Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 39291

 1                           Monday, 28 September 2015

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

 6             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

 8     IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10             No preliminaries were announced.  Therefore, could the witness be

11     escorted into the courtroom.

12                           [The witness takes the stand]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Ms. Subotic.

14             THE WITNESS:  Good morning.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, I'd like to remind you that

16     you're still bound by the solemn declaration that you'll speak the truth,

17     the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

18             Mr. Lukic will now continue his examination-in-chief.

19             Mr. Lukic, please proceed.

20             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  And good morning.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Give me one second, please.

23                           WITNESS:  ZORICA SUBOTIC [Resumed]

24                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

25                           Examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]

Page 39292

 1             MR. LUKIC:  Can we have on our screens ...

 2                           [Defence counsel confer]

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4             MR. LUKIC:  I'm sorry for this delay.  It's 1D5448.  5498.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  I hear a phone ringing.  Most likely a mobile one

 6     but ... it may be outside the courtroom.

 7             Please proceed.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

 9             We need page 121 in English version and 119 in B/C/S version,

10     please.

11        Q.   [Interpretation] This is incident G-7.  It says:  "On 4 February

12     1994, at around 1130 hours, three 120-millimetre mortar shells impacted

13     and exploded in the Dobrinja area, in Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street and in

14     a playground in the immediate vicinity of the street."

15             In relation to this incident, the Prosecution submitted the whole

16     file; it's P867.  And we would need this document on the screen.

17             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In this document, we need English

18     page 22 and B/C/S 21.

19        Q.   We see here the location of the incident is stated as Sarajevo,

20     Oslobodilaca Sarajeva and Dz. Nehrua Street.  On the covers, we see the

21     Nehru Street but was this explosion in the Dzavaharlal Nehru Street

22     processed?  Is it covered in the report?

23        A.   There is no explosion covered in this report because there was no

24     explosion in that street.  There is no information that there had been

25     any explosion there.

Page 39293

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now go back to 1D5498.

 2        Q.   This is your report.

 3             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need page 122 in English and 120

 4     in B/C/S.

 5        Q.   We see picture 64.  Could you mark on this street plan the

 6     Dzavaharlal Nehru Street, which is now called differently?

 7        A.   Yes.  Only I need assistance with this.

 8             Dzavaharlal Nehru Street is now called Hamdija Kapidzica Street.

 9        Q.   Excuse me, could we just zoom into this picture.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Would it be better to have only one version --

11             MR. LUKIC:  One version.  Yes, let's have English version on the

12     screen.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I underlined the new name of the

14     street that used to be called the Nehru Street.  It's now called Hamdija

15     Kapidzica Street.

16             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   According to reports, where did explosions that were covered by

18     the report happen?  Do we know at all?

19        A.   Well, we know according to the photo documentation explosions

20     happened on the playground in the Mihajlo Pupin Street and in the

21     Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street.

22             Should I mark them?

23        Q.   Please.

24        A.   Mihajlo Pupin Street is marked by number 466 --

25        Q.   Next this line will you put number 1.  I know it's difficult to

Page 39294

 1     draw lines there.

 2        A.   Oslobodilaca Sarajevo Street is marked by number 353.  And that

 3     should be number 2; right?

 4        Q.   Yes.

 5        A.   There were also explosions next to this garage and at the

 6     playground.  That would be number 3.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you mean on the same day or earlier or later,

 8     these explosions?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We're now talking only about this

10     incident and the shells that landed there and that are covered by this

11     photo documentation and the one that was on the screen before.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could you please mark the number 1 a little bit

13     clearer.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps the witness could assist in

15     raising [Overlapping speakers] ...

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In [Overlapping speakers] ... yes,

17     if could you only delete the first one.  Now it looks like Z.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

19             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Now we have number 1 on the screen.

21             Could you please tell us --

22             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... ask a

23     question.  Is it correct that three shells are supposed to have fallen in

24     this particular incident?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this specific incident,

Page 39295

 1     documentation covers three shells.  However, material traces and witness

 2     statements indicate that four shells fell, and we covered that in detail.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I don't know whether, Mr. Lukic, you'll get the

 4     witness to indicate where all of the four fell.  Or each one of the four.

 5             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour -- sorry.  Good morning.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, good morning.

 7             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, and just continuing with the

 8     examination, it would be appreciated in for further examination if the

 9     witness mentions something that witness statements or file refers to

10     something, if she could please to or if counsel could please point to the

11     document or statement that is the source of that information.  Thank you.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, it may be that Mr. Weber was specifically

13     considering the fourth shell.

14             MR. LUKIC:  I think it's on the line with the question of

15     Judge Moloto.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could you be a bit more specific about

17     material traces and witness statements for the fourth -- for the -- at

18     least for the fourth shells to start with.  And then go to one, two, and

19     three as well.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Witness Refik Sokolar, who is a

21     policeman, stated that he been injured while sitting in his office in the

22     Nehru Street, and he stated there had been four explosions.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  And any material evidence, apart from this

24     statement?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  And they are covered,

Page 39296

 1     described in detail in our expert report and marked in the photo

 2     documentation that we had just had on the screen.  That four shell is

 3     marked there.  It's shown in one of the pictures in the photo

 4     documentation and I believe we included in the report.  That's picture

 5     65.  It fell on the edge of the playground.  The second one fell

 6     practically across the ground for it, opposite the garage and the

 7     playground.  The third one fell in the Mihajlo Pupin Street next to house

 8     number 3, and the fourth fell in the Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street.  And

 9     that would be it.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  What would have been the name of the street where

11     the fourth shell fell at the time?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The fourth one fell on the edge of

13     the playground.  That is where I put the asterisk.  There is a playground

14     there and across the street from it, there is a pedestrian crossing

15     parallel to a garage.  One shell fell on the edge of that playground.

16     The second one on the pedestrian path.  The third in the Mihajlo Pupin

17     Street.  And the fourth in the Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

19             Please proceed.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Is it known which of these shells caused the

21     injuries to this witness who was in the Nehru Street?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean the Hamdija Kapidzic

23     Street.  I didn't understand.  The witness who stated there had been four

24     shells he was sitting in his office in the building of the police which

25     is currently Hamdija Kapidzic Street.  Did you mean him?

Page 39297

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... Yes.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The shell that injured him -- there

 3     is no basis for including it in this incident, especially because the

 4     injury he sustained is technically inexplicable, because he explained it

 5     came at him through the wall.  Like he was injured by shrapnel that

 6     reached him through the wall and that is technically impossible.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  This is the problem that I'm trying to resolve

 8     because according to you, there was no shell that fell on that street

 9     but, apparently, according to the Prosecution there was.  Now you are

10     telling us that somebody who was sitting in his office in that street got

11     injured and there's no explanation for his injury.  So I'm trying to find

12     out what could have injured him if there was no shell on that street.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my opinion, Refik Sokolar was

14     present at the location of the incident not in his office, because there

15     is no technical explanation to support his --

16             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... he was not

17     telling the truth when he says he was injured while he was in his office?

18     Is that how --

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely.  And certainly not in

20     the way he described.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... you have given

22     us an explanation.  Thank you.  Bye.

23             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Would you please mark the fourth shell that you explained on this

25     picture.

Page 39298

 1        A.   That's a bit difficult to mark because they fell very close to

 2     one another here.

 3        Q.   And you marked it with number 4.

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   We'll skip a few things because of these questions.

 6        A.   I'm sorry.

 7        Q.   If we took it as true that Refik Sokolar was injured [Realtime

 8     transcript read in error "jurisdiction"] while sitting in his office,

 9     which shell would that have been on that day?  One, two, three, or four?

10        A.   That would be number five.  But since it is not stated in any

11     other reports that a shell had fallen there, I don't know why we would

12     take it and include it in our analysis; but if we had, it would have been

13     number 5.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm getting more confused, ma'am.  According to

15     your own evidence, only four shells fell.  Where does number five come

16     from?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The lawyer asked me which number it

18     would have been if it had fallen there.  I suppose he wanted me to say

19     whether these four shells had anything to do with his statement.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... look at what

21     the lawyer asked.  The lawyer said:  "If we took it as true that Refik

22     Sokolar was - now the way it looks, it says jurisdiction - "while sitting

23     in his office" - and I suspect that it is intended to say was injured -

24     "which shell would that have been on that day?  One, two, three, or

25     four?"  He has added no fifth shell.

Page 39299

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He said which number in sequence it

 2     would have been but maybe you get it in interpretation.  I understood him

 3     to asking about the sequence.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... what I see

 5     here and I understand him to say of the four shells, the one, two, three,

 6     and four, which one would have injured him.  He is not asking about a

 7     fifth one.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Then the answer is none of them.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

10             MR. LUKIC:  But I did continue but maybe --

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Your question on the screen doesn't say so, sir.

12     You don't mention the fifth one.

13             MR. LUKIC:  And I said, or any other one.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You see, now you're testifying.

15             MR. LUKIC:  I think I can testify on what I said, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The testimony on what you said is on the screen

17     and the witness can tell us what you said.

18             MR. LUKIC:  But I think that witness told us what we wanted to

19     hear, but ...

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, Mr. Lukic.

21             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

22             Let's have --

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before you ask for another one, are you tendering

24     this?

25             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, yes, Your Honour.  Thank you.  We would tender

Page 39300

 1     this.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Figure 64 on the English version on page 122 of

 4     the document 1D5498 with witness remarks will receive the exhibit number

 5     D1256, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections, Mr. Weber.  Then D1256 is admitted

 7     into evidence.

 8             MR. WEBER:  That's correct, Your Honour.  Thank you.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  One little correction.  The document is not

10     1D5498 but D5498.  I correct myself.  I withdraw my comment.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, from the report, I take it that the

12     witness drew his conclusions on the basis of the Galic testimony which,

13     as far as I'm aware of is not in evidence, or is it?

14             Mr. Weber.

15             MR. WEBER:  Just to assist; you're correct, Your Honour.

16     However, the individual did provide similar information.  I believe it's

17     in P587, e-court page 4, paragraph 18.

18             I'm just pointing this out, so I believe the Chamber has the

19     information from the individual before.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  We should then interpret the -- I leave it to you,

21     Mr. Lukic, of course, if the witness in the report then refers to a

22     certain portion of testimony then for us to find where we find similar

23     information despite the help of Mr. Weber is -- of course, I don't know

24     whether the witness has looked at that materials or not.

25             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  And you have it in the footnote

Page 39301

 1     319 in the report and I just wanted to invoke that one.  But thank you to

 2     my learned friend for helping us.  That is P568.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  I was focussing on the pages we are discussing at

 4     this moment which is in the ...

 5             But let's move on.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

 7             Ms. Subotic mentioned picture 65 from the report and in the same

 8     picture we can find in P867, so I would like to have P867 on our screens.

 9             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, sorry to interrupt, but I just wanted

10     to correct while it's quickly on the record:  I gave, accidentally, the

11     wrong exhibit number.  It's P567, not 587 that I was referring to.  Sorry

12     for my interruption.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can you just check the transcript and see whether

14     you are transcribed correctly.

15             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honour, no.  I said P567.  I

16     incorrectly referred to P587.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

18             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   So in this document that is before us, we need page 126 in

20     English and B/C/S, 123.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  P867?

22             MR. LUKIC:  P867, Your Honour, yes.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar informs me that the pages you

25     mentioned are not in e-court.

Page 39302

 1             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour, it's from the report.  I'm sorry.

 2     It's page 22 in P867.  And I think only B/C/S version has the picture.

 3        Q.   [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, what can be seen in this photograph

 4     on the basis of the police report and photograph 65 from your report?

 5        A.   That is what the playground looks like and part of the pedestrian

 6     path by it where two shells fell, specifically in this area.  And the red

 7     arrow shows the place where a shell fell on the very edge, and it was not

 8     dealt with or mentioned at all in the report.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we also have the English version so we can see

10     the text which is under the photograph.

11                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

12             MR. LUKIC:  Text is on the page 23, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we be informed about what's happening at this

14     moment?  I asked for the corresponding English page.  Yes, I think we

15     have the -- yes, I think it was right.  What we saw was the text under

16     the photograph, I think.  Yes.  Okay.  There we are.

17             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

18             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

19        Q.   [Interpretation] So, Ms. Subotic, you told us about this arrow

20     where the shell had fallen and you said that in the report that was not

21     dealt with at all.  Which report did you mean?  Your own or the police

22     report?

23        A.   I meant the police report that is within this document.

24             I can read the caption, I can read what it says there.

25        Q.   It be seen here in English as well.

Page 39303

 1        A.   Well, I cannot see it.  Oh, I see.

 2        Q.   So, in your view what is characteristic in this particular case?

 3        A.   Well, first of all, what is characteristic is that --

 4             MR. WEBER: [Previous translation continues] ...

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, please.

 6             MR. WEBER:  I do have an objection as to, I guess, foundation, in

 7     terms of continuing on in terms of an opinion.  It's not clear to me

 8     right now, because I see the report refers to the shell impact and she's

 9     saying the report does not refer to something.  So it's really not clear

10     to me what she's exactly saying is or is not referred to.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, could you assist Mr. Weber.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] So, Ms. Subotic, you heard what it is that my

14     colleague Mr. Weber is confused by.  Could you please explain to the

15     Court and to me.

16        A.   Well, now that we're discussing this picture here underneath the

17     text we can all read the caption.  This shell was not dealt with at all.

18     And it was not included in the shells that were analysed throughout the

19     police report.  That is one thing that is confusing.

20             The second thing that is confusing is why is the street of

21     Hamdija Kapidzic, the former street of Dzavaharlal Nehru, why is that

22     street mentioned all the time when it is 200, 250 metres away from all of

23     this.

24             And, thirdly, there is yet another shell that is marked.  Even

25     Barry Hogan recorded that in his film, recorded that place and spoke

Page 39304

 1     about it, and although there were injured persons there, this was not

 2     analysed at all, not dealt with at all in this report.  So out of the

 3     four shells that are evidently there according to the material evidence,

 4     according to the photo documentation, two were analysed, one was not

 5     analysed and it was mentioned though, and the fourth one was not even

 6     mentioned.

 7             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] P867, could we briefly take a look at

 8     that now, please.  It's on our screens, yes, I was just warned by

 9     Mr. Ivetic, it's on our screen.

10             If we can have page 98 in English and page 86 in B/C/S, please.

11        Q.   We see the list of persons killed in Dobrinja here on the 4th of

12     February, 1994.

13             There's reference to Jadranka Tendzera - that's number 1 - and on

14     page 77 in the B/C/S version and 82 in the English version.  In the B/C/S

15     version, in the middle of the first paragraph, and in the English

16     version, it is the fourth line from the bottom of the page.  We see here

17     that Ljusa Sabahudin mentions Auntie Jadranka, that she fell victim

18     there.  Where did you locate this place, the one that the young Ljusa

19     refers to?

20        A.   Well, it's the place where it fell, this shell, in Oslobodilaca

21     Sarajeva, the one that was not analysed at all.

22             May I just mention in same document, Sabahudin Ljusa is mentioned

23     both as a fatality and as an injured person.  Thankfully, thank God, he

24     is still alive.

25        Q.   Yes we saw him on that list of killed persons and later on we did

Page 39305

 1     see him and he spoke to Mr. Hogan.

 2        A.   Yes.  We have him in the expert report and that film.

 3        Q.   By way of reference, transcript page, Mr. Sabljica, 8155, line

 4     25, to 8156, line 6, that's where he testified and he said that the third

 5     location where the explosion took place was not investigated because

 6     there were no victims there.

 7             So this statement made by Mr. Sabljica, is it correct in your

 8     view?

 9        A.   Obviously it is not.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, could I just go back for a second to one

11     of my previous questions where Mr. Weber assisted.  The witness testified

12     that it couldn't be true that the police officer in his office would have

13     been hit by shrapnel because shrapnel does not go through a wall, and a

14     reference was made to what I said, something that's not in evidence, that

15     is the Galic statement.

16             Mr. Weber said we'll find the same in P567.  If I read 567

17     paragraph 18, I read the following -- the witness there describes what

18     happened on 4 February 1994, 11.00 in the morning.  He says something

19     about -- he was working in his office and then he said:  "The fourth one

20     which injured me landed behind me.  Fragments came through the wood in

21     the window."

22             Witness, have you considered whether that shrapnel went through a

23     wall or may have entered the office through the wood in the window?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Regardless of what the obstacle was

25     for that shrapnel, it could not have pierced anything after 250 metres.

Page 39306

 1     It is lethal 17 to 20 metres.  That's what I have to say about this shell

 2     according to our investigations.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  But you testified that the witness said it went

 4     through a wall.  My question was:  Have you considered, apart yet now

 5     from the conclusions, that the witness said at least in what is in

 6     evidence that it went through the wood in the window?

 7             Have you considered that?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Where do we find that in your report?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We did not specify that, but I

11     mean, well, I've already said that shouldn't be taken into account at all

12     in terms of the distance involved.  And also the shell did not have any

13     effect in the street of Dzavaharlal Nehru.

14             As far as I can remember, in one of his statements there is

15     mention of that.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, you will be aware that if the witness

17     testified in accordance what she says that witness said in the Galic case

18     and if we find something which at least is somewhat different in his

19     statements P567, that for us to compare we would need the information of

20     both these sources.

21             I just draw your attention to that.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Maybe it will be more clear

25     if we have page 20 in English and page 19 in B/C/S from the same report.

Page 39307

 1        Q.   [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, what we have before us is a sketch

 2     of the scene.

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   In this sketch, how many explosions are marked?

 5        A.   Three.

 6        Q.   How many places are marked in the photo documentation?

 7        A.   Four.

 8        Q.   Can the street of Dzavaharlal Nehru be found in this sketch?

 9        A.   No.

10        Q.   Explosion marked as number one, where is it in this sketch?

11        A.   It's the edge of the playground.  That is how I understood it.

12        Q.   Yes.

13        A.   No, sorry.  It's the very edge of the pedestrian path.  Yes,

14     that's it.  It's just marked vis-à-vis the playground as well.

15             MR. LUKIC:  Just for the record, Your Honour, we were checking,

16     Your Honour, P568 on page 6, last paragraph, we'll continue checking

17     English version but in B/C/S it says that he was wounded through the

18     wall.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just check for a second.

20             MR. LUKIC:  And in English it says the same.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can we see the document on the screen, please.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I looked at 567, as a matter of fact, which was

23     mentioned, I think, but if I made a mistake, then -- but you said it's

24     found in 56 --

25             MR. LUKIC:  8 --

Page 39308

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  -- 8 --

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Page 6 in both versions.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  I have a look at it and please continue meanwhile.

 4     There may be some inconsistency or lack of precision in 567 compared to

 5     568, which --

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Last paragraph.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, the one does not necessarily contradict the

 8     other perhaps.  If you consider a window to be part of a wall, but the

 9     one gives more details.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. LUKIC:  I will need P867 on our screens again, please.  We

12     need pages 20 in English version and 19 in B/C/S version, please.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, in this photograph, could you

14     please marked shell that we saw that had been marked with a red arrow in

15     photograph 65 from your report?

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  To void any confusion.  It is not a photograph

17     that we have on the screen but a sketch.

18             MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated]

19        Q.   [Interpretation] So, Ms. Subotic, can you mark that on this

20     sketch of the scene, the explosion of the shell that the police did not

21     deal with and that is contained in the photo documentation?

22        A.   Yes, I can.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, could we invite the witness also to mark

24     the English version or just the English version, perhaps, because the

25     Chamber will mainly -- will directly rely on English pieces of evidence.

Page 39309

 1             MR. LUKIC:  Only in English version, it's just number one,

 2     although in B/C/S version we have some drawing.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  That may be a good reason to, indeed, have it marked

 4     on the B/C/S version which gives more details.

 5             Could we have the B/C/S version or both next to each other?

 6             Could you again mark on the B/C/S version what Mr. Lukic asked

 7     you to?  That's the English version we have on our screen now.

 8             We're still waiting for the B/C/S original.  Yes.

 9             Mr. Usher, could you assist the witness in marking the B/C/S

10     version.

11             THE WITNESS: [Marks]

12             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   In your view, how far away is that spot from the explosion that

14     was dealt with?

15        A.   Well, it seems -- I mean, I made a bit of a mistake when I was

16     marking this now.  It's a bit to the right in relation to this direction

17     that it took when falling onto the pedestrian path.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  If you made a mistake could, it please be erased --

19             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, we actually ask that the markings

20     remain.  If we could just denote the marking 1 versus 2, now.

21             MR. LUKIC:  No, it's hard to draw on this screen.  Everybody

22     knows that.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  If the witness says she made a mistake in marking

24     something, then she'll invited to mark that again and it's clear on

25     the -- that the first mark was made close to where the number 1 is found

Page 39310

 1     on the sketch.

 2             Could the witness now mark ... and it's at the edge of the tarmac

 3     playground and the pathway close to number 1 where the witness now

 4     marked.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  -- this sketch.

 7             Please proceed.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Can we --

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I need to put a number there.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, unless Mr. Lukic asks you to make any other

11     markings.  If not, then we'll -- and then I take it you tender this one.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, sketch marked by the witness.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Receives exhibit number D1257.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

16             MR. LUKIC:  I will --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  In order to avoid any confusion the first marking

18     was very, very, very, very, very close to the second one.

19             Please proceed.

20             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, at the same time, I'm looking at the

22     clock.

23             MR. LUKIC:  I have two more questions to finish with this

24     document.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Then let's finish with this document with your next

Page 39311

 1     two questions.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

 3        Q.   [Interpretation] So what is your exclusion regarding this

 4     incident, Ms. Subotic?

 5        A.   Our conclusion is that all the shells had come from the north,

 6     north-east direction and this conclusion was made based on material

 7     traces analysed thanks to the good photo documentation that we had and it

 8     appears to us the main problem occurred when, on this sketch of the site,

 9     the investigators marked north by 60 degrees wrong and then,

10     consequently, arrived at wrong conclusions.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Where do we see marking indicating north on this

12     sketch?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You see it's marked with the letter

14     S and the arrow across it.  It's in the direction of the perpendicular

15     line on Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street.  And if you look at the map, you

16     will see that the street, Oslobodilaca Sarajeva, is 30/35 degrees

17     relative to the north and the perpendicular line is 60 degrees.  So we

18     see north is marked 60 degrees wrong.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... answer my

20     question, thank you.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  What does S stand for?  Is that for north?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That could easily create confusion because S

24     in English usually stands for south.

25             I noticed that in the English translation we find the indication

Page 39312

 1     of where the north is.  We do not find that on the English version --

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is no marking at all.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And before we start doing it all over again,

 4     the indication on the original indicating where north is points -- is a

 5     horizontal line with an arrow to the right just a little bit below where

 6     it says "scale 1:200," and that's how we should interpret the English

 7     version.  I think it's best to consult the original one if there's any

 8     problem there.

 9             You say that's wrong.  Yes, we'll just look at it.

10             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic, with your second question.

11             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour, and thank you.

12        Q.   [Interpretation] The question is, therefore, were you able to

13     establish from which positions in which direction was the position that

14     you determined?

15        A.   Well, after all -- eliminating all these errors and after a

16     detailed analysis, we determined a direction that indicates the positions

17     of the BH army.

18        Q.   Thank you.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  In that direction there was no -- no -- not any Serb

20     position?  I mean, at whatever distance, well, let's say, within 6

21     kilometres?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The positions were in the easterly

23     direction.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  And there were none in the direction you said the

25     shell came from.  There were no Serb positions at -- within a distance of

Page 39313

 1     6 kilometres.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  It's the break time.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  It's break time.  I mean we should proceed with the

 6     break.

 7             We take a break, and we resume at 11.00.  The witness may follow

 8     the usher.

 9                           [The witness stands down]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  We stand adjourned.

11                           --- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m.

12                           --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.

13                           [The witness takes the stand]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I wouldn't mind if you would continue.

15             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Me neither.

16             We will need 1D5498 on our screens again.

17        Q.   [Interpretation] This is your report about mortar shell attacks.

18             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need page 150 in English and page

19     146 in B/C/S.  It's Incident G-9.  In fact, the incident that happened on

20     22nd December around 9.10 in the morning in Bascarsija where two

21     projectiles impacted, one in Danila Ilica Street and the other one next

22     to the entrance door of a shop in Petra Kocica Street, number 3.

23        Q.   Do you remember that incident, Ms. Subotic?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   What is characteristic of this incident?

Page 39314

 1        A.   What is characteristic is that, again, we were in a situation

 2     where the traces on the ground were completely inconsistent with the

 3     description of the weapon that was allegedly used.  And after a serious

 4     analysis, we concluded that it was a staged incident.  That is to say,

 5     that there was no projectile that impacted in this incident on that

 6     street.

 7        Q.   Thank you.

 8             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now look at 65 ter 12822.

 9             This is the police report.  We have Exhibit P0112 but it only has

10     three pages.  Therefore, we are going to work with this entire document.

11             We need page 17 in B/C/S.  In the English version, there is no

12     picture.

13        Q.   This is the sketch of the site.  In your report, that is picture

14     91 on page 149 in B/C/S and 154 in English.  But we will be using this

15     photograph from the police report because they are identical.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The sketch, you mean?

17             MR. LUKIC:  Excuse me, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The sketch, you mean?

19             MR. LUKIC:  The sketch, yes, I said [B/C/S spoken] "skica".

20        Q.   [Interpretation] Just briefly, what were you -- your conclusions

21     based on the witness statements?

22        A.   The witness statements say that there were two explosions in an

23     interval of a couple of seconds.

24        Q.   What does that mean?

25        A.   That means that we should assume that most probably two

Page 39315

 1     projectiles were fired from the same place, one after another.  And the

 2     direction identified by the police also indicates that, and that's around

 3     159 azimuth.  Based on that, we could conclude that there were two hardly

 4     spaced at all firings from the same place.

 5        Q.   Which calibre?

 6             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness repeat the calibre.

 7             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   [No interpretation]

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We don't receive interpretation.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The calibre was 76 millimetres and

11     the gun was M-6 [as interpreted].

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

13             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, I see that the screen in court has

14     displayed a different document and I just raise because there is one page

15     in this file that does trigger some protective measures conditions and

16     that is page 12 in the B/C/S and page 6 in the English.  I ask that we be

17     careful not to broadcast that page.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic will keep it in mind --

19             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  -- when referring to other pages.

21             Please proceed.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

23        Q.   [Interpretation] Just from the record, Ms. Subotic, in the

24     transcript we see M-6 gun.  Which gun was it?

25        A.   It was 76 millimetres.

Page 39316

 1             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...

 2             MR. LUKIC:

 3        Q.   And the cannon?

 4        A.   And the projectile was 76 millimetres.  But the name of the

 5     projectile was --

 6             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter didn't hear.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you repeat the name of the projectile?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 76 millimetres, M70.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

10             Mr. Lukic, one clarifying question.

11             Witness, you said a second ago that - and I just have to -- need

12     it on my screen.  You concluded there were two ... one second, please.

13             "There were two hardly spaced at all firings from the same

14     place."

15             I don't know whether I fully understood that.  Did you intend to

16     say that from the same place fired and landed at approximately the same

17     position?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  I meant to say that because

19     the same direction of fire was determined and the same azimuth and since

20     the projectiles were fired within an interval of a couple of seconds of

21     each other, we could conclude that the firing was from the same tube,

22     from the same place, because otherwise it would be very difficult, not to

23     say impossible, to organise.  That's what I said.  And I said it was an

24     artillery projectile.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you said same tube, from the same place.  These

Page 39317

 1     are two different things.  Because batteries sometimes have more tubes.

 2     What -- do you say it's from the same tube or is it from the same --

 3     well, let's say battery?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It could be concluded that it's

 5     from the same tube because of the same azimuth, identical azimuth, and

 6     the firings were a couple of seconds of each other.  But it also could be

 7     that the guns were placed in formation.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 9             Please proceed.

10             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   In your view, is it possible to fire with an interval of a couple

12     of seconds from one cannon two shells?

13        A.   Usually one minute is required.  Normally about one minute is

14     required, but the firings allegedly happened much faster.

15        Q.   Yes, go on.

16        A.   I wanted to say that it depends, of course, on the crew.  But

17     that is the usual interval between two firings from the same tube:  One

18     minute.

19        Q.   In the first site, what do the traces indicate?

20        A.   In the first place, where it fell next to the curb - allegedly

21     fell - we have two marks on this sketch before us.  The traces indicate

22     that if any projectile had fallen there, it was a projectile with a much

23     higher firing power than the analysis of traces collected on the ground

24     would show.  This is a projectile which contains 600 grams of explosive,

25     and we saw from the traces that they are too small for a projectile that

Page 39318

 1     contains 680 grams of explosive.  It is the traces on the ground are too

 2     small for the kind of explosive this projectile carries.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 4             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, it's happened a couple of times

 5     throughout the testimony, but I just raise because there's references to

 6     we saw and could the witness just be specific as to what she's saying as

 7     she describes as when, where, what material.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You were -- you are drawing conclusions from

 9     traces collected on the ground.  Could you tell us where we can see those

10     traces.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I just have to say that

12     I mean all of us here that are looking here in the courtroom at the

13     traces of an 82-millimetre shell in the previous incidents we analysed.

14     That's what I meant.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  That's not my question.  You apparently drew

16     conclusions on the basis of the traces you saw here in relation to this,

17     because your conclusions related to this incident.  Where do we find the

18     traces you relied upon?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.  The traces are in the

20     photo documentation that is before us.  We are not looking at the

21     photographs at this very second but there is a photo documentation within

22     the same document.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  That's exactly what I'm asking you, where in the

24     photo documentation which I think starts at -- in the police report at -

25     let me see - photo documentation starts at e-court page 20 in the B/C/S,

Page 39319

 1     the photo documentation does not appear in the English.  Perhaps the text

 2     do -- does but the photos appear --

 3             You are consulting a document.  Are you consulting your own

 4     report or are you consulting the ...

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no.  I'm looking at my own

 6     report, looking at the -- for the footnote.  It's 405.  And from that

 7     footnote comes picture 92 in my report which relates precisely to the

 8     crater we have been discussing.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, I see figure 92, the site of the first

10     explosion in Danila Ilica Street.  And let's see where we find that in

11     the --

12             MR. LUKIC:  Page 28, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Page 28.  Thank you, Mr. --

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And could we all have that picture on our screens,

15     please.

16             MR. LUKIC:  Page 28 in B/C/S.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  28 in B/C/S.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think this is the wrong page.

19     This is the next centre of explosion which is marked on the sketch with

20     number one.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  I think none of the photographs close to ...

22             Mr. Lukic, you're assisting us by pointing us to page 28 in the

23     B/C/S, but it seems that there's quite a different picture there.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Six pages ahead.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Six pages --

Page 39320

 1             MR. LUKIC:  34.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  34.  Let's have a look at 34.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  One more.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We're looking at page 35 in the B/C/S than

 5     seems to correspond with the -- with the picture appearing in the report

 6     of the expert witness under number 92.

 7             Please proceed.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The traces that can be seen here is

 9     an effect of the explosion.  In order for us to be able to follow this,

10     according to the azimuth that the police provided and UNMO too, the

11     projectile arrived from the right towards the left, if we look at this

12     photograph.  As we look at this photograph, as I said a moment ago, the

13     crater is too big for a projectile that has so little explosive.  On the

14     other hand, the image that we see is completely impossible from the point

15     of view of explosives physics, because if the projectile detonated here

16     in this spot that is depicted in the photograph then certainly there

17     wouldn't be any snow here - see?  - right next to it.  And especially

18     there wouldn't be this distribution further up.  That is completely to

19     the contrary.  We see the distance is a metre, a metre and a half from

20     the centre of the explosion.  There wouldn't with be this kind of arc,

21     there wouldn't be this kind of distribution that can be seen in the upper

22     part of this photograph.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you assist us.  I don't see any arc clearly,

24     but ...

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I use this so that can you see

Page 39321

 1     it.  If I just show it to you.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Have you to wait until you are invited to do that

 3     because that needs some technical preparation.

 4             I leave it in the hands of Mr. Lukic whether he thinks it of any

 5     use to mark whatever.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  I think after your question it would be wise.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Okay.  Could you tell us where the arc you had

 8     in your mind?  And you may mark that on this photograph.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course.

10             As we can see, the centre is below this stall around the centre,

11     so that cannot happen.  The explosion could not have been here.  It is

12     quite clear what the explosive wave is like.

13             Secondly, had the explosion occurred here there would be no snow

14     here, what I marked just now.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you fall could you mark the arc with a number

16     1.

17             THE WITNESS: [Marks]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  And could you mark where you said if the centre of

19     the explosion would be here, there would have been no snow.  And then

20     mark that with number 2.

21             THE WITNESS: [Marks]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And my next question is:  Who and -- suggests

23     where that was done that where you marked as number 2 would have been the

24     centre of the explosion?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, I marked the snow.  The

Page 39322

 1     snow.  That's number 2.  And the centre of the explosion, I'm going to

 2     mark it now.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  You marked the centre explosion with... okay.

 4     And what makes you believe that that's the centre of the explosion rather

 5     than, for example, what seems to be a relatively big hole just under the

 6     arc you have just drawn?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, what looks like a

 8     relatively big hole is the trace in the snow.  In the centre of the

 9     explosion was determined by the CSB investigators and UNMOs, that's

10     according to their analysis.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Where's that found exactly in the report?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this document here that is

13     before us now.  Except that it's further.  Just a moment, please.  Also

14     on the sketch.  It is marked as number 2, the actual scene.  Maybe it's

15     easier for us to follow it on the sketch.

16             MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... B/C/S.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we do that, you made that arc which seems a

18     line which seems to connect smaller objects from this picture - I can't

19     see whether it's stones or whether it's anything else - what exactly have

20     you lined up?  I mean, what are these objects which you -- which made you

21     think that this is an arc but is a wrong arc and could not explain what

22     was said by the report or by others?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I assume that these are certain

24     objects that were either underneath the stall that were used for selling

25     I mean, quite simply it's a market-place, isn't it?  So as you can see

Page 39323

 1     for yourselves, the picture is unclear so it is hard to see what it is

 2     exactly.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If these are loose objects, is there any other

 4     possible explanation as why they are situated as they are?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Since this crater is a lot bigger

 6     and also it doesn't have a characteristic image as such, and since these

 7     objects are in this arc that is contrary to the place that we marked with

 8     number 3, and since there is this black part on the left-hand side, the

 9     only thing that can be concluded -- also we should take into account that

10     this dispersed snow is in the left-hand part of the image and also black

11     and it gets lighter and lighter and --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please answer my question.  My question

13     was whether there's any other explanation for those loose objects to be

14     there?  I mean, you made an arc by connecting some of them.  What makes

15     you think that that's -- should be a -- considered as an arc rather than

16     just as a number of -- a large number of loose objects which you, if I

17     could say so, organised by putting an arc.  Could it be that just by

18     coincidence that many of those, including those who are not part of your

19     arc ended up where they were by mere coincidence?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Had the explosion occurred in

21     D [as interpreted], they certainly could not have fallen there because

22     quite simply they would have been blown away in the opposite direction.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.  We would offer this sketch into evidence,

25     Your Honour.

Page 39324

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 2             MR. WEBER:  No objection, Your Honour I don't know if the record

 3     reflected that she marked with the number 3 the centre of the -- what she

 4     described as the explosion.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's -- if it was not clear, it's clear by

 6     now.

 7             Madam Registrar, the number would be?

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  The marked photo of page 35 of the document 12822

 9     receives exhibit number D1258, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Your Honour, we would also offer the whole -- the

13     whole report.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That should be under seal then I take it,

15     because there are protected pages.

16             MR. WEBER:  No objection to the admission of the entire file and

17     I have noted the correct page in the B/C/S, page 12, and in English, it's

18     page 7 corresponding.  Aside from that, the document would be otherwise

19     okay to [Overlapping speakers] ...

20             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... Yes, but what we do under

21     those circumstances is that a redacted version may be filed but will not

22     be admitted into evidence and that can be done at a later stage.

23             Madam Registrar, this -- let me see ... yes, the totality of this

24     report can receive number?

25             THE REGISTRAR:  D1259, Your Honours.

Page 39325

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  D1259 is admitted into evidence, under seal.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Can I consult with the client for a second.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please do so.

 4                           [Defence counsel confer]

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  At non-audible volume.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

 9             Can we have picture number 100 from the report.  It's 1D5498,

10     please.  And I'll give you the English page.  Just a sec.

11             Page 158 in B/C/S and -- we need 1D5498, page 158 in B/C/S and

12     163 in English.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, what is this photograph about?

14        A.   Figure 100 was taken over from the photo documentation.  We can

15     see the parts of the fuse found at the scene during the investigation of

16     the scene.  We used a red circle to mark the entire fuse that belongs to

17     this projectile.  The only thing missing is the detonator because it

18     shows that it is impossible to detonate a projectile - and we see on the

19     basis of these fragments that it had been detonated - and to have the

20     fuse remain intact, whole.

21        Q.   This fuse, is it related to the first or second explosion?

22        A.   This fuse is related to the explosion that occurred in place

23     number one, that is, Petra Kocica.  So not the one that we discussed a

24     moment ago, the next one, rather.

25        Q.   Had this projectile arrived in Petra Kocica Street would it have

Page 39326

 1     been possible to get this unactivated fuse?

 2        A.   Absolutely not.  It initiates the explosion and it's the first

 3     one that explodes and falls apart.

 4        Q.   I'd like to move on to page 166 of your report in English and

 5     page 162 in B/C/S.  It is the shelling of the water line in the

 6     elementary school of Simon Bolivar.  This incident is not in the

 7     indictment.  However, in this case we have some evidence tendered by the

 8     Prosecution P02017, P02043, and P00992.  The last is the report,

 9     paragraph 33 speaks of this incident.  And the previous two documents are

10     reports.

11             I'm going to ask you briefly, the police report, I'm going to ask

12     you briefly what you found to be characteristic of this particular case?

13        A.   In this case, we found an amazing amount of inconsistency when

14     the police report was written and also the crime-scene investigation

15     report.  So we had to make a huge effort in order to establish what this

16     was all about.  I'm speaking of the figures that are inconsistent, the

17     analysis that is inconsistent, north is wrong, and so on and so forth.

18        Q.   Can we please take a look at 104 now.  That is actually the

19     sketch of the scene.  165 is the page number.  169 is the page in

20     English.

21             You told us that north was marked incorrectly.  Traces of the

22     explosion, what about them?  Are they marked; and, if so, where and how?

23        A.   This sketch is not going to be very helpful for us.  We can just

24     illustrate what I mentioned a moment ago.  You see here, if we add all of

25     this up, the error is 1 metre.  It is 470 and 3.2 that are added.  515.

Page 39327

 1     The sketch that is the other part --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.  Mr. Weber.

 3             MR. WEBER:  I'm not sure where the witness is explaining that

 4     from the sketch.  If it could be made clear.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please resume, Witness, and tell us

 6     exactly what you saw on the sketch as you explained it to us, where it is

 7     for us to be found.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On this sketch of the scene, 3.2

 9     metres is the height of the wall.  And the length --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.  3 -- no, let me see.  3.2 metres is the

11     height of the wall.  Where do we find that on this?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The lower right-hand corner.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Lower right-hand corner.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Vertically, 3.2.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's ...

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I am afraid that we can't see -- what is this --

18     first of all, what is this exactly?  Is it ...

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The height of the wall.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  First of all, could we have a look at the

21     title of picture 104, which is visible in the -- in B/C/S, we can see it

22     but not in the English.  Could we just move one page forward in the

23     English?

24             Okay.  It's the sketch of the scene at the Simon Bolivar

25     elementary school.  We can go back now.

Page 39328

 1             Now, does this depict a surface or does this depict -- what

 2     exactly does it depict?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We see the area of the wall and

 4     according to this sketch, that's where the 122-millimetre shell exploded.

 5     And we see these measurements that were made.  And if you do the

 6     appropriate calculation now on the basis of Pythagoras --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, one second.  I see to the left, I see --

 8     and that's not translated "pogled A - A."  We still do not know whether

 9     this is a frontal sketch of what you see before you or whether it's a

10     projection from above on what can be seen on the ground.

11             Could you first explain to us what it is.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The technician showed 3.2 metres of

13     the height of the wall.  You see it's a vertical projection because the

14     pump is vertical --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So you say it is a -- it's not a vertical

16     projection because a vertical projection is from above looking down and

17     then you get a kind of a -- you get a sketch of the surface but the 3.20,

18     apparently from up -- from down up, which then suggests that this is a

19     front view of some -- whatever it may be.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.  Just as we are

21     looking at each other now.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can you then please explain what is depicted in

24     the entire sketch above this wall, as you indicated.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Is there any construction on top of the 3 metres 20

Page 39329

 1     where it reads 10 metres 40.  10 metres 40.  Oh, yes.  10 metres 10.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is the height of the gym and

 3     above that wall, there were windows that disappeared during some fire.

 4     That's what the report says.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  So this is the front view of a building, if I

 6     understand you well, or a construction?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

 8             If you look at the picture at the very beginning, you will see it

 9     is 102.  You can see these windows, if you look at that picture.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, that's all fine.  But then I would have

11     expected, as a matter of fact, that Mr. Ivetic would have taken us to 102

12     first to know what we're looking at -- Mr. Lukic.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before we move away from this sketch, can you

14     please indicate where we can find the wrong indication north, as you

15     said?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Picture 106 and 105.  Paragraph 119

17     in our expert report.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It has nothing to do with the sketch we see on

19     the screen; correct?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no.  It is the next sketch

21     that is also contained in this document.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can I also ask for clarification.

24             On the wall above that is 10.10, we see rectangles with lines

25     drawn in them.  What are those?  And then they are cut in the middle.

Page 39330

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are columns.  And when you

 2     cut through that, it just means that it's less than the dimension.  I

 3     mean, technically.  When this cut is made, it just means that we are

 4     showing something that is the same but we are not showing the actual

 5     dimension that is provided on this scale, down here.  These are some

 6     rules of technical drawings that were applied by the technician in this

 7     case.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Now, even the broad rectangle on the left, is that

 9     also a column?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That could be a wall.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And you're saying the break there, it means it's

12     not the full length of the hall.  It's broken just to fit the picture in

13     here on the piece of paper?  This -- this what you've described as

14     technical method of doing things.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.  That's right.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I -- I still have some difficulties in

18     understanding what it is all about.

19             Could we go to figure 102, which is at -- in your report a few

20     pages further.

21             MR. LUKIC:  It's 168 in English and 163 in B/C/S.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, could we have a look at that picture and then

23     later we move again to 104.  Mr. Weber.

24             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, if possible in discussion of figure 102,

25     could we have some foundation just in terms of the timing when this

Page 39331

 1     photograph was taken.  I don't see it clearly indicated in the report.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  We may ask the witness.

 3             Now -- the witness still doesn't see it, I think because in the

 4     B/C/S it's still 104.  Could we go to 102.  I mean figure 102, which is

 5     in the B/C/S, Mr. Lukic?

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Which is page 163.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Page 163.  Could we enlarge the picture slightly.

 8     Could we do the same for the English.

 9             Now, Witness, could you tell us exactly -- we looked at a sketch

10     in figure 104.  Could you tell us exactly from what side we are looking

11     at what apparently is this building?  Perhaps the witness -- perhaps the

12     usher could assist, that you draw a rectangle of the side of this

13     building we are looking at in 104.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the gym --

15             THE INTERPRETER:  The witness is speaking to the side of the

16     microphone.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, could you adjust slightly the microphone as

18     well when you are bending over.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is Bolivar.  --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm asking you, sketch 104, which you said is the

21     facade view of a construction and you said it will be clear if you look

22     at 102.  Could you tell us what facade on this photograph we see in

23     picture 104?

24             And here, I think, Mr. Lukic, there is no problem in marking it

25     on the English version.

Page 39332

 1             THE WITNESS: [Marks]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please mark that.  I am afraid I do not

 3     see any marking.  Oh, yes, you did it on the B/C/S version.

 4             So we are looking at -- no, it's fine.  We just put on the record

 5     that it's the -- it's the B/C/S version you marked and the title of that

 6     picture in English is the Simon Bolivar school photographed from the

 7     Mimar Sinana Boulevard.

 8             Okay.  Yes, could we now go back to 104.  That is -- you have the

 9     pages, Mr. Lukic.

10             MR. LUKIC:  169 in English and --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Now --

12             MR. LUKIC:  165 in B/C/S.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I believe we have a marked photo on the

15     screen.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we have to --

17             MR. WEBER:  I still have the same concern.  We don't known when

18     this photo was taken and whether or not the scene is depicted the same as

19     on the --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps, it was suggested, and I take it, Mr. Lukic,

21     that there's no objection against asking the witness now.  could you tell

22     us when was this photograph taken, by whom, and ...

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My colleague and I recorded it when

24     we were in 2010, in April, visiting sites in Sarajevo.  By approval of

25     the Trial Chamber.

Page 39333

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  April 2010.  Taken by you, yourself.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it was September.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  But the year is right.  That satisfied, I

 4     take it, your curiosity, Mr. Weber, for the time being.

 5             The marked page of the report in the B/C/S version would receive

 6     what number, Madam Registrar?

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  D1260, Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 9             And I think we now can get back to the earlier pages you

10     mentioned.  I think it was 169 and for the English and 165 for the B/C/S.

11             Perhaps we leave it as it is for the time being, that we have the

12     sketch next to the photograph.

13             Could you now better explain to us, Witness, what we are seeing.

14     The wall is 3 metres 20 high.  Could you describe on the photograph what

15     you meant by the wall?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Between the gym and the place where

17     they drew water, between these two spaces was this wall.  It's inside.

18     It's not outside.  You can't see it from outside.  What did I mean to

19     say?  There is a complete inconsistency in the data provided here.  Let

20     me give you an example.  We are looking at this parameter, 5 metres and

21     so many centimetres and we have the measurement for the wall where the

22     shell impacted and here on this sketch is -- it's 320.  If we use the

23     Pythagorean theorem, which we indicated below the picture, you get the

24     height of 2 metres 100, not to mention that in another document in this

25     package it is said that the height of this wall is 4 metres.

Page 39334

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me stop you there.  Could you again explain how

 2     Pythagoras says that the picture is wrong?  Could you take us -- we have

 3     the height of the wall which is 320 and you compared that, you linked

 4     that to the 5 metres 15.

 5             Now tell us what is wrong there?  I mean, the hypotenuse is

 6     usually longer than one of the sides so that seems not to surprise.

 7     Where does it go wrong?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if under Pythagoras theorem,

 9     from these two measurements, 515 and 417, you calculate the hypotenuse,

10     it's no longer as indicated here.  Instead, it's 1. -- or 2.5 --

11             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter is not sure.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Actually, you're saying us that the 475 times 475

13     plus 320 times 320 is not -- is not 515 times 515.  That's Pythagoras.

14     Okay.  Did you make the -- let's see -- well, we can check that, that's

15     easy.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I see what you now mean.  I understand what you

18     are arguing here, what your conclusion is.

19             Please proceed.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can I put another question.

21             You just one minute ago you said the wall was inside and can't be

22     seen on this photograph.  What do you mean by "inside"?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Inside this school there is a

24     partition wall between the gym and the room where the water sink was, the

25     fountain was, where people drew water.

Page 39335

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I don't fully understand.  Where in the

 2     photograph --

 3             MR. LUKIC:  If we can go to the photograph, 110 and 111,

 4     Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I have a question about this before we go.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  I'm sorry.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Go ahead.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  My question to you is, ma'am, if you look at the

 9     picture on the right side, not the sketch, the picture itself, from the

10     ground to the roof of that building, what is the measurement?  Is it 3.2

11     that you were talking about earlier?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.  Now it's not the same as

13     it looked then, but it's 10.10.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Well, in fact, this picture doesn't help us at

15     all.  It's not the same building.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, this photograph does assist us.

17     Let us just see how it looks in the photo documentation --

18             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... you're saying,

19     I'm asking you what is the measurement from the ground to the roof of

20     this building?  You are not answering my question.  Can you give me the

21     measurement, please.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to the sketch it should

23     be 10.10 metres.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And then where is the 3.2 that is below the 10.10

25     on this building, on this picture?

Page 39336

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That should be here, if we are

 2     looking at the photo that we took.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  When you should it should be here.  I don't know

 4     what you're talking about.  I don't see your screen.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can the usher assist and [Overlapping

 6     speakers] ...

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ... oh, yes,

 8     I understand.  We are talking about the photograph that we took.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... photograph

10     that is on the screen before us.  Which you saw you took in 2010.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  That should be somewhere at

12     the level a bit higher than the boundary of these windows.  If 10 metres

13     is to the top, 3 metres is approximately up to one-third.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And where is the wall with the height of 320.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This is the question we are asking you.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's inside between the room where

18     people drew water.  There was a pump there and the gym.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Then I'm asking you again, ma'am, what is the

20     measurement of the height of this building from the ground, as we look at

21     it, to the roof?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The height of this building should

23     be 10.10 metres up to the roof.  The level of the ceiling.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Now, do I understand you to be saying that 10.10

25     as we see it on the sketch on the left includes the 3.2?

Page 39337

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it includes 3.2.  That's the

 2     height of the gym.  And we wrote it in the report.  It includes those 3.2

 3     metres and that's the height up to the ceiling.  Not looking from the

 4     outside at the roof but inside up to the ceiling.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I understand your argument much better now.  Thank

 6     you so much.

 7             Mr. Lukic, I'm done.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  It's break time.  Witness, we'd like to see you back

 9     in 20 minutes.  You may follow the usher.

10                           [The witness stands down]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  We take a break, and we resume at 25 minutes past

12     12.00.

13                           --- Recess taken at 12.04 p.m.

14                           --- On resuming at 12.29 p.m.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16                           [The witness takes the stand]

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I would like to put one question to the witness.

18             Still with respect to the photograph we have in front of us and

19     this sketch on the left side, you said the photograph was taken in 2010.

20     The sketch was drawn much earlier.

21             Have you any information how the situation was before you took

22     this photograph?  That means much before the rebuilding of the gym of the

23     school.  Where was the wall at that time, the wall with the height of 3

24     metres 20 centimetres?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, here in the photo

Page 39338

 1     documentation made by the investigators on the spot, it's all visible,

 2     the position of the wall and the dimensions of the wall, et cetera.  We

 3     used that for our analysis.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And if I refer you again to the photograph taken

 5     by you in 2010, have you -- can you describe -- you said the wall is now

 6     at least at that point in time inside the gym.  Was it previously outside

 7     the gym?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to the description in the

 9     document, it was between the gym and this other room.  That means that it

10     was a partition wall inside the school.  That's what I conclude.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  But then I don't understand your description of

12     the sketch on the left side of the screen.  You said, If you look from

13     outside to the building, then you see first the wall and behind the wall

14     the structure of the building with the columns and the openings of the --

15     where previously the windows have been.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's quite possible that it could

17     be an outside wall, but according to the documentation, the gym is on one

18     side, and, on the other side, there was this room containing - and it's

19     written exactly in the documentation - that there were windows that

20     shattered during a fire.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Windows between two rooms.  That means one

22     side --

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, the windows that were between

24     these two rooms, between these two pillars that you can see here.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I see.  There's no more clarity ...

Page 39339

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those windows, in any case, did not

 2     exist when that happened.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This I understood.  But, still, I don't quite

 4     understand where the wall was and what the purpose of building a wall

 5     between two rooms could have been, but I stop here and leave it.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could I ask you one other question about still

 7     the sketch and what you say underneath.

 8             You are referring to the 5 metres 15 centimetres and the 4

 9     metres, 17 centimetres.  Could you tell me exactly where you find the

10     4.17?

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Above the edge of the wall,

13     beginning with the left end, up to the place where the shell exploded.

14             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... --

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 4.17.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I -- I, as a matter of fact, but please

17     correct me when I'm wrong, I see something which looks to me as very much

18     4.70.  Could you please have a look at that time?

19             Perhaps it could be slightly enlarged still further.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it's written 4.70.  I'm sorry.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  But for your calculations you used 4.17?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It seems I made a mistake.  I have

23     to check.  Or maybe I only made a mistake while writing here.  I have to

24     check that.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And now I see that the explosion is, you say,

Page 39340

 1     at 320.  And the height of the wall is also 320.  Does mean that it was

 2     just at the edge and do you know that, or how do you know that?  I

 3     mean --

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Could it have been let's say just 10 centimetres

 6     above the top of the wall or 15 centimetres.  Could you tell us exactly

 7     how you have an explosion exactly at the edge of the wall and whether you

 8     were able to verify that.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, certainly.

10             First of all, the crime-scene technician recorded that it was on

11     the edge of the wall.  Documentation shows that it arrived, that it

12     landed, precisely on the edge of the wall on the plaster work, the

13     decorative plaster work.  And we took all this data from the photo

14     documentation which is in front of us.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But could you conclude from that photo

16     documentation whether it was the centre of the explosion was exactly at

17     the edge of the wall or whether it could have been 5 or 10 centimetres

18     lower or perhaps 15 on a height of 320?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I already said it was precisely on

20     the edge of the wall on the decorative plaster work which lines the edge

21     of the wall.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could you take us to any photograph that

23     supports that interpretation of these facts.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Your Honour, 110 and 111.  Photographs 110 and 111.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  110 and 11.  Okay.  I have a look at those.

Page 39341

 1             MR. LUKIC:  Page 170 in B/C/S and 175 in English.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  110 and 111, yes.  Please proceed, meanwhile --

 3             MR. LUKIC:  I would exactly like to have those pictures on our

 4     screens.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  That's good anyhow.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  If we could have page 170 in B/C/S and page 175 in

 7     English.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps we could zoom in slightly on ...

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

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Did you conclude then the basis of these photographs

11     that it was not 5 or 10 centimetres below the edge but it was exactly on

12     the edge?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

15             Please proceed.

16             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

17             Can we have --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Still, I would have one other question.

19             You said this was a wall inside the gym.  That's well understood?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This side that is seen on the

21     picture 110, that side of the wall is where the water-pump was.  And this

22     other picture, to the right, is the side which is in the gym.

23             If we look up here at these two pictures that are next to one

24     another --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, 110, you say the one is from the one side and

Page 39342

 1     the other is from the other side, if I understand you well?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.  That's it.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, Mr. Lukic, for you to clarify that, perhaps

 4     that -- because the Chamber gains a very initial impression that it may

 5     be photographs taken from the same side.  But please proceed.

 6             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Ms. Subotic, concerning these two photographs at the top, it says

 8     one is facing the water-pump and the bottom picture says it's the same

 9     wall seen from the gym.

10        A.   While I was talking, I'm sorry, I was looking at picture 112

11     where they are juxtaposed, the right picture from 110 and the picture 111

12     to the left.

13             MR. LUKIC:  Can we have 112 on our screens, please.  It's on the

14     next page.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the juxtaposition pictures

16     111 and 112 next to each other.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I think it's 110 and 111.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  110 and 111 next to each

19     other.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could we have now 112 on our screen.  You said

21     the wall was within the gym.  Could you then -- no, I think we should go

22     back by one, one page.  Yes.

23             In figure 111, it says the same wall seen from the gym.

24             Now, you said the wall was within the gym.  How do I have to

25     understand, then, this picture or is the foreground within the gym?  I'm

Page 39343

 1     just trying to understand exactly how this -- these pictures were taken.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Photograph 111 was taken from the

 3     gym.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And that shows a wall which is then apparently

 5     not in the gym or is it in the gym?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  It's -- it's the wall of the

 7     gym.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  So if I say the wall is in the gym, you meant that

 9     the wall was -- the wall of the gym.  Is that how we have to understand

10     it?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is how you should understand

12     it.  On the other side was the water-pump, behind this wall.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And that was outside the gym or ...

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the sketch of the scene, it is

15     not shown.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now I'm looking at the surface on 110 and 111.

17     Are you saying that on figure 111 that what we see on the surface before

18     the wall, that's the surface, the ground of the gym.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On figure 110 --

20             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

22     continues] ... it's not the floor of the gym and on figure 111, yes, it

23     is.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So the flat surface on 110 is outside the gym,

25     and the rather rubbled surface of 111 is the inside of the gym?

Page 39344

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 3             Please proceed.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Can we have picture 106 now, please.  It's in English

 5     version 169 and in B/C/S version 167.

 6        Q.   [Interpretation] Here below the picture it is written that it's

 7     the angle of descent according to the investigators --

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... depict

 9     that --

10             MR. LUKIC:  171, my mistake.  And in English version, somehow

11     it's not complete.

12        Q.   [Interpretation] Below the picture, it says the angle of descent

13     according to the investigators of the Sarajevo police relative to the

14     northerly direction.

15             MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... the next page of

16     this text.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

18             MR. WEBER:  I understand that that's what that says.  I

19     understand it to be what's depicted is something different, I don't know

20     if Mr. Lukic wants to clarify.  The angle of descent I understand is

21     something different, possibly, than the direction of fire.

22             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   What do we see on this photograph, Ms. Subotic?  Can you explain.

24        A.   On this photograph which is different from 105, only in so far as

25     we had indicated the measurements --

Page 39345

 1             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm looking at

 2     something which is not a photograph but seems to be a sketch with ...

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So, therefore, if you can start explaining

 6     about the photograph then I'm a bit puzzled what you are referring to.

 7     Because the question is what do you see on this picture, which is this

 8     sketch, figure 106.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On picture 106, which is the sketch

10     of the site made by the investigators, we see direction north and the

11     direction of the flight of the projectile, and they determined it on the

12     basis of the traces of impact of the projectile on the belt course of the

13     wall where it detonated.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Where do we see north exactly -- oh, I see the S.

15     That's the right red line going up.   Yes.

16             Please proceed.

17             MR. LUKIC:  Now we would need figure 109.  It's 174 in English

18     and 169 in B/C/S.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, it's still unclear to me what exactly is

20     depicted in the previous one as apparently the wall of impact is the one

21     at the bottom of the sketch.  That's -- at least that's what it looks

22     like.  Is that correctly understood?

23             What are the other walls or the other structures which we see

24     here?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The sketch of the scene has a

Page 39346

 1     legend and, first of all, you are right when you decided to choose this

 2     particular point.  You can see the stabilizer here on the other side of

 3     the wall, mark number 1.  Number 2 is the place where the shell

 4     detonated, then the direction is --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  The question was what the other structures.  I did

 6     not invite you to explain at this movement all the markings but, rather,

 7     there seems a rectangular structure of which the bottom is the wall that

 8     was hit.  I'd like to know what the other parts are which are, how do you

 9     call it -- yes, it looks like a frame, a rectangular.  We know what the

10     bottom is.  What is the left side, the right side, and at the top.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the area where the water

12     pump was.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  But we saw earlier, I think, on the photographs,

14     that the water-pump was at the wall.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Oh no.  Oh, no.  Not by the wall or

16     in any one of the photographs or, rather -- sorry.  It is drawn in the

17     vertical projection so it seems to be by the wall.  When we have this

18     vertical projection then we do not see the distance so we just have it in

19     this sense.  This projection does not allow us to see the distance.  I'm

20     talking about picture 104.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can we see the water-pump in this sketch?  And,

22     if so, where is it located?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The water-pump is marked with the

24     number 3 in this picture.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  We're all trying to find it.  Give us a second.

Page 39347

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the right-hand side -- on the

 2     left-hand side, moving to the right, you have four in the upper part and

 3     three in the lower part.  Say, 40 per cent of the height viewed from the

 4     bottom upwards.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  And exactly next to the arc which the -- the large

 6     that is correct that was drawn.  Yes, we've found it.

 7             But still now my question:  What are the other structures?  Are

 8     these walls as well?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to the sketch of the

10     scene, yes.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  But is that accurate or is it not accurate, as far

12     as you are concerned?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I'm concerned, it's

14     correct.  The sketch should depict the real situation especially because

15     they made quite an effort here, as far as I can see, to mark everything,

16     truly everything.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

18             Please proceed.

19             MR. WEBER:  If I could just intervene.  In the English version

20     there's two words -- well, there's five words not translated above the

21     two lines.  I do believe it might be beneficial to understanding what

22     she's saying if we have these words translated.  I understand what they

23     mean but I'm just --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm a bit lost.  One second please.  Oh yes, which

25     seems to read as, and forgive my pronunciation, [B/C/S spoken] pravac

Page 39348

 1     leta mine, pravac severa.

 2             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Ms. Subotic, this hasn't been translated into English so could

 4     you say what it is for the benefit of the English version.

 5        A.   I don't know where it is, where that is, but at any rate.

 6        Q.   On the screen?

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  At the beginning of each arrow.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  That's picture 106.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Figure 106, 63 degrees, that

11     trajectory is the trajectory of the flight of the shell according to the

12     Bosnian investigators, whereas pravac severa is direction north and that

13     is again marked by the Bosnian investigators as 320 degrees.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             Please proceed.  I still do not know what the walls stand for

16     but.

17             MR. LUKIC:  Just for the reference.  There is P2043 and there is

18     a legend described on page 15 in both versions, English and B/C/S so ...

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I'll have a look at it.  Please proceed.

20             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

21             Now we should see picture 109.  It's on B/C/S page 169 and 174 in

22     English.

23        Q.   [Interpretation] Please explain this to us, Ms. Subotic, this

24     photograph or, rather, this sketch and also the city map.  What does this

25     show?

Page 39349

 1        A.   In order to see what the actual trajectory of the shell was, we

 2     looked at the sketch a moment ago and we placed it on the azimuth of the

 3     wall of the gym that is 207 degrees, according to figure 107, and when it

 4     is placed that way, then this kind of sketch as drawn by the Bosnian

 5     investigators, we clearly see that direction north is wrong, by 50

 6     degrees at that.  As they drew it here, the trajectory should be from the

 7     west or, rather, 270 degrees.  That is what is shown here.  That is what

 8     this sketch of the scene itself looks like in reality.

 9             The trajectory that they marked as 50 degrees is 3, and then

10     direction north is like on any other map.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, you are on your feet.

12             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, it's not clear to me what was the bases

13     that the direction north was wrong.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, that may be a question for cross-examination,

15     Mr. Weber.

16             Please proceed.

17             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  At the same time, of course, Mr. Lukic if Mr. Weber

19     doesn't understand it, there is a risk that others wouldn't understand it

20     either, and it's your witness.  I certainly would not be discouraged by

21     exploring the matter further.

22             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   So, Ms. Subotic, how did you compare that north from the sketch

24     to this north that you marked as north?

25        A.   On Google Earth, we determined the exact direction of the wall of

Page 39350

 1     the gym as depicted here in the sketch of the scene.  And then we placed

 2     that wall on the map, and then had the north been determined correctly,

 3     it would have been vertical as north usually is on a map, and as we can

 4     see, it is 50 degrees to the left.  Of course, we measured that.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Are you saying that what we see here, this map

 6     is, in fact, Google Earth?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, this is a map of Sarajevo but

 8     we measured on Google Earth what it was.  First we measured it and placed

 9     it there.  It's the same on Google Earth, and it's the same on the map of

10     Sarajevo.  The north is the same orientation.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.  I just wanted to clarify that.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  And I have another question.  As we find the school

13     now in Google Earth or, rather, as you found it now, is that exactly

14     oriented in the same way as the school was at the time?  Did you verify

15     that?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, on the spot.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  But on the spot, you couldn't see how it was 20

18     years ago, can you?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not that but it was restored as it

20     had been.  I mean, the gym is oriented the same way and it looks the same

21     way it looked before.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  That's exactly what I was trying to find out.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Could we look at the previous figure that showed

24     the north as marked by the investigator and the line of descent of the

25     shell.  And before we do that can we note that this rectangle that is on

Page 39351

 1     this Google Earth the long side is facing towards the north and the short

 2     side -- yeah.  It's -- the long side is on the left side and the short

 3     side is at the bottom and the top.  Can we make a mental note of that.

 4     And can we then see the other map.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you assist, Mr. Lukic, to give us the right

 6     pages and numbers.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  In English, it's page 171 and in

 8     B/C/S 167.  And that's figure 106.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Now, on this one, it looks to me as if the longer

10     side of the wall is longitudinal instead of almost perpendicular, unlike

11     the one on Google Earth.  Am I right or wrong?

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Thank you.

14             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Ms. Subotic, on this sketch of the scene, is the entire school

16     depicted or the -- where the pump was?  What can you tell us now?

17        A.   Are we talking about 106?

18        Q.   Yes.

19        A.   This is the room where the pump was and where the incident

20     occurred.

21        Q.   Just a moment, please.  This lower wall at the bottom of the

22     sketch, how does it relate to the external wall of the school?

23        A.   The angle is 207, yes.  That is the longitudinal part of the gym

24     but viewed from the other side.

25        Q.   In order for this to be clearer to us --

Page 39352

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Now we could not hear

 2     either one of the speakers at the same time.

 3             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   I'm just going ask you now what you established finally.  Who

 5     fired that shell?

 6        A.   These are two questions, but --

 7        Q.   Tell us what did you establish?

 8        A.   We established that the trajectory is shorter than established by

 9     the Bosnian investigators on two bases.  On the basis of north and the

10     erroneous determination on the basis of what was on the belt course and

11     the wall.  So this angle is about 30 degrees, not 63 degrees.  We dealt

12     with that in detail here and we established first and foremost that the

13     trajectory is about 230, 240 degrees.  And we also came to the conclusion

14     that it was a charge that was probably the basic charge in view of the

15     traces that we found on the spot in terms of the shape of the stabilizer

16     and the deformities on it and we established that most probably.  I

17     already said it was 230, 240 degrees and then this is between 300 and 450

18     metres and the shell is 120.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

20             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, maybe if we can ask the witness to be

21     more precise in her language.  "We found on the spot," and I'm not sure

22     if then she is referring to the file she looked at or her visit.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, are you able to -- I understand Mr. Weber

24     just to get information from what the basis of the answer is rather than

25     to challenge anything at this moment but he may need that in order to

Page 39353

 1     prepare for his cross-examination.

 2             Could you please clarify the issue.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] So, you've heard my colleague Mr. Weber so could

 5     you please tell us.

 6        A.   Of course, we could not material evidence on the spot because we

 7     arrived 15 years later or 10 years later but I talked about the evidence

 8     from the photo documentation, primarily the stabilizer that in the photo

 9     documentation we can find I mean, this document here number 1 and we see

10     typical deformities that are due to the stabilizer being in the blast

11     wave for a longer period of time.  That is 120 on the right side.  And it

12     is contained in the photo documentation in terms of this sketch and

13     everything else.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I -- could you explain what you mean by

15     "deformities that are due to the stabilizer being in the blast wave for a

16     longer period of time."

17             What does that exactly mean?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Actually, this is what it is.  If

19     you look at this stabilizer, you see that it was deformed, that it is

20     spreading out.  It's not that the fins are deformed.  You see here on the

21     left, it's a very good picture.  You know, we call this flowering in our

22     professional line of work.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  I've got nothing on my screen which shows any tail

24     fin at this moment.

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

Page 39354

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 120 on the right-hand side.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Picture 120.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  It's 177, B/C/S, and 182 in English.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Could we enlarge especially the right

 5     photograph because that's apparently what the witness refers to.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Now, we now look at this tail fin or

 8     stabilizer fine but what I'd like to know to exactly understand what you

 9     meant by -- when you said that "these deformities are due to the

10     stabilizer being in the blast wave for a longer period of time."

11             What do you mean exactly by that?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mean the deformity of the central

13     part of the stabilizer.  The main one here on the top that was deformed

14     in this way so it looks like the petal of a flower.  It was destroyed in

15     that way.  This can only happen in one way, this way.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But you still have not answered my question.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I thought I did.  Let's

18     try to do it again?

19             JUDGE ORIE:  What does it mean that the stabilizer has been in

20     the blast wave for a longer period of time.

21             First of all, what exactly is the blast wave?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A blast wave occurs after an

23     explosion.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is the product of combustion and

Page 39355

 1     that moves at a certain speed.  That's what I'm talking about.  High

 2     temperatures and so on.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, it has been the blast wave for a longer period

 4     of time.  Longer than what?  I mean, what's the difference between in the

 5     blast wave for a short period of time or a long period of time?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After any explosion a blast wave

 7     continues and that is not what we are discussing now.  We are discussing

 8     the following, that the position of the flight of the shell was such that

 9     when the stabilizer left, it went in the direction of the trajectory.

10     And since the descent angle was big, it spent a lot of time in these

11     gases that are very fast and very hot, and that is how this phenomenon

12     occurred.  In professional terms, we call that flowering.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I see that and how is that different if the

14     trajectory is - let me see - is a short one?  When is it short, when is

15     it longer?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It spends less time when the angles

17     of descent are smaller.  When they're not like this one, which was

18     probably almost 80 degrees.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I still do not -- I do understand that a shell

20     explodes and that creates a blast wave, which affects the fin, which is

21     at the end of the explosion.  What I do not yet understand is why at a

22     steeper angle of descent compared to a less steep angle of descent, what

23     the difference is in the time the tail-fin is in that blast wave?

24             I just don't understand that yet.  If could you explain that to

25     me, I would appreciate.

Page 39356

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The stabilizer spend ascertain

 2     amount of time that is not defined and it depends on the speed on the

 3     charge and the angle of descent.  In this case, the only possibility was,

 4     it is so concluded, that it arrived at a very large angle of descent so

 5     it remained there and it was basically thrown vertically upwards and that

 6     is the only way in which this deformation could take place.  It depends

 7     on the speed and we've already seen examples --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Earlier you said it depends on the angle of descent,

 9     and you said it was the deformation.  Now you are introducing new

10     elements, that is, where it is found, which is, for me, the same as

11     deformation.  And you also now, the charge and the -- what did you say? -

12     the speed of the charge is included as well.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My understanding was that you had

14     asked me what determines this position of the stabilizer in relation to

15     the time that it spends in this blast wave so that is why I gave a more

16     complex answer.

17             In this case, we concluded that the only possible way of having

18     such a deformity is that the projectile arrived at a very big angle of

19     descent, so then after it was thrown, it continued his trajectory

20     vertically upwards and in this way, spent enough time there in order to

21     have this kind of product in the blast wave.  And then, of course, when

22     it reached a certain height, it fell where it fell, where it was found,

23     where they found it, rather, the Bosnian investigators, on the other side

24     of the wall.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  I -- I -- I hear a new explanation.  That is, that

Page 39357

 1     the time in which the tail-fin spent during flight is what you said was

 2     the time it was in the blast wave.

 3             Is that well understood?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Earlier you told us that the blast wave was created

 6     by the explosion, which is after the trajectory of the projectile has

 7     ended and exploded upon impact.

 8             I have difficulties in reconciling the two answers, but if you

 9     could explain, please do; otherwise, we'll move on.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't see that -- I don't see

11     anything that is contrary in the two answers.  If you tell me explicitly

12     what it is that is unclear, I will be glad to answer.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We'll move on.

14             Mr. Lukic.

15             MR. LUKIC:  Just for the record, Your Honour, on page 61, line 4,

16     I was just informed that interpreters could not hear any of us, either me

17     or Ms. Subotic, and there, I asked whether the wall that we saw on figure

18     106 in which position comparing to the outer wall, the lower wall on the

19     bottom of this sketch.  And Ms. Subotic replied on that.  I can ask

20     again.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  I think Mr. Weber would highly appreciate that.

22             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   So, Ms. Subotic, could we -- should we go back or do you know it?

24     Picture 106, that wall, at the bottom, how is it relative to the outside

25     wall?

Page 39358

 1        A.   It has the same azimuth as the outside part of the gym.  207

 2     degrees.

 3        Q.   Thank you.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, we're close to the time where we take

 5     another break, so if you could finish within two minutes from now and

 6     then we'll take a break.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 8        Q.   [Interpretation] You gave an answer but I don't think it was

 9     clear.  You mentioned 300 to 450 metres.

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   What did you mean to say and what does that indicate, from which

12     positions could it have been fired?

13        A.   It shows it was fired from BH army positions.  I said the angle

14     was 237, and there's 300 to 450 metres distance to the location of fire,

15     and the calibre of the shell was 120 millimetres and that was never in

16     dispute.

17             MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... good time for me

18     to have a break.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  We take a break.

20             The witness may follow the usher.

21             We resume at quarter to 2.00.

22                           [The witness stands down]

23                           --- Recess taken at 1.23 p.m.

24                           --- On resuming at 1.48 p.m.

25                           [The witness takes the stand]

Page 39359

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, Mr. Lukic, I would have one

 2     question.

 3             We earlier talked about the measurements.  You remember the 320

 4     metres, the height of the wall, and the 575, which was the hypotenuse of

 5     the equation.

 6             Could you tell us -- you said that it's wrong.  How much is it

 7     wrong?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It seems to me it's 30, 35 per cent

 9     error relative to the basic measure.  We did not make our conclusions

10     based on these erroneous results.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  35 per cent, you're saying?  Could you make that

12     calculation for us and come back.  That is, the 4.70 as one of the legs;

13     the 3.20 for the other leg; and would you then also calculate what would

14     be the result if the 3 metre 20s, would, slightly off, well, let's say 3

15     metre, 10.  Could you then tell us if you could please do that and come

16     back tomorrow to us to tell us whether the difference is 35 per cent --

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly.  Although I think we've

18     provided it.  But let's not waste any more time now I'll prepare it for

19     tomorrow.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  That is, 320 or 310 vertically; 470 horizontally.

21     And then you tell us what in these two options the hypotenuse would be

22     how much percentage it differs from the 5.75 that is indicated on the

23     map [Overlapping speakers] ...

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ... I will

25     it for tomorrow.

Page 39360

 1             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 3        Q.   [Interpretation] So we already have on the screen, 1D5498.  Could

 4     we see page 184 in English and 179 in B/C/S.  It's the shelling incident

 5     in Livanjska Street, 8 November 1994.  It's not in the indictment.

 6             The Prosecution presented evidence in this case, such as the

 7     official report of the police, P621, then P860, and P855, which is the

 8     statement of Mr. Sabljica.

 9             This part of your report begins here.

10             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need picture 124 which, in

11     English, is on page 188, and in B/C/S, it's page 183.

12        Q.   Just as a reference, this photograph was taken from a video,

13     which is 65 ter 1D05920, and when you look at the film, you almost can't

14     see this because there are only three frames at 4 minutes, 24 seconds.

15             Ms. Subotic, we will not play this movie now because it's very

16     hard to see this fraction of a second, but this is a still from that

17     video.

18             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we get that picture back on the

19     screen [Previous translation continues] ... 1D5498.  Thank you.

20        Q.   Would you tell us, Ms. Subotic, what is characteristic in this

21     incident.

22        A.   First of all, this incident was interesting because the inspector

23     who made the on-site investigation gave no access to UNPROFOR.  The

24     UNPROFOR reacted, and then the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina ordered

25     that the investigation be repeated the next day, which was unusual.

Page 39361

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see on the screens --

 2     and we should like to tender that video.  That's 1D52 -- sorry.  That's

 3     1D05920.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 5             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, we have no objection to the admission of

 6     it, but we would like to view it if we could possibly do it overnight

 7     just to make sure what's being tendered and what clip is a part of it.  I

 8     would also note for the -- there's two shellings involved here.  And for

 9     the first shelling, not all the investigative materials are admitted, so

10     I can also discuss that with Mr. Lukic and probably report back in the

11     morning and see what can be tendered in all with respect to the incident.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Lukic, I take it that you are agreeable to

13     further discuss the matter with Mr. Weber.

14             MR. LUKIC:  I do.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, meanwhile.  Perhaps we MFI it for

16     the time being.

17             Madam Registrar.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 1D05920 receives exhibit number D1261.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  And is marked for identification.  But I think we

20     have some problem with the ... yes, please proceed.

21             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.  Can we have on our screens now 1D01337,

22     please.

23        Q.   [Interpretation] We see a document from UNPROFOR dated 5

24     November -- 9 November 1994 relating to this incident.

25             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we look at page 9 in English

Page 39362

 1     because it's a sketch.

 2        Q.   Do you know what this picture shows?

 3        A.   On this map with markings, we see possible ranges, directions and

 4     possible distances depending on charge.  And, of course, we see the

 5     separation line, but I can say immediately that based on material

 6     evidence, this was done for the shell M74, 82-millimetres and on the

 7     ground, tail-fins were found from the shell that was M681, 82

 8     millimetres.  French investigators did this after discussion with Bosnian

 9     investigators because they stated that the shell had been fired from the

10     Bosnian side and there was a serious discussion about the fact that

11     UNPROFOR investigators used wrong tables and they were told that in the

12     Yugoslav army there was no 82-millimetre shell with that charge, which is

13     incorrect.  That shell is M681, and it's on the same firing tables as

14     shell M74.

15        Q.   Can you mark on this map the separation line?

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we do so, your answer reads:  "French

17     investigators did this after discussion with Bosnian investigators

18     because they stated," who stated?  Did the French investigators state

19     that the shell had been fired from [Overlapping speakers] ...

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Bosnian investigators complained to

21     the French investigators that they had used wrong firing tables, and we

22     have no shells with four charges, which is not true.  And after this

23     agreement with the Bosnian investigators, the French investigators made

24     this.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  The only thing I'm do something try to find out is

Page 39363

 1     to whom you refer when you say "they."

 2             Do I understand that the French claimed that or was it the

 3     Bosnian themselves that claimed that the shell was fired from the

 4     Bosnian-held territory?  Is that what you are telling us?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] French investigators claimed that

 6     the shell had been fired from Bosnian territory, and CSB investigators

 7     objected.

 8             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... that answers my

 9     question.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, I believe that there was going to be a

12     marking on the image on the screen.  I just would ask maybe we rotate it

13     to the way we're usually used to seeing Sarajevo which I believe would be

14     90 degrees counterclockwise, if I'm correct.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  If it we look at it, then we'll see.  Because it's

16     not extremely clear.

17             But could we turn it counterclockwise for 90 degrees.  Is this --

18             MR. WEBER:  I would have been wrong.  We need to rotate.  It's

19     the other way.  Sorry about that.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could we now move it 180 degrees in whatever

21     direction.

22             Okay.  There we are.  Let's have a look at it.

23             Yes, please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I would need help from

25     usher.

Page 39364

 1        Q.   [Interpretation] Could you please mark the separation line.

 2        A.   This?

 3        Q.   Yes, yes.

 4        A.   [Marks]

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Where are the Serb positions within these lines?  Can

 6     you mark them.

 7        A.   Serb positions are to the right of this upper line.

 8        Q.   So the distance marked here is 4350.  You see it at the top.

 9     What charge would it correspond to?

10        A.   That depends which of these two shells we're talking about, but I

11     have to say immediately the investigators determined it was 0 plus 3,

12     that is to say, the third charge and they determined the distance of 2475

13     metres.  I can check.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you, apart from telling us the

15     conclusion [Overlapping speakers] ...

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ... yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Apart from it being a 0 plus 3 charge, how they

18     defined it was a 0 plus 3 charge.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, they did not explain it

20     in any way.  They just put it on the sketch where they determined angle

21     of descent.  They wrote 0 plus 3.  They provided that range and if they

22     hadn't provided the range we wouldn't even know which shell they were

23     analysing.  But then we determined it was -- they said it was M74, 82

24     millimetres.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

Page 39365

 1             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 2             And in the same document, we need page 3 in both versions.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Do you tender this marked --

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 6             Madam Registrar, the map marked additionally by this witnesses in

 7     blue.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Will receive exhibit number D1262, Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  But we should perhaps state for the record that

13     the five short lines were put by the witness indicating Serb positions.

14             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

15             So now we need page 3 in both versions so we have both B/C/S and

16     English on the screen.  And it's 1D1337.

17        Q.   [Interpretation] Did you make any measurements or investigations

18     of this incident?

19        A.   We certainly investigated based on the documentation the photo

20     documentation and other technical data that was recorded using, of

21     course, all the statements in order to arrive at the conclusion as to

22     from where, which type of projectile, from where it was fired, and the

23     most probable angle of descent, as well as from which direction.

24             The illustration, the depiction of our investigation is shown on

25     picture 34 [as interpreted].

Page 39366

 1        Q.   Could you just check the number of the picture?  We have 34 on

 2     the record.

 3        A.   That's picture 134, a sketch made on the map, and it illustrates

 4     in which position for the determined azimuth where separation lines and

 5     the ranges discussed by Bosnian investigators relative to the location of

 6     the incident.

 7        Q.   What was found on that occasion?  Did the stabiliser embed

 8     itself?

 9        A.   Yes, it did.  And according to the document which is now before

10     us, the crater was 3 centimetre deep.  It was partially embedded and that

11     was probably the reason why Bosnian investigators wrote that it was 0

12     plus 3.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

14             MR. WEBER:  At this time, it's getting confusing as to which of

15     the shellings we're referring to.  There's two shellings that happened

16     two hours apart in this event and I'm not really clear on the embedding

17     and which one -- which shelling she's saying it's a part of.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was referring to ...

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. ...

20             Yes, please continue.

21             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Just so that I would not answer the question, Ms. Subotic, what

23     is shown in your sketch, your picture 134, was that the shelling at 1525

24     or the shelling at 1730?

25        A.   It's about 1535 in Livanjska Street, number 26.

Page 39367

 1        Q.   If we looked at the previous sketch from the French document,

 2     what was the charge?  What was the charge that it could be fired with

 3     from Serbian positions?

 4        A.   As far as I remember that sketch, the only possible charge would

 5     be six.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 7             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, again, it's not clear to me.  It wasn't

 8     established what the last document, what shelling.  Was that the earlier

 9     or later shelling.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  When you referred to the sketch and the only

11     possible charge, which of the two shells did you have in mind?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I meant the sketch that I marked a

13     moment ago made by the French investigators, and it was admitted into

14     evidence, if I understood well.  I thought that was what I was asked

15     about.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  That document, as far as I remember, doesn't refer

17     to which of the two shells it was.  The report that our attention is

18     drawn to talks about shell number one and shell number two.  What I'd

19     like to know is whether you had on your mind still number one, because I

20     think that's what you earlier referred to, and -- or whether it's the

21     second one.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, all this time we have been

23     discussing only the first shell.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  That's the one with the 3 centimetres -- 3

25     centimetres, what is it called again, the depth of the crater.

Page 39368

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Depth of the crater, yes.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Please -- I would be inclined to say please proceed,

 3     but, Mr. Lukic, I'm looking at the clock.  Please do not proceed.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  I need one more question and then we can move to

 5     Markale tomorrow.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  That's fine.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 9             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   In this document that was uploaded obviously after I had

11     underlined something, using the yellow colour, the French came to the

12     conclusion that perhaps the most suspicious zone was under -- the most

13     suspected area was under the control of the BiH.  What is your

14     understanding of this and do you agree?

15        A.   I agree and we reached that conclusion as well, after our

16     analysis.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... tender this

19     1D01337.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

21             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, our records indicate that a copy of this

22     document has already been admitted under D185, if counsel could please

23     check.

24             MR. LUKIC:  I will.  Thank you.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  We'll deal with it first thing if whether or

Page 39369

 1     not you again what may be the same document.

 2             Ms. Subotic, we'll adjourn for the day.  We'd like to see you

 3     back tomorrow morning at 9.30, and I again instruct you that you should

 4     not speak or communicate in whatever way with whomever it is about your

 5     testimony, whether already given or still to be given.  And you may now

 6     follow the usher.

 7             No -- no loud speaking, Mr. Mladic.

 8                           [The witness stands down]

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume tomorrow,

10     Tuesday, the 29th of September, 9.30 in the morning in this same

11     courtroom 1.  Oh, 10.00 in the morning.  Oh, I'm sorry, yes, that's due

12     to conflicts of scheduling with other Chambers.  Tomorrow we'll start at

13     10.00.

14             And could the Victims and Witness Section communicate this to the

15     witness that we have half-an-hour-later start time.

16             We adjourn.

17                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.19 p.m.,

18                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 29th day of

19                           September, 2015, at 10.00 a.m.