1 Monday, 5 October 2015
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Before we continue, I'd like to deal briefly with one matter.
12 The Defence filed a video-conference link motion on the 30th of
13 September which, if granted, might be able to be combined with another
14 video-conference link scheduled for the end of the month. Considering
15 this possibility, the Chamber invites the Prosecution to expedite its
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Ms. Subotic. Before we continue, I'd
19 like to remind you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration that
20 you've given at the beginning of your testimony.
21 Mr. Weber will now continue his cross-examination.
22 Mr. Weber.
23 MR. WEBER: Good morning, Your Honours.
24 WITNESS: ZORICA SUBOTIC [Resumed]
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
1 Cross-examination by Mr. Weber: [Continued]
2 Q. Good morning, Ms. Subotic.
3 A. Good morning.
4 Q. This morning I'd like to direct your attention to incident G-6 in
5 Alipasino Polje on 22nd of January, 1994. As part of this incident,
6 there were three shells that exploded; correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And I'll give you a second here. I see that you're flipping to
9 that section of your report.
10 A. Yes, I'd like to open that page.
11 Q. You were able to examine the remains of only one of the three
12 impacts because two of the craters were no longer visible when you went
13 to the site to examine them in 2010; correct?
14 A. Yes. We found traces at Klare Cetkin number 4, in
15 Cetinjska Street number 3, there were no traces remaining and near
16 Rade Koncar, that point of impact was not analysed. It's not in the --
17 Q. If you would listen to my questions carefully. I'd like to go
18 step by step.
19 One of these craters was not preserved because the shell landed
20 in soil and one of the craters was fully repaved; correct?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. The only crater that you were able to physically examine in 2010
23 was the remains of the crater that landed on Klare Cetkin Street correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. This was the crater from the shell that landed on the curb;
2 A. Yes, close to the curb.
3 Q. At the time of your visit in 2010, you noticed that this
4 remaining crater was physically altered with part of the curb being
5 repaved in the area of the crater; correct?
6 A. Yes, a new block was built into the curb. It was not exactly
7 repaved but a new block was made and placed into the curb. If it had
8 been repaved, then it would all have been covered.
9 Q. Your analysis for the impact on Cetinjska number 3, was based on
10 still images from Barry Hogan's video in 2001 and from other photographs
11 that you obtained from a witness in the Karadzic cases; correct?
12 A. Yes, but we also used the photo documentation made by the
13 crime-scene officer when he was making his on-site investigation, and I
14 believe this street is called Cetinjska.
15 Q. The investigators measured all three craters and one was found to
16 be significantly larger than the other two, specifically one was 4.8
17 metres long and two of the craters measured less than 180 centimetres in
18 length; correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. In paragraph 68 of your report, and this is in -- on page 106 in
21 e-court of the English - you note what you feel to be discrepancies and
22 state: "And police investigators did not use any method to determine the
23 direction available to them, such as, for instance, the central axis
24 method but determined the direction on their estimates."
25 This statement is not accurate; correct?
1 A. It is not correct. They did nothing to document in their report
2 how they determined it. They only put it in as a written statement that
3 a certain direction is indicated. In crime-scene investigations, that
4 means nothing.
5 Q. You reviewed the evidence of Mirza Sabljica regarding this event.
6 Did you follow Mr. Sabljica's testimony in this case where he discussed
7 incident G6, and at transcript page 8058, he stated: "We used the usual
8 method. We used the extra central axis method."
9 Did you follow that?
10 A. Yes. And I didn't deny that he said it. I just said that it is
11 not documented in their documentation how they did it. And we reviewed
12 their other documentations where all this is properly documented and
13 shown, including, photographs, in the photo documentation.
14 Q. Did you base your Mr. Sabljica's evaluation of Karadzic evidence
15 on what you just heard in court or did you read Mr. Sabljica's statement
16 in the Karadzic case where you further described the methods that he used
17 during this incident?
18 A. You must not forget that I was in the courtroom when he was
19 giving evidence in the Karadzic case. And immediately after that, when
20 we showed him the traces on the asphalt from the impact of a shell in
21 Klare Cetkin Street number 4, he also agreed - and you will see that in
22 the transcript - that we --
23 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
24 A. -- determined the direction correctly. So these two things are
1 Q. You haven't fully answered my question. Did you also read his
3 A. Yes, of course.
4 Q. Do you recall from the Karadzic case that you were confronted
5 with many instances where you made inaccurate, incorrect, or incomplete
6 representations about the testimony of Mr. Sabljica and other witnesses?
7 A. No.
8 Q. You repeat many of the same representations in your present
9 report. Did you go back and review Mr. Sabljica's evidence or the
10 testimony of other witnesses after your last testimony to make sure that
11 they were accurate?
12 A. We reviewed everything. We followed testimonies and we did not
13 find any reason to find any correction whatsoever in the sense that you
15 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33117,
16 page 32.
17 Q. This is your testimony from the Karadzic case regarding
18 incident -- it's part of it regarding incident G-6. The paragraphs are
19 the same so this is in reference to the same paragraph in this report,
20 number 68.
21 Starting at line 19, you were asked:
22 "Q. Ms. Subotic --"
23 A. Excuse me, I don't have the translation of this transcript.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Carefully listen to how it is translated to you now,
25 because there's no B/C/S translation existing.
1 If you need any portion to be reread don't hesitate to ask, but
2 carefully listen do what comes to new your own language.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. WEBER:
5 Q. I'm going to start at line 19:
6 "Q. Ms. Subotic, at paragraph 68 - I'd like to move on to
7 paragraph 68 now, which is at page 49 of the English and page 102 of the
8 B/C/S - you -- if we could zoom in on this photo. In paragraph 68, you
9 claim that Mr. Sabljica contradicted himself in his testimony. You state
10 that although Mr. Sabljica initially stated that this -- the shell that
11 made this impact came in from a direction slightly north of west, you say
12 that he later agreed that the direction shown by the measuring tape on
13 this photograph was not properly established. And you repeated this in
14 your testimony at transcript page 38262. Now, you were present when
15 Mr. Sabljica testified so you must know that Mr. Sabljica, in fact, made
16 it very clear that it was improper to establish direction of fire from a
17 photograph and that this is not what they did at the time, and that's at
18 transcript page 7829 -7830 and when he was asked to draw the traces on
19 this photo, he said:
20 "'Well, that's what we can see in the photo at least.'
21 "And that's T.7847 and D755. And when he was asked to mark
22 tracts on another photo of this crater he said: 'Yes, I will, but I have
23 to stress again that a photo is not really the appropriate way to
24 determine these things but here it is.'
25 "That's T.7849 and D756.
1 "So when you claim in your report that Mr. Sabljica agreed that
2 the direction showed by this measuring tape was properly established
3 you're essentially misrepresenting his evidence because he made it quite
4 clear that could you not properly establish anything on the basis of a
5 photograph; right?"
6 Your answer: "Mr. Sabljica, in my view, agreed with us and said
7 that this is the fact that traces are well determined on the asphalt and
8 that he established the trajectory of the shell correctly."
9 Do you maintain this view?
10 A. Mr. Sabljica agreed with the direction that we showed him, and he
11 said that it was properly determined based on the photograph. I agree
12 with Mr. Sabljica that it is far better to do it on the spot and
13 immediately after the critical event. It is much better to analyse it
14 and determine it on location. Then you are likely to get correct
16 However, Mr. Sabljica saw perfectly well that the traces we found
17 many years later are more than 3 metres away from the curb and it could
18 no way be an 82-millimetre shell. That's one. And two, he agreed with
19 what we determined as a direction is correct.
20 Q. Are you saying that that Mr. Sabljica actually agreed with you
21 about a photograph being a proper way of determining direction of fire?
22 If you could please answer that question.
23 A. No. And he was not asked that. He was asked whether it was
24 correct that we properly marked the traces as they were on the asphalt
25 and if it is true that the measuring tape that was placed across the
1 traces indicated the correct direction. That's what he agreed with.
2 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33188.
3 Q. This is Mr. Sabljica's Karadzic testimony that was referenced in
4 my last question to you. At transcript page 7829, starting at line 17,
5 Mr. Sabljica was asked:
6 "Q. Do you agree that there is a certain perspective here in
7 view of the distance from which the photograph was taken?
8 "A. You mean in terms of approach to photography? Yes, there is
9 a perspective.
10 "Q. Do we agree that perspective makes it more difficult to
11 establish direction?
12 "A. I agree, but a direction is not established based on
13 photographs; that's also a very important fact. We did not use
14 photographs to determine directions, we used exact methods on the site,
15 that is to say" --
16 And if we could have the next page.
17 "... firm traces on surfaces not photographs. Working on
18 photographs and drawing on photographs can give you completely different
20 You were present when Mr. Sabljica said this; correct.
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Moving on:
23 "If we look at paragraph 68 of your report and again at
24 paragraph 75, you state: "Mirza Sabljica agreed that according to the
25 map the line extending from number 4 Klare Cetkin Street to the institute
1 for the blind is due south-west."
2 The map that you are referring to is the map he marked during his
3 Karadzic testimony, which was Exhibit D746 in that case.
4 Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 1D01413, page 93.
5 During Mr. Sabljica's Karadzic testimony, on this map, which is
6 before you, at page 7805, line 8, Mr. Sabljica was asked:
7 "Q. But you do know what streets these were. Is that the 8
8 symbol that we see there at the eastern part, the eastern 8 symbol, the
9 Klare Cetkin Street and Bosanska Street?
10 "A. Well, it's about here." - there's a notion [sic] that he
11 indicated - "I can't quite mark the area -- the point of impact where
12 these shells fell, but I'll just indicate the general area."
13 At line 20 on this same page, the question was posed by
14 Mr. Karadzic:
15 "Could you now please indicate, with numbers 1, 2, and 3, the
16 location where they landed?"
17 Mr. Sabljica answered: "Well, I really can't do that. As I told
18 you a minute ago, it's a large area and it's built up. There are a lot
19 of buildings there. You know what Alipasin Polje looked like. It's
20 difficult to do that."
21 Could the Prosecution please have the next page. And if we go
22 down towards line 24 on this page, Judge Kwon even commented during this
24 "The quality maybe is not very well, Mr. Karadzic. I think it is
25 a scanned copy from the copy again."
1 Since you were present during this testimony, you were aware that
2 when Mr. Sabljica was asked to make markings on this map which Judge Kwon
3 commented on being a of poor quality, he continuously said that he could
4 not mark on the map without difficulty. That is what happened.
5 A. I'm sorry, are we talking about the map that is shown on figure
6 63 in our report? I don't have now with me the photograph that was shown
7 to Mr. Sabljica, and it's difficult for me to remember two and a half
8 years later what it looked like. I don't know which picture was shown
10 Q. Do you acknowledge that you witnessed the testimony that I've
11 just read to you?
12 A. I cannot not accept it because I was there during his testimony.
13 Q. I'll ask you a more broad question because there are many other
14 instances in your report where you do not provide full explanations or
15 context related to the use of maps or photos with witnesses, such as
16 discussions of poor qualities of maps or photos, or the fact that
17 witnesses either did not agree or were -- it was difficult for them to
18 mark on a certain photo used by Mr. Karadzic.
19 You accept that you don't provide full context for that testimony
20 in your report?
21 A. I think that in everyone citation the context is cited very
22 precisely. If you claim different, then I would like you to show me
23 instance by instance. But I would like your leave for me to give you a
24 full answer.
25 Q. I'm going to go through many instances today.
1 And I continue on. In paragraph 68 of your shelling report,
2 which is 1D05498, you indicate that Captain Verdy determined the
3 direction of fire for two of the shells as 4200 mills and 4250 mills
4 which correspond to 236 degrees and 239 degrees with a margin of error of
5 plus or minus 5 degrees.
6 The direction of fire that you appear to have estimated based on
7 the materials available to you were 238 degrees and 240 degrees. I'm
8 locating that in paragraphs 68 and 70 of your report.
9 Your estimates are within the margin of error of those determined
10 by Captain Verdy; correct?
11 A. It only means that our assessment was sound. For precision's
12 sake, I would kindly ask that we rely on professional jargon. It is not
13 mills. The unit is called 1.000th part which is different from a mill.
14 Just so that nobody would later on try to convert the mills into degrees
15 and then declare this a mistake. That unit is used in artillery and it
16 is called the thousandth part it is determined by the 360 degrees in a
17 circle which in one system that is used, amounts to 6.000th units whereas
18 in the western system, the number of thousandths is 6.400.
19 Q. I asked you a very simple question. Your determinations of
20 238 degrees and 240 degrees is within the margins of error that
21 Captain Verdy determined; correct?
22 A. If you followed, I said that our assessment was sound. They were
23 made -- that assessment was made in Klare Cetkin Street number 4 based on
24 material evidence rather than photographs.
25 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Ms. Subotic, I
1 take it that you consider your own estimates to be sound. But the
2 question was a different one, whether your estimate stayed within a
3 margin of error what was established by Mr. Sabljica. Is it within those
4 margins of error, or is it not?
5 MR. WEBER: Mr. Verdy.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Verdy --
7 MR. WEBER: Captain --
8 JUDGE ORIE: I apologise. Is it or is it not?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The values we came up with
10 are extremely close to his.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes that's an answer to the question.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
13 MR. WEBER:
14 Q. In the report of Captain Verdy - admitted as D178 - Captain Verdy
15 indicates that the direction of fire that impacted number 4 Klare Cetkin
16 Street where five individuals were killed is 4200 mills, or 236 degrees,
17 and for the shell that impacted number 3 Cetinjska Street, is 4250 mills,
18 or 239 degrees correct?
19 A. Yes, that is correct.
20 Q. In figure 62 of your report, at page 114, you inverse the
21 measurements taken by Captain Verdy in his UNPROFOR report and indicate
22 that the direction of fire for the shell that impacted on Klare Cetkin
23 Street was 239 degrees and the one on Cetinjska Street was 236 degrees.
24 You did this; right?
25 A. Yes, we did it based on the material evidence following the
1 explosion of the mine at the site of impact.
2 Q. At paragraph 71 of your report, pages 112 to 113, you claim that
3 Captain Verdy made a mistake when he recorded the direction of fire of
4 the two shells and that he inverted the measurements of the two craters.
5 Without inverting the direction of fire that you did, the
6 direction of fire for the two shells would not converge but actually they
7 would diverge; correct?
8 A. That is correct. But they cannot remain the same because of the
9 traces left by the shells on asphalt when they impacted. Each shell
10 leave a distinct mark based on the direction of trajectory and based on
11 that, we concluded that without any doubt Captain Verdy made his
12 measurements based on the bearings found on some photographs that were
13 actually taken in mistake, that they were not the accurate photographs.
14 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33189.
15 Q. This is an annotated map that you saw during your last time here.
16 On this map, there are two black lines representing the direction of fire
17 of 239 and 236 degrees corresponding to Captain Verdy's measurements.
18 There are also two lightly shaded yellow cones which overlap and form a
19 darker yellow shaded area.
20 Do you agree that the possible directions of fire calculated by
21 Captain Verdy would fall within the yellow ranges indicated on this map,
22 based on plus or minus 5 margin of error that he determined?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. In your report, you assume - and I put to you without any
25 support - that these two rounds came from the same mortar. Now even
1 assuming that this is true, these rounds would have come from a mortar in
2 the darker yellow shaded area, correct, where the two cones overlap?
3 A. It is professionally impermissible for me to allow you such
4 comments. In the course of this entire procedure, which has taken
5 between 15 and 20 years now, there has been no investigator who would
6 agree that -- who would not agree that the shells were fired from one and
7 the same tube. We have technical facts that -- to support that thesis
8 and all of the shells landed within only one possible deviation degree
9 per distance which is something that would be impossible to do if there
10 were more tubes than one.
11 Of course there must be certain corrections between two shells in
12 order to have them hit Klare Cetkin and Cetinjska Street in terms of
13 direction. Expert Higgs agrees with us that corrections were made in
14 terms of distance.
15 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... ma'am, my question was much
16 more simple and I would appreciate if you would answer it.
17 If -- the two shots were fired from the same mortar, that mortar
18 would fall into the darker yellow shaded area on what we see before us;
20 A. Kindly explain to me where you think that would -- that would be
21 the case. I don't see the point.
22 Q. If you don't see the point -- at transcript page 39267, you
23 indicated that Captain Verdy's determination of direction of fire
24 conflicted with the direction of fire determined by the CSB investigators
25 who said that the shells came from the direction of the Nedzarici school
1 for the blind.
2 I would kindly ask that you be handed an a pen, and I'm going to
3 ask you to mark this image before us based on your own personal
4 knowledge, if you could please mark the location of the Nedzarici school
5 for the blind with an X. Not based on anything -- aside, ma'am, from
6 your own personal knowledge. I believe you've indicated that you've gone
7 to this location.
8 A. Of course. I visited all of the locations. There's no problem
9 there. But they need to be put back on the map.
10 It should be around here, somewhere.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I don't see any marking. Could the usher assist.
12 Apparently there's some technical problem in the marking.
13 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I can come back to it quickly later
14 today then. Just have her mark on that quickly.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we perhaps already -- one second,
17 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
18 JUDGE ORIE: It will be repaired over the break most likely, but
19 could we already with the assistance of the usher, can we have the
20 witness indicate where the witness thinks the school for the blind is by
21 using the cursor.
22 Could you assist, Ms. Subotic, you see the arrow which is the
23 cursor? Could you give instructions so as to move it to where the school
24 of the blind is.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could you say to the left, up, down? Could you
2 please assist the usher.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It should be to the right. Right.
4 Not left. A bit more up. To the right. Just behind the red line on the
5 right-hand side. To the right. Down. Right. Slowly. Right, right.
6 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... yes.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] More.
8 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A bit up. There. More or less.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 The witness points at a -- one second. One second, please.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It should be there, approximately.
13 As far as I recall it on this map.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The witness points at a place which is to the right
15 of where a road is marked 18 E 762052 to the right of that and a little
16 bit up, just south -- just a little bit below where the road is called
17 Stupsko Brdo but still within the red dotted line. As a matter of fact,
18 the pointer exactly at a road which is parallel to Stupsko Brdo just
19 parallel, just below where that can be read just a bit north of a complex
20 of what seems to be buildings, that is, black small blocks.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. WEBER:
23 Q. Ms. Subotic, this is --
24 A. Perhaps even a bit higher up north, because the bearing of the
25 home for the blind is 266, so almost clear west as opposed to -- compared
1 to the place of the incident.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could you again look at the cursor and give
3 directions. Is it at the right place now?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let's say it is correct.
5 JUDGE ORIE: No, not let's say, but is it correct, as far as your
6 recollection goes?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I recall, it is accurate.
8 JUDGE ORIE: We can make a screen shot, including the cursor.
9 Madam Registrar, could you take care that a screen shot is made.
10 It is.
11 MR. WEBER: And Your Honours, I tender that into evidence.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I must say that my technical knowledge, I
13 think it should be uploaded first and then once the screen shot has ...
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar tells me that this is sufficient for
17 having it tendered into evidence.
18 Madam Registrar, the number would be.
19 THE REGISTRAR: P7553, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Is admitted into evidence.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. WEBER:
23 Q. Ms. Subotic, the area that you've indicated, I put to you, is
24 actually much further to the north than the actual school for the blind,
25 and you have indicated an incorrect location.
1 A. I wouldn't say so. Since where we see the figures 8s, that is
2 the place of the incident. The institute for the blind has the bearing
3 of 266 compared to the buildings we considered. So we can take it as
4 being the west.
5 Q. Okay. You measured that 266? Is that your determination that
6 it's 266 degrees as a bearing from the location of the incident?
7 A. Yes. We took it off Google Earth. If you followed
8 Mr. Sabljica's transcript, he agreed with it in his testimony in the
9 Karadzic case.
10 Q. I think you're aware that we dispute that.
11 I'd like to discuss more incidents with you here. Moving on in
12 your report, you comment upon four shellings in the area of Dobrinja
13 between 1993 and 1995. These are the explosions on 1 June 1993, incident
14 G-4; 4 February 1994, incident G-7; and two unscheduled incidents on 12
15 July 1993 and 18 June 1995, both at water distribution points?
16 On all of the occasions, the explosions were caused by mortar
17 impacts; correct?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Focussing on the shelling of the football match on 1 June 1993,
20 scheduled incident G-4, you conclude that the direction of fire for this
21 incident was in the south-easterly direction; I'd refer you to
22 paragraph 41 of your report. On this trajectory, the furthest distance
23 the shell could have been fired from ABiH territory was 200 metres;
25 A. Why do you think it is the furthest distance? The separation
1 lines were quite close there, weren't they?
2 Q. Ms. Subotic --
3 A. In figure 30 --
4 Q. Ms. Subotic, please listen to my question carefully again.
5 On the trajectory that you claim, the furthest distance the shell
6 could have been fired from ABiH territory was 200 metres; correct?
7 A. No. According to the map provided by Ismet Hadzic where he
8 marked the separation lines, we could see that the distance to the
9 trenches was 270 metres rather than 200. We provided that in figure 36.
10 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33117,
11 e-court page 16.
12 Q. This is your past testimony in the Karadzic case.
13 At transcript page 20, you were asked:
14 "Q. Well, and the trajectory you concluded was the
15 south-easterly trajectory. So I'm saying that if it was fired from this
16 trajectory, from ABiH territory, the furthest distance it could have been
17 fired from is 200 metres from the incident. Are we agreed on that?"
18 Your answer was:
20 That was your previous answer; correct?
21 A. Yes. That information was specified by different witnesses. We
22 checked it and compared it to the map and came up with 270 rather than
23 200. I think it to be a more precise piece of information.
24 Q. A distance of 200 to 250 metres would be on or near the
25 confrontation line; correct?
1 A. Yes. We are talking here about the positions close to the
2 separation lines, much as we discussed the position of 400 metres, which
3 was the closest one, and sheltered when viewing from the separation line.
4 As you could probably notice in the captions above and below the
5 photograph in paragraph 45. It is the closest point possible to the
6 existing positions at the confrontation lines. Or, rather, the -- to the
7 border cases possible.
8 Q. When you visited this location in 2010, the craters were born
9 down from vehicle and foot traffic along with erosion over time; correct?
10 A. Yes. We attached photographs showing what they looked like
12 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I see we're at the time for a break. I
13 was just about to go into a new exhibit.
14 JUDGE ORIE: We are at the time for a break.
15 Ms. Subotic, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes. You may
16 now follow the usher.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at ten minutes to 11.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 10.28 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I was informed that the screen shot didn't work
22 either, so perhaps the marking should be briefly now be done by marking
23 it on the screen because I do understand that the problem that existed
24 earlier has now been fixed.
25 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours. And I believe up on the
1 screen is 65 ter 33189, unmarked.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we can do it right away.
3 [The witness takes the stand]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you stay with the witness because
5 the screen shot didn't work and, therefore, we'll -- Mr. Weber will
6 invite the witness to mark again where the school for the blind is.
7 MR. WEBER:
8 Q. Ms. Subotic, I believe we've resolved our technical difficulties.
9 If could you please on the image that's before you mark an X at the
10 location where you believe the Nedzarici school for the blind is located.
11 A. [Marks]
12 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution would
13 tender 65 ter 33189 as marked by the witness.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think what we should do is to vacate the
15 number that was assigned earlier because the screen shot didn't work and
16 that, Madam Registrar, under the same number now we'll decide on
17 admission of this map marked by the witness. That would ...
18 THE REGISTRAR: P7553, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: P7553 is now the map, and I think you gave the
20 number a second ago, Mr. Weber. That is -- let me see, 33189 as now
21 marked by the witness.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. WEBER:
24 Q. Ms. Subotic --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and, of course, that's admitted.
1 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours.
2 Q. As you indicated in your past testimony, you are aware that there
3 are different maps that use different grid systems; correct?
4 A. I don't understand what you are trying to say with this
5 "different grid systems." I know there are different maps but I don't
6 understand what you mean by different grid systems. Maps are more or
7 less with the same grid systems, only the scales differ between maps.
8 Q. In your past testimony at transcript page 38410, you stated: "As
9 far as I know, there are two systems. We checked both and we could not
10 find the grid references that would correspond with the location of the
11 parking lot."
12 Next question was:
13 "And what's the basis for your conclusion that there are only two
14 grid systems in the world?"
15 Your answer was: "I am aware of two grid systems which depend on
16 the number of figures which you read when you do the analysis."
17 You are aware that there are different grid systems; correct?
18 A. Oh, that's what you mean. Yes.
19 Q. According to figure 30 and footnote 131 on e-court page 66 of
20 your report, you plotted the grid co-ordinate provided by Captain Houdet
21 on a series 903 map; correct? If you could please particularly check
22 footnote 131?
23 A. Excuse me, the footnote was? I was looking for the picture that
24 I had forgotten. I'm sure not sure I heard the number of the footnote.
25 Q. 131.
1 A. Yes?
2 Q. This is a very familiar map to this Chamber. It is, for the
3 record, included on multiple occasions in the Sarajevo map book as the
4 base map, Exhibit P3. My question to you, did you realise when you were
5 doing your report that the scale for the series 903 map is 1 to 12.500?
6 A. I think I saw that. I don't remember. I don't remember that
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could we have the -- could we have that map on our
9 screen because I see a map black-and-white version that mention made of a
10 green circle but in black and white, green is not easy to detect.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is 1D5498.
12 MR. WEBER: And, Your Honour, I'm actually moving on to another
13 exhibit to look at another map.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But, nevertheless, I would like to have a look
15 at what you have drawn our attention to on figure 30. I just wanted to
16 have a brief look at that. And that's -- I don't have the -- it's in the
17 English version, it's page 66 --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Picture 30.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But that's not an e-court number perhaps.
20 MR. LUKIC: It's page 62 in English.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.
22 Could we enlarge the map. I think we had the map -- we had the
23 map a second ago. This is 26. Could we move onto --
24 MR. WEBER: I believe it was e-court page 66.
25 JUDGE ORIE: It's hard copy page 66 as well. Yes. Could we zoom
1 in on the map itself. Yes, now I see the green circle.
2 Yes, please proceed.
3 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P644 for
4 the witness. And if we could please go to page 9 of the English original
5 and page 8 of the B/C/S translation.
6 Q. This is Captain Houdet's report which is attached as Annex A to
7 the 7 July 1993 UN investigation report with two other documents as part
8 of that annex. Did you review the full UN investigation report for this
10 A. This, certainly, yes.
11 Q. We'll go through some additional materials in a second.
12 While we're on it, you're aware that Captain Houdet's report
13 refers to two craters; correct?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. At the top of Captain Houdet's report, we see the grid reference
16 and then "map 1/50.000 Sarajevo, sheet 27821, series M709."
17 Captain Houdet used a different series map with a different scale
18 than the one in your report; correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. Could you not find a series M709 map or a grid map with a 1 to
21 50.000 scale when you were doing your report?
22 A. We provided the map that we had at our disposal, the only one we
23 were able to find.
24 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have the next page of
25 the original only of this exhibit. In the English, is the original. And
1 if we could make this the full screen, please, and if we could please
2 rotate it. There we go. Ooh.
3 Q. This is the map attached to Captain Houdet's report which is part
4 of the same annex. In the upper right-hand corner, you see the scale
5 1 to 50.000; correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. Could we please zoom -- actually, there should be fine.
8 Do you see the numerical references for the longitude and
9 latitude grid lines, the -- they appear across the middle of the document
10 on the grid lines, running horizontally, and they're a little bit off to
11 the left of centre, running vertically on the grid lines? You see those;
13 A. 84, 85, et cetera. That's what you mean. Those are the numbers
14 we see here.
15 Q. Do you see the location marked at the point of impact on this map
16 where the two lines representing the direction of fire converge from the
17 south-east? The top line runs through the number 55 on its way towards
18 Dobrinja. The lower line runs through the number 54 on its way to
19 Dobrinja from the south-east.
20 A. Yes. I cannot see 55 to be honest, but I see a line -- oh, yes,
21 I see it here now.
22 Q. The point of impact is marked approximately in the centre and a
23 little bit to the left, in the grid corresponding to 87 on the horizontal
24 axis and 56 on the vertical axis; correct?
25 A. 87 on the vertical axis ...
1 Q. On the horizontal axis.
2 A. I'm sorry, it's very difficult to read these numbers.
3 Q. Okay. The location of the point of impact on this map does not
4 correspond to the location you marked on a completely different series
5 map; correct? That's what we see --
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If the witness should say something about the
7 difference between two maps she should first be able to find the point of
8 impact as shown in this map. Perhaps we can zoom in on the upper
9 left-hand corner of the map.
10 JUDGE ORIE: But still such that -- yes.
11 MR. WEBER:
12 Q. Ma'am, if you could please draw your attention to the screen.
13 You can see where the point of impact is on -- before us; correct?
14 A. I'm sorry, I just read the co-ordinates given in the report.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Have you found the point of impact? That's the
16 question, as plotted on this map.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The way it is drawn into this map,
18 yes. But I cannot read, I cannot find the numbers given by Captain Verdy
19 [as interpreted] on this map.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could I perhaps briefly assist you. Do you see the
21 numbers which are to the bottom left. It says -- close to the cursor, it
22 says 84, then next line is 85, then 86, 87, 88, 89. And if you now from
23 89 move up, you see the first -- the first line is 54, the second is 55,
24 the third is 56. And then the following is 57.
25 Have you find [sic] your -- these numbers on the map?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
3 MR. WEBER:
4 Q. The location of the point of impact on this map does not
5 correspond to the location that you marked on the different series map;
7 A. To the extent I can find my way around this map that I'd never
8 seen before, let's say that it's correct, with the proviso that in this
9 report it says that both shells fell on macadam surface within this
10 playground and this residential building, this is not indicated. In any
11 case, we determined it was 200 metres from the --
12 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
13 A. -- from the grounds where a football match was played.
14 Q. Ma'am, we know what your report says. If you could please focus
15 on the questions and answer the questions only and we'll move along.
16 I'd like to turn your attention to the video from the local media
17 correspond and related to this incident which was filmed after the
18 shelling on 1 June 1993. You have seen part of it during your direct
19 examination. At this time --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, could we first establish whether the
21 witness agrees? Because that was your question because she marked the
22 point of impact at a location different from the one we saw on the map
23 used at the time as part of the report.
24 MR. WEBER:
25 Q. Ma'am, did you hear His Honour's comment?
1 A. No, I can only check in the afternoon what the difference is
2 between this map and the map that we used and what the influence is, if
3 any, of this map on our conclusion.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, if I look at this map, it looks as if the
5 point of impact as plotted in the report made at the time is just below,
6 south of the main road leading to Lukavica, whereas the centre of the
7 green circle which you plotted as the point of impact is north of that
8 road, above that road.
9 Would you agree with that.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, certainly.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now the question was whether you plotted it at
12 a different place as was done at the time in this report made
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Now my question - a very short question - would be:
16 You said I have never seen that report but that map was part of a report
17 at the time. Does that mean that did you not look at that report?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I reviewed everything that was
19 available to me from this package relating to this incident, and all of
20 that is cited in my report.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And that map was part of the report which you said a
22 map you had never seen before and was not available to you. Is that well
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's well understood. I did not
25 see it before.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Though being part of the report which was made at
2 the time.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very often we received only partial
4 documents, documents that were not complete and related to different
5 reports of different incidents. Some things came to us in a complete
6 package; others didn't. And that's nothing unusual in our job.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Did you make mention of that in your report, that
8 you did not have access to the full information from the report which you
9 referred to in your report.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As you have probably seen, in some
11 incidents, we did indicate that something was missing; in others, we did
13 JUDGE ORIE: Did you do it in this instance?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe in this specific incident
15 we did not.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. WEBER: I'm going to ask Ms. Stewart to now play 65 ter
19 33095A. For the record there's been a provisional exhibit number
20 reserved for it which is I believe is D1250. But the parties have to
21 work out the agreed full timing of the clip. It is the local video
22 footage after the shelling on 1 June 1993.
23 JUDGE ORIE: You play which part?
24 MR. WEBER: We're going to -- if I could just have two seconds
25 into the -- actually, I'm going to play the first ten seconds of the
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you just repeat the 65 ter number.
3 MR. WEBER: This is 33095A.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
5 [Video-clip played]
6 MR. WEBER: We are paused at 11 seconds -- 11 and a half seconds
7 into the video-clip.
8 Q. The image on the screen is similar to the images that you place
9 in your report from this video; correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Directing your attention to the upper left corner of this image
12 that is now on the screen, you agree that one of the goals is visible
13 between the red and blue cars correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In this part of the video, you cannot see the second goal;
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. You also do not see a second row of cars; correct?
19 A. Correct. If there is a second row of cars.
20 MR. WEBER: Could we please play the video another six seconds.
21 [Video-clip played]
22 MR. WEBER: If we could please play another two seconds.
23 [Video-clip played]
24 MR. WEBER: There we go. We are now paused at 19.3 seconds into
25 the video-clip.
1 Q. We see a row of cars. There's no blue car in this row. And the
2 cars appear to be positioned differently; correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. In front of the second car from the left, you see another
5 football goal there; correct?
6 A. I apologise, which second car? You mean the red car, the second
7 red car or white and then red? I can't see very well.
8 Q. I'm referring you to the second red car from the left. If you
9 focus immediately in -- towards us from that car where the passenger door
10 would be. There's a second goal there; correct?
11 A. On the opposite side. I'm sorry, the picture is unclear. I
12 could not say that it's the second goal, but if we could focus better
13 maybe, so we can distinguish things more clearly, maybe I can agree.
14 MR. WEBER: If we could back up two seconds on the video.
15 [Video-clip played]
16 MR. WEBER: And I'm going to play it for four seconds.
17 [Video-clip played]
18 Q. Are you able to see the second goal in front of the car?
19 A. There is something in front of the car, but I cannot seriously
20 conclude, unlike with the previous picture, that it is that. It seems to
21 me too close to the car, or maybe that's the way this video is.
22 Q. You agree that we're looking at another row of cars from the
23 direction of the goal at the opposite end of the pitch; correct?
24 A. That, yes.
25 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I'm not going to tender at this time,
1 pending agreement with the Defence as to what should be included.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think the number has been reserved already
3 and you would like to add the first 20-plus 03 seconds of this video.
4 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe that the Defence showed two
5 portions of the video one from before what we see on the screen and one
6 from after what we saw on the screen so if we could -- I think what we'll
7 agree to is one full segment that includes images that were shown just
8 now and images that were shown after by the Defence.
9 JUDGE ORIE: You say you started at 0 seconds.
10 MR. WEBER: Correct.
11 JUDGE ORIE: So what was shown before that is that minus or.
12 MR. WEBER: It was starting at the same time code.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Fine. I see that you mean the part shown by the
14 Defence was a portion which precedes what you have drawn our attention to
16 Please proceed.
17 I still have another small question.
18 If we look at figure 30, Witness, who did plot the numbers 8739
19 and 5653 and the green circle? Who did that?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We drew that to put in the
21 co-ordinates and indicate the place and the co-ordinates given by
22 Captain Verdy in the basic report on the map that we cited below.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Now are those grid references given on that map? I
24 mean, in general? Which enabled you to plot it as you did?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those are the grid references cited
1 in the report.
2 JUDGE ORIE: That's not what I asked you. I asked you where you
3 plotted those grid references, whether they are found such a grid system
4 on the map on which you plotted them and drew a green circle? Or did you
5 implant from any other map, the grid references?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, those are the co-ordinates, the
7 grid references that correspond to the red circle. And read from this
8 map where they are drawn. The source of these numbers is in the report.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat the last thing she
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could you repeat the last thing you said.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The numeric source of these
13 co-ordinates is in the report of Captain Boudet [as interpreted].
14 JUDGE ORIE: My question was from where did you take the grid
15 references in general. Did you take them from the map on which you then
16 finally plotted the grid references as given by Verdy, or did you take
17 them from somewhere else?
18 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, sorry to interrupt. I believe on this
19 incident it is Captain Houdet.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Houdet. I'm mixing up all the French names, and I
21 apologise for that.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: You took them from this map?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The numbers were taken from the
25 report numerically speaking. He provided the co-ordinates of the
1 incident. On this map, according to its scale, the co-ordinates are
2 marked in green in the green circle. I don't know how better to explain.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, in order to plot something on a map, if you
4 have certain numbers, you need to know what grid system is used in the
5 map which you mark.
6 My question is whether the grid system, whether you took that
7 from the map you used or did you take it from anywhere else?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The co-ordinates shown in the
9 report, in terms of numbers, were found on the map we used and marked in
10 a red circle. They were numerically identified as to be able to
11 establish a link with the report.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
13 Please proceed.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 MR. WEBER:
16 Q. In your discussion of the G-4 shelling, you criticise
17 Richard Higgs for agreeing with Captain Houdet's conclusion as to range
18 and at the end of paragraph 42 of your report, you indicate that
19 Mr. Higgs's conclusion is a sign of bias.
20 From your past testimony, you are aware that Expert Higgs
21 performed an independent analysis related to the crater; correct?
22 A. Of course I'm familiar with that, and we cite his analysis. He
23 made use of the same analysis of the crater that we did. He concluded
24 that there was no reason to analyse further because he saw it only in
25 2001, much after it had happened. He could see two traces in the field
1 where, in 1995, there were none.
2 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
3 A. -- I think he should have taken all of that into account and not
4 only the report --
5 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... please stay focussed on my
6 questions, and I'm going to go through it as to what happened the last
7 time you were asked about this.
8 Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33117 for the witness.
9 And if we could please go to page 23.
10 This is your past testimony in the Karadzic case where you were
11 discussing paragraph 42 of your report. Starting at line 3, you were
13 "Q. Certainly I can do that. Let me ask it this way. Mr. Higgs
14 in his Galic testimony concluded when he looked at the crater that it
15 must have come in at an angle of between -- an angle of descent of
16 between 50 and 70 degrees. So my question for you is: If he was correct
17 and, in fact, the maximum angle of descent was 70 degree, it's true, is
18 it not, that the mortar would have to have been fired from the SRK side
19 of the confrontation line? Do you agree with that?
20 "A. I will agree with you if I look at the tables because I
21 really don't know this by heart, the angles of descent and whether we
22 provided them in this document or not. I have to have a look at the
23 angles. I really don't know the tables off the top of my head."
24 Do you stand by this testimony.
25 A. Of course I do. I really don't know the tables by heart, and
1 please don't expect me to. I don't know all the numerical parts off the
2 top of my head.
3 Q. Your report in this case is dated April 2014, after this
4 testimony. When you completed this report for this case, you were aware
5 of Mr. Higgs's conclusion that, based on what he looked at at the crater,
6 that the angle of descent was between 50 to 70 degrees; correct?
7 A. That is correct. It was his conclusion.
8 MR. WEBER: Your Honours -- oh, I see it was just corrected.
9 Q. You do not mention Mr. Higgs's conclusion on the angle of descent
10 being between 50 and 70 degrees in your Mladic report, do you?
11 A. No, we did not. We mentioned Witness John Hamill who said that
12 it was 65 degrees. We agree that it was the approximate angle.
13 Q. You also do not include Mr. Higgs's testimony on 4 November 2013
14 in this case - and I'm referring to transcript page 18762 - where you
15 indicated that he looked at the crater and the angle of descent based on
16 his personal observations using the range tables gave him a minimum range
17 of 300 metres. You don't reference that in your report either; right?
18 A. Obviously.
19 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P7549, page
20 54 of the B/C/S and page 80 of the English translation.
21 Q. Okay. These are the 82-millimetre mortar tables again. First
22 let's determine the mills that correspond to the maximum angle of descent
23 of 70 degrees I'm going to do this based on the 1 to 6.000 mills
24 calculation. If I could direct your attention to the fourth column to
25 the left, there is a number 70 under the column for degrees. And then
1 one column over to the right, it states 1166.67. 70 degrees corresponds
2 to 11166.67 mills; correct?
3 A. Of thousandths, not of mills.
4 Q. Okay. You do realise that the tables do refer to mills; correct
5 and I understand it's on a 1 to 6.000 calculation. If we could move on
6 to page 12 of both versions --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so, we find both; isn't it?
8 MR. WEBER: Correct.
9 JUDGE ORIE: So whether this table refers to --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.
11 JUDGE ORIE: One second. I was -- we find here, if I understand
12 well, a translation of both western, which if I understand well, is 1 to
13 6400, and eastern, that is 1 to 6.000 mills, into degrees. That's what
14 we find here. So to say that -- to say that it's 1 on a 6.000
15 calculation, that is true for those columns where it says at the top:
17 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 MR. WEBER: I think we're both understood. Could the Prosecution
20 please go to page 12 of both versions.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the witness would like to add something.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said a moment ago what it was.
24 Yes, just a while ago, I tried to distinguish between mills and
25 thousandths because it is an artillery aspect in use. All tables are
1 more or less provided in thousandths as well as all of the sighting
2 devices which use that unit. We have a full circle of 360 degrees, in
3 one system it equals 6.000s, in the other 6.400 thousandths it is may not
4 be directly related to mills --
5 JUDGE ORIE: That's a matter of terminology I -- from what I
6 understood from the evidence, that what you call thousandths are often
7 referred to as mills in the eastern system, whereas the 1 to 6400 is
8 often referred to as the mills in the western system, or the mills, if
9 I -- and I think that is clear in table 8a where the conversion of
10 degrees into thousands, thousands which are here including both 1 to
11 6.000 and 1 to 6400.
12 I think there's no disagreement on what the table tells us.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 12 of both
16 Q. This is the table for the 82-millimetre M74 on zero charge.
17 Directing your attention to column 9, if you could go down in that
18 column. Do you see the listing for 1149 right below the zero on the
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Going over to the far left column this angle of descent, which is
22 roughly around 69 degrees, would correspond to range of 325 metres;
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. The line above corresponds to a range of 300 metres; correct?
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. I appreciate it's --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, you said for the 325 you have around 69
4 degrees. What I see for 325 is 67 --
5 MR. WEBER: I'm sorry. I misspoke.
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- degrees and for the one further up, 69 degrees --
7 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, actually, I think that's the firing
8 angle. Not necessarily the angle of descent.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do agree with you. If we look at 9. Let's
10 have a look at 9. 9 is the angle of descent. And that is apparently in
11 mills again.
12 MR. WEBER: Correct.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And then the question is what kind of mills?
14 MR. WEBER: Your Honour [Overlapping speakers] ...
15 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's all 1 to 6.000 because that is found in
16 columns 3 and 4, where degrees that the conversion of the mills in
17 degrees stems from -- from the 1 to 6.000 type of mill and therefore you
18 say it's reasonable to expect that the angle of descent equally uses the
19 same mills rather than the other system.
20 Is that ...
21 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour. And on the previous page that we
22 just looked at we see that 69 degrees is a little bit -- is one one
23 thousandths above this. It 1150 thousandths in the 1 to 6.000 scale.
24 That's where I'm getting the information from.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
1 MR. WEBER:
2 Q. An angle of descent of 70 degrees would correlate to a range of
3 around 300 to 325 metres; correct.
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I'm about to head into a new incident.
6 I can keep on going. I'll just keep going for a couple of minutes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: We have five minutes left. If you'd rather than do
8 it one stretch then perhaps it would be better to take the break now --
9 MR. WEBER: Yes --
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- rather than to interrupt it halfway.
11 Ms. Subotic, we'll take another break. We'd like to see you back
12 in 20 minutes. You may follow the usher.
13 [The witness stands down]
14 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at five minutes past midday.
15 --- Recess taken at 11.45 a.m.
16 --- On resuming at 12.09 p.m.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Weber.
20 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours.
21 Q. Ms. Subotic, turning your attention to incident G-7, the shelling
22 of a queue for humanitarian assistance in Dobrinja on 4 February 1994,
23 the craters had changed by the time of your visit in 2010. One of the
24 areas on the playground was paved over, and the area where all of the
25 people were lined up still had damage on the building but the crater was
1 no longer there; correct?
2 A. Yes, that is correct.
3 Q. One of your criticisms - and I'm referring to paragraph 83 of
4 your report - is that a sketch of the scene in the investigation file
5 does not have north marked correctly on it. You indicate that it has an
6 error of 60 degrees and then you wrote: "As a consequence of this error
7 in determining the north, the incoming trajectory was also determined
9 At the end of the paragraph, however, you write: "At first
10 sight, the error made in marking the north on the sketch of the scene may
11 appear accidental and immaterial but the final conclusion must be
12 reserved until after we have analysed the manner in which the incoming
13 trajectory of the shells was determined and after we have verified
14 whether this error in determining the north has affected the conclusion
15 about the incoming direction of the shell."
16 If the sketch was not used in the process of determining the
17 incoming trajectory of the shells, then any error in marking the
18 direction of north on the sketch would be immaterial; correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P867, which
21 is the investigative file for this incident, and could we please go to
22 English page 12 and B/C/S page 11.
23 Q. This is the forensic report for incident G-7 which tells you how
24 the direction was determined, and a little further down in -- under
25 item 4, the report says: "Incoming direction of the mortar shell was
1 determined with magnetic compass ..."
2 You do not mention this fact in your report; correct?
3 A. That is not correct. In this report we mention twice this type
4 of determining direction, and we dispute it based on technical aspects or
5 results of the shell at the place of impact and we also dispute it on the
6 basis of a map and its position. The map has a large scale, and as can
7 be seen from the photograph, it was placed without any reference points.
8 In that case you can position it whichever you want compared to a
9 compass --
10 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
11 A. -- I think you may have seen that in the report but I don't know
12 why you fail to mention it.
13 Q. I'm going to go through what you didn't cite in the report. You
14 are mentioning other items. If, over the next break, you could just tell
15 me where you refer to this quote from the report that we have on the
16 screen that would be appreciated.
17 Could the Prosecution please have page 32 of the B/C/S version
18 only --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Can the witness have the quote on the screen printed
20 out for her because --
21 MR. WEBER: Of course, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Because to ask her where to find it's mainly about
23 the magnetic compass being used for the determination.
24 Witness, you are invited to -- during the next break to find in
25 your report where you refer to determining the incoming direction of the
1 mortar shell with a magnetic compass and I think the emphasis is on --
2 MR. LUKIC: If I may assist, Your Honour, it's on figure 77.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Figure 77.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can see it already.
5 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can see it already. It is the
7 second paragraph following figure 75, where this type of determination is
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, you've --
10 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I was trying to specifically refer to
11 the forensic report. We see that she does refer to this photo which is
12 where I'm going next.
13 Q. This is a photo from the photo file. This is the photo that you
14 do refer to and it shows that the magnetic compass pointed and pointed to
15 the north, correct? Along with the incoming trajectory of one of the
17 And maybe to assist the witness, we can zoom in on the compass.
18 A. Yes. And in your opinion, what can we see on the compass? The
19 north? I have no objection to it being so. But it doesn't determine the
20 incoming trajectory and there is no reference point on the basis of which
21 the trajectory could be determined in that way. The direction of north
22 is shown on a compass always the same way.
23 Q. When you testified about this in the Karadzic case, you claim
24 that the individual who drew the sketch, Witness KDZ-166, agreed with
25 you. You said: "Due to this error of 60 degrees, they drew erroneous
1 conclusions about the direction from which the shells had arrived. I
2 think that KDZ-166, the witness agreed with this when we presented to him
3 the situation as depicted here."
4 And this is at transcript page 38271 in the Karadzic case.
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. Now, ma'am --
7 A. Sorry, I thought that was the question.
8 Q. Now ma'am -- you were also confronted with the language that
9 KDZ-166 had actually used which was at transcript page 8297 of the
10 Karadzic trial where the witness was asked: "Now we have a new northerly
11 direction so if you change it from 90 degrees to some 30 or 40 degrees,
12 does that affect the direction from which the shell came? "
13 The witness answered: "No, it doesn't. I did not plot the
14 direction onto my sketch from which the shell came because that part of
15 the work, that is, to establish the direction, was done by ballistics
17 In your present report in this case, you then don't make
18 reference to this fact, do you?
19 A. As we said, it is irrelevant whether he determined the incoming
20 trajectory or not.
21 On the sketch --
22 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
23 A. -- showing the place.
24 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Sabljica who is one of
25 the ballistics expert who investigated the scene was also asked about
1 this and said the sketch was irrelevant to determining direction of fire.
2 The reasons he gave was: "Because what we did in our investigations had
3 to do with the actual situation and the actual trace evidence found at
4 the site."
5 This is the Karadzic transcript, page 7800.
6 You also leave this part of Mr. Sabljica's testimony out for this
7 incident; correct?
8 A. Absolutely not. As you just read, we stated here that we wanted
9 to determine whether it has any importance that the sketch was drawn the
10 way it was drawn, whether it is -- it somehow influenced the conclusions.
11 We cited all the analyses we made of the material evidence and on
12 the basis of which we determined the incoming trajectory. It was very
13 close to what the sketch shows. But you know perfectly well, you have
14 seen it. We made all our conclusions based on the material traces that
15 were on the scene and the material evidence in keeping with the rules of
16 the profession and science based on the documents that the investigators
17 made the next day, which does not detract from their relevance.
18 Q. I get that's kind of your standard answer today. But what I'd
19 like to specifically ask you is there's nothing in the investigative file
20 or anywhere else indicating that the sketch was actually used to
21 determine the incoming trajectory; correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Another theory you have --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, one short question. Does the witness
25 still have to try to find the use of the compass or were you just wrong
1 in saying that -- in suggesting that it was not in her report. Because I
2 think in the footnote it clearly states - footnote 361 - where it is
3 taken from.
4 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I don't see reference to the report that
5 I referred to in the footnotes --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. Footnote 361. Close to the
7 photograph --
8 MR. WEBER: I see. I see. The photo --
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... no, but it also states
10 where the photo is taken from, isn't it? Security service centre photo
11 documentation number 3 -- 234. That's the footnote related to this
12 picture in which the use of a compass is shown.
13 MR. WEBER: I understand what Your Honour is saying. I'm not
14 going to persist on it, however, what I was asking was about is the
15 report which is a different document than this photo that's cited there.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. But the witness has explained at least that
17 she even has shown in her report how a compass was used in this context
18 in order to determine the direction of the origin of fire.
19 MR. WEBER: May I proceed?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you may proceed.
21 MR. WEBER:
22 Q. Another theory that you have is that four shells landed in the
23 immediate area of the humanitarian line, not three, but that the
24 investigators covered up - and I'm referring to your report
25 paragraph 81 - the fourth shell because it could shot from come from VRS
1 positions; right?
2 A. Well, you know, no, it's not right. It says here that this shell
3 provides exclusive evidence that such fire could not have come from that
4 direction. That is to say, it rules out the possibility that this fire
5 came in from the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska. I understood
6 you to be asking something different. In fact, that's how I understood
7 your question.
8 Q. In paragraph 80, you write: "The photo file contains a shot
9 showing the damage to the edge of the footpath which could not have been
10 caused by a shell exploding on the footpath but only from the shrapnel of
11 a shell that exploded in the playground."
12 And then you refer to a figure of your report. I'd like to look
13 at the original photo. Could we please Exhibit P867, page 24 of the
14 B/C/S version only. And if the witness could be provided with assistance
15 in terms of a pen.
16 MR. LUKIC: Just for the record, it's figure 67 from the report.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is the picture taken from the
18 same material we are looking at right now.
19 MR. WEBER:
20 Q. I wanted to start with the fresh image here. Could you please
21 trace with a pen what you consider to be the shrapnel damage that could
22 not have been caused by the shell that hit the footpath.
23 A. This damage is also marked in our report. I will now mark it
24 again here.
25 As can be seen, this damage is at 90 degrees relative to the edge
1 of the curb and since the shell came in from the right upper corner
2 towards symbol 1, this is --
3 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... --
4 A. -- what is called in artillery a dead angle where shrapnel cannot
5 arrive from the shell that exploded where the number 1 is.
6 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution tenders the marked image into
8 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
9 THE REGISTRAR: The marked image receives exhibit number P7554,
10 Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
12 MR. WEBER: If we could go to 65 ter 1D5498. English page 136
13 and B/C/S page 132.
14 Q. I want to turn your attention to figures 74 and 75 which look to
15 be both visible in the English version. Here you appear to be
16 essentially saying that the pattern damage on the right-hand wall in the
17 alcove of the apartment building could not have occurred if the shell
18 came in from SRK positions.
19 In figure 74, you have what appears to be a wing pattern of shell
20 fragments that is empty towards the front in the direction of the part of
21 the wall. My first question to you is: These are two-dimensional images
22 that depict the area from above; correct?
23 A. Yes, they are.
24 Q. In reality, if we looked at the top image, for example, figure
25 74, from a horizontal perspective, showing the incoming angle of descent,
1 the shrapnel of the mortar would disperse in 360 degrees and go outward
2 toward the building striking the area under number 3; correct?
3 A. Sorry, but I don't think that's quite correct.
4 First of all, what do we call the area under number 3? What is
5 that? Mihajlo Pupin Street number 3? Is that what you're trying to say.
6 Q. I'm just referring to it just because it's in the diagram. Let
7 me put it another way; if the mortar would be entering at a downward
8 angle of 45 degrees or more, there would also be fragments that would
9 project straight out in front of the shell; right?
10 A. A shell cannot fall under 45 degrees or less. A minimal angle of
11 descent for a 120-millimetre shell is 52 or 55 degrees. There is no such
12 thing as 45 degrees or less. That does not exist. Mortar cannot hit at
13 such an angle. It doesn't happen.
14 Q. I was saying 45 degrees or more so if -- if a mortar fell at an
15 angle of descent of greater than 45 degrees, there would be fragments
16 that would project straight out in front of the shell; correct?
17 A. Yes. But very little, in a very small amount. If you look at
18 the photographs which --
19 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
20 A. -- depict a real picture you will see that it's not as you say.
21 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... well, I would dispute that
22 and the Chamber has that evidence. I want to keep on moving along. If
23 you could please listen to my questions.
24 In paragraph 97 of your Markale report, you say: "It is
25 well-known that the stabiliser penetrates the ground when it is fired
1 with charge 3 or a higher charge. When a mortar shell is fired with
2 charge 1 or charge 2, the stabiliser falls in the immediate vicinity of
3 the crater or it is propelled back along the approximate trajectory of
4 the shell."
5 In this instance with respect to the shell that hit near the
6 building, you agree the 120-millimetre stabiliser was fully embedded in
7 the crater on the asphalt surface; correct?
8 A. On figure 68, we see a stabiliser that fell in Mihajlo Pupin
9 Street number 3 and it not fully embedded. On the contrary. It is lying
10 on the surface with deformations that show that during its descent it
11 changed positions, which means it had prior landing on a different
12 surface and that's one of the reasons why we did not accept that the real
13 incoming trajectory was properly determined using compass.
14 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
15 A. -- that's taken from the pictures made by the investigators
16 marked by 7. That's the stabiliser we are talking about.
17 Q. You agree that one of the mortar shells were embedded on this
18 instance; correct?
19 A. Yes, that's the one that fell on the footpath.
20 Q. Okay. Let's focus on that one, and I'm sorry if I added to that
21 confusion there.
22 And as you acknowledged in the Karadzic case, according to the
23 firing tables for 120-millimetre mortars, this would indicate a minimum
24 firing distance of 600 metres for this shell, the one that was embedded;
1 A. If that is according to the firing tables, it is correct.
2 Q. You make some other comments in paragraph 88 of your shelling
3 report about the images of the embedded stabiliser. You indicate that
4 the embedded stabiliser was at almost a vertical angle but the marks on
5 the asphalt do not indicate that the shell was fired with the maximum
6 elevation. In other words, this means that, at the time of the explosion
7 and as the stabiliser penetrated into the soil, its position changed.
8 First of all, you -- the fact is that this was looked at as part
9 of the investigation and the report drafted by Mr. Sabljica, who
10 personally inspected the site specifically, stated that this embedded
11 tail-fin was "facing east."
13 A. I don't know whether what he saw is accurate and whether what he
14 wrote was accurate. I don't want to go into that. I know the way the
15 fins are turned has absolutely no technical relation to where the
16 projectile came from.
17 The link only exists and it is correct if the descent and the
18 position of the stabiliser coincides with the direction determined based
19 on the traces on the asphalt according to the central axis method. If
20 these two directions coincide that's the only situation where you can
21 determine incoming trajectory based on the position of the stabiliser.
22 The only things mentioned there are absolutely unacceptable for the
23 reasons that are explained in detail in this report. If you wish me to,
24 I can repeat them for the umpteenth time but it depends on a large number
25 of technical parameters that have to --
1 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
2 A. -- all be present for this to happen.
3 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I want to now discuss with
4 you incident G-5 on the 12th of July, 1993 --
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before you move to another incident --
6 MR. WEBER: Sure.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- I have one question for the witness. Can we
8 have on the screen again, P7554, the photograph of the footpath where you
9 indicated by a circle the impact of a shrapnel.
10 I can already put my question. It will come up soon. How did
11 you determine that this is the place where a shrapnel penetrated the
12 ground? When you encircled this photograph, I couldn't quite follow why
13 you decided that this is a place of an impact of a shrapnel. Can you
14 explain that further?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly. Certainly. If this is
16 the footpath, this is the surface where this defect, this damage is
17 located. On that surface, it's absolutely -- when the shell falls here
18 and projects shrapnel normally, it's absolutely impossible for this
19 damage in this place to occur at 90 degrees. Because all the damage, all
20 the projection of shrapnel, goes into the area ahead or laterally. It
21 cannot be found on a surface which is 90 degrees to that surface, to the
22 other surface. We call that in artillery a dead angle.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I stop you. This is not what I asked you
25 I wanted to know where we can see on this photograph that there
1 is a damage caused by shrapnel. I don't see a damage there. On what
2 observation did you base your claim that at this location there was a
3 damage caused by a shrapnel? I don't see anything there. Did you use
4 different information? Have you visited the site? Or what is it what
5 you based your observation on?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly we visited the location.
7 And when we visited the location, this footpath had been repaved. You
8 could not see it then. We used this photograph where you see this little
9 defect in the shape of an arch that I marked here. If we looked even
10 more carefully, if we could analyse this photograph even better, we would
11 probably find other damage from shrapnel.
12 This is the impact of a larger piece of shrapnel that is visible.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In my view, there's nothing visible which could
14 indicate that there is a damage which is caused by shrapnel.
15 I just don't see anything like that. And I wanted to ask you for
16 assistance so that I can really -- from this photograph, take that there
17 is a damage on the site of the footpath.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just explained this. This is
19 this little arch pointing downwards and it's on the side of this curb. I
20 marked it -- the way I marked it looks like a smiley. This is the damage
21 that is very clearly seen on the photograph.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is your opinion. Thank you.
23 Mr. Weber.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just ask you if you would look at it, I
25 think it may be some rubble that is there. What makes you so sure that
1 what you marked is, indeed, shrapnel traces rather than some rubble or
2 whatever? From this photograph. And that's what we seek your
3 assistance, to better -- you made an arc, but you can make an arc on
4 rubble as well and ...
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's a clear trace based on the
6 rules of our profession. There are several other traces that indicate
7 impact on the edge of the playground in the photo documentation these
8 points of impact are marked. There is testimony to those points of
9 impact. There are traces on the ground that could not have been created
10 in any different way.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now you are explaining a lot of other things.
12 What we are seeking is your assistance to establish clearly that this is
13 not rubble but this is shrapnel impact. And testimonies, et cetera, you
14 drew this conclusion on the basis of this photograph, and, therefore,
15 we're seeking your assistance to be able to better understand how you
16 could consider with certainty this to be shrapnel impacts.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, you see, you have here,
18 right -- to the right, there is another trace of shrapnel.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, for what you say now, we would again put the
20 same question to you: What makes you so certain about what looks as dark
21 and -- that that is shrapnel impact rather than anything else?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if you look at the upper
23 photograph, you will see that wherever shrapnel hit on this footpath, all
24 of these spots are dark, and we certainly know that the projectile did
25 land above. Wherever there is violent deformation of the surface from
1 shrapnel, all these spots are dark. You will see the same dark spots on
2 the footpath above.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So it's mainly because it's dark that explains that
4 it's shrapnel impact rather than any other matter that could appear to be
5 dark, such as rubble sometimes is as well. Could have a dark colour as
6 well, isn't it?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course it could be. Certainly.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Then I have one follow-up question.
9 If this would be shrapnel impact, then apparently from another
10 explosion, because you say it could not have been caused by this
11 explosion. Did you find anything about an explosion within, well, let's
12 say, a few metres from there which would have caused this shrapnel
13 impact, as you consider it to be?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, certainly. We analysed this
15 explosion in great detail in this report. In photo documentation, it is
16 marked as 1, and it is on the edge of the playground.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please answer my question. Your claim is
18 that what you marked in red is, first of all, shrapnel impact; second,
19 not caused by the impact at number 1, if I understand you well?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Which raises the question as to what impact then
22 caused this shrapnel traces which could not have been caused by explosion
23 number 1. Did you find anything to explain that on those days or just
24 before it or just after it, that another shell exploded at a very, very
25 short distance from number 1?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We found that on that same day,
2 there was an explosion on the edge of the playground, and this comes from
3 that shell. There were also witnesses in this case who spoke about it.
4 That's the fourth shell that they did not investigate. The
5 investigators, I mean.
6 JUDGE ORIE: And what was exactly the distance between the point
7 of impact and this shrapnel trace -- these shrapnel traces?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just a moment. I marked it the
9 other day during examination. Let me just open that page so you can
10 follow more easily too.
11 Here it is. The picture, the still, taken from a video made by
12 the investigators, figure 66. And figure 65.
13 On both of them, one can see that it's very close, looking down
14 that path, that is to say, along the playground.
15 JUDGE ORIE: How close?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it can't be more than half
17 a metre, looking down the path.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. WEBER:
21 Q. I now want to discuss with you incident G-5 on 12 July 1993.
22 In paragraph 62G of your report, you state: "It is particularly
23 striking that although investigator Hamdija Cavcic that the reports of
24 the Bosnian police and UNPROFOR were made independently of each other,
25 UNPROFOR's report lists the names of the members of the Bosnian
1 investigation team present there, and it is clear that the reports used
2 the same data probably given by the Bosnian investigators to UNPROFOR
3 which means that these two -- that these were not two independent reports
4 whose results match."
5 Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 11231 for the witness.
6 And if we could go to page 2.
7 This is the UNPROFOR report of its investigation. Under the
8 heading, "Crater Characteristics," it says: "Form of the spray shows the
9 direction of 5100 mills (WWN)."
10 That corresponds to 287 degrees; correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. That direction of fire corresponds to the west, north-west;
14 A. North-west, yes.
15 Q. Nowhere in this report does it say that UNPROFOR, that their
16 calculation of the direction of fire came from data provided by the CSB;
18 A. It doesn't. We did not even put it in our report that they
19 referenced it.
20 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution tenders 65 ter 11231 into evidence.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Document 11231 receives exhibit number P7555,
23 Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
25 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have exhibit --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- I'm a bit puzzled by putting 287 degrees at
2 north-west. It's slightly north of north-west? Yes, I -- because you
3 said that "direction of fire corresponds to the west, north-west;
5 So not to be understood as to the west of north-west but, rather,
6 slightly to the north of north-west because it's more than 270 degrees
7 which is west.
8 MR. WEBER: [Microphone not activated]
9 JUDGE ORIE: I take that you do not disagree, Ms. Subotic.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's fine. It's north, north-west,
11 meaning that it is in the quadrant demarking north and west.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 Please proceed.
14 [Prosecution counsel confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: I think I made a mistake, as a matter of fact. I
16 made a mistake. 287 is slightly west of north-west rather than --
17 because north-west would be 315. Yes. I apologise for making this
18 mistake and very kind of you, Ms. Subotic, to agree that it's in that
19 quadrant demarking north and west which avoids to comment on my mistake.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have D01251. And if we
22 could please go to English page 6 and B/C/S page 10.
23 Q. This is the portion of the investigative file containing the
24 report of the on-site ballistics investigation by Mr. Cavcic. In the
25 B/C/S version, toward the bottom of the page, which is about two-thirds
1 of the way down in the English version, you see the conclusion that the:
2 "Traces form an irregular arc direction north-west west."
3 And then if we could please have page 11 of the B/C/S, the next
5 I'm sorry, if we can go back one. There you go.
6 Toward the end of the report, you see his conclusion regarding
7 incoming direction of fire as north-west west.
8 The fact is that the CSB assessment of direction of fire was done
9 independently based on traces on the ground, not from data provided by
10 someone else; right?
11 A. Members of the CSB investigation team were on the scene, and they
12 probably drafted this report we are looking at. It is just that it is
13 quite unclear when someone writes that there are traces in the direction
14 of west north-west not linking it to any particular photograph. I could
15 simply say --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness kindly
17 repeat the last sentence.
18 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
19 MR. WEBER:
20 Q. Ma'am, I see that you're reading stuff back from your report.
21 Could you please answer my question. That they independently --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do that. The interpreters asked the
23 witness to repeat the last sentence.
24 You said at a certain moment: "I could simply say," and could
25 you repeat from what you then said.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I could simply say that it is not
2 orientated whatsoever. Because if you put it that way, it could be
3 placed in any which direction, not supported by any photographs or other
5 MR. WEBER:
6 Q. According to the CSB investigation on-site report that you have
7 in front of you, they determined the direction of fire based on traces on
8 the grounds. That's what we read here; right?
9 A. That is correct. However, the traces on the scene do not
10 indicate that.
11 MR. WEBER: Could we please go into private session briefly.
12 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
13 [Private session]
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
19 Witness, we'll soon take a break - not immediately - but you
20 already may follow the usher.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. I promised to prepare
22 something for you over the break. I don't know whether you still want it
23 and I would kindly ask the Prosecutor what it is that I had to prepare.
24 There was a quote, I think?
25 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A quote of ours that we managed to
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that was about the compass method used. And
4 Mr. Weber --
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We found it.
8 JUDGE ORIE: There's no need to do it any further because we
9 found it as well. Mr. Lukic was kindly assisting in pointing us at the
10 relevant paragraph.
11 You may follow the usher.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 [The witness stands down]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Before we take a break, I'd like to briefly address
15 a matter and do that before we continue with the examination of
16 Witness Subotic. The Chamber would like to address some of the Defence's
17 submissions made in court some two weeks ago.
18 The key issue with respect to expert witnesses is the following:
19 Expert witnesses should testify according to their field of expertise.
20 Witness Zorica Subotic was presented, and I quote from the Defence notice
21 of the 10th of April, 2015: "As ballistics, fire-arms and cold weapons
23 According to her CV, the witness has special identified knowledge
24 in this field. The Chamber has not limited and will not limit a party in
25 eliciting evidence from an expert witness, if this evidence falls within
1 the scope of his or her expertise. This includes testimony about the
2 facts the expert bases his or her report findings on. Such a facts may
3 also be testimony of a witness of fact. However, in the view of the
4 Chamber, it is inappropriate for an expert witness to evaluate the
5 reliability and credibility of such fact witnesses or such a fact
6 witness. It is for the Chamber to exercise this evaluation in view of
7 the totality of the evidence before it. This is the background of the
8 Chamber's efforts to support the parties and control the conduct of
9 proceedings during the examination of witnesses. In this context, the
10 Chamber refers the parties to Rule 90(F) of our Rules which provide the
12 "The Trial Chamber shall exercise control over the mode and order
13 of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to: (i) make
14 the integration of witnesses and for the ascertainment of truth; and (ii)
15 to avoid needless of consumption of time."
16 The Chamber is aware that some of its interventions were
17 understood in a different way. However, in the interests of a fair - and
18 I stress - expeditious trial, we all should do our utmost best to adhere
19 to these principles.
20 This was the Chamber's short statement.
21 We take a break and resume at 1.30.
22 --- Recess taken at 1.11 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 1.34 p.m.
24 MR. WEBER: Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
1 MR. WEBER: If at this time I could just make use of the moment
2 to tender 65 ter 33095B, as in boy. It's a video-clip from the 1 hour,
3 59 minute, and 54 second mark through 2 hours, 1 minute, and 38 seconds
4 of ERN V000-2479, which is the video referenced in relation to incident
5 G-5 in footnote 225 of the report.
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 MR. LUKIC: It hasn't been used so ... I don't know how could we
8 check it.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
10 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, it's referenced by the expert. I'd like
11 to go through the incident in an expeditious possible manner and we would
12 just ask that the video that is referenced in the report be admitted.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, if the expert witness relies on it, is
14 there any reason why we should not have an opportunity to check that
15 footnote by having it in evidence?
16 MR. LUKIC: Of course not, Your Honour, only we have A here
17 referenced before and ... 33095A.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is exactly what I wanted to ask Mr. Weber:
19 What is the difference between the A version and B version.
20 MR. WEBER: Same video. It's a rather long video. There are
21 multiple incidents depicted on it. With respect to the A version, that
22 related to earlier incident and now in that same video we would like to
23 tender the portion that relates to the incident at hand, which is
24 incident G-5.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And the B version includes the A version.
1 MR. WEBER: No.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: These are two different parts of the same entire
4 MR. WEBER: Correct.
5 JUDGE ORIE: So you excerpted various portions relate to the
6 specific incidents.
7 MR. WEBER: Yes.
8 MR. LUKIC: That video, as I understand it, was admitted under
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could you check that --
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It was not admitted. It was marked for
12 identification, but only the A version which was shown to us.
13 MR. LUKIC: A is even -- no, I think that D1250 is the whole
15 MR. WEBER: And I believe that relates to incident G-4 and we'd
16 like to admit the portion for G-5.
17 JUDGE ORIE: If you would please verify that and then revisit the
18 matter once it has been verified.
19 Witness, apologies for dealing with all kind of administrative
20 matters, although still related to your testimony. Mr. Weber will now
21 continue his cross-examination.
22 MR. WEBER:
23 Q. You testified at transcript page 39255 and wrote in your report
24 at paragraphs 53 and 54 that there were military facilities nearby the
25 site of the shelling on the 12th of July, 1993.
1 First of all, could you please confirm that this assertion is not
2 from your personal knowledge but, rather, based solely based on the
3 statement of another witness in a different trial?
4 A. Well, we referenced that in footnote 195. That's the testimony
5 of Ismet Hadzic in the Galic case.
6 Q. Okay. I'm a bit confused on your theory about the possible
7 military facility and this incident. Is it your theory that the ABiH
8 fired the shell on 12 July 1993 trying to target their own military
9 command in Dobrinja or are you throwing this out there, just in the event
10 that the Chamber agrees with the rest of the evidence that shows that it
11 came from SRK territory. Which is it?
12 A. None of the two. Quite simply, we tried to put in all the
13 information we had in order to have the most complete picture possible of
14 the event, without any intention of showing that the BH army targeted
15 themselves or create a route for retreat for ourselves. If -- because
16 that kind of evidence, as you said yourself, does not pass.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I just get clarification.
18 When you say: "Create a route for retreat for ourselves."
19 Who are the "ourselves" here?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mean myself and my colleague who
21 co-authored the report.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: And what would you be --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: And what would be you retreating from?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not mean retreat.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ...
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We just tried to put all the facts
3 in one place so that you, as the Trial Chamber, would have a complete
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sure. You -- but said you didn't want to create a
6 route for retreat for yourselves. What would you be retreating from?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it's a matter of
8 interpretation. Because the theory of the Prosecution was that we had
9 one of these two things in mind.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that. I'm just trying to understand
11 your answer. I understood the Prosecution's question clearly, but I
12 don't understand your answer why you say "create a route for retreat" for
13 yourselves, referring to your and your co-author. I'm trying to find out
14 what are you retreating from.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted to say that we provided
16 all the information that we had and that we believe were necessary to the
17 Trial Chamber. We did not have the intention, either to say that the BH
18 army targeted themselves, for whatever reason, or to create a backup
19 position for ourselves in the sense that if our analysis is not accepted,
20 to have a fallback position saying that it was, in fact, a military
21 target. None of these things. We just wanted to the Trial Chamber to
22 have a clear and complete insight into the situation on the ground when
23 the incident happened.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
1 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33202 for
2 the witness.
3 Q. This is a 12 July 1993 SRK Command order from General Galic to
4 continue the execution of Operation Lukavac '93. This order is issued on
5 the same day of the G-5 shelling. Directing your attention to the third
6 paragraph which states: "In order to inflict on the enemy the biggest
7 possible losses and prevent the consolidation of enemy units, which are
8 in disarray, and prevent the hampering of the execution of further combat
9 activities for liberating Serb Mount Igman and Serb villages at the foot
10 of the Mount Bjelasnica and connecting Serb Trnovo with Ilidza and
11 Hadzici via Mount Igman."
12 Dobrinja sits in between Trnovo and Ilidza; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. I put it to you that the shelling of the water distribution line
15 in Dobrinja on 12 July was committed by the VRS and was part of ongoing
16 operations at the time. This is what happened; correct?
17 A. Certainly not. The material evidence on the ground shows that it
18 is not correct. We analysed that in detail. If you want us to go
19 through that evidence step by step, we can. But to take such a general
20 view just because of that order, we cannot do that. Because of the
21 evidence on the ground.
22 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution tenders 65 ter 33202 into evidence.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Document 33202 receives exhibit number P7556,
25 Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
2 MR. WEBER:
3 Q. Turning to the shelling of the water distribution point on 18
4 June 1995, you discuss this between pages 166 and 184 of your shelling
5 report. You do not reference any UN materials for this incident;
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. You realise that Enes Turkusic, as he has testified both in this
9 case and in the past Karadzic case, did not determine the direction of
10 fire in this incident from the sketch, which you discuss; right?
11 A. No, he stated that he had determined the direction of fire by
12 method of elimination. That's one. And, two, the traces at the point of
14 Through a procedure of elimination, which he did not explain
15 during his evidence in Karadzic when we asked him to explain that to us,
16 he said he couldn't do it without his sketch, and if you or your
17 colleagues had been able to supply him with that sketch, maybe he could
18 have explained it better.
19 Q. The Prosecution doesn't agree with you but I'm not going to dwell
20 on it because the Chamber has the evidence. I'm going to move on and
21 discuss the incident in Bascarsija on 22nd December 1994.
22 For this incident, you reviewed the investigative file from the
23 Bosnian MUP; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. The old town area of Sarajevo contains many stores where many of
1 the city's residents shop; correct?
2 A. Correct. I suppose they did their shopping back then, too.
3 There are many shops there, although in war time, God knows how much was
4 available to buy.
5 Q. It's not clear so I'm asking you directly here, do you believe
6 that there were two explosions on this date? One or two?
7 A. Certainly two explosions.
8 Q. You --
9 A. And that is not contested.
10 Q. You were aware from your review of the investigative materials
11 that shell fragments from two M70 76-millimetre shells were found at the
12 scene; correct?
13 A. 76-millimetre M70. Parts of shells that were found belonged to a
14 76-millimetre projectile of the type M70, yes.
15 Q. It is not uncommon to find a fuse from a projectile at or near
16 the location of a mortar or artillery explosion. You know this; right?
17 A. Well, it's rather unusual for it to be found complete. If it was
18 the fuse that caused the explosion, one should follow through the whole
19 process. The fuse was the one that initiated the explosion. So it is
20 the first thing that falls apart into fragments. It does not remain on
21 the spot, whole.
22 Q. Okay. The Chamber has heard evidence about that. We're not in
23 agreement about it. I'd like to address the issues raised in your report
24 regarding the first explosion at Danila Ilica Street. In paragraph 103
25 of your report, you suggest that the scene of the incident was altered
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. We just heard that the
4 Chamber has heard the evidence that after the explosion of mortar or
5 grenade shell, it is common to have whole fuse. That's what was said.
6 MR. WEBER: No, that's not what I said.
7 MR. LUKIC: Okay, then, can you explain, please what this Chamber
8 heard, what was your intention. Page 70, line 6, please.
9 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I was attempting to address was in what
10 we -- it's not agreement, just to be specific, is the condition of the
11 fuse that was recovered at the scene which I believe the Chamber has
12 heard evidence about.
13 MR. LUKIC: You believe or you know?
14 MR. WEBER: Mr. Lukic -- I'm coming to it, Judges.
15 MR. LUKIC: And I would like to have that quotation then.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well now. It was a marginal observation about
17 what would be in evidence or not, and I think, as a matter of fact, that
18 you didn't want to put that to the witness in any way. So, therefore, I
19 can imagine that you would like to know, Mr. Lukic, and Mr. Weber will
20 certainly tell you what you thinks about it during the next break.
21 Meanwhile, it is not part of the examination of the witness and
22 just a marginal observation; right or wrong.
23 Mr. Weber.
24 MR. WEBER: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
1 MR. WEBER:
2 Q. In paragraph 103 of your report, you suggest that the scene of
3 this incident was altered substantially, and this was relating to the
4 first explosion. Your theory is that the scene of the first explosion
5 was altered by the polices in the course of the on-site investigation,
6 including by digging up a crater manually in the asphalt and covering
7 marks designed to look like shrapnel in metal shutters during the two
8 hours and 40 minutes when the investigators were on the scene.
9 Have I stated your theory correctly?
10 A. Some of the things you said are correct; others are not.
11 It is correct that we stated the scene was altered. It is true
12 that we said the earth was moved, and that is visible; but it is not
13 correct that we said that they covered anything up. It's not in my text.
14 If you read it carefully, you will see that. Each alteration that we
15 noticed is marked with numbers and is very easy to follow.
16 Q. If there was an explosion, the police would not have needed to
17 carve markings to look like shrapnel because there would have been
18 shrapnel from the explosion; right?
19 A. Of course.
20 Q. The police would not have needed to dig a crater if there was an
21 explosion because there would be a crater; right?
22 A. Of course.
23 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
24 A. But I'm -- if you are talking about the -- an explosion created
25 by a projectile, not any type of explosion.
1 Q. You understood me correctly.
2 In your report, one reason you come to the conclusion that the
3 scene was altered is that the crater is too big for a 76-millimetre
4 artillery round and I'm referring to -- to -- for example, page 148 of
5 your report. It appears that you explain that -- or you analogise the
6 fact that such an artillery round has a similar explosive charge as an
7 82-millimetre mortar.
8 First, do you base this on photographs from the MUP file, this
10 A. Well, we did not have any other photographs. We only had the MUP
11 photo documentation. And it's true that this M70 76-millimetre
12 projectile is similar to an 82-millimetre shell in terms of explosive
13 mass. It has -- one has 600 and the other has 680 grams. So it's -- one
14 has an explosive mass of 15 per cent higher.
15 Q. In your view, do mortars and artillery shells cause similar or
16 different patterns on the ground upon impact?
17 A. They always leave different traces upon impact, but the size of
18 the crater is primarily defined by the mass of the explosive charge.
19 Q. A mortar shell of a similar calibre as an artillery shell, I put
20 it to you, produces more shrapnel, less of a blast effect and a different
21 pattern based upon the rotation or non-rotation of the shell during its
22 flight; right?
23 A. First of all, a shell, an artillery shell, certainly rotates
24 during flight because of system of stabilisation is stabilisation through
25 rotation. These are stable projectiles. And, second, a mortar
1 projectile rotates only slightly and its rotation is much smaller than
2 that of an artillery projectile. I don't know exactly what you were
3 driving at with this question. If you -- if you make it clearer, maybe I
4 can answer more precisely.
5 Q. In simplest terms, what I'm putting to you is that you're
6 comparing apples and oranges, because there is more shrapnel, less of a
7 blast effect, and a different pattern between a mortar shell of a similar
8 calibre as a given artillery shell?
9 A. I wouldn't agree with you that I am comparing apples and oranges.
10 The number of pieces of shrapnel depends on a number of factors
11 which is probably beyond the scope of our discussion here. You cannot
12 say in a blanket fashion that there are more shrapnel with a mortar
13 shell. It depends on far greater number of parameters than we can
14 discuss here now.
15 Secondly, I suppose that a mine shell, having 15 per cent more of
16 explosive should create at least this kind of crater, if not greater.
17 Another thing that we disagree on is the trace left on a surface.
18 It is different when it comes to an artillery projectile as opposed to a
19 mortar projectile. That is true.
20 Q. All right. In addition, the size -- well, you cite the damage to
21 the shutter shown in the photo file as a reason you believe the site may
22 have been altered. You claim that, and I quote from paragraph 105 of
23 your report: "It is impossible for so much shrapnel to hit the window
24 without any of it hitting the wall."
25 When making this conclusion you also refer to the testimony of
1 Ekrem Suljevic and state in the same paragraph that Mr. Suljevic: "Did
2 not explicitly state why the damage to the wall was not marked in circles
3 on these photographs."
4 I'd like to now turn to Mr. Suljevic's testimony.
5 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33156. And
6 if we could scroll down to about line 21.
7 Q. This is the testimony of Ekrem Suljevic in the Karadzic case on
8 6 September 2010, page 6203, the same portion that you reference in
9 footnote 417. Starting at line 21, during this testimony, Mr. Suljevic
10 was asked:
11 "Q. How do you explain that will are some markings on the
12 shutter, most probably marked by chalk, whereas we see now no damages
13 inflicted by fragments on the wall?
14 "A. I wouldn't dare claim that, based on this photograph. If we
15 were to examine it more carefully, we may be able to find some damages,
16 but they aren't marked. But the narrative under the photograph says that
17 the purpose of this photograph was to show the damage done to the metal
19 Were you present when Mr. Suljevic gave this explanation?
20 A. Of course. Mr. Suljevic provided his explanation as recorded.
21 However, the gist of the problem is that underneath the photograph in the
22 photo file there's no reference made to any wall marks.
23 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... ma'am, we have the answer.
24 You did not quote or mention Mr. Suljevic's non-agreement with
25 the proposition that the photograph shows no damages on the wall or his
1 explanation to Mr. Karadzic of the purpose of the photograph being to
2 show damage on the shutter; right?
3 A. I remember him saying that, but not as explicitly as it is
4 recorded here. At least not as far as I remember.
5 In any case, it is illogical and I know how such records are
6 made. It is illogical that somebody would write something that is
7 incorrect underneath a photograph. There is no situation in which --
8 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... you're explaining. I'm just
9 putting to you you're not accurately reflecting the evidence of the
10 witness in your report. We see another occasion of that; right?
11 A. If that's your opinion, then let it lie. But I don't think we
12 inaccurately presented the witness's statement. I disagree with that. I
13 was present during the cross-examination.
14 Q. In your report at paragraph 98 you note that UNPROFOR members
15 from the 4th French Battalion and UNMOs from the SC2 group stationed at
16 Sedrenik were at the scene of the shelling on the -- in December 1994.
17 Do you really believe that investigators managed to conceal the fact that
18 they had altered a scene, including by manually excavating a crater in
19 the asphalt and carving marks to look like shrapnel and metal shutters
20 from seven UN officials who were on the scene at the time?
21 Do you expect us to really believe that?
22 A. I am not in a position to believe or disbelieve. I wasn't
23 present. I look at technical evidence, so to say, as a consequence of
24 the physical forces. I analyse those. If you can't accept that, I don't
25 know how to continue this conversation with you. Whether I believe in
1 something or not has no place in my report.
2 Q. The UN investigators analysed the craters and, like the police,
3 they concluded that the shells were -- well, that the craters were the
4 result of shells fired from the south-east; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Let's talk about the second explosion at number 3 Petra Kocica
8 In relation to the second explosion you claim in paragraph 107 of
9 your report that the round at the second site was activated while it was
10 stationary. Are you saying that this was a staged static explosion?
11 A. First of all, I did not say that it was elevated but placed flat
12 because the crater as we have it in figure 98 taken over from the photo
13 file --
14 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
15 A. Or the recording taken --
16 Q. I don't know if it was recorded correctly. I meant to say that
17 it was activated while it was stationary not elevated. Are you saying
18 that this was a staged static explosion?
19 A. I have no other choice but to state that given the technical
20 parameters in the field and the traces, material traces that we examined.
21 Q. You cannot give me a name of any witness or individual who saw
22 this explosive device planted; right?
23 A. I apologise. But, really, based on what could I provide you with
24 such a name?
25 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33162 for
1 the witness.
2 Q. Before you are the technical specifications for a --
3 MR. WEBER: And if I could please actually go forward. I'm
4 sorry. If we could go to the second page in both versions.
5 Q. Before you are the technical specifications for a 76-millimetre
6 artillery round from the ammunition manual. Based upon these
7 specifications, a 76-millimetre artillery round is 64 centimetres long
8 and weighs over 8 kilograms; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. These specifications are quite different from an 82-millimetre
11 shell. Here, the entire 76-millimetre shell weighs 8.2 kilos of which it
12 appears 5.2 kilograms is the steel jacket. Whereas as we discussed
13 earlier, I believe, the 82-millimetre shell, the entire round weighs just
14 over 3 kilograms.
15 The steel jacket of a 76-millimetre shell is significantly higher
16 and thicker than an 82-millimetre mortar shell; correct?
17 A. Of course. But let me correct interpretation. I heard the
18 interpreter twice say full jacket, but it is actually the round that the
19 weight referred to.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you may ask a question about
21 interpretation. You are not here to correct the interpretation. If you
22 have any concerns in that respect, then we'll verify it. Because our
23 interpreters are --
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.
25 JUDGE ORIE: -- are experts in their field. Therefore, you, as a
1 layperson may, again, express any concerns, but it will always be
2 verified and will be dealt with at the level of expert knowledge for
4 Mr. Lukic, if there are any concerns, then the -- you -- the
5 witness said -- let me just ... one second, please.
6 You said that you heard twice the word "full jacket." It doesn't
7 not appear on the transcript in English, and I don't remember that I've
8 heard --
9 MR. LUKIC: She's listening to B/C/S channel.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But in the B/C/S channel, I think there would
11 be no -- or is that the words of Mr. Weber were not accurately
13 MR. LUKIC: I think so.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And then if that's the case, please point at which
15 concerns you may have and then it will be verified.
16 MR. LUKIC: The question could just be restated. But I see it on
17 the screen.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just check one second, please. If there are
19 any concerns in this respect --
20 MR. LUKIC: Page 77, from line 14 could be checked.
21 JUDGE ORIE: 77, line 14.
22 Mr. Weber, that is -- I have on 77, line 14: "These
23 specifications are quite different from an 82-millimetre shell. Here,
24 the entire 76-millimetre shell weighs 8.2 kilos of which appears 5.2
25 kilograms is the steel jacket. Whereas we discussed earlier, I believe,
1 the 82-millimetre shell, the entire round weighs just over 3 kilograms."
2 Any concerns left, Mr. Lukic?
3 Mr. Weber, I --
4 The witness raised the matter --
5 MR. LUKIC: The -- let the translator to translate this time all
6 the way through. I don't know if there's any concerns now at
7 Ms. Subotic's side.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If any concern remains, Mr. Lukic, then we'd
9 have to compare the previous translation of the same words spoken by
10 Mr. Weber and the -- the interpretation and now the interpretation of my
11 words when I literally read from the transcript what Mr. Weber is
12 supposed to have said.
13 If there's any concern, we'll hear from you.
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, if I could tender 65 ter 33162 into
17 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Document 33162 receives exhibit number P7557,
19 Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: P7557 is admitted into evidence.
21 MR. WEBER: And, Your Honours, just quickly completing for the
22 day Mr. Lukic inquired about Mr. Suljevic's testimony regarding the fuse.
23 I would refer counsel to transcript page 8533 of these proceedings and
24 the discussion in that page. And I see that it's the time.
25 JUDGE ORIE: It certainly is.
1 Ms. Subotic, I give you the same instructions as I did before,
2 that is, not to speak or communicate in whatever way about your testimony
3 with whomever, whether already given or still to be given. We'd like to
4 see you back tomorrow morning at 9.30 in this same courtroom. You may
5 now follow the usher.
6 [The witness stands down]
7 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day, and we resume tomorrow,
8 Tuesday, the 6th of October, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom,
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.18 p.m.,
11 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 6th day of
12 October, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.