Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 39207

 1                           Wednesday, 23 September 2015

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.38 a.m.

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

 6     courtroom.

 7             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is case

 9     IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             The Chamber was informed that the Defence had four preliminary

12     matters to raise, the Prosecution would have two, but we'll start with

13     one the Chamber would like to address.

14             Next week Tuesday, that is, the 29th of September, we'll start

15     half an hour later and continue half an hour longer; therefore, we'll sit

16     from 10.00 to a quarter to 3.00.

17             Mr. Ivetic, you were on your feet.

18             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honours.  I guess I'll go first.

19             On this past Monday, at transcript page 39122 onwards,

20     Your Honour asked us to provide in court today a detailed chronology as

21     to the appointment of experts as to Tomasica and their receipt of

22     materials and work.  I provide the same as follows.

23             On 14 July 2015, I personally forwarded lead counsel's request

24     for appointment, authorisation to work, and funding for the Tomasica part

25     of the case for Professor Radovanovic to act as a Defence expert, sending

Page 39208

 1     the same to the relevant officers within OLAD via e-mail.  The request

 2     also sought approval and authorisation and funding for a trip to the OTP

 3     demographic unit by Professor Radovanovic and two assistants in order to

 4     be able to review the archives of the OTP demographic unit.  Here I quote

 5     verbatim from that request.

 6             "Ms. Radovanovic is expected to analyse the foregoing evidence to

 7     identify flaws and criticisms which could be used to challenge or rebut

 8     that evidence as part of the Defence case in chief.  Further, insofar as

 9     the evidence of Ms. Tabeau featured heavily on the integrated database

10     and records that are within the Office of the Prosecution,

11     Ms. Radovanovic's work will include the need to visit the

12     Office of the Prosecution to work for several days with her assistants to

13     work with this database in relation to Tabeau's reports.  For this

14     purpose, we will send you shortly the CVs of her assistants,

15     Mr. Bozo Grbic and Ms. Slavica Pavkov.  Both of them have decades of

16     experience in the official statistical organs of the RS government.  It

17     is anticipated that they would need to travel to The Hague and work four

18     to five days with the OTP demographers unit, and also since Ms.Tabeau's

19     work did not take into account certain data or factors in doing her

20     review, Ms. Radovanovic may have to seek some outside sources of

21     information to test Dr. Tabeau's theories to see if they are sound when

22     taking into account that missing information.  This additional research

23     includes," and then we identified a list of items.

24             And now I quote a later part of the same Defence request.

25             "It is thus critical to permit the Defence to have a fair

Page 39209

 1     opportunity to have a counter-expert review this report in evidence so as

 2     to rebut the evidence."

 3             On 16 July 2015, OLAD wrote personally to me asking for

 4     clarification if Professor Radovanovic would necessarily be preparing a

 5     report since if not, she could be named as a member of the Defence team

 6     to informally assist us with no additional funding but not to write an

 7     expert report.

 8             On 17 July 2015, I personally wrote back to OLAD advising that

 9     since Professor Radovanovic was foreseen to be preparing not only an

10     expert report but testifying as an expert witness as to Tomasica, the

11     option of naming her to the Defence team, rather than authorising her as

12     an expert, was not feasible and that thus additional funding under the

13     directive for experts was essential and required.

14             On 21 July 2015, I received personally the preliminary decision

15     of OLAD that the assistants of Professor Radovanovic could not be

16     appointed nor considered for funding and were being denied funding.  It

17     was suggested that the assistants could be appointed to the Defence team

18     and paid under the already expended Defence budget or work pro bono, with

19     the Defence team paying out of pocket for their travel and lodging to

20     permit such a trip.  As to our pending request for appointment and

21     funding for Professor Radovanovic, OLAD promised to let us know "as soon

22     as practicable."  It is important to note the Defence team budget is

23     maxed out and OLAD did not increase the same for the inclusion of any

24     experts.

25             On 5 August 2015, after no word from OLAD, the Defence team

Page 39210

 1     followed up with a request for status and decision as to the outstanding

 2     requests for Professor Radovanovic and Professor Stankovic to be

 3     authorised and funded as to Tomasica, stressing the rapid movement of the

 4     case and the need to resolve the matter quickly.  We again asked for

 5     funding for the assistants of Professor Radovanovic to permit them to

 6     review material at the OTP demographic unit's archives as had been

 7     permitted in other previous cases for these same assistants, providing

 8     details of those engagements and work in prior cases.

 9             On 12 August 2015, I personally forwarded lead counsel's request

10     for appointment of Dr. Stankovic to OLAD, for purposes of Tomasica, as

11     OLAD were unaware of the request.

12             On 17 August 2015, the Defence team received a letter from OLAD

13     approving the appointment as to both Professor Radovanovic and

14     Dr. Stankovic as experts for purposes of the Tomasica evidence and

15     granting an allocation of hours to fund the same.  However, as to

16     Professor Radovanovic's request to visit the OTP demographic unit with

17     her assistants to perform a review of the same, again the assistants of

18     Professor Radovanovic were denied funding with the implication that they

19     could be assigned to the Defence team with no additional funding to work

20     pro bono.  Also, the letter made no reference whatsoever to request for

21     Professor Radovanovic to be authorised and funded for a visit to the OTP

22     demographic unit.  Rather, the letter denied travel expenses for

23     Professor Radovanovic to travel unless strictly necessary and cited

24     travel to testify as being something that would be covered.  The letter

25     thus did not grant funding nor approval for Professor Radovanovic or her

Page 39211

 1     assistants to visit the OTP demographic unit.  That issue still has not

 2     been resolved favourably.  And I know quote from that OLAD letter

 3     verbatim as to travel:

 4             "Please note that the Registry does not reimburse travel expenses

 5     of experts unless strictly necessary to fulfil the scope of the

 6     assignment.  Please be informed, however, that should this assigned

 7     expert be called to testify as an expert witness in court, the Tribunal's

 8     Victims and Witnesses Section will deal with the matters resulting

 9     thereof."

10             Thus, the Registrar's assertion in their 3 September 2015 filing

11     that they are a waiting a travel request for Professor Radovanovic is not

12     accurate.  Our original request outlined the proposed plan of travel on

13     14 July 2015, which the Registry has not approved in its 17 August

14     letter, and rather we have heard the wording that I have just read above.

15             At the very best, we are awaiting Registry approval of our

16     request.  At the very worst interpretation, it has been denied.

17             I personally travelled to Belgrade on 19 August 2015 and met with

18     Professor Radovanovic and with Dr. Stankovic on 20 August 2015, with my

19     legal assistant, for purposes of conveying to them the OLAD decision and

20     discussing the Tomasica appointment and outlining the time-frame and work

21     required due to the dynamics of the case.  I stressed to them the short

22     time-frame and outlined the schedule for the remainder of the Defence

23     case.  Both gave their assent to accept the appointment and do their best

24     to work under the difficult conditions and time pressure.  I outlined to

25     them the type of material that we had received from the OTP and advised

Page 39212

 1     them to liaise with the legal assistant to complete the signed

 2     undertaking required by OLAD and to take over the custody of the files to

 3     begin work and for any remaining questions or issues.

 4             On 21 August 2015, I was engaged in travel the better part of the

 5     day to return to The Hague, but my legal assistant met with and handed

 6     over, in electronic format, all of the disclosed demographic evidence as

 7     to Tomasica to Professor Radovanovic.

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Kindly slow down.  Thank you.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  Already on 22 August 2015, Professor Radovanovic was

10     required to travel to The Hague for her testimony in these proceedings as

11     to the remainder of the Prosecution evidence.

12             On 22 August 2015, my legal assistant met with Professor

13     Dr. Stankovic and handed over to him, in electronic format, all of the

14     disclosed forensic court medicine material as to Tomasica.

15             From 22 August to 28 August 2015, Professor Radovanovic was in

16     The Hague for purposes of testifying before Your Honours for her initial

17     expertise as to the remainder of the Prosecution case minus Tomasica as a

18     retained Defence expert.

19             On 29 August 2015, I personally communicated with Professor

20     Radovanovic who confirmed her arrival back in Belgrade from the Hague and

21     said that she would commence her review of the Tomasica evidence in a few

22     days after catching up with obligations that arose while in The Hague and

23     recovering from exertions related to her travel and to her testimony.

24             On 11 September 2015, I personally received Professor

25     Radovanovic's signed undertaking from the assistant in the field and

Page 39213

 1     immediately forwarded the same to OLAD as per OLAD's request.  The

 2     undertaking had been signed already on 19 August 2015.  I was also

 3     advised that Professor Radovanovic needed to speak with me as to

 4     additional matters and materials she felt were needed.

 5             On 11 September 2015, I personally, with co-counsel, contacted

 6     Professor Radovanovic as to the request for additional materials that had

 7     not been disclosed by the OTP and talked about her progress and specific

 8     requests for official documentation to relevant state authorities.  An

 9     official request was drafted that same day and sent out to the relevant

10     authorities by co-counsel.  To date, we have not gotten a response to the

11     request of the relevant authorities for the required documents.  Until

12     said documents are received, it would be premature and impossible to

13     predict accurately the amount of time that would be required for

14     Professor Radovanovic to complete her review of the same and draft the

15     necessary report and analysis, since we don't know the number or volume

16     of the same.

17             Professor Stankovic's schedule and availability have been limited

18     of late due to his official governmental duties in relation to his

19     governmental appointment such that I have not as of yet received his

20     signed undertaking.  However, he has confirmed that he has started to

21     review the voluminous forensic material of the Prosecution disclosure as

22     to Tomasica.  We anticipate and have asked that he attempt to complete

23     his review and provide a drafted report within 45 days of today, if

24     possible.  My legal assistant is trying to reach him today to try and get

25     feedback on that proposed possibility.

Page 39214

 1             And that completes the detailed chronology that I have prepared.

 2     And I apologise to the translators for speaking quickly at certain points

 3     while reading.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I would have a few questions.

 5             First, of course, we'll ask the Registry to make any submissions,

 6     if they wish to do so.

 7             You said on the 14th of July you announced the CVs of the

 8     assistants of Professor Radovanovic to be provided.  When did you send

 9     them?

10             MR. IVETIC:  I believe the CVs were sent, I think, either the

11     next day or the day after, since we already received on the 21st, which

12     would be seven days later, the initial denial after they had reviewed the

13     CVs.  So it's sometime within that same week.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Within days.

15             Then I have -- you referred to the 21st, you said the assistants

16     were denied.  Was that also the day when the appointment of Professor

17     Radovanovic, apart from travelling and coming to The Hague, was approved,

18     or is that misunderstood?

19             MR. IVETIC:  No, it was not.  As a matter of fact, as I stated as

20     to our request for Professor Radovanovic, OLAD in that e-mail said they

21     would promise to let us know "as soon as practicable."

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

23             MR. IVETIC:  And that decision arrived on the 17th of August,

24     2015.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And do I understand that in fact until early

Page 39215

 1     September, Professor Radovanovic was unable to start working on it?

 2             MR. IVETIC:  That's correct.  I wasn't sure if you had something

 3     to add.  It sounded like you were still in the midst of a question.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  And my last question would be, when Professor

 5     Radovanovic was in The Hague here for testimony, was it considered or has

 6     she tried to do in The Hague -- that is, to consult the underlying

 7     materials she said she would need and therefore even need to travel to

 8     The Hague to look at them when she was here, which would have resulted in

 9     one-time travel expenses serving two purposes?

10             MR. IVETIC:  She has.  That was originally what we had proposed,

11     that when she would come to testify she could go to the Prosecution and

12     do the review.  She has advised, of course, that she needs her assistants

13     to perform that review, that she is not able to perform a review of the

14     databases by herself without the assistance of statistical assistants and

15     the type of assistants that the Prosecution experts also employed and

16     also identified in their reports and in their testimony.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for those informations.  I think the

18     Prosecution, apart from now a reference on how the Prosecution works, is

19     hardly involved or not involved, apart from this scheduling aspects, of

20     course.

21             Is there any wish to make any further submissions?

22             MR. TIEGER:  No, Mr. President.  I have a couple of quick


24             Number one:  No, the Prosecution was, in the sense the Court

25     means, not involved.  Particularly in the sense that we responded

Page 39216

 1     expeditiously to every request in connection with this matter so that

 2     progress would not be retarded in any way.  And I think that's been clear

 3     on the record thus far.

 4             And secondly, I have to say I didn't understand the

 5     characterisation of the Registry response to the request in July as being

 6     intractable.  Particularly, what I heard was no travel unless necessary.

 7     It seems to me that situation could have been resolved with a

 8     determination of that including coming to the court as quickly as

 9     possibly.  But then it turns out, in any event, that access to the OTP

10     database, it seemed, was really not the issue here since other factors

11     are identified as precluding that kind of visit until something else

12     happens.  So it seems that's a bit of a red herring under these

13     circumstances.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We'll invite the Registry to make any

15     submissions on very short notice so as not to lose further time.

16             That was your first preliminary matter.

17             Mr. Lukic, you take the second?

18             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour, and the third and the fourth.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then please proceed.

20             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.  I would just need the assistance of the

21     usher to distribute these copies to the booths and our court reporter,

22     please.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Any matter to be raised without the need of,

24     perhaps, the third or the fourth?

25             MR. LUKIC:  No, Your Honour.  Everything is on the same paper.

Page 39217

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we'll patiently wait.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  I can see that the papers were delivered, and I will

 3     start.

 4             So I will present three preliminary matters this morning.  The

 5     first one is in section with the closing statement of Judge Orie from

 6     yesterday 22nd September 2015.  On page transcript T39205, Judge Orie

 7     stated, and I quote:

 8             "Mr. Lukic, I again urge you to focus on what such a witness

 9     could bring us; that is, that she tell us about her expertise, that she

10     does not start to evaluate the totality of the evidence.  We not even

11     knowing exactly always what it is that she has seen or what she has not

12     seen.  But if she moves away from her expertise, she should be considered

13     a witness of fact and then we need a clear foundation of the sources of

14     knowledge.  And as usual, witnesses of fact are not expected to give an

15     evaluation of the evidence."

16             Your Honours, our ballistic experts visited all of the incident

17     scenes and conducted their investigations and did their measurements.  My

18     question to you is:  Does this instruction of yours means that they

19     should not testify about their work in this regard?  Because Ms. Subotic

20     testified exactly about that before you gave this instruction.

21             On transcript page 39203, the following was said, and I would

22     quote, line 14 and further:

23             "Q.  So, did you manage to locate the other imprint?

24             "A.  In 2010 when we visited the location, there were two

25     imprints in the parking-lot.  They can also be found in the documents --

Page 39218

 1     recorded in the documents created back in 2001 by the investigators.

 2             "Q.  According to the documents you were able to review, when is

 3     the first mention of the second imprint?

 4             "A.  We found it for the first time in 2001, meaning that it

 5     occurred sometime in between, between 1995 and 2001."

 6             Second issue in connection with the instructions by Judge Orie is

 7     the following.  On page of our transcript 39200, that was yesterday, I

 8     would quote:

 9             "Judge Orie:  Mr. Lukic, I am not telling you that you should not

10     present other evidence.  I am telling you that if you call a witness as

11     an expert on ballistics, that that witness to draw all other kind of

12     conclusions which are to be drawn by the Chamber, present the facts and

13     leave the conclusions in the field of ballistics to expert and in other

14     fields to the Chamber.

15             "Please proceed."

16             "Mr. Lukic:" -- that would be me.  "Your Honour, Your Honour, it

17     would be possible -- no, no, I have to respond --

18             "Judge Orie:  Mr. Lukic --

19             "Mr. Lukic:  It would be possible --

20             "Judge Orie:  Mr. Lukic, please proceed.  Next question to the

21     witness, please.

22             "Mr. Lukic:  It would be possible if they were on the site at

23     that time.  They had to use everything that they had.

24             "Judge Orie:  Mr. Lukic, I told you - that's my ruling - that you

25     should put your next question to the witness."

Page 39219

 1             In the course of this trial, we heard a large number of

 2     Prosecution witnesses, both factual and expert witnesses, who dealt with

 3     ballistics.  The Defence concentrated almost all evidence of this kind

 4     and carried them through their experts on ballistics.  For the proper

 5     functioning of our experts in ballistics, it is essential that they look

 6     at all the evidence in its entirety.

 7             Before this instruction given by Judge Orie, our expert witness,

 8     Ms. Subotic, testified about the case G-4, shelling in Dobrinja.  She

 9     testified that the documents and the testimony of the witnesses of this

10     point for this incident that occurred in 1993, only one shell impact

11     crater was recorded at this location all the way until 2001.  A second

12     mortar shell impact crater appears in the documents only after the year

13     2001.

14             Our expert has held that it is necessary to take into account

15     this fact and she testified about the same.  These are facts that the

16     Defence holds the key to clearing up the case and rebutting the evidence

17     presented by the Prosecution during its case.

18             Is it the view of the Chamber and instruction to the Defence that

19     our ballistics experts should just blindly carry out measurements without

20     embarking on a whole evaluation of evidence that is necessary for them to

21     locate and identify the forensic trace evidence with which they are to

22     work as part and parcel of their ballistics review?

23             With all due respect, the Defence does not agree with this

24     position and will continue to present evidence that it considers relevant

25     to the determination of the truth and directly related to the review and

Page 39220

 1     work performed by our expert witnesses.  We consider ballistics experts

 2     not to be only mathematicians who deal with numbers, but they have an

 3     obligation to examine the evidence as a whole and to provide answers

 4     based on everything that they have studied, to support the findings and

 5     conclusions which they have.

 6             And I will now move to the third issue.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  This issue, Mr. Lukic, I think I and my colleagues

 8     have carefully listened and we'll consider whether or not it needs any

 9     further response, because you have put a few questions, and I leave it at

10     this moment to that.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

13             The third issue is a matter of time required to properly present

14     and examine our witnesses in court to demonstrate not only their

15     conclusions but also the way our witnesses performed their ballistics

16     review and reached their conclusions.  The fact is the Defence estimated

17     that for the examination of this witness it will take five hours.  During

18     the preparations here in The Hague, it turned out to be that this

19     assessment was incorrect and that the Defence needs more time to complete

20     the examination of this witness in a full and proper manner to appraise

21     and assist the Chamber in dealing with rather lengthy and technical

22     expert reports.

23             The Defence points out that it does not seek to extend the time

24     for the performance of the entire Defence case and points out that it

25     will stay within the limits of 207.5 hours.  Our question is who

Page 39221

 1     determines the manner in which the Defence uses their time, the members

 2     of the Defence team or someone else?

 3             Prosecution experts were not subjected to enforced reduction of

 4     the time for their testimony and indeed many Prosecution experts in

 5     direct examination had more than five hours without any similar

 6     instruction from the Chamber.  Theunens, for instance, 7 hours; Butler

 7     had over 11 hours.  Plus, I kindly note that multiple Prosecution experts

 8     presented evidence, including opinions, as to shelling in Sarajevo.

 9     Including, and this was Professor Higgs, for whom this Chamber did not

10     limit him to prevent him from discussing the conclusions of others and

11     then indeed he did analyse and give evidence about Bosnian police

12     investigations and statements of witnesses.

13             Thus, we are entirely concerned that now the Chamber is enforcing

14     a different standard than that employed for the Prosecution experts on

15     the very same subject matter.

16             Thank you, Your Honours, for giving us the opportunity to address

17     these matters.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

19             Mr. Weber, you're on your feet, to do what?

20             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honours.  If I could just make a few brief

21     observations on the matters that just transposed.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The Chamber decides that you may do so.

23             MR. WEBER:  Thank you very much, Your Honours.

24             We weren't informed of any of these matters just prior to court,

25     but just some preliminary observations with respect to the first two

Page 39222

 1     issues raised by Mr. Lukic.  It's the Prosecution's view, and it was our

 2     understanding, that the thrust of the Chamber's concern from yesterday

 3     was really a two-fold thing:  One, whether or not the witness was

 4     encroaching on matters that really are in the purview of the Trial

 5     Chamber in the assessment of witness evidence --

 6             MR. LUKIC:  I really do not understand this exercise, that the

 7     Prosecution is telling us what the Chamber thought yesterday.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, you --

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Can say what they understood.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  I mean, of course they can't -- Mr. Weber has no

11     pretension, I take it, to tell us what we meant but how he understood

12     what we, as he thinks, we wanted to say.

13             MR. WEBER:  Exactly.  It was just my observations.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

15             MR. WEBER:  And just on that, you know, it seemed to be coming up

16     in the context, when it was happening, that there is a -- a difference

17     between attacking the characterisation of evidence as being credible or

18     not credible on another occasion as from the example that Mr. Lukic just

19     actually used in court, where it was very specifically related to an

20     observation by a witness as to the number of shells that were actually

21     physically present and then subsequently finding out whether or not, in a

22     site visit, such shells were actually there.

23             So I think there is a distinguishing factor between those two.

24             And then the other aspect, that at least appeared to me to be

25     coming up in the context of court, there were just things that could be

Page 39223

 1     not within the area of expertise of this witness - medical evidence, FIFA

 2     rules - that we saw coming up during the course of the discussion of the

 3     G-4 incident.  So at least from the Prosecution's view this appeared to

 4     be the types of things that were triggering the concerns at the time,

 5     which are also shared by the Prosecution if this was the case.

 6             With respect to expert Theunens just that -- that was commented

 7     on quickly.  I just make the quick point, there was litigation before

 8     that and a discussion as to the reduction of the report or not, and then

 9     the Prosecution needing to lead extra evidence in terms of the extra

10     timing for that report, so I just note that for the record.

11             With respect to Higgs, our examination was rather limited and

12     very focused and short, and it did focus on, of course, the Bosnian

13     investigators' material and reports and the evidence that they collected

14     during the course of their investigations.  I believe the matters that

15     are coming up in this expert report exceed that scope.

16             Thank you, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Weber.

18             MR. LUKIC:  If I may, Your Honours, about the FIFA rules.  We

19     just wanted to present what actually the witness showed to the

20     investigator of the Prosecution, Mr. Hogan.  He measured in his steps the

21     length of that goal --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

23             MR. LUKIC:  -- and we see the small one on the scene, and we see

24     one in the back of that size on that.  So we had to present, actually,

25     what he showed on that only in the wrong place.  That's why we have to --

Page 39224

 1     had to put FIFA rules.  If -- nobody needs FIFA rules, we can see the

 2     same goal in the picture which is part of the report, so I don't see

 3     anything improper if anybody uses FIFA rules.  It's nothing that is

 4     hidden.  Everybody can use it.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll later consider, Mr. Lukic, when -- by steps,

 6     the measurement of a goal is defined, whether there is or there is not a

 7     relevant link with FIFA rules.  We would leave it to that for the time

 8     being.

 9             Those were your submissions.  Now, there are two preliminary

10     matters to be raised by the Prosecution.

11             Mr. Weber.

12             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honours.  And mine will be very

13     short.

14             Just to kind of keep track of our housekeeping and make progress

15     with it as we go with the witness.  The G-4 video with Investigator Hogan

16     and Ismet Fazlic is available under 65 ter 22444A.  The provisional

17     number reserved for the video is D1244.  We do have the -- the

18     Prosecution just went ahead and cut the clips of the entire video and we

19     have them present here in the court.  If it's -- if it's ready to be

20     tendered, then we -- I know it's technically a Defence exhibit, I don't

21     know if the Defence wants to re-tender it, but I wanted at least to

22     inform them at this time that that's available.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You say the whole of the video including all

24     portions shown by the Defence is now available as 22444A.

25             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honour.  And it was from the very beginning

Page 39225

 1     of the discussion of the G-4 to the end of the discussion.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 3             Mr. Lukic, how would you like to proceed with that video?  The

 4     Prosecution -- Mr. Ivetic, yes.

 5             Mr. Ivetic, the whole of the G-4 part, apparently, is now

 6     available under this number.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  I don't have a problem with that.  The only concern

 8     I have is do the time-stamp entries that we used in court yesterday still

 9     apply to the selection made by the OTP in 22444A?

10             MR. WEBER:  Ms. Stewart is informing me that they do.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  And if they would not, which I hardly dare to say

12     when Ms. Stewart said that it was, then of course a table of concordance

13     should be presented so that we know exactly what the -- and I think then

14     it's appropriate for the Prosecution to do that.

15             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  But it will be your exhibit and as well the

17     Prosecution's table of concordance if there is any problem remaining.

18             MR. WEBER:  Thank you.  Very well understood.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then it can be admitted.  That means,

20     Madam Registrar, that D1244 now consists of -- and I see it that the

21     CD-ROM is presented to Madam Registrar at this moment, consists of

22     65 ter 22444A and is admitted into evidence.

23             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the second matter that the Prosecution

24     had related to just the rolling notice of materials for this witness.

25             Of course, the Prosecution is willing to be flexible and certain

Page 39226

 1     exhibits pose less of a challenge than others in terms of the late

 2     notification.  I just kindly ask that if we get late notification of

 3     things, especially like happened last night, of longer videos that are

 4     150 -- or an hour and 50 minutes long, that if there are some additional

 5     specification made by the Defence in terms of particularity, what part --

 6     what time on the video, these are sometimes large compilations of many

 7     different incidents, and what part of the report specifically the portion

 8     that is being noted in terms of the time code or pages relate to.  That

 9     would be greatly appreciated.

10             With respect to the videos for yesterday, we ask that at least we

11     receive that information before they are used in court.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I take it, Mr. Lukic, that to the extent

13     possible you'll meet the request by --

14             MR. LUKIC:  I think we are --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  -- the Prosecution.

16             MR. LUKIC:  -- in a position to provide Mr. Weber with this data.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we -- I think if there are no other preliminary

18     matters, then we could do two things, ask the witness to come in, but

19     perhaps rather take the break now and start a bit earlier.

20             We'll take a break, and we will resume at a quarter to 11.00.

21                           --- Recess taken at 10.23 a.m.

22                           --- On resuming at 10.50 a.m.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  We're waiting for the witness to be escorted into

24     the courtroom.

25                           [The witness takes the stand]

Page 39227

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Ms. Subotic.

 2             THE WITNESS:  Good morning.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  It's unfortunate that you had to wait a little bit

 4     longer.  We had to deal with a few procedural matters first, and you were

 5     the victim.

 6             Mr. Lukic will now resume his examination-in-chief, and I'd like

 7     to remind you that you are still bound by the solemn declaration you've

 8     given yesterday at the beginning of your testimony.

 9             Please proceed.

10             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

11                           WITNESS:  ZORICA SUBOTIC [Resumed]

12                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

13                           Examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]

14        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Ms. Subotic.

15        A.   Good morning.

16        Q.   Please let us go back to G-4, at least in your mind.  I wanted to

17     show you P872.

18        A.   I apologise.

19        Q.   In this exhibit, we can see it is entitled "Photo file,"

20     "Shelling," the 1st of June, 1993.  Photographs taken on 21 November

21     1995.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Can we see the next page, please.  Can we see the

23     next one.

24        Q.   [Interpretation] According to your knowledge, who initiated this

25     investigation?

Page 39228

 1        A.   As far as I know, the investigation was conducted on the basis of

 2     the ICTY request.

 3        Q.   Was the site also visited by a representative of the OTP, of

 4     The Hague Office of the Prosecutor?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Let us see what we can find in this record of forensic

 7     investigation of the scene, especially because it was drafted two years

 8     after the incident.

 9             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We would like to see page 5 in the

10     English and 3 in the B/C/S.  [In English] Page 5 -- page 3 B/C/S.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Your microphone.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Page 3 in B/C/S, please.  We have it in B/C/S.  It's

13     in the middle of the page -- sorry, the previous page first.  It's page 3

14     in B/C/S.  It's the previous page in English, I am sorry.  Top of the

15     page is in English.

16             [Interpretation] In this paragraph, in the middle of the page in

17     the B/C/S, we can see that it says:

18             "A detailed forensic investigation of the scene of the attack

19     revealed the following."

20             Bullet point 1:

21             "An artillery shell fell on the location of the parking lot in 3b

22     Dobrinja neighbourhood."

23             Let us now look at what was stated in terms of the second

24     projectile, which is on the next page in the B/C/S but the same page in

25     the English.

Page 39229

 1             [In English] Sorry, it is the next page in English as well.

 2             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  It's the last paragraph in both versions.

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] There we see the following:

 5             "The point of impact of the second shell was not forensically

 6     examined due to the changed appearance of the soil adjacent to the

 7     parking lot (various agricultural plants have been planted there in the

 8     meantime)."

 9             What we can find in the indictment, what can we see there, how

10     many projectiles and on what surface?

11        A.   It is specified that there are two shell imprints and that both

12     can be found on the parking-lot.

13        Q.   Thank you.

14             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we look at some footage next,

15     and we will need only a few seconds of it.  It is 1D05221.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, could I just ask you, there is a question

17     mark in the transcript, page 23, line 7, "what we can find in the" and I

18     think I heard you said "indictment."  Is that what you said?

19             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, I did, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could you then -- could you then further

21     explore the answer in relation to the -- what we find in the indictment?

22     Where the witness said that:

23             "It is specified that there are two shell imprints and that both

24     can be found on the parking-lot."

25             Perhaps the witness could answer the question.  Is it your

Page 39230

 1     testimony that the indictment tells us that imprints were found on the

 2     parking-lot and that there were two?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may add, both are in the -- on

 7     the asphalt, on the tarmac of the parking-lot.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  The question was whether the indictment tells us

 9     that there were imprints of shells on the parking-lot and that there were

10     two.

11             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

13             Mr. Weber.

14             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, the 65 ter number that was just

15     announced was 1D5221.  We do not have this on our notification for this

16     witness.

17             MR. LUKIC:  Probably I misspoke --

18             MR. WEBER:  Oh, 55 --

19             MR. LUKIC:  -- it's 1D55921.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  And now it is on your list.  Please proceed.

21             MR. LUKIC:  And we should see this video from 2 hours, 7 minutes,

22     33 seconds, up to 2 hours, 7 minutes, 58 seconds.  We will only rely on

23     the picture, not on the sound.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Then there is no need --

25             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, the Prosecution actually asked for -- I

Page 39231

 1     know what he's about to use, and we believe the sound is also relevant.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Sound or words spoken?

 3             MR. WEBER:  My recollection of the video is that there is sound,

 4     not necessarily words.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  If it is --

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Words, words, not sound.  We are not leaning on

 7     sound -- on words --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  On words.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  -- because we don't have a transcript, so ...

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, okay.  So we'll ignore any words spoken unless

11     the Prosecution insist on words spoken as well.  And sound, of course, is

12     sometimes also something which is not spoken but --

13             MR. LUKIC:  We --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  -- let's have a look at it first and then we'll find

15     out.

16             MR. LUKIC:  It is not mute, definitely.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's okay.

18             MR. LUKIC:  Can we start, please.

19                           [Video-clip played]

20             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   In your report, did you rely on any stills from this footage, and

22     if so, which ones?

23        A.   Yes.  We used the stills provided on images 32 and 33 showing

24     blood traces or smears.  In image 32, we can also see some shell traces;

25     and in image 33, we can clearly where the shell had landed on the asphalt

Page 39232

 1     and to the right we see the trace of blood from a different angle.

 2        Q.   What about images 28 and 29?

 3        A.   It is the same location.

 4        Q.   From the same footage, if you recall?

 5        A.   No.  32 is not from the same angle.

 6        Q.   No, that's not what I mean.  Let's look at the next thing.

 7             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let's start with 2 hours, 8 minutes,

 8     20 seconds, to 2 hours, 8 minutes, 26 seconds.

 9             Please bear with us.  It isn't easy to find the exact time.

10                           [Video-clip played]

11             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Do images 28 and 29 have something to do with this part of the

13     footage?

14        A.   Yes.  Images 28 and 29 are basically the same.  They are related

15     to the footage.  However, image number 29 is simply zoomed in.

16        Q.   Thank you.

17             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We'd like to tender the pieces of

18     footage we have shown.  We discussed it with my learned friend,

19     Mr. Weber, and I believe he will have something to say about the footage

20     when they rely on it later on.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

22             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, just for economy's sake, I think it

23     would make sense just to have one number for the -- the relevant portions

24     of this to the parties.  We submit that would be time code 2 hours,

25     7 minutes, 33 seconds, to 2 hours, 8 minutes, 26 seconds.  So we have no

Page 39233

 1     objection to that clip being cut for that time segment and being tendered

 2     at this time.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  We accept the way my learned friend proposed.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Which means that we take that out as a separate

 5     exhibit, is that?

 6             MR. LUKIC:  As one.  So it's encompasses both these clips and

 7     [overlapping speakers] --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  And for the next --

 9             MR. LUKIC:  -- in between.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  And for the next one as well?  So we'll wait --

11             MR. LUKIC:  No, we can have Defence number for the whole thing.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             MR. IVETIC:  And ...

14                           [Trial Chamber confers]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, finally there -- the upload of the entire

16     portion of the video, we are still waiting for that, but the time-frames

17     here have been clearly defined.  And we already reserve a number for

18     this.

19             Madam Registrar, the number to be reserved for ...

20             THE REGISTRAR:  D1250.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And that's reserved for the whole sequence of videos

22     of which we have seen part of -- two, we have seen two parts.

23             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

25             [Interpretation] We'll look at another thing in the previous

Page 39234

 1     document, which was P872, the photo file and record created two years

 2     after the incident.  Can we please have page 5 in the English and 4 in

 3     the B/C/S version.  The penultimate paragraph with the two bullet points

 4     in both versions.

 5        Q.   It is stated that it was established that the shell which hit the

 6     tarmac surface of the parking-lot was an 82-millimetre shell, and then

 7     the shell came in from the south-easterly direction of 110 degrees from

 8     the north.  Did you try to verify the result of 110 degrees from the

 9     north?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   What was your finding?

12        A.   Our finding differed from this one.  Please bear with me.  It is

13     greater.  Let me tell you the exact figure.  Our finding is greater being

14     between 139 and 150 degrees.  We determined it in two ways:  By direct

15     measurement of the traces we found in September 2010, and by comparing it

16     to the bearing of the parking line at the place of the traces, having

17     previously determined the bearing of the parking-lot as per Google Maps

18     which is just something we can see in image 35.  The comparison I

19     mentioned can be found in image 31.

20        Q.   Briefly tell us what your conclusion about the incident was.

21        A.   Overall?

22        Q.   Yes.

23        A.   Our conclusion about this incident was that there were many

24     issues in trying to determine what the real situation was, starting first

25     of all with the place of incident and followed by some missing

Page 39235

 1     information from the first police investigation, as well as the fact that

 2     UNPROFOR conducted an on-site investigation that we were unable to rely

 3     on because the reference trig points were some 200 metres away from the

 4     playing field.

 5             There was also a very particular or peculiar circumstance of

 6     having the police conducting a detailed investigation two years later.

 7     It was a very detailed, precise report, but they did not find the traces

 8     of the second mine.  But all of us, starting with 2001 and ending in

 9     2002, all of us found two traces; therefore, it was very difficult to

10     make a positive decision bearing all this in mind.

11             One thing is certain, though, which is that the game itself was

12     not played at the location that was investigated but in the playing field

13     next to it, which is something we discussed yesterday.

14        Q.   Let us move on to incident G-5.

15             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In the English, its page 51; in the

16     B/C/S, 79.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Just to be sure what you said, "the game itself was

18     not played at the location that was investigated."  That was your

19     conclusion on the basis of where cars were seen, where the poles of the

20     goals were, is that where you rely upon when saying that:

21             "One thing is certain ... that the game itself was not played at

22     that location"?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I rely on witness statements, the

24     footage we saw today and yesterday, it was discussed at length, and of

25     course the traces which were found or appeared.  If the situation was

Page 39236

 1     described properly, they should have been there when Captain Houdet was

 2     there.  He attended the scene but his co-ordinates were unclear.  They

 3     took us 200 metres away from the area and we were unable to use them in

 4     any way in our investigation.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  I have some difficulties in understanding how, on

 6     the basis of traces you find on the floor -- you receive no

 7     interpretation?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am now.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I have some difficulties in understanding how, on

10     the basis of traces you find on the floor, you can determine where they

11     were playing football.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The traces of only one shell can be

13     found on the ground on the day of the incident.  However, all of the

14     witnesses state, and it is not disputed, that two shells exploded.  There

15     is no trace of the other shell, as we can see on the TV footage.  When

16     you review the entire piece of the footage that was tendered, you will

17     see that the whole parking-lot is visible but there are no extra traces;

18     on the other hand, we said that there were no blood traces.

19             Also, there were some mini goal-posts there, while in the playing

20     field in the background you see a standard goal size.  Also, we have the

21     footage with Ismet Fazlic indicating the location.  The investigators

22     were brought in the same area, and two years later when they were there,

23     there was still no traces of the second shell.  Had the game been played

24     there, two years later the traces of the second shell would have been

25     present in the parking-lot.

Page 39237

 1             It is my impression that none of the investigators were taken to

 2     the playing field that we claim the game was played on.  All of the

 3     material evidence indicate that the game was actually not played in the

 4     parking-lot.  The investigators were told that it was somewhere on the

 5     site in the soil, but they didn't find anything in the parking-lot.  Yet

 6     the witnesses claim that the shell landed only metres away from each

 7     other, all of those who survived the incident as well as a military

 8     policeman.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's your conclusion on the basis of all that

10     material.

11             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

13             Please proceed.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

15             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   So we'll be talking about a case when on 12 July 1993, around

17     1527 hours, in Spasenije Babovic Street in Dobrinja, a shell -- an

18     82-millimetre shell fell.  What was characteristic in your report,

19     Ms. Subotic, in determining the facts?

20        A.   First, and the basic problem, was to locate the site of the

21     incident.  Although there was a police report, it contained contradictory

22     information about the location where the shell fell.  So we have one

23     address, Branko Bujic alley, Josip Kras Street, Spasenije Babovic Street.

24     So three different sites.  Therefore, the basic thing that we had to

25     start with was to locate the site precisely.

Page 39238

 1        Q.   And how did you do that?

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, wouldn't it be good for everyone to

 3     follow what we are talking about.  It's about incident G-5, I take it,

 4     and I also see that paragraph 49 starts dealing with that incident.  Is

 5     that --

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  -- in the report?

 8             MR. LUKIC:  That's from the report, yes.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  And the hard copy page is 81.  I don't have it in

10     e-court here at this moment -- at least I do not have it, but --

11             MR. LUKIC:  It is 81 in English and 79 in B/C/S.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

13             MR. LUKIC:  The beginning.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let's proceed.

15             MR. LUKIC:

16        Q.   [No interpretation]

17        A.   [No interpretation]

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We don't receive interpretation at the moment.

19             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's apologies.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Accepted.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please restart your answer.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Or perhaps you put the question again.

24             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Let's try again.  How did you manage to find the site and where

Page 39239

 1     was it?  How many addresses did you mention in the report?

 2        A.   We mentioned three addresses in the report.  We visited them all.

 3     By the way, we managed to find out that the Spasenije Babovic is no

 4     longer called that but Hakija Turajlic.  And in that Hakija Turajlic

 5     Street, it was house number 39.

 6             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let's look at 65 ter 11238.  We have

 7     before us an official report about the incident of 27 -- sorry, 12 July

 8     1993, and the report was made in August.

 9             We need page 3 in English and 5 in B/C/S.

10             We see below the title "Official Report," when it was made, on

11     the 9th of August.  And it says that this incident took place outside the

12     residential building in the alley called B. Bujic, number 6.

13             Now we need paragraph 7 in B/C/S, which is on the same page.  And

14     in English, also on the same page -- [In English] Sorry.

15     [Interpretation] I can't see it in English, in fact.  That's the fifth

16     paragraph in English.

17             It says outside a private house in the alley B. Bujic, number

18     155, opposite another house in Spasenije Cane Babovic Street number 6.

19     You said there were several addresses.  You had a problem locating the

20     site?

21        A.   Yes, if you look at picture 39, which was taken from Google Earth

22     in the early -- B. Bujic and Spasenije Cane Babovic Street, these houses

23     are not opposite each other.  They are rather far apart.

24        Q.   Thank you.  For the moment we don't need to take this document

25     off the screen.  I want to ask you which method did you find was used by

Page 39240

 1     the employees of the security services centre Sarajevo to determine the

 2     direction of the descent of the shell?

 3        A.   The method they mentioned in the official report, and it's again

 4     mentioned in some statements, is something that I saw for the first time.

 5     They mentally drew a line to designate the trajectory from the imagined

 6     site of explosion, and all these lines ended in the place where the shell

 7     exploded, and that's the mutilated body of an identified person who was

 8     thrown by the explosion and landed close to the fence.  That type of

 9     explosion, I don't think I need to mention it, does not exist.  And even

10     if something like that existed, it could not be linked to the site where

11     the corpse was found if the body had been thrown far from the site of the

12     explosion.

13             So it was totally unnecessary and completely useless for any kind

14     of consideration.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If I might just get some clarity.

16             Ma'am, you say that "they drew a line to designate the trajectory

17     from the imagined site of explosion."  What do you mean by "site of

18     explosion"?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the site of explosion is

20     where the shell detonated, where the shell landed.  In this case --

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Then --

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- it's --

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can we carry on with the sentence then.  Then you

24     say:

25             "... and all these lines ended in the place where the shell

Page 39241

 1     exploded."

 2             It doesn't seem to be a line.  It seems to a point.  You are

 3     talking about a line from this point and it ends at this very point.  It

 4     doesn't seem to be a line.  It seems to be just a point.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, maybe I misspoke.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's why I'm asking you --

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's extremely difficult to follow

 8     a thought that is so devoid of reason.  What did he mean to say?  He

 9     wanted to say that some lines that he saw on parts of the fence and cars,

10     places where the shrapnel hit --

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can I stop you, ma'am.  Now you are telling

12     about -- he said of a line.  You are telling us that they drew a line

13     in -- in their heads, an imaginary line.  You are not telling us that

14     somebody told you he drew a line, and I am trying to understand your

15     thinking and your logic.

16             You say they drew a line, imaginary line, from the site of

17     explosion to the site where the -- where the thing detonated.  Now, that

18     seems to be the same point, and I'm asking you what he -- that's why I

19     asked you what you mean by "site of explosion."

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is one and the same point, and

21     that's why I said I misspoke.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  So that can't be a line.  That can't be a line.

23             THE WITNESS:  Yes, yes.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It's a point.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, nobody drew any

Page 39242

 1     lines.  They were all imaginary.  The expert explains his work in the

 2     following way:  He mentally drew lines from the place where he found

 3     traces of fragments and shrapnel, created by the explosion, and in his

 4     thoughts all these lines ended with the mutilated body where the centre

 5     of the explosion was.  That's what he said.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Drew a line from there to where?  Can you explain

 7     us where the line went to?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in his head these lines were

 9     from where he saw defects on the fence.  He didn't specify on cars and

10     other places.  And all these lines ended with the unidentified body lying

11     next to the fence which - I am adding this now - which body was thrown by

12     the explosion.  It's extremely difficulty to follow this because this

13     reasoning is flawed and technically impossible.

14             If you need me to explain further, I am at your disposal.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I -- well, I am hearing different explanations.

16     Now you are mentioning fences and cars which you hadn't mentioned before,

17     so I'm finding it difficult to understand what --

18             THE WITNESS:  Yes, yes.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is difficult.

21             MR. LUKIC:  We'll go through a document so I think it will be

22     easier to understand soon.

23             First we would offer this 11238 into evidence, Your Honour.

24             MR. WEBER:  No objection.  And that's the file for the incident.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

Page 39243

 1             Madam Registrar.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 11238 receives Exhibit Number D1251,

 3     Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Now can we have 1D05728, please.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I'll take it that whatever mentally drawn

 7     lines are, that we'll --

 8             MR. LUKIC:  We'll read it in this next document, yes.  The first

 9     one we are looking at.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, so apparently it's not only mentally, perhaps,

11     but let's have a look.

12             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] This is the statement of Hamdija

13     Cavic taken by the OTP of this Tribunal.  And in this statement, we need

14     page 3 in English, halfway down the page, and also 3 in B/C/S, the fifth

15     paragraph.

16             I shall read what this witness says, [In English] in the middle

17     of the page in both versions:

18             [Interpretation] "Looking at all the damage on the fence and the

19     car, I could see by the shape of the damage from which direction the

20     shrapnel had come.  When I drew imaginary lines from these defects, they

21     all came together at one point, the mutilated body."

22             [In English] Yes, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That makes it much better.  I at least -- this is

24     what this witness says, not what this witness --

25             MR. LUKIC:  Exactly.

Page 39244

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  -- tells us was imagined.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  No, no -- yeah.  I don't know how it was translated,

 3     but I had to ask --

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  -- first.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Ms. Subotic --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

10             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, I just would ask for the full reading

11     of the paragraph.  This is someone we haven't heard from --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Any problems if Mr. Lukic doesn't do it and you can

13     do it later in --

14             MR. WEBER:  I just --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  But if Mr. Lukic could follow your suggestion, he's

16     free to do so.

17             MR. LUKIC:  I can read till the end.  Yes.

18        Q.   [Interpretation] I forgot to read the last sentence in this

19     paragraph:

20             "It was without any doubt that the shell was fired from the

21     direction we determined and wrote down in the report."

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Lukic, now you left out the sentence in

23     between, which starts:  "Because of this ..."

24             MR. LUKIC:  I think I have it -- I read it.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No, your assistant agrees with me.

Page 39245

 1             MR. LUKIC:  No, okay.  Sorry.  I was warned that I didn't read

 2     it.  Thank you.

 3        Q.   [Interpretation] I missed another sentence, the one before the

 4     last.

 5             "Because of this, we concluded that the shell exploded on the

 6     body."

 7             So, Ms. Subotic, do you accept this method used to analyse this

 8     explosion?

 9        A.   Certainly not.

10        Q.   Just a moment.  So you don't accept it?

11        A.   No, I don't.

12        Q.   What is your main objection to the method used by the employees

13     of CSB Sarajevo?

14        A.   My main objection to the method used by CSB Sarajevo is that you

15     cannot determine the place of explosion in that way, when the body was

16     removed from the place of the explosion.  If all these lines crossed at

17     the same point, that's not where the explosion was.  The body was not in

18     the same place as the explosion.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  This paragraph is not determining the place of

20     explosion but the direction from which the fire came.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To establish the direction from

22     which fire came, first of all you have to determine the site of the

23     explosion.  And then based on other material --

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

Page 39246

 1             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 2        Q.   [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, what did you establish and

 3     conclude, and in which way?

 4        A.   The report itself states and also the photo documentation and the

 5     video recording made at this on-site investigation indicate sufficient

 6     elements to determine precisely where the explosion was and the direction

 7     of the shell.  And let me also mention that when we were there in 2010,

 8     we found on the ground all the traces and we also identified the site of

 9     the incident based on the photo documentation, which was properly done,

10     and based on the traces on site.

11        Q.   Very well.  Let us then go back to your report.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps one short question.

13             You said the body wasn't -- had been removed.  Is that well

14     understood?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The photo documentation contains

16     photos where the body is still there, still hasn't been removed, and it's

17     indicated in the report.  Picture 41, 44.  In picture 44, the body is

18     indicated by an arrow.  It's between the Skoda car and the fence.  And

19     that is the corpse they used in the analysis.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.  I may have to re-read portions of

21     the transcript.

22             Please proceed.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I, for my clarity, just ask:  What do you

24     mean by "remove," Witness?  Do you mean removed by the shell itself and

25     thrown to another place, or removed later after the explosion by police

Page 39247

 1     people or somebody else?  What do you mean by "removed"?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understood the question as

 3     meaning whether the body was removed by the CSB people who prepared the

 4     report, and that's how I answered the question.  No, the body is still

 5     there when the photograph is made.  But the body had already been

 6     propelled and thrown by the explosion and that's where it came to land.

 7     And the explosion hit the right hip of that person, according to the

 8     documentation.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I'm asking that because on page 39, line 6 and

10     the following, you said:

11             "My main objection to the method used by the CSB Sarajevo is that

12     you cannot determine the place of explosion in that way, when the body

13     was removed from the place of the explosion."

14             You mean from -- removed from the place of the explosion, I

15     understood the place of explosion to be that point where the body was

16     thrown away from to the fence; is that correct?

17             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  The interpreter used this

18     word "removed" to indicate that the body was removed by the explosion.

19             THE WITNESS:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

20             THE INTERPRETER:  In the sense, thrown.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.

22             Witness, on the English channel they received some explanation

23     from the interpreters.  That's the reason why I asked you stop for a

24     second.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And this interpretation, this comment, clarified

Page 39248

 1     the matter for me.  Thank you.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 3             Please proceed.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  It's break time, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  It certainly is.

 6             We'll take a break and we'll resume at 10 minutes past 12.00.

 7     The witness may follow the usher.

 8                           [The witness stands down]

 9                           --- Recess taken at 11.47 a.m.

10                           --- On resuming at 12.12 p.m.

11                           [The witness takes the stand]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.

13             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

14             Can we have on our screens 1D5498, please.  And we need page 97

15     from this report in English and 96 in B/C/S, figure 52.

16        Q.   [Interpretation] Is figure 52 in front of you, Ms. Subotic?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Who took it?

19        A.   My colleague and I, when together with the Defence team, we

20     visited the incident locations in Sarajevo in 2010.

21        Q.   The yellow line on the asphalt, what is it?

22        A.   It is a measuring tape that we placed indicating the incoming

23     trajectory.

24        Q.   How did you determine it?

25        A.   As we can see in the photograph, we marked the still existing

Page 39249

 1     traces on the asphalt, and we used the method of central axis to place

 2     the tape in order for it to be visible.  We determined the incoming

 3     trajectory by determining the bearing of the pedestrian path and its

 4     edge, and we can see the deviation from the pedestrian area to the

 5     incoming trajectory, including that the trajectory is in the direction of

 6     north or north --

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Could the witness kindly

 8     repeat the side of the world.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Madam Witness, you are asked to repeat the last

10     part of your answer.  You said "from the north" and then you didn't

11     finish the sentence.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said -- I don't know how far we

13     got, but I'll start with the measuring tape and the traces again.

14             I think it was 157, I started looking on Google Earth to locate

15     the direction of the street.  That is why I stopped and did not finish.

16     It is 157.  As you can see, some 20 degrees away it is --

17             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   You say "as we can see," what do you mean?

19        A.   As you can see on the photograph.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You were asked to repeat the last part of your

21     previous answer.  The sentence started:

22             "We can see the deviation from the pedestrian area toward

23     incoming trajectory, including that the trajectory is in the direction of

24     north or ..."

25             What did you say then?  How did you conclude this sentence?

Page 39250

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that it comes from the

 2     northerly direction, slightly towards the east.  That was the part I did

 3     not complete.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The only problem for me is that looking at this

 7     photograph, I cannot make out, from what you have just told us, which is

 8     north, which is east, which is south.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're absolutely correct.  That is

10     why I stopped to look for another figure so as to assist you.  It is

11     figure 43 in the report, where we see the bearing of the street itself.

12     When you look at that figure and compare it with this one, it is clear

13     then.

14             MR. LUKIC:  88 from the report.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

16             MR. LUKIC:  It's 89 in English and 88 in B/C/S.

17        Q.   [Interpretation] Please tell us again what we can see here.

18        A.   I said that when we look at figure 33 in the report, we can see

19     the bearing, according to Google Earth, with relation to the place of

20     incident, and it is 157 degrees compared to true north, and we come to

21     the area -- the pedestrian area edge, which is some 10 to 20 degrees to

22     the right.  On this photograph, it is to the right, and on the previous

23     to the left.  It defines the incoming trajectory which is just off north

24     in an easterly direction.  So if we were to mark the incoming trajectory

25     on this photograph, the one we could see on the previous one, it would be

Page 39251

 1     much clearer to you.

 2             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] With the usher's assistance,

 3     [In English] can we have only one picture, let's say in English version,

 4     on our screen, and I will ask Ms. Subotic to draw that line since we

 5     don't have it.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  To avoid any misunderstanding, it's figure 43,

 7     43.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you.

 9        Q.   [Interpretation] I know it isn't easy, but try to do your best.

10        A.   I failed.

11        Q.   Wait a second.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Can you erase this so ...

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] More or less this is the direction

14     shown by the measuring tape as the incoming trajectory.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And what does the second line indicate?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was by accident that I touched

17     the screen.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can that be erased?

19             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah, yeah.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the usher assist in erasing what you by

21     accident marked.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Or maybe to erase everything and to have one straight

23     line.

24             Is this line good enough, or we should ...

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Perhaps for clarity's sake we could repeat this

Page 39252

 1     exercise.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, I think so.

 3             Please, can you erase everything so that Ms. Subotic can draw

 4     next -- no, no, no -- yeah.

 5             [Interpretation] Thank you.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you, is that then what you determined to

 7     be the direction of the incoming fire?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  To the east compared to true

 9     north.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, if I look at the photograph, and you

11     earlier said it's some 10 to 20 degrees, could you be more precise?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In what way?  10 to 20.  It is as

13     precise as we can gauge based on the existing evidence.  20, 30, there

14     you go.  Let's say between 10 and 30.  That is why we did not determine

15     it specifically in the report.  We were unable to.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Let me just --

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But it is definitely slightly off

18     north towards the east.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I need some time to analyse that, but please proceed

20     for the time being.

21             MR. LUKIC:  Can we save this as the next Defence exhibit, please.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Figure 43 on page 89 of the English version of

24     the document 1D05498, marked by the witness, receives Exhibit Number

25     D1252, Your Honours.

Page 39253

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Can we have picture or figure 52a on our screens.

 3     It's page 97 in B/C/S.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What page is it in English?

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Page 98 in English, please.

 6        Q.   [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, what did you determine on this

 7     photograph, and is it any different from what was previously shown?

 8        A.   No, we only have the incoming direction with a degree of

 9     tolerance or margin of error provided by Mr. Higgs in his report.  We

10     only added the right corner where we marked the boundaries of

11     ABiH-controlled territory, and its bearing is up to 66 degrees, as we

12     indicated.

13        Q.   And approximately?

14        A.   He determined that the incoming direction is north-east, and he

15     accepted the results of Bosnian investigators' results.  As for the

16     material evidence, which is something we added, all that falls within the

17     two blue lines, and we said it is to the east from true north up to --

18     and up to 66 degrees, the territory was controlled by the ABiH, as you

19     can see in the caption.

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Could the witness kindly

21     be asked to refrain from coughing into the microphone.  Thank you.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, to the extent you can avoid coughing into

23     the microphone, the interpreters would appreciate that.

24             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Ms. Subotic, did you determine the separation line between the

Page 39254

 1     VRS and ABiH and how?

 2        A.   We did not determine that.  This map was found in the Higgs

 3     report.

 4        Q.   This shell for which you told us came from the north-easterly

 5     direction?

 6        A.   No, just off north towards the east.

 7        Q.   My apologies.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Just to be certain, it could not be west of north?

 9             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   As Higgs ascertained, that is the Judge's question.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  No, I didn't refer to Higgs in any way.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Okay.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I asked whether it could have been west of north, or

14     are you certain that it's slightly east of north?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We are certain because we had

16     evidence from the field.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you have explained why you came to that

18     conclusion.  At least you've given us the dates, and I may revisit this

19     matter later.

20             Please proceed.

21             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

22        Q.   [Interpretation] Were you able to establish what was the closest

23     position of the VRS compared to the direction you determined?

24        A.   The closest positions were 8 to 9 kilometres away.

25        Q.   And the maximum range of the mortar in question?

Page 39255

 1        A.   The maximum range is far below that.

 2        Q.   Were there any military facilities close by?

 3        A.   Yes, there were statements confirming that.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Which --

 5             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Can you --

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Which military facilities?  Don't you know that

 8     from the top of your head?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You know, it would be too much for

10     me to remember all that detail.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That's fine.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think there was a command post

13     some 100 to 150 metres away.  Another facility that can be viewed as

14     military was an entrance to the tunnel.  The trenches, connecting

15     trenches, according to witnesses' statements, were some 250 metres away.

16     That is speaking off-the-cuff.  I can't be more precise at this moment.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

18             MR. LUKIC:  Can we have 1D5723.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before this comes up --

20             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  -- I have a question with respect to the

22     figure 52a we have in front of us.  You say there, as an explanation of

23     this figure:

24             "The incoming direction of the shell drawn by Mr. Higgs, red, and

25     the incoming direction north, north-east drawn on the basis of physical

Page 39256

 1     evidence, blue."

 2             What kind of physical evidence you are relying on?  Could you

 3     briefly summarise them?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The type of traces left on the

 5     asphalt after the mine exploded.  We showed you how we analysed it in

 6     figure 52.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes, the traces on the asphalt.  Thank you.

 8             Mr. Lukic.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  One short follow-up question.

11             You gave the blue line azimuth 66 degrees.  That is what you

12     established on that basis?  Because you said "slightly east of north."

13     Now, you go 66 degrees.  That is more than two-thirds of a quarter of the

14     compass.  Is --

15             MR. LUKIC:  No, Your Honour.  It's not in the transcript.

16     Ms. Subotic explained that that's the area covered by ABiH, Army of

17     Bosnia and Herzegovina.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, whatever -- Witness, I see azimuth is

19     66 degrees here on this figure 52a.  Earlier you said it was just east of

20     north.  Now, when --

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness repeat?  There were

22     overlapping speakers.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please repeat your last answer, because

24     the interpreters didn't catch it.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the right-hand side corner of

Page 39257

 1     this image, we see delineated the area controlled by the ABiH and its

 2     limits are between 0 and 66 degrees.  Our incoming trajectory is in a

 3     northerly direction just off to the east.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I do understand.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And it falls within that area.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I see that point.

 7             Please proceed.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Any more questions by the Bench?

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I certainly will have some more questions in

10     relation to this later, but I at least now understand --

11             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  -- what 0 degrees and 66 degrees stands for.

13             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

14             Can we have -- yeah, we have on our screens 1D5723.

15             We need -- it's testimony of Witness Ismet Hadzic in the case the

16     Prosecutor versus Stanislav Galic.  We need page 76 in e-court, and that

17     would correspond to -- should correspond to the page 12215 from this

18     transcript, line 13.  This witness was asked and he marked a map, and

19     I -- he said, I quote:

20             "Q.  You marked on the map with a dot and a number '4' beside it,

21     a particular position.  Could you tell us what that position is.

22             "A.  That's commander of the one of the battalions.  I think that

23     was the command of the 2nd Battalion."

24             [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic said that there was a unit command

25     post there, the unit is specified here.  She also mentioned the entrance

Page 39258

 1     to the tunnel.

 2        Q.   Ms. Subotic, let me ask you this:  Was this place shelled by the

 3     Serb side?

 4        A.   Yes, but from another side.  There are other traces but they were

 5     not caused by projectiles coming from this direction.

 6        Q.   Thank you.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  I've finished with this incident, I'll move on.

 8             MR. WEBER:  Could I just have a reference if the counsel has the

 9     map that's being referred to by this individual uploaded, a 65 ter?

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, otherwise it will be difficult to comprehend.

11             MR. LUKIC:  Can we have 1D01406, please.  This is the map that

12     Witness Ismet Hadzic marked during the trial in the case versus

13     Stanislav Galic.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Where can we find the number 4?

15             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Ms. Subotic, where can we find number 4?

17             MR. LUKIC:  Can this middle part be enlarged, please?

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I mean the dot with the number 4 next to it.

19             MR. LUKIC:  I know where it is, but --

20             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]

21             MR. LUKIC:  I know.  That's why I asked the middle part of this

22     map to be enlarged to be better visible, please.

23        Q.   [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, can you see it on the map?  Can you

24     see point number 4?

25        A.   It should be around here, but I can't see it clearly.  I don't

Page 39259

 1     see the figure 4, but I think it's around here where the arrow is,

 2     actually.  The red part.

 3        Q.   [In English] Can you circle what you think that it is?

 4        A.   [Marks]

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Can this be saved as the next Defence exhibit,

 6     please.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could the witness first explain what is the area

 8     she encircled?  What is to be found there in your view?

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, you're on your feet but you're still

10     silent.  I wait until --

11             MR. WEBER:  I was waiting until -- I know Judge Fluegge posed a

12     question, so I didn't to want interrupt.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Ms. Subotic, can you answer my question?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.  I did not hear it.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You encircled a certain feature, but I -- what is

17     it?  What in your view is situated there?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my view, it is the battalion

19     command on the ABiH side that we mentioned.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

22             MR. WEBER:  I believe the document had been tendered --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it has been tendered.

24             MR. WEBER:  -- and that's why I raise -- Your Honour, with the

25     caveat -- I understand the witness has marked on it and we now need to

Page 39260

 1     admit the screen capture of what's marked there.  I do have an express

 2     concern based on what was just led from the witness's testimony and what

 3     may be in-court markings versus pre-markings and multiple different

 4     numbers on it.  So it's not clear -- I guess the objection in part --

 5     concerned in part as to the reliability of what we are admitting and what

 6     the record is in relation to it.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Because the map was introduced by you,

 8     Mr. Lukic, and exclusively by you, and then you read a portion of what

 9     was to be seen at number 4, and then you asked the witness whether she

10     could circle 4 and then asked what that was.

11             Now, as leading as can be, I would say, the witness only said

12     that a person was not shelled but -- or was shelled, I don't know, but

13     that was the initial question.  And then you led her skillfully to the

14     answer, and it was leading as can be, but Mr. Weber does not object.

15             Therefore, Madam Registrar, the number would be?

16             MR. WEBER:  Just to succinctly put it:  I am not objecting

17     because it's an in-court marked document by the witness.  We do have a

18     reservation because there is a witness who has not testified in the

19     trial, evidence that has not been heard by the Chamber, and the clarity

20     in terms of that evidence as what's been posed we do have concerns --

21     reservations about.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes --

23             MR. LUKIC:  That's why we --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  -- the expression of concerns and reservations are

25     not an obstacle to admission.

Page 39261

 1             Madam Registrar.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  The photo of document 1D01406 with green witness

 3     remarks receives Exhibit Number D1253, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  We would just add that this was the Prosecution

 6     witness in another case, and if they have any doubts they should raise it

 7     here.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  It's not about --

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Or not maybe today.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  It's not about doubt.  You totally misunderstood the

11     concerns expressed by Mr. Weber.

12             MR. LUKIC:  But Ms. Subotic previously, we have it on the record,

13     testified that she knows that in that area was a command of one of the

14     practice brigades and entrance to the tunnel.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  And then you showed -- and then you read to her a

16     statement which says where exactly it is to be found; namely, at number

17     4.  Then this witness tried to find number 4 on that map, and then asked

18     what was there, she referred to what that other witness in that other

19     case had said already.  And that's leading and it's no more no less.

20     It's not -- it's admitted into evidence.  But please try to understand,

21     it really is leading, Mr. Lukic.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Is it leading if it's in the report already?

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I don't know.  You have --

24             MR. LUKIC:  It is in the report.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  -- not taken us to the report.

Page 39262

 1             MR. LUKIC:  It is in the report, in the report we have in front

 2     of us.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Is --

 4             MR. LUKIC:  And I will give a footnote, just a second.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But then it's still leading, but then you say

 6     it's already somewhere there.  We'll carefully check that.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Just for the record --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I don't --

 9             MR. LUKIC:  -- it's footnote 195 from this report that we have in

10     front of us.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  195.  We'll have a look at it.  It's admitted --

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  In front of us we have a map.

13             MR. LUKIC:  The report we are discussing today, Your Honour.  You

14     are right.  It's 1D5498.  Footnote 195.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  And that -- did that include the testimony of that

17     witness?  Is that part of it as well, transcript pages, or just the

18     document?  If you would read the footnote --

19             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Because --

21             MR. LUKIC:  -- it is testimony of this witness.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Including with the map?

23             MR. LUKIC:  Testimony --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Exhibit?

25             MR. LUKIC:  Both.  195 is testimony, it's 1D5723.  And since it's

Page 39263

 1     testimony in front of this court, we cannot offer it into evidence.  We

 2     have to read it.  And 196.  And also map under 195.  Under 1D1406.

 3     Everything in the same footnote.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yell.  So you say it's totally useless to present

 5     all this.  You could just have tendered this as sources.  But let's

 6     leave it, it's admitted.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  It's admitted.  The questioning as such was leading,

 9     but we do understand that the witness had referred to -- by reference,

10     not lines read, but has referred to the same material which you now put

11     to her.

12             Please proceed.

13             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

14             I would move now to G-6 incident.  It's page 99 in English and

15     page 98 in B/C/S.

16        Q.   [Interpretation] This is the incident when three mortar shells

17     fell in the area of Alipasino Polje on 22 January 1994.  The first fell

18     on Rade Koncar Square, the second outside a building in Cetinjska 3, and

19     the third outside a building in Klare Cetkin Street number 4.

20             In two police reports it is said that the shells had fallen and

21     exploded in these places.  You have before you --

22             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let's move one page forward.  See

23     picture 33.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Is it 33 or 53?

25             MR. LUKIC:  Did I say -- no, it should be 53.

Page 39264

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 2             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Ms. Subotic, what did you note as a problem in this case?

 4        A.   The main problem in this case is that the finding of police

 5     investigators was different from the scene of crime technicians'

 6     findings, the crime-scene officers who analysed the shell traces in this

 7     incident, and the final finding was given by Captain Verdy.  The

 8     investigators established that in Klare Cetkin Street and the other

 9     street there were 82-millimetres shells, and in Rade Koncar Square --

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please slow down.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, stop.  You are invited to slow down because

12     your speed of speech --

13             THE WITNESS:  Sorry.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  -- causes difficulties for the interpreters.

15             Please proceed.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Rade Koncar Square, the shell

17     was 120-millimetres.  The difference:  UNPROFOR, that is to say, Captain

18     Verdy, was of the opinion that three 120-millimetre shells exploded, and

19     the scene of crime officer who investigated the scene thought the same;

20     whereas investigators found that in Cetinjska and Klare Cetkin streets it

21     was 82-millimetre shells, whereas only the Rade Koncar Square shell was

22     120 millimetres.  That was the main reason why we had to investigate what

23     really happened.

24             Maybe I should add that Mr. Higgs put his trust in Bosnian

25     investigators without noticing that even they are not in agreement with

Page 39265

 1     their own scene of crime technicians.

 2             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   You mentioned the report of Captain Verdy.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  [Interpretation] I would like to see in e-court

 5     65 ter 10570.  [In English] Can we have the next page in B/C/S, please.

 6        Q.   [Interpretation] Do you recognise this document, Ms. Subotic?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   What is the most important thing about this report?

 9        A.   The key thing in this report is that Captain Verdy provided a

10     detailed crater analysis, determined the directions, provided

11     photographs, and he even estimated the angle of descent.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Are you certain that we have the right version on

13     the screen?  There is no B/C/S.  I see a French document which doesn't

14     correspond with the English.

15             The witness said that she recognises the B/C/S version, but there

16     is no ...

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said so based on the first things

18     in the title.

19             MR. LUKIC:  Is there a B/C/S version?  Because I saw one during

20     our preparations.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, perhaps we have a French and an English version

22     apparently.

23             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, there is no space for the third one.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, there is space in e-court but I don't know

25     whether --

Page 39266

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And they are not identical.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  -- it is in e-court.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can you check?

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Sometimes we have three versions in e-court.

 5             So they are not the same documents and they are not -- and the

 6     one is in French and the other is in English.  The content is totally

 7     different.

 8             Mr. Lukic, perhaps you reorganise your --

 9             MR. LUKIC:  But the Prosecution 65 ter number so ...

10             JUDGE ORIE:  But I take it that you have checked before you'd

11     use --

12             MR. LUKIC:  But we will --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  -- this sloppy material, if it is.  This seems to be

14     the one.  This seems to be to -- we now have to the left what seems to be

15     an original French version, and to the right we have an English

16     translation.

17             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, we were just checking and there might

18     be -- there is multiple versions of this material on our exhibit list.

19             To suggest 65 ter 18013, it appears to be the same document but

20     has a B/C/S translation attached to it.  So there is an original French

21     version, there is an English translation for the related pages that are

22     in French, and then there is also a B/C/S version and --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  And it covers exactly the same in totality?

24             MR. WEBER:  Yes, we just verified the ERNs, yes.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

Page 39267

 1             Mr. Lukic --

 2             MR. LUKIC:  We would accept kind offer from my learned friend.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Could we then look at the number just

 4     referred to?

 5             MR. LUKIC:  18013.

 6        Q.   [Interpretation] You have told us what Captain Verdy did.  What

 7     were his findings consistent with?  Did Verdy confirm some Bosnian

 8     investigators' findings and not others?

 9        A.   Verdy confirmed that the findings of the scene of crime officers;

10     namely that all the three shells that fell in this area were of

11     120 millimetres, and he's not in agreement with the directions determined

12     by the CSB investigators.  Their directions were Nedzarici - namely, the

13     Institute for the Blind - whereas Verdy determined in mils the south-west

14     direction.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Lukic, can you direct us to the respective

16     page of this document where we can find anything about Captain Verdy and

17     his conclusions?

18             MR. LUKIC:  Can we go to page 2, please.  And conclusion

19     continues on page 3 as well.  And next page in B/C/S as well so

20     Ms. Subotic can see it.

21        Q.   [Interpretation] We see here, Ms. Subotic, the conclusions in

22     mils.  Did you convert it into degrees?

23        A.   These mils are 236 degrees and the other indication in mils is

24     239 degrees.  That's on page 105.

25        Q.   In B/C/S, you mean.  Could you tell us the paragraph?

Page 39268

 1        A.   68.

 2             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now, just as a reference, as

 3     instructed by Judge Orie, I shall say that Exhibit P865 speaks to this.

 4     We have the difference in calibres, that's page 1 in English and page 5

 5     in B/C/S, 120 millimetres.  Page 2 in English, second paragraph from the

 6     top, in B/C/S/ page 4, that last paragraph, there is a reference to an

 7     82-millimetre shell.

 8             Again in English page 3, the first and third paragraphs, and

 9     page 5, paragraph 3 in B/C/S, another reference to an 82-millimetre

10     shell.  Page 4 in English and page 7 in B/C/S, a document from the higher

11     court in Sarajevo mentioning a 120-millimetre shell.  Page 7 in English

12     and page 12 in B/C/S, a reference to a 120-millimetre shell.  Page 8 in

13     English, page 14 in B/C/S, under item 6, record of the crime scene

14     inspection of the site.  Paragraph 3 in English, and page 15 in B/C/S, an

15     82-millimetre shell is mentioned.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Lukic, I am not able to follow.  What are

17     you --

18             MR. LUKIC:  Then I have to go to the document.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No, I just want to know what kind of document you

20     are referring to.

21             MR. LUKIC:  It's --

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We have no idea.

23             MR. LUKIC:  It's P865, it's the evidence in our case, the

24     Prosecution evidence --

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  But what is it?

Page 39269

 1             MR. LUKIC:  It is compilation of the documents that deal with

 2     this incident in Klare Cetkin.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.  This was missing in your

 4     introduction.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  I thought that I said it.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Sorry if I missed it.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Do I understand that you pointed at pages where you

 9     found evidence which was not consistent as to the calibre and --

10             MR. LUKIC:  Different calibres, yes.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Different calibres.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So you pointed at the --

14             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  -- variety of the calibres that are mentioned in

16     that report.

17             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed.

19             MR. LUKIC:  Then again English page 8, the last paragraph, B/C/S

20     page 16, paragraph 1.  It says -- it mentions both, 120 millimetres and

21     82 millimetres, that the fin is from one and markings from the other one.

22     And on page English version 9 and B/C/S version 16, it's mentioned that

23     it's 120-millimetres mortar shell.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  And now a question for the witness?

25             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

Page 39270

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Please.

 2             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Ms. Subotic, did you come to any conclusion, why are there

 4     discrepancies, why some of the calibres shown inaccurately?

 5        A.   First of all, we determined which calibres were involved exactly.

 6     Based on a very detailed analysis reflected in our report, we noted that

 7     the Klare Cetkin Street shells, mines, and in the other street were

 8     82 millimetres.  The exact trajectory of descent was established back in

 9     2003, and even Mr. Sabljica agreed with them in court because we

10     confronted him with our measurements, and we concluded that after the

11     entire analysis --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

13             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, for about the best page and a half,

14     there has been different concepts coming up on the record between

15     trajectories, direction to fire, now angles of descent, and calibres, and

16     they are getting a little muddled, I believe, on the record.  If we could

17     be clear as to what we are talking about.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The issue was calibres.  Could you please, for

19     the time being, stick to that, Witness.

20             And when you say "even Mr. Sabljica agreed with them in court

21     because we confronted him," did you confront him in court with anything,

22     or do you mean by "we" the Defence?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] About directions.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  I asked you whether you meant --

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I meant the Defence, but I was

Page 39271

 1     assisting the Defence, sitting in the courtroom, and I participated in

 2     this examination, that's why I said "we."  We put to Mr. Sabljica our

 3     measurements.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  There is no need at this moment to further elaborate

 5     on it.  I have got an answer to my question.

 6             Could you limit yourself to the calibres.  But at the same time,

 7     Mr. Ivetic, I see we are --

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Mr. Ivetic is sitting.  This is Mr. Lukic.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm sorry.

10             MR. LUKIC:  We are all tired.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  You're all in the same line, drawn imaginary --

12             MR. LUKIC:  Of fire, you mean.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  -- imaginary line --

14             MR. LUKIC:  Fire coming from that direction.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The other way around.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  The source of fire still to be established.

18             It's time for a break, unless you could finish in --

19             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, it is, Your Honour.  We can go to the break.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  We take a break, and we would like to see you back

21     in 20 minutes.

22                           [The witness stands down]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  We resume at 1.30.

24                           --- Recess taken at 1.10 p.m.

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

Page 39272

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  It's me that has to apologise for the late start,

 2     not the Chamber as a whole.

 3             Could the witness be escorted into -- unless, Mr. Tieger, you

 4     would need more than one or two minutes.

 5             MR. TIEGER:  Maybe slightly more.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, then we'll wait for the witness to be escorted

 7     into the courtroom until you have addressed the Court.

 8             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 9             Two matters I'd like to raise.  The first is the following:  On

10     the 15th of December, the Defence re-filed its motion to re-add a witness

11     to its witness list and admit the evidence pursuant to 92 bis.  We

12     responded to their original motion to do so on the 1st of September.

13     This has been a series of transactions as the Court may recall.  But in

14     this case, our review of their current re-filing reveals that paragraph 3

15     of our earlier response in which we sought the redaction of evidence

16     related to acts and conduct is now moot because that evidence has, in

17     fact, been redacted.  But our review of the motion itself and our

18     response reveals that our positions as set out otherwise remain.

19             So if it meets with the Court's approval with that understanding,

20     particularly with regard to paragraph 3 of our response, we would propose

21     to rely on our earlier filed response and not go through another filing.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, any objection against part of the

23     admission -- of the --

24             MR. LUKIC:  We do not have objection.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So then this is an oral response saying that

Page 39273

 1     you stick to your old position apart from that one issue.

 2             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  That's hereby on the record.

 4             MR. TIEGER:  The second matter is this.  As we're all aware, we

 5     recently passed the dead-line set by the Chamber for the Defence to file

 6     any remaining evidentiary motions including 92 bis or quater motions not

 7     directly connected to the testimony of upcoming witnesses.

 8             We have noted the absence of any bar table motions which would,

 9     on its face, seem to fall within the category of "any remaining

10     evidentiary motions."  We don't know whether the Defence intentionally

11     declined to file bar table submissions or whether they regarded the

12     instructions as not encompassing such submissions, and in addition, we

13     don't presume to tell the Trial Chamber what was definitively encompassed

14     by those instructions.

15             Instead, we raise the matter simply to ensure that there are no

16     unnecessary surprises and accompanying delays in the waning days of the

17     case.  Not only would a large bar table submission risk delaying the

18     conclusion of the case on its own, but it would also potentially affect

19     the rebuttal calculus and thus risk further delay to the closing date.

20             So if the issue is resolved, then no problem.  But one way or

21     another, we seek to avoid the risk of large submissions at the end of the

22     case that require corresponding time both to respond and to rule on and

23     might needlessly protract the case.  So we thought it prudent at this

24     stage to raise the issue.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, any response?

Page 39274

 1             MR. IVETIC:  If it's okay, I can perhaps give a more succinct

 2     response since I deal with the filings.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, usually it's given by counsel but not by a

 4     member of the Defence team, but if Mr. Lukic invites you to do that, then

 5     we'll listen.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, I do.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

 8             MR. IVETIC:  I can, of course, clarify and perhaps because --

 9     well, Your Honours will remember your guidance at the beginning of this

10     case, that the parties should file their bar table submissions at the end

11     of their cases, so we did not foresee your 18 September dead-line as to

12     92 bis or 92 quater motions as encompassing the bar table submissions.

13     We --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  I think that the language we used was "all

15     evidentiary submissions" and not limited to 92 ter and 92 bis or quater.

16             MR. IVETIC:  Well, I believe it was relating to witnesses, but we

17     can check that.  But in any event, the Prosecution received approximately

18     a month or two after their last witness to do bar table submissions so we

19     think it's in the interests of justice and fairness that the Defence have

20     a similar ability that the Prosecution enjoyed.  We can't change the

21     rules at the mid-game to have the Prosecution have one set of rules and

22     the Defence to have another set of rules.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  But what could we expect?  I mean for scheduling

24     purposes, it's good to know whether -- and that's what, I think, what

25     Mr. Tieger was hinting at, is what is there to be still expected?  No

Page 39275

 1     further -- I think there are two filings for witnesses which were late,

 2     and we'll consider whether -- we have not heard from the Prosecution yet

 3     that they would oppose, despite being slightly late, being admitted.  But

 4     in that respect, that's the first part.

 5             Is there anything else which would --

 6             MR. IVETIC:  We do intend to be filing a bar table submission.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  But.

 8             MR. IVETIC:  We haven't --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  But no further witnesses, therefore.  That's clear

10     then.  92 bis, 92 ter, 92 quater --

11             MR. IVETIC:  There is that one that I mentioned of a Rule 70

12     witness which is in the process of being finalised to be filed.  We are

13     converting him from what had been perceived to be a 92 ter to a 92 bis.

14     That's the only one that comes to mind as being a 92 bis, quater, in that

15     category.  So all other witnesses will be presented in court.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then to the extent our dead-line covered

17     witnesses, I think it was limited to 92 bis and 92 quater as my colleague

18     tells me, not necessarily to a 92 ter if a witness is on the witness

19     list.

20             Now bar table motions.

21             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  What could we expect there?

23             MR. IVETIC:  We anticipate filing a bar table motion.  We have

24     not completed nor even made much headway in terms of examining all of the

25     documents that are the potential for the bar table motion, that is to say

Page 39276

 1     that are on both parties Rule 65 ter lists.  We are in the process of

 2     analysing all those and hope to have a filing that will encompass

 3     everything that we want to be admitted.  And we are preparing a schedule

 4     for that that we were going to present essentially asking for the same

 5     time-period that the Prosecution had upon the end of its last witness in

 6     court, who was the expert Theunens, and the filing of their last bar

 7     table submission, which I -- I again hate to speak off the top of my head

 8     as to dates, but I believe it was a month or two after that witness that

 9     the final bar table submission was filed.  And there were several that

10     were filed with multiple documents.  I think one had 700 documents that I

11     had to respond to.

12             So I understand the concerns by the Prosecution.  They are the

13     same concerns that the Defence had to suffer under and do, and we're

14     asking for a fair opportunity to make use of bar table submissions in the

15     same manner as the Prosecution was allowed to do in their case as we

16     believe -- no, the ...

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I think you made your point clear, Mr. Ivetic.

18             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber will consider it.

20             Two matters:  First the interpretation of evidentiary motions;

21     second, the -- the bar table motions, how that -- how exactly we dealt

22     with that and how we will deal with it now.

23             No further matters?  Could the witness then be escorted into the

24     courtroom.

25             And the Chamber will also consider, Mr. Ivetic, whether we'll ask

Page 39277

 1     for further details such as an assessment of whether it will be

 2     200 documents or 2.000 documents of all those that you are still

 3     considering.

 4             MR. TIEGER:  I didn't want to take additional time to raise the

 5     issue of the circumstances in which the Prosecution bar table motions

 6     were filed or at what time or how many.  It didn't seem the appropriate

 7     time.  But if that's going to play a role in the Court's consideration of

 8     the schedule, I'm happy to respond at some point.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic referred to how we treated the

10     Prosecution and gave a short sketch of that.  If you think that it's --

11     it needs in any way any further explanation or elaboration, then of

12     course in due course -- because the Chamber will consider of course

13     everything that was said.

14                           [The witness takes the stand]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Then in due course you could give us any further

16     elaboration or clarification you may need useful.

17             You may proceed, Mr. Lukic.

18             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

19             Can we have 1D5498 on our screens, please.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

21             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, I rise just because we are moving on to

22     a different document.  On the screen before the break with was

23     65 ter 18013.  I just want to alert the Chamber that that a version of

24     that document has been admitted already as Exhibit D178.  However, it

25     does not have -- that admitted version does not have all the related

Page 39278

 1     translations that were being looked at at the time of trial which are all

 2     available under 65 ter 18013.  So we have no objection to replacing

 3     Exhibit D178 with the 65 ter used in court.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I think it would be best to have the

 6     original French and then the English and the B/C/S translations there.

 7             So there 65 ter 18013 should now replace what is now known as

 8     Exhibit D17 -- D178, yes.

 9             Please proceed.

10             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  To the extent necessary, not only it should replace

12     but the Registry is instructed to replace.

13             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Ms. Subotic, we are now on incident G-6.  I hope you have your

15     report in front of you on the screen.

16             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need page 107 in English, 106 in

17     B/C/S.  Photograph 56.

18        Q.   Apart from you, what do we see on this photograph?

19        A.   We see the marked traces of the detonation of the shell, and we

20     see the tape stretched in the direction of the central axis.

21        Q.   On what basis did you make your conclusions in this case?

22        A.   In this case, as we can see on the picture, we made our

23     conclusions about the direction of fire and the calibre of the shell

24     based on the size of the crater and the traces of fragments.  You can see

25     they reach up to 3 metres, almost up to the middle of the street, and it

Page 39279

 1     was rather simple to determine directions which we show here with this

 2     white tape.

 3        Q.   Can you tell us now, is it different to what the Bosnian

 4     investigators determined?

 5        A.   Yes, it's different.  We determined 237, which means south-west.

 6     And they determined direction west, Nedzarici, Institute for the Blind.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Can we have enlarged only English picture on our

 8     screen.  I would ask Ms. Subotic to mark that picture.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me, what do you want me to

10     mark?

11             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Could you please mark on this photograph the direction

13     established by the Bosnian investigators who worked on this case?

14        A.   [Marks]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you indicate what angle you approximately

16     took?  It looks to me as something close to 50, 60, or 70 degrees from

17     the ...

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, they determined the direction

19     of Nedzarici, where the angle is 270 degrees, and we established a

20     direction of 237 degrees.  That's how the difference should be shown.

21     And this arrow should come from the west, the westerly direction.  It's

22     very difficult to show it precisely in this slanted projection.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I see that.  So the difference is, as a matter

24     of fact, 33 degrees, and you intended to depict a difference in direction

25     of 33 degrees and not 50, 60, or 70.

Page 39280

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you for your help, Your Honour.  We would just

 4     offer this photo into evidence.

 5             MR. WEBER:  No objection.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  The photo on page 107 of the document 1D05498

 8     receives Exhibit Number D1254, Your Honours, marked by the witness.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.  And is admitted into evidence.

10             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

11             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, at page 72, line 21, there is a angle

12     quoted as 270 degrees.  It if counsel could just -- or the witness even,

13     I'm having trouble finding that in the report or documents.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  If you could assist, please.  Or if the witness

15     could assist.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do you want me to answer?

17             JUDGE ORIE:  If you could, yes, please.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the findings of the Sarajevo

19     police, it says that the direction was "west, Nedzarici, Institute for

20     the Blind."  The exact azimuth for the Institute for the Blind concerning

21     this incident is 266 degrees, and the exact azimuth of west is, as we all

22     know, 270 degrees.

23             MR. LUKIC:  And we can find that at page 106 of English version

24     and 105 of B/C/S version.  It's in the text.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  And you are referring to the?

Page 39281

 1             MR. LUKIC:  To this report that is --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  But to the e-court pages?

 3             MR. LUKIC:  E-court pages, yes, Your Honour.  106 in English

 4     version.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before we move there, we should admit this --

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  -- marked photograph.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  I think --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I think I --

10             MR. LUKIC:  It was admitted, yes.  Just [overlapping speakers] --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  -- said it was admitted.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Yes.

14             Please proceed.

15             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

16        Q.   [Interpretation] So, Ms. Subotic, did the Bosnian investigators

17     use the same method as you?

18        A.   Yes.  Although they did not document it in any way.

19        Q.   Did they draw on a sketch what they found on the ground?

20        A.   No.

21        Q.   Thank you.  Now, I'd like to ask you something about the second

22     shell that exploded in Cetinjska Street.  Tell us briefly what was

23     characteristic of that shell?

24        A.   In that place, also the investigators claimed that it was an

25     82-millimetre shell, the scenes of crime officer said it was a

Page 39282

 1     120-millimetre shell, and Captain Verdy said the same.  Captain Verdy

 2     gave an accurate azimuth, and they stuck to the Nedzarici direction, the

 3     Institute for the Blind.

 4             I mean, we have the same discord, the same disagreement as we had

 5     about the point of landing of the shell.  That's what I would call

 6     characteristic of this case.

 7             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now look at page 111 from

 8     document 1D5498 in English.  And page 110 in B/C/S.  We need picture 60.

 9             [In English] Actually, we would ask figure 60 to be enlarged only

10     from the English version, to have only that on our screen.

11        Q.   [Interpretation] We see Mr. Hogan on this picture.  And what

12     else?

13        A.   In this photograph, we see the site of the landing of the shell

14     in Cetinjska number 3.  We see very clearly the trace of the explosion on

15     the asphalt.  Why did we do this?  Because that street, when we visited,

16     had been paved over so we didn't see the original traces.  They were not

17     there.  Then we used the footage of Mr. Barry Hogan, which was made in

18     2001.

19        Q.   On this photograph, would you be able to mark the direction

20     determined by the Bosnian investigators concerning the incident?

21        A.   I can.

22        Q.   Using the same photograph, could you mark the direction

23     determined by Captain Verdy in his report?

24        A.   [Marks]

25        Q.   The first line, as the angle determined by the Bosnian

Page 39283

 1     investigators, mark it with a 1 and the other one with a 2.

 2        A.   [Marks]

 3        Q.   Did you try to determine the incoming direction of the shell?

 4        A.   We did try to do that based on the footage, and our result was

 5     very close to that of Captain Verdy.

 6        Q.   The direction being the one marked with the number 2 on the

 7     photograph; correct?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   How do you explain these discrepancies if the same method was

10     used?

11        A.   I will need some more specific parameters to respond.  Given the

12     fact that the same method was used but it was not documented how it was

13     used, I wouldn't be able to give you a full reply because I would need to

14     go through it all to be able to tell you where the mistake lay.

15        Q.   Very well.  In your view, what did you determine?  From which

16     territory did the projectile come?

17        A.   Having examined the traces we had in detail and having conducted

18     an analysis on the basis of Barry Hogan's footage, we determined that

19     Captain Verdy accurately measured the incoming trajectory.  But he based

20     his calculations on some wrong photographs based on the asphalt traces at

21     the location where the shells landed.  When the error is corrected, we

22     arrive at 236 and 239 degrees.

23             Since both Captain Verdy and we determined that, based on the

24     characteristics of the weapons, the shells were fired from one and the

25     same weapon, it was our conclusion that the shells were fired from an

Page 39284

 1     area close to the Institute for the Blind, and the distance is 3.720

 2     metres.  We were able to be so precise simply because of the fact that

 3     the shells were fired from the same weapon.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  We would just offer this into evidence, and if you

 5     have more questions?

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 7             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, during the course of the examinations,

 8     I haven't been objecting to leading.  However, there are assumptions of

 9     facts that the Bosnian investigators determined the direction of fire to

10     be.  I don't understand her report to exactly be saying that.  And with

11     that caveat, though, I understand she's marked the photo and it's going

12     to get admitted, but just based on the record, we do not accept the --

13     the leading nature and the assumption of the direction determined by the

14     Bosnian investigators.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  That's hereby on the record.

16             Madam Registrar.

17             MR. LUKIC:  When we -- I offer this one into evidence, and then

18     we'll move to the next photo and it might be easier.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  That's why I asked Madam Registrar to provide a

20     number.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Figure 60 of page 111 of the English version of

22     the document 1D05498 with witness remarks receives Exhibit Number D1255,

23     Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  D1255 is admitted into evidence.

25             Witness, could you explain a bit more in detail, "that the shells

Page 39285

 1     were fired from an area close to the Institute for the Blind and the

 2     distance is 3.720 metres."  And you say:

 3             "We were able to be so precise simply because of the fact that

 4     the shells were fired from the same weapon."

 5             Now, this suggests that you --

 6             MR. LUKIC:  I --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  -- would know --

 8             MR. LUKIC:  One correction.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes?

10             MR. LUKIC:  I don't know whether it was recorded that way.  Its

11     not "Institute for the Blind" but "UPI," "UPI."

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  That doesn't change my question that much.

13     Because if you have to establish from where a mortar was fired, to say we

14     can be very precise because they came from the same weapon, if you don't

15     know where that weapon is, the fact that you have two impacts does not

16     help you greatly, does it?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not provide all the details

18     in my answer but I will do so now.  We had two strikes within a short

19     period of time.  The ranges of both shells differ by 15 metres.  For the

20     mortar in question, the degree of error is 20 metres.  Therefore, from

21     two different locations you could not have two shells in such a small

22     area from the same direction in the same VD --

23             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  The witness doesn't

24     explain the abbreviation.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you explain what VD stands for?

Page 39286

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because it is a characteristic of

 2     dispersion by distance.  Perhaps I should have explained that.  It is

 3     according to the tables.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And could you also explain to me what degree

 5     of error you had in your mind?  You said it was 20 metres.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 20 metres comes from the tables of

 7     dispersion that relate to the shells of 120 millimetres.  The range

 8     difference between the two shells, which landed in a very short period of

 9     time, is 15 metres, meaning that it would be a strike within a single VD,

10     making it very precise even by mortar standards -- or single mortar

11     standards.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  But shouldn't you then know whether there was any

13     adjustment at the firing position, any adjustment to the angle of firing

14     or -- in order to draw such conclusions?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not this conclusion.  But the

16     adjustment of direction of firing was calculated and we processed it

17     because the two shells landed along the axis of 200 metres with the same

18     range.  Expert Higgs also stated that whoever was firing those shots must

19     have made firing corrections; however, this does not make our conclusion

20     that it was fired from the same weapon any more questionable.  The same

21     conclusion was reached by Verdy and Higgs.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I was not asking you about the -- whether the

23     conclusion that it was fired from the same weapon, whether there was any

24     problem with that.  I asked you how from that fact you could be so

25     precise of 3.720 metres?

Page 39287

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is very simple.  When you have

 2     the fact that the same weapon was used to fire them, then you simply draw

 3     the directions as defined on the location where the shells landed,

 4     according to the bearing, and they must insect at a certain point.  That

 5     gives you the distance.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  I see that.  But you were saying 3.720 metres.

 7     Earlier you explained to us that on the basis of the pattern it would

 8     be -- and you remember that other case where you said, well, 10 to

 9     20 degrees it was.  So there is apparently quite a margin of the

10     direction of the origin of fire, which, as far as I understand, would

11     have an impact on the accuracy and the position of the distance, that's

12     where the two lines cross.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not in this case.  Because at the

14     end of our analysis, we established that the bearings taken on the spot

15     were accurate.  They were measured by Captain Verdy after the incident.

16     We relied on his results, and based on those we reached a conclusion

17     about the place of firing.  All the checks we ran differed very slightly,

18     and we chose to believe his data because he was on the spot immediately

19     after it happened as opposed to us.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  But you say then the origin of fire, the direction

21     of the origin of fire, as established by Verdy, there is no margin of

22     error there, that's fixed.  You rely on that and that's for certain.  Is

23     that how I have to understand your testimony?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We relied on his results as he

25     measured them.

Page 39288

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  So your results are as good as his results are?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is only a minor difference

 3     and we chose to trust him.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And on what basis do you choose to trust him?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First and foremost, because our

 6     assessment of the incoming trajectory was made on the basis of

 7     Barry Hogan's footage because the traces were no longer there, the road

 8     had been paved over when we came.  When we established that direction and

 9     when we realised that there is only a few degrees difference, as in the

10     previous location, we believed it to be more correct to take his results

11     given the fact that he visited the scene.

12             Things would not have been much different, only by a few degrees,

13     if we had relied on ours, but we believed that it would be more correct

14     and accurate to rely on the measurements made on the spot immediately

15     after the incident rather than ten years later.  We also analysed the

16     footage and we found it to be more technically accurate to do it this

17     way.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  So the results of Verdy were the best you had at

19     that time and that's the reason why you thought it best to rely on those?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because they matched almost to the

21     degree with what we were able to check on the spot.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

23             Please proceed.  No, we should not proceed as a matter of fact.

24     We should, as a matter of fact, adjourn for the date.

25             We are not sitting tomorrow because it's a UN holiday, and since

Page 39289

 1     we are not sitting on Friday and have decided quite a while ago that we

 2     would not compensate for that one non-sitting day this Friday, it means

 3     that we will resume next Monday.

 4             I again instruct you not to speak with anyone about your

 5     testimony or to communicate in any other way about your testimony, and

 6     we'd like to see you back Monday morning and that will be the -- let me

 7     just make no mistakes.  That will be the -- I'm saved by Madam Registrar.

 8     Monday, the 28th of September, 9.30 in the morning, in this same

 9     courtroom, I.

10             You may follow the usher.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12                           [The witness stands down]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I'd like to very briefly deal with one procedural

14     matter for which we have to move into private session.

15                           [Private session]

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 39290

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15                           [Open session]

16             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

18             We'll adjourn for the day, and we'll resume Monday, the 28th of

19     September, 2015, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.

20                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.20 p.m.,

21                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 28th day

22                           of September, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.