Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 39370

 1                           Tuesday, 29 September 2015

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 10.05 a.m.

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

 6     courtroom.

 7             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

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

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             I do understand that the Defence wanted to raise preliminary

12     matters but not necessarily now immediately, so I suggest that we first

13     continue with the examination of the present witness.

14             Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.

15                           [The witness takes the stand]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Ms. Subotic.

17             THE WITNESS:  Good morning.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, I again remind you that you're

19     still bound by the solemn declaration that you've given at the beginning

20     of your testimony.  Mr. Lukic will soon resume his examination-in-chief.

21             I have one question.  I invited you to yesterday to do some

22     calculations.  Have you done them?  Could they be given to

23     Madam Registrar so that they can be copied and that the parties can be

24     provided with it, and the Chamber will have a look at it as well.  Thank

25     you.  Or are they copied already?

Page 39371

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Then could they be copied and distributed among the

 3     parties.

 4             Mr. Lukic, if you are ready, please proceed.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Yes, I am.  Thank you.

 6                           WITNESS:  ZORICA SUBOTIC [Resumed]

 7                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 8                           Examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]

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

10        A.   Good morning.

11        Q.   Today when we'll begin with your finding regarding Markale I

12     and II; that's 1D05496.

13             We see the report on our screens.  Because of the long

14     introduction and your CV, we will move to page 133 immediately.  That's

15     where the report begins.  In B/C/S.  And, in English, it's page 130.

16             MR. LUKIC:  Can we have page 3-0 in English and 3-3 in B/C/S,

17     please.

18             From some reason, Your Honours, this report does not have figures

19     in English version.  We couldn't change it since CLSS did it that way.

20     So I will always have to have B/C/S version at the same time to be able

21     to follow.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll do our utmost best to -- sometimes it's even

23     an advantage, it seems, to the left the figure or the sketch, and to the

24     right the text.  But we'll -- we'll try to do everything as good as we

25     can.

Page 39372

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Ms. Subotic, would you tell us, in your view, what is

 3     characteristic of the incident involving the explosion on the Markale

 4     market on the 5th of February, 1994?

 5        A.   The first thing we noticed when studying the documents related to

 6     this incident was that there was a great discrepancy in the number of

 7     fatalities and the injured compared to the explosive power of one

 8     120-millimetre shell.  That was one thing.  Also, it was highly unusual

 9     that in this area, which is rather large, the shell had fallen,

10     unfortunately, or in whichever way, in the place where the concentration

11     of people was the highest.  We wondered how that was possible.

12     Professionally and technically speaking, when we turned to the incident

13     of the 28th August of the following year, it was practically impossible

14     for the same thing to occur again.  That was the first thing that struck

15     us.  And another thing that was astonishing was such a large number of

16     people killed and injured, whereas the investigation was carried out very

17     unprofessionally, very inaccurately, with many, many flaws.  It was

18     simply amazing.

19        Q.   Would you tell us why you believe this investigation was carried

20     out so inaccurately with many mistakes.

21        A.   First of all, it is strange that nobody noticed - and I must say

22     the traces on the asphalt were not immediately visible - in the place

23     where the stabiliser was embedded there was a large amount of rubble,

24     which is practically impossible.

25             The second unprofessional thing is that CSB investigators when

Page 39373

 1     they arrived were unable to find the place where the tail-fin was

 2     embedded and when we looked we realised there was a reason for that

 3     because that place is atypical and it does not have the normal features

 4     of a place where a stabiliser is embedded in its full length.

 5             Another unprofessional thing is that all the investigators were

 6     trying to determine the angle of descent using a method which does not

 7     exist as a method in our profession, and even when it is used, it was

 8     used in a way which is completely impermissible.  That crater was dug

 9     over and over again, the stabiliser was put in it many times over - we

10     don't know exactly what they did - Captain Verdy and the others did it,

11     but nobody made the effort to determine the minimal possible angle, and

12     the minimal angle is the angle which makes it possible for the shell to

13     come to the place where it was activated without striking first any of

14     the obstacles around.

15             I can go on enumerating, but these would be the most important

16     points that I remember at this moment.  Probably in the course of further

17     discussion I will remember more details.

18        Q.   All right.  Thank you.  Let us look at figure 66 now in your

19     report.  It's on the English page 63; and in B/C/S, it's 92.

20             For reference, this still was taken from P01899 at the time

21     sequence 11 minutes, 09 seconds.

22             MR. LUKIC:  We ... and ... [Interpretation] Yes, up to 11

23     minutes, 10 seconds, so we can see these 2 seconds on the screen.  I will

24     ask my colleague Mr. Ivetic to play it.

25                           [Video-clip played]

Page 39374

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   When you stop the video, it's always a little blurry.  That's why

 3     we are using figure 66 from your report.

 4             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] So could we have that picture back.

 5     Thank you.

 6        Q.   What do we see on this video?  Have you already explained?

 7        A.   Yes, that's what I was saying.  Nobody noticed that in the spot

 8     where the explosion happened and the stabiliser embedded itself into the

 9     surface there was a mess of rubble which is completely unnatural there.

10     It suggests it was placed there on purpose, that an explosion happened --

11     if an explosion had happened there and no one had brought anything, then

12     the blast wave would have dispersed all of this and cleaned up the spot.

13             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let us look at figure 69 on page 64

14     in English and 95 in B/C/S.

15        Q.   What do we see here?

16        A.   A typical trace of a tail-fin of a 120-millimetre shell that

17     landed there at a playground there in Dobrinja the previous day, and this

18     is a typical example of what a crater should look like, and the crater at

19     Markale should have looked the same way.  You can see the whole tail-fin.

20     And around it is the material that was pushed out when the tail-fin

21     embedded itself into the centre.

22        Q.   What is the surface like in this place compared to the one at

23     Markale?

24        A.   It's the same kind.  Below there is gravel and it's covered with

25     asphalt on top.

Page 39375

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Could Mr. Lukic please repeat the number.

 2             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In English, it's page 82.  We need

 3     figure 88.  The English, page 82, and B/C/S, 123.

 4        Q.   As the caption says, it's a stall as shown in the report of

 5     Berko Zecevic and the police report.

 6             Does this stall, in terms of appearance look the same as the

 7     stalls on the Markale market?

 8        A.   No.  And that's one of the crucial things I omitted to mention

 9     before.  This stall is completely different in shape and dimension

10     compared to the stalls that we see on video recordings and are covered in

11     this report.  In my opinion, investigators should have studied it with

12     great precision and accuracy because it's very important in order to

13     determine whether it was possible for the shell to descend in that place

14     without being activated first by any of the other stalls.  That's the

15     stall you see first on the pictures, not this one, which is completely

16     different in shape and size.

17        Q.   Could we now look at picture 3 from your report.  In English,

18     it's page 31, and in B/C/S, 35.  Just as a reference this photograph

19     is --

20             MR. LUKIC:  I just wanted to give a reference.  Maybe my

21     colleague [Overlapping speakers] ...

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber wanted to intervene already before you do

23     that.

24             MR. WEBER:  We might be thinking along the same lines.  I noticed

25     that there are a lot of different photographs from potentially different

Page 39376

 1     dates throughout the report, and already I think we could be assisted if

 2     there's some question posed to the witness or some indication as to what

 3     date or what the source of the image is when going through it.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, Mr. Weber asks your specific attention

 5     for the time-frames.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  This picture we can find in video

 7     marked as P01899 at time-frame 4 minutes, 50 seconds, and video is taken

 8     during the evacuation of wounded from this market.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.  Mr. Weber is --

10             MR. WEBER:  It would suffice just to say on such and such a

11     date [Overlapping speakers] ...

12             MR. LUKIC:  5th of February, 1994.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  At the same time, it's good to know exactly

14     what still is presented here.

15             Please proceed.

16             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

17        Q.   [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, what do we see on the photograph

18     taken from this video?

19        A.   In addition to the people participating in the evacuation, we see

20     the stall, and we see a row of stalls that were photographed from the

21     side and the photograph 88 was also taken from the side.  And you can see

22     clearly that the stall is of a different shape and these metal supports

23     are crossing on the stall, and in AutoCAD it was possible to measure

24     angles at which these supports cross and determine the size of the stall.

25     These measures are indicated on the picture.

Page 39377

 1        Q.   These numbers on the photograph, from what time are they?

 2        A.   My colleague and I added these numbers, and they represent angles

 3     at which these lateral supports are to the surface of the stall.

 4             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now look at P868.  It is a

 5     police file about the incident.  It is already in evidence.  First we

 6     need page 27 in the B/C/S.  [In English] It's page 27 in English as well.

 7     We need the right page.  Yes.

 8        Q.   [Interpretation] In this report, we have included the work of

 9     Mr. Sabljica.  Can you see on this sketch the shape of the stall drawn by

10     the police?

11        A.   Yes.  We can see it in the lower left-hand side corner.  It is

12     the same dimension as presented in Mr. Berkovic's report.  During

13     examination in the Karadzic case, we asked him how come the sketches were

14     the same and Mr. Sabljica stated at the time - I think I even have a

15     transcript reference - that they simply took the sketch of the stall from

16     Mr. Zecevic.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Page 37 of the report, please.  It

19     contains Mr. Zecevic's report.

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  Page 8, line 10, it

21     should have been Mr. Zecevic's report.  The interpreter misspoke.

22             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   This comes from the same document as Mr. Zecevic's report.

24             Can we see the same stall and does it have the same shape as in

25     the police report.

Page 39378

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   So the starting point concerning the type and shape of the stall

 3     was the same in the police report and the report by Mr. Zecevic.  Are

 4     these dimensions correct?

 5        A.   They are not.  The shape is not accurate.  In our analysis, we

 6     had to accept that the width of the stall as well as its height was

 7     correct.  However, as we can see in figure 3, it is incorrect, because

 8     the stall has a different shape, making its dimensions different when it

 9     comes to the actual roof and surface, as well as the distance between the

10     edge of the roofing and the edge of the stall and so on and so forth.  It

11     impacts a number of other things.

12        Q.   We see that the roof is slanted on this sketch.  In real life,

13     were you able to ascertain that?

14        A.   In real terms, the roof is straight, as we can see in many stills

15     from the footage.  The best still is still number 11, taken from above.

16             In figure 3 we saw a moment ago, we can see that the roof is

17     straight.  We can also see it very well there.

18        Q.   Let us briefly look at figure 11.

19             MR. LUKIC:  It's -- yeah, we moved from another document.  It's

20     1D05496.

21                           [Defence counsel confer]

22             MR. LUKIC:  41 -- page 41 in B/C/S and 33 in English.

23        Q.   [Interpretation] Is this the roofing of the stalls the way it was

24     on the day of incident?

25        A.   They did look like this on the day of the incident, although this

Page 39379

 1     still is from an earlier period.  In any case, it looked like this.  This

 2     was taken before the incident, but I think there's also information in

 3     the report as to when the photograph was taken.

 4             Yes, it was published in the Glas Javnosti newspaper on the 13th

 5     of February, 2004.  We don't know when the photograph was taken though.

 6     What is important to mention is that we can clearly see in picture 3

 7     where we took the dimensions from that the roofing of the stalls is

 8     straight, level.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can I just ask for clarification.

10             Did you say, ma'am, this picture was taken on 13th of February,

11     2004?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I said that it was published in

13     the newspaper on the 13th of February, 2004 and that we do not know when

14     it was taken.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Well, it's not known when it was taken.  Okay.

16     Thank you so much.  Sorry, if we don't know when it was taken, how do we

17     come to the conclusion that it was taken before the incident?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was definitely taken before the

19     incident.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  No.  But to say definitely doesn't answer my

21     question.  How do you come to that conclusion?  You don't know when it

22     was taken.

23             MR. LUKIC:  Maybe we should see picture 14.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  No, no, no.  I need an answer to my question.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was certainly taken even before

Page 39380

 1     the war because it is a well-frequented market-place.  It certainly

 2     wasn't taken at the time of incident.  I told you the source that we

 3     relied on.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The source is published in 2004.  Thank you very

 5     much.  Certainly, definitely doesn't answer my question.

 6             You may proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I would still have a follow-up question.  The only

 8     reason I heard you say is that it's a frequented market.  Was it not

 9     frequented before the incident or was it not frequented after the

10     incident?  It's difficult to understand how a mere reference to being a

11     frequented market allows you to say it was before or after the incident.

12             Do you have a further explanation for that?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do.  All of the footage

14     taken during evacuation and at the time of incident indicates that most

15     of the stalls were empty.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness --

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is why --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, the issue was that you say definitely it

19     was before the incident, which then excludes the moment of the incident

20     itself and the explanation you gave is that it was a frequented market.

21     That allowed you to establish that time.

22             We do not understand how -- I'm speaking for myself.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  For all three of us.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  For all three of us.  We do not understand why a

25     mere reference to the market being frequented allows you to say, It must

Page 39381

 1     have been before February 1994 or after February 1994.

 2             If you have an explanation, please give it; if you don't have

 3     one, then we'll move on.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we look at the photograph, we

 5     can see that, apart from being full of people, it is also full of goods,

 6     flowers and other things, that we could not find on the footage taken at

 7     the time of the incident.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  You're moving away from what my question was.

 9     You're moving away from one of your previous answers.

10             Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.

11             MR. LUKIC:  Can we have picture number 14 on our screens.  It's

12     page 44 in B/C/S and 34 in English.

13             Just for the record, this picture comes from 65 ter number,

14     Prosecution number -- actually it's exhibit already.  P864.  We have time

15     stamp and date stamp on this video, 6th of February, 1994.

16        Q.   [Interpretation] Is this the layout of stalls that you found

17     reflected the situation at the time?

18        A.   No, it is not.  It does not match the information recorded in the

19     reports.

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

21     repeat the last sentence.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you repeat the last sentence of your answer

23     because the interpreters couldn't catch it.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The last sentence was this:  This

25     is the layout of stalls as at the time of incident, or the appearance of

Page 39382

 1     the stalls at the time of the incident.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The first sentence of your answer was just the

 3     contrary of it.  There you said, in answering Mr. Lukic's question:  "No,

 4     it is not, it does not match the information recorded in the reports."

 5             Which of the two is true?

 6             MR. LUKIC:  No, no, Your Honour.  You should ask which report.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No, I'm asking the witness.  Compare the two

 8     answers.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the first part of my answer, I

10     said that the shape of the stalls, as we can see it, does not reflect the

11     shape of the stalls reported by the CSB and Mr. Berko Zecevic in his

12     report.  However, this is the appearance and position of the stalls at

13     the time of incident.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  This whole issue was triggered by a difference in

16     phrasing the question and apparently how the question was understood.

17             Mr. Lukic, you didn't ask does what we find here match with what

18     we find in the reports.  You asked is this the layout of the stalls at

19     the time of the incident.  The witness said no.  Because she was thinking

20     in terms of whether it matches with the reports, which, of course, is

21     irrelevant but a different question.

22             Could we try to carefully listen to the language which is used

23     both in the question and when giving an answer, to be very precise in

24     phrasing your words.

25             Please proceed.

Page 39383

 1             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

 2        Q.   [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, did someone try to determine the

 3     minimal angle of descent in an attempt to discover what happened on the

 4     5th of February, 1994 at Markale?

 5        A.   Save for Captain Verdy and Major Russell, nobody else tried to

 6     determine the minimal angle.  The last day when the commission was set

 7     up, a minimal angle was determined.  It was an UN commission.  The angle

 8     was determined in relation to the UPI building but it is not an accurate

 9     minimal angle.

10        Q.   Thank you.  What about members of the CSB or Mr. Berko Zecevic?

11     Did they take interest in the damage to the stalls?

12        A.   No, they did not look into that, which is surprising as well.

13     Because we could see that the stalls were damaged.  However, that damage

14     does not fit with the traces that could have been caused by a shell or

15     the shell that was investigated at the place they recorded.

16        Q.   Did anyone tackle the stalls' damage?

17        A.   We did, quite extensively, and we raised that issue for the first

18     time in the Karadzic case when we were examining my colleague,

19     Mr. Berko Zecevic.

20             On that occasion, Mr. Zecevic marked another place of explosion,

21     which is in a street connecting Marsala Tita Street and Dzenetica Cikma

22     Street.  We provided that in our analysis.  Perhaps this is a good time

23     to say that there is a document in existence showing that on that day,

24     the 5th of February, the Military Observers of the UN drafted a report

25     indicating that there had been two explosions.

Page 39384

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, just one question.  The witness is now

 2     referring to testimony given by Mr. Zecevic in another case.  Is that in

 3     evidence before us so that we can consider that?

 4             MR. LUKIC:  I'm just trying to locate it.  It in this report,

 5     but --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But my question is whether what Mr. Zecevic

 7     said that he took another point of impact, if I understand well, than in

 8     the initial reports.

 9             Is that in evidence before us?

10             MR. LUKIC:  Can we have --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  No, could you first answer my question.

12             MR. LUKIC:  It's not in evidence yet.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  It's not in evidence.  Please proceed.

14             MR. LUKIC:  Can we have figure 94 from this report.  It's page

15     129 in B/C/S, and it's 84 in English.

16        Q.   [Interpretation] What can we see before us, Ms. Subotic?

17        A.   Before us is the figure we mentioned showing the second place of

18     explosion marked by my colleague, Mr. Berko Zecevic.  However on that

19     occasion he did not say that he investigated that spot.  He just stated

20     that it was the second place of explosion, the consequences of which may

21     be seen on the red stall on the left side.  Given the fact that this is a

22     footage frame, we can see that on the other side there are also shrapnel

23     marks on the rest of the stalls.  It is footnote 305.

24             MR. LUKIC:  And can we have 1D5685.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, the Chamber has great difficulties in

Page 39385

 1     hearing the evidence of a witness commenting on matters which we do not

 2     know about, so, therefore, the logical sequence is that in one way or

 3     another, but perhaps you're going to do that, now I do not know whether

 4     you do this under what rule you are doing this for us to admit this into

 5     evidence or that you just want to read a few lines.  We do not know.  But

 6     apparently you take us back to what the basis of the evidence of the

 7     witness here is.

 8             Please proceed.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  This is transcript from Karadzic trial, testimony of

10     Berko Zecevic.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I do understand.  This is, therefore, not in

12     evidence and if you want to tender that, we'll hear under what rule you

13     will do that.

14             MR. LUKIC:  I will just read one --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

16             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, I do have some trouble with the

17     possible transcript coming up in terms of the reference in the report, in

18     terms of page numbers and what's the scope of it.  So if counsel could

19     assist.  I don't know what portions he is going to direct to, but also if

20     he could clarify the full range of Mr. Zecevic's discussion.

21             MR. LUKIC:  It's page 11 in this document from line 17.  It

22     should respond to transcript page 12318.  So then it's the next page.

23     Sorry.  Page 12.  I will be able to locate it more precisely.  It's two

24     pages.  I've move on for now.  I'll turn back to this issue.  But I -- we

25     just want to hear from the Prosecution whether they accept or do not

Page 39386

 1     accept what Mr. Zecevic marked during Karadzic trial and what we have in

 2     front of us.

 3             MR. WEBER:  I really don't know what Mr. Lukic is doing right now

 4     to accept or not accept something.  So I mean, I'm kind of waiting to see

 5     where this goes.  Still, I would appreciate over the break if I could

 6     know what the full range of the intended reference here is in footnote

 7     306 of the report.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  We had the same issue a couple of days ago.  Do they

 9     accept what their witness said in previous trial or not?

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Is Mr. Zecevic their witness in this case?

11             MR. LUKIC:  No.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So what you're asking is whether they accept

13     what a Prosecution witness in another case said --

14             MR. LUKIC:  They were on the list but they never brought him, so

15     he didn't testify in this case.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Therefore he is not a witness in this case.  At

17     least he didn't appear as a witness.

18             Now, there are various levels of admitting.  Is it that Mr. Weber

19     accepts that he said what he's recorded as having said but then, of

20     course, he needs to know exactly what portion you want to address.

21             The second issue is whether Mr. Weber accepts for the truth of

22     its content what Mr. Zecevic said.  And then, again, Mr. Weber, I take

23     it, needs to know exactly what lines, what words you are referring to.

24             So, therefore, I think the question as it stands now, it's not a

25     great surprise that Mr. Weber has not yet committed himself to any of it.

Page 39387

 1             Mr. Weber.

 2             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour has correctly identified the reasons and

 3     also just as probably the Chamber is aware, this could get quite

 4     complicated because is he another expert and there might be many section

 5     of transcript that might relate to a given issue.  So if counsel could

 6     identify even the topic, what it relates to, things like that would be

 7     great.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  In this -- I can, actually it would help if my

10     colleague --

11             MR. WEBER:  If we could do that during the break just so it's out

12     of the presence of the witness that would be appreciated too.

13             MR. LUKIC:  What's the secret.  She read it.  She has it in her

14     report.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, first of all, where are we looking?  What

16     footnote?

17             MR. LUKIC:  Page 23, line 6.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's have a look.

19             MR. LUKIC:  And until page 24, line 22 [Overlapping speakers] ...

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Is that in the footnote?

21             MR. LUKIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ... footnote 305 and 306.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Footnote 305, 306, where a reference is given.

23     Mr. Weber.

24             MR. WEBER:  And I read the footnote 306 to be saying transcript

25     page T12318 from line 17 to T1230, which doesn't make any sense.  So I

Page 39388

 1     don't know what the range is.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  2-0 it is probably a miss [Overlapping speakers] ...

 3             MR. WEBER:  That's why I'm asking.  I don't know what the range

 4     is.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  The range is 12320, the last one.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  I suggest that you sit together and see -- to take

 7     out all errors and see whether you agree on what the reference is to

 8     exactly to.  Because, Mr. Lukic, if I understand you well, you allow for

 9     the possibility that there are mistakes in the --

10             MR. LUKIC:  Translation.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  In the translation.  Okay.  Then you take the

12     original next to it and see whether we find different figures there.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic, could you please --

14     could -- [Overlapping speakers] ...

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

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Could you please give the page again because I

17     think the stenographer missed it.

18             MR. LUKIC:  It starts from 12318 up to 12320 and e-court pages

19     23, line 6 up to e-court page 24, line 22.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  If counsel would sort out these matters, know

21     exactly what the one is referring to and how the other should understand

22     that, then we'll hear after the break.

23             Before we take the break, Madam Registrar, could you just give me

24     the material that you received from the witness to be copied.  Could you

25     just give it to me for a second.

Page 39389

 1             Yes.  I see it's a long page.  It's -- it looks like this.  I

 2     would have expected one single calculation which fits on one line,

 3     explaining what it is.  We'll have a look at, but this certainly is not

 4     just what I asked for.  Apparently, there's a lot more.  But perhaps what

 5     I asked for may be in it as well, and then we'll identify that.

 6             Madam Registrar, could you please copy it and have it distributed

 7     among the parties and for the Chamber over the break, or perhaps even

 8     during the break.

 9             We take a break.  Witness, you may follow the usher.

10                           [The witness stands down]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  And we resume at 25 minutes past 11.00.

12                           --- Recess taken at 11.01 a.m.

13                           --- On resuming at 11.28 a.m.

14             MR. LUKIC:  Your Honours, maybe we should discuss before the

15     witness is with us.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.  Yes, what should we discuss?

17             MR. LUKIC:  Regarding this photo signed by Berko Zecevic.  First

18     we want to ask the Prosecution whether they stipulate what Mr. Zecevic

19     marked on that photograph as one of the places of explosion or not.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  That's two questions.

21             MR. LUKIC:  Mm-hm.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Do they stipulate that's what he marked as and the

23     second is then does the Prosecution accept that to be in accordance with

24     the truth.  That's I think the two questions -- unless you would -- I

25     mean, the first one is --

Page 39390

 1             Mr. Weber.

 2             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I believe counsel is oversimplifying the

 3     issue that we have right in front of us.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  So you do not stipulate.

 5             MR. WEBER:  Yes, but if I could address the matter, please.

 6     Thank you, Your Honours.

 7             What we have is a Defence expert report which in paragraph 74

 8     characterises and describes the testimony of another witness that has not

 9     testified before the Tribunal and a photo that they've marked in a

10     different proceeding.

11             MR. LUKIC:  Before the Tribunal?

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, perhaps before the Tribunal but not for this

13     Chamber of the Tribunal --

14             MR. WEBER:  Correct.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  -- and in this case.

16             Yes, let me just summarise that you said a witness who did not

17     testify before the Tribunal, you meant to say a witness who did not

18     testify in this case before the Tribunal.

19             Please proceed.

20             MR. WEBER:  Now, in reviewing the specific matter that comes up

21     here, I reviewed transcript pages 12316, line 12, through 12320, line 22.

22     What we see, what I found in that transcript portion is a discussion --

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Weber, which transcript.

24             MR. WEBER:  Karadzic.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Karadzic transcript.

Page 39391

 1             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honours.  Of the Karadzic transcript

 2     of Mr. Zecevic and what he found in that is a discussion of a topic which

 3     eventually led to the display of an image that was not a part of

 4     Mr. Zecevic's report but from some other source and then Mr. Zecevic was

 5     put questions and asked to comment upon that photograph.

 6             In looking at that further, I went back to our present expert

 7     report paragraph 74 and I noticed a number of things that, I believe,

 8     makes it complicated for the Prosecution to simply agree or not agree on

 9     something.  Just to give a quick example:  In paragraph 74, Ms. Subotic

10     states:  "He" - referring to Mr. Zecevic - "also presented the thesis

11     that the damage could have been caused by fragments which flew like a

12     boomerang."  Well, in going to the related transcript portion on this

13     photograph, it is not Mr. Zecevic who presented that theory, it is

14     Mr. Karadzic who asked the witness of that and then also gives an

15     explanation as to why that is, that's rather lengthy in the Karadzic

16     proceedings.  So, simply asking the Prosecution do we agree whether he

17     marked a photo or not without knowing the context or meaning of it I

18     think is a quite a difficult thing to do and we're not going do that.

19     That is our explanation.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  You have at length explained now there is no

21     stipulation.

22             Mr. Lukic, that's where we stand.  Any other matter before the

23     witness is escorted into the courtroom?

24             MR. LUKIC:  Then did they inform the Karadzic Chamber that

25     Mr. Zecevic did not mark correctly this photograph.

Page 39392

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger.

 2             MR. TIEGER:  I'm sorry, but this has been at the outset an

 3     inappropriate effort to circumvent all of the rules and procedures that

 4     govern the admission of evidence in this Chamber and now it's become

 5     almost an extortion effort by falsely claiming that it implicates some of

 6     the issues in the Karadzic case, and I think it should stop now.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Is that a threat?

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, let's try to calm down again.

 9             Mr. Lukic, I think you invited, with a question, the Prosecution

10     to give an answer to that question, and I understand from Mr. Tieger that

11     he considers the question inappropriate and that he's not willing to

12     answer.

13             So, therefore, you are at this moment without an answer to that

14     question.  Is there any other matter at this moment would you like to

15     raise?

16             MR. LUKIC:  No, we can have Ms. Subotic with us.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could the witness be escorted into the

18     courtroom.

19             Meanwhile, I'd like to inquire whether the issue that came up

20     yesterday of 1D01337, and more, in particular, page 9 of that document,

21     whether that was already in evidence as D185 and I think --

22             MR. LUKIC:  It's the same source, it's similar but it's not the

23     same document.

24             MR. WEBER:  We looked at it, and Mr. Lukic is correct.  There's

25     an attachment that's different.  We have no objection because there is

Page 39393

 1     the slight difference if the second document was also tendered.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, the number for 1D01337 was that

 3     assigned already?  I don't remember.  It was not.

 4             Could you please assign a number.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 1D01337 receives exhibit number D1263,

 6     Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 8                           [The witness takes the stand]

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  If you would just give me one second.

11             Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

13             We would start with Prosecution exhibit P864.  It's a video.  My

14     colleague Ivetic will help us to see 9 seconds or, if necessary, more is

15     from second 10 to second 19, and that's the video from which this figure

16     94 was taken from.  It would be, I think, obvious to everyone.  And if we

17     can see the video first.

18             Can we start, please.

19                           [Video-clip played]

20             MR. LUKIC:  And can we have figure 94 from the report, 1D5496,

21     please.  It's English version 84 and B/C/S version 129.

22        Q.   [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, looking at your report, making your

23     report, did you read the documentation and transcripts from the Karadzic

24     case?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 39394

 1        Q.   What, in your view, did Mr. Berko Zecevic mark on this photo?

 2        A.   Berko Zecevic --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 4             MR. WEBER:  Objection.  Relevance, facts not in evidence.  And I

 5     don't know if this is even the most efficient way of proceeding since

 6     this witness is an expert herself she should be able to tell us what she

 7     sees in it.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Well --

 9             MR. LUKIC:  She was not there in 1994.  She has to use materials

10     provided by Sarajevo police and Sarajevo expert, Berko Zecevic, who was

11     admitted here, his report is admitted here in this case as part of the

12     document P868, so it's not that Berko Zecevic does not have saying in

13     this case.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, first of all, you were not there on the 5th of

15     February.  Were you there when Mr. Zecevic testified in the Karadzic

16     case.  Were you present in the courtroom?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  So the witness may have knowledge, apart from

19     whether that would compete with other sources of evidence, but the

20     witness could tell us what she, at the time, heard and saw.

21             Were you in the courtroom?  Were you in the public gallery?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was in the courtroom.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then, Mr. Lukic, you may ask your questions.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Just before you proceed with the question.

Page 39395

 1             Your question was:  What in your view, did Mr. Berko Zecevic mark

 2     on this photo?

 3             Do you want to say:  What did you see him mark or do you want her

 4     to give a view or to say whether she saw him mark.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Now we know that Ms. Subotic saw him marking.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, you can see something, you can -- yes, you

 7     should have done that, I think, in first instance to establish the source

 8     of knowledge.  But, still, we have not established that she was able to

 9     look into the mind of Mr. Zecevic.  She can tell us what she saw and she

10     can tell us what she heard Mr. Zecevic saying, if she remembers --

11             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  And perhaps the Prosecution then, of course, has an

13     opportunity to look in the transcript and see whether they agree with

14     that or not.

15             And, Ms. Subotic, we have a -- not in evidence at this moment,

16     but the parties have access to a verbatim report of what was said in

17     court so if you answer any questions in relation to that, try to be as

18     precise as possible.  And if you don't know remember a certain matter,

19     then please tell us as well.

20             On this basis, Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.

21             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

22        Q.   [Interpretation] So you've heard the question of the Judges.

23     Could you answer --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  We've not put any question to the

25     witness [Overlapping speakers] ...

Page 39396

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

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I gave the framework which you can -- the limits

 3     within which you can ask a question to the witness.

 4             Please proceed.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

 6        Q.   [Interpretation] What did you see at that time while you were in

 7     the courtroom?  What did Mr. Berko Zecevic mark?  Let's begin with number

 8     1.

 9        A.   With number 1, he marked the site of the second explosion, the

10     one we did not investigate.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Are we talking about the green marking number 1,

12     being to the -- approximately to the right in the middle of the

13     photograph?

14             I'm asking the witness.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's more or less at, if I could say so, at

17     the foot of the right row of stalls.  My problem is, it's not very clear.

18     Could we enlarge the picture.  Because I see ... still a bit more.

19     Focussing on the right side of the picture.  Yes.

20             I see one larger circle with what seems to be a vertical line,

21     which could be a 1; I don't know whether it is.  And then I see to the

22     left lower margin of this larger circle, I see a smaller close to an

23     oval, half a circle.

24             Could you explain exactly what you referred to when you said he

25     marked the second shell?

Page 39397

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I meant this oval shape closer to

 2     the lighter part of the picture that's the site of explosion marked by

 3     Mr. Zecevic.  And to the right, he put number 1.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Also in a circle, if I understand you well.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.  That's right.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's zoom out again.

 7             And please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 9             Can we have 1D05685.  That is transcript from Karadzic trial.  We

10     need page 22 in e-court, line 17, as it was -- and then we have a

11     question.

12             "The accused:  Please, let us have a look -- is this the 5th of

13     February 1994?  Can we see that on the screen, the 5th of February 1994.

14     So then can we just play these few seconds?"

15             Now -- then 65 ter number, from Karadzic case was called, and we

16     assume that this picture was provided on the screen which is 1D3294 in

17     that case.  And then a question on the next page, 12 -- page 23 in

18     e-court.

19             MR. WEBER:  If counsel is going to read this, I ask that he reads

20     the full discussion.

21             MR. LUKIC:  I'm just losing time.  I'm going my way.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  You can do it in cross-examination, Mr. Weber.

23             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.  Now, from line 1, we see that 65 ter

24     number and line 3 there is a question put by Mr. Karadzic:  "Can you

25     please mark the place where the explosion took place here?"

Page 39398

 1             And then line 11:  "Could you please place number 1 there?"

 2             And then conversation continues in regard of some other damages

 3     on the red box, which we can see on this picture and video.

 4             So we read from the transcript we wanted to read on this issue

 5     and we're not going to tender this 65 ter document.

 6             MR. WEBER:  And just for the time being, just for the record at

 7     this stage, counsel has not read out the full explanation provided by the

 8     witness that continues on in relation to this photograph.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  As I said before -- well, it is a bit uncommon what

10     you're doing, Mr. Lukic.  Usually if you read a portion of the transcript

11     you then put a question in relation to what you read.  If you are going

12     to do that, we'll see that.  And, of course, Mr. Weber, if there are

13     other portions you consider to be relevant you have an opportunity to do

14     the same later.

15             MR. WEBER:  I understand Your Honours' instructions.  It's just

16     we are sensitive of time and you know our position; this is not relevant

17     at this stage.  So if the Chamber would like me to spend significant time

18     with stuff that we otherwise feel is not relevant, I will, of course, be

19     guided by the Chamber.

20             MR. LUKIC:  Should we act as the Prosecution feels?

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic.  Mr. Lukic.

22             MR. LUKIC:  I don't understand the objection at all.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  No, there was no objection, first of all, there was

24     an invitation to give what the Prosecution thinks is the complete

25     context.  You're not doing that.  You're doing it your way.  You're

Page 39399

 1     entitled to do that.  Please proceed.  You have expressed concern about

 2     time.  Mr. Weber has expressed concern about time.  Later on we'll find

 3     out who had the most serious concern about time.

 4             Please proceed.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Probably me.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Later we'll find out, I said.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 8        Q.   [Interpretation] So, Ms. Subotic, does this site marked by

 9     Mr. Zecevic on the photograph as the site of the explosion on the video

10     which we see was made on 5 February 1994 and this still in figure 44 is

11     taken from it, it bears the date, did he mark the site that he was

12     investigating that features in his report and your report, or is it a

13     different location of an explosion at Markale on the same day?

14        A.   It's a different site of the explosion.  It's not the one he

15     investigated.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, you can ask the witness what Mr. Zecevic

17     said, not what it was.  Did Mr. Zecevic say that he marked this or did he

18     say that he marked that?  What he marked is not for this witness to

19     decide but what Mr. Zecevic said he marked.  Let's try to be very

20     precise.

21             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22        Q.   I will leave the rest for my colleague Mr. Weber to sort out with

23     you in cross-examination, and we are now going to look at exhibit P00538,

24     a Prosecution Exhibit.

25             We see before us a report from UNPROFOR.  In fact, about the

Page 39400

 1     UNPROFOR investigation of the Sarajevo market explosion of

 2     5 February 1994.  This report is dated 15 February, and we need page 55

 3     in B/C/S --

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter didn't hear the page in

 5     English.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  What is the page in English.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Page in English is 43, Your Honour.

 8        Q.   [Interpretation] From this table, are you able to see how many

 9     explosions there were on that day?  How many were reported by UNPROFOR?

10             The copy is rather bad.  If you can't see, we'll try something

11     else.  What did Lima report?

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... pages

13     correspond?  I have some doubt.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So do I.

15             MR. LUKIC:  Can we see page 42, then, in English version.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Now we have the same document twice.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Overlapping speakers] ...

18             MR. LUKIC:  Now it definitely matches.

19             It's previous page in English version.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  We have two pages in an English version of this

21     document, so ...

22                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  The English page is in the B/C/S version as well.  I

24     may take it that it's got something to do with the table mainly having

25     numbers rather than text, but I leave it your hands, Mr. Lukic, how to

Page 39401

 1     proceed.

 2             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Are you able to use this English table?

 4        A.   I know that I extracted it and put it in the report.  Lima

 5     reported two explosions.  I'll find it.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Can we see at least page 42 in English version.  Or

 7     the previous one.  Because it says here 43 of 46.  I don't know how it's

 8     uploaded.  But we need the previous page.

 9        Q.   [Interpretation] We'll move on.  We'll perhaps come back to it

10     later.  Let's not waste time.

11             We will now watch a film made by the police in Sarajevo.  That's

12     1D5916.

13                           [Defence counsel confer]

14                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

15             MR. LUKIC:

16        Q.   We'll continue with P864.  I'm sorry for this delay.  And we just

17     need a -- this still which is on 25 minutes, 28 seconds.

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   [Interpretation] Do you see it on the screen, Ms. Subotic?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   What can we see on this picture; can you tell us?

22        A.   The impact of shrapnel on the stall in the wall behind it.  So

23     from the side and from the front and the wall behind.

24        Q.   From this side, is the damage the greatest?

25        A.   From this side, which is longer and parallel to the wall.

Page 39402

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness you're saying "from this side," "from that

 2     side," we don't know which side you are referring to.  So, Mr. Lukic,

 3     could you please guide the witness in such a way that we understand what

 4     side she's talking about, and if we are talking about shrapnel damage

 5     from a side, then I would expect shrapnel side on a side of a stall

 6     rather than it coming from there, but please try to make it as clear as

 7     possible.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Can we have help of the usher so Ms. Subotic can mark

 9     what she is telling us.

10                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  We can't mark on a still of a video, Mr. Lukic.

12     But -- and I'm asking Madam Registrar, could we use the -- could we use

13     the -- to point at something even if it's not marked so that at least

14     it's -- could assist us in better understanding of what the witness tell

15     us.

16             MR. WEBER:  Well, Your Honours, I don't know if would be okay to

17     take a screen capture and then show the witness the screen capture, mark

18     on it.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but then someone has to do that.

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

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it's a good suggestion.  Perhaps, if a marking

22     is needed otherwise, we'd use the cursor, and I think the cursor can be

23     used.

24             Ms. Subotic, you see the cursor moving at this moment which is a

25     small arrow, could you then re-start your answer and then we'll try to --

Page 39403

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  -- if you are referring to a certain side of a

 3     stall, then we'll try to find it with the cursor and then I'll make an

 4     attempt to describe it properly.

 5             Okay.  So let's start again.  If you want to [Microphone not

 6     activated]

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  But Ms. Subotic does not have a

 8     mouse so she cannot drive the cursor.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  No, she should give instructions.  If she starts

10     saying -- you should assist her by giving guidance to the usher and to

11     the extent I can help, of course, I will.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Can't we take a --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14             MR. LUKIC:  -- caption of this video?

15             JUDGE ORIE:  As I said, someone has to do that.  So if you can do

16     it, please do it.  Of course, you should have done it most likely before

17     being in court confronted with the problem.

18                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's, for the time being, because the Registry is

20     unable to make a screen shot at this moment from this video.  You haven't

21     prepared it.  So let's do it with what we have.  That is, a still from

22     the video, and we have an usher who is able to move the cursor.  Please

23     move on.

24                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

25             JUDGE ORIE:  It's Mr. Ivetic who has to handle the cursor.  But

Page 39404

 1     let's try to get where we ought to be.  That is, to hear the relevant

 2     evidence of this witness.

 3             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Ms. Subotic, can you describe where you see more damage, on what

 5     side?

 6        A.   I can see more damage on the long side of the white stall to the

 7     front of the picture.  Yes, this is the damage.  That damage also appears

 8     along the longer side of the stall towards the upper edge.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, let's first try to put on the record what the

10     witness pointed at.

11             The cursor was at the front side of the white stall, the left

12     upper part of that where there are a few dark spots, where she said that

13     is damage.

14             Could you please proceed, Ms. Subotic.

15             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

16        Q.   [Interpretation] According to you -- or, sorry, strike that.

17             Where was the source of the only explosion, according to the

18     Bosnian investigators with regard to this stall?

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The source of the explosion must be where it was

20     launched from.

21             MR. LUKIC:  Or when it exploded.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers] ...

23             MR. LUKIC:  The source of explosion, not the firing.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  You are talk about the impact, isn't it?

25             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

Page 39405

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  The impact, yes.  Could you tell us where in

 2     relation to this picture the impact of the projectile was.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The impact of the projectile

 4     investigated as part of the incident is to the side and left, around the

 5     corner we can see, placed vertically next to number 13.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's first take it step by step.

 7             You said to the side.  Could the cursor be moved to the place

 8     where you ... it's there.  Were you referring to that?  Or I see --

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but around the edge.  Around

10     the corner.  There.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So laterally and to the left.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So the witness is now pointing at a position

14     which is clearly to the left of number 13.  Number 13 being in a darker

15     part but in a less dark, grey area, which seems to be, indeed, as she

16     said, around the corner.

17             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

18             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Around the corner.

20             MR. LUKIC:  Now we should see one video that we received from --

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before we -- before you move to a video, I have

22     one question for the witness.

23             Ms. Subotic, you see on top of this still the left side of the

24     roof.  I see the little dots.  What do they depict?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is also the shrapnel effect of

Page 39406

 1     a shell.  We can also see it on the frontal part of the stall just under

 2     the roof, but the damage there is less.  Just where the cursor is, we can

 3     find a few spots as well as on the lower side of the stall.  I can see

 4     four or five such dots.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 6             Mr. Lukic.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  And so we should stay for

 8     just a bit longer with this video.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but have I another question.

10             How do you define that these dots are shrapnel damage?  I mean

11     ...

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the footage, we can see the

13     deformations caused by the pieces of shrapnel entering the sheets of

14     metal.  If you zoom in and take a closer look, you can see the

15     penetration of the pieces of shrapnel.  You can also tell by the grouping

16     of such damage.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's then zoom in and explain to us where we see

18     the penetration of shrapnel on this photograph.  On the portion the

19     question was about.  That's the upper part.  Yes.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I have some doubt if it is possible to zoom in.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  I don't know, but ... if not --

22             Did you zoom in on it at any point in time, Witness?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We enlarged each still up to the

24     point where we could see it clearly.

25             For example, here, you can see nicely just above the figure 1994,

Page 39407

 1     we can see that the shrapnel went from up down and from the right to the

 2     left.  We can tell that by the type of deformation.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  But the question was about another part of the

 4     picture.  So if we could stick to that.  But you say you can see it from

 5     this picture that it's shrapnel damage and not in any other way, any

 6     stains or other damage.  That's the one at the top of this stall.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  And if you established that this is shrapnel damage,

 9     would you know when that damage was inflicted?  Do you have any

10     information about this shrapnel damage?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Nothing more than what we can see

12     on the footage taken the next day after the explosion.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But the day after the explosion, you can see

14     what is there, but not when it was inflicted.  Or can you?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just said that I have no other

16     information other than the fact that it is found on the footage made on

17     the 6th of July.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

19             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

20             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

21        Q.   [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, what about the wall behind the

22     stall or on the lateral wall?  Did you notice any damage from explosions?

23        A.   Yes, it can also be clearly observed.

24        Q.   On which side?  One or both?  The surfaces under 90 degrees.

25     Under a 90-degrees angle.

Page 39408

 1        A.   I can see it on the side just facing the stall just behind it.

 2     As for the side perpendicular to it, I don't see any.  Although one might

 3     say there is some damage but I can't clearly see.  Maybe we can focus a

 4     bit more.

 5        Q.   While preparing your report, did you determine on which side we

 6     can find wall damage?

 7        A.   As we already said, the damage is perpendicular to the place

 8     where the investigation was investigated.  In our profession, we call it

 9     the blind spot.  Actually, shrapnel could not possibly arrive there

10     causing any damage or traces.

11        Q.   If there were traces on both walls, on both sides looking from

12     the stall, could such damage be caused by a single explosion?

13        A.   Not on both walls.  Perhaps on the stall itself we could make a

14     link between certain traces.  For example, an entry and exit point of a

15     piece of shrapnel.  But as far as I can see on the still, all of these

16     marks are actually entry points.

17        Q.   Thank you.  In today's transcript, page 37, line 24, what did you

18     say?  When was the footage taken?  The month was off.

19        A.   The 6th of February, 1994.  We can see it on the still.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Let us move onto the next footage.

21             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need 1D5916.  From 0 to 10 seconds

22     first.

23                           [Defence counsel confer]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, your microphone is open when you are ...

25             MR. LUKIC:  Can we start now?

Page 39409

 1             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours.

 2                           [Videotape played]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, you're on your feet.

 4             MR. WEBER:  If we could have the time code from the original

 5     source material.  I know the video that this probably comes from but I'm

 6     not sure of the time code from the original source material.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  We have the time code for this, from 0 seconds to 10

 8     seconds as we just saw.

 9             MR. WEBER:  That's from the clip or the --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Excerpt.

11             MR. WEBER:  But I believe the more extended video is actually

12     admitted in evidence.

13             MR. LUKIC:  Maybe that's what we got from the Prosecution.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, the Prosecution suggests that this video may

15     already be in evidence.  Have you checked that, Mr. Lukic?

16             MR. LUKIC:  It's hard to check if the time is different but we

17     can do it overnight probably.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Or during the break.

19             MR. WEBER:  Yeah, the hard thing is we have been provided with a

20     list which we appreciate, but we don't have the ERNs on the list which

21     makes it a [Overlapping speakers] ...

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you try to resolve this during the next break.

23             MR. LUKIC:  I think that we do not have ERN for this video.

24             We received it under code VTS-01, I think.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, try to resolve this during the break.

Page 39410

 1     Mr. Weber would like to have some additional information.  But for the

 2     time being, we can move on.

 3             Please proceed.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  And we are five minutes away from the break.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.  And can we see from 9 minutes to 9 minutes 20

 7     seconds.  Until we sort that out --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  If you say let's do this after the break, then I

 9     would have -- I would need three more minutes for another matter, which

10     would take us --

11             MR. LUKIC:  Can you stop there.

12                           [Defence counsel confer]

13             MR. LUKIC:  Now we have it at 9 minutes.  Can we play 20 ... or 9

14     seconds, I'm sorry.

15        Q.   [Interpretation] What could we see on this footage taken on the

16     6th of February, 1994, Ms. Subotic?

17        A.   We can see a crater with the stabiliser fin taken out.  It has

18     been almost filled to the full.

19        Q.   How do we know that the stabiliser fin was taken out?

20        A.   We do know because the day before, the CSB stated in their report

21     that the stabiliser fin was taken out.  There's also footage from the

22     on-site investigation.  UNPROFOR also drafted a report reporting that the

23     tail-fin was taken out.  We concluded that it was taken out by

24     Mr. Sead Besic.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Microphone.

Page 39411

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] It is photograph 76 from

 2     Ms. Subotic's report.  It comes from this footage.  Since we will rely on

 3     it further, we seek to tender it unless it is already in evidence.  If it

 4     is in evidence, we'll check it with Mr. Weber.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you do that during the break.

 6             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, we show that the image on the screen

 7     before us comes from the 19 minute 14 second mark of Exhibit P864.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then, therefore, there's no need to tender it

 9     any further.

10             Mr. Lukic, we take the break in a couple of minutes from now.  I

11     would have two or three minutes need with the witness.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Okay.  Then ...

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The parties have received, I take it, a

14     document in B/C/S of two pages which was prepared by the witness, and the

15     only thing I think I asked for was what we find on the second page

16     starting where it says:  D square equals H square plus X square.  That is

17     Pythagoras to say it simply.

18             The line below it, the calculation is made, with the outcome of 5

19     metres 63 centimetres.

20             Three lines further down, the difference is calculated with the

21     outcome as we saw it on picture 104 in the report about the incident at

22     the water-pump.  The outcome of that is 9.3 per cent.

23             I asked the witness to calculate this, both on the basis of an

24     impact at a level at 3.10 centimetres and that is what I just read are

25     the calculations about.  I also asked to make the calculations at a

Page 39412

 1     height of impact of 3 metres and 20 centimetres, which then follows

 2     further down where it again starts with D square is H square plus X

 3     square.  We then find the calculation in relation to a height of impact,

 4     which results in 5 metres, 80 centimetres as the outcome and then the

 5     difference to what is found as the result on picture 104 in the report is

 6     calculated as a difference of 12.62 per cent.

 7             This all compared to the 5 metres 15 centimetres as we find it on

 8     picture 104 in the report of the witness.

 9             Do the parties agree that this is the calculation I asked for?

10     And whether this appears in this.

11             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

13             MR. LUKIC:  Of course, we do.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             Now, yesterday, Witness, I asked you what the error approximately

16     was, and you said it was 30 to 35 per cent you thought.  Would you revise

17     that assessment or would you have an explanation why, on the basis of

18     your calculation, we find now either something around 10 per cent, that

19     is, between 9.3 and 12.62.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no reason to revise the data

21     contained in the report because the report discusses the mistake --

22             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... that was not

23     what I asked you.  I asked you whether you want to revise what you told

24     us yesterday that the difference between your calculations and what is

25     found on that picture, the picture giving 5.15, what the difference was

Page 39413

 1     in percentages.  Yesterday you said it was -- it seemed to you to be

 2     between 30 and 35 per cent.  I only asked you whether you want to revise

 3     that.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 6             The -- I didn't insist on a translation to be made.  The Defence

 7     is in a position to read whatever is added to this and what is not what I

 8     asked for.  I only asked for the calculation.  I've presented that, but I

 9     leave it in the parties whether they want to do something more with all

10     this.

11             We take a break and we'll resume at 20 minutes -- ten minutes to

12     1.00.

13             The witness may follow the usher.

14                           [The witness stands down]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  We take the break.

16                           --- Recess taken at 12.28 p.m.

17                           --- On resuming at 12.50 p.m.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll wait for the witness to be escorted in the

19     courtroom.

20             Mr. Lukic.

21             MR. LUKIC:  Regarding this video that we offered, 1D05916, and we

22     compared with P864, it's not the same, and we have details on version

23     that we presented today that -- the whole video we proposed is of better

24     quality.  And we have details that we cannot find on another one.  So

25     it's not the same video.  P864 is 34 minutes long and what we propose is

Page 39414

 1     27 minutes long but it has details we need.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  So we tender this one.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  And if it is more or less the same what is shown,

 5     the quality is better --

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  -- slightly surprised that you have a better quality

 8     than the Prosecution.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  We got from the Prosecution only they used the other

10     one.

11             MR. WEBER:  I still need the ERN in order for us to verify

12     anything of the video.

13                           [The witness takes the stand]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  If you could assist.  Because if it's the same

15     video, two version, one better quality, then, Mr. Weber, if it is true

16     that you used the bad quality version, then, of course, that's one, not

17     alarming but at least worrying a bit.

18             MR. LUKIC:  And, no, you're right we don't have ERN for that one.

19     We just got it on the CD from the Prosecution.

20             MR. WEBER:  We looked at the images and they appear exactly the

21     same so if there's another ERN we're happy to check it.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed, at this time, Mr. Lukic.

23             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

24        Q.   [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, I will read out to you the question

25     of Judge Orie regarding this last calculation you made and I will put a

Page 39415

 1     question to you myself.

 2             To the question of Judge Orie, which begins on page 42, line 24?

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  [Previous translation continues] ... are you talking

 4     about yesterday's transcript.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  No, today's.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Today's.  Fine.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  I quote:  "I asked you whether you want to revise

 8     what you told us yesterday that the difference between your calculations

 9     and what is found on this picture, the picture giving 5.15, what is the

10     difference was in percentages.  Yesterday you said it was -- it seemed to

11     you to be between 30 and 35 per cent.  I only asked you whether you want

12     to revise that."

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Why, Ms. Subotic, do you believe you need not

14     correct your report?

15        A.   The report does not need to be corrected because we did not

16     establish any error relative to the arch which is 5.15 when writing the

17     report.  We only pointed out the error contained in the documentation,

18     based on which the indicated measurement of the wall does not correspond

19     to the actual measurement of the wall, which is 3.2, 5.15, and 4.7.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Lukic, you put it to the witness that the

21     question was about the report but, in fact, Judge Orie's question was

22     about the testimony given yesterday.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  About the answer yesterday.  Witness said yesterday

24     the error was such that it's 30 to 35 per cent off what it should be.

25     That's the only thing I asked the witness.  And I'm -- can't say that I'm

Page 39416

 1     amused by you changing my question.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Then I didn't understand Your Honour properly,

 3     obviously.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then let's move on.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  But you just read it and this is about the

 6     testimony given yesterday and not about the report.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  I thought that it was about leaning on the report.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, that's an assumption which --

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Was wrong.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  -- I cannot support.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Would you then change your answer from

14     yesterday, Ms. Subotic?

15        A.   No.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Now we need the same video from -- which is 1D05916

17     from 9 minutes until 9 minutes, 20 seconds.

18             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we begin?

19                           [Video-clip played]

20             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Can you tell us what did we just see?

22        A.   First we saw the roofs and then the camera zoomed in on the place

23     where the shell under investigation landed.  We see the traces of the

24     explosion marked in chalk.  Also marked is the north/south direction and

25     the azimuth of the --

Page 39417

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter did not hear the azimuth.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  The interpreter missed the azimuth you referred to.

 4     Could you repeat that.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 18 degrees is the azimuth.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  And where do we find that here exactly?  Oh, I see,

 7     yes.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's in the picture below direction

 9     north.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I see it.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, just in case it's the same one, I'm

13     following along on P864.  We're showing that we're paused at about 28

14     minutes, 21 seconds in P864.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

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

17             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

18             Can we proceed from 9 minutes, 20 seconds to 9 minutes, 35

19     seconds.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  And perhaps it also helps that it is the same that

21     the time-frame indicated on the video was 14:33 on the 6th of the 2nd of

22     1994.  Perhaps if we have two versions but if the one is better quality

23     than the other, perhaps a reference to the time-frame not of the video

24     but as shown in the video itself may assist in comparing whether we're

25     looking at the same or whether we're looking at different matters.

Page 39418

 1             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honour.  That's exactly how we're following

 2     it right now.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 5             Can we start, please.

 6                           [Video-clip played]

 7             MR. LUKIC:  And I can assure everybody that this is much better

 8     quality.  On the P version, it is very hard to see what we want to show

 9     right now.

10        Q.   [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, would you tell us what we see in

11     this place where we stopped the video.

12        A.   We see here that the tail-fin was placed in a cleaned crater and

13     between the wings, four pebbles were placed to stabilize it in that

14     position.  Unfortunately, I don't see the time here.  It's 14-something.

15     If I find it in my report, I'll tell you.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  If we just move it a little bit forward or backward

17     then we'll see approximately where we are.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 14:33.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 14:44 -- 34.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             MR. LUKIC:  So it's 9:37 seconds on our video.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

24             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Using this method supporting the little wings of the stabiliser,

Page 39419

 1     first of all, is that method known in ballistics and what kind of results

 2     obtain?

 3        A.   This method does not exist in ballistics.  The results obtained

 4     in this way when you lower the stabiliser into a cleaned crater and

 5     support it with something, you can get any results you want.

 6        Q.   It's on figures 76, 77, and 78 in the report, as well as 79.

 7             Now could we please look at photos 80.  In B/C/S, it's on

 8     page 111.  [In English] And in English, page 75.  [Interpretation]

 9     Ms. Subotic, can you tell us what do we see on this photograph?

10        A.   I see the photograph on my report.  I see nothing on the screen.

11             MR. LUKIC:  We should have 1D05496 on our screens.  Yeah, 111 in

12     B/C/S and 75 in English.  Page 111 in B/C/S.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Do you see it now on the screen?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Can you tell us what we see in the picture.

16        A.   We see side by side the stabiliser which is before this Court as

17     an exhibit and a still from the video we saw before.  In fact, this still

18     was brought by Mr. Berko Zecevic, precisely this one.  These are the two

19     stabilisers side by side.  The one which is in the courtroom has an

20     exhibit for this incident, and to the right, the stabiliser used by

21     Mr. Zecevic to determine the angle and carry out the investigation on

22     6 February 1994.

23        Q.   We'll see the artefact very soon.  But, in your view, what we saw

24     in the photograph and what you used to compare, are these stabilisers, in

25     fact, one stabiliser?

Page 39420

 1        A.   We had our doubts that it's the same stabiliser, and that's why

 2     we made the comparison.  In the analysis given on this page, and it was

 3     made by putting the stabilisers in the same position so they can be

 4     compared, it was found that the openings which are used for putting

 5     pressure on the same charge are not exactly in the same position.

 6        Q.   What number is it on the picture?

 7        A.   Number 2.  Number 2 marks the direction where the opening for the

 8     key for inserting the charge is located, and we see that this angle is

 9     about 80 degrees.  More precisely, 78.6.  They should be in the same

10     direction if it were the same stabiliser.

11        Q.   Can we now see P02053 which is the artefact?

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

13             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I don't see reference to a photograph by

14     Mr. Zecevic in the footnotes.  If counsel could please identify the ERN

15     of the photo that he is purportedly referring to, I'd appreciate it.

16             MR. LUKIC:  Maybe we can locate it later on.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, a lot of work to be done during the breaks.

18             MR. LUKIC:  So Madam Registrar has artefact in her possession?

19             If Your Honours want to check first the artefact or ...

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps we put on the record that the Chamber

22     establishes that the --

23             MR. LUKIC:  Probably for Markale II.

24             MR. WEBER: [Microphone not activated] yes.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it seems to be.

Page 39421

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  It's an artefact but apparently not the one you

 3     wanted to show us.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then I'll give it back to Madam Registrar.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  At least for this one, which we have in our hands

 8     now, you can see that the central part of the --

 9             MR. LUKIC:  We'll come to that when we talk about Markale II.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll come to that later, but that is easily to be

11     moved in every direction.  But I give it back to Madam Registrar, who

12     will certainly keep it for us.

13             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, if it's okay and just while I'm here,

14     and there's something on my mind, if I could see the artefact.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Which one?

16             MR. WEBER:  The one that was just brought out.  P2053, the

17     Markale II stabiliser.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Yes, could you please give the other one --

19     no, not this one.  The other one to Mr. Weber for a second.  But you give

20     this one to us now.  Thank you.

21                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber establishes and puts it on the record

23     that also here the central part of this stabiliser fin can be screwed out

24     even by hand power.

25             MR. LUKIC:  It's new surprise for us.

Page 39422

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  If you want to see me doing it.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  It's good that you establish that.  I'll ask --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  I must say to be fully complete, that Judge Fluegge

 4     used a plastic ballpoint which assisted in the first getting it loose but

 5     I have hereby and perhaps it's on our -- let's see.  I never look at the

 6     video, but I screw it out without any problem.  I even can show you that

 7     it's now apart.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  I believe you.  Somebody tampered the evidence.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I did apparently.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Not only do you believe but you see.

11             MR. LUKIC:  I see.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

13             MR. LUKIC:  But I'll ask Ms. Subotic about what she saw before.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  What she -- I have screwed it in now again.

15     I missed my real profession, I think.

16             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, that was just quite a claim that was

17     made by Mr. Lukic.  I mean, if he has got a good-faith base to assert

18     that it has been tampered with.  Otherwise --

19             MR. LUKIC:  I stand by it.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, Mr. Lukic, it's always better to present the

21     evidence for your claims.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.  Now we will --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  We'll then hear -- Mr. Weber is not yet

24     convinced, I do understand.

25             Keep it here for a second.

Page 39423

 1                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic.

 3                           [Defence counsel confer]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, you mentioned the number which referred

 5     to the Markale II tail-fin and I think you said you needed the other one

 6     but --

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour, but I thought they were both under

 8     the same number.  I don't have the other number.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, are they both under the same number

10     which, as a matter of fact, would be a perfect scenario for confusion,

11     but the tail-fin I have in my hands at this moment bears on a sticker the

12     number A000-6279.  And is that --

13             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I believe that is Exhibit D409.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  D409.  Madam Registrar, could you please check

15     whether D409, indeed, is an artefact, the tail-fin of a ...

16                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar has confirmed that D409, which is

18     the tail-fin of Markale I, was last -- the last -- the second given to us

19     and which we have now in our hands and for which I read the number.

20             We keep it for a while.

21             MR. LUKIC:  That is right, it is D409, Your Honour.  I apologise

22     for not having the right number with me.

23             Can we give that tail-fin, D409, to Ms. Subotic.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, if the witness needs it, then...

25             The artefact, D409, is now given to the witness.

Page 39424

 1                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, without our permission, you're not allowed

 3     to change it in any way.  I did it before, but without our permission,

 4     you're not allowed to do it.

 5             So you can look at it, you can have it in your hands, and wait

 6     for the questions that Mr. Lukic will put to you.

 7             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   I thought we would have this line of questioning only for the

 9     second artefact, but I have to ask you the same questions about this one

10     too.

11             So, we saw the charge was able to very easily unscrew it

12     manually, the base charge.  Did you ever hold that particular tail-fin in

13     your hands?

14        A.   Yes.  Yes, I did.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This is now D409.

16             MR. LUKIC:  409.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes.  It's confusing if we say the first and the

18     second.  Please use the number.

19             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

20        Q.   [Interpretation] We call it in this courtroom, D409.  You have

21     had it in your hands before?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   On the occasion when you held it, did you check if you were able

24     to turn the base charge?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 39425

 1        Q.   On that occasion, were you able to unscrew the base charge?

 2        A.   No.  And it was not to be expected that I would.

 3        Q.   Do you remember when it was that you held it in your hands and

 4     you checked that?

 5        A.   I really cannot remember the date.  We could maybe look through

 6     the photos we made at the time and see the date on the photo.  But it was

 7     at the beginning of the Karadzic trial when I travelled together with

 8     Mr. Sladojevic, Prosecutor Gaynor, and somebody from the Registry, I

 9     can't remember the name, and then I made a photo documentation of this

10     evidence which is now before the Court.  There were also some remnants of

11     shrapnel, et cetera, so these photographs you see here in the report were

12     made at that time.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And you are talking about figure 80; correct?  In

14     your report.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 80, 82, and 83.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you tell us who were present when you tried to

18     take off the lower part or the primary -- Mr. Lukic, had you a better

19     word for it.  You've forgotten it, but ... the base --

20             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Base charge.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Who were present when you tried that?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Marko Sladojevic, from the

23     Defence team of Mr. Karadzic; Prosecutor Gaynor; and somebody from the

24     Registry.  I don't know who.  Somebody who brought it into that room.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could you tell us how you tried to move the

Page 39426

 1     base charge?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In a way similar to what you did

 3     without any particular tools.  Mr. Sladojevic tried to do the same thing

 4     on that occasion, finding it interesting.  However, the lack of my

 5     technical knowledge in that area would not allow it.  To tell you the

 6     truth, I checked it out of professional curiosity rather than because I

 7     expected it to be possible.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You said you didn't use any particular tools.

 9     Did you use any tool at all, such-like a ballpoint as Judge Fluegge did?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  I had with me a pencil to take

11     notes.  I did not try to apply any force to open it.  I don't think

12     Mr. Sladojevic tried to apply a pen either.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then for the completeness of the record, I

14     have hereby to put on the record that I tried to twist it with my fingers

15     and after I was unsuccessful to do that, Judge Fluegge, after perhaps a

16     few seconds seeing what I was doing, used his Bic ballpoint, I think it

17     is.  It's here --

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  A traditional which is used in this Tribunal.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Used it.  And it was only then that the base charge

20     started to be twisted.

21             Please proceed.

22             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   You say that technically it was impossible to do.  Can you

24     explain to us what kind of force one needs to use to be able to turn the

25     base charge after an explosion, especially now that we have seen it in

Page 39427

 1     both cases for Markale I and II?

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, could you be -- I missed exactly where

 3     the witness said that technically she was -- it was unable to do it.

 4     Could you ...

 5             MR. LUKIC:  It's page 56, line 3.  It says:  "However the lack of

 6     my technology in that area would not allow it."

 7             So I don't know if it's the answer, the lack of my technology.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it's something different from what you put to

 9     the witness, so would you be very precise in the phrasing of your

10     question.

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We believe the

12     interpretation was technical knowledge.

13             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Ms. Subotic, what did you say?  Why were you not -- what did you

15     say?  Why was it that did you not try to use a pencil but you only tried

16     it by hand?

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I think we have to first clarify the transcript.

18     The interpreters made a note we believe the interpretation was and then

19     again the same difference between the words spoken and the transcript

20     occurs.

21             Can we ask the interpreters to again repeat what they said.

22             THE INTERPRETER:  We believe the original interpretation was

23     technical knowledge.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This is exactly what I heard.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We have two steps, Mr. Lukic, you know that.

Page 39428

 1     The first is the audio and then the second is then the interpretation of

 2     what was heard by our interpreters.  If you ask any further questions to

 3     the witness, if you are telling us now what you said before, please be

 4     aware that we have the technical means to verify what you said before,

 5     and that's what often when we do there's any dispute about what was said

 6     or not.

 7             Mr. Lukic will now put his next question to you.

 8             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   So do you remember what was it that you said?

10        A.   I said that based on my technical knowledge, which is primarily

11     based on my knowledge in -- as to how the shell is produced and used, I

12     did not feel any need to do so because I wanted simply to be able to

13     check and verify the entire artefact or piece of evidence, not just

14     partially.  That is why I did not use any tools.

15             On the other hand, Marko Sladojevic found it very interesting and

16     did try to insert a pen, turning it and ultimately there were a few of us

17     there, and it can always be checked.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  When you used the pen, did it turn?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

21             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   So what kind of force must be applied to unscrew the base charge

23     after the shell had exploded?

24        A.   I apologise.  I need to provide a short introduction in order to

25     answer.

Page 39429

 1             There's no difference in the possibility to unscrew the base

 2     charge before or after the explosion technically speaking, because during

 3     the explosion there is no such force that would influence the possibility

 4     of unscrewing the base charge.  That is one thing.

 5             Another thing that is very important to understand is this.  When

 6     the shell is manufactured, the base charge is screwed in by using tools

 7     and a lot of force.  The actual screw is lubricated by a type of cement,

 8     particular cement, which provides for further contact.  Hence, there is

 9     no possibility whatsoever that something of this sort would happen

10     without an intervention that had nothing to do with the explosion and

11     forces involved.  There is no technical ability to do so given the type

12     of manufacture.  Those who design shells must make sure that it will not

13     fall apart in mid air.  The forces that occur at explosion are axial and

14     the tail is simply ripped off.  There is no torsion that would result in

15     a possible unscrewing.  Ultimately, Mr. Turkusic testified to the very

16     same in this case.  He explained it much the same way I did and he has

17     significantly more field experience.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, the witness refers to something that, as

19     far as I remember, is not in evidence.

20             MR. LUKIC:  It is, Your Honour.  Mr. Turkusic testified in our

21     case.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I'll look.  Forgive me for not having every piece of

23     evidence constantly on the top of my mind.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  After the introduction, can you answer the

25     question, please.

Page 39430

 1             MR. LUKIC:  My question, Your Honour?

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  I'll tell you.  Your question was:  So what

 3     kind of force must be applied to unscrew the base charge after the shell

 4     has exploded?  The answer was:  I apologise I need to provide a short

 5     introduction in order to answer.

 6             Now the short introduction which was fairly long has been given.

 7     Now I'm waiting now for the answer to the question.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 9        Q.   [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, you heard it.  Would you mind

10     answering.

11        A.   I thought my long introduction resulted in an answer at the end.

12     It is this:  The force that needs to be applied is torque which does not

13     occur at the time of explosion or immediately afterwards.  One would have

14     to use torsion to unscrew it, much as with any other kind of nut and

15     bolt.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm afraid that you are embedding in your answer

17     something which was not part of the question.  That as -- that is,

18     whether there would be any force produced during and after firing, which

19     would be sufficient to unscrew.

20             The question, however, simply was what force is needed to

21     unscrew.  In whatever way, by your hands, by a tool, by -- and you are

22     limiting your answer to an unscrewing during flight without manipulation

23     but just on the basis of the forces exercised in itself.

24             Could you please now answer the question:  What force is needed

25     to unscrew it?  If you know.  If you say, I can't tell you, that's fine

Page 39431

 1     as well.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] During the flight and explosion and

 3     the period after the explosion, there is no force which could unscrew

 4     this without further manipulation.

 5             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... okay.  What

 6     force is needed?  And include force by manipulation.  What force is

 7     needed to unscrew it?  If you know.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In terms of type, it would be

 9     torque, or turning.  In terms of intensity, it would have to be at least

10     at the level used by the tools to tighten the base charge and attach it

11     to the body of the shell.  I can check that in our documentation and, off

12     the cuff, I don't know what amount of force is needed, but it is a lot,

13     in any case.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

15             Please proceed.

16             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   You did your calculations for Markale I with this stabilising fin

18     that does not unscrew; is that correct?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   On that occasion --

21             MR. WEBER:  Judge.

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

23             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, Mr. Lukic.

24             Mr. Weber.

25             MR. WEBER:  I rose and the answer came already, but that was a

Page 39432

 1     very leading question, and it's not exactly transparent what calculations

 2     we're talking about.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  It's both leading and unclear.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  I haven't asked yet any questions.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You told her that she did her calculations.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, Mr. Lukic, I read:  "You did your calculations

 7     for Markale I which was with the stabiliser fin that does not unscrew; is

 8     that correct?"  The question is "is that correct," and the leading part

 9     is where you told the witnesses what she had done.  So that makes

10     together a leading question.

11             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

12        Q.   [Interpretation] So in terms of your Markale I report, did you

13     believe that the base charge cannot be unscrewed and that is how you

14     approached the artefact?

15        A.   While comparing and trying to prove that there were two

16     stabilisers, we worked under the presumption that the base charge could

17     not be unscrewed, that it was fixed to the body of the stabiliser, which

18     is a technical fact that is not in dispute.

19        Q.   Very well, thank you.  My next question --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Can I ask one follow-up question.

21             You earlier told us that during flight no force is exercised at

22     all about the base charge.  Did the question whether or not the base

23     charge could be relatively easily unscrewed or not, did that play any

24     role in your analysis?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Only while comparing this piece of

Page 39433

 1     evidence in the courtroom and the stabiliser used in the field by the

 2     commission with Mr. Berko Zecevic.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you mean by the identification of the tail-fin

 4     you had in your hands here and the -- or the -- and the photograph but

 5     not in terms of -- not in terms of distance or angles or whatever.  That

 6     was not -- it was not an issue in those calculations, was it?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it was not an issue in

 8     determining the angle of descent and the distance of firing.  That is

 9     correct.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

11             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] At the time when you were examining it, did you

14     take photographs while you were examining D409?

15        A.   Yes, I said that we used them in the paper.  These are figures

16     80, 83, 82.  They are the figures representing what I created at that

17     moment on the premises of this Tribunal.

18        Q.   When you took the picture, the position of the base charge was as

19     shown in figure 80, or was it not?

20        A.   Yes, it was, that's the picture.

21        Q.   Thank you.  The tail-fin is before you.  Was it embedded in the

22     ground - the one before you - along its entire length and, in your view,

23     would that have been possible?

24             JUDGE ORIE:  We can see.

25             MR. WEBER:  Objection.  Compound question and it is also, in

Page 39434

 1     part, leading.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Why?

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And is another matter that it requires exactly the

 4     basis of the knowledge whether the witness answers your question on basis

 5     of photographs or personal observation.  Could you split it up,

 6     Mr. Lukic [Overlapping speakers] ...

 7             MR. LUKIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ... that's why I directed the

 8     attention of Ms. Subotic to the artefact so she tells us based on the

 9     artefact she is holding in her hands.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  That's -- on the basis of something that you have in

11     your hands, you cannot, in itself - and it's not sufficient basis of

12     knowledge - to tell anyone where that artefact has been a year ago, or

13     two years ago.

14             So, therefore, it is an element in establishing that but it's an

15     insufficient basis of knowledge of where it was a year ago.  It helps to

16     establish if you have other knowledge to compare whether it's this one,

17     which matches your other source of knowledge, that is, where it was a

18     year ago.

19             So, therefore, try to keep things very clear and split up your

20     question and we'd like to hear the answers.  Because we're interested in

21     it.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Okay.

23        Q.   [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, based on the artefact, D409, can

24     you determine if it was embedded anywhere in asphalt or not?

25             MR. LUKIC:  There is -- we have to wait for the answer first.

Page 39435

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  No, Mr. Weber is on his feet.  He may object.  And

 2     if he wants to object he has an opportunity to do so.  He is not expected

 3     to comment.  The question was --

 4             MR. WEBER:  I just give a legal basis.  I think it goes along

 5     with what Your Honours were just saying, foundation.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Foundation is the issue.  But let's first --

 7             MR. LUKIC:  I cannot put this question differently.  We have to

 8     wait for the answer.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's hear the answer of the witness.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on the artefact I have in my

12     hands, I would say that there is practically impossible that this object

13     remained embedded in the ground as the type of ground that we can see in

14     Markale I which is a type of asphalt.  Because on the cylindrical part

15     which is the first to be embedded, we see absolutely no traces, no

16     longitudinal truces of such penetration.  It is interesting, though, that

17     it does bear some markings that resemble the markings of a file but there

18     are no longitudinal marks whatsoever.  One must understand that this is

19     the first part that penetrates at great force and speed into some solid

20     material comprised of gravel, and this would have left longitudinal

21     markings.

22             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Thank you.  When you previously held the tail-fin in your hands,

24     did you also notice that there were no longitudinal scratches on the base

25     of the tail-fin?

Page 39436

 1        A.   No.  It is clear on the photographs we provided; in photograph

 2     80, as well as 83.

 3        Q.   Ultimately, what did you conclude based -- concerning the

 4     incident at Markale on the 5th of February, 1994?

 5        A.   Based on detailed analysis amounting to over 100 pages, we

 6     concluded - and also having reconstructed the shape of the stall and the

 7     layout of stalls in the market-place, as well as having found that there

 8     was a stall which contained damage from below and the reports by Russell

 9     and Verdy whose reports are provided in copy in our report - it was our

10     conclusion that the explosion was caused by a static 120-millimetre shell

11     which did not detonate following a flight path but was, rather, activated

12     in some other unorthodox manner.  We also took into account the other

13     explosion that whose marks or traces exist marked by Mr. Zecevic and we

14     discussed it today in the courtroom.  I believe it is figure 80.  85.

15     And ... 94.

16        Q.   As a reference, the picture showing an overturned stall is

17     figure 71.

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Can you explain how come that, under such circumstances, the

20     tail-fin was found under or below ground level, surface level?

21        A.   Technical explanation was provided.  If we recall the site where

22     the tail-fin was embedded, it contained practically no traces of the

23     tail-fin being embedded.  The hole had been dug up and the tail-fin was

24     simply placed there as used by Mr. Zecevic.  I stand by my assertion that

25     there were two tail-fins.  Some soil was then put in the hole and the

Page 39437

 1     shell was placed in it, detonating it later on in an unorthodox fashion.

 2     The fact is that the shell could not have fallen on the area.  It is

 3     supported by the fact that are no longitudinal traces, as well as --

 4     there's -- it's also a fact that the area where this tail-fin was

 5     apparently embedded was an unusual area or of unusual surface.  That was

 6     our conclusion.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I put one additional question to that.

 8             I understood your last answer to be an explanation of the earlier

 9     sentence, that the explosion was caused by a static 120-millimetre shell.

10             In your view, what do you think how the explosion was triggered?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You see, it could have been done by

12     electrical impulse; for example, by using a TNT bullet or in some other

13     way.  We do it at firing ranges frequently when we carry out testing.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Did you find anywhere - in the reports or on the

15     site or at the artefact - any signs of that possibility that it was

16     triggered by an electrical impulse?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean in the sense that traces

18     of such a device were found on the site?  Is that what you're asking?

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  On the site, mentioning -- mentioned in the

20     report, or at the artefact itself.  Anywhere.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Except on the artefact where there

22     are no traces of penetration on the cylindrical part.  I didn't find

23     anything else.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  I also have a few follow-up questions.

Page 39438

 1             Do I have to understand if it was a static body that exploded, or

 2     a projectile, whatever, that it must have exploded above ground level?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And, therefore, must have been visible, if it

 5     was placed there?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's very simple to make.  You set

 7     it at an angle, and to be quite clear, traces on the spot and the

 8     measurements of the crater show that it was at an angle, you place a box

 9     on top.  It's a market, for God's sake.  It could be done.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  And everyone who was there stayed there.  Everyone

11     sees a projectile body to be put somewhere amidst the stalls, and then

12     everyone waits until it exploded?  I mean, I'm trying to imagine what you

13     have on your mind in this alternative scenario.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this alternative scenario, I

15     only have one technical possibility after all the analysis that were

16     performed.  And that is it.  It could not land, this thing did not embed

17     itself.  It is not possible for so many people to have been killed.  We

18     saw traces all around.  This is the only explanation.  It could not land

19     without hitting anything else before.  Our analysis were detailed.  Then

20     there were traces under the stalls.  Under these tables of the stalls.

21             This is the only technical possibility that remains.  I'm not

22     going into anybody's scenario.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

24             I think it's time for a break.

25             MR. LUKIC:  It's then the end of the day, probably.

Page 39439

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  Because we have one half an hour longer than

 2     usual.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah, yeah, you are right.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Because we started half an hour later.

 5             We'll take a break, and, we'd like to see you back at quarter

 6     past 2.00, Ms. Subotic, and then we'll have another half an hour to go

 7     for this day.

 8             You may follow the usher.

 9                           [The witness stands down]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Resume at quarter past 2.00.

11                           --- Recess taken at 1.54 p.m.

12                           --- On resuming at 2.19 p.m.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  We're waiting for the witness to be escorted in the

14     courtroom.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16                           [The witness takes the stand]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, please proceed.

18             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

19        Q.   [Interpretation] Now we are going to move to incident of

20     28 August 1995; Markale II.  That part of the report begins on page 96 in

21     English and 141 in B/C/S.

22             Would you please tell us, while we're waiting for it to appear on

23     the screen, what are the features of the explosion of 28 August 1995 on

24     the Markale market?

25        A.   The 28 August 1995 incident outside the market in Mula Mustafa

Page 39440

 1     Baseskija Street is characterised by similar features as on the Markale I

 2     incident.  One shell exploded, and again, it landed exactly on the spot

 3     where there were the most people.  Compared to the investigation on

 4     Markale I market, this investigation is even less accurate and

 5     inconsistent.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, would you allow me to ask one question.

 7             Witness - and it's not the first time you said it - "the shell

 8     exactly landed where there were the most people."

 9             Now, I do understand that a market where there are a lot of

10     people, but did you -- is that what you wanted to express?  Or did you

11     think that just around where the explosion took place that there were

12     more people than, well, let's say, 100 metres away, or -- I'm not fully

13     understanding what you mean by "they exploded on the spot where there

14     were the most people"?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I meant the part of the market

16     where there were the most people.  On Markale I market, and the part of

17     the market with the highest concentration of people because that's where

18     the street vendors were located, close to the spot where the shell landed

19     and exploded outside the Markale market.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, my question is:  How do you know how the people

21     were divided or distributed over those market areas, well, let's say, a

22     second before the explosion?  How did you know there were more close to

23     the explosion and less at a distance of 20 or 50 metres or -- what's the

24     basis of your knowledge for that.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the Markale market, the basis is

Page 39441

 1     the type and concentration of goods.  The rest of the market was empty.

 2     We can see that on the photos made after the evacuation.  And the rest of

 3     the market was covered in blood.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Just a follow-up.

 6             What then must be inferred from the fact that it exploded where

 7     there was a concentration of people?  Obviously lots of people in the

 8     market.  What is so uncharacteristic about that?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What is uncharacteristic is that in

10     both incidents, the explosions happened on the spots with the highest

11     concentration of people.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But -- you're giving my question as my answer.  As

13     the answer.  I'm asking you, yes, so what?  What must we infer from that?

14     Because you're mentioning this as a criticism in the way the

15     investigation was made as conducted by those who investigated this.  I'm

16     just trying to found out what inference must be drawn from the fact that

17     it fell where there was a concentration of people.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First and foremost, I just made

19     that as an observation, not as criticism of the on-site investigation.

20     I'm going to express criticism of the on-site investigation later.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ...

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And the fact that you mentioned, are the

23     factors which made you conclude that the market was not evenly crowded

24     but that it was specifically a concentration of people where that shell

25     exploded.  Is that well understood?

Page 39442

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 3             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 4             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   [No interpretation]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  We do not receive English translation.

 7             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Ms. Subotic, why do you believe this investigation was carried

 9     out in a wrong and inaccurate way?

10             The Judges have now heard the question.  You can answer.

11        A.   First of all, in this case, the explosion outside the market, the

12     angle of descent was wrongly determined although using a different method

13     than on the Markale market, but it's still wrong.

14             Second, the determination of the direction that was made was not

15     documented in any way.

16             Third, the discrepancy between UNPROFOR and the observers is

17     recorded in the material we have already used, in their statements.  That

18     is to say, the material that contains their reports.

19             Also, it is not documented how come the shell landed on the

20     market without any radar around Sarajevo recording the sound.  The

21     explanation given in the reports concerning the radar is technically

22     senseless.  It is not explained in any way how the shell came in without

23     the radar noticing.

24             It is also nowhere explained how in different stages of the

25     investigation the direction of fire was determined variously as 220

Page 39443

 1     degrees, then 170, then 160.  It was also recorded that there were two

 2     tail-fins on the site and that is also recorded on video.

 3             There was no investigation within the market, although there were

 4     injured victims inside.

 5             We also have video footage which is technically inexplicable and

 6     that is that next to the curb and closer to the road there is shattered

 7     glass from the explosion.  It is inexplicable how it found its way there.

 8     It should be concentrated along the wall.  A little maybe, but not there.

 9             Those are all points that should have been clarified by the

10     investigation, whoever performed it.

11        Q.   Let us now look at photograph 97 from your report.

12             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] English page 98 and page 145 in

13     B/C/S.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And the 65 ter number being?

15             MR. LUKIC:  It's on our screens, Your Honour.  It's 1D5496.

16        Q.   [Interpretation] We will not dwell on this too long --

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  1D5496.

18             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   We won't dwell on this.  We have seen before in this trial this

20     injured man whose body is hanging over the bar, the fence.  In your

21     analysis, did you find him in the documentation recorded as a fatality?

22        A.   Since this injury that we see was inflicted by something which is

23     certainly not a mortar or artillery projectile, we searched through the

24     photo documentation, and this obviously dead man was not found among

25     those injured or killed in the incident.

Page 39444

 1        Q.   What does that fact show in terms of the investigation?  Do you

 2     have any conclusion as to how this man with this type of injury found

 3     himself there?

 4        A.   A man with this type of injury could not be there due to the

 5     explosion of the shell outside the market, and this injury could not have

 6     been inflicted by the explosion regardless of how close or how far he was

 7     from the explosion.  This is rather close.  But the main thing is that

 8     this type of injury cannot be sustained from an artillery or mortar

 9     projectile.  All I can conclude is that he was brought here from

10     somewhere else.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

12             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I see that there's been some discussion

13     now from the witness about the man.  Could we have an identity of who he

14     is?

15             MR. LUKIC:  All I can say and I identified that way that he was

16     hanging over this fence.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could you ask the witness, perhaps, whether

18     she knows who this person is, whether he was ever identified.

19             Perhaps she could answer that question.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course.  I said a moment ago

21     that we searched through the list of those injured and fatalities, and he

22     is not among the list of fatalities so we were not able to identify him.

23     Neither on the lists or the photo documentation.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  But if you want to find a person on a list with

25     names, then the starting point would be that you have a name, which you

Page 39445

 1     search for on that list.

 2             I'm -- we're trying to understand what you're telling us.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I'll explain.  In the photo

 4     documentation, there are photographs of all those who were killed, and

 5     that man is not any of the photographs of fatalities, and all of them who

 6     are in the document have been identified.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And he's not in the document?  If I understand

 8     you well.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you know what happened with this body?  I mean,

11     whether brought there or how -- do you have any knowledge about this

12     person with which one would assume is not alive anymore with these jeans,

13     what happened to him; do you know that?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you have any basis for assuming that he was

16     brought there rather than that he was killed on the spot, apart from you

17     didn't find him or a similar person on the list?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My opinion that he was brought

19     there is based upon the fact that the blood-stain in front of his hands

20     is symbolic.  If it had happened there, there would have been a huge

21     amount of blood pouring onto this fence over which he is hanging.  On the

22     other hand, he could not have thrown by the explosion to land in this

23     position.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Why not?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, to land in this position, he

Page 39446

 1     would have had to have his arms raised at the moment of the explosion.

 2     And during the explosion, the person is simply propelled backwards in the

 3     position in which he is standing.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  And he had not his arms raised during the explosion?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm saying that people normally

 6     don't raise their arms during the explosion.  That's not the kind of a

 7     reaction a blast wave causes.  In the position in which they are already

 8     standing, they are propelled to one side, and if -- to land in this way,

 9     he would have had to have his arms fully in the air.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  That's all hypothetical.  You do not know whether he

11     had raised his hands at the moment of the impact.  You don't know?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly not.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

14             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  How he lands as he has landed, you said he would

16     have been thrown backwards, doesn't that depend on which side, whether

17     the back or front of him, the explosion took place?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You are right.  Whichever way he

19     was facing, he would have been thrown backwards relative to the centre of

20     the explosion.  That is to say, away from the explosion.  What tells me

21     that he was brought here is that his arms are hanging over the fence.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  So if -- if -- if the explosion took place behind

23     him and it throws him away from the explosion and he falls forward, he

24     could fall and his arms could hang over the railing like he is without

25     him necessarily having raised his arms?  Thank you so much.  If you agree

Page 39447

 1     with that.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree with you, but the explosion

 3     did not happen behind him.  It was further down the street.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Ah, I don't know that.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mm-hm.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And I don't know how you know that.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I need a -- two or three minutes for a

 8     matter.

 9             Therefore, I suggest that we adjourn for the day.  Witness, we'd

10     like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.30 again - so not at 10.00 -

11     in the same courtroom.  And I give you the same instructions as I did

12     yesterday and the day before yesterday, that is that you should not -- we

13     were not here on Sunday but last week that you should not communicate

14     with whomever about your testimony, whether already given or still to be

15     given.

16             You may now follow the usher.

17                           [The witness stands down]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I'd like to briefly deal with a scheduling issue.

19             Last week, the parties have made submissions in court in relation

20     to scheduling matters.  The Defence made submissions in relation to its

21     two Tomasica experts and the filing of their reports.  The Chamber

22     understands that one of these two proposed experts is Witness Radovanovic

23     and thus expects that the Defence will file a motion to recall that

24     witness.

25             In addition, the Chamber instructs the Defence to give weekly

Page 39448

 1     updates on the progress of the two expert reports.  The updates can be

 2     given orally or in writing, and the first update is due on the 2nd of

 3     October.

 4             On Friday, the Defence filed a motion asking the Chamber to set a

 5     deadline for the final Defence bar table motion to two months and 12 days

 6     after the testimony of the last Defence witness as that was the

 7     time-frame in which the Prosecution filed its last bar table motion.

 8             The Chamber recalls that its guidance on bar table submission was

 9     clarified on 29 March 2012 at transcript pages 234 to 236.  The Chamber

10     clarified that bar table motions should not be filed at the end of a

11     party's case but at the end of individual components of a party's case.

12     The reason for this was exactly to avoid a situation as the current one,

13     where all remaining documents are collected to be tendered.  In addition,

14     ensuring equality of arms is not a matter of mathematics, especially

15     considering the Prosecution's evidentiary burden.

16             The Chamber notes that while the Prosecution filed a total of

17     three bar table motions within two months and 12 days of the hearing of

18     its last witness, the tendering in the later two of its motions was

19     limited in volume with around some 120 documents in total, and almost

20     exclusively concerned documents which had previously been tendered and

21     denied.  In fact, the second residual bar table motion of the Prosecution

22     tendered documents denied 11 days earlier in a decision by the Chamber.

23     Furthermore, the Prosecution filed about 65 per cent of its bar table

24     documents prior to the hearing of its last witness, and 97 per cent

25     within one week of the testimony of this last witness.

Page 39449

 1             Considering the above, pursuant to Rule 90(F), the Chamber sets a

 2     deadline for the Defence's final bar table motion to be filed by the 18th

 3     of January, 2016.  The Defence is further instructed to organise the list

 4     of documents to tender from the bar table by the components of the case,

 5     as well as by Scheduled Incident, where applicable.

 6             Further, the Defence is strongly encouraged to share with the

 7     Prosecution at the earliest possibility which documents will be tendered

 8     so as to allow the Prosecution to be most efficient and expeditious when

 9     responding to the motion.

10             In relation to Tomasica, considering that the testimony of the

11     two proposed expert witnesses is still forthcoming, the Chamber decides

12     that any bar table motion in relation to Tomasica be filed no later than

13     one week after the hearing of the final Defence proposed expert in

14     relation to Tomasica.

15             That was the scheduling issue I wanted to deal with.

16             We adjourn for the day and we will resume tomorrow, Wednesday,

17     the 30th of September, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.

18                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.46 p.m.,

19                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 30th day of

20                           September, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.