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
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?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then could they be copied and distributed among the
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,
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
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
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]
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
24 A. It's the same kind. Below there is gravel and it's covered with
25 asphalt on top.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, first of all, where are we looking? What
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
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
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.
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 --
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.
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
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.
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
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
16 MR. LUKIC: No, we can have Ms. Subotic with us.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could the witness be escorted into the
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
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
25 A. Yes.
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.
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] ...
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
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
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?
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
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
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?"
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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 --
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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,
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.
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
23 [Defence counsel confer]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, your microphone is open when you are ...
25 MR. LUKIC: Can we start now?
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
11 We take a break and we'll resume at 20 minutes -- ten minutes to
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
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
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
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
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
1 amused by you changing my question.
2 MR. LUKIC: Then I didn't understand Your Honour properly,
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 --
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,
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's in the picture below direction
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
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.
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,
1 first of all, is that method known in ballistics and what kind of results
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
1 JUDGE ORIE: No. Because we have one half an hour longer than
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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.
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
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
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
24 JUDGE ORIE: Why not?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, to land in this position, he
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
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
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
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
25 In addition, the Chamber instructs the Defence to give weekly
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
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.
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.