 1340 metres for
4 120-millimetres mortar."
5 Mr. Higgs, would you agree that this is a theory rather than the
6 practice. This information has nothing to do with what was actually
7 measured on the ground; is that correct?
8 A. Correct. This is just showing what sort of ranges could be
9 achieved if the mortars fired on their lowest angle.
10 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it, with the lowest charge? Or is it on
11 any specific charge?
12 THE WITNESS: With those ranges, Your Honour, it would be on
13 their lowest charge.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, please proceed.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Q. Once again, before we move to the next document, let's focus on
17 the degrees in this document: 143 degrees for crater 1; and 138 degrees
18 for crater 2.
19 Now, let us look at document P872, please.
20 As you can see, this is a file produced as a result of an on-site
21 investigation carried out on the 21st November, 1995, relating to the
22 Dobrinja incident which took place on the 1st of June, 1993.
23 We need 5 -- page 5 in English and page 4 in the B/C/S version.
24 Regarding this incident, the investigators of the Sarajevo police
25 department, whilst they were working together with the ICTY Prosecutor's
1 office, established that, as it is written here:
2 "With the use of the plan of the Dobrinja neighbourhood and a
3 compass, we determined the angular span between the northerly directions
4 and the direction of the incoming artillery shell in relation to the
5 centre of the explosion, which equals 110 degrees from the north."
6 This differs from what was established by UNPROFOR yet again.
7 This is at variance with the allegations of UNPROFOR that the angle was
8 140, actually 143 and 138 degrees respectively.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What is the question, Mr. Lukic?
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Is it true that this is different for more than 35 degrees -- or,
12 I'm sorry, 25 degrees, in excess of 25 degrees if compared to the
13 UNPROFOR findings?
14 A. Yes, this report does give a different bearing. But it must be
15 remembered that this is taken possibly two years later, and with
16 degradation of the area not surprising it would come up with a slightly
17 different reading, if that is the case here.
18 JUDGE ORIE: The point Mr. Lukic is making is it's not slightly,
19 but it's considerable.
20 THE WITNESS: Correct, Your Honour, yeah.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Would you agree with me that UNPROFOR had determined the
24 direction from which the shell came in their report without determining
25 the type of the shell or the descent angle of the shell?
1 A. On the -- the type, they did remark that it was of medium
2 calibre: 81 millimetre or 82 millimetre. But they did not work out
3 angle of descent or the range. That is correct.
4 Q. Is it correct that this is not sufficient information in order to
5 determine the position from which the shell was fired?
6 A. That would be correct, as you only have the bearings and nothing
7 to give an indication of -- of the range in which the weapon was fired
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have 9939, please. It's a
10 document which was partially adopted as P644 but not in its entirety, and
11 we are going to use it as indicated.
12 Let's look at page 5 in English and page 4 in B/C/S.
13 Q. Do you know that UNPROFOR investigators who investigated this
14 incident in June and July of 1993 never visited the scene, in actual
15 fact? One can see that from item 7.
16 A. Yes, you can see that from the item 7.
17 Q. It says that UNPROFOR officials indicated that the area is
18 exposed to small-arms fire and therefore dangerous.
19 Would you agree with me that due to the position of buildings
20 or -- could we say that this area was secluded from three sides by
21 eight-storey buildings; therefore, there was no danger coming from
22 small-arms fire from the Serbian positions?
23 A. It's impossible for me to give a detailed answer on that, because
24 they obviously believed from reading this report that it is coming under
25 fire. I've got no evidence to contradict that, so I can't give an
1 accurate response.
2 Q. [In English] Okay.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
4 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, just to put on the record I know counsel
5 is directing him to page 7, but I believe counsel's representation was
6 that UNPROFOR never visited the scene. I don't read the report as a
7 broad a scope as never. I agree that paragraph 7 says what it says, on
8 that occasion.
9 MR. LUKIC: If I remember correctly, this report has never been
10 finished because [Overlapping speakers] ...
11 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... that's a -- that's a
12 different matter, Mr. -- you can still go to the scene and not finish the
14 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
15 Q. [Interpretation] At this point, I'm more interested in the
16 relationship between the Sarajevo authorities and UNPROFOR and what kind
17 of assistance it was provided at the time.
18 It says here, under item 8, the author of the report says:
19 "I asked Mr. Kosavec if there were any documents or photographs,
20 relating to this incident that would be available to assist in our
21 enquires. He stated that any documents of that nature would be held by
22 the chief of police of Dobrinja, and requested we attend the Dobrinja
23 police station on the morning of the 2nd July 1993."
24 Then it goes on. Under item 9, it says:
25 "At approximately 0907 hours on the 2nd of July, 1993,
1 accompanied by Sergeant Lamothe and other members of the war crimes
2 investigation team, I attended the Dobrinja police station where we met
3 with Mr. Kosavec and the chief of police. We were advised that all
4 investigative material relating to this incident had been forwarded to
5 the main police station in Sarajevo.
6 "When he went to the police station, Mr. Mochibob was informed
7 that the materials relating to this shelling incident were currently not
8 available but could be fetched on the 2nd of July at 1400 hours from the
9 main police station."
10 So item 11, the 2nd of July, we need page --
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Slow down. Slow down. Slow down.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need page 5 in B/C/S.
13 So item 11 - I'm not going to read the whole of it:
14 "They went where they had been told to go," and I'm not going to
15 read the whole paragraph, "and they were told that they had nothing and
16 that it might have been investigated by the Bosnian army. He said that
17 UNPROFOR attributed this incident to the Serbian army and that as far as
18 that went, that was sufficient for him."
19 Then, again, in paragraph 14 -- so my question for you is this:
20 Is it true that UNPROFOR official never received the relevant documents
21 from the police relating to that particular investigation.
22 A. I --
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. -- okay.
24 THE WITNESS: I'm afraid I can't -- I don't know because I'm not
25 a member of the UNPROFOR so I don't know whether they did or did not.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I was just going to invite Mr. Lukic to look at
2 paragraph 12 which might just give a slightly different answer.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Then we have to go back to the previous page in
5 MR. LUKIC: It's only on weather condition, Your Honour, not on
6 the investigation.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: It says that, "He provided us with the records for
8 the 1st of June, 1993." Whatever those records might be, I don't know.
9 MR. LUKIC: Says:
10 "He provided with us with the records for the 1st June, 1993,
11 which showed the visibility at the time of the incident was 10 kilometres
12 with calm winds."
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Does this report have Annex H to it and what does
14 Annex H --
15 MR. LUKIC: This report has many annexes, I think. It is divided
16 in several parts.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Now, Mr. Higgs, let us look at item 14:
20 "On 4th of July, 1993, at approximately 0945 I received a copy of
21 a map of Dobrinja from UNPROFOR officials, a copy of which is attached as
22 Annex I. This map shows that the soccer game was held in a location
23 surrounded on three sides by buildings (west, east, and south). In
24 addition, it was explained that there are Bosnian mortars located outside
25 the hospital approximately 500 metres from the soccer location. However,
1 these were not observed during our visit to the Dobrinja area."
2 In your report, did you explore the possibility of a mortar
3 belonging to the BH Army being deployed in the vicinity of the hospital?
4 A. I read this report. I have not done any investigation to prove
5 where these mortars actually were around the hospital, no.
6 JUDGE ORIE: The hospital. Which hospital did you have in mind?
7 THE WITNESS: When the investigators took me to this site, they
8 showed me the area of -- where the hospital is. I'm assuming this is the
9 same one that is being related to here. I have got no grid references or
10 facts. So I was taken to a site, at least they told me it was a
11 hospital, but, of course, it was on that visit impossible to know where
12 the mortars may or may not have been.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Just to check whether you're talking about the
14 same hospital.
15 In your question, "the hospital," which hospital and where
16 located did you understand the reference relates to? Mr. Lukic.
17 MR. LUKIC: I understood that it was 500 metres from the --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. LUKIC: The place of impact.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that gives a circle with some thousand
21 positions for hospitals, doesn't it?
22 MR. LUKIC: I don't think that in Dobrinja you have more than one
24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Which one? Where is that located because
25 that is my -- where did you understand it was located when you put the
1 question to the witness and when you read the report?
2 MR. LUKIC: Can we have 65 ter -- it's on our screen. We just
3 need e-court page 56.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I see there an indication of hospital, "hopital," to
5 the left. Is that --
6 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- what you had in mind?
8 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. Yes. Actually, it has to be, I
9 think -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
10 JUDGE ORIE: Where it has to be, that's where it --
11 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... counter-clockwise,
12 although it's written here in this way.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, at this moment --
14 MR. LUKIC: It is hospital, yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: The map is --
16 MR. LUKIC: But I was trying to avoid because gentleman told us
17 yesterday that he is not privy with the area so I was -- but if you want,
18 we can -- we can discuss it with him.
19 JUDGE ORIE: No. The only thing is that if you put a question
20 about "the hospital," I'd like to know where it is. Because if you
21 invite the witness to explore whether that was -- and I understood that
22 to be the gist of your question, whether he had considered the
23 possibility that it was fired from there, then for the Chamber it's
24 important to know where that would have been so that, at least the
25 Chamber, in the totality of the evidence, can consider whether that is an
1 option, yes or no. And for that reason, we have to know what hospital
2 you referred to in the question.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. [Interpretation] Can you find your bearings in this map? And
6 with relation to the hospital, can you mark the place of the incident?
7 A. If I am looking at the diagram correctly, I believe the incident
8 would be in this area. Is that correct?
9 Q. [In English] One of the shell, yes, in that area.
10 A. Mm-hm.
11 Q. And [Interpretation] Here, you can see the words "police" in this
12 map. Did you establish whether any shell fell in that area on that same
13 day? And that the street that we mentioned earlier,
14 Dzavarahalal Nehura Street?
15 A. No, I did not look into any other rounds fired on the same day.
16 Q. Very well. Thank you. Perhaps -- but can you please just put
17 the number 1 where the hospital is, although there is some markings in
18 the map already.
19 A. [Marks]
20 Q. Thank you. You put number 1, indicating where the hospital is.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And after this, we would like to
22 tender this document into evidence.
23 MR. WEBER: No objections, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: D408, Your Honours. Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Is admitted into evidence.
2 Mr. Higgs, where you put the 1 on the map, was it on the basis of
3 your recollection or was it because you saw the word "hospital"?
4 THE WITNESS: Because I saw the word "hospital," I couldn't
5 definitely say that was the building or it wasn't I was seeing. It does
6 resemble, from recollection, the approximate distance from the parking
7 lot area, but I couldn't be 100 per cent sure.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. And now I would like to
10 call up -- and let's first mentally return to the incident known as
11 Markale I. We will discuss Markale I again. I would like to call up
13 JUDGE ORIE: While waiting for that, could I invite the parties
14 to seek agreement on the line from where it is said "hospital" or
15 "hopital" up till the marking given by the witness. But also there was a
16 marking on the map close to a parking lot to be approximately a 50-degree
17 direction, origin of fire direction.
18 Yes, but you don't have to agree right away, but that's my
19 initial assessment of what I see on this map. And if the parties would
20 more or less agree on that, then we have another --
21 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the one concern I would have for that is
22 because of the angle of Dobrinja whether or not true north would be as
23 depicted on this diagram, but we're, of course, welcome to discuss that.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do agree with you that we have to -- we need
25 the north orientation to be sure about that.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. We have P868 before us.
3 We're interested in page 61 in the English version; whereas, in B/C/S, we
4 would like to see page 62. Now, could Mr. Higgs be provided with the
5 artefact that was brought to the courtroom by the Registry? And also a
6 ruler. I would kindly ask Mr. Higgs to measure the artefact and tell us
7 what result he has obtained.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
9 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, just to keep a clean record, in this
10 case, this artefact is 65 ter 10470.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
12 Has there been any way to reach an agreement between the parties
13 on what the length is?
14 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the length is the length, and I'm happy
15 to measure it with counsel and [Overlapping speakers] ...
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... yes. Yes, that seems to
17 be the most appropriate way of establishing what the length is,
18 Mr. Lukic.
19 MR. LUKIC: This will be very short exercise. Since we cannot
20 testify, I would rather have Mr. Higgs measure.
21 THE WITNESS: 16.1 centimetres, Your Honour.
22 MR. LUKIC:
23 Q. That's -- that's all we needed. And I'll move on. Because we
24 think that in those photos the measurement was wrongly presented, and we
25 thank Mr. Higgs for this.
1 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Would Mr. Higgs tell us what he actually measured.
6 Where did you start your measurement and where -- what was the upper end
7 and what was the lower end? Where did you --
8 THE WITNESS: Okay. I tried to hold the -- have the tail-fins as
9 flat, horizontal as possible, first of all, from the tip of the debris
10 located in the end of the tail-fin to then the extremity of the longest
11 bent tail-fin as this protrudes further to the rear than it normally
12 would have done.
13 JUDGE ORIE: So you didn't measure it from the bottom with the -
14 how do you call it? - the screwable part but you took as a start of your
15 measurement, you took the bended fins, rather than the --
16 THE WITNESS: Correct, Your Honour, as the bended fin is slightly
17 longer than the area where the primary cartridge is located.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE ORIE: If I -- if I put it on my table in the upright
20 position, fins down, then the Chamber measures less than -- less than 14
21 or close to 14.
22 Mr. Higgs, would you please measure it again.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
24 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I can see from my perspective that the
25 witness was doing a number of things. I don't know if it would be
1 helpful to give him a blank sheet of paper and do it on the ELMO so that
2 the Chamber can see how he is measuring the item as he is doing it.
3 JUDGE ORIE: We just asked him to measure and he said he took it
4 from the bended, the lowest part of the tail-fins, so if you put it
5 upright, that would be the very basis of that or ...
6 But if there's any camera which could catch the way in which
7 Mr. Higgs is measuring.
8 Mr. Higgs, you took into account, I take it, that the ruler
9 starts with an empty approximately a half a centimetre.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I am afraid that the camera doesn't catch it.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We have one camera which would be in a
14 position which possibly could ...
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We now can see.
17 Could you please show to us by putting it on the table,
18 Mr. Higgs, how you are measuring it, and could we have the picture of the
19 previous camera again.
20 And let's forget for one second about the camera that has to be
21 oriented to me when I'm speaking, looking at Mr. Higgs now is more
22 important at this moment.
23 THE WITNESS: First of all, just checking the longest tail-fin,
24 Your Honour. Which is that one.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It would be better if you put in the upright
1 position, then we have a clear end of it. No, upright. Yes. In that
2 way. And now measure it with --
3 THE WITNESS: I can do that, Your Honour, but it doesn't sit
4 square so it needs to be lifted up. It is easier for me to measure it
5 horizontally, if that is okay.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Measure it as you wish, as long as we do know what
7 you are measuring.
8 THE WITNESS: Taking a reference point to the end of the -- the
9 paper so I can measure it square on, keeping it parallel.
10 This time, Your Honour, it comes out at 15.6, Your Honour. 15.6.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's proceed.
12 Mr. Weber.
13 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe we did this with another
14 stabiliser but now that we also have been handling this stabiliser and
15 the Registry may need to return it, is there any way we can assign an
16 exhibit number to the Markale I stabiliser at this time?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Would we then have a kind of a surrogate sheet which
18 refers to the exhibit number in another case?
19 MR. WEBER: Of course, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Registrar, could you please assign an
21 exhibit number to this artefact.
22 THE REGISTRAR: D409, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Is admitted into evidence.
24 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, Ms. Stewart has informed me that we do
25 have a surrogate sheet already available in e-court under the
1 65 ter 10470.
2 MR. LUKIC: And if I may, that's the Prosecutor's exhibit and
3 it's their 65 ter number. It should be assigned P number, I think, not D
5 JUDGE ORIE: Evidence is evidence, Mr. Lukic. But I don't know
6 whether there's any problem. You tendered it. You used it. Whether a
7 65 ter number can be used. I think it often has been done so, therefore,
8 I think there's no need to assign another number.
9 MR. LUKIC: I thought since Mr. Weber offered it into evidence,
10 that it should be under their number, but anyways ...
11 I will move on to Markale II now. And if we can have P2055 in
12 the e-court, please.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Higgs, during your direct examination, my
14 learned friend, Mr. Weber, showed you this photo, and he asked you
15 whether the two stabilisers are different or whether this is one and the
16 same stabiliser, and you told us that this was one and the same
17 stabiliser in both photos.
18 Can you please tell us what method you used in order to identify
19 the two stabilisers to actually be one and the same.
20 A. Well, from the -- the photograph, just looking at the damage
21 which exists on both the stabilisers in the picture, looking at the
22 individual tail-fins, how they have been flattened and distorted, they --
23 the two pictures seem to indicate that it is the same damage on both
24 stabilisers in these pictures.
25 Q. Did you use a magnifying device? Did you watch it on a computer
1 screen? Could you give us some more details on what you did?
2 JUDGE ORIE: The witness said that he looked at the photograph.
3 If there was anything else, he would have told us, I take it?
4 THE WITNESS: Correct, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. So you had a physical photo, a hard copy photo, of the
8 stabiliser. You did not see it on a -- on a computer screen, or perhaps
9 it was on a computer screen?
10 A. The picture of the stabiliser you have seen on this screen as we
11 saw earlier in this case, and I've also seen it in the -- the video which
12 I believe these stills come from.
13 Q. So you also saw the video. During your work, did you establish
14 that the representatives of the police or somebody else, for that matter,
15 moved the hard evidence during the investigation? For example, did they
16 move the stabiliser from one location to a different location?
17 A. It does appear that -- that it was moved by somebody. As -- you
18 can see that in the video.
19 Q. We're going to see the video now.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Although we have received it from the
21 Prosecutor's office, it bears the exhibit number of the Defence, D352.
22 And we will first need the clip which starts at 10 minutes,
23 54 seconds, and lasts until 11 minutes, 09 seconds.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I think the video should not be shown to
25 the public because there's a pending application for protective measures
1 which has not been decided yet.
2 MR. WEBER: That's correct, Your Honour. And thank you to your
4 MR. LUKIC: We would rather have public seen this, but if it's --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Once we have decided on protective measures, it will
6 be known whether the public can see it or not.
7 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
8 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
9 JUDGE ORIE: In order not to allow the public to see it through
10 the screen, we have to go into at least partially private session by some
11 of the curtains being down so as ... yes. But we can't take them one by
12 one and then we have to -- we need to do the other ones as well. But ...
13 no, to the left -- to the left. The other side. Yes.
14 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps we have a better solution. Let's pull
16 the curtains up again. And we would then ask the monitor of the witness
17 to be switched off and the witness to move to a place -- oh, no -- to --
18 to -- no. To put the blinds behind him, that's ... yes. Yes, perhaps
19 bend it slightly more so that there's no view. Could it be bended a
20 little bit more and be turned a little bit to the left from my position,
21 which is the other -- that's why I said the left of my position, and not
22 to my right.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: If that is okay ... yes.
25 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Shall we -- could we switch off the sound so that
2 is -- if it is played that the sound is inaudible.
3 [Defence counsel and Accused confer]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- Mr. Lukic.
5 Mr. Lukic -- Mr. Mladic, you should speak at low volume. If a
6 decision will have been taken on protective measures, it will become
7 clear whether it can be shown to the public, yes or no.
8 Could it be played without sound, Mr. Lukic? Is there any
9 problem with that?
10 MR. LUKIC: We don't need sound, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: You don't need sound, so it can be played without
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Before we continue, you say that it seems that the stabiliser was
16 moved. Was it customary for the investigations carried out by the
17 Bosnian police to involve moving objects and giving them different
18 exhibit numbers? Was that common practice, according to what you saw and
19 found out?
20 A. I don't believe so, no.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any knowledge about the common practice?
22 THE WITNESS: Not for what the Bosnian authorities were doing,
23 no, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: So the answer is: I don't know.
25 THE WITNESS: Okay.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, rather than I don't believe it.
2 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. In this particular case you did not have any concrete proof that
5 something was moved. This is just your assumption; right?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, we see different numbers next to it. So
7 whether this was moved -- something was changed. That may be clear
8 because 12 doesn't turn into 13 without any manipulation.
9 MR. LUKIC: Nothing was changed. There were two tail-fins.
10 Nothing was changed.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, unless -- you say these are two different
12 tail-fins --
13 MR. LUKIC: Yeah.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, that's your position. That's clear.
15 MR. LUKIC: It's visible.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's have a look.
17 MR. LUKIC: Okay. Let's play the video from 10:54 to 11:09.
18 [Video-clip played]
19 MR. LUKIC: Can we go back one second, please, if possible.
21 Q. [Interpretation] We can see here that at 1245 hours, as recorded
22 by the camera and that is consistent with the 11 minute, 7 seconds, of
23 this video, a member of the French UNPROFOR and the camera person are
24 seen here taking a photo or making a video of the stabiliser in the
25 middle of the street; right?
1 A. Correct.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Middle on the street.
3 MR. LUKIC: In the middle of the street.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it's not the middle of the street, Mr. Lukic.
5 At least it's unanimous position of this Chamber observing the picture
6 that it is approximately one-fourth to one-fifth of the curb, not in the
7 middle of the street. Let's proceed.
8 MR. LUKIC: On the left-hand side, we
9 have [Overlapping speakers] ...
10 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... no further -- if it's --
11 MR. LUKIC: It's visible. Let's play it again. It's the tram
13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Fine. If you say it's the tram track, I made
14 a mistake in the first line to -- that it looked like the curb, but if
15 you correct me, and it seems quite plausible that you're right, then it
16 would be in the middle of the street. I would agree with that --
17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- and so do my colleagues.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: I just want to ask the witness: Are you able to
20 determine by looking at this video that those people are French UNPROFOR
22 THE WITNESS: Not from the current still picture, no,
23 Your Honour.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: If it is moving, if is the video is not -- moving,
25 would you be able to make a determination?
1 THE WITNESS: If we get a better picture of them, I should be
2 able to, yes or no.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you wanted it to be played again, I
6 Please indicate exactly what you would like us to look at again.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. The information that you have, can you rely on that information
9 and tell us which members of the UNPROFOR troops were at the scene on
10 that day?
11 A. Which information are you -- are you relating to?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Let's ask the question in a different way.
13 Do you have --
14 MR. LUKIC: Sorry.
15 JUDGE ORIE: -- any personal knowledge of the identity of the --
16 it seems to be four persons dressed, from what we can see, in military
17 uniforms, who they are?
18 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And the cameraman, do you know who that is?
20 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
22 MR. LUKIC: Now let's try to play this part again. 10:54 to
24 [Video-clip played]
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Would you agree with me that based on the blue helmets sported by
2 the men in the photo, it can be concluded that they are UNPROFOR members.
3 Please pay attention to their sleeves. Can you see a French flag on one
4 of their sleeves?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, is there any dispute about this being
6 French UNPROFOR members?
7 MR. WEBER: No.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Do you have any knowledge to the fact that UNPROFOR
11 representatives took part or allowed the moving around of material
12 evidence during investigation?
13 A. I have no evidence of that.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please have the same
15 video, starting from 12 minutes, 23 seconds, to 12 minutes, 43 seconds.
16 [Video-clip played]
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Stop.
18 Q. A while ago, we had the time 1245, and now the timeline is 1300
20 [Video-clip played]
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Would you agree that this is again the same stabiliser, only with
23 the tag number 13 placed next to it?
24 A. From the video, this does appear to be the same one with the
25 picture taken from the other side with -- in relation to the tram tracks
1 there next to it.
2 Q. [In English] Yes.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let us now look at the video starting
4 from 12 minutes, 03 seconds, to 12 minutes, 12 seconds. So we need to
6 [Video-clip played]
7 MR. LUKIC: Stop.
8 Q. [Interpretation] Here in the video, and we shall see it later
9 again in sequence, the time is 1255. So this frame was taken between the
10 previous one at 1245, where we saw one stabiliser without any number tag,
11 and 1300 hours, where we saw the stabiliser with the tag number 13.
12 Between the two times, between 1255, when we can see the stabiliser,
13 which is close to a door; is that correct?
14 A. It looks to be next to a door, correct.
15 Q. The distance from the wall here is not more than 1 metre. Would
16 you agree?
17 A. I don't know the distance from the wall accurately.
18 Q. Roughly speaking, can you tell us?
19 A. It appears to be close to the door. Probably less than a metre.
20 Q. You will agree that this is not the same position where the
21 stabiliser marked with number 13 was; is that correct?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Now we're going to play the video as it was shot from 12 minutes,
24 03, to 12 minutes 43.
25 [Defence counsel confer]
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I've just been warned by my colleague
2 that we had already discussed a portion of the video which can be marked
3 as 12 minutes, 04 seconds, in video D352.
4 Now, could Mr. Ivetic please play this video starting from 12:03
5 until 12 minutes, 43, without interruptions.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
7 MR. WEBER: My apologies for the interruptions. I just see we're
8 over the time for our scheduled break, and I don't know whether it would
9 be better to play the video when --
10 JUDGE ORIE: I leave it to Mr. Lukic, whether he would just play
11 it and then ask questions later; or whether he would prefer to take the
12 break now.
13 MR. LUKIC: We can take the break now.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll take the break now. And can the witness
15 be escorted out of the courtroom.
16 [The witness stands down]
17 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at 25 minutes past midday.
18 --- Recess taken at 12.06 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 12.28 p.m.
20 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honour --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hochhauser, if can you report without moving
22 into private session so as to say not yet known a week, then we could
23 do -- otherwise we'd have to move into private session.
24 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Yes, yes. I was going to suggest the same. We
25 will have information for you in the beginning of next week, is my
2 Also as to RM038, the question that you asked regarding RM038, we
3 will be making an oral application to convert RM038 to a 92 ter witness
4 on the basis of the recent exhumations. We've determined it would be
5 more appropriate to have the witness appear before the Chamber for
7 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear.
8 [The witness takes the stand]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I think we're about to see the video
10 again. At least part of it.
11 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, you are right. We should start
12 from 10:54. Again, it's on our screens. We can see the ...
13 JUDGE ORIE: No. What we can see, we can see.
14 [Defence counsel confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, whenever you think it would be good to
16 stop and have a further look, please --
17 MR. LUKIC: Can we start, please.
18 [Video-clip played]
19 MR. LUKIC: From [Interpretation] From 10:54 to 11:09.
20 [Video-clip played]
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. So at 1105 -- or, rather, from 1054 to 1109 we can see the time
23 recorded on the camera, which says 1245 hours. And the stabiliser is in
24 the middle of the street close to the tram tracks.
25 We're now going to continue from --
1 JUDGE ORIE: One second --
2 MR. LUKIC: Go back a bit.
3 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please. You said 1245. That is how it
4 started, I think. Could we have a look again at 10:54. There I have
5 1245 as the time-frame on the video.
6 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And I think for the second part, where you stopped,
8 we're now at 1108. Now we move to 1109. 1109 gives a different
10 MR. LUKIC: Can we move a bit so we can see better.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It looks like 1250.
12 MR. LUKIC: Move, move. Okay. [Overlapping speakers] ...
13 JUDGE ORIE: That seems to be 1250.
14 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: So there's an interruption there.
16 MR. LUKIC: There is an interruption there.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. LUKIC: So we had 1254, then we have this frame with
19 1250 [Overlapping speakers] ...
20 JUDGE ORIE: 1245 --
21 MR. LUKIC: 1245.
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- when we started at 10.54 on the video, on the
23 timer on the video not on the screen.
24 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And then when we arrived at 11:09 as the timer, not
1 to be seen on the screen itself, then we had moved to 1250.
2 MR. LUKIC: Yes. At 11:10 of the video.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, 9 or 10, yes.
4 MR. LUKIC: Then I'd like to move to a video time, not camera
5 time. Video time is 12.03.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could we not play it in its entirety and then you
7 stop it so that we can see whatever moves in terms of [Overlapping
8 speakers] ...
9 MR. LUKIC: Okay, let's -- let's start then from 10:54. It's not
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then we briefly stopped where we stopped
12 now, and then you indicate when we would move on.
13 MR. LUKIC: Yeah. We can move on.
14 [Video-clip played]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could I -- could we stop for a second there.
16 I just -- I didn't count -- I think we moved to 1250 at not
17 camera timer but recording timer, at 11:09 or 11:10. We are now some 40
18 seconds further on, but we are, as far as time is concerned, we already
19 at 1252 so there must be an interruption there as well --
20 MR. LUKIC: Obviously, yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Obviously. Yes, please --
22 MR. LUKIC: Continue.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- continue.
24 [Video-clip played]
25 MR. LUKIC: Stop. At 1203, we move to 1204 video time, we move
1 to 12:55 camera time, and, here, we see tail-fin close to the wall with
2 number 12.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. LUKIC: Can we move on now, please.
5 [Video-clip played]
6 MR. LUKIC: Stop. At 1213, and we have 12:14 on our screens
7 right now, we move to -- of video time, we move to 12:56. Twelve hours,
8 56 minutes of camera time, where we see lifted tail-fin, standing
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
11 MR. LUKIC: -- somebody was holding it with -- I don't know what
12 that is.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I think we do not know, if there are two, which
14 tail-fins were shown here. Or have I missed something, Mr. Lukic, as far
15 as you are concerned?
16 MR. LUKIC: No, I don't know. I couldn't --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. Let's move on. We look at the tail-fins
18 now from the bottom.
19 MR. LUKIC: Mm-hm.
20 [Video-clip played]
21 MR. LUKIC: Stop. At 12:33 video time, we moved to 13 hours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: 12:23, it seems to be.
23 MR. LUKIC: Okay. 12:23, video time. We moved to 13 hours
24 camera time.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. LUKIC: On this video, we have tail-fin in the middle of the
2 street with number 13.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, whether it's in the middle of the street is --
4 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... it will be more visible
6 Can we continue.
7 [Video-clip played]
8 MR. LUKIC: Stop. Here, it's visible at 12:32 video time, still
9 13 hours camera time, that this tail-fin marked with number 13 is in the
10 middle of the street close to the tram tracks.
11 Continue, please.
12 [Video-clip played]
13 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, stop.
14 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Higgs, we have seen that at 1245 camera
15 time, a shot was taken of a mortar stabiliser at this same location
16 without any number. It was followed then at 1300 hours, as shown on the
17 camera, that the same stabiliser is at the same place with number 13. So
18 number 13, at 1300 hours.
19 In the meantime, at 1255 hours, which is a time intervening
20 between the shot of stabiliser without the number and the stabiliser with
21 the number 13, the stabiliser was filmed on a different location close to
22 a wall bearing the number 12.
23 Is it really your evidence that this is one and the same
24 stabiliser? Or would you change your view now?
25 A. From the -- the -- the photographs of the damage to the tails,
1 it's still appears to be that -- the same damage on the stabiliser -- on
2 the fins. So it still looks to be the same stabiliser.
3 Q. After watching this video, do we have to accept that somebody
4 filmed a stabiliser in the middle of the street, without any number, then
5 took it to the door next to the wall and then filmed it again with a
6 camera with the number 12, and then carried it back to the original
7 position where it was filmed ten minutes earlier and gave it the number
8 13? And we are talking about one and the same stabiliser.
9 Do you really want us to believe that?
10 A. I don't know if -- well, how, it could have been moved. I can
11 only go from the damage that I can see on the -- the pictures of the
12 stabiliser, where it appears to be -- the damage is consistent in both
13 pictures, so I don't know if it was moved or not.
14 Q. If you don't know if it was moved or not, then it means that we
15 are talking about two stabiliser. Would you agree?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, this is unfair to the witness. If --
17 first, it's argument. If the witness says, I do not know, it means that
18 he doesn't know whether it's one and the same or whether they're two
19 different ones. He limited himself to observing damage to a tail-fin
20 which he said seemed to be him to be identical damage. That's where it
21 stops. Whatever else is not within the realm of the expertise of the
22 witness, whether someone moves something, yes or no. Again, I could have
23 stopped you on the previous question. I didn't do that. But the witness
24 clearly said then, I have no idea about whether it was moved or not. The
25 only thing I can say is that, comparing the two photographs, that the
1 damage seems to be exactly the same and, therefore, in the witness's
2 view, he considers that they are the same.
3 All the rest is, I would say, for the Chamber, to consider, and
4 we'll seriously consider it. But don't tell the witness what the
5 consequences of his answers are, especially not if they do not follow
6 from his answers.
7 Next question, please.
8 MR. LUKIC: If I may Your Honour, this witness said that he saw
9 this video before.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But before he wasn't able to see whether
11 someone moved it either. He just doesn't know. That's what he tells us.
12 The only thing he knows is that what he sees is damage of such similarity
13 on two stills that he thinks that it's the same tail-fin.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Higgs, do you have information how many stabilisers were
16 discovered in situ?
17 A. No, I don't.
18 Q. Thank you, Mr. Higgs, for answering our questions. Now I'm going
19 to hand over to my learned colleague, Mr. Weber.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Lukic. I think Mr. Higgs will also
21 be glad that your timing was such that at least even more time than
22 expected. But perhaps there will be some further questions.
23 Mr. Weber.
24 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I can tell you that I'm not going to be
25 working with this video anymore so I don't know
1 if [Overlapping speakers] ...
2 JUDGE ORIE: We can remove the screens then so that the public
3 is -- but, first, the picture should be taken from the screen, from the
4 monitor at this moment.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The screens behind the witness can be removed.
7 Meanwhile, we can continue.
8 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours.
9 Re-examination by Mr. Weber:
10 Q. Mr. Higgs, today I'm going to attempt to clarify some matters
11 with respect to the type of shells that had been discussed during your
13 On Tuesday, at pages 18840 to 18857, you were shown firing tables
14 and trajectories for an M49 P1 (OF-843/1) shell fired from an M74 mortar.
15 Do you recall being shown this material and being asked to mark
16 on portions of it?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P498,
19 page 20 of the B/C/S original, and page 17 of the English translation.
20 Q. While this is coming up, I'm going to be starting with the BiH
21 MUP police ballistics analysis for Markale II. I'm going to then, from
22 this, ask you to walk us through some materials today and then afterwards
23 I will have more detailed questions about the certain type of mortar
24 shells and tables.
25 MR. WEBER: If I could please have the lower portion of the
1 English version.
2 Q. Directing your attention to findings number 4 and 5 on this page,
3 could you please tell us what type of shell fragments were found at the
4 scene of the Markale II shelling.
5 A. From section -- sorry, paragraph 4, it states that parts
6 belonging to the front curve part of a 120-millimetre light fuse contact
7 high explosive-type shell.
8 Q. And does finding number 5 also correspond to a 120-millimetre
9 light fuse contact high explosive-type shell?
10 A. Yes, it does.
11 Q. I'd like to directing your attention now up to findings number 2
12 and 3 on the same page. Could you please tell us what type of fuse the
13 BiH concluded was used?
14 A. In paragraph 2, they state that it belonged -- type of fuse
15 belonging to an M62 designed for mortar projectile 120-millimetre, and in
16 sub-para 3, again, it says M62 type fuse.
17 Q. Okay. I'd like to clarify this because the similarity in
18 numbers. So I just wanted you to see this. We're now going to move to
19 the JNA operations manual regarding 120-millimetre mortars.
20 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 30261,
21 page 159 of the B/C/S and page 119 of the English translation.
22 Q. Mr. Higgs, the page that's coming up before you is from the
23 operation manual for the M74 and M75 mortars.
24 Directing your attention to section number 4, regarding the M62
25 UTU impact fuse with instantaneous and delayed action, is this the same
1 type of fuse that the BiH police found at the location of the Markale II
3 A. This has the same designation number as the report we've just
4 seen, correct.
5 Q. According to the first sentence of paragraph 385, could you
6 please tell us the type of shell that an M62 UTU impact fuse is intended
8 A. The impact fuse is instantaneous and delayed actions intended for
9 an M62 light contact-fuse shells.
10 Q. Let's go to that part.
11 MR. WEBER: In the same manual, could the Prosecution please have
12 page 142 of the B/C/S and page 106 of the English translation.
13 Q. Directing your attention to number 6 for the M62 120-millimetre
14 light contact-fuse shell, can you just confirm that this is the same type
15 of shell that the M62 UTU fuse that we just looked at was intended for?
16 A. Yes, it is.
17 JUDGE ORIE: You asked the attention for -- to number 6.
18 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe it's --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Number 6 of what exactly?
20 MR. WEBER: I believe it's right before paragraph 346.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It was transcribed as number 6. And that's
22 how you understood. 346, yes. Please proceed.
23 MR. WEBER:
24 Q. Is this type of light contact-fuse shell consistent with the type
25 of shell fragments that the BiH police investigators found at the
1 location of the Markale II shelling?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. On page 18908 of yesterday's transcript, you stated that the
4 analysis of distances you performed for Markale II was based on the M62
5 shell. Is it correct that you used the firing tables corresponding to
6 this type of light contact-fuse shell?
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 MR. WEBER: Now could the Prosecution please go to page 140 of
9 the B/C/S and page 105 of the English translation of the manual.
10 And, Your Honours, I'm going to be focussing on the part right
11 above paragraph 343.
12 Q. For completeness, I'd like to address with you the M49 P1 with
13 parenthetical designations of (OF-943) and (843/1). At the heading on
14 this page it says it's a 120-millimetre modified contact-fuse shell. If
15 you could please look at paragraph 343, is it correct that these shells
16 can also be used with the M62 UTU fuses?
17 A. Yes, it states on line 3 that B-45 fuses were replaced with new
18 M62 fuses.
19 Q. Now, this is described as a modified shell according to the
20 heading. Before moving on, I'd like to draw your attention to the first
21 sentence of the paragraph numbered 343 which states:
22 "These are, in fact, modified shells described in
23 paragraphs 335-342."
24 Do you see that sentence?
25 A. Yes, I do.
1 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 137 of the
2 B/C/S and page 103 of the English translation.
3 Q. According to the heading of section number 2 on this page, which
4 is right above paragraph number 335, these following paragraphs relate to
5 an OF-843 heavy contact-fuse shell.
6 Could you please review this page and let me know when we can
7 move to the next page.
8 A. Yes, I've read that.
9 MR. WEBER: And in the B/C/S version, the next page continues
10 through to the next two pages, in the B/C/S. So if we could please have
11 the next page of the English translation. I just want to note for the
12 record that it carries over for two pages in the B/C/S.
13 Q. Mr. Higgs, could you please let me know when you've completed
14 your review of this page.
15 A. Yes, I've read.
16 Q. Thank you for reviewing those pages.
17 Do I correctly understand that a MP49 P1 shell is a type of heavy
18 contact-fuse shell, according to the paragraphs you just reviewed?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. We will look at some specific data in a second. But, first, I
21 would like to simply ask you whether a heavy contact-fuse shell is
22 different than the light contact-fuse shell found near the Markale market
23 by the BiH police investigators.
24 A. From reading the text here is that the thickness of the wall is
25 different between the two rounds, so the two rounds do have different
2 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please now go to 65 ter 30458,
3 page 2. This is an uploaded excerpt of Defence 65 ter 1D1293, page 16.
4 And in the B/C/S version, if we could please rotate clockwise
5 90 degrees the page and then focus on the top half.
6 Q. Mr. Higgs, I'm going to be directing your attention to the chart
7 on this page that its head is: M74 mortar ammunition basic data. Will
8 you please let me know if you can locate the appropriate numbers
9 corresponding to the M49 P1 series and also the M62 series?
10 A. Is it possible to blow it up, make it a bit bigger, so that I can
11 see the data?
12 The top three lines relate to M49. And then the -- we then have
13 a different types of M62s then at different lines further down the table.
14 Q. And based on the data, could you please explain to us what the
15 significant difference is between an M49-type shell and an M62-type
17 A. One of the main differences was explained in the previous
18 document, where the M49 has a thicker wall jacket to the explosive part
19 of the round.
20 Q. I'd like to direct your attention to the shell mass without the
21 fuse. If -- you can let me know whether or not there's a -- I view it
22 that there's -- that the M49 series weighs 15.780 kilograms. Do you see
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. And the M62 series varies a little, but it weighs
1 12.1 grams [sic] with the M62 being 12.160, and the M62 P3 being slightly
2 lighter. Do you see that?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 JUDGE ORIE: You wanted to refer to kilograms, I take it.
5 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour, kilograms.
6 Q. Would the difference in weight between -- or what -- what would
7 be the significance of the difference in weight between these two types
8 of series in terms of it -- the velocity of these shells, the height that
9 they would achieve, and the distance that they would travel?
10 A. The M49, for its extra weight, it would affect its maximum range
11 that it could achieve would be less; the vertex height it achieve would
12 also be less; and its velocities would be low as well.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, could I ask one additional question.
14 Is this a conclusion on basis of the weight or is it also
15 considering whether or not the charges, the propelling charges which are
16 used to fire it are the same or different.
17 THE WITNESS: It would be taking comparable charges, Your Honour,
18 so a charge 2 on an M49 as opposed to a charge 2 on an M62.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, would you use the same propelling charges
20 for two such different kinds of shells?
21 THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of the charges on the M49. They
22 could be the same, but normally different types of ammunition would
23 possibly have different types of charge systems as well.
24 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, any conclusion as, because they are
25 heavier they would travel slower with a shorter range is, if, as you
1 said, is not usual if fired with the same propelling charges.
2 THE WITNESS: Correct, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And, therefore, then I think the answer should have
4 been it depends on whether the propelling charges are specific ones for
5 those heavier shells or whether they are fired, which is quite unusual,
6 with the same charges.
7 Is that the full answer?
8 THE WITNESS: That would be correct, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 Mr. Weber, please proceed.
11 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Just on His Honour's question, directing your attention now over
13 to the right column, do I read correctly that certain types of M49 shells
14 can be used with the same type of additional charges as the M62 series
15 shells, depending on its type?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Shall we first ask whether the table contains any
17 information as to the propelling charges being used with those?
18 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. Mr. Higgs, did you just hear His Honour's question or would you
20 like me to repeat it?
21 A. Could you repeat the question.
22 Q. Sure --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Does this table give any information about the
24 propelling charges to be used with this various kinds of shells?
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, in the column second to the right,
1 Your Honour, it gives a standard mark and then an additional one that can
2 also be used.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And they are different for the first three compared
4 to lines 4 and 5, isn't it?
5 THE WITNESS: Correct, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, the charges --
7 MR. WEBER: Your Honour --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes?
9 MR. WEBER: I don't read line 5 as being different. I see
10 your -- that line [Overlapping speakers] ...
11 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... let me see.
12 MR. WEBER: [Overlapping speakers] ... it's different.
13 JUDGE ORIE: First standard, M67 - I only read the first part -
14 second standard, M67; third standard, M67; fourth standard, M57; and then
15 the fifth standard, M74.
16 And then the additional charges for 1, 2, 3, and 5, seem to be
17 the same; whereas, for line 4, it seems to be a different one, the
18 additional charge is M56.
19 MR. WEBER: That's how I read it too. Thank you, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So standard different for the M62s.
21 Additional charges different for one of the two M62s and the same as for
22 the M49 for the other one.
23 MR. WEBER:
24 Q. The last question I have on this chart is that since certain
25 types of M49s -- let me rephrase this.
1 If an M49 series type shell, heavy contact shell, was using the
2 same type of fuse, an M62 UTU, as an M62 light contact shell with the
3 type of fuse make any type of difference in the flight of a mortar round?
4 A. No discernible difference. The type of fuse wouldn't have a
5 massive impact on the range, no, or the flight.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Would that even be true if the weight of the fuse
7 would be considerably different from the other ones?
8 THE WITNESS: If that was the case, Your Honour, I have no
9 evidence to prove that, but fuses are normally very similar types of
10 weights on this type of round. But, yes, if -- if you did have a fuse
11 which was noticeably heavier, then, yes, it would have an impact.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Do we see on line 5 a fuse with the weight which is
13 approximately four times the weight of the other ones? 470 instead of
15 THE WITNESS: Correct, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Would you consider that to be a considerable
17 difference in weight?
18 THE WITNESS: Yes. With this type of fuse that would make a
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
21 MR. WEBER:
22 Q. Since we've gone through these materials, I'd just like to
23 confirm with you that the firing tables that you were shown by the
24 Defence for M49 P1, whether or not you can say those were the correct or
25 incorrect firing tables for the type of charge that was found at -- or
1 type of shell that was found at the Markale II scene which indicated it
2 was a light contact-fuse?
3 A. I believe they were the wrong range tables, as the round -- parts
4 of the round discovered at that scene were M62.
5 MR. WEBER: I'm going to move on, Your Honours, but I know that
6 this was some technical material, so I just wanted to pause to see if you
7 had any further questions about it.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, where are the applicable fire tables?
9 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, we're -- I believe that they should all
10 be tendered and in front of the Chamber, and I'm -- I think that we can
11 agree to admit both the ones that apply to the M49 P1s and also the M62
12 series, and the Chamber will have the data translated in front -- in
13 front of it to look at.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, do I understand that you would agree on
15 providing tables for different types of shells --
16 MR. LUKIC: Absolutely, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- and then we'll see what the difference in outcome
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. WEBER:
21 Q. Mr. Higgs, during cross-examination, you were asked questions
22 about possible locations where mortar fire can originate from. In
23 particular, you were asked about the area around Mount Trebevic on
24 transcript page 18815. I just have a more general question: What would
25 make a particular location suitable for the firing of a mortar?
1 A. When positioning in a mortar, first of all, is -- taking into
2 consideration is their own protection, so you would not want to put it
3 too close in an exposed position to obviously enemy fire. So a protected
4 location. Also keeping it as close as you can to a confrontation lines,
5 you're getting maximum effect for the ranges of the charges that a mortar
6 could fire. An example would be if you put -- placing your mortar so far
7 to the rear where they have to fire at charge 6 at everything, then that
8 may well be okay for a target which is directly in front of them, but if
9 they're then called to engage a target which is further to the left or
10 the right or further away, they probably won't be able to reach it. So
11 you want your mortars to be close enough where they can use a full range
12 of charge effectively but not that close where they put themselves in
13 jeopardy from direct fire weapons from the opposing forces.
14 Q. Are there any physical characteristics of the ground or immediate
15 area that would be preferable or make a certain specific location better
16 for the firing of a mortar?
17 A. One of the other advantages which we have already discussed is
18 altitude, so if you can get your mortars above the target locations, that
19 will effectively increase your ranges for every charge.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, if you intend to ask about surface
21 needed, flat or not, why not ask the witness because it seems that that's
22 what you're [Overlapping speakers] ...
23 MR. WEBER: It is. I just didn't want to lead the witness.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness express himself on what kind of
25 terrain you would need not for tactical purposes but for technical
2 THE WITNESS: Type of ground. You can fire mortars, really, from
3 any type of ground. Obviously steep slopes cause an issue because the
4 mortar needs to have predominantly a flatter surface to sit upon, which,
5 of course, can be dug out. But if you can find ground which is
6 predominantly flat, it makes the preparation area simpler to do.
7 JUDGE ORIE: How many square metres would you need for the mortar
8 itself, not for the crew yet but ...
9 THE WITNESS: For 120-millimetre mortar possibly 4 square metres
10 of flight ground.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. WEBER:
14 Q. In your previous testimony, you've discussed your experience with
15 mortar investigations. I'd just like to, based on cross, ask you
16 generally, when is the best time to -- to conduct a crater analysis as
17 part of a mortar investigation?
18 A. As soon as possible after the incident.
19 Q. Could you please explain why that is the case.
20 A. The quicker you can get to the location, obviously less
21 degradation of the crater as there will be flash marks on the ground
22 which could possibly be worn away with weather conditions. So the sooner
23 you can get there and see it in its fresh state, the more accurate you
24 can be with your findings.
25 Q. And in the investigative materials that you reviewed for your
1 report, did you rely on the materials that were done as close in time to
2 when the shelling occurred?
3 A. Yes, I did.
4 Q. Could you please explain why you did that.
5 A. Because for the reasons just mentioned. The area -- sorry, the
6 time as close as possible to when the incident took place, those
7 investigations tend to be more accurate than if one was conducted at some
8 time at later date.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one question.
10 MR. WEBER: Sure.
11 JUDGE ORIE: If the ground which the shell impacts is very hard,
12 concrete or tarmac, would the difference in time be similarly important
13 or would it be less important?
14 THE WITNESS: Probably less important as far as some of the major
15 scrapes that may be affecting the road, but you would still lose any of
16 the blast indications because they're obviously reliant on the weather.
17 JUDGE ORIE: What do you exactly understand by blast indications?
18 THE WITNESS: You may have a scorch marks which you could use on
19 the ground, and, of course, they would not last as long.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Any other blast marks?
21 THE WITNESS: Not the ones that would be worn away by the
22 weather. The other ones caused by the shrapnel, of course, on hard
23 ground would stay there a lot -- a lengthier time as opposed to, as you
24 said, soft ground where it would degrade far quicker.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Was it at any time that you relied upon -- on
1 these blast marks, as you just described them to me?
2 THE WITNESS: Not in this -- as I could -- because I was using
3 obviously the data from other forces could not, from the photographs
4 supplied, really use those in any -- enough detail to see any of those
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Scorch marks were considered by you in
7 photographs or did you take them into consideration in any specific way?
8 Were they reported at the time?
9 THE WITNESS: Not as reported at the time. No, I didn't,
10 Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: So the whole scorch marks is -- is not used either
12 by you, or you found them in the earlier reports?
13 THE WITNESS: I didn't see specifically mentioned in the reports,
15 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, the difference of immediately
16 investigating and later looking at it, does not materialise in these
17 reports and in your findings?
18 THE WITNESS: I didn't see anything specifically related to it.
19 I don't know if the teams on the ground used anything on calculating
20 their bearings or not, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. WEBER: If I could just have one moment.
24 [Prosecution counsel confer]
25 MR. WEBER: Thank you for your patience.
1 Q. I'll now move onto another topic. On Monday at transcript pages
2 18776 to 18787 and Tuesday at transcript pages 18800 to 18809, you were
3 asked questions related to annotated photographs from your past Karadzic
4 report and your current Mladic case report which depict different angles
5 for the street where the Markale II shell landed.
6 In a question about these annotated photos at transcript
7 page 18801, you stated with respect to your determination of the
8 direction of fire that:
9 "My conclusion didn't change. My conclusion is still that the
10 round has come from a direction closely around 170 degrees."
11 Also at transcript page 18806, you stated in relation to these
12 photographs that:
13 "I am not carrying out a direct crater analysis."
14 I'm sorry, your quote was:
15 "I'm not carrying out here a direct crater analysis."
16 Do you recall the annotated photographs that I'm talking about?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. It was assumed in these questions that you were performing a
19 mathematical calculation of the direction of fire based on the direction
20 of the street.
21 I have the following question: Does whatever angle the street
22 runs along have any effect on the measurement of the mortar crater to
23 determine the direction of fire?
24 A. No, the investigation teams would not have used that in their
25 investigation. They would have taken it from the pattern of the crater
1 on the ground.
2 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have -- excuse me,
3 before moving on to that.
4 Q. This morning in relation to incident G4, the football match,
5 Mr. Lukic asked you about the visibility of the soccer pitch from VRS
7 Can I ask you: Is it necessary, or even common, for the soldier
8 actually manning the mortar to have visibility of the intended target?
9 A. No, it's not necessary.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just seek some verification.
11 Mr. Lukic, when you put the question to the witness, was it --
12 was it about small-arms fire or was it about mortars? Visibility from
13 Serb positions to -- or both?
14 MR. LUKIC: This morning I was talking about small-arms.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Small-arms.
16 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have P538 --
20 MR. LUKIC: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm -- I'm recapitulating what
21 I was talking about.
22 At the end I was talking about small-arms, but before, at the
23 beginning of the day, I think I was talking about the mortar fire.
24 JUDGE ORIE: That's the reason why I asked --
25 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... there was no visibility,
1 according to our Defence, so you can apply it to any fire.
2 JUDGE ORIE: That's why I asked: Or both.
3 MR. LUKIC: I think this morning, in total, both.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
5 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I see it is the possible time for a
6 break. If I could break here.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We can take a break.
8 How much time would you still need after the break, Mr. Weber?
9 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I just have actually just one section
10 left. I have gone quicker than I expected. And then I do have a number
11 of housekeeping items that I was hoping to at least address and resolve
12 with the witness concerning the admission of the report and previous
13 testimony and things like that.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And what does that mean in minutes for the -- for
15 the examination?
16 MR. WEBER: I probably will be another, at most, seven to eight
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then there will still be some time left,
19 Mr. Lukic, if there is any need for further cross.
20 Could the witness follow the usher.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break, and we'll resume at ten minutes
23 to 2.00.
24 --- Recess taken at 1.28 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 1.54 p.m.
1 JUDGE ORIE: While the witness is brought in ...
2 [The witness takes the stand]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, your last seven to eight minutes.
4 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours.
5 Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P538, page 20 of the
6 original, which is written in French, and page 28 of the B/C/S
8 Since this document is not in the witness's native language the
9 Prosecution has brought clean copies of the English translation for the
10 witness and anyone else who would like a copy of the English translation.
11 The Prosecution has uploaded the English translation under 65 ter 100 --
12 I'm sorry, 10010B, as in boy. We'll be asking that this be included with
13 the exhibit at the conclusion of the examination.
14 If I could ask the Court Officer to please hand the witness a
16 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it there's no objection against attaching
17 the English translation to the French original.
18 MR. LUKIC: No objections, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then leave is granted to attach to P538, the English
20 translation. Please proceed.
21 MR. WEBER:
22 Q. Mr. Higgs, yesterday you were asked a number of questions about
23 the covers related to the Markale I shelling in February 1994. Before
24 you is UNPROFOR Staff-Sergeant Dubant's report related to his examination
25 of the crater at the Sarajevo market. I was wondering if you could
1 please review this document and let us know when you're complete with it.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
4 MR. WEBER: And for Your Honours, just in case you're interested,
5 in the pages following in this report, in the uploaded version of P538,
6 the sketches are present.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, I've read that. Thank you.
8 MR. WEBER:
9 Q. Mr. Higgs, I just wanted to give you the time to read the full
10 report but what I'm going to focus on with you relates to the second
11 paragraph from the top, in particular, the portion that starts:
12 "I could see that the lateral spray which was clean and sharp had
13 been produced by direct impact on the ground. We were able to rule out
14 the possibility that the mortar shell had hit one of the market stalls
15 before hitting the ground."
16 He then lists three points that led him to this conclusion. In
17 reviewing these three-points, do you agree that these are consistent with
18 Staff-Sergeant Dubant's conclusion that the mortar made a direct impact
19 upon the ground?
20 A. From seeing of the -- the photographs, the videos, and from
21 looking at the points here that this gentleman has made, yes, I would
22 concur that the round detonated when it hit the ground.
23 MR. WEBER: That's all I have for re-examination. At this time I
24 would re-tender a number of exhibits.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Before we move to that, Mr. Lukic, have the
1 cross-examination [sic] has it --
2 MR. LUKIC: I just have a few questions, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. WEBER: And --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we first deal with that, Mr. Weber, if you
6 would not mind.
7 MR. WEBER: Of course, Your Honour. Just so I don't lose track
8 of it, there were a -- manual that -- there were two different -- I used
9 the JNA manual and also the excerpt. We will further discuss that with
10 the Defence, and then also if the Chamber has any preference on what
11 sections that they would see -- seek or like, we're happy to also include
12 those. They are available under the 65 ter numbers.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, again, you would prefer to first discuss
14 the matter with Mr. Lukic and then to make a joint -- or at least that
15 Mr. Lukic can add whatever he thinks relevant before you tender it.
16 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's accepted. We will keep that in the
18 back of our mind.
19 Anything else, at this moment, Mr. Weber, before we move to a few
20 other matters.
21 Yes, Mr. Lukic.
22 Further cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:
23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Higgs, just briefly. It has been suggested
24 to you that Defence erroneously used M49 tables, that, instead, we should
25 have used M62 tables. Would you agree with me that M62 has a longer
1 trajectory and that the vertex point of the trajectory would be higher if
2 compared to the trajectory of M49?
3 A. Yes, that is correct.
4 Q. In your report on page 15, you have cited different ranges for
5 charges 1, 2, 3, and 4. When you were drafting this, did you use any
6 tables at all in order to determine the ranges?
7 A. Yes, the M62 tables.
8 Q. Do you know the pages and the exhibits from which you extracted
9 these data, and the tables as well?
10 A. Not the page numbers, no.
11 Q. It was also suggested to you today that it shouldn't have been
12 taken into account at all, regarding incident Markale II, the angle of
13 the street. Would you agree with me that when you were doing your
14 measurements and calculations, you linked your findings to the curb of
15 the street - that is on page 14 of your report - which, in fact, contains
16 the direction of the street; is that correct?
17 A. Yes, I used the angle of the street to give me an approximate
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Higgs. This is all that I wanted to ask you.
20 Thank you again.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 Questioned by the Court:
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I have one question. We looked at this French
25 report a minute ago, the three reasons given why the impact would have
1 been on the ground rather than to hit a stall.
2 Now, I saw that that black marking is the black markings which I
3 do understand to be scorch marks is mentioned here. Have you considered
4 this report when preparing your report?
5 A. No, I have not seen this before today, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: That was only for the first time. Okay. Thank you.
7 No further questions for you.
8 Then do we need the presence of the witness to deal with the
9 administrative matters?
10 MR. WEBER: No, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: If not, I would like to thank you, Mr. Higgs, very
12 much for coming a long way to The Hague and for having answering all the
13 questions that were put to you, either by the parties or by the Bench,
14 and we regret that we were not able to release you any earlier, but at
15 least now you can travel home again.
16 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: You may follow the usher.
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, I have a few matters.
20 I think, in relation to D399, you raised that one before, that
21 was the Google Earth map, which was marked for identification to give you
22 some time to consider your position. You addressed that exhibit.
23 Is there any position yet by the Defence, or is it a matter
24 you'll further work out?
25 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, as you know, I'm not privy with the
1 Sarajevo area, so --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. Then --
3 MR. LUKIC: I have to check it.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll then leave that for the time being.
5 Then I move to D356, excerpts of the 82-millimetre mortar manual.
6 D356 was MFI'd during the testimony of Witness Turkusic. And the
7 Prosecution indicated in an informal communication that the parties
8 discussed the tendering of additional excerpts but that it was still
9 awaiting a translation. The Chamber wondered whether there's any update
10 in that respect.
11 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, correct. We made a selection of
12 additional portions of that, some of which was not translated. Since it
13 was our selections, we did put in translation request which we were told
14 would be available in a month from the date of that communication. So at
15 the point in time that -- as earlier as possible when those translations
16 are available, if it's okay with the Chamber if we could address it and
17 then seek admission at that time.
18 JUDGE ORIE: The date of that communication being?
19 MR. WEBER: I'd have to look that up, that precise date.
20 JUDGE ORIE: But is that 28 days ago or was it yesterday?
21 MR. WEBER: It was before yesterday.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which leaves still 26 days.
23 I do understand that it was somewhere at the end of October. So,
24 therefore, most likely another two and a half to three weeks to wait for.
25 Then, finally, the witness's report. Unless there's anything to
1 be said in addition at this very moment to what has been submitted
2 already previously.
3 MR. LUKIC: Nothing -- nothing, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then we have considered the parties' filings and we
5 have heard the testimony of the witness, and the Chamber decides to admit
6 the witness's report previously marked as P2605, as well as the witness's
7 previous testimony marked as P2606 and P2607.
8 In addition, the Registry is instructed to replace the current
9 version of P2606 with the corrected version, which was uploaded under
10 Rule 65 ter number 30277a.
11 Is there ... have the parties any further matters? If not ...
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
14 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, you took care of most of my matters.
15 The one other matter that I had is that we did prepare a table of
16 concordance for both the items referenced in the report and also the
17 items referenced in the previous testimony tendered pursuant to
18 Rule 92 ter. This table is available under 65 ter 30453 and that we ask
19 that it be admitted at this time.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, no objection, I take it. It's purely
21 instrumental --
22 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... no objections.
23 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... instrumental and doesn't
24 add anything.
25 Mr. Registrar, the number for 65 ter 30453 would be?
1 THE REGISTRAR: P2628, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
3 I will briefly deal with one more matter, which is the
4 Prosecution request for leave to reply to the Defence response to the
5 military justice bar table motion.
6 The Chamber recalls that on the 25th of October, the Prosecution
7 requested an extension of seven days in which to file a request for leave
8 to reply to the Defence response to the military justice bar table
9 motion. This request was granted by the Chamber on the 28th of October,
10 whereby the Chamber stated that the seven-day extension was running as of
11 that day, the 28th of October, making the deadline the 4th of November.
12 The request for leave to reply and the attached reply were filed
13 on the 5th of November, 2013. The Chamber considers this filing to be:
14 One, a request for leave to reply; and, second, a corrigendum to the
15 motion withdrawing the tendering of four documents.
16 Considering that the reply was filed on the 5th of November, the
17 Chamber will, pursuant to Rule 126 bis, deny the requested leave to
18 reply, as the filing was submitted after the expiration of the prescribed
19 deadline. The Chamber will, however, consider the withdrawal of the
20 tendering of four documents as indicated by the Prosecution in the
21 request for leave to reply as a corrigendum. For the clarity of the
22 record, the Chamber invites the Prosecution to specify which documents
23 are subject to the withdrawal.
24 It's time to adjourn.
25 MR. LUKIC: If I may swiftly, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Lukic.
2 MR. LUKIC: Sorry. We just want to attach one English
3 translation to one of the MFI'd documents. It's 1D1355, now D389, MFI'd.
4 There is English translation under doc ID 1D06-0678.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Again, what was the document, Mr. Lukic?
6 MR. LUKIC: It was D389.
7 JUDGE ORIE: No. No. What was the document about?
8 MR. LUKIC: I just got this message from our Case Manager, so
9 I --
10 JUDGE ORIE: And I will give you a similar message that we'll --
11 we'll grant leave to attach the English translation to the document MFI'd
12 as D389.
13 D389 is admitted into evidence and if there's any problem with
14 the English translation or if there's any other reason for objections by
15 the Prosecution, we'd like to hear not any later than by Tuesday.
16 MR. WEBER: Understood, Your Honour, and thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 Then we adjourn for the day, and we'll resume Monday, the
19 11th of November, and if I'm not mistaken in this same Courtroom III, at
20 9.30 in the morning.
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.17 p.m.,
22 to be reconvened on Monday, the 11th day of
23 November, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.