Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 39450

 1                           Wednesday, 30 September 2015

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.

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

 6     courtroom.

 7             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

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

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             Mr. Lukic, the Chamber was informed that you wanted to deal with

12     a few matters, I think, remaining from yesterday.

13             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

15             MR. LUKIC:  First of all, we spoke with Mr. Weber in regard of

16     D1261 MFI; and as I understood him, the Prosecution does not have

17     objection.

18             MR. WEBER:  The Defence is correct, the Prosecution reviewed the

19     whole video which is a total time of 6 minutes, 57 seconds, and we do not

20     object to the admission of that whole video into evidence.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  D1261 is admitted into evidence.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

23             The next topic is figures 70 and 71 from the report on Markale,

24     which is 1D05496.  You inquired about the source.  Figure 75 was exhibit

25     in Slobodan Milosevic trial, P636.1, and it was the third picture in that

Page 39451

 1     exhibit and it was found on the site of this Tribunal.  Our experts found

 2     that on the site of the Tribunal.  And...

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could you repeat the number.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, it's P636.1.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  And it was introduced through the witness

 7     Berko Zecevic.

 8             Figure 70 was the second picture in the same document, and 75 we

 9     also saw in the video, 1D05916.

10             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I'm not clear on the reference because I

11     think there was two figures referred to but ...

12             MR. LUKIC:  First I addressed figure 75.  Now I'm addressing

13     figure 70.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you started by staying the next topic is

15     figures 70 and 71.

16             MR. LUKIC:  Okay.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  That's how it is on the record.  Did you intend to

18     say that your next topic was figures 70 and 75, and that you have dealt

19     with 75 until now --

20             MR. LUKIC:  Yes --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  -- and that you'll now deal with number 70?

22             MR. LUKIC:  70, yes.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Then please proceed.

24             MR. LUKIC:  And it's -- so the second picture in the same P636

25     from Milosevic trial, and we uploaded it under our number as 1D05574.

Page 39452

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  And then I take it, Mr. Weber, that you'll check --

 2     because there was a difference in quality.  I think had you a better

 3     quality.  How it is possible that the better-quality version is found on

 4     the Internet --

 5             MR. LUKIC:  No, no, Your Honour.  No.  Video was brought by the

 6     witness.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, the video was brought by the witness.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, and it was given to Prosecution, and the

 9     Prosecution gave it to the Defence.

10             MR. WEBER:  I will, of course, check what the ERNs are associated

11     to these exhibits and, if necessary, further inform the Chamber once we

12     find out.  The images that were tendered as part of this or videos --

13     well, I can check that.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  If you would check that.  Mr. Lukic has given you

15     the clues to where it came from.

16             MR. LUKIC:  We are tendering images and also yesterday, since

17     there was discussion in regard 1D05916, we tendered it but it was not

18     admitted.  So I would use the opportunity to tender this video, 1D05916.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and --

20             MR. WEBER:  We have no objection to it.  As far as we're

21     concerned, it would be just -- it depicts what's already in evidence

22     so --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

24             MR. LUKIC:  But better quality.

25             MR. WEBER:  I -- I think the Chamber is able to assess the visual

Page 39453

 1     quality of the videos.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  On the Prosecution version, it's almost not possible

 3     to see those stones that were supporting the tail-fin -- it was very

 4     [overlapping speakers] --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's -- the quality was different apparently -- I

 6     mean, the quality was not exactly the same as what we saw before.  The

 7     Prosecution, if there's any concerns about differences between the two,

 8     we'll hear from them.

 9             Mr. Weber, you'll verify that, and you have no objections against

10     1D05916 to be admitted?

11             MR. WEBER:  It still would be appreciated if counsel could give

12     us the ERN associated to that, just so we know what the --

13             MR. LUKIC:  We do not have ERN and we cannot give ERN.  It's the

14     Prosecution job, so we cannot give them ERN.

15             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, the concern is that -- I mean, to track

16     it back to the source material and whether anything that happened to the

17     video after that point in time, I need to know what the source material

18     is and what that ERN is.

19             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah, I have answer to that.  That video was brought

20     to this Tribunal and given to the Prosecution by their witness Sead Besic

21     during Karadzic trial, so it's easy to track.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  If that --

23             MR. WEBER:  And checking our records, that's the video we've

24     tendered into evidence.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

Page 39454

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Which was P864.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  But apparently you say, Mr. Lukic, it's different

 3     quality so something must have happened with that original material,

 4     either the Prosecution -- I don't know what has happened, but if the

 5     quality is different then something has happened with it.  And what

 6     Mr. Weber would like to check whether what happened with the video, to

 7     know what was the original, so that can you see weather there was any

 8     manipulation or whatever by whomever; and for that purpose, Mr. Weber

 9     wants to know what is the source material.  And you've now told him that

10     the video that was given by Mr. Besic to the Prosecution, that it's that

11     video -- but that's apparently the bad quality, so what then explains

12     where the better quality comes from?  And that's the issue.

13             MR. LUKIC:  The better quality comes from the witness Sead Besic,

14     who brought it here in December 2012.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  And the Prosecution tells us that that what is was

16     tendered --

17             MR. LUKIC:  No, it's not.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, that's -- I say that's what the Prosecution

19     tells us.

20             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Now then, of course, the question arises:  You

22     apparently have a copy of better quality --

23             MR. LUKIC:  They have it too.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Well --

25             MR. WEBER:  And, Your Honour, we may -- and if that's the case,

Page 39455

 1     all I'll need to know is just what the ERN is and I'll -- I would be --

 2     before -- I'm happy to do whatever efforts are needed to resolve the

 3     matter.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  I would -- we are not going to spend time at

 5     this moment any further, but this little puzzle should be resolved before

 6     we finally decide on admission of the other version with the stones

 7     better visible.

 8             Any other matter?

 9             MR. WEBER:  If we could just take a care of couple other

10     housekeeping matters.  Going back to the Livanjska Street incident and

11     discussion from Monday.  This is the matter that relates to the 8th of

12     November, 1994.  The parties indicated that we would discuss the

13     materials related to this event and their admission.  I did have the

14     opportunity to discusses with it with Mr. Lukic.  There are three

15     outstanding 65 ter numbers that have not yet been admitted related to

16     these shellings.  For the first shelling at 1525 hours under 65 ter

17     33104, which is the BiH MUP investigative file; and 65 ter 33235, which

18     is the photo file.  Those two items have not been admitted.  And with

19     respect to the second shelling at 1725 hours, 65 ter 18645 has not been

20     admitted, which is the photo file.

21             I believe it was the understanding that these would be acceptable

22     to be admitted into evidence.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Mr. Weber and I have to sit anyways and to discuss

25     the exhibits that would come through this --

Page 39456

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  On my list is now 65 ter 33104 to be

 2     discussed; 33235, photo file; and for the later shelling another photo

 3     file, 18645, and we'd like to hear from the parties whether that is what

 4     the parties are seeking to have admitted into evidence.

 5             We then leave it to that for the time being.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             MR. LUKIC:  And, Your Honour, I'm sorry for interrupting you.  I

 8     see that are you discussing.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  No, but it's finished, yes.

10             MR. LUKIC:  I'm afraid -- I don't like to have this video we

11     received from the Prosecution in a limbo and to be on the mercy of the

12     Prosecution to provide an ERN number.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  We didn't say that.  I think we -- what we said is

14     the puzzle has to be resolved.

15             MR. LUKIC:  But we cannot resolve it, so we are in the hands of

16     the Prosecution.  We cannot allow them to --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, we -- Mr. Weber will certainly sit together

18     with you and then you -- you say you have that video and you have an

19     explanation as to why you claim they have that video.  Mr. Weber will

20     carefully listen to that.  Mr. Weber will check his sources, and then you

21     agree or you do not agree.  If you agree, there seems to be no major

22     problem; if you do not agree, then you come back to the Chamber.  You're

23     not at the mercy of the Prosecution.  You never have been and this

24     Chamber will avoid that you ever will be.

25             Mr. Weber.

Page 39457

 1             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I just want it on the record that we've

 2     disclosed everything with ERN numbers.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Not this one.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay, then -- okay, then fine.  Then we have a

 5     puzzle that we should --

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Why would I hide ERN number --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  No, Mr. -- Mr. --

 8             MR. LUKIC:  -- I don't understand the Prosecution objection,

 9     Your Honour.  Why would I hide it?  I'm interested to have this video

10     admitted.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, Mr. Lukic, if the Prosecution says they have

12     disclosed everything with ERN numbers, then they have their records of

13     disclosure and you have your records of what you received in disclosure.

14     So apparently it slipped through; that's your position.  Then you should

15     explain when and how you got without an ERN number, whereas Mr. Weber's

16     records say they have an ERN number.  Try to resolve it, see where you

17     can reconstruct how one or two versions were disclosed; and then if you

18     don't agree, come back to the Chamber.

19             MR. LUKIC:  Okay, then --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  We leave it to that for the time being.  One second.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  And I expect that the parties will have finished

23     their discussions by next Monday, so if there's any matter not resolved

24     by then, we'll further hear from you.

25             MR. LUKIC:  Only we would like the position of the Prosecution

Page 39458

 1     whether their position is that something was tampered on this video by

 2     the Defence --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  At this -- Mr. -- that's a next step.  At this

 4     moment there's no need to have that in court.  If that's the result that

 5     that's their position, we'll hear that as well.

 6             Now we'll move on and could the witness be escorted -- oh, one

 7     second, please.  One second.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, there is one urgent matter I don't know if I

10     have to address you, Mr. Weber or Mr. Tieger.  On 25th of September the

11     Defence filed a motion - and I think it's public - to hear

12     David Del Pinto's evidence via video-conference link during the week of

13     the 19th of October, 2015, or at another agreeable date.  And considering

14     that the Defence's preferred date of testimony is only a few weeks away,

15     the Chamber invites the Prosecution to provide an expedited response.

16             MR. TIEGER:  And we will do exactly that, Mr. President.  We're

17     working on it now.  It may involve a quick discussion with the Defence,

18     but we'll keep that in mind and get back to the Court as soon as

19     possible.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

21                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  We briefly move into private session.

23                           [Private session]

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 39459

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20                           [Open session]

21             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

23             Earlier, when I addressed the urgent matter, I said on the 25th

24     of September the Defence filed a motion and I said I think it's public.

25     It's not a public motion.  However, nothing was touched upon which caused

Page 39460

 1     the motion to be confidential; and for that reason there's no need for a

 2     redaction of the transcript, but I'll be more cautious next time.

 3             Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Ms. Subotic.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Good morning.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, I'd like to remind you again

 8     that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the

 9     beginning of your testimony.

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

11             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry, I couldn't translate.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Could we check.  Perhaps it's the volume;

13     perhaps it's the channel.

14             Can you hear me now?  Can you hear me now in B/C/S?

15             THE WITNESS:  No translate.  Uh-huh, yes.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Do you receive translation now?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, it was the easiest probably to resolve today,

19     I think.

20             I remind you again that you are still bound by the solemn

21     declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony, and

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

23             Mr. Lukic.

24                           WITNESS:  ZORICA SUBOTIC [Resumed]

25                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

Page 39461

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Would you allow me to address you,

 2     Your Honours?  I want to say something regarding yesterday's testimony

 3     before we begin.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you may do so briefly.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, very briefly.

 6             Yesterday after leaving the courtroom I realised, because the

 7     whole thing shocked me, rather, I confused the artefacts in court when I

 8     spoke about the object that was in the courtroom, the stabiliser from the

 9     Markale I incident.  I was talking about events concerning the

10     identification in this courtroom of the artefact from Markale II, so

11     everything I said yesterday is related to the artefact that is only going

12     to be shown later, Markale II, whereas, the artefact we had in the

13     courtroom from Markale I, we saw in September 2012.  And it was the

14     representative of the Registry who brought it into our rooms.

15     Mr. Poparic, Aleksandar Stefanovic, and I were in the room, and, of

16     course, the person from the Registry.  We reviewed on that occasion the

17     documentation, we measured the length of the stabiliser.  I apologise

18     from -- for this error.  It must have been caused by my great surprise

19     over what I saw.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Does that mean whatever you said about what

21     happened and trying to unscrew, et cetera, and that you thought it would

22     be of no use because you considered it to be impossible, that also now

23     relates to when you inspected the Markale II artefact; is that well

24     understood?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

Page 39462

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Thank you for this correction.

 2             Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 4                           Examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]

 5        Q.   [Interpretation] We need on our screens 1D05496, and that is an

 6     expert analysis relating to Markale.  In English, we need page 97 because

 7     we need figure 95; and in B/C/S it would be page 143.

 8             As a reference, this photograph was taken from a video which is

 9     65 ter 1D05915, and this still is taken from 0021 minutes and 49 seconds.

10     We will also tender that video, or do you wish to see those couple of

11     seconds from which the still was taken?

12             MR. LUKIC:  Your Honours, I'm asking if you want to see those

13     couple of seconds or still is enough, because we just need the still?

14             JUDGE ORIE:  We do not ask for anything in addition to what

15     you're presenting to us; and if that changes, we'll let you know.

16             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

17        Q.   [Interpretation] So, Ms. Subotic, in this figure, 95, we see - as

18     we see on the video - that this man who is sitting is injured.  Below the

19     photograph, the caption -- there is a legend, number 1 is the site of the

20     explosion; number 2 is the injured man, who is conscious with his lower

21     leg amputated; and 3 is injured man sitting.

22             How far is the site distant from these people marked 1, 2, 3?

23        A.   According to the documentation we found, which was prepared by a

24     team from the CSB, the site of the explosion is 1.95 metres from the

25     curb, no more than 2 metres, in my estimate.

Page 39463

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Lukic, you just said those people marked 1,

 2     2, 3.  But 1 is not a marking of a person.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  The people marked numbers 2 and 3.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  People marked as 2 and 3.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, yes.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes, you misspoke.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May I also ask for clarification here.

 9             Point 1 on this picture is called "point of impact," and your

10     question now, Mr. Lukic - as explained by the witnesses - relates to the

11     site of the explosion.  My question is:  What is the difference between

12     "site of explosion" and "point of impact"?

13             MR. LUKIC:  I don't know how that was translated.  I said --

14     [Interpretation] I said "place of the explosion."  I didn't know how it

15     was translated.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Well, in your question, I can quote you, you said:

17             "How far is it the site distant from these people marked 1, 2,

18     and 3?"

19             I was going to interrupt you and ask you:  Site of what?  But

20     then the witness carried on to answer, understood you to talk of the site

21     of the explosion; in her answer, that's what she says.  Because in her

22     answer she says:

23             "According to the documentation we found which was prepared by a

24     team from the CSB the site of the explosion is ..."

25             So I'm asking:  What is the difference between the "site of

Page 39464

 1     explosion" and the "point of impact" that is referred to in the picture,

 2     which is here where these people are, not 1.5 metres away?

 3             MR. LUKIC:  I think it's translation issue.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I think you expressed yourself also in B/C/S

 5     and you said that you said "mesto eksplozije," which is the --

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  "Point of impact" --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  -- B -- well, "point of impact," but was translated

 8     a moment later as the "site of the" --

 9             MR. LUKIC:  "Explosion."

10             JUDGE ORIE:  -- "explosion."  So if the parties would -- or

11     Mr. Lukic, you used the language "mesto eksplozije."  That's --

12             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  And you consider -- in your understanding of

14     your own language, does that mean that the site of the explosion is the

15     same as the point where the shell impacted?

16             MR. LUKIC:  That's how I understand it.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  That's how you understand it; for you, it's the

18     same.

19             MR. LUKIC:  For me, it's the same.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Then let's move on.

21             What, of course, remains is that it is in the written version, it

22     is translated as "point of impact"; and in our oral interpretation, it

23     was interpreted as the "site of the impact."  Now I think the question is

24     whether it's the same or not.  It's certainly not the same words.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It's certainly not the same words.  Let me explain

Page 39465

 1     my problem.  My problem is:  According to the witness, the site of

 2     explosion is some 1.5 metres away.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  I think 195.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  1.95, yeah.  My question is:  Away from what?

 5             MR. LUKIC:  From the curb, I think she said.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  From the curb?

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And how does it relate -- how far is it from this

 9     1.1 or is this 1.1 said to be 1.95 metres away?

10             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Then I understand.  Thank you.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Having resolved all the misunderstandings, please

13     proceed, Mr. Lukic.

14             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

15             Can we have figure 96, please, it's same page in English; and the

16     next page, 144, in B/C/S.  This is just the same -- probably the same

17     moment from another angle, only this one is recorded in 65 ter video

18     number 1D01227A at 0 hours, 01 minute, and 34 seconds.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we have the English version on our screen as

20     well.  I think I'm looking at --

21             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah, the first line on this page is the second line

22     of the text underneath the picture --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay, okay, then we have to go back --

24             MR. LUKIC:  -- that figure --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  -- and we have to go back one page in English, so as

Page 39466

 1     to be able to read the -- yes.  Figures 96 reading:  "Men who survived

 2     explosion of a 120-millimetre mortar shell 2 metres away."

 3             Yes.  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.  We referenced video from which this

 5     picture is taken.  Now we'll have -- we could -- we should go to --

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Don't you put a question to the witness with

 7     respect to this?

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour, I'm sorry.

 9        Q.   [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, is it the same place from a

10     different angle or are these two different places?  And in which one do

11     you better see the point of impact?

12        A.   It's the same place photographed from another side.  And in the

13     previous photograph, I would say the point of impact is seen more clearly

14     and it gives one a better picture of that space.  In any case, in

15     figure 96, this man whom we see is the same man as marked number 2 in the

16     previous picture.

17        Q.   Do you mean the one lying down or the one sitting?

18        A.   The one who is half-sitting, trying to find some help; the one

19     with a amputated leg.

20        Q.   Did you draw any conclusions --

21             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... the person

22     sitting in this picture or a person sitting in another picture.

23             MR. LUKIC:  No, both lying but both lifted.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, Mr. Lukic, if you want us to hear any

25     conclusions to be drawn on the previous picture we had one as the

Page 39467

 1     "mesto eksplozije" - I don't use the English language any further - and

 2     we had two persons.  Okay, now first, are we now talking about --

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Number 2, I think.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Number 2.  And that's --

 5             MR. LUKIC:  -- a man who is lying down.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  -- that's a man who is lying down and not a man who

 7     is sitting.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we go back to the previous so that we can well

10     memorize -- yes.  Number 2 is not a sitting person.  It is a person you

11     say is lying and he is not the one with the amputated leg, or is he?

12             MR. LUKIC:  I think he is.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now do we see that here because --

14             MR. LUKIC:  -- not from this angle we cannot see his legs --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  -- we cannot see his legs --

16             MR. LUKIC:  -- but we can see that he is a bit lifted as well.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  He -- well --

18             MR. LUKIC:  His head is not on the pavement --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  -- well, you're giving evidence at this moment.  We

20     can see what we see, and later you argue that he's not lying for the full

21     hundred per cent but is a little bit upright.  And do I see that that is

22     a person not with a white or whitish shirt -- as a matter of fact, I

23     can't see -- it's dark.  That's what it is, what we can see, nothing

24     more, nothing less.  Okay --

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could the witness perhaps mark the person she was

Page 39468

 1     talking about?

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, perhaps that would assist.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Figure 96.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Marks]

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Ms. Subotic, is this person you marked with the

 7     circle the same person as number 2 in figure 95?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It could be.  The picture is not

 9     quite clear, but it's about 1 metre from the point of impact; and looking

10     at it, this man marked number 2 is also trying to get into a sitting

11     position.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And when you marked the person in figure 96,

13     what -- I'm now a little bit confused because are you not certain about

14     the person you marked or what is your position?  Can you help us?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The person I marked is about

16     1 metre from the point of impact.  And as far as I can see in the film,

17     his legs are amputated, he is trying to lift himself up, and looking for

18     help.  If you look at the video and all these scenes in sequence, it will

19     be much clearer.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No, I'm asking about --

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It could be the person marked 2 in

22     figure 95 because he is approximately in the same place.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  But I take it you are not certain about it?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, one cannot be quite sure, of

25     course.

Page 39469

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Now, you said both legs were amputated.  I

 2     understood from your previous answers that a leg was - that means one

 3     leg - was amputated.  What is it in your opinion?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my opinion, as far as I can

 5     see - but I cannot be sure - it looks like both legs.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, I have a few follow-up questions there as

 8     well.

 9             Mr. Lukic -- no.

10             First of all, trying to get a bit upright, does that mean that

11     you consider these two photographs to have been taken at the same time?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, not in the very same moment

13     were these pictures made from two different directions, because obviously

14     in figure 96 some of the people are missing because they had already been

15     taken away, injured people.  Some of them had been taken away, although

16     the interval is very small.  If you look at the road, some of the injured

17     people are already missing, whereas we can see seem this figure 95.  But,

18     still, a lot of the injured people are still there.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So it's a picture taken at not the same

20     moment, where you're not sure whether the person number 2 in picture 95

21     is the same as the one you marked on 96.

22             Do you have any clue as to how much time there was between the

23     two pictures?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, but a very short time, I

25     suppose, because the evacuation proceeded very fast.

Page 39470

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And that's not something which is in the realm

 2     of your expertise, is it?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly not.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 5             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  I thought to avoid showing the video, but let's have

 7     1D5915 from [indiscernible] 21 minutes, 42 seconds to 21 minutes 49

 8     seconds --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I think we had a marked picture.  Now the marking

10     is --

11             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah, we can -- gone --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Is it still retrievable?

13             I take it that you want the marked -- and do we have them -- you

14     tender that, Mr. Lukic?

15             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, we do.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17             Madam Registrar.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  The marked figure 96 of the document 1D5496

19     receives Exhibit Number D1264, Your Honours.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

21             Please proceed.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

23             We'll first --

24             MR. WEBER:  Sorry, Your Honour.  Would that be the full screen

25     with the figure 95 also in it, or just the marked figure of 96?

Page 39471

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  I think it's only the marked figure 96, but since

 2     the other one is --

 3                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  It's everything, so it's even easier to --

 5             MR. WEBER:  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  -- to compare the two pictures.

 7             Please proceed.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

 9             I'm -- just spoke with Mr. Ivetic.  He told me that he has

10     another video on his screen and then we'll move to the previous one.  So

11     we'll see first 1D01227A from 1 minute, 32 seconds to 1 minute, 34

12     seconds.

13             Can we start.

14                           [Video-clip played]

15             MR. LUKIC:  Can we go back, if possible.

16                           [Video-clip played]

17             MR. LUKIC:  I think that on this video we see that both legs were

18     amputated, but that's my opinion.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  That's your evidence, which we are not seeking.

20             MR. LUKIC:  And we paused at 1 minute 33 seconds.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Would the parties agree that whatever is to be seen

22     on this video is observation by whoever looks at it; and that where

23     there's no specific - unless you demonstrate there is, Mr. Lukic - if

24     there's no specific expertise of the witness which would help us to

25     better understand this video, that everyone can argue what he sees on

Page 39472

 1     this video as he wishes.  And that the Chamber will finally determine

 2     whether it sees anything here relevant and what that is.

 3             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the Prosecution's position would be -

 4     and we've had witnesses comment on the images from our colleague too -

 5     that the Chamber, I understand, would evaluate that and it's in the

 6     totality of the evidence that it has before us.  And in the context of

 7     this witness, we understand what Your Honour is saying.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Same position here.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Same position, that's good.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. LUKIC:  And can we see the previous video, it's 1D05915 from

12     21 minutes, 42 seconds up to 21 minutes, 49 seconds.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can you repeat the 65 ter number, please, it's

14     not recorded.

15             MR. LUKIC:  1D05915.

16                           [Video-clip played]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, you lose ...

18                           [Video-clip played]

19             MR. LUKIC:  [Microphone not activated]

20             We can start from 21:31 since, for us, it's very hard to adjust

21     to the precise point in time, so we can start.

22                           [Video-clip played]

23             MR. LUKIC:  Can we move a bit forward?  Maybe we would see

24     better.

25                           [Defence counsel confer]

Page 39473

 1             MR. LUKIC:  So we just wanted to show it and we would offer both

 2     videos into evidence as well.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And you are not relying on the text spoken?

 4             MR. LUKIC:  No, we just need the video.

 5             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, we have no objection, provided that it

 6     is translated and the text is understandable.  So if counsel can upload a

 7     translation or get one done, we have no objection to it being MFI'd for

 8     the time being.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  We are not leaning on audio --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  You're not --

11             MR. LUKIC:  So if the Prosecution wants to use it, they are free

12     to do so.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic only offers into evidence the images seen

14     here, and that's the reason why -- of course, there is some text on the

15     images as well.  There are names, for example, I saw.  But Mr. Lukic,

16     refraining from relying on that and just want to us look at the pictures.

17             If you want to us do more and not just to rely on the images,

18     then, Mr. Weber, if you would --

19             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I mean, this is -- the proponent into

20     evidence is the Defence.  The Defence is seeking to admit it.  If they

21     want the Chamber to consider it, then --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  To consider the --

23             MR. WEBER:  -- the video, where it's from, its context, we would

24     like to have the -- I mean, they're offering it into evidence.  I don't

25     see what's --

Page 39474

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  I do understand that the Defence is tendering this

 2     video, asking the Chamber to pay attention only to the images, whereas

 3     the Defence claims - I don't know on what basis exactly - but that this

 4     is a video taken immediately after the --

 5             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, you just pointed out the reason we'd

 6     like the -- it transcribed, so we understand what is being depicted and

 7     what is being broadcast and shown.  It has not been identified for the

 8     record.  And the text, I believe, would properly describe, so we have

 9     some basis to understand what the broadcast is.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I think there are two issues here.  There is the

11     audio of what is being said by the person who speaks, and there's the

12     text that is on the thing which is part of an image.  And that what's

13     you're asking for; is that it?

14             MR. WEBER:  I believe there was some audio that was being spoken.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's what I'm say.

16             MR. WEBER:  Yes.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And the Defence says it doesn't rely on the audio,

18     but you want the context.  And I thought you were saying what is written

19     as text --

20             MR. WEBER:  No --

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  -- is the -- is part of the image that needs to be

22     translated?

23             MR. WEBER:  The audio from the [overlapping speakers] --

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You want the audio as well?  Okay.  That's a

25     different position.

Page 39475

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Is there any --

 2             MR. WEBER:  And, Your Honours, if I was not clear about that,

 3     that is my fault.  I just -- I think it's self-identifiable as to what we

 4     just watched, which has not otherwise been fully identified if we have a

 5     transcript of what was just said on this video.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, the position --

 7             MR. LUKIC:  We --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  -- of the Prosecution is that without the

 9     translation of the words spoken that the Prosecution considers, that

10     it -- this event has not been identified in time and place.  That's --

11             MR. WEBER:  Well, we understand what it depicts, but just so we

12     have a freestanding piece of evidence, I think it would be -- it's not a

13     very long clip.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me see.  First of all, is there any dispute that

15     this is a video depicting the immediate aftermath of an impact on the

16     28 August 1995 at Markale II?

17             MR. WEBER:  In part.  There's other images that we're also shown.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Okay.  So if there's such a problem, then --

19     Mr. Lukic, now you know what you've shown, to some extent - and perhaps

20     you could agree to what extent - depicts the immediate aftermath of that

21     shell falling; and in other respects you can expect the Prosecution to

22     later say this is not related or not related, as you suggest, with

23     Markale II.  That's then --

24             MR. LUKIC:  What I was thinking is that before when we could hear

25     a reporter speaking about something, that's not in evidence, that was not

Page 39476

 1     in evidence.  Only if the witnesses would talk:  This is reporter telling

 2     us about the attack by Serbs.  That's why the Prosecution wants it.  And

 3     the reporter cannot decide actually who actually caused this explosion.

 4     So I don't know -- I don't see here why is it important.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Now -- yes, okay.  Let's try to continue.

 6             You again, you sit together.  You talk about it.  You see to what

 7     extent you agree, to what extent you disagree, what is depicted here; to

 8     what extent you need or you do not need the transcription.  If you agree

 9     on the text, then of course you could agree on that, present that to the

10     Chamber, and then -- but let's -- there apparently is some concern and

11     the only thing -- the only reason why I dealt with in the way I did is so

12     that you are aware that your assumption of what it all is, even without

13     the words spoken, may not be what is accepted by the Prosecution.  And

14     therefore, it's good to find out to what extent it is and to what extent

15     it is not, so that you know what you could expect later when the

16     Prosecution argues about this video and what your argument will be.

17             Please proceed.

18             MR. LUKIC:  Can you just then MFI those two videos, please?

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, until we have heard from the parties.

20             Madam Registrar, the numbers would be ...

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Video 1D01227A receives Exhibit Number D1265.

22             Document 1D05915 receives Exhibit Number D1266.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Both are marked for identification, that is, D1265

24     and D1266.

25             A couple of minutes until the break, Mr. Lukic.

Page 39477

 1             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  Now we should see --

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can we clarify the number on line 11.  Page 25,

 3     the exhibit number.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I repeated it for that.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Okay.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  I think be repeating the number, as I heard it, I

 7     think we have the right numbers on the record.

 8             Please proceed.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Now we'll see 1D05916 again.  It's a video that was

10     brought in December 2012 and we should see the same from the -- it's one

11     that is very hard to handle.  We need 23 minutes and 15 seconds.

12                           [Video-clip played]

13             MR. LUKIC:  Judge?

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  [Microphone not activated] -- when you were at 15.

15                           [Video-clip played]

16             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   What did we just see, Ms. Subotic, on this footage?

18        A.   In this part of the footage, we see a tail-fin marked with a

19     number 13 some 20 to 30 metres away from the point of impact.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And we stopped the video at 23:54.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And could you tell me whether you measured that, the

22     20 to 30 metres, or that you took that from any recording or any report?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that is how it was depicted on

24     the sketch of the scene.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  In a report, therefore?

Page 39478

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Which report?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just one moment.  It is a CSB

 4     report drafted on the day the on-site investigation was conducted.  If

 5     you bear with me, can I find it.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  I think that would be sufficient to know that it's a

 7     CSB report of that same day.

 8             Please proceed.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 318, yes.

10             MR. LUKIC:  Can we start again from 23:15.

11                           [Video-clip played]

12             MR. LUKIC:  Can you stop?

13        Q.   [Interpretation] On the screen in front of you, we also see this

14     piece?

15        A.   I don't have it on the screen.  I can see you on my screen.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You stopped at 23:15.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

18             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   You can see it on the screen now?

20        A.   Yes.  It is a tail-fin marked with the number 12 close to an

21     entrance that can be seen on another part of the footage.  We can see the

22     entrance to the building.

23        Q.   Can one and the same tail-fin be marked with two different

24     numbers or can two tail-fins be marked with one and the same number when

25     conducting investigations?  Do you know how a police investigation

Page 39479

 1     develops?  Did you write any instructions on how to conduct

 2     investigations?

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

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  That's five questions in one.

 5             MR. WEBER:  Yes, and I believe that actually probably the first

 6     one should be the second-to-last one probably would be the first one to

 7     establish first.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps, Mr. Lukic, you take them one by one, and

 9     perhaps -- and let's clearly distinguish between what should and what

10     was.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   So have you ever taken part in police investigations?

14        A.   I apologise.  I didn't hear you.

15        Q.   Have you ever taken part in police investigations?

16        A.   Yes, many times.

17        Q.   Do you know what kind of instructions are applied to police

18     investigations?

19        A.   Yes, I even drafted some.

20        Q.   Can you tell us whether it is allowed to use one number to mark

21     two traces or pieces of evidence or to use two different numbers to mark

22     one single piece of evidence?

23        A.   It is absolutely impermissible according to the forensic

24     profession and on-site investigation rules.  Any scene-of-crime officer

25     would know that.

Page 39480

 1        Q.   In your view, what we could see on this footage, would it be one

 2     and the same tail-fin or two?

 3        A.   Two tail-fins.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I'm looking at the clock.  One more

 5     question after two tail-fins.  Yes, please.

 6             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   In the police report compiled by the Sarajevo police, how many

 8     tail-fins were part of the investigation?

 9        A.   In the Sarajevo police report concerning this incident, one

10     tail-fin was investigated.

11        Q.   Thank you.

12             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] It is time for a break.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you may follow the usher.  We'd like to see you

14     back in 20 minutes.

15                           [The witness stands down]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll resume at five minutes to 11.00.

17                           --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.

18                           --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20                           [Defence counsel confer]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Before the witness is actually ...

23                           [The witness takes the stand]

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

25             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  And just for the record,

Page 39481

 1     before we continue, 1D05916 is the only video where we can find this

 2     tail-fin number 13.

 3             Sorry, I was just warned that this video were -- we just saw is

 4     not 1D05916 but 1D05915, so my mistake.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  That was shown to us a minute ago --

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  -- and you tendered that one?

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  And have you given a CD with that video-clip?

10             MR. LUKIC:  I think we provided it to the Prosecution this

11     morning.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And, of course, the Registrar is most

13     important because the Registry is the custodian of the evidence.

14             Madam Registrar -- yes, Mr. Weber.

15             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, the Prosecution is a bit confused.  We

16     thought that the video being played was 1D5916, which we do indicate

17     corresponds to V000-8939, which we do find the images that were

18     broadcast.  Now there's a reference to 1D5915, which we show as actually

19     possibly - and I haven't yet had the opportunity to check this other

20     video - V000-2821 according to the Defence list.  So I would need to

21     check that.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, then we'll mark it for identification, and you

23     have an opportunity to check whether what we saw on our screens is --

24             MR. LUKIC:  Mr. Weber is right actually.  We had some confusion.

25     The one that was shown was --

Page 39482

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Could we also call it --

 2             MR. LUKIC:  -- one on the screen --

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  -- by its 65 ter number.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, one on the screen was 1D05916.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, so what the Prosecution thought that was being

 6     played was indeed played, and therefore there's no need then to mark it

 7     for identification because no further verification is needed on your

 8     part.  No objections.

 9             MR. WEBER:  No objections.  And as long as we say for the record,

10     though, that that is an excerpt of the entire video.  I see it's only

11     half of it.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Do you intend in cross-examination to add

13     portions to it, because then it's our usual practice that we put together

14     what both parties need?

15             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, we see that part of this video has

16     already been admitted under a Defence number.  We also have tendered

17     videos from -- depicting these images, so we do not intend to tender more

18     images from the same video.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Then it is ready for admission.

20             Madam Registrar, 1D05916 receives number?

21             THE REGISTRAR:  D1267, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  D1267 is admitted into evidence.

23             Please proceed.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

25        Q.   We'll just shortly move now, Ms. Subotic, to your expert report

Page 39483

 1     number 1D05496.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  We need figure 126.  It's on page 126 in B/C/S -- no,

 3     sorry, 183 in B/C/S and 120 in English.

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] We -- or you established that the base charge --

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Perhaps could you check if the English is the

 6     correct page.  It refers to figure 100 --

 7             MR. LUKIC:  It's 120, should be 120.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  There we are, 120.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  That's right.

10        Q.   [Interpretation] We could see before that the primary charge on

11     the artefact concerning Markale II can be turned.  What did you compare

12     in figure 128?  What does it relate to?

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Did you say "128"?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean 126?

15             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Yes, 126.

17        A.   In figure 126, we compared the place the firing pin struck with

18     regard to the tightening area of the bottom plate of the primary charge.

19     We have a comparison of the photo documentation on the left-hand side,

20     and on the right-hand side we have the photographs which exist as

21     evidence before this Tribunal.

22        Q.   Is there a difference?

23        A.   Yes, there is, and we can see it with the naked eye.  The place

24     where the firing pin struck on the primer is not positioned the same way

25     on the two stabilising fins.  We can clearly see it on the upper part of

Page 39484

 1     the picture.  The place is marked in red in order to make it more

 2     visible.  In the lower part of the picture we have the same thing without

 3     the marking, and we can also clearly see that the point of firing pin

 4     struck on the left-hand side picture in the photo documentation report is

 5     at the very edge of the circle.  The tool marks are also different.  On

 6     the piece of evidence before this Tribunal on the right-hand side, it is

 7     moved slightly upward when compared to the same tangent drawn across the

 8     two holes for the tools.  So we have the same images up and down.  The

 9     only difference is that in the upper part of the imagine the place where

10     the firing pin struck was marked in order to make it more visible.

11        Q.   The fact that the primary charge can now be turned, does it

12     change your finding in any way?

13        A.   No, it doesn't, because it rotates together with the tool

14     openings and they can be freely moved together.  They all spin together,

15     the primer and the holes for the tools at the base of the primary charge.

16        Q.   Let us not dwell any longer on what the primary charge can be

17     turned or not.  How -- what is the minimum number of fins appearing in

18     the photo documentation?

19        A.   Two at least -- I apologise, sorry.  Yes, in the photo

20     documentation there are two; in the footage there are two; and in the

21     report there's only one.

22        Q.   When you say there are two in the photo documentation -- just one

23     second.

24             When you say there are two in the photo documentation file, what

25     do you have in mind?

Page 39485

 1        A.   I had in mind the fact that two tail-fins are analysed as one.  I

 2     had in mind the photo documentation file compiled together with the CSB

 3     report.  The CSB treated only one tail-fin, and it appears recorded

 4     marked and fixed as two.  One was at 20 to 30 metres away from the point

 5     of impact, and another one was further down the street marked with a

 6     different number, number 12, whereas the previous one was 13.

 7             There was something else I needed to say.  While viewing the

 8     footage, we established that both tail-fins were moved during the on-site

 9     investigation.  It is clear to everyone that it creates problems while

10     trying to analyse because they were no longer there as a consequence of

11     the explosion.  It is all dealt with in detail in the report.

12        Q.   What kind of force is needed, as we discussed it yesterday?  It

13     normal that one can use one's hand or pen in order to unscrew the primary

14     charge after an explosion or before?

15        A.   I said yesterday that it requires a great amount of force that

16     cannot be exercised by hand, either before or after the explosion, when

17     it comes to trying to unscrew the tail-fin.  There is no force created

18     during the explosion that could assist in being able to unscrew it by

19     hand or pen or even a screwdriver or a similar tool.  It requires much

20     force which requires a certain application of momentary force in order to

21     do that.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  On which basis do you assess that?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the basis of the knowledge that

24     I have about how such shells are manufactured.  I also know what kind of

25     force is applied in flight and at explosion.

Page 39486

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I think you explained to us that it was a

 3     combination of the force by which it was screwed in and that there was a

 4     kind of cement or glue which was there.

 5             Would you agree that once it's loosened one time, that after that

 6     it's apparently rather simple to screw it in and screw it out?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If someone applied the appropriate

 8     amount of force at the right moment and with the right tools and actually

 9     succeeds in unscrewing it, then of course it is very possible that the

10     next time around it would be far easier to do.  Because I suppose that

11     whoever unscrewed it probably would not use the same torsion and the

12     amount of force to screw it back in, at least not the same amount of

13     force that had been used in the process of manufacture.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  In the process of manufacturing who finally applies

15     that -- that basic charge, is it done immediately in the factory or is it

16     done later while preparing for firing a projectile?  When is it in the

17     process of manufacturing when it is screwed in at the -- on the tail-fin?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A complete shell is the result of

19     manufacturing with the base charge being screwed into the body of the

20     stabiliser.  The only thing that can be changed at the place of usage is

21     the additional type of charge that can be chosen as per situation.  They

22     are mounted from the outside, and I have in mind the first, second,

23     third, and so on charge that can be put on or taken off, as you could see

24     in some of the photographs and firing tables in the report.  The primary

25     charge leaves the factory together with the shell as a final product.

Page 39487

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.  Please proceed.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Sorry, Mr. Lukic.

 3             I have a follow-up question to your answer you provided me with.

 4     I asked you:

 5             "On which basis do you assess that?"

 6             And then you said:

 7             "On the basis of the knowledge that I have about how such shells

 8     are manufactured."

 9             Yesterday you -- we talked about how to open this base charge,

10     and then you said -- well, Judge Orie asked you:

11             "Could you tell us how you tried to move the base charge?"

12             Your answer was:

13             "In a way similar to what you did without any particular tools.

14     Mr. Sladojevic tried to do the same thing on that occasion, finding it

15     interesting; however, the lack of my technical knowledge in that area

16     would not allow it."

17             MR. LUKIC:  It was corrected later on, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  What was corrected?

19             MR. LUKIC:  That lack of technical knowledge.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can you draw my attention to the ... yes, "the

21     lack of my technical knowledge," that was what was said.

22             And the interpreter said we believe the original interpretation

23     was "technical knowledge."

24             Previously it was on the transcript -- the word "technology"

25     appeared.  That was corrected later, and therefore I used the corrected

Page 39488

 1     version.

 2             Again, the question for you:  What is your technical knowledge

 3     with respect to the possibility to open the tail-fin?  Yesterday you said

 4     you don't have the technical knowledge; today you told us how you base

 5     your knowledge about these matters.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With all due respect, I didn't say

 7     I didn't have any knowledge.  I said this should not even be checked in

 8     view of my technical knowledge.  How this thing in the record occurred, I

 9     don't know.

10             MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... different.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You were already talking while the interpretation

12     went on.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you then perhaps now repeat what you want the

14     to say.

15             MR. LUKIC:  Page 58, line 9, Ms. Subotic corrected the transcript

16     and said:

17             "I said that based on my technical knowledge, which is primarily

18     based on my knowledge ..." and so on.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Of today's transcript?

20             MR. WEBER:  There's no [overlapping speakers] --

21             MR. LUKIC:  It's yesterday's transcript.  So two pages down,

22     page 58, line 9.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I have already -- you -- the witness said

24     yesterday:

25             "I said that based on my technical knowledge, which is primarily

Page 39489

 1     based on my knowledge in -- as to how the shell is produced and used.  I

 2     do not feel any need to do so because I wanted simply to be able to

 3     check."

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  But I'm still confused about these two different

 6     answers.  Can you help me to understand what your position is.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My position is this.  I graduated

 8     from a school where people are trained to design these things.  Even

 9     without anything additional, I would still know how it is produced.  My

10     technical knowledge in this area is such that I couldn't even know --

11     that I couldn't even think it could be just unscrewed --

12             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please be asked to slow down.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could you please slow down.  The interpreters

14     can't follow.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You said:

17             "My technical knowledge in this area is such ..." and then please

18     continue.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My technical knowledge -- I will

20     repeat from the beginning.

21             My technical knowledge in this area is such that I have no reason

22     to suppose that something like this could happen on the following basis.

23     If you perhaps looked at my CV, this shell is one of the projects in

24     which I participated from its very conception.  Second, I know

25     technologically how it's produced.  Third, I know which aerodynamic

Page 39490

 1     forces act upon this shell in flight.  And fourth, I know which forces

 2     act upon that shell during its action on the site, that is to say,

 3     explosion.  There is no reason either technical or physical or

 4     aerodynamic for which we could even think that might happen.  We, when we

 5     make such projectiles, the basic thing that we have to ensure according

 6     to PKP is that the projectile be safe during flight and reach its target,

 7     which means that all quality standard versus to be made, including the

 8     screwing in of the base charge.

 9             So I have no technical or any other reason to think this might

10     happen, nor have I ever encountered that in my career, and I believe in

11     August 2014 Mr. Turkusic said the same thing in this courtroom.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Why do you believe that - it happened yesterday -

13     that we, the Judges, without this kind of technical knowledge were able

14     to unscrew both tail-fins?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Anything that I would say here now

16     would be some kind of speculation.  Obviously, by the time you got them

17     in your hands, they had already been unscrewed before.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

19             Mr. Lukic.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I have one additional question.

21             As far as I understand a bit from -- from manufacturing

22     protocols, there should be somewhere an instruction with what force the

23     base charge should be screwed in.  Because that's what I understand

24     industrial production is usually set out step by step, this has to be

25     done, that has to be done, and also the force to be used in order to have

Page 39491

 1     the base charge screwed in.

 2             Are you aware of any such a protocol for the production of

 3     this -- for this tail-fin which would provide exactly the data we are

 4     talking about now for a long time, a lot of power, and the same for the

 5     glue to be used in screwing it in and fixing it well to the tail-fin?  I

 6     mean, that would resolve so many problems if that would exist.

 7             Are you aware of any such protocol or any such instruction?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The protocol exists, and a very

 9     detailed one, for every technology process.  Such a protocol exists for

10     the factory where these shells and has everything defined step by step

11     and process by process in the production.  The first step before that is

12     when we send the documentation, if we were the first one to master this

13     technical knowledge if it wasn't the factory itself --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  You have answered my question that such a protocol

15     does exist in the manufacturing production side.

16             Mr. Lukic, I mean, if we're talking about how easy it is or how

17     easy it not is, then the easiest way would be to look at that and to see

18     what force is used to screw it in, which may relate to what force is

19     needed to screw it out and what glue is used.

20             Mr. Lukic, that seemed to me to be an obvious source of being

21     able to look at it.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Only if you want to acquire it, you have to ask it

23     from the state.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, you can ask it from the state; and if you need

25     our support, you'll get it, as you know.  But that's the --

Page 39492

 1             MR. LUKIC:  I don't know.  We can discuss with Ms. Subotic when

 2     she finishes here what -- which I should look for.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Well, let's proceed for the time being.

 4             MR. WEBER:  If it is any assistance to Mr. Lukic, there's a very

 5     specific manufacturing number related to this mortar; and also, we've

 6     entered into evidence the test range related to the same batch, the

 7     results.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.  But for screwing in and screwing

 9     out?

10             MR. WEBER:  No --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

12             MR. WEBER:  -- but it could follow on as to where it was produced

13     and things like that.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Please proceed.

15             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

16        Q.   [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, according to you, what is the

17     probability that both these base charges on the tail-fin turn without

18     anyone unscrewing them first?

19        A.   You mean the base charges on the stabilisers from Markale I and

20     Markale II?  I didn't quite understand the question.

21        Q.   Precisely, these two stabilisers from Markale I and II.

22        A.   Excuse me, but such probability does not exist.  As far as

23     probability is concerned, it's not probability; it's impossibility.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, perhaps I do not fully understand what

25     you meant by these base charges on the tail-fin turn without -- you mean

Page 39493

 1     that they move; is that what you --

 2             MR. LUKIC:  That you can unscrew them with hand or pencil.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let me then see.  Yes, you mean unscrew --

 4     prior unscrewing with more force --

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, is there any possibility to be able to unscrew

 6     them with hand or pen without have that actually base charge unlocked

 7     with a tool.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Loosened before --

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Yes --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  -- with more force.

11             That's how you understood the question?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then the answer is clear; now the question is

14     clear as well.  Please proceed.

15             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  We would finish with

16     Markale.  At this moment, I would switch to modified aerial bomb with the

17     third report of Ms. Subotic, if she has it with her, and it's 65 ter

18     number 1D05497.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, that document remained

20     back in that room.

21             If you don't mind, I would like to go and pick up my document

22     before we continue.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  That's your report, I then take it?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but it was -- it remained in

25     the witness room outside the courtroom.

Page 39494

 1             MR. LUKIC:  I think Madam Registrar is trying, with usher's help,

 2     to organise getting that report.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The witness may be escorted to the witness

 4     room in order to find the report.

 5             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

 6                           [The witness stands down]

 7             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, just so we can organise on our end, it

 8     would be of assistance if Mr. Lukic could let us know if he is going to

 9     be finishing today or if he is planning to go into tomorrow about the

10     modified air bombs too.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic.

12             MR. LUKIC:  I think that we do not have enough time to finish

13     today because I think I have two hours left.

14                           [The witness takes the stand]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, on the ten hours you have claimed --

16             MR. LUKIC:  Yes --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  -- yes.  You have gone beyond the --

18             MR. LUKIC:  I think I'm at the --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  -- the five hours you initially claimed --

20             MR. LUKIC:  Yes --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  -- by far, and I think we urged you to see whether

22     you could --

23             MR. LUKIC:  But as you saw, Your Honour, it was really a lot of

24     materials, 1.000 pages of expert reports and more than 2.000 exhibits.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Quantity certainly is huge.

Page 39495

 1             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, you have your work before you now?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   First --

 7             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We are now looking at the cover page

 8     and because the introduction is long, we need page 46 in English and 47

 9     in B/C/S.

10        Q.   We are beginning from the incident from the indictment G-10.  It

11     says:

12             "7 April 1995 around 0850 a.m., a modified air bomb hit a private

13     house at Aleksa Santica Street number 1 in Hrasnica.  The house was

14     demolished and 11 houses in the neighbourhood were damaged.  One person

15     was killed and three were lightly wounded in the incidents?"

16             What are the features of this incident?

17        A.   Two things.  First of all, this building that was hit is

18     20 metres away from Aleksa Santica school, which was used by the BH army.

19     And second, it is curious that the commander of the 5th Motorised

20     Brigade, I think, prohibited UNPROFOR members from attending the on-site

21     investigation and the expert analysis.  So that from what we were able to

22     find out, they came there only the next afternoon.  After the on-site

23     investigation was completed and after everything was cleaned up and

24     injured persons removed, it was only then that they gained access to the

25     place and gain some information on the basis of which to arrive at some

Page 39496

 1     opinion of their own.  And, excuse me, it was the 4th Motorised Brigade.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can I ask you a question, please.  The

 3     4th Motorised Brigade of which army?

 4             THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can we have interpretation of the answer.

 7             Could you repeat your answer, please.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The BH Army.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, perhaps needless to say, but of course

10     what the witness told us, I -- that's all matters which, if I understand

11     it well, are not within her expertise and all second-hand knowledge what

12     she learned from reports where the Chamber received evidence on many of

13     those issues in a more direct way.

14             So I take it that when the witness said "these are the features,"

15     that that is what she concluded on the basis of the documentation she has

16     seen as relevant information for what is within her expertise.

17             Please proceed, unless you would disagree with me, then I'd like

18     to know why.

19             MR. LUKIC:  I -- I don't know.  Should I testify now,

20     Your Honour?  I --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  But -- you shouldn't testify, but whether it's

22     true or not is for the Chamber to determine.  The witness gives all kinds

23     of answers what happened, whereas I understand what she does is to

24     reflect what you found in documents, whereas this Chamber has received

25     evidence through documents - and otherwise as well - on the same events.

Page 39497

 1     And that therefore if the witness says, This is what are the features,

 2     what happened, that I think she would tell us, This is what I learned

 3     from documents that may have happened and these are my conclusions on

 4     what happened, whereas on the basis of all that evidence the Chamber, of

 5     course, later will determine what actually happened, to the extent

 6     relevant and necessary to establish.

 7             Please proceed.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

 9        Q.   [Interpretation] Can we now see figure 8 from your report?

10     That's page 54 in English and 53 in B/C/S.

11             What can we see in this sketch?

12        A.   This is the sketch of the scene with markings of places where

13     this projectile exploded, and of course the direction from which the

14     projectile came is also marked.  I could say that at this time the CSB

15     correctly determined the direction from which the projectile arrived.

16             MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... this sketch is

17     taken from 65 ter 15695.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Footnote 61.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We can see it in the B/C/S version.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can't see the English.

21             MR. LUKIC:  And in this 65 ter number we have legend as well that

22     everything is explained on page 1 and 2.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

24             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, the Prosecution has uploaded the entire

25     investigative file on this incident under 65 ter 33105 - and I know the

Page 39498

 1     witness is commenting on multiple documents from it - it includes the

 2     sketch.  We have no problem with that being admitted at this time.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, for context, the whole of the document

 4     from which the witness selected portions to comment on, any problem?

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Not if it's really complete because we see -- saw

 6     that some complete files do not contain what we need.  We'll have to

 7     check it first if something is missing.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Do you have a complete file somewhere so that

 9     could you do -- because -- and just tender that.

10             MR. LUKIC:  I just -- the number obviously, this number, is

11     uploaded pretty late, this 33105.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  We already reserve a number for the -- and let's

13     make it then a D exhibit because it is at the basis of the evidence of

14     this witness.

15             Madam Registrar, what number would be reserved for the full

16     investigative file for this incident as just mentioned by Mr. Weber?

17             THE REGISTRAR:  It receives Exhibit Number D1268, Your Honours.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  And that is then marked for identification and we'd

19     like to hear from the parties very soon -- especially from you,

20     Mr. Lukic, whether you consider this to be the complete file or not; if

21     not, please tell us.

22             You may proceed.

23             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

24             Can we have 65 ter 1D05502, please.

25        Q.   [Interpretation] This is the statement of Mr. Overgard made to

Page 39499

 1     the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal in several interviews in

 2     1995 and 1996.

 3             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need page 2 in both English and

 4     B/C/S.  We need the bottom of the page in English.  Line 3 from the

 5     bottom.  And going over to the next page.  And, in B/C/S, it's the second

 6     paragraph from the bottom towards the middle.  It says:

 7             "When we came back we found out -- when we came back on site, we

 8     walked around the site.  We found out that one woman was dead and

 9     supposedly some others.  I saw some legs under bricks with camouflage

10     trousers and boots.  The commander of the 4th Motorised Brigade who came

11     to the site of the incident told us to go back.  He didn't want to

12     discuss with us.  He told us to go back to our base, which we did."

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I think the witness was -- made a gesture

14     which I did not fully understand.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My headset slipped on and I tried

16     to bring it back on my head.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And you didn't miss anything from what

18     Mr. Lukic said?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

21             MR. WEBER:  And, Your Honours, I do think that the word may be

22     significant actually.  The original, I believe, says "accommodations" as

23     opposed to "our base."

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  The original said "base."

25             MR. LUKIC:  I accept that, although then the translation to B/C/S

Page 39500

 1     has to be a bit corrected.

 2             MR. WEBER:  I believe the original is the English and I'm reading

 3     "our accommodations."

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  And let me just then check exactly.  One second.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  In B/C/S it says "base."

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  In English it says "accommodations," but let's keep

 8     that in the back of our minds and let's try to resolve that --

 9             MR. LUKIC:  We accept that it is "accommodations."

10             JUDGE ORIE:  You accept that it's "accommodations."

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] So, Ms. Subotic, who carried out this

14     investigation?

15        A.   The army, obviously, and the CSB.  The Security Services Centre,

16     the CSB, came from Sarajevo that afternoon; but according to the

17     statement of a witness who carried out that investigation, he completed

18     most of it that day and collected most of the parts of the exploded bomb

19     and he finalized it on the next day.

20        Q.   Was UNPROFOR given access subsequently?

21        A.   Subsequently, yes.

22             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let us look now at a video, 1D05923

23     from 23 seconds to 27 seconds.

24                           [Video-clip played]

25             "JOURNALIST:  Dreznica came under Serbian attack for the third

Page 39501

 1     successive day ..."

 2             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   You told us that the school was used by the BH Army.

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   What did we see in this film?

 6        A.   We showed this frame on page 48.

 7        Q.   Then we can look at page 48 in English and B/C/S, in the report

 8     of Ms. Subotic.

 9        A.   It's figure 3, footnote 25.

10             MR. LUKIC:  It's -- Mr. Ivetic just warned me that I have to give

11     the number of this evidence.  It's 1D05497.  Then we need page 48.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We have it in English.  And what is the page

13     number in B/C/S?

14             MR. LUKIC:  Same, 48.

15        Q.   [Interpretation] You said that you believe CSB investigators

16     approximately determined the accurate direction of flight and angle of

17     descent?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Did this shell explode before or after it flew over the school?

20        A.   It exploded some 20 metres in front of the school when it touched

21     a roof, the roof of a house at Aleksa Santica Street number 1.

22        Q.   In terms of precision, what conclusion can be drawn?

23        A.   In terms of precision, it was very precise because 1DD [as

24     interpreted] at a distance of 4 to 5 kilometres is 45 kilometres for

25     projectiles such as this one.

Page 39502

 1        Q.   Thank you.  I would now like to turn to --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 3             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the transcript recorded it as "1DD."  I

 4     don't know if that's the correct thing that the witness actually intended

 5     to say.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I said "VD," "1VD," which is

 7     possible deviation by distance.  I will use the full term in the future.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I have one question.  If I say it was very

 9     precise, wouldn't that depend entirely on what you intended to target?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  So anything about precision here is related to --

12     from what I understand, is a target which is unknown or did you find

13     anything about what was intended to target by those who fired this

14     projectile?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, of course.  On page 54, figure

16     9, when the sketch is placed against a Google Earth map, we clearly see

17     that the trajectory over shots the school at Aleksa Santica Street.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but that wasn't my question.  My question was

19     whether had you any knowledge of what those who fired the projectile had

20     on their mind as what they wished to target, what they wished to hit.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on the incoming trajectory

22     and the closeness of the impact, as well as the fact that it involved a

23     location used by the 4th Motorised Brigade, as well as -- oh, and there

24     were some other military targets in the location where the school is, on

25     the basis of all that, we concluded that the school was the target.

Page 39503

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And this is all based on an assumption, that

 2     is, that it was intended to hit a military target?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  It is based on a technical

 4     fact, the fact being that the target was along the incoming trajectory

 5     and very close to the place of impact at Aleksa Santica number 1.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  You may --

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Just to clarify.

 8             Ma'am, when you first answered Judge Orie's question, you said:

 9             "Based on the incoming trajectory and the closeness of the

10     impact," closeness of the impact to what?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The impact is located close to the

12     school, to the Aleksa Santica primary school which is now called the

13     second primary school.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

16             It's time for the break so you should not proceed, as a matter of

17     fact.  You're hereby instructed not to proceed.

18             Witness, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes, that's quarter

19     past 12.00.  We'll resume then.  You may follow the usher.

20                           [The witness stands down]

21                           --- Recess taken at 11.56 a.m.

22                           --- On resuming at 12.17 p.m.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mladic is supposed not to speak aloud.

24                           [The witness takes the stand]

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 39504

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic.  Mr. Lukic, I expect you to continue your

 2     examination.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 5             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Ms. Subotic, in video 1D05922, corresponding to figure 3 in your

 7     report we can see on our screens, on the basis of it, did you manage to

 8     determine the type of clothing the man receiving aid is in?

 9        A.   Yes, it is a combat fatigue worn by members of the armed forces.

10     The armed forces still have the same uniform.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Armed forces of, again, which army?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The armed forces in the area of the

13     former Yugoslavia.  All armed forces present there wore combat fatigues.

14     And I suppose in this particular instance it was an ABiH soldier, since

15     it was a place where they had a centre of theirs.  In any case, it is a

16     military uniform.

17             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Thank you.  I'd like to move onto case G-11, 58 in the B/C/S and

19     it's page 60 in the English.

20             On the 24th of May, 1995, an unidentified projectile fell in

21     Safeta Zajke Street in front of house number 43.

22             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need 65 ter 1D05545 next.

23                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  There's no English translation, Mr. Lukic.

25             MR. LUKIC:  We just have to shortly look through the pages 11

Page 39505

 1     through 14 in this version and then we'll go back to the report.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Let's -- but at least we have no English

 3     translation before us now.  Let's move on.

 4             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The cover page states:

 5             "The sketch of the location, shelling Safeta Zajke Street in

 6     front of number 43, the 24th of May, 1995."

 7             Let's look at page 11.

 8        Q.   On page 11, we can see the key and the description of events.

 9             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we see the next page.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We need the key in English?

11             MR. LUKIC:  We will provide it, but still it's not in the system.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

13             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

15             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, the Prosecution has also tried to

16     upload and reassemble the investigative file for this.  I believe that

17     the English of the key could be found on e-court page 20 of the English

18     version of 65 ter 33106.  And I imagine - consistent with the practice on

19     the last one - that counsel would like the opportunity to review the full

20     materials under that ERN to see if we would like a -- for that one to be

21     tendered.  But we have uploaded the available translations under that

22     65 ter.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, any problem in having the whole of --

24             MR. LUKIC:  No, we can use that one for now since there is a

25     translation.

Page 39506

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then could we then have on our screens -- and

 2     you said page 20, I think it was?

 3             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour was inquiring about the key, so --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 5             MR. WEBER:  -- I mentioned the e-court page for the key, which

 6     then -- I believe the sketch then follows in the subsequent pages.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Let's have a look at page 20 where we will

 8     find the key and see whether ...

 9             MR. WEBER:  Then --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  No, the key is here.  I see that.

11             MR. WEBER:  Then I believe that the image that counsel may be

12     seeking could be in the B/C/S version --

13             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

14             MR. WEBER:  -- on page 20, the actual sketch.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I think this would help because now we have

16     the English translation of the key and we have the sketch.

17             MR. LUKIC:  This is -- that's why I wanted to show this page and

18     the next one since they separated the sketches on two pages, this one and

19     the next one.  So if we can just see the next one.  So those two pages

20     were joined on figure 13 in the report of Ms. Subotic.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It may be difficult to have on the one hand

22     the pages of the report giving the full sketch and at the same time to

23     have the English --

24             MR. LUKIC:  Maybe we can keep this English document, 65 ter

25     33106, and have on the B/C/S version 1D05497.

Page 39507

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  If that's possible to have the B/C/S on the left

 2     side, the full sketch.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, would it be possible to have on the

 5     left-hand side page 54 of the report, figure number 8?

 6             MR. LUKIC:  No, figure number 13.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, 13.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.  Page number 64 in B/C/S.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  64.

10             MR. LUKIC:  63 -- but, no, we keep this one.  63, sorry.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 60.

12             MR. LUKIC:  [Previous translation continues] ... 60.  That's it,

13     yes.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Let's move on.

15             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

16        Q.   [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, based on this sketch and the rest

17     of the material, were you able to determine the incoming trajectory?

18        A.   Yes, we were able to.  We believed the accuracy of the sketch in

19     terms of the direction of the crater.  Our results proved to be the same

20     as that of the scene-of-crime officer, it is south, south-east.  When we

21     entered corrections - and you can see that north was designated wrongly

22     in this sketch - it is 146 degrees, so the projectile came from

23     south-east.

24             Based on the sketch shown in figure 14 -- well, we superimposed

25     it over the city plan and marked the street designated on the sketch,

Page 39508

 1     finding it on the city map.  You can see it in figure 14.

 2        Q.   Please tell us what was the direction of the shell or air bomb?

 3        A.   This air bomb arrived from site of the south-east, as can be seen

 4     in figure 14, and its precision, the precision of the marking, depends on

 5     the precision of the sketch --

 6             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Could Mr. Lukic repeat his

 7     question and the witness her answer.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic -- one second.

 9             Mr. Lukic, you're invited to repeat your question and then the

10     witness to repeat her answer.

11             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   My question was not recorded in the transcript.  I was too quick.

13             Can you tell us where the air bomb exploded?

14        A.   It exploded in Safeta Zajke Street in front of number 43,

15     immediately close to the wire factory, some 100 metres away, as confirmed

16     by witnesses.

17        Q.   What could be found in the wire factory?

18        A.   It was used for military-purpose production.

19             MR. LUKIC:  Only English version --

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before we move away, I have one question.

21             Witness, you said, on page 54:

22             "Our results proved to be the same as that of the scene-of-crime

23     officer, it is south, south-east.  When we entered corrections and you

24     can see that north was designated wrongly in the sketch."

25             How can we see that the north was designated wrongly?  On which

Page 39509

 1     basis did you make this comment?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It can be seen in figure 14.  The

 3     sketch was placed along Safeta Zajke Street so as to compare the street

 4     against a city map.  North is marked as always with the letter S and an

 5     arrow through it, and can you see it on the sketch.  When you compare it

 6     to the vertical direction of magnetic north, you can see that it is

 7     marked at an angle of, say, 15 degrees to the east.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.  You have answered my question.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  But I would have -- could we zoom in maybe a little

10     bit more on the upper part --

11             MR. LUKIC:  Maybe English version so Ms. Subotic can mark

12     something, because I would ask her to mark a few points.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, before we invite her to do that, I would have

14     some questions.

15             Could we zoom into the left upper part, that means including -- a

16     little bit smaller, little bit smaller.  Let me have a look.

17             Witness, you see close to the point of impact on the city map,

18     you see a green structure just above where the point of impact is there.

19     Do you see that?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you see that on the white sketch which apparently

22     overlays the relevant portion of the map, that there is also a structure.

23     Is that the same?  And you see that the pointer is now at that time and

24     only if we zoom in we can see -- yes, that's zoomed in a bit too much.

25     Could we zoom in slightly.  No, that's not making it any better.

Page 39510

 1             Can you see what is there in that rectangular structure just what

 2     is written there?  Perhaps we could look at the original one.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is unclear, but we can probably

 4     find in the key.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  It says P plus 2.  I looked in sketch number 13.

 6     Now I noticed - and could we go back to what we had a minute ago on our

 7     screen - I noticed that the position of that green block is not

 8     corresponding with the position of P plus 2, because P plus 2 seems to be

 9     exactly at an angle of 90 degrees to the top of the picture, whereas for

10     the green structure, it seems that it's not 90 degrees.  It's a little

11     bit more or less, irrespective from where you look at it.

12             Have you considered that whether the green block is the same as

13     what we find as P plus 2?

14                           [Trial Chamber confers]

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That should be it.  The point of

16     impact is marked with an arrow, let's say, that's the thing, the same

17     thing, but I can't -- well, I can't be certain that it is exactly the

18     same thing.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, if we would bring in line -- that's just based

20     on the assumption that the rectangular shape is the same as the green one

21     close to the point of impact.  If you would move it and bring it in line

22     with that, would you agree that north would come far closer to north of

23     the map?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that there may be some

25     misunderstanding of our image.  The sketch was taken out and placed here

Page 39511

 1     in order to make description easier.  It is intentionally placed to the

 2     right so as to be able to see the wire factory and the point of impact.

 3     Had we placed the sketch precisely over the point of impact of the bomb,

 4     all of the rest on the map would have been invisible.  So it was just

 5     shifted parallelly to the left --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I see that.  But apparently the orientation of

 7     the sketch and the map, if you look at this rectangular feature there, is

 8     not the same anymore.  Would you agree with that?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, because the green line is

10     actually Safeta Zajke Street and we matched the two images precisely; it

11     is based on that that we can see that the direction as determined does

12     not mark true north.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, have you also looked at whether the

14     street you just mentioned slightly bends there and is not on the map

15     strictly horizontal anymore -- the street below the street with the green

16     line, as you said, that it slightly bends close to the point of impact,

17     bends in northerly direction?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you can see it.  But I think

19     that Safeta Zajke Street is matched precisely on both images.  Finally,

20     we did not correct the mistake about true north but we simply calculated

21     the incoming trajectory based on the crater left by the bomb on the site,

22     which is quite well oriented -- orientated and marked towards the east.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Your answer went far beyond my question, but you've

24     answered my question.

25             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

Page 39512

 1             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  We'll keep this -- what --

 2     and I'll kindly ask Ms. Subotic to mark something on this.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

 4             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Ms. Subotic, can you mark the wire factory on the map for us.

 6        A.   It is the purple building immediately underneath the red arrow;

 7     and if you want me to, I will encircle it.

 8        Q.   Kindly do.

 9        A.   [Marks]

10        Q.   Just before it fell, what kinds of area had the bomb flown over?

11     A residential area?  An industrial area?

12        A.   It is an industrial area, and we explained it in detail in our

13     report.

14             MR. LUKIC:  [Previous translation continues] ... by Ms. Subotic

15     and we would offer this into evidence.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

17             MR. WEBER:  The Prosecution -- the only question we have is:

18     What's the scale of the map?  I don't see it on the thing.  If Defence

19     counsel knows.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you know what the scale of the map is?  Now to

21     make any measurement and scale of the map, Mr. Weber, requires that you

22     know whether there's -- zoomed in on the map, yes or no, because

23     otherwise it doesn't help.  But I think it is a map which is often,

24     often, often used, so if you find it and if there's any -- there are

25     certainly other ways of defining what the distances are as found here.

Page 39513

 1             Therefore, if Mr. Lukic doesn't have the answer right away, it is

 2     not a reason not to admit.

 3             Madam Registrar, the number would be?

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  D1269, Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Except that now circle is around 146 degrees and

 7     not longer around the wire factory.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, indeed.  It seems to have moved in one way or

 9     another.  Could we go back ...

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What is the 65 ter of this map?

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness mark again where the wire factory

12     is.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  She needs the assistance of the usher.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, could the usher assist with the marking.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  He has it and ...

16                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I do understand that it has been saved before it

18     moved.  Let's look to see what was saved to see whether the marking is in

19     the right spot.  The marking is in the right spot, I think, so if that's

20     the one that is tendered, it is admitted -- and let me just check whether

21     the number was already given.  Number was not -- yes, P -- D1269 is

22     admitted into evidence.

23             Please proceed.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Could you give the 65 ter number again of the same

25     exhibit.

Page 39514

 1             MR. LUKIC:  [Microphone not activated] -- this was taken from the

 2     report.  It's figure 14.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Figure 14.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

 8        Q.   [Interpretation] We will now move to G-12.

 9             MR. WEBER:  Before moving on to the next incident, is there any

10     way we can we mark for identification the 65 ter 33106 related to the

11     last incident, the investigative file?

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

13                           [Trial Chamber confers]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm a bit lost, Mr. Weber.  You mark -- you would

15     like to mark 65 ter related to the last incident?

16             MR. WEBER:  I believe counsel wound up and we see the key in the

17     English version for 65 ter 33106.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And that was ... that's the Prosecution's

19     65 ter number --

20             MR. WEBER:  Correct.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  -- and for the Defence it was ID5545, is that --

22             MR. WEBER:  1D --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  1D5545, that was the one?  And I think it was

24     intended to have the whole of the file --

25             MR. WEBER:  Yes.  And I see that the -- no translations are

Page 39515

 1     uploaded under the Defence 65 ter, so that's why I just mentioned the

 2     Prosecution one.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, would you be inclined to tender 33106 and

 6     that's the 65 ter number, the complete file, including translations as

 7     uploaded by the Prosecution?

 8             MR. LUKIC:  We'll -- I have to see it, Your Honour, and I'll

 9     discuss it with Mr. Weber.  We already have arranged coffee for Friday, I

10     think, extended one.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then we'll mark it for identification for the

12     time being and so that it already receives a D number in this context.

13             Madam Registrar.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 33106 receives Exhibit Number D1270,

15     Your Honours.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  And is marked for identification.

17             Please proceed.

18             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

19        Q.   [Interpretation] So we are already at G-12.  It's on this page 71

20     in English and 67 in B/C/S.  This is an incident from 24 May 1995 in

21     Majdanska Street without number, next to the power transmission station.

22     A modified air bomb fell there.

23             Could you tell us briefly about the features of this case.

24        A.   First of all, it was necessary to determine which air bomb fell

25     there based on the traces and the crater, and there was a minor error in

Page 39516

 1     determining north which we determined after detailed analysis.  In any

 2     case, what was important --

 3        Q.   Just a moment.  Could we look at figure 19 from your report to be

 4     able to follow what you're saying.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  It's English version 76 and B/C/S version page

 6     number 72.

 7        Q.   [Interpretation] Go on, please.

 8        A.   To be able to determine the exact error made in determining

 9     direction north on the sketch of the scene, we juxtaposed it with an

10     image from Google Earth which is in figure 19; and to the right are

11     characteristic angles that we marked.  And after calculations, we

12     determined a minor error of .35 degrees and the range that we determined

13     was 137.40 degrees, which we cannot consider after detailed analysis a

14     precise result.  So we determined the direction of descent between 130

15     and 150 degrees.  In this case, based on material traces on the scene, it

16     was a FAB 100 bomb that was used and we arrived at that based on the

17     crater that it created, and we took the data from the CSB report and

18     compared it with experimental investigation that we had at our disposal.

19             So our conclusion was that it was an air bomb filled with TNT,

20     FAB 100.

21        Q.   What was hit?

22        A.   The bomb fell 10 metres from a transmission line pole, a

23     high-voltage transmission line poll.  It hit the pole which collapsed and

24     the cables fell onto the ground.

25        Q.   What kind of zone is it?

Page 39517

 1        A.   It's an industrial zone.

 2        Q.   From whose positions did this air bomb come, were you able to

 3     determine?

 4        A.   We did not determine the distance, so we did not have parameters

 5     for establishing the distance.

 6        Q.   We will now move to G-13, English page 78, B/C/S 73.  It says:

 7             "On 26 May 1995 a part of the Svrakino Selo neighbourhood was

 8     partially shelled allegedly and one modified air bomb hit a residential

 9     building at Safeta Hadzica Street at number 52, and at that time ten

10     projectiles fell all around."

11             What is typical of this case?

12        A.   There are two things that are worth noting.  First of all, the

13     Safeta Hadzica building number 52 we determined, after analysing, was hit

14     by an air bomb which ricochetted from the BH TV building, and all the

15     alleged ten projectiles were analysed by us individually.  And we

16     noted -- we determined that none of them came in, nor were there any

17     traces that could be considered as traces of any kind of projectile,

18     except at numbers -- 102 in Safeta Hadzica Street there is a trace on the

19     facade which is a trace of a projectile from close range.

20        Q.   Let us look at figure 33 in your report - I think you mentioned

21     it - it's 97 in English; 89, page 89, in B/C/S.  That's where you

22     referred to that incident?

23        A.   Yes.  Evident here are traces of a smaller-calibre projectile

24     coming in from the top, according to the traces on the facade, which

25     indicates that it could be a mortar projectile from a distance of 10 to

Page 39518

 1     15 metres from the building.

 2        Q.   Thank you.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, please.  I don't know whether I fully

 4     were able to follow.

 5             Yes, please proceed.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  If we could have P3 on our screens, page 39, please.

 7     It will take some time to upload it into the system since there is a lot

 8     of colour pictures.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll wait for it.

10             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   So we see it's G-13 incident from the atlas of the Prosecution

12     regarding incidents in Sarajevo.  I would kindly ask you to mark on this

13     photograph certain buildings and features, and I should ask the usher for

14     assistance.

15             Okay.  Could you mark the building of the television.

16        A.   It's easier for me to see on the other photograph.

17             MR. LUKIC:  It's not working.

18        Q.   Still, somebody has to help you.

19        A.   [Marks]

20        Q.   [Interpretation] Will you put number 1 inside the circle.

21        A.   [Marks]

22        Q.   And now the transformer station, please, or the transmission

23     lines.

24        A.   [Marks]

25        Q.   Could you mark the police station.

Page 39519

 1        A.   [Marks]

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Both should be given numbers as well.

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

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] So the transformer station, number 2, please.

 5        A.   You mean the transformer station, number 2; right?

 6        Q.   Yes.  Now the police station, number 3.

 7        A.   [Marks]

 8        Q.   Could you locate on the photograph where could be the mortar

 9     which hit the facade?  And that picture is on figure 3 -- 33 in your

10     report.

11        A.   It's one of these two buildings.

12        Q.   How far would that mortar be from one of these two buildings that

13     left the traces on that building?

14        A.   Whichever one it is, it couldn't be more than 10 to 15 metres

15     away from that facade, in view of the appearance of the traces.

16        Q.   Thank you.

17        A.   Shall I put number 4?

18        Q.   Please put number 4.

19             MR. LUKIC:  [Previous translation continues] ...  Your Honour.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You are not recorded.  You tendered it?

21             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  The marked picture of document P3 receives

24     Exhibit Number D1271, Your Honours.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

Page 39520

 1             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I didn't say I tendered it.  I asked you if you

 3     tendered it.  I'm not tendering anything.

 4             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Could we now look at figure 37 from your report, 1D05497.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we do so, you marked a minute ago the two

 7     buildings on which the impact would have taken place.  I saw on the

 8     picture that there are five similar buildings there.  What made you

 9     choose the two you marked?  It seems that there's row of five apartment

10     buildings.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, certainly, that's an

12     understandable question.  I was there on site, and in my memory, it could

13     be one of these two buildings.  I'm not sure which one is number 102.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Did you see the impact still there at that

15     moment?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  What then -- it's mainly on the basis of -- in one

18     of these two buildings number 102 is there - is that what you're telling

19     us - and that made you believe that it's one of those two buildings?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, number 102 is on the building,

21     and this information is in the CSB report.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

23             Please proceed.

24             On one of the buildings then, I take it, one of the two

25     buildings.

Page 39521

 1             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 3             So if we have 1D05497 on our screens.  We need page 103 in

 4     English version and 94 in B/C/S.

 5        Q.   [Interpretation] We don't have much time.  I will not dwell op

 6     this much.

 7             You have covered in your report this shell.  It is stated about

 8     this shell that the projectile landed in a -- in the garden of a

 9     residential building in Safeta Hadzica Street number 70 creating a crater

10     200 by 80 by 30 centimetres and that it was produced in Nazi Germany.

11             First of all, is it possible for this shell to create a crater

12     like that without exploding and would it be possible for such a shell to

13     make that crater even if it had exploded?

14        A.   According to the CSB, they describe it as you said.  First of

15     all, it's not possible for that shell to make a crater of that size

16     because it just can't if it didn't explode.  It could create a furrow

17     possibly, but if it had created a crater 30 centimetres deep it would

18     just continue getting buried into the ground and it certainly couldn't

19     create a crater of that length that was stated in the report.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

21             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, we have multiple impacts on this

22     occasion.  It's not clear to me what specific crater we're associating

23     with this shell.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Lukic, it might assist already to clarify

25     this now; otherwise, Mr. Weber will deal with the matter in

Page 39522

 1     cross-examination.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  I think there is only one shell mentioned in this

 3     report produced allegedly in Germany.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I think it is more about the crater than about the

 5     shell.  If you can clarify, please do; if not, then Mr. Weber will be

 6     doing his task --

 7             MR. LUKIC:  I will find you in the break where it is mentioned.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  I have cut out from that report but I don't have the

10     number.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Take your time during the break.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] On this photograph, the one we're just looking

14     at --

15             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we enlarge just the English

16     version and have only the photograph on the screen?

17        Q.   Let me ask you, Ms. Subotic, in your opinion, was this shell

18     fired?

19        A.   Absolutely not.  You can see it by the traces on the shell

20     itself.  Alongside -- along the projectile between the centre and the

21     leading rings, they don't exist on any projectiles because both the

22     centre ring and the guiding rings are larger in diameter.

23        Q.   Would you mark the guiding and the centring ring and mark

24     whatever you're going to mark with numbers 1 and 2.

25        A.   [Marks]

Page 39523

 1        Q.   What kind of ring is that, the centring ring?

 2        A.   [Marks]

 3        Q.   And what is number 2, the guiding ring?  Just a moment.  This

 4     space between the centre ring and the guiding rings, what is it like

 5     compared to the rings?

 6        A.   It has corroded and it bears some lines that are not the kind of

 7     lines that could be seen if it had been fired, and if it had been fired,

 8     there would be no corrosion because -- because the -- the -- it would be

 9     cut into the grooves during firing.

10        Q.   And this part of the hull between the rings, what is it like?

11        A.   It is smaller compared to the diameter of the rings?

12        Q.   Let us now move to G-14.  In English it's --

13             MR. LUKIC:  Sorry.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

15             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, just for the record, it was completely

16     unclear to me some of the comparison that was going on, comparing

17     whatever is in this to other items, but I leave that to counsel as to

18     whether or not he wants to --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, if it's unclear to you, you can seek

20     clarification in cross-examination, but Mr. Lukic is now aware of it.

21             Could I ask one very short question.  The top of what we see next

22     to number 7, at the top of this projectile, is that how a projectile

23     looks when it's intact and still to be fired, or could you comment on

24     what we see at the top of this -- of this ...

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Towards the top, it is obvious that

Page 39524

 1     there is no fuse.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Do you have any explanation as how a fuse

 3     is -- has loosened itself from the body of a projectile?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no idea when it fell apart

 5     and off, but it is quite clear that the projectile has not been fired

 6     from a tube.  All we see is that there is no fuse.  It could have gone

 7     missing in any way we can think of now.  And, first of all, we don't know

 8     how this projectile found its way here.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

10             Please proceed.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Do you tender this photograph?

12             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour, I'm tendering this into evidence.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Photograph of a projectile marked by the witness

14     receives, Madam Registrar?

15             THE REGISTRAR:  D1272, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

17             Please proceed.

18             MR. LUKIC:  And it's a break time.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  It's break time.  Again and again, I make the

20     mistake that I invite you to proceed when I should invite you not to

21     proceed.

22             Witness, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes.

23                           [The witness stands down]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  We take a break.

25                           --- Recess taken at 1.15 p.m.

Page 39525

 1                           --- On resuming at 1.38 p.m.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger, do we have to -- need to be in private

 3     session?

 4             MR. TIEGER:  No, Mr. President we do not.

 5             It is possible an inquiry by the Court may trigger that, but I

 6     don't believe so.

 7             This concerns the Court's earlier request for an expedited

 8     response by the Prosecution to the videolink request for Mr. Del Pinto.

 9     The motion appears to be analogous, at least in broad terms, to a

10     circumstance that is not cited by the Defence in its motion, and that was

11     the motion for videolink for RM088, for whom videolink was indeed

12     granted.  So in light of that and in view of the stage of the case and

13     all of the circumstances surrounding this matter, we do not oppose the

14     motion.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that response.  The Chamber will

16     decide in due course.

17             Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.

18                           [The witness takes the stand]

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

20             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

21        Q.   [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic --

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, preparing for the rest

23     of my testimony today, I noticed I made a -- had an oversight in my

24     presentation today.  I said that for the FAB 100 air bomb a possible

25     dispersion by distance is 45 metre.  Then I consulted my report and

Page 39526

 1     firing tables, I realised I was wrong.  What I specified was the value

 2     for dispersion by axis.  In terms of distance, that dispersion would be

 3     98 metres.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  The correction is hereby on the record.

 5             Please proceed.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you again.

 7        Q.   [Interpretation] Let us move onto G-14, which is page 104 in the

 8     B/C/S and 115 in the English.  The incident took place on the 16th of

 9     June, 1995, in Dositejeva 2 [as interpreted] when a modified air bomb hit

10     a -- the UMC building.

11             In line 21, page 72, it was stated that we were going to look

12     into case G-1, whereas we are interested in case G-14?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  And did you say Dositejeva 2 or...

14             MR. LUKIC:  4a, I think.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That should be the correct one.

16             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

17        Q.   [Interpretation] Let me ask you this:  Do you know what was

18     located in Dositejeva Street close to the number referred to?

19        A.   In Dositejeva Street close to the number specified was the

20     command of the 1st Corps of the ABiH, as well as the command of the

21     105th Mountain Brigade of the ABiH, and only 80 metres away was the

22     Presidency of BiH.  You can find it in footnote 286, 287, and 288.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Next I'd like to have a look at 1D00747.

24             We see a report of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps Command from

25     February 1995.  The consolidate unclear.  We don't know if it's the 25th

Page 39527

 1     or the 5th of February.

 2             In the document -- we need page 9 in English and 8 in B/C/S.  In

 3     the B/C/S it's towards the bottom of the page in the red frame.  In the

 4     English, we see it towards the top, beginning with the words "Sarajevo

 5     squadron."

 6             It reads:  "Sarajevo Squadron, squad comprising eight pilots from

 7     the former JNA located in Dositejeva Street, number 2.  Six of the pilots

 8     flew the Gazela, one an Mi-8, and one a Jastreb."

 9             How far is Dositejeva number 2 from Dositejeva Street number 4A?

10        A.   As far as I know there is a just a passage between the two

11     buildings.

12        Q.   Thank you.

13             MR. LUKIC:  We would offer this one into evidence, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

15             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, the B/C/S copy is quite poor and I'm

16     not sure it's complete.  Does counsel have an ERN, which I cannot locate

17     on this document, so I could check our records to see if we have a better

18     copy; or alternatively, could he inform us where this copy comes from?

19             MR. LUKIC:  We will check it and I'll inform my colleague.

20             MR. WEBER:  And until that information is provided, if we could

21     just hold off on even marking it at this time.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, Madam Registrar, the number would be?

23             THE REGISTRAR:  D1273, Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  And is marked for identification.

25             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 39528

 1             Next document I would like to see on our screens is 1D00748.

 2        Q.   [Interpretation] It is a letter sent by the President of the

 3     Presidency, Alija Izetbegovic, to the Prime Minister, Haris Silajdzic.

 4     In the third paragraph from the bottom, we see the following:

 5             "There is another problem.  The Chetniks fire at the Presidency

 6     building and constantly state that they are doing it because it houses

 7     the defence ministry.  They know this.  It does not matter what the

 8     Chetniks say, but UNPROFOR also tells us this.  For them, this is a

 9     military facility.  In addition, the building is entered in the register

10     of cultural monuments and such buildings, pursuant to The Hague

11     Convention and our laws, must not house any potential military targets.

12     Therefore, the Ministry of National Defence should be relocated, first of

13     all, when the moving out starts.

14             "There are supposedly two more buildings in the city owned by the

15     republic which, for unknown reasons, have not been taken over.  One is in

16     Dositejeva Street (20 offices) and the other in Kersovanija Street

17     (40 offices).  They might help you in resolving this problem."

18             Did you analyse this document?

19        A.   Yes, we took note of it.

20        Q.   Dositejeva Street is mentioned?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Twenty offices?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Do you know whether it is one of the addresses we have mentioned

25     before, Dositejeva 2 or 4a?

Page 39529

 1        A.   As far as I can see, it is not.  They --

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

 3     repeat the last sentence.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And I would say it is some

 5     80 metres away from the place of incident.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  We would offer this one into evidence, Your Honour,

 7     as well.

 8             MR. WEBER:  No objection.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 1D00748 receives Exhibit Number D1274,

11     Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

13             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

14             [Interpretation] Next I would like to move to incident G-17 which

15     is not in the indictment but the Prosecution tendered P752 and P757

16     related to it.  In the English version, it is page 131; in the Serbian,

17     it is 118.

18        Q.   Why did you have to study this case too; is it related to another

19     case?

20        A.   I apologise, did you say G-15?  I was a bit confused.  It's fine

21     now.  I know that G-15 was not related to any other event.  It seemed I

22     turned the next page.

23             G-17 is something I mentioned today when we discussed

24     Safeta Hadzica 52 where an air bomb fell having had a ricocheted off the

25     TV building.  When we studied the incident where an air bomb fell on the

Page 39530

 1     TV building, we concluded, based on all the documents at our disposal

 2     that this incident is directly related to the air bomb which fell in

 3     Safeta Hadzica Street at number 52.  There was ricocheted off the studio

 4     C roof on the TV building.  That is why we had to study this incident in

 5     detail in order to clarify the sequence of events and how the projectile

 6     reached Safeta Hadzica 52 after the ricochet because, ultimately, it fell

 7     in a civilian area.

 8        Q.   In your report, did you come to any conclusion as to whether in

 9     the TV building there was a command post?

10        A.   Yes, we provide that in our analysis.  Let me tell you where it

11     is.  Page 136, figure 72, referenced in footnote 403.  That is where the

12     command of the 1st Corps of the ABiH was.  It was marked during a

13     testimony as can be seen on the map provided in our report under number

14     3, depicting the TV building.

15        Q.   We can find in the transcript that the command of the 1st Corps

16     of ABiH was there.  Was it the command of the 1st Corps?

17        A.   Of the 1st Corps and a brigade of the 1st Corps of the ABiH.

18        Q.   Can we next have 1D5710.

19                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

20             JUDGE ORIE:  We have no English version, Madam Registrar tells

21     me.

22             MR. LUKIC:  It's just a map.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  It's just a map.

24             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   At the top, it reads:  Command posts of the command of the

Page 39531

 1     1st Corps and of the brigades of the 1st Corps of the Army of the

 2     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1993, signed by Commander

 3     Vahid Karavelic.

 4             Did you rely on this map?

 5        A.   Yes.  Part of that map is shown on page 136, figure 72.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  In English version, that figure 72 is on the

 7     page 150.  And we would offer this map into evidence.

 8             MR. WEBER:  No objection to the admission of the map.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 1D05710 receives exhibit number D1275,

11     Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

13             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   The bomb which exploded at studio C in the TV building, are there

15     any photographs in existence concerning that incident?

16        A.   Yes.  Yes, of course -- no, no.  There are some photographs that

17     we used, whereas other photographs were not taken.  There is no

18     photograph in the photo file that would show the interior of studio C.

19     So there are some photographs but none of them show the interior.

20        Q.   Is there any information about a command post in studio C?

21        A.   Yes.  It housed the command - please bear with me - of the

22     1st Corps of the ABiH.  As far as I recall.

23        Q.   In the documents you studied, did you find any confirmation of

24     your findings, or did you confirm someone else's?

25             Actually, let me ask you who Andrew Knowles is?

Page 39532

 1        A.   Yes, he was a witness.  He testified to the incoming trajectory

 2     of the projectile.  Based on his testimony and that of Per

 3     Anton Brennskrag, we were able to confirm the incoming trajectory which

 4     is completely different from the one determined by CSB investigators who

 5     analysed the traces on the roof of studio C, determining the trajectory

 6     in that way.  We managed to show that what was in question were two

 7     completely different bombs which fell a month apart.  Thanks to his

 8     testimony -- actually, both testimonies, we were able to determine the

 9     incoming trajectory and to use all of the photographs with the traces

10     which existed in the photo file to reach a conclusion.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Next I'd like to move to the Cetinjska incident dated

12     the 28th of June, 1995.  It is now called Geteova Street --

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Could Mr. Lukic kindly

14     repeat the page numbers.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please repeat the page number, Mr. Lukic.

16             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] It is 147 in the B/C/S and 163 in the

17     English.

18             In terms of this incident, the Prosecution tendered P4622, the

19     entire investigation file.

20        Q.   Let me ask you this:  What was found or determined?

21        A.   What was found by them or by us?

22        Q.   By you.

23        A.   We established, based on the traces left on the building which

24     was hit at the level of its ninth floor by a modified air bomb, we

25     determined that the projectile came along the north-south axis, or very

Page 39533

 1     close to it.  The impact occurred at great height and that it was

 2     probably by mistake because the fact -- wire factory is on the same axis.

 3     We know that it had been targeted before and that it was used for

 4     military-purpose production.  Unfortunately, there were civilian

 5     casualties by accident because the high-rise is at an altitude of 50

 6     metres above sea level --

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  It is some 50 metres

 8     taller than the wire factory.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We also concluded that it was

10     technically very likely that the projectile hit the high-rise by chance

11     as can be seen in the documents.  In detail B, the axis is marked with a

12     2, and it corresponds exactly to the direction in which we find the wire

13     factory.

14             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   What was the situation in the battle theatre at the time?

16        A.   I think there was an all-out offensive at the time.

17        Q.   Whose offensive?

18        A.   There were attempts made to break through the siege of Sarajevo,

19     attempted by the ABiH.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I ask the witness what is the basis of this

21     knowledge?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The basis of my knowledge are

23     reports from different places which happened simultaneously; reports on

24     incidents, that is.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  About the battles, the all-out offensive, the

Page 39534

 1     attempt to break through the siege of Sarajevo?  All that is to be found

 2     in the reports you studied; correct?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  It can be found in such

 4     reports, as well as UNPROFOR reports.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Have you specified these reports in your -- could

 7     you refer to any footnote where you have specified the reports on which

 8     you drew these conclusions?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I could review it and tell you

10     later, but whenever we referred to a report, it is mentioned in the

11     report.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  That's fine.  If you could find for us exactly the

13     references for what you just told us, where it is found in the report and

14     to what documents you referred.

15             Mr. Lukic.

16             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17        Q.   Let us focus on the incident that took place on the 22nd of June,

18     1995 in Cetinjska Street, number 12.  It is page 163 in the B/C/S and 180

19     in the English.  It is in Geteova Street, as it is called nowadays.

20             P993 is the photo file related to the case, as well as P992.  Can

21     we have figure 97 on our screens, please.  In B/C/S, it is 164; in

22     English, it is 182, the page.

23             What is characteristic in this case?

24        A.   Investigators determines it was a projectile of 155 millimetres

25     with one rocket engine, and they determined the direction as 270 degrees;

Page 39535

 1     whereas, in the official report it is stated that it was fired from

 2     Energoinvest factory.

 3             Let me note straight away that this direction corresponds to the

 4     azimuth of 250, according to the official report.

 5             As you can see, there is a sketch of the scene, not quite clear.

 6        Q.   Which number?

 7        A.   The sketch is 229.

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  299; correction.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot make it out, but the

10     direction of descent is marked with number 5, whereas direction north is

11     visibly marked.  It is a bit clearer in this picture in the sketch.

12             The question arose why would someone who had both 155-millimetre

13     projectiles and Howitzers of the same calibre set up and modify a

14     projectile like this in order to fire it.  We made our analyses, and the

15     outcome was considerably different in the end, as you can see in

16     figure 102.  We determined in colour blue.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Lukic, this is a little bit problematic to

18     follow.  You don't have the sketch and the figures before us.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm also I'm looking at the clock.

20             MR. LUKIC:  Figure 101 where we can probably better follow --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  But we have 97 on our screens at this moment.  It is

22     approximately time to adjourn anyhow.  So if you could take us tomorrow

23     with the witness through the relevant portions.

24             Now, Mr. Lukic, even thinking in terms of ten hours, you're very

25     close to that.  So would you wind up tomorrow.

Page 39536

 1             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour, I'm aware.  And I'll check with

 2     Madam Registrar to know exactly.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You're over nine and a half hours.

 4             Mr. Weber.

 5             MR. WEBER:  I have just one quick matter since it just happened

 6     on the record.  I just want it to be clear that -- my non-objection to

 7     Exhibit D1275 was not to be understood that I was acknowledging that it

 8     was the same as figure 72 in the report, so I see that could be unclear

 9     and I just wanted to put that on the record.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's hereby clarified.

11             I would have one matter which I'd like to raise, rather, today

12     because we'll adjourn and you have some time until tomorrow.

13             Witness, here and there, reference is made to firing tables of

14     modified aircraft bombs.  Are you aware of any -- or do you have copies

15     of any existing modified air bombs firing tables which existed at the

16     time when those modified air bombs were launched?  Do you have them?  Do

17     you have references to -- again, not to tables which were produced later

18     but tables in existence at the time of firing of those modified air

19     bombs?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have firing tables from 2001, and

21     the only thing I can say --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, I was, of course, asking about not 2001 but

23     in the early 1990s.  So the answer is you don't have them?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  And -- yes.  Okay.  Then that answers my question.

Page 39537

 1     Then I don't have to ask to you try to find them.

 2             Do you know, even if you don't have them, whether they existed at

 3     the time?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I know, they did.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  They did.  And you were not able to retrieve them or

 6     to ...

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said I don't have them now.  And

 8     now they don't exist.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Did you ever have firing tables in your hands or on

10     paper, firing tables that existed during the armed conflict, that is,

11     between -- for these purposes before -- before December 1995, and is

12     there any way you could retrieve them and present them?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had them in my hands.  I saw

14     them.  But I have absolutely no way to show them to you now or to

15     retrieve them.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And who showed them to you?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I saw those tables in -- when those

18     projectiles were tested in Nikinci.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  And when was that?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Before they started being used.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  But -- yes.  But when was that?  Was that in 1990,

22     1995, 2000?  When was it?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I really don't remember.

24     No, certainly not in 2000.  Before they started being used in the war,

25     verifications and testings were made, and on that occasion, I saw the

Page 39538

 1     tables.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  And my question was who showed them to you?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember anymore, but now I

 4     think it's one of the engineers from Pretis, one of those who worked on

 5     it.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Just one clarification.  You said, ma'am, that

 8     those tables did exist at the time but they no longer exist.

 9             What happened to them?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't say they didn't exist.  I

11     said I could not get hold of that material anymore.  Maybe they do exist;

12     maybe they don't.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Maybe you were misinterpreted but I thought I

14     heard you say so.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  We can perhaps --

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  One final question from my side.

17             You said you saw them "before they started being used in the war.

18     Verifications and testing were made, and on that occasion, I saw the

19     tables."

20             Were you present when this testing was made and carried out?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Then please explain --

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  Colleagues make to my office

24     and, on that occasion, I saw them.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Were the colleagues present during this testing?

Page 39539

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  Those are colleagues from the

 2     Pretis factory.  That's what I meant.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Can you give us the names?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Hmm ... I think one of them was

 5     colleague Krstic.  I can't remember the first name.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Was he in your office or was it in his office?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, he came to me office.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Do you know the time?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I really can't remember.  It

10     was around the time before they started being used.  Before the testing.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before the testing you saw them?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  But, again, when did they start to use them?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can see, it was 2005 --

15     no, no, sorry, 1995.  All these incidents that we have been discussing

16     were involving air bombs and obviously it was according to those tables

17     that they were used.  I can only infer that based on the high precision

18     that was achieved in the incidents that we analysed.

19             You know, rocket artillery is, generally speaking, not a precise

20     weapon compared to mortars, for instance, but in the incidents that we

21     discussed, a high precision was achieved which without firing tables is

22     impossible.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This was not my question.  Thank you.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  I think we are --

25             We can see -- Mr. Weber.

Page 39540

 1             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, it did come up just in your examination

 2     that she had tables from 2001.  Could we please have those by tomorrow,

 3     if possible, or before the end of tomorrow.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, do you have the tables that were produced

 5     later in 2001 and could you provide them?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have them with me.  I

 7     didn't bring them.  But you could get them through my institute if a

 8     request were to be made to the government.  I don't think that would be a

 9     problem.  You know, I don't work there anymore.  I could not ask them to

10     give it to me personally now.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's hereby on the record, Mr. Weber.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I would like to go back to my question.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I must apologise, first of all, to

14     interpreters where I tried just to establish whether or not the witness

15     could bring us anything tomorrow, that we now have gone over the time for

16     ten minutes --

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I understand that.  But I would like to go back to

18     my earlier question.

19             Ma'am, at page 83, starting at line 13, Judge Orie asked you:

20     "Do you know, even if you don't have them, whether they existed at the

21     time?"

22             Your answer was:  "Yes, I know they did."

23             Next question:  Did -- "they did.  And you were not able to

24     retrieve them or to --

25             "A.  I said I don't have them now.  And now they don't exist."

Page 39541

 1             That's what you said.

 2             I'm asking you:  What happened to them?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe I expressed myself

 4     explicitly.  Maybe they do exist.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers] ... then you must be clear

 6     what you said, and that's what you explicitly said:  Now they don't

 7     exist.  That's explicit.  Unless --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I -- one at a time.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I was saying to you, yes, you expressed yourself

10     explicitly that they do not exist now.  That is an explicit answer.  I'm

11     saying what happened to them?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From what I know, they don't exist

13     because I never saw them again, and there are some that go together with

14     the system made in 2001.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.  Unfortunately, that's not an

16     answer to my question.  My question was:  What happened to them now that

17     you know they don't exist.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The tables were never my work

19     product or my property or the property of the institute, so I can't

20     follow what happened to them.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... again that

22     doesn't answer my question.  My question simply is what happened to them.

23     You know they do not exist.  What happened to them?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is my conviction they don't

25     exist for the reason that I never saw them again.  After the war, new

Page 39542

 1     ones were developed, and when something new is developed, then the old

 2     ones are not used anymore.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  So you are changing your evidence.  You don't know

 4     for a fact that they don't exist.  You conclude they don't exist.  You

 5     assume they don't exist.  Is that your evidence now?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Right, right, yes.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ...

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Then with apologies to all those assisting us,

 9     Witness, we have a late conclusion today.  We'd like to see you back

10     tomorrow morning, 9.30.  That's on the 30th of September in this same

11     courtroom.  I give you the same instruction ...

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's the 1st of October.  Same instructions

14     as I gave earlier; that is, not to communicate in whatever way, with

15     whomever about your testimony.  You may now follow the usher.

16                           [The witness stands down]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume tomorrow,

18     1st of October, 2015, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.

19                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.28 p.m.,

20                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 1st day of

21                           October, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.