1 Tuesday, 6 October 2015
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.34 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 Mr. Tieger, the Chamber was informed that there was a preliminary
12 matter you would like to raise.
13 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President, a very brief one.
14 At the beginning of yesterday's court day, the Chamber inquired
15 about the Prosecution's position in relation to a motion for videolink
16 filed by the Defence on September 30th. I can advise the Court -- and I
17 should also mention that the Chamber invited the Prosecution to provide
18 an expedited response. Accordingly, I can advise the Chamber that the
19 Prosecution does not object.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much.
21 Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Ms. Subotic.
24 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I again remind you that you're still bound by the
1 solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.
2 Mr. Weber will now continue his cross-examination.
3 MR. WEBER: Good morning, Your Honours.
4 WITNESS: ZORICA SUBOTIC [Resumed]
5 [Witness answered through interpreter]
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Weber: [Continued]
7 Q. Good morning, Ms. Subotic.
8 A. [In English] Good morning.
9 Q. Continuing with the incident on 22nd December 1994, I would like
10 to discuss the origin of fire with you now.
11 In your report at paragraph 101, you acknowledge that:
12 "Police determined that the rounds had come in from a direction
13 159 degrees in relation to the north. UNMO observers obtained a similar
14 result. They determined that the incoming direction was 160 degrees."
15 This direction would be to the south, slightly to the east,
16 toward the area of Vidikovac and Trebevic; correct?
17 MR. WEBER: And, Your Honours, just for a correction, the
18 transcript -- oh, there it is.
19 MR. LUKIC: But Ms. Subotic didn't hear the correction. Because
20 we did receive the translation as it was entered the first time.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
22 MR. WEBER: I'll just reread the question then. I don't know
23 what was heard and not heard.
24 Q. Ms. Subotic, can you hear me?
25 A. [Interpretation] Yes.
1 Q. In your report at paragraph 101, you acknowledge that:
2 "Police determined that the rounds had come in from a direction
3 159 degrees in relation to the north. UNMO observers obtained a similar
4 result. They determined that the incoming direction was 160 degrees."
5 This direction would be to the south, slightly to the east,
6 toward the area of Vidikovac and Trebevic; correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You reviewed the Bosnian MUP investigative file and relied on a
9 few statements from this file; correct?
10 A. We read all the statements that existed there. We relied on
11 those that we cited, and I believe we made references to all the facts.
12 Q. You agree that the sound of a mortar or artillery piece being
13 fired can give an indication of the direction of fire; right?
14 A. In principle, yes.
15 Q. An artillery shell --
16 A. Excuse me.
17 Q. An artillery shell, due to its rotation in the air, produces a
18 whizzing sound; correct?
19 A. Mortar shells produce that sound because they fly in a subsonic
20 field. Artillery shells don't. But it all depends on their initial
21 velocity. We distinguish between the mortar programme and the artillery
22 programme. That's why I'm answering the way I am.
23 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit D01259.
24 It's presently under seal so we ask that it not be broadcast.
25 If we could please go to page 5 of the B/C/S and page 3 of the
2 Q. Ms. Subotic, this is the 22nd December 1994 official report on
3 the incident. Directing your attention to the last paragraph on the page
4 before you where the report discusses the forensic investigation and
5 reads -- this is in the middle of the page in the English:
6 "Judging by the incoming descent angle of the shells and the
7 damage they inflicted, it was established that the shells had been fired
8 from the south at Trebevic where the aggressor forces are located. The
9 shell fragments indicated that they were fired from a B1, 76-millimetre
10 calibre cannon."
11 These were the kinds of shell fragments recovered during this
12 incident; correct?
13 A. 76. Yes, of course. But I have one correction to make. I heard
14 in the interpretation 82 millimetres. I can't see whether it's really
15 written here, but it's probably 76.
16 MR. LUKIC: It's on the next page in B/C/S.
17 MR. WEBER: I think we're clear on the type of shell fragments.
18 Could the Prosecution please have page 11 of the B/C/S and page 6
19 of the English translation.
20 I'm just going to go through these two documents from the file
21 quickly. This is a 24 December 1994 Official Note of an interview with
22 an individual who stated that he heard the sound of two successive shells
23 being fired from the plateau on Vidikovac from about 500 metres away from
24 his house, followed by explosions near the flea market by the Vijecnica
25 building, and he saw the smoke. And he indicated -- and saw -- smoke in
1 that area.
2 If we could go to one more. If we could have the next page in
3 both versions.
4 This is another Official Note dated two days later from a
5 different individual who indicated that at about 0900 he heard the sound
6 of artillery projectiles firing from the direction of the plateau on
7 Vidikovac, and a few seconds later, he heard loud explosions from the
8 direction of Bascarsija.
9 Q. The fact is that multiple witnesses heard the rounds being fired
10 on the 22nd of December, 1994; right?
11 A. Here we are talking about two occurrences. I said that the
12 flight of artillery projectiles is not heard; whereas the flight of
13 mortar projectiles --
14 Q. Ma'am, you're not --
15 A. -- is heard because of the subsonic area --
16 Q. You're talking about something that I didn't ask. I'm talking
17 about the sound of the rounds being fired, not their flight. Could you
18 please answer my question. The fact is that multiple witnesses heard the
19 rounds being fired on the 22nd of December, 1994; right?
20 A. I cannot see the document here now, but in any case, I don't read
21 anywhere that they heard both the firing and the explosion. The copy is
22 rather bad.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, perhaps you read the relevant portion.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The sound of firing of an artillery
25 projectile -- yes, it's written.
1 MR. WEBER:
2 Q. Okay. I'm --
3 A. Yes, you are right. This witness certainly did state that.
4 Q. I'd like to look at your analysis of witness W-12's testimony
5 from the Dragomir Milosevic case on the origin of fire for this incident.
6 At the end of paragraph 95 of your report, you state:
7 "Witness W-12 could not determine objectively whether the sound
8 had come from the direction of Vidikovac where the VRS positions were or
9 from the area of Colina Kapa where the BH army's 115th Brigade had its
10 positions because the two positions were very close."
11 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33163,
12 page 7.
13 Q. I'm going to be referring you to line 17.
14 This is W-12's open session testimony. The witness was asked:
15 "Q. Thank you. How did you establish -- I mean, based on your
16 knowledge and experience, how did you reach the conclusion that the shell
17 you heard was fired from Vidikovac?"
18 W-12 answered:
19 "Well, because our positions were much lower. The highest
20 position was at Colina Kapa, and the sound of its being fired was coming
21 from the left and from a higher elevation, that is to say, from the
22 direction of Vidikovac.
23 "Q. So based on what you heard and what you observed that day,
24 you were able to reach the conclusion that the shell was fired from
1 Next page, please.
2 W-12's answer: "Yes.
3 "Q. Isn't Vidikovac a part of Mount Trebevic?
4 "A. Yes, it is."
5 This is the testimony that you reviewed for your report; correct?
6 A. Certainly.
7 Q. You did not accurately characterise the observations of this
8 witness in your report. He was quite clear as to why he was able to
9 observe the firing from the direction he heard; right?
10 A. First of all, he did not say that he saw it. He explained why he
11 was able to hear.
12 Second, he said in his statement that he heard the firing and
13 then the explosion. But then further below in his statement, he stated
14 that it was only from his own home that he heard about the second
15 explosion, and we know that both explosions in Bascarsija happened within
16 an interval of a couple of seconds.
17 And, finally, in figure 90 it is very clearly shown, I believe
18 even he marked it himself, which of these positions were where when he
19 heard the sound of one firing and one explosion.
20 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 12130 for
21 the witness.
22 Q. And, ma'am, I'm not further discussing it with you, but just so
23 you know that our position is that you've combined -- it sounds like you
24 possibly combined information from multiple individuals from the file in
25 your last answer.
1 This is a 4 October 1993 SRK Command order. Under item 1,
2 General Milosevic re-subordinates one anti-aircraft gun to the VP,
3 meaning firing position, Vidikovac. Do you accept that the VRS held
4 firing positions in Vidikovac in the fall of 1993? Or during the war, I
5 should rephrase.
6 A. Based on this order, one could say yes.
7 Q. This Chamber has received evidence that the VRS possessed 14
8 B1 76-millimetre cannons around Sarajevo.
9 MR. WEBER: And I'd refer the Chamber to Exhibit P4496, page 2,
10 item 10.
11 Q. Do you accept the fact that the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps possessed
12 this type of cannon?
13 A. I have no reason not to accept that, but that has no specific
14 relation to the specific incident because it's not linked to anything.
15 Q. So you're saying as part of your consideration of this event that
16 you didn't even consider whether or not the VRS had a firing position in
17 the area that is indicated in the file or whether or not the VRS
18 possessed the type of weapon that the shell fragments were --
19 were consistent with? You didn't even consider those things?
20 A. In my opinion, both the VRS and the BH army had the same weapons
21 at their disposal, so I don't see why I would link the possession of a
22 weapon with a particular incident. I analysed the traces at the site of
23 the incident, and on that basis, I made my conclusions in keeping with
24 the rules of science and the profession, whereas both sides had identical
25 weapons at their disposal.
1 Q. Okay. So you didn't consider the fact that the ABiH 1st Corps
2 had only one B1 cannon and it was located very far outside Sarajevo,
3 outside the -- what the SRK referred to as the external ring. You didn't
4 consider that?
5 A. I repeat, I don't see why that should be taken into account --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Subotic, the --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- especially if the cannon B1 is
9 JUDGE ORIE: The question is not why but the question is whether
10 you did consider the fact which Mr. Weber put to you.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We took it into account. It's not
12 a problem. The possession of only one weapon allows for the possibility
13 that it was fired. We just did not believe that it had anything to do
14 with the result on the location. Who would now be able to tell us where
15 that cannon was on that day? That one cannon. And who can claim that
16 there were not more of them? I'm just saying that both sides had the
17 same weapons, and that's not a parameter for making this kind of
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put one question to you, Ms. Subotic. You
20 just said: "We took it into account."
21 Four lines before that, you said:
22 "I repeat, I don't see why that should be taken into account ..."
23 You had no reason to take it into account but you did, or how do
24 I have to understand that?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is very simple to understand.
1 We knew that both sides had both kinds of weapon, and we did not analyse
2 from that point of view. Because we analyse an incident on the spot
3 where the projectile impacted, based on the traces collected on site and
4 based on traces left by the impact. That's how you determine weapons,
5 projectiles, and, if possible, the incoming trajectory and the distance.
6 I hope this answers your question.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, it doesn't. The question was: Why you first
8 said: I didn't see why that should be taken into account. Then the
9 Presiding Judge urged you to answer that question. And then you said:
10 "We took it into account." It's just the contrary.
11 I would like to have an explanation for that.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We took it into account. In
13 principle, this relates to the fact that we knew both sides had that
14 weapon in their possession. That's the sense in which we took it into
15 account, not from whose cannon it was fired.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
17 Mr. Weber.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand that you allow for the possibility
19 that it was fired from the VRS side?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot allow for the possibility
21 that it was fired either from the VRS cannon nor from the BiH army cannon
22 because the traces on the ground indicate something else. It's
23 technically impossible for a cannon, no matter whose, to fire two
24 projectiles within a couple of seconds' interval and create such
25 different craters as we found on the market on 22nd December 1994.
1 These craters are completely different in appearance, and they
2 would have to arrive from the same angle, the same tube, and in the same
3 spot. They should have created very similar craters because there is no
4 such mechanical action that would allow for one crater to be very shallow
5 and the other one very deep. It is technically impossible because these
6 projectiles would have had to be fired under the same angle, and since
7 they were fired from one tube - if they were - then the craters cannot be
8 so different. We explained that in detail in our submission.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have a -- if it is not what it was said to
10 be, what is your conclusion as to -- not to what it was not but what it
11 may have been?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I didn't quite
13 understand the question. If it is not what it is said to be? Who was
14 saying this? Is it I or is it the Bosnian investigators? I didn't quite
15 understand the question. Perhaps there is imprecision in the
16 interpretation that I received. But please understand that I have to
17 understand what I'm being asked in order to answer the question.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say it couldn't have been a 76-millimetre
19 cannon. What in your option would it possibly have been if not a
20 76-millimetre cannon?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We fully analysed the traces very
22 carefully. I mean, in accordance with our profession and science, and we
23 came to the conclusion that these are unrelated explosions. That there's
24 one, and it's in the photo documentation. Let me not make a mistake
25 here. The one that is marked as number 2 on the sketch of the scene. In
1 our view, and according to the technical characteristics involved, it was
2 created due to an explosive that was not enclosed in casing.
3 And the second one, marked with number 1 on the sketch, that -
4 most probably - was created through the static activation of a projectile
5 that was horizontal. That is indicated by the size of the crater. It is
6 shallow and wide. And also the fuse that was found on the spot.
7 Statically activated in a horizontal position. Most probably.
8 JUDGE ORIE: So both shells or at least the explosives which
9 exploded at the time were put in place and then activated and then
10 exploded. They did not fly into their position?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. That is indicated by
12 all the traces found on the spot itself.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
14 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have some -- a few questions too.
16 Ma'am, at page 10, starting from line 15, are you recorded as
17 having said the following:
18 "I cannot allow for the possibility that it was fired either from
19 the VRS cannon or from the ABiH army cannon because the traces on the
20 ground indicate something else. It's technically impossible for a
21 cannon, no matter whose, to fire two projectiles within a couple of
22 seconds' interval and create such different craters as we found on the
23 market on the 22nd of December, 1994."
24 My question to you is: Do I understand you correctly to be
25 saying because the craters were different, you can therefore not make --
1 cannot allow for the possibility that it either came from the VRS or from
2 an ABiH cannon? Is that your reasoning?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is my reasoning. But it's not
4 my only reasoning.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that.
6 Now, are you able to postulate a third source from which it could
7 have come if it didn't come from either of these two?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, hypothetically I cannot --
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not asking hypothetically.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- because --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm asking factually. Your investigation clearly
12 says it could never be either of the two because the craters are
13 different. I'm saying what was the source, then, according to your
14 analysis? Practically not hypothetically.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Practically the only possible
16 technical explanation is that at location number 2, that is, in this
17 street called Oprkanj, I think that's what is written here. So the place
18 of the incident where an explosion occurred, marked with the number 2, at
19 that place it is only possible that an explosive exploded, TNT or
20 something like that, that was placed there.
21 As for location number 1, most probably it probably exploded -- a
22 projectile of 76 millimetres or 70 millimetres statically activated in a
23 horizontal position. That is the only thing that would fit into the
24 situation on the ground according to the photo documentation that was
25 supplied and the effects that we can see, on the basis of this photo
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: So, according to your analysis, both these
3 explosions were detonated statically. They didn't fly over. That's your
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, one was probably a projectile
6 and the other one was just an explosive that was freely placed there.
7 And they did not fly in, that's correct.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Both of them?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Both of them.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
11 MR. WEBER:
12 Q. Ms. Subotic, in this discussion of your theory of what happened
13 here, the fact is you're ignoring what multiple witnesses said, the
14 physical traces of 76-millimetre projectiles, and facts in the
15 investigative file. In order to come to your conclusion, you're ignoring
16 the evidence; right?
17 A. No. No. You're absolutely not right. And I tried to remember
18 all the things that you listed in order. There are different statements
19 but, say, the statement of the witness that you mentioned, W-12,
20 precisely indicates this fact, that I'm speaking of. Actually, he heard
21 an explosion of lesser intensity and then -- actually he identified that
22 as a firing sound. And then he came home, and then he heard of another
23 explosion that he hadn't even known about. Had he been there, he would
24 have to hear two firings and two explosions. If he was there at that
25 place. I'm not doubting that he was there, but I'm saying that from that
1 place, he would have to hear two firings and two explosions in
2 succession. He heard one firing, one explosion. That's what you said.
3 That is the first point.
4 Q. Ma'am, first of all --
5 A. Secondly, it is not true that if something was not analysed --
6 Q. First of all -- you're going on, but that's not what I said. And
7 I would put it to you, actually, that W-12 heard two shots. I don't want
8 to engage in a long debate with you about it. We have his statement in
9 the investigative file where the witness indicates two firings. So I was
10 just putting a question to you. Do you have anything else that you want
11 to add?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
13 MR. LUKIC: Maybe Ms. Subotic should answer first and then I will
14 say what happened.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I saw you were on your feet. That's the
16 reason why I --
17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please answer the question, Ms. Subotic.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the Prosecutor interrupted
20 me. He told me that I hadn't taken into account the material evidence
21 that was collected, shrapnel. On the contrary, I did take that into
22 account. And that is also a plus factor in terms of making such a
24 JUDGE ORIE: I think what Mr. Weber did put to you is that
25 Witness W-12 stated that he heard two firings; whereas your answer is
1 based on the fact that he would have said that he heard only one firing
2 sound. And I think it's that matter which Mr. Weber asked you to comment
3 about, if you have any comment.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, he said that he heard two
5 shots of different intensity.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 The -- Mr. Lukic.
8 MR. LUKIC: Yes, in page 14, line 22, it was entered and probably
9 translated: "That's what you said." And actually Ms. Subotic said:
10 "That's what you missed." So that's why there was confusion on
11 Mr. Weber's side.
12 MR. WEBER: I appreciate that, and I'm sorry I -- and it appears
13 like that's now been resolved even with the understanding of the witness.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Let's then move on.
15 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution tenders the present document into
16 evidence. It is 65 ter 12130.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Document 12130 receives Exhibit Number P7558,
19 Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
21 MR. WEBER:
22 Q. Before the break I'd like to turn and discuss with you the two
23 shelling incidents on Livanjska Street on 8 November 1994.
24 Regarding the first shelling incident where one shell landed at
25 1525 hours, the BiH MUP investigators and the UNPROFOR investigators
1 concluded that the shell had come from the direction of north-west of
2 Livanjska Street; correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Both BiH MUP and UNPROFOR reports for that first shelling
5 conclude that the shell originated from SRK-held territory; correct?
6 JUDGE ORIE: The question is not quite clear, Mr. Weber. It
7 could be understand as whether the witness agrees with that finding or
8 whether she agrees that that was reported.
9 MR. WEBER: I'm just asking her that's what they reported. If I
10 can make it more clear.
11 Q. According to the reports of both BiH MUP and UNPROFOR, the shell
12 originated from SRK territory; correct?
13 A. Correct. This was after a serious disagreement in terms of the
14 findings of UNPROFOR and the Bosnian police. I mean, this was
15 harmonised, this report, because the Bosnian police opposed the initial
16 position taken by UNPROFOR; namely that the critical shell had been fired
17 from BH territory.
18 If we all remember from a couple of days ago, this was the
19 discussion about the alleged --
20 Q. Ma'am, you've answer -- let's go through it step by step. I want
21 to go to your conclusion.
22 You conclude, though, at the end of paragraph 156A, that the
23 shell, and I'm referring to the shelling at 1525, was not launched from
24 the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska on the basis, as I
25 understand it, of an assertion that the police determined that the shell
1 had been fired from 2475 metres away from the location of impact. Is
2 that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. When I was looking then at paragraph 142 of your report, it
5 appears that the police came to this determination, according to you, on
6 the basis of a sketch of a mortar. Is this your source for where you get
7 the measurement from? Of 2475 metres.
8 A. I think I heard an interpretation that is wrong. I'm sure that
9 you didn't say that. You said that I based that on a sketch of a mortar.
10 That makes no sense, and I'm quite certain that you said something
12 Q. I called it a sketch, but a diagram of a mortar where they did a
13 calculation where there was then a measurement of 2475. That's where
14 you're getting this from; right?
15 A. I believe that what you were trying to say is that this was taken
16 from 126, that was compiled by the team of the Bosnian investigators, and
17 they determined the angle of descent and the distance on that basis from
18 which this shell was fired in order to be able to fall at that angle. So
19 it's not mortar, it's shell.
20 I understand that there is lack of clarity in the translation and
21 that all of it is not clear to you. So, yes, if that's what you were
22 trying to ask, that is that. That was all taken from this material, and
23 470 is the reference used.
24 Q. Let's be clear about what I'm talking about.
25 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33104,
1 page 13 of the B/C/S and page 11 of the translation.
2 Q. Before you is the investigative file for the -- what I have been
3 calling the first shelling and where the one shell landed at 1525 hours
4 on the 8th. This is the diagram that you referred to in your report
5 where you then get the measurement which we see in the lower right-hand
6 corner of 2475 metres and then, in the parentheses, what you have
7 associated to be a determination of 0 plus 3 charges; correct?
8 A. I'm not the one who linked that up. They are the ones who wrote
9 that. They wrote that the projectile arrived from 0 plus 3 and that that
10 is the distance on the basis of the angle of descent. You just confused
11 me when you said this was a sketch of a mortar. It was the sketch of a
12 shell. Sorry. That's why this debate has been going on unnecessarily
13 for a while now.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, I think it was asked whether you drew your
15 conclusions on the basis of what we've seen on the screen. That's --
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes -- well --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's the information that we used
19 for our analysis.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. Then perhaps next time you just say:
21 Yes, that's the basis on which I drew my conclusions, instead of
22 commenting on all kind of other matters, including that the debate is
23 unnecessarily going for a while now. That's -- there's no need to hear
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. WEBER:
2 Q. What we see before us calculates the angle of descent and
3 mentions what is the minimum distance if the mortar was fired on 0 plus 3
4 charges; right?
5 A. Over here on the sketch, there is a distance. I would have to
6 check whether that is the minimum distance on 0 plus 3, but then there
7 are other technical reasons involved. It's not that somebody is just
8 saying that it's the minimum distance. Because, I mean, well, there are
9 reasons related to how the stabiliser was stuck there. So had it been 5
10 or 6, charge 5 or 6, it would have completely been stuck into the
11 surface, the crater would not be 3 centimetres deep.
12 Q. We've covered that one already.
13 MR. WEBER: Could we go to the next page in both versions.
14 Q. On this page, we see another diagram from the file calculating
15 the possible ranges for the same angle of descent for charges 3, 4, 5 and
17 On the next page of this file, we see that the investigators
18 determined that the mortar could have been fired up to 4350 metres.
19 The fact is that the investigators considered all of the possible
20 charges upon which this mortar could have been fired, all the way up to
21 charge 6; correct?
22 A. They certainly provided - and that's a good thing - all the
23 distances that can be involved with this angle of descent. However, the
24 situation on the terrain does not valuate charges 4 to 6. I already
25 mentioned that because of the situation on the ground. I said that a
1 moment ago. If it were charge 6, then the stabiliser would be fully
2 stuck into the ground. 5, too. 4 considerably more than these
3 3 centimetres. And that is why it was analysed this way.
4 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution tenders the investigative file into
5 evidence, 65 ter 33104. And then we'd actually ask to admit two photo
6 files; one photo file relates to the earlier shelling at 1525, and the
7 second photo file relates to the later shelling at 1725. The
8 investigative file for the second shelling is in evidence already.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Document 33104 receives Exhibit Number P7559,
11 Your Honours.
12 MR. WEBER: Then --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
14 MR. WEBER: Then the photo file for the shelling at 1525 hours is
15 65 ter 33235.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Receives Exhibit Number P7560.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
19 MR. WEBER: The photo file for the second shelling at 1725 hours
20 is 65 ter 18645.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Receives Exhibit Number P7561, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
24 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I was going to start in on a new
25 matter. If this is an acceptable time for the break.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Let's then take the break first.
2 Witness, you may follow the usher. We'd like to see you back in
3 20 minutes.
4 [The witness stands down]
5 JUDGE ORIE: We will resume at ten minutes to 11.00.
6 --- Recess taken at 10.27 a.m.
7 --- On resuming at 10.53 a.m.
8 [The witness takes the stand]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, you may proceed.
10 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours.
11 Q. Turning to Markale I on 5 February 1994, in your Markale report,
12 1D5496, you discuss this incident between paragraphs 1 and 78.
13 What I'd like to do today is first discuss some general matters
14 related to the report, and then we'll more specifically focus and discuss
15 your theory as to what happened.
16 In paragraphs 8 to 34 of your Markale report, you discuss what is
17 seen in the videos related to the incident and provide numerous
18 observations and various personal opinions about what is depicted ranging
19 from the stalls, to the injuries sustained by the victims of the
20 explosion. At the end of paragraph 34 of your report, you state:
21 "We stress that a similar scene was also recorded during the
22 evacuation of the casualties in Vase Miskina Street on 27 May 1992."
23 The Vase Miskina Street evacuation and casualties were the result
24 of a mortar explosion; correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Do you acknowledge that the injuries to the individuals at the
2 market-place on 5 February 1994 were also caused by mortar shrapnel?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You have watched the videos related to both the Markale 1 and
5 Markale II events. In both instances, you can see in the videos that the
6 scenes were chaotic, and there were many people and vehicles moving
7 around; correct? In the aftermath of the explosions I'm referring to.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. In paragraphs 35 to 45 of your Markale report, you discuss the
10 casualties and the number of victims. As we've just discussed, you've
11 seen the videos relating to the immediate aftermath of the explosion. In
12 that video, there's what appears to be a great deal of blood. Do you
13 feel that all of this blood that we see in this video is real blood or
14 fake blood?
15 A. We did not call into question in our analyses what the
16 investigators call a red fluid that looks like blood. We did not deal
17 with that issue at all, whether it's true or not.
18 Q. Okay. In your past Karadzic testimony you said:
19 "Of course, everything, all the blood that you see in the
20 video-clip, in my view, is real blood."
21 And that was at transcript page 38543 of your previous Karadzic
22 testimony. Do you stand by that testimony?
23 A. Of course. I said a moment ago that we did not call it into
24 question at all, whether it is real blood or not. We did not deal with
25 that matter at all.
1 Q. In paragraphs 59 and 60, you discuss the depth of the crater.
2 You raise issue with the overall depth of the crater being 9 centimetres,
3 equalling 90 millimetres. This is on the basis of Mirza Sabljica's
4 testimony; right?
5 A. It's not 900 millimetres, it's 90 millimetres. 900 millimetres
6 is almost a metre, and there should not be any confusion. We did not
7 claim that. It was all stated based on Sabljica's report and their
8 records. It's something that we took from the document.
9 Q. Okay.
10 MR. LUKIC: Just for the record, this was translation issue.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I take it it was.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. WEBER:
14 Q. Do you realise that Mr. Sabljica's evidence is not that the
15 overall depth of the crater was 9 centimetres, but that was a measurement
16 from just the asphalt surface to the back end of the tail-fin while it
17 was in the ground?
18 MR. WEBER: For the Chamber's reference, in this case, this
19 testimony can be found at transcript pages 8064 to -65, and page
21 Q. You must have checked Mr. Sabljica's evidence on this and
22 realised this when you were writing your report; right?
23 A. Of course, we did, and we discussed it here, and I suppose you
24 saw that in our submission. The fact is the depth of the crater cannot
25 be measured from the surface of the embedded stabiliser to the surface of
1 the ground. Such a measure did not exist. In that case, any surface
2 into which the stabiliser did not embed itself completely could not be a
3 crater. That's an error. I don't want to go into it now, but obviously
4 what they needed to do was to confirm Zecevic's claim on television that
5 the crater was more than 220 millimetres deep. And then if Sabljica is
6 correct, we come to 250 or 300.
7 The crater is where the stabiliser is embedded in the ground, not
8 what is above.
9 Q. So -- ma'am --
10 A. -- if the stabiliser did not embed itself at all, then this would
11 be incorrect. We know that from all that we have discussed before.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, the witness refers to what Mr. Zecevic
13 told on television. Is that in evidence?
14 MR. WEBER: No.
15 JUDGE ORIE: It's not. Okay.
16 MR. WEBER:
17 Q. As a follow-up question --
18 MR. WEBER: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I didn't mean to cut you off.
19 JUDGE ORIE: No, that's -- I just wanted to know because we have
20 no possibility at this moment to verify what the witness said.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. WEBER:
23 Q. Ma'am, please stay focused on my questions. You indicated that
24 you reviewed Mr. Sabljica's evidence. Now, you're aware that actually
25 Mr. Sabljica went to the market-place on the 5th of February and
1 Mr. Zecevic didn't go there until the 6th; right?
2 A. No, Mr. Sabljica was there on the 5th and Zecevic was there on
3 the 6th.
4 Q. Okay. You discussed the stalls in the market-place throughout
5 your analysis of Markale I. This is throughout different times in
6 paragraphs 3 through 78 of the report. After reading through everything,
7 I came to your statement in paragraph 78 where you say:
8 "As is known, the market has been renovated. The stalls have
9 been replaced by new ones, and it is no longer possible to measure the
11 Do you stand by that statement in your report?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Your analysis of the stalls was based on images taken from -- on
14 different dates from different perspectives; correct?
15 A. Yes. And the sketch provided by Mr. Zecevic with the
16 measurements he took. We used all that.
17 Q. You appear to come up with some measurements for the stalls and
18 other items in your report from the images. These are ones that you then
19 appear to annotate on photos from different distances, and these photos
20 are from different distances and different perspectives from what appears
21 to be above, below, or to the side of the object that you are measuring.
22 These limitations impact the precision of the measurements;
24 A. First of all, that's not true. The basic measures were taken
25 from a position which is practically direct to the object of filming.
1 The supports are lateral. All the measures were taken in one or two ways
2 to determine the margin of error, to arrive finally at an accurate,
3 highly accurate, size of the stall.
4 Q. You realise that the impact -- or the explosion occurred in the
5 rear north-east corner of the outdoor market; right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. It did not happen in the centre of the market?
8 A. It did not.
9 Q. In paragraph 75, you state:
10 "The logical question that arises is why, in seven
11 investigations, then you mention four items related to the
12 investigations," then you continue, "no one checked whether it was
13 possible for the mortar shell to land on the ground without first hitting
14 the stall roof."
15 You state this after reviewing all the UN materials and the BiH
16 investigative reports related to Markale I; right?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. You then realise, for example, that the UN investigative report,
19 Exhibit P538, which you cite throughout your -- your own report,
20 specifically details its analysis of the height of the bursts in relation
21 to the stalls; right?
22 This can be found on page 10 of the English ; page 13 of the
24 A. No. They provide a report as to where the impact was compared to
25 the stall which was there, and this is just a co-ordinate. They did not
1 determine the minimal angle of descent compared to the height of the roof
2 of the stall. Those are different measurements. The measurements that
3 were given were relative to the table of the stall, not the roof.
4 Q. In paragraph 78, you indicate that you believe that the market
5 incident was "well planned, organised and implemented act of sabotage."
6 This is your theory; right?
7 A. That is my conclusion based on all the analysis we carried out,
8 the material evidence on the market and the surrounding buildings, after
9 analysing the direction of fire, the traces, and analysing the
10 possibility for the projectile to land without first hitting a roof.
11 That was analysed in great detail with very wide margins of
12 possibilities, and there is simply no other conclusion available.
13 Q. I see you're giving your standard answer when incidents come up,
14 but I just want to go quickly through --
15 MR. LUKIC: Objection. We've heard this before.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Weber --
17 MR. WEBER: I'll proceed --
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- it's commenting on the evidence of the witness
19 which I should refrain from doing.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. WEBER: Okay.
22 Q. I just want to go, then, through some of the people who were or
23 were not a part of this conspiracy.
24 You do not think that the BiH MUP investigators like Mirza
25 Sabljica were part of the act of sabotage or conspiracy; right?
1 A. Of course I don't. And I don't go into thinking or analysing who
2 could possibly be part of that conspiracy. What I dealt with was
3 analysis of the traces and the possibility for these traces to be
4 consistent, to conform to a certain type of weapon.
5 Q. I'd like -- so we have a clear record, I'd like to go through
6 some other individuals.
7 None of the UN personnel or investigators were part of the
8 conspiracy; right?
9 A. Would you please refrain from asking me such questions because I
10 do not have an answer to them. That would be speculation. It would not
11 be serious.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you don't have to tell Mr. Weber what
13 questions to be asked. If you say it's -- it would be speculation, then
14 just answer the question, say: I can't answer the question because it
15 would come down to speculation. Rather than to tell Mr. Weber what
16 questions he should put to you.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. WEBER:
19 Q. Could you answer my question? You have reviewed the UN materials
20 related to this. None of the --
21 A. I apologise, Your Honours.
22 Q. You reviewed the UN materials related to this. So, in your view,
23 were any of the UN personnel or investigators a part of this conspiracy?
24 MR. LUKIC: Objection. Asked and answered.
25 MR. WEBER: She hasn't answered it.
1 MR. LUKIC: She said that she would have to speculate.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Let me ... let me just ...
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the question was asked but not answered.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, please. Page 28, line 23.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the witness commented on that it would come
8 down to speculation, so now then I invited her to say so if that would be
9 the answer to a question. And the question was put again to her, and if
10 she thinks it would be speculation, then we now expect perhaps that
11 answer. But it is -- the question was not answered directly, and,
12 therefore, Mr. Weber --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With all due respect, I was waiting
14 a little to -- to say something.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No, it's fine --
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, of course, I will answer.
17 I have no reason to believe any such thing, and anything I would
18 now say, pointing a finger at anyone who was part of that investigation,
19 would be speculation. The only thing I can say is that I found it very
20 strange that some of the observations of the UN personnel did not find
21 their way into the final report. For instance, the finding of
22 Captain Verdy was not part of the final analysis, and there is no
23 specific explanation for that.
24 It's something we noticed, but, again, I'm not pointing a finger
25 at anyone because that would make no sense.
1 MR. WEBER:
2 Q. It's your evidence that the UN investigators did not consider the
3 initial opinions by Captain Verdy as a part of their analysis? Are you
4 saying that?
5 A. I want to say that Captain Verdy was the only one who determined
6 the angle of descent --
7 Q. Ma'am -- ma'am, that's not --
8 A. -- which was large and which would be consistent with --
9 Q. Could you please answer my question. Is it your evidence that
10 the UN investigators did not consider the initial opinions by
11 Captain Verdy as part of their analysis?
12 A. They did not take it into account and they did not explain why
13 they didn't.
14 Q. You have no reason to believe that any of the civilians in the
15 market-place were part of some conspiracy; right?
16 A. I have no reason to even think about it because I have no
17 parameters for forming an opinion.
18 Q. Okay. You comment a lot on the TV crew that was in the area. Do
19 you believe that they were part of some conspiracy?
20 A. I am not claiming for a moment that anyone was part of a
21 conspiracy, nor do we suspect anyone. We just noted that the TV crew
22 arrived extremely quickly, because they were practically around the
23 corner when the incident happened. And many witnesses say that. That is
24 absolutely true.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, witness, if you say that you do not claim
1 that anyone was part of a conspiracy, then there would be no conspiracy,
2 isn't it? Because if there are no persons involved in a conspiracy ...
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is not true. I am not
4 claiming that no one was part of any conspiracy. That's not what I said.
5 I just answered the question, saying that I have no reason to suspect
6 anyone in particular.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, "in particular" is then -- gives the clue which
8 I was looking for.
9 Please proceed.
10 MR. WEBER:
11 Q. For Markale I, your position in the Karadzic case was that the
12 two stationary -- was that there were two stationary mortars which were
13 detonated either using a timer or a remote control device; correct?
14 A. My position in the Karadzic case was that at the site that had
15 been investigated, there had certainly been a 120-millimetre shell that
16 was detonated under stationary conditions in a regular way, and then at
17 the other place it could have been a shell, it could have been something
18 else. We did not investigate that. Only Mr. Berko Zecevic marked that,
19 and we marked the traces last week here in this courtroom.
20 Q. In the Karadzic case, at transcript page 38538 to -39, Judge Kwon
21 asked to you confirm an answer. He said:
22 "Yes. The witness answered to a different -- when asked whether
23 it's your position that the two mortar bombs were detonated either using
24 a timer or a remote control device, your answer was yes; correct?"
25 You stated: "Correct."
1 Do you stand by that evidence?
2 A. Yes, correct. I just said now that there is this possibility,
3 that some other shell had been detonated or some other device. Because
4 we were not in a position to record these traces. No one did that during
5 the investigations. It could have been a mortar shell placed under
6 static conditions, like the first one that had been analysed. It also
7 could have been another device. We do not have technical parameters.
8 Nothing was recorded. It's only the location of the explosion that we
10 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, what was read to you was your answer to a
11 question, whether it was your position that the two mortar bombs were
12 detonated either using a timer or a remote control device, and it was
13 read to you that your answer was: "Correct."
14 You were then asked whether you stand by that evidence, and you
16 "Yes, correct. I just said now that there is this
17 possibility ..."
18 Now, there's a difference between saying that it's my position
19 that the two mortar bombs were detonated either using a timer or a remote
20 control device or to say that that is a possibility.
21 Do I understand that you do not claim that this is what happened
22 but that you consider it a possibility that this may have happened?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I allow for the possibility
24 that there might have been another explosive device at the other location
25 because, I repeat, we were not in a position to analyse the traces on
1 asphalt because they were not recorded at all. I stand by everything I
2 said, but I do open the possibility that at the second location there may
3 have been another explosive device and that both of them were statically
4 activated. There is no doubt about that.
5 JUDGE ORIE: You say you "open the possibility" and then you
6 later say "there's no doubt about that." Is there no doubt about that
7 possibility or is there no doubt about that having happened?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is no doubt that there was
9 static explosion at the place that was investigated and the place that
10 was not investigated. There is no doubt about that.
11 As for the place where there was no investigation, there could
12 have been a static explosion of one shell and it also could have been
13 another explosive device. We don't have information about that. But
14 there are traces that we saw and we are therefore assured that there was
15 an explosion there as well, as marked by Mr. Zecevic at the location of
16 the explosion.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
18 MR. WEBER:
19 Q. Ms. Subotic, I put it to you that you're shifting somewhat your
20 theory that you presented previously in the Karadzic case, in that
21 previously there was two mortars that caused -- that -- and you
22 acknowledge two -- two explosions that caused a single crater, and here
23 it appears that you're saying that there's one mortar that exploded and
24 possibly some other type of device and you're describing two locations.
25 A. There's nothing I changed. There was one location that was
1 investigated, and it is clear that there was an explosion there of
2 120-millimetre shell. There was also another explosion that was
3 recorded. Mr. Zecevic wrote that, signed that. There is impact of
4 shrapnel there. And, again, most probably, it was the explosion, the
5 static explosion of a 120-millimetre shell. However, we did not have the
6 opportunity to investigate that, so I allow for the possibility that it
7 could have been another explosive device, and that's the only
8 difference --
9 Q. And that's --
10 A. -- that was there since then.
11 Q. That's what I'm saying is the difference. You're adding that in,
12 that last part in your testimony here now in this case.
13 A. Well, yes, I think that it's more precise if I say it this way.
14 More precise. Quite simply, there is no photo documentation that
15 indicates traces on the surface so that we could discuss whether it is an
16 artillery projectile, whether it's an explosive device, whether it's a
17 120-millimetre shell. I assume that it is most probable that there were
18 two shells of 120-millimetres.
19 Q. I've already read in your previous confirmation to Judge Kwon
20 about it being two mortars. You're changing your testimony now, too, to
21 say it was from two mortars to one mortar and possibly something else;
23 MR. LUKIC: I would object --
24 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right because that's most
2 MR. LUKIC: I think that Ms. Subotic explained.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I beg your pardon?
4 MR. LUKIC: I think that Ms. Subotic explained everything.
5 JUDGE ORIE: The question is --
6 MR. LUKIC: She can --
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- put to the witness --
8 MR. LUKIC: -- say again the same thing if Mr. Weber wants, but
9 everything is in.
10 MR. WEBER: Judge --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber can put the question as he did, and the
12 witness may answer that question.
13 MR. WEBER: And, Your Honours, I believe the witness has answered
15 Q. Okay. Were both -- this mortar and now this some other device
16 that you're describing, were they both set up on stands?
17 A. The 120-millimetre mortar shell that was analysed both by
18 UNPROFOR and the CSB investigators were certainly placed under an angle
19 of about 60 or 70 degrees, and it was activated statically. Because that
20 can be concluded very simply on the basis of traces --
21 Q. So you're --
22 A. -- on the asphalt --
23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did not hear the end.
24 MR. WEBER:
25 Q. So you're saying one was set up on a stand, I guess, there. What
1 about the other one or whatever it is that you're now describing in this
3 A. Well, it must have been placed somewhere on something, but there
4 are no traces, and we cannot say whether it is under an angle, whether
5 it's not under an angle, whether on a stall, beneath a stall. Actually,
6 the place of impact can be seen, it was marked clearly, but we cannot say
7 how it was placed because we did not see the traces very clearly and very
8 well. Quite simply it was not investigated as such. It appeared
9 practically after the cross-examination of Mr. Zecevic and after we had
10 insight into the video footage, where we saw traces that absolutely
11 cannot be due to the projectile that had been investigated.
12 Q. Okay. I see you're now claiming that there's some other thing.
13 Okay. Would the mortar have exploded first or this some other
14 device that was somewhere in the market exploded beforehand?
15 A. Of course I don't know that. There are witnesses who heard two
17 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, that's an answer to the question. You, of
18 course, do not know that.
19 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
20 MR. WEBER:
21 Q. For your theory to be correct, some highly organised sabotage
22 team would have had to carry out measurements in advance of placing the
23 mortar that you've described on some type of stand, with those
24 measurements being very carefully calculated to be consistent with the
25 mortar having come from Bosnian Serb-held territory; right?
1 A. That's right, and we wrote that. And you skipped a stage during
2 this description of yours. And that is to say that beforehand the
3 stabiliser was --
4 Q. Ma'am, we'll go through some different stages here. You agree
5 that --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness finish her sentence --
7 MR. WEBER: Okay.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And you said:
9 "And that is to say that beforehand the stabiliser was ..."
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The stabiliser was dug into the
11 surface and then above it there was this montage.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
14 [Prosecution counsel confer]
15 MR. WEBER: Okay.
16 Q. So now the mortar did not have a stabiliser on it. It was
17 pre- -- somehow under the ground somehow before the explosion. Is that
18 what you're saying? I just want to understand.
19 A. You're trying to understand very well. That is what I'm trying
20 to say.
21 Q. If there was a secondary device which was attached to the mortar,
22 you would expect to find physical evidence of that secondary device at
23 the scene; correct?
24 A. In principle, you are right, but I believe that there are ways
25 used by saboteurs to leave minimal traces, if any at all.
1 Q. There was no evidence in what you inspected to suggest that the
2 physical remains of a timer or secondary remote control device was found
3 at the scene; correct?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. After a mortar and some other explosive device detonated in the
6 market-place, that must have killed a lot of people; right?
7 A. Yes, of course. And ever since you put your question, I have
8 been thinking, these two explosions probably took place at the same time
9 or almost at the same time.
10 Q. Under your theory of what happened, there must have been bodies
11 in the market-place of those who were killed in the detonations and then
12 very quickly more bodies were brought into the market-place and scattered
13 or placed around the bodies of those who had just been killed.
14 Are you saying that?
15 A. Well, according to the film that was shot during the evacuation,
16 there is every indication that that's the way it was.
17 Q. Okay. It follows, then, that there must have been a pile of
18 bodies dressed in civilian clothing stored very close to the market-place
19 prior to the incident, and they were dragged out after the detonation;
21 A. Most probably that's what happened. And you've already seen that
22 there were many illogical things that happened during this evacuation and
23 that would indicate that that kind of thing did happen, starting with the
24 area towards Marsala Tita Street being closed, then there was no traffic
25 in Marsala Tita, it went in the opposite direction. And then an
1 ambulance arrived with one corpse already in it and that was recorded and
2 so on and so forth. And then corpses were moved under which there were
3 no traces of blood. You saw all of that.
4 In this analysis these are some of the things that we observed
5 and that we certainly thought we should draw attention to.
6 Q. The bodies must have been taken from wherever they were stored
7 prior to the detonation, placed in the market by what you've described as
8 a well-organised sabotage team, and then those same bodies were brought
9 to the Kosevo hospital all within 20 minutes; right?
10 A. Well, I don't know whether it was exactly all. We were not doing
11 any counting. And on of the basis of this film, we were not in a
12 position to count whether all the persons who were on the truck were
13 already dead and then transported to the Kosevo hospital. These are
14 questions that I'm not a position to answer, that I cannot answer.
15 Q. In my question I don't believe I said "all." In your previous
16 Karadzic testimony, at transcript page 38543 to -44, you were asked:
17 "Q. It follows, does it not, that the bodies must have been
18 taken from wherever they were stored prior to the detonation, placed in
19 the market-place by what you've described as a well-organised sabotage
20 team, and those -- then those same bodies were brought to the Kosevo
21 hospital within those 20 minutes?"
22 Your answer was: "Correct."
23 That's what you stated during the Karadzic case; right?
24 A. Yes. And it is correct. Yes, of course, they were taken away.
25 Of course, I didn't do any counting. I was not in a position to do any
1 kind of counting. After all, you saw that these numbers do not tally
2 even in the records --
3 Q. Ma'am, you're --
4 A. -- let alone that I do the counting as I watch this film.
5 Q. Doesn't it follow from your theory that the sabotage crew had
6 access to a good number of human beings who were dead and who were in
7 civilian clothing and who happened to bear signs of injuries consistent
8 with a detonation from a mortar projectile?
9 A. First of all, on the ground when there's a war going on, there
10 are casualties, fatalities on a daily basis. Quite a few people get
11 killed. Then in the mortuary we also had cases when people died of
12 other -- I mean, there were at least three, as far as I can remember,
13 died from wounds inflicted by fire-arms. So we were not in a position to
14 see all the injuries that you are speaking about. But it is certain that
15 there was a large number of dead people and wounded people during the
17 Q. Okay. Under your theory, there were at least four visits by this
18 highly professional sabotage team to the crowded market where the mortar
19 exploded. The first visit was when they embedded the stabiliser. The
20 second visit was after the stabiliser was removed in order to create an
21 angle of descent of 60 degrees in the hole. The third visit was after
22 Verdy was at the scene but before Russell got there, an hour after Verdy
23 had left to adjust the angle supposedly from 60 to 70 degrees. And the
24 fourth visit was after Russell had left to adjust the angle back from
25 70 degrees to 60 degrees.
1 Have I missed any of the visits of the sabotage team from your
3 A. That is one possibility. The other possibility is a lot more
4 pragmatic, and that is that the stabiliser was dug in. And there is
5 footage to that effect after the explosion, what the place looked like,
6 where it was stuck. Then the shell had been placed under an angle for
7 remote activation. All of that can be done on one occasion. All the
8 rest could have been left during the events that evolved. As we know,
9 everybody was digging and trying to get their own, so there's no reason.
10 They could have left it all very nicely to develop as it was already
11 developing. The only thing that was important was that this stabiliser
12 was deeply dug in all along its length so that it would be sure that the
13 possibility would be removed of firing coming from BH-held territory.
14 All the rest could have happened without any major influence on the
15 course of the investigation.
16 Q. I put it to you that an infinitely more likely scenario and
17 explanation for what happened on the 5th of February, 1994, was that
18 mortar projectile was, in fact, fired from Bosnian Serb positions and hit
19 the market-place. Did you consider that possibility?
20 A. Of course, you did see that we took into account that
21 possibility. That possibility is totally excluded, number one, by the
22 direction of the trajectory that was established on the ground.
23 Number two, for this direction, the height and the form of the
24 stall make it absolutely impossible for the projectile to fall and be
25 activated in the place where it fell and where it was activated without
1 affecting the stall. And we show that very clearly, and we indicated all
2 the possibilities that were indispensable for ascertaining this and
3 checking this.
4 And thirdly, there are traces that show that the shell was
5 activated underneath the stall. And two UNPROFOR investigators
6 registered that.
7 So, of course, we took all of that into account and, of course,
8 that that was impossible.
9 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I'm about to start another little area.
10 I don't know if -- I see it's a couple of minutes early.
11 JUDGE ORIE: It's a couple of minutes before the break. Let's
12 take the break now.
13 Ms. Subotic, you may follow the usher.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at ten minutes past 12.00.
16 --- Recess taken at 11.47 a.m.
17 --- On resuming at 12.11 p.m.
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, you may proceed.
20 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours.
21 Q. Ms. Subotic, is it your evidence that the sabotage team who
22 buried the stabiliser had access to jackhammer or some kind of heavy
23 instrument to drill through the hard asphalt surface of the Markale
24 market in order to bury the stabiliser at a precise depth that would make
25 it appear to be -- to have been fired from distance?
1 A. I'm not making any claims as to what instrument it was done with,
2 but it was certainly dug into the ground for the explosive device to be
3 placed there. I cannot talk about which tool was used.
4 Q. Okay. Now, in the Karadzic case, it appears that you left open
5 the possibility of whether or not the stabiliser was buried before or
6 after and it -- also according to page 33 -- I'm sorry, 38558 to -59, it
7 was your position that someone used a hand tool, like a spade, to dig
8 through the asphalt and plant the stabiliser.
9 You've never tried to dig through an asphalt surface with a
10 spade; right?
11 A. I never tried to dig anything with a spade.
12 Q. And just so we have it in the record, the question that was posed
13 to was:
14 "Ms. Subotic, have you ever tried to dig through a tarmac surface
15 with a spade? "
16 Your answer was:
17 "No, of course, not. However, I had my heel, a complete heel,
18 get into the asphalt. Honestly, I don't want to interfere with other
19 people's areas of expertise. I'm sure that he needed a tool of some
20 sort, but whether that should have been a jackhammer, I'm really
21 convinced that it didn't."
22 That was your previous testimony; right?
23 A. What I heard in my headset as the interpretation, with all due
24 respect to everyone, I certainly never uttered because I never mentioned
25 a whole heel in my whole testimony.
1 It's quite possible that any kind of tool was used, any kind of
2 instruments. I really cannot go into that because I don't know. I was
3 not there.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, would you please again read to the
5 witness what is recorded as her testimony slowly so that we avoid any
7 Mr. Lukic, I'm asking your specific attention on whether there
8 will be any problems as far as translation is concerned.
9 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. It was corrected in B/C/S already.
10 JUDGE ORIE: It was corrected already in B/C/S --
11 MR. LUKIC: That's why Ms. Subotic laughed and ...
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, of course, we do not know what was
13 corrected. Could you perhaps, Mr. Weber, again read it, and now
14 apparently we do not expect any further translation issues, and then put
15 the question again to the witness so that she can answer it.
16 MR. WEBER: Of course, Your Honour.
17 Q. "Q. Ms. Subotic, have you ever tried to dig through a tarmac
18 surface with a spade?
19 "A. No, of course, not. However, I had my heel, a complete
20 heel, get into the asphalt. Honestly, I don't want to interfere with
21 other people's areas of expertise. I'm sure that he needed a tool of
22 some sort, but whether that should have been a jackhammer, I'm really
23 convinced that it didn't."
24 That was your previous testimony; correct?
25 A. Yes, all right. That's correct.
1 Q. You are aware that another ballistics expert named Derek Allsop
2 testified for the Defence of Mr. Karadzic; correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. In terms of chronology, Dr. Allsop testified before you in the
5 Karadzic case. Did you review or consider either his expert testimony or
6 his reports when completing your Markale report in either the last case
7 or this case?
8 A. I believe we did see him and we did not use his evidence. We saw
9 him at the time we worked on the Karadzic case. We did not use his
10 reports then or now. I'm not sure about then, but certainly not now.
11 Q. Dr. Allsop was initially listed as a Defence expert in the Mladic
12 case. Did you have any conversations with him about your Markale report,
13 your current Markale report?
14 A. No.
15 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33116 for
16 the witness, e-court page 32.
17 Q. During your testimony in the Karadzic case, which is now before
18 you, Mr. Karadzic asked you about Dr. Allsop's static explosion
19 conclusions. At line 8, you were asked:
20 "Q. Defence witness Derek Allsop said that he did not support
21 the thesis which indicated that this was a static explosion because the
22 stabiliser could not have become embedded in the ground in that way.
23 What is your opinion of it?"
24 You answered:
25 "I viewed this testimony and the gentleman is right because he
1 was looking at a specific case. Had the static explosion taken place
2 there and the stabiliser been positioned on the shell, then it would not
3 have been possible because the shell did not fly in and there would not
4 have been that speed that we referred to. It would not have been
5 possible for the stabiliser to become embedded in the ground. I agree so
6 far. But this implies the fact that a shell complete with a stabiliser
7 is statically activated. That's the only scenario that is being
8 considered here."
9 Do you stand by your past testimony?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. That specific case that Dr. Allsop was looking at was the
12 Markale I events; right?
13 A. Correct.
14 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33120 for
15 the witness, page 44.
16 Q. I'm going to go through some portions of Dr. Allsop's testimony
17 in the Karadzic case. Before you is the transcript of his testimony
18 where there was a discussion of the different theories concerning
19 Markale I.
20 Starting at the top of the page, Dr. Allsop was asked:
21 "The first is a theory concerning the Markale I incident. Now,
22 the Judges have heard a witness refer to a theory that the incident was
23 caused by a roof-top delivery of a 120-millimetre projectile from a
24 building of five or more storeys into the market-place down below. Do
25 you accept that theory?"
1 Dr. Allsop stated: "No."
2 "Q. Could you explain why you do not?
3 "A. There are a number of reasons. The first reason is that all
4 of these projectiles, then they have a fuse for a very good reason. One
5 is, of course, to initiate the explosive when it impacts the target, but
6 an important feature is for it to be safe in storage and so that the --
7 when the projectile is actually -- before it's fired, if you dropped it,
8 it would not initiate it because the fuse prevents it from doing so. And
9 so that when the projectile is fired, it arms the fuse and it does this
10 by the setback forces. The acceleration is thousands of G, you know, so
11 that the actual setback forces on the fuse is extremely high. And so
12 it's those setback fuses that actually arm the fuse and have to
13 somehow -- if you had a conventional -- if you just had a 120-millimetre
14 mortar bomb, then you would have to find some way -- if you were going to
15 drop it from a building, you would have to have some way of arming the
16 fuse. And the -- just -- I think you might be able to do it if you hit
17 the back of it with a sledge hammer, but if you did that, that might mark
18 the back of the fins and you would see that on the subsequent fin. So
19 that's one of the reasons."
20 I'll pause here. You agree with Dr. Allsop's reasons stated so
21 far, correct, that a roof-top delivery was not possible for these
23 A. Technically his views are correct. However, he did not take into
24 account the possibility that the fuse may have been removed before the
25 shell being dropped, and it's quite possible to change this chain of
1 occurrences. That was often done on the front line. And I even worked
2 on cases where the enemy forces left hand-grenades armed for use without
3 any fuse. If we take that possibility into account, then this version
4 you just describe does not quite hold up to scrutiny. But if you
5 discount that, then the rest is correct.
6 Q. A fuse is what activates the mortar upon impact; correct?
7 A. Yes. By momentum or upon impact, depending on the way it set up.
8 But that's not the point of this witness was talking about. The
9 point is that there is some security factor that could be overcome.
10 Q. Okay. Let's continue on. Dr. Allsop goes on to provide another
11 reason. He states at line 25, continuing on to the next page:
12 "The other" -- and this is Dr. Allsop:
13 "The other reason is no matter how you threw it, if you threw it,
14 dropped it, or whatever, it would almost certainly drop vertically, and
15 so that means that the pattern on the ground of the fragments would, in
16 fact, be almost perfectly symmetrical. Although it's actually difficult
17 to see the fragmentation pattern of the 120-millimetre mortar on the
18 ground, the one that was actually fired, it does actually show that, in
19 fact, it was -- it did impact at an angle. So those are my main reasons
20 for discounting the theory."
21 Do you accept that Dr. Allsop also considered in -- a factor for
22 why it was not thrown from the roof the actual pattern on the ground? Do
23 you agree that that's a relevant factor?
24 A. Well, I see that he believed that a shell, if it is somehow
25 manually dropped, probably falls at an angle of 90 degrees and leaves
1 that kind of pattern. That's rather logical. Although he did not
2 explain how come that it can be dropped and activated that way, whereas
3 the moment before he was saying it's impossible. I think the statement
4 you read out a moment ago from the same witness contradicts this one.
5 Q. Let's read on. Dr. Allsop was also asked the following starting
6 at line 12:
7 "Q. Now, in the scenario that's been raised before the Court,
8 the projectile was thrown from the top of a building of about 15 and a
9 half metres in height so that it landed on the ground a minimum distance
10 of 11.1 metres away from the base of that building I've just described.
11 Do you accept that as a likely trajectory, if I may say so, or a likely
12 scenario for the Markale I incident?"
13 Dr. Allsop's answer:
14 "No, no. I -- as I explained at our meeting, then I don't think
15 it would be physically possible to throw a 12 and a half kilogram
16 projectile 11 metres."
17 Do you agree with him on this one?
18 A. Well, the gentleman probably meant that one person could not do
19 that. I cannot estimate, really.
20 I don't know what he meant, that one person cannot do it, that it
21 cannot be dropped using some kind of support or tool. I cannot agree or
22 disagree with this because I don't know what he meant.
23 Q. Continuing on, Dr. Allsop was asked:
24 "Q. It's further been suggested that someone ran out after the
25 explosion in the midst of the dead and dying victims and plugged the
1 stabiliser into the ground before the arrival of UNPROFOR officials
2 or ... Bosnian police officials. Do you accept that this is a possible
4 Dr. Allsop answered:
5 "I find that highly unlikely. I've already been talking about
6 the fuse" furrow "and this actually entering into a pre-formed hole
7 formed by a -- a fuse falling directly behind the fuse. The appearance
8 in the video then -- that's exactly what I would expect, that it has all
9 of the characteristics of a 120-millimetre mortar bomb strike."
10 Mr. Karadzic's other expert disagreed with you; right?
11 A. I don't know what he meant when he said this. In any case, we
12 saw that that crater is not consistent with the usual situation after
13 impact, and we saw that at the place where it was embedded there is
14 buried material. It had to be dug out, which is impossible. When a
15 shell flies in and the stabiliser is embedded, that doesn't happen.
16 I don't know what he said -- meant when he said he saw what he
17 expected to see. Maybe he saw some parts of the investigation which are
18 typical, such as impact of shrapnel on the asphalt. But he certainly
19 couldn't be saying that the stabiliser left a typical pattern on the
20 surface because it is not. We have seen that many times. We've seen
21 that image.
22 Q. You disagree with Dr. Allsop that the pattern had all of the
23 characteristics of a 120-millimetre mortar bomb strike; right?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
25 MR. LUKIC: I would object. We should see what was shown to
1 Mr. Allsop as Ms. Subotic mentioned.
2 JUDGE ORIE: If you consider that to be relevant, then, of
3 course, in --
4 MR. LUKIC: I don't know what was shown to him.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then you can raise that matter in
7 I don't know whether anything was shown to him or not.
8 Ms. Subotic tells us that from all of it, we can see this and that.
9 She's not clear in what exactly she refers to. But the question, there
10 should be no objection. The objection is denied.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. WEBER:
13 Q. You disagree with Dr. Allsop that the pattern had all of the
14 characteristics of a 120-millimetre mortar bomb strike; right?
15 A. The pattern did bear characteristics of shrapnel impact.
16 However, the place where the stabiliser, according to the Bosnian police
17 and UNPROFOR, got embedded during the explosion in the surface is
18 completely atypical and is not consistent with the embedding of a
19 stabiliser occurring after an explosion and a high-velocity flight of a
20 projectile because it was completely buried under asphalt and I don't
21 know what.
22 Q. Let's read on. Dr. Allsop was then asked:
23 "Q. Now, it's further been suggested that the Markale I incident
24 might have been a static explosion, that it occurred on the ground. The
25 citation for that is page 12357. Dr. Allsop, do you accept the
1 possibility that -- or do you accept that it's a likely explanation that
2 this was a static explosion?
3 "A. I would not accept it as a likely one.
4 "Q. Do you accept it's even possible? "
5 Dr. Allsop:
6 "Possible? I -- for the same reasons, one, you've got to arm
7 this. How did the fin actually get into the hole? The only way that ...
8 fin could have got into the hole is because it was actually moving
9 through the air at a higher velocity -- the projectile was moving through
10 the air at a higher velocity and the ejection velocity of the tail-fin.
11 So I cannot see how the ... fin would have ended up in the hole from a
12 static explosion."
13 Dr. Allsop disagreed with you on this; right?
14 A. Dr. Allsop obviously considered the only possibility that is
15 normal in dynamics for flight. I cannot agree with him completely
16 because he did not even consider the possibility that we described. It's
17 true that it cannot get embedded without --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat this answer.
19 The interpreter was unable to follow.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could you please repeat your answer because
21 the interpreters had difficulties in following you. I think you started
22 by saying that:
23 "Dr. Allsop obviously considered the only possibility that is
24 normal in dynamics for flight."
25 Could you resume from there.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He considered only one possibility;
2 namely that the fins and the stabiliser embed themselves as a consequence
3 of the velocity of flight higher than the setback force which happens
4 after impact of mortar projectiles on the ground when there are no
5 alterations or sabotage actions. He did not consider the possibility
6 that the stabiliser was separated from the shell and buried before the
7 explosion. So he could not possibly agree with something that he didn't
8 even consider.
9 What I see from his text is that he considered only one
10 possibility and that is how a stabiliser gets embedded into surface under
11 normal circumstances. That is to say, when it lands at a higher
12 velocity, then the velocity of setback, which did not happen -- which
13 does not happen with a shell that is buried prior to the incident into
14 the ground. So there was no stabiliser at all.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I may I take it that at the end of your answer you
16 were referring to that it doesn't happen with a tail-fin that is buried
17 prior to the incident into the ground. Is that what you wanted to say?
18 Tail-fin or stabiliser.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what I meant.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It was translated to us as the shell being
21 buried, but I now fully understand your answer.
22 Mr. Weber.
23 MR. WEBER:
24 Q. Continuing on. Another scenario Dr. Allsop was asked to consider
1 "Q. Right. And I'll raise one final scenario for your
2 consideration, and that is the possibility of a 120-millimetre mortar
3 projectile being buried under the surface of the asphalt. Do you accept
4 that is in any way a likely scenario?
5 Dr. Allsop:
6 "That's not possible. You would not have had that
7 characteristic. The asphalt's hardly been disturbed. You would expect
8 quite a massive -- quite a massive crater formed by such an explosion."
9 Dr. Allsop also disagreed with you about the burying of the
10 stabiliser; right?
11 A. I'm sorry, but Dr. - I cannot see the name - Allsop was asked
12 whether it was possible that a mine should have been buried. We are not
13 talking about a whole mine or a whole shell. We are now talking only
14 about the stabiliser.
15 Q. All right. Throughout your testimony, you have criticised many
16 Prosecution experts. The fact is that a Defence ballistics expert, who
17 was in your same field, in your last case also disagree with you --
18 disagreed with you. Do you accept that?
19 A. Well, I don't accept it. He did not discuss my solution but the
20 possibilities that are correct. Except they don't relate to this
22 There are technical reasons for all the things that he did not
23 accept, and they are not related to our claim or our analysis. There is
24 no contradiction. Everything he said he doesn't accept is technically
25 correct, but it does not relate to the specific situation that we wrote
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, may I revisit your last question. And
3 Mr. Lukic did not object, but you misrepresented what Dr. Allsop said and
4 asked the witness then whether she did disagree with that because you
5 really presented it in an unfair way to the witness.
6 MR. WEBER: I'm sorry. It was not my intent, and if I misspoke,
7 I sincerely apologise.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, happily enough, the witness herself was able to
9 correct you, and that's of course appreciated.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. WEBER:
12 Q. Let's turn to Markale II on 28 August 1995.
13 In paragraph 105, page 117 in the English and page 175 of the
14 B/C/S, you stated:
15 "We come to the conclusion that the shell could not have landed
16 there, but it was, rather, activated statically or reached the pavement
17 in front of the market hall in some other way."
18 First, when you say "the shell," your conclusion is that one
19 mortar shell exploded in front of the market on the 28th of August, 1995?
20 A. Well, since this happened out in the open, we did not have the
21 possibility of checking whether it was one or two. As you know, there
22 were several stabilisers which indicates that -- well, we don't have a
23 position on this. But it indicates that something is not right during
24 the investigation. However, since it was out in the open, we could not
25 look at other objects as we could in Markale I, if you remember, so we
1 could not see whether there was impact of shrapnel from a mine or shell
2 that was not looked at.
3 Q. Was there one or two explosions on the 28th of August, 1995, in
4 front of the market?
5 A. We can believe that there is one and we can consider that there
6 was one as that is what we looked at.
7 Q. You leave open many possibilities, it appears, when you say
8 alternatively that the shell could have reached the pavement "in some
9 other way." You do this because there are no physical traces or remnants
10 of a static activation; right?
11 A. Well, yes, of course. No such thing was registered.
12 Q. What do you mean by "in some other way"? It's not clear in your
13 report what you're -- what theory you're getting at here.
14 A. In some way, obviously, it fell there at minimal speed, as
15 indicated by all the traces, so -- well, there's this idea that it was
16 thrown from a roof or thrown through a window and then this idea that it
17 was statically activated. So all options are on the table and equally
18 plausible or probable.
19 Q. We looked at Dr. Allsop's testimony about why he thought the
20 Markale I incident -- that it was not likely that it was thrown from a
21 roof. I put it to you that those same reasons are valid concerning
22 Markale II and whether or not it was thrown from the roof of the building
23 above where the crater is found. Do you agree?
24 A. I've already said a moment ago that I'm not sure what the doctor
25 had in mind. He probably thought it was impossible for one man to throw
1 12 kilograms in such a way. I don't know how or with what kind of aid
2 that could have happened. And once this chain was taken off the fuse,
3 that is what protects it from explosion, if the members of the crew drop
5 So I don't know what kind of aid somebody could have used for
6 doing this. But if you look at our analysis, which is exhaustive,
7 detailed, and well-founded, you will see that there is no possibility
8 of -- there is no technical possibility of it arriving there either from
9 positions of the Army of Republika Srpska or from positions that are
10 nearby of the ABiH. Because we assume that the firing would have to have
11 been heard.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could -- witness, could you explain exactly what you
13 meant by "and once this chain was taken off the fuse"?
14 Could you tell us what chain you are talking about?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Dr. Allsop spoke about this safety
16 chain and the construction of the fuse that is used for purposes of
17 prevention. If members of the crew drop it, then in this way, it is not
18 activated. There has to be an initial force and then the fuse can
19 activate the mine. Once that happens, then this safety chain is removed
20 and then the mine can be activated irrespective of the speed. That's
21 what I meant.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
23 Please proceed.
24 No, perhaps just one other question. Can you take that off the
25 fuse or do you take off the whole fuse? The chain is not clear to me.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is a mechanism that is within
2 the fuse and it prevents the fuse from starting the explosion until the
3 projectile gets a certain speed during its trajectory, and that makes it
4 impossible for it to explode if it falls by accident, if it is dropped.
5 So you take off the fuse, take that part off, return the fuse, and it is
6 only then that it can be activated as soon as it touches the surface at
7 any speed. There is no need for the kind of speed that Dr. Allsop refers
8 to in his report.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so it is a part of the fuse which you can
10 remove easily? Could you explain as how you do that? Do you need a
11 screwdriver for that? I mean, how is that embedded in the fuse, that
12 safety chain or whatever you call it? Have you ever done that?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I never did that.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could you nevertheless explain then how to exactly
15 do that?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, one has to look at the
17 construction of the fuse and see which part -- which part pertains to
18 that stage and then that is opened and --
19 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that you have to look at how it's --
20 what the construction is. But could you tell us, is it welded in?
21 What -- what does it take to get that out; and how does that affect the
22 functioning of the fuse if it's taken out? Could you give the details of
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the fuse is removed from the
25 mine and then it is opened and then that part is removed.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Let me -- let me stop you there. How do you open
2 the fuse?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The casing is taken off and then
4 you get to the mechanism. The mechanism that is inside, you dismantle it
5 the way you dismantle any device, using a screwdriver and the tools that
6 people had and made do with during the war. People did it very
7 skillfully. I remember doing an expert report on a particular case like
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could you -- do you have documentation which
10 explains how to take that safety part out of the fuse? It must have been
11 described somewhere, I take it.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, first of all, the work of the
13 mechanism of the fuse is described in its technical documentation in the
15 JUDGE ORIE: I'm asking you whether it's described how to take
16 out that safety mechanism from a fuse, how you do that, where do have you
17 to put the screwdriver. Is that described anywhere? I take it, it must
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably in handbooks and books of
20 the service for counter-sabotage protection. They deal with that.
21 Sabotage and counter-sabotage. And they have all of these details that
22 pertain to weaponry and everything else.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you there. You say "probably" there,
24 and then you say they have all the details. You're the expert. Could
25 you tell us not where it probably is but where we can find it or how you
1 can give it to us so that we can follow in detail what you describe as a
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Some part of the construction of
4 the fuse is contained in firing tables, but that certainly does not
5 include such instructions, because firing tables are not intended for
6 this kind of use. What I can recommend are, indeed, books for
7 counter-sabotage protection.
8 JUDGE ORIE: My question to you is: You are stating that this is
9 a possibility. Where did you find that possibility described?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't need to find the
11 description of that possibility. I know how this construction works. I
12 could disarm any fuse if necessary. If you are working on the
13 construction of that and also on its verification, it's quite simple to
14 read the drawing, how this fuse works and how it can be disarmed on a
15 certain basis.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, let -- let me --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because this is an action that is
18 not a customary one.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand you well that you couldn't tell us
20 exactly where it is described how to take out this safety feature of the
21 fuse and -- how to take it out? You don't know where it is described?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I assume that it's
23 in these books that I've already mentioned.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. The Chamber, of course, would be
25 interested to see whether there's any documentation on -- on how to do
1 that. I don't know whether there's any of it.
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. WEBER:
4 Q. The fuse would not work without the safety. The safety is what
5 controls it arming and not arming; right?
6 A. That is not correct. That is not correct. It does control it,
7 but once it is bridged, it no longer controls it.
8 You certainly looked at my expert report, and you see that I have
9 done this kind of expertise in relation to the war and also in the case
10 of hand-grenades as such.
11 Q. Okay. You just used the word "bridged." Are you saying that
12 there then would have to be a work-around in the fuse once the safety was
14 A. No, then it functions directly.
15 Q. Could you tell us, if the shell was placed in the middle of a
16 busy road and statically activated, did someone from some sabotage group
17 run out in the middle of the street while the cars were going by to do
19 A. I cannot give you an answer to that. I was not there and,
20 therefore, I cannot give you an answer to that.
21 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I'm ...
22 [Prosecution counsel confer]
23 MR. WEBER: I'll keep going, see if I can get through the next
25 Q. Your theories appear to be based upon criticisms of the
1 determined minimal angle of descent from the nearby building and
2 separately the calculated angle of descent determined from the crater
3 itself. I want to first start with the minimal angle of descent.
4 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 1D05496.
5 And if we could please go to page 173 of the B/C/S version only. I'd
6 like to look at the image.
7 Q. In paragraph 104, you discuss figure 117 which is now before us.
8 In the paragraph you state:
9 "On the basis of figure 117, it is estimated that the width of
10 the frieze is about 12 centimetres."
11 First are you referring to the frieze at the top of the building
12 on the roof or the frieze between the second and third floors of the
14 A. The frieze that is at the top of the building.
15 Q. In the same paragraph, you appear to go -- gone to recalculate
16 the minimal angle of descent by subtracting these 12 centimetres related
17 to the width of the frieze and another 6 centimetres for the mortar from
18 the measurements that you come up with which are, as you acknowledged
19 before that, lower than those taken by the BH MUP and UN investigators.
20 You are assuming that the investigators did not take into consideration
21 the shape of the mortar or the building when making their calculations;
23 A. I'm not assuming anything. We saw how they conducted their
24 measuring in this film that was shot, I mean, during this investigation,
25 when speaking of the UN. On the sketch of the scene dimensions are
1 provided, so there's no need to make any kind of assumptions.
2 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P498,
3 page 24 of the B/C/S only.
4 Q. This is the calculation of the minimum angle of descent from the
5 MUP file. The shape of the building and, in particular, the friezes were
6 taken into consideration by the investigators. We can all see this in
7 the image; right?
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We cannot hear the
10 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could you please either adjust the
11 microphone or to speak into it when answering the question. And could
12 you please repeat your answer.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm saying that what can be see
14 here is that the measurements were taken from the frieze. And what can
15 also be seen is that what was not taken into account -- I mean, there's
16 no indication that the diameter of the shell was not taken into account.
17 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I see we're at the time for a break. If
18 we could take the break now.
19 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take the break now.
20 Witness, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes. You may follow
21 the usher.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 JUDGE ORIE: We'll resume at 1.30.
24 --- Recess taken at 1.07 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 1.30 p.m.
1 JUDGE ORIE: We're waiting for the witness to be escorted into
2 the courtroom.
3 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, if I may.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do we have to postpone the --
5 MR. WEBER: No.
6 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, we can -- yes.
7 MR. WEBER: Your Honours inquired about possible information
8 about the fuse, and I would just note for the record that admitted as
9 Exhibit P4211, which is 120-millimetre mortar manual, and with respect to
10 the relevant fuse type, based on the information in Exhibit P498 we would
11 note that that is an M62 fuse. And we would just note for the record,
12 English e-court pages 82 to 84 of P4211, and we would draw significant
13 attention to paragraph 383. And also in the B/C/S version, figure 84 on
14 page 115 of the B/C/S version.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you for that. Do we find -- apart from a
16 description of the fuse, do we also find there, and I apologise for not
17 having all of the evidence, especially documentary evidence, on the top
18 of my head, but will we find what I specifically asked for, how to --
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 MR. WEBER: It's not step by step in that way but it explains the
21 construction of the fuse and the functioning of the fuse.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Thank you.
23 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
24 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 1D5496,
25 page 176 of the B/C/S version only. I'd like to look at the figure on
1 that page.
2 Q. Ms. Subotic, I'm going to turn to the angle of descent based on
3 the crater. In your report it appears that you've recalculated the
4 centre of the explosive mass for the mortar which is illustrated before
5 us from what the investigators determined, which was just a shade under
6 188 millimetres, to what you feel it is, which is 240 millimetres.
7 I put it to you that you've simply created an imaginary cone
8 which, according to you, is the shape of the explosive charge; right?
9 A. No, that's not correct. We have this cone that follows the
10 cone-like explosive and we used another method to check the centre of the
11 mass provided by the Bosnian investigators, whether it is closer or the
12 one that we gave. And we gave ours on the basis of documentation about
13 this, that is 240, that is the centre according to us. And this is just
14 an illustration without any kind of major calculations that would just
15 encumber this paper. It just confirms that the explosive charge is
16 there. This is just one analysis.
17 Q. First, as we can see from the shape of the mortar itself, it is
18 not shaped in a cone but it is more of a -- what I would describe as a
19 pointed tear drop. Based on the actual shape of a mortar, the
20 investigators correctly placed the centre of the explosive mass where it
21 belongs and not you; right?
22 A. That's not right. And I will very gladly, if the Court asks me
23 to do that, I will send an excerpt from documents where, I mean, this
24 information is contained after all. My colleague Vukasinovic who was the
25 protagonist of the research precisely for this shell used the same values
1 in his analysis and we worked together. And firing tables are worked out
2 without this kind of information. Please do trust me, that that's the
3 way it is.
4 Q. Ms. Subotic, you're going to my next question here. You got the
5 240-millimetre measurement from Miroljub Vukasinovic, his un-peer-tested
6 symposium paper; right?
7 A. From my colleague Dr. Miroljub Vukasinovic we took this over, and
8 I did not quite understand what you were getting, because I don't really
9 know what this pertains to. And you said "unpeered." I don't know what
10 you mean by that.
11 Q. Okay. The 250 -- the 240-millimetre measurement that you used
12 came from Miroljub Vukasinovic's symposium paper on Markale II; correct?
13 A. That he presented at some symposium. And he took it from the
14 technical documentation from the military technical institute for that
16 Q. I'm asking you that's where you got it from?
17 A. Yes, yes.
18 Q. In paragraph 106 of your report, do I understand correctly that
19 you yourself acknowledge that his findings were wrong?
20 A. Yes. During the calculations, he took some figures that were
21 wrong, but that is -- well, that did not significantly affect his
22 findings. He took figures related to the crater erroneously and instead
23 of the centre of the mass of the explosive, he took the centre of the
24 mass of the shell when carrying out this analysis.
25 Q. Let's move on. You have never operated --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
2 MR. WEBER: Okay.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to come back to one of the previous
4 questions; that is, whether the shape of the building was considered and
5 whether the diameter of the mortar shell was considered.
6 I think you said: Well, whatever they did with the building, at
7 least they ignored the -- the diameter of the shell. Did I understand
8 you well?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You did understand me well. There
10 is this discrepancy in measurements and we checked that. You probably
11 saw that -- yes?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could you tell us, these 6 centimetres, what effect
13 would that have had on the angle of descent or the angle of impact? I
14 think it's also Pythagoras, more or less. We apparently are stuck with
15 him. Could you calculate for us what the difference in outcome would be
16 if you would include those 6 centimetres, how much would that affect the
17 minimum angle of descent? Are you in a position to do that? Not now
18 immediately but perhaps during one of the breaks or perhaps if we do not
19 finish today this afternoon.
20 MR. WEBER: And, Your Honours, maybe it would be good give her
21 instruction if it's based on 6 centimetres down from what the
22 investigators determined, or 6 centimetres what she feels, or both.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, perhaps for both. But I would like to have an
24 impression as to how this -- what you present as negligence, how this
25 affects the outcome. If would you do that perhaps both for your own
1 calculations and for the findings in the report which were
2 contemporaneously [indiscernible] -- I would highly appreciate if you
3 would do that. And could you limit yourself to my question rather than
4 to write a whole new paper on the matter. I'm just merely interested in
5 if you included in your calculations what would the outcome be in degrees
6 as far as the minimum angle of descent is concerned, nothing else.
7 Please proceed.
8 MR. WEBER:
9 Q. You have never operated a Cymbeline radar system; correct?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. You do not know that these Cymbeline radar systems can be pointed
12 in different directions known as arcs; right?
13 A. Yes, I know that. I read reports compiled by UNPROFOR.
14 Q. The extent of your knowledge about Cymbeline radar systems
15 relates to the reports for the Markale II events; correct?
16 A. Yes. And statements that UNPROFOR provided in that regard.
17 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter -- it's
18 actually the same one that's up on the screen. 1D5496, page 195 of the
19 B/C/S only. I'm seeking to go to figure 139.
20 Q. Before us is figure 139 of your Markale report. You have a
21 dashed horizontal line in this figure which appears to represent the
22 floor where the radar would supposedly detect the incoming projectile at
23 548 metres; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Could you please tell us your source for the 548 metres. Where
1 did you get this figure from?
2 A. It's from the UNPROFOR report that says that this radar would
3 register every shell fired from 900 millimetres [as interpreted] and that
4 is 550 metres or so.
5 Q. Is it your claim that the UNPROFOR report -- or UNPROFOR -- the
6 ones that you reviewed, uses the figure 548 metres?
7 A. The distance is used fired from 900 metres and that distance is
8 from the firing tables, 548 metres. What is written there is that any
9 shell fired from a distance of 900 metres and more than that, it would
10 have been registered.
11 Q. I'm just asking for a real simple answer. The 548 metres is
12 not -- not contained in the UNPROFOR report. That's some other deduction
13 that you're making?
14 A. That follows from the 900 metres firing distance at which the
15 radar is set, that the radar can observe, and that's how the tables were
16 made. It's not an exact value. It's according to the tables.
17 Q. Let's see if we can get this a little different way.
18 Now, it appears that you placed a representation of the crater,
19 of the centre point, in the maximum diameter of the radar's beam. The
20 centre point, if I'm understanding that, to be at least -- to be over
21 1.000 metres above the market. What is your source for where you place
22 the centre point of the radar beam?
23 A. That's the position of the radar, as far as I understood the
24 report. It was described based on the fact that this radar beam could
25 catch all the shells from charge 1 to charge 6 as you see it sketched
1 here in this part where all these trajectories meet. Because the
2 altitudes are so high, the radar couldn't catch them if it was set up
3 further away. To catch all the shells, it had to be set at a distance
4 where it is at the crossing point of all the trajectories, as you see in
5 this picture.
6 Q. The UNPROFOR documents you cite in your report, and specifically
7 I think you have been referring to the memorandum from Colonel Powers
8 admitted as part of P797, these materials do not contain any indication
9 of the altitude of the centre point of the radar beam above the market on
10 the 28th of August. I put it to you again that you have no source for
11 the information in this graph, do you?
12 A. That's not true. The data on this graph was drawn based on the
13 fact that in the UNPROFOR report it was written that the Cymbeline radar
14 would register every shell fired from a distance of 900 metres. If you
15 take into account the specifications of that shell, it looks the way we
16 have drawn it here. It's the correct altitude and there's nothing
17 inaccurate about this.
18 Q. This schematic is not an accurate representation of what is
19 depicted; correct? And I'd -- even just to help you out with your answer
20 here, in the Karadzic case at transcript pages 38570 to -71, when
21 commenting on this, you stated:
22 "Secondly, you mistook a schematic representation for an accurate
23 depiction, because in the latter case I would have given the ordinate
24 values, and then you could have read them and interpreted the value that
25 you say -- you stated."
1 You then on went to say:
2 "This diagram does not have a scale, and it is merely an
3 illustration to help the reader understand what is being discussed, and
4 it is meant for you to read values from an ordinate which doesn't have a
6 This is correct?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, is that not exactly what figure 139 says?
8 Last line:
9 "Note that details are shown only for illustration and are not
10 true to scale."
11 MR. WEBER: I'm just confirming that this is not necessarily an
12 accurate depiction. Because she also said that "you mistook this
13 schematic representation for an accurate depiction ..."
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but it's in the report itself, isn't it.
15 MR. WEBER: Is she acknowledging that?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I take it that if she doesn't step back from
17 her report and we take that as what her position is.
18 MR. WEBER:
19 Q. Now, we also see in this chart that are you using values for M49
20 shell or Russian OF473. This is an old heavy mortar which has different
21 values in the tables than the light mortars; right?
22 A. Yes, you are right. But you know why? It's used because
23 UNPROFOR used their graphic tables for firing to explain this
24 unbelievable idea that the shell flew under the radar, and now you have a
25 problem understanding why I'm analysing something different than what
1 what was analysed by people initially. UNPROFOR did their own analysis
2 and provided that table in their report on page ... I'll find it. Let me
3 not waste your time now.
4 Q. The footprint of a 120-millimetre mortar tube - meaning -- what
5 I'm referring to is the amount of space that it occupies when being
6 deployed in the field - is about 2 square metres; correct?
7 A. You wanted to say that 2 square metres is an area where a mortar,
8 the weapon, is set? Right?
9 Q. When a 120-millimetre mortar is deployed in the field, it
10 occupies a space of about 2 square metres; right?
11 A. Let's say that you are right.
12 Q. Okay.
13 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please go to page 200 of the
14 B/C/S of this same report, 1D5496.
15 Q. This is an image that you've addressed previously and made
16 calculations about in the Karadzic case. I will, like the last time,
17 describe it as a pie slice. It is a slice of what appears to be
18 5.000 metres in length and extending from 175 to 150 degrees; correct?
19 A. You mean this line in the shape of an arch -- of an arc? 175 to
20 180. But if you meant this arc underneath which is 150 ...
21 Q. I'm talking about the total area covered by what I'm describing,
22 as it was to you the last time, as a pie slice of -- from the very top,
23 down the side, it appears to be 5.000 metres, and then if you -- the
24 total area within this slice which extends between 175 and 150 degrees.
25 Do you understand what I'm referring to? Same thing that was referred to
1 last time. You made calculations about this; do you recall?
2 A. Yes, yes.
3 Q. I'm asking you to confirm your previous calculations. The total
4 area covered in this pie slice is 5.454.153.9 square metres of which
5 4.51 million square metres of surface area falls within the control of
6 the Army of Republika Srpska; correct?
7 A. If I calculated it somewhere and you are using now my
8 calculations, then you should give me a reference. I don't know how much
9 it amounts to looking at this pie slice. I don't know whether what you
10 are saying is correct or not.
11 Q. At transcript page 38595 of the Karadzic case you stated:
12 "The latter figure, 5454" -- I'll just start again.
13 "... 5454153.9. This is the entire circular piece. However,
14 from that piece, another piece should be subtracted which was under the
15 BH control which is 872.664, so that in fact you did provide the exact
16 figure in your first calculation," which was 4.51 million.
17 Do you stand by these numbers?
18 A. Million what? Metres?
19 Q. Million square metres.
20 A. Square metres.
21 Q. Correct.
22 A. If I calculated it that way last time, then, yes, that's it's way
23 it is.
24 Q. If you have any reason to think that that's not the calculation,
25 if you could please let us know in the morning, that would be great.
1 You did not inspect this entire area during your two-day visit in
2 2010; right?
3 A. Well, we inspected all parts of that area that were possible to
4 inspect, and we provided the results. And we stated that we found only
5 one place where it was possible to set up a mortar and it's in the
6 direction of 186.
7 Q. When you say "186," are you saying 186 degrees?
8 A. 176. I said azimuth 176, 176.
9 Q. Okay. Let's see how far I get. I want to move on to your
10 modified air bomb report.
11 MR. WEBER: Unless Your Honours have any other questions.
12 JUDGE ORIE: No. Please move on.
13 MR. WEBER:
14 Q. I want to move on to your modified air bomb report and start with
15 a few simple questions for the remainder of today.
16 First, an air bomb is not shaped like a round ball. It is larger
17 towards the front and then it becomes more narrow towards the end of the
18 bomb; right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Based on the shape of an air bomb, its weight is distributed more
21 towards the front or the top of the bomb; right?
22 A. The centre of the mass, yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, could you check the previous answer.
24 MR. WEBER:
25 Q. Ma'am, the transcript records you in response to my last
1 question --
2 JUDGE ORIE: It has been corrected, I think.
3 MR. WEBER: Okay. Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. Air bombs are designed to be dropped from the air and land at a
5 near vertical angle; correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Air bombs are unguided projectiles; right?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. 100-kilogram and 250-kilogram air bombs are highly destructive;
11 A. Yes. One carries 49 kilos of explosive and the other one around
13 Q. A significant portion of your modified air bomb report appears to
14 be spent trying to create some criticism of Berko Zecevic over some sort
15 of difference between the blast effects of fuel air bombs and TNT-filled
16 air bombs, even at times where I could not find Mr. Zecevic making the
17 conclusions you state.
18 The fact is that the blast effects of fuel air bombs are not in
19 any way different from the effects on targets of aircraft bombs filled
20 with TNT or other solid explosives; right?
21 A. It is absolutely incorrect. I'm very sorry that I have to answer
22 like this, but these are two completely different effects along two
23 completely different principles, two completely different explosives with
24 diametrically opposite effects at the place where they are activated and
25 where the effects of their action occur. We described that in detail.
1 I'm very surprised that you couldn't find it because we referenced
2 everything to Zecevic's report.
3 And the basic difference is - I really have to say this - TNT is
4 a highly explosive projectile, that's its purpose. And bombs with
5 different explosives are very different, with completely different
6 characteristics, and their purpose is, of course, different. Depending
7 on the extra pressure in the explosion with a spreading explosion, as
8 opposed to TNT, which is solid, every aspect of their action is
9 different, so I don't see where you found this similarity.
10 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33190,
11 page 90 of the English and page 82 of the B/C/S.
12 Q. Coming up will be the expert report of your -- one of your
13 co-authors, Ms. Andjelkovic Lukic. And I'm focusing on section 6.79.
14 In the previous sections, Ms. Andjelkovic Lukic in her report is
15 discussing the effects of fuel air bombs. And then in section 6.79,
16 entitled "Effects on target," she states:
17 "These are not in any way different from the effects on targets
18 of aircraft bombs filled with TNT or other solid explosives ..."
19 This is where I'm getting it from.
20 Do you accept your author's -- your co-author's statement?
21 A. She said that at the analysed place what she sees is in no way
22 different from the FAB-100 bomb filled with TNT. And that's true. She
23 analysed a specific place and said that this impact is no different from
24 the effects of the FAB-100 bomb filled with TNT. But it's not true that
25 she said that it's in no way different from the effects of a dispersion
1 bomb. Please, let's not mix apples and oranges. She analysed a specific
2 location and said it's no different from the FAB-100 bomb filled with
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, could the witness tell us exactly where
5 it is clear that in paragraph 6.79 - because that's what we're looking
6 at - where it is found that she considered here not the effects on target
7 in general terms, but, rather, only in relation to a certain incident or
8 certain situation.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it's clearly written.
10 "Effects on target: These are not in any way different from the
11 effects on targets of aircraft bombs filled with TNT or other solid
12 explosives and they are also not linked to the established" --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slow down.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, please, if you read, you have the -- you --
15 you speed up in -- so could you please slowly re-start reading. Perhaps
16 from -- no, if you just read from the beginning, that's ...
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 6.79, "Effects on target":
18 "These are not in any way different from the effects on targets
19 of aircraft bombs filled with TNT or other solid explosives, and they are
20 also not linked to the established documentary evidence by means of a
21 relevant evidentiary procedure. Figure 8 (page 00378670) is a photograph
22 of a modified FAB-100 aircraft bomb, which did not explode at the target,
23 and the question is why this bomb was not used to identify the type of
24 explosive used. There is no information at all in the documents under
25 consideration as to what was done with that bomb and whether it was
1 tested, except for the [sic] photograph of it which is shown in a couple
2 of places in these documents (point 5.20 of this analysis)."
3 So she analysed the effects in a certain place and said that they
4 are no different from the effects of a --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could I stop you there. Where is it said or where
6 do we find that she is not talking in general terms but that she analyses
7 a specific situation? I don't see it in 6.79 but perhaps it's somewhere
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We don't have the complete previous
10 part of what our co-author wrote, but there is this sentence that clearly
11 says: "The effects on target are no different from the effects of
12 FAB-100 filled with TNT or any other explosive." And from that, it
13 follows that she analysed the effects in a certain place and concluded
14 that these were the effects of a bomb FAB-100 filled with TNT. On the
15 basis of which one can certainly not make the conclusion that was made by
16 the Prosecutor when he asked me that question.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I've heard your answer.
18 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
19 MR. WEBER:
20 Q. FAB-100s and FAB-250s -- I'll back up one.
21 Air bombs can free-fall or they can use a retarder system,
22 meaning a parachute; correct?
23 A. Yes, these solutions exist.
24 Q. FAB-100s and FAB-250s come in both versions, free-fall and
25 retarded; right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Air bombs were designed and tested for air-to-surface delivery
3 and not surface-to-surface delivery; correct?
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. Let's talk about the rockets. The air bombs were modified by
6 attaching rockets; correct?
7 A. Yes, correct.
8 Q. Different numbers or amounts of rockets were attached depending
9 on the configurations of one rocket, three rockets, and four rockets;
11 A. The numbers of rocket motors FAB, but as for types, we found only
12 one. From all that I've studied so far, they did not find any other
13 rocket motor except Grad, G-r-a-d.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The first acronym in
15 this answer was also Grad, not FAB.
16 MR. WEBER:
17 Q. In your --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --
19 MR. WEBER: If I could just finish with the --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
21 MR. WEBER:
22 Q. In your past testimony, at transcript page 38479, you were asked
23 at line 19:
24 "Q. We'll move on now to the characteristics of rockets. Now, I
25 believe it is common ground that the air bombs were attached to different
1 numbers of rockets depending on the configurations. And you have
2 accepted that the air bombs were attached to rockets in configurations of
3 one rocket, three rockets, and four rockets. Is that right?"
4 Your answer was:
5 "Yes, I analysed those types."
6 Do you stand by that evidence? Excuse me, that testimony.
7 A. Yes. Yes, certainly. I stand by it. I just have to correct.
8 It's not about different motors that were mounted on it. Those were only
9 Grad motors.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I think there was nothing in the question which
11 suggested that the motors were any different. It was just about the
12 number of motors, and you answered the question by saying "the number of
13 rocket motors, but as for type," so you moved away from what was asked.
14 We'll adjourn for the day. We'd like to see you back tomorrow
15 morning. I give you the same instructions as I did before. You know
16 them by heart now, I take it, that you should not speak or communicate in
17 whatever way with whomever about your testimony. And you may now follow
18 the usher.
19 [The witness stands down]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, where are we in terms of time?
21 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, we did have a very productive
22 conversation with counsel last week and I bring this up because it
23 appears that we're going to be agreeable in terms of admitting
24 investigative materials related to outstanding things. So with that in
25 mind, I think I will finish within a less amount of time than counsel
1 used on direct examination.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Less is perhaps beautiful, but how much less?
3 MR. WEBER: I would have to look at the -- it will be around the
4 same amount of time. I see based on what my current estimate is, is that
5 I still have possibly close to two hours left so ...
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So most likely you will finish in the first
7 two sessions of tomorrow morning. That's two hours.
8 MR. WEBER: If --
9 JUDGE ORIE: If we don't intervene too much.
10 MR. WEBER: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: That's understood.
12 MR. LUKIC: We never object to any time our colleagues ask for
13 their examination -- we never object to any extension of time.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but the Chamber has some concerns. We are --
15 MR. LUKIC: Yes, it's in your hands now.
16 JUDGE ORIE: As we said yesterday, we are the guardians of
17 expeditious proceedings, and that counts for both parties, and that it
18 means inclusive the Prosecution.
19 We adjourn for the day, and we resume tomorrow, Wednesday, the
20 7th of October, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.19 p.m.,
22 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 7th day of
23 October, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.