1 Thursday, 8 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 the
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 We move briefly into private session.
12 [Private session]
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
20 Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Ms. Subotic.
23 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I again remind you, hopefully for the last time,
25 that you are still bound by the solemn declaration you have given at the
1 beginning of your testimony. And Mr. Lukic will now continue his
3 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
4 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 WITNESS: ZORICA SUBOTIC [Resumed]
6 [Witness answered through interpretation]
7 Re-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]
8 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Ms. Subotic.
9 A. Good morning.
10 MR. LUKIC: I would try to find things moving faster, and I would
11 like to have two documents on our screens at the same time. If possible,
12 I would like to have 1D05544 on the left-hand side of the screen. It's
13 the picture. And 1D01405 on the right-hand side of the screen. It's a
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Which page of the transcript?
16 MR. LUKIC: From the transcript, we need page 35, please, in the
17 e-court, and that should correspond to transcript page number 7846. We
18 need the last line on this page and then we'll move on to the next page.
19 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, we talked about this yesterday, you
20 remember, the incident in the Klare Cetkin Street. That's G-6.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You were present when Mr. Sabljica marked this photograph. I
23 will now read out what happened at that trial session, line 25 on this
25 [In English] "Thank you. Can you now please tell us whether this
1 measuring band was placed in the way that you would place the band to
2 indicate the major axis?
3 "A. Yes, but we did mark all the traces and based on the
4 photograph it is my assumption that this could be indicating the
5 direction from which the projectile had come in."
6 Line 10 and further now:
7 "The Accused: [Interpretation] Could the witness just please
8 mark -- could he just mark the outer-most pockmarks, the fragment traces,
9 and then we can go back to the photograph. So can he just sort of put a
10 circle around the farthest marks.
11 "The Witness: [Interpretation] Well, that's what we can see in
12 the photo at least.
13 "Mr. Karadzic: [Interpretation]
14 "Q. Thank you.
15 "The Accused: [Interpretation] Could the witness now please sign
16 this document.
17 "Judge Kwon: Just for reference, could you circle the
18 power-plant just to be clear."
19 And then we should move to another page, the next one. Line 3:
20 "A. Oh, I see. Here, T for 'toplana,' heating plant.
21 "Judge Kwon: If you could put the date, your signature, and then
22 we will admit it as Exhibit D755."
23 [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, do we see on this photograph what
24 Mr. Sabljica marked?
25 A. Yes, we do.
1 Q. When the discussion was about the measuring tape, where is it on
2 this photograph?
3 A. It's in the middle of this imprint that the shell made.
4 MR. LUKIC: We would tender this picture into evidence,
5 Your Honour.
6 MR. WEBER: No objection, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
8 THE REGISTRAR: The document 1D5544 receives Exhibit Number
9 D1279, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Can we have 10570 on our screens. The problem with this document
14 is I think that one version is in English and the other one is in French.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is that a --
16 MR. LUKIC: There is no B/C/S --
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- 65 ter number?
18 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. There is no B/C/S version.
19 [Interpretation] So it's 22nd January 1994. This is
20 Captain Verdy's report, the UNPROFOR report, dated 22nd January 1994.
21 Can we now see page 2 in English.
22 Q. What did Verdy find? From how many weapons was fire opened?
23 A. From one weapon.
24 Q. Did you agree with Verdy on this?
25 A. Yes. That's the same finding we put in our report. That's what
1 all the investigation pointed to.
2 Q. Is there anything in this report that you didn't agree with?
3 A. Well, based on the traces left by the shell on the asphalt, we
4 concluded that we [as interpreted] confused the azimuths with the points
5 of the incident in Klare Cetkin Street. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been
6 able to write what he did.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Just -- the transcript now reads that "we confused
8 the azimuth," but I take it that it is "he confused the azimuth with the
9 points of the incident." Is that -- yes, I see the witness is nodding in
10 the affirmative.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. Can we have 65 ter 29137, please.
13 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, before we move on to a different
14 exhibit, if counsel could just check whether the last one, the Verdy
15 report, I believe it's already admitted as D178.
16 MR. LUKIC: I was trying this morning. I couldn't find if it
17 is --
18 MR. WEBER: With a B/C/S translation.
19 MR. LUKIC: D sorry?
20 JUDGE ORIE: D178, I did --
21 MR. LUKIC: 178 ...
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- hear you say.
23 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. Is it? It is. We have just checked it
24 is. Thank you.
25 Now if we can move to 29137, 65 ter number, please. This is
1 statement Borislav Stankov gave to the OTP in 1995. And we will need the
2 next page in both versions, please.
3 I'm trying to locate in English version, it's the second
4 paragraph from this last line in B/C/S.
5 JUDGE ORIE: What we see is the --
6 MR. LUKIC: Maybe --
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- the B/C/S reference to the Vase Miskina, 27th of
8 May, appears in the English on the top of the page.
9 MR. LUKIC: It's the previous page. No, in English previous
10 page. Maybe it's uploaded wrongly, or can we try with a third page?
11 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I can see by the --
12 JUDGE ORIE: It's a two-page document in e-court, Mr. Lukic --
13 MR. LUKIC: In -- in English --
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- so the order couldn't be the problem, but the
15 completeness of course is --
16 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I see just by the ERN range that there
17 is multiple pages missing from the uploaded part.
18 MR. LUKIC: Okay. I'll read one portion we want to address only.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could you -- would you have the -- for us the -- the
20 65 -- any 65 ter number so that at least we have an opportunity to at
21 least look at it for ourselves.
22 MR. LUKIC: 29137.
23 JUDGE ORIE: 2913 -- oh, yes, but if it's uploaded incompletely
24 then that doesn't help.
25 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
1 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
2 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Stankov says here:
3 "When we determined the directions of these two shells, we found
4 the crossing point at Nedzarici. That's an area under control of the
5 aggressor, 500 or 600 metres from the spot. The first shell came from
6 the west, the second shell, 82-millimetres, came from north-west
7 (original unclear)."
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lukic, in my -- my impression is that we
9 didn't have the B/C/S version on the screen with respect to what you
10 read. Where can we find it? Then we should go to the next page in
11 English. It must show up there as well.
12 MR. LUKIC: We tried. There is only two pages in English.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Okay. Thank you.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Ms. Subotic, did Mr. Stankov determine the origin of fire in the
16 same way as you did?
17 A. Yes, he did. Using the same method.
18 Q. In that case, how many mortars were there according to him?
19 A. According to him as well, there was one mortar.
20 Q. In what way did you differ from Mr. Stankov?
21 A. Well, we differed in the individual origins of fire of these
22 shells and the type of shells.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I'm a bit lost here. First of all, could
24 you lay a foundation for -- because what -- from what you read, I'm not
25 saying that it's not in the document, which we can't verify it, from what
1 you read it doesn't say anything about how the origin of fire was
2 determined. So could you please check with the witness. It only says
3 that it was determined, not how it was determined, so we do not know what
4 the knowledge -- on what the knowledge of this witness is based, that's
6 Second, I'm also a bit puzzled by the fact that you just read
7 about a first shell and a second shell and then -- oh, that's how many
8 mortars, yes. I withdraw that last observation. But could you please
9 inquire with the witness what's the basis of her knowledge.
10 And if Mr. Weber has anything to add.
11 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, in addition to the points that you just
12 observed, I have been able to catch up and locate, in the English version
13 at least, for us to read along. And I see that Mr. Lukic picked up in a
14 mid-part of a sentence which actually includes some context about the two
15 shells that are being discussed in the part then referred to by
16 Mr. Lukic.
17 So I ask just that if counsel is reading in the information, that
18 he reads the full sentence or information related to it.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. WEBER: Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, normally we would leave that to the other
22 party to deal with it later, but if you have not provided us with the
23 English version of the portion you read, you are hereby invited to follow
24 the suggestion by Mr. Weber.
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. I read the full sentence. There are
1 sentences before that, of course, and I was interested merely in how many
2 mortars and which method was --
3 JUDGE ORIE: The problem is how many mortars.
4 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Do you mean tubes or do you mean shells?
6 MR. LUKIC: Tubes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mortar --
8 MR. LUKIC: Tubes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Tubes, yes, okay. That wasn't entirely clear right
10 from the beginning.
11 MR. LUKIC: And I can clarify that with the witness, Your Honour,
12 where can we see it --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, where would you like, for context,
14 Mr. Lukic to read?
15 MR. WEBER: At least in the English it appears to be punctuated
16 as one sentence. But it starts with:
17 "I wrote down direction of the Institute of the Blind because the
18 82 ..."
19 I don't know if counsel sees that.
20 MR. LUKIC: Yeah.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. LUKIC: Do you want me to read that?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. "I wrote down that the direction was the Institute for the Blind
3 because two 82-millimetre shells landed on both ends of a long building
4 with 100 to 150 metres between them. When we determined the direction of
5 these two shells, we found the crossing point at Nedzarici. That's an
6 area under the control of the aggressor, 500 to 600 metres from the site.
7 The first shell came from the west, the second 82-millimetre shell came
8 from north-west (original unclear)."
9 From which part --
10 MR. WEBER: Your Honours --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
12 MR. WEBER: I just have a -- does it say "north of west" or
14 MR. LUKIC: It says "north-west." And in brackets it says the
15 original is not clear. So if you have English version.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Ms. Subotic, where do we see here that these two shells were
19 fired from one tube?
20 A. From this passage in the text where the witness says that after
21 determining two directions of descent of the shells, he found they
22 crossed at one point, and that tells us that both shells were fired from
23 one tube, from one mortar. And according to his findings, that was by
24 the Institute for the Blind.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see on the screens
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, would you please, during the break, take
4 care that you find or agree that we have a full picture of this paragraph
5 of which you read some parts. Because I see reference is made to
6 120-millimetre as well, so there must have been more than just 82. You
7 can't fire 120-millimetre mortar shells from 82 tubes, so therefore it's
8 a bit confusing for us being unable to read the whole of the paragraph.
9 So if you please take care of that, then you may proceed now.
10 Unless Mr. Weber has a good reason to stop you from proceeding.
11 MR. WEBER: If it would expedite things, this individual is the
12 individual who authored one of the reports, and I see from the portion
13 that you may not have in front of you that he's discussing his report in
14 the matter. So to the extent that this information may overlap with the
15 actual report before the Chamber, that -- that I believe is what the
16 witness is commenting on.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let's move on.
18 Mr. Lukic.
19 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
20 Q. [Interpretation] What we have before us is a compilation. This
21 is something we did over the last few days. This is a combination of
22 figure 30 from 1D05948 and -- that's your paper on mortars, and page 10
23 from P00644.
24 You were asked about co-ordinates. The co-ordinates that were
25 entered, that Captain Houdet marked in his report. We overlapped the
1 meridians, and that can be seen easily on meridian 90, so it's easy to
3 This is what I would like to ask you now: The scale of the map,
4 this map, or any map, does it affect the position of co-ordinates on a
6 A. No. Co-ordinates are one and the same, irrespective of the scale
7 of the map, and they are the ones provided by Captain Houdet.
8 MR. LUKIC: I would just offer this document into evidence,
9 Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, no objections?
11 MR. WEBER: No objection.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D5927 receives Exhibit Number D1280,
14 Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
16 Mr. Lukic, it was my understanding that the issue was that there
17 were two different systems of grid scales there, not about the scale. So
18 therefore, I fail to see what it brings us. But it goes without saying
19 that if there is a grid scale on a map, if you enlarge it or if you zoom
20 in, then of course you zoom in the grid scale as well. The issue was the
21 grid scales are not same on the map you plotted compared to what was
22 plotted contemporaneously. That was the issue. So therefore -- well,
23 Mr. Weber didn't object, but it doesn't address the gist of the issue.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Ms. Subotic, if measuring systems are changed from mils or 6.000,
1 6.400, 360 degrees, would these differences affect determining the wrong
2 co-ordinates on this map?
3 A. No.
4 JUDGE ORIE: That also is not the issue. But if you want to
5 continue on matters which are not what was -- then please, if you want to
6 use your time in that way --
7 MR. WEBER: And, Your Honour, just to add on, it's getting a
8 little leading at times too, and so ...
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But apart from that, Mr. Lukic --
10 MR. LUKIC: I'll move on.
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- the Chamber would be assisted by properly
12 addressing in re-examination matters that were raised as problematic in
13 cross-examination. Please proceed.
14 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
15 Q. [Interpretation] Now I'd like to ask you something about incident
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] What we need on our screens is a
18 document of the command of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, 33202.
19 Q. We see that this is the document. Have you found this in your
20 paper? The Prosecution said that this document is related to the
21 incident in Cane Babovic Street on the 12th of July. Further down you
22 can see the order: Urgently at 600 hours on the 13th of July, 1993, at
23 the latest, continue Operation Lukavica 1993 as per tasks received.
24 Further on: Liberate the Trnovo-Kijevo-Sarajevo road as per
25 priority in order to provide units with necessary materiel.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we please scroll down in the English.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Meanwhile I put on the record that this document has
3 been admitted as P7556. Please proceed.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Trnovo-Kijevo-Sarajevo, that road, does it have anything to do
6 with Dobrinja? Do you know that?
7 A. As far as I know, no, it has nothing to do with Dobrinja. As far
8 as I can remember.
9 Q. Now I'd like to ask you briefly about incident G-9. This is
10 page 146 in B/C/S and 150 in English, your paper on mortar attacks in
12 My colleague Mr. Weber put a few things to you there as well, and
13 he said that you did not correctly describe the testimony of
14 Mr. Ekrem Suljevic. That part is on 155 of the B/C/S version and 160 in
15 English. And you said in your paper the witness, Ekrem Suljevic, did not
16 explicitly state why in these photographs the damage on the walls had not
17 been marked or circled.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could you give the 65 ter number? Because
19 Madam Registrar doesn't know what the paper on mortar attacks is.
20 MR. LUKIC: It's 1D05498.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
22 Please proceed.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And at the same moment, I would like to correct
24 the transcript. Page 14, line 25, the number should be P7556. Thank
1 MR. LUKIC: Now if we go to page 155 in B/C/S and 160 in English,
2 so we need 155 in B/C/S. We have -- it's second paragraph on this page
3 in both versions.
4 Q. [Interpretation] You say that Ekrem Suljevic did not explicitly
5 state why in these photographs the damage on the walls was not marked.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have 65 ter 33156. That
7 is the testimony of Mr. Suljevic in the Karadzic case on the 6th of
8 September, 2010.
9 Q. On page 1 of this document, line 21 onwards. [In English] I
11 "How do you explain that there are some markings on the shutter,
12 most probably marked by chalk, whereas we see now no damages inflicted by
13 fragments on the wall?
14 "A. I wouldn't dare claim that, based on this photograph. If we
15 were to examine it more carefully, we may be able to find some damages
16 but" - then we move to the next page - "they aren't marked. But the
17 narrative under the photograph says that the purpose of this photograph
18 was to show the damage done to the metal shutter."
19 [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, when you were there on the spot,
20 were there any -- was there any damage on the scene -- on the wall that
21 could indicate that it had been caused by explosions?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Speaking of the same incident, my colleague Mr. Weber also put to
24 you that you did not properly convey what Witness W-12 said, namely,
25 whether there were two explosions or just one explosion, the one that he
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
3 MR. WEBER: Sorry to interrupt, but if counsel is moving away
4 from the -- Mr. Suljevic, it's just not clear. I -- I would be inferring
5 that she's not referring to the photograph or Mr. Suljevic's testimony in
6 her answer, but it's not clear to me. It should be referring to what she
7 saw when she visited.
8 MR. LUKIC: No, no --
9 JUDGE ORIE: That's -- that's the impression I gained as well,
10 but perhaps you could clarify.
11 MR. LUKIC: What -- I just wanted to emphasize that even
12 Mr. Suljevic said it may be able, "we may be able," and it's not
13 explicit. That's what we wanted to say. And Mr. Weber said that it's
14 not correct and that he explicitly said that they were.
15 MR. WEBER: Judge, that really wasn't just the point of my
16 comment. It was just -- to explain why he was doing it. It was just to
17 clarify for the record what the witness was referring to, whether she was
18 referring to the photograph or her own observation.
19 MR. LUKIC: Okay. I can -- I can try to clarify with Ms. Subotic
20 this as well.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but let's then start right away with what
22 Mr. Weber put to the witness exactly, and then to see where in her
23 report, because that's what we are talking about, she reflected that
24 accurately. Because its seems that the response to your question was
25 what she found on the spot, which of course is not the same as what she
1 wrote in her report. That's apparently the issue at stake. If you could
2 clarify that, that would be appreciated. But I leave it in your hands
3 whether you wish to do that, yes or no, Mr. Lukic.
4 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. [Interpretation] So, Ms. Subotic, what was your understanding of
6 this? Would you change something now, now that you've seen all of this
7 and what we read out today? Did Mr. Suljevic explicitly say something
8 about the damage or not?
9 A. Well, he did not say anything explicitly about the damage. And
10 it is based on photographs from the photo documentation. We checked
11 that. The situation is the same as it was in the photo documentation;
12 that is to say, there are no traces. And we saw what he said exactly.
13 And I believe that he did not say anything explicit about the traces on
14 the wall, if any.
15 Q. Thank you. So I'm going to go back to this again. My colleague
16 Mr. Weber also put it to you that you did not properly convey the
17 testimony of Witness W-12 in terms of whether there were two explosions
18 or just one explosion, the one that he heard. You speak about that in
19 paragraph 95 of this report of yours.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] 1D05498. Let us take a look at this.
21 We'll have it on our screens. We need paragraph 95.
22 [In English] It's a big report, so probably it takes some time to
23 upload. Now we have. And now we will -- in B/C/S version we need page
24 146, and then we will move to 147 later. And in English version, we need
25 page 151. And if we can have B/C/S version on the left-hand side as
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That is the English.
3 MR. LUKIC: We have two English versions. Yes. That's paragraph
4 95. Then we move to the next page in B/C/S, please, to page 147. Now,
5 we have two B/C/S. Okay. I'll move on. We don't have time for this.
6 Q. [Interpretation] In your report in paragraph 95, you said that
7 Witness W-12 could not confirm that he heard the firing and the other
8 explosion, the second explosion.
9 A. Yes, that's right.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could Mr. Lukic please
11 slow down and repeat the number.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could you --
13 MR. LUKIC: Yes, I will. Sorry.
14 Q. [Interpretation] So my colleague Mr. Weber put it to you on
15 transcript page, in our trial, 39718, line 6. This is what we'd like to
16 read out now.
17 "Q. First of all -- you are going on, but that's not what I
18 said. And I would put it to you, actually, that we -- W-12 heard two
19 shots. I don't want to engage in a long debate with you about it. We
20 have his statement in the investigative file where the witness indicates
21 two firings."
22 [Interpretation] So first of all, let us look at what Mr. Weber
23 put to you. The statement that Mr. Weber spoke of, it is in the
24 document, and we need it on our screen.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] D01259. [In English] Not to be
1 broadcast, sorry.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
3 MR. WEBER: I see it's been taken care of. Sorry.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Ms. Subotic, we are not going to mention any names. The name of
6 this man, that is. Thank you. We have the document on our screen now.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Page 11 in B/C/S, and in the English
8 version page 7. The B/C/S version is barely legible.
9 Q. This is not a statement. This is an official report, an
10 Official Note. And the witness who is mentioned here did not accept this
11 Official Note as his own, so I'm showing this to you just so that you'd
12 know what I'm talking about.
13 Now, let us take a look and see what the witness said.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
15 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, it would be appreciated if counsel
16 could just proceed to questions if there is information --
17 MR. LUKIC: No, this was --
18 MR. WEBER: -- as opposed to informing the witness of such --
19 MR. LUKIC: -- misstatement of the evidence on the -- Mr. Weber's
20 side. I'm surprised that he is insisting on this. This is not a
21 statement and it's not signed.
22 JUDGE ORIE: It's a piece of evidence before this Chamber.
23 MR. LUKIC: Yes, it is, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: That means evidence --
25 MR. LUKIC: So you should know what this is, not what Mr. Weber
1 said it was -- it is.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you can ask the witness whether she knows
3 better, but you shouldn't testify yourself.
4 MR. LUKIC: It says on the document.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then ask the witness what she reads in the document,
6 Mr. Lukic. Please proceed.
7 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
8 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, please use the English version as
9 well because the B/C/S version is barely legible. In your view, is this
10 a statement?
11 A. What is written here is "Official Note." That much I can read
12 from this document that is totally unclear and illegible.
13 Q. All right. Can you see who signed it? Was it signed by the
14 person that supposedly signed this because that person's name is written
16 A. I would say no.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I'm afraid, Mr. Lukic, that we are entering the area
18 of what the legal meaning of all this is. And then we are easily
19 confused by the evidentiary value of an Official Note in the system in
20 which such a note was prepared or what that means for being in evidence
21 before this Chamber. I would not expect the witness to know anything
22 about it, but if you think it is, then please lay a basis for it.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 [Interpretation] Now we need the document on our screens 1D05 --
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before we move to another document --
2 MR. LUKIC: Yes, sure.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- you asked this witness about the signature,
4 and you should clarify. She said: "I would say no," to your question
5 was it signed by the person whose name --
6 MR. LUKIC: It's hard because I cannot mention the names.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, whose name appears in the document, at least
8 in the English version. The witness said she supposed that this is not
9 the signature of that person. I think you should clarify it further,
10 what is the basis for this impression by the witness?
11 JUDGE ORIE: And I think it would certainly help if you clearly
12 referred to what person you are referring to, the person providing the
13 information or the person who has drafted the Official Note. Apparently
14 you are not -- you are not clear in that respect if you talk about a
15 person. So if you want to clarify it, please do so but in clear
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Ms. Subotic, what is marked on the document, can you see that?
19 A. In B/C/S, I cannot -- sorry, sorry, I thought that you had
21 Q. The person to whom these words are ascribed, these words in this
22 Official Note, is mentioned as someone, at least in the English version
23 that is legible, as someone who signed this statement?
24 A. That's just what I wanted to say. On the basis of the English
25 version, the person that is mentioned is not referred to as the signatory
1 of this statement.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any dispute about this? There is no
3 dispute about it, Mr. Lukic. I don't know what you are doing. These
4 questions that it's signed not by the person who gave the information is
5 not in dispute.
6 MR. LUKIC: What is in dispute? I didn't understand it properly.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then -- let's -- you try to find out. This is
8 not in dispute.
9 Please proceed.
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Never mind. 1D05730. Could we see
11 that on our screens.
12 We have a transcript before us of the testimony of Witness W-12
13 on the 2nd of March, 2007, in the case against Dragomir Milosevic. In
14 this transcript, we need page 32 in e-court, and it should correspond to
15 the transcript page 3077 from the Dragomir Milosevic case.
16 Q. From line 16 on this page, we can read out the following, what
17 this witness said, under oath, during a trial before this Tribunal.
18 [In English] I quote:
19 "Q. I would like to ask the witness this: Who gave you the idea
20 of there having been a second round, the other round being fired?
21 "A. Nobody gave me the idea. We heard this over the radio that
22 people had been injured. By the time I got home, one of my neighbours
23 said, Two shells have landed on Bascarsija. People have been killed and
24 wounded, and that's where the two shells come in. I myself don't
25 remember there being two shells. I know about the one that came from
1 Trebevic. Now, as to Vidikovac and that sort of thing, it was probably
2 from somewhere around there and it landed at Bascarsija."
3 [Interpretation] Is this the statement that you had in mind when
4 you wrote your report?
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now in addition to this, could we
7 please have two documents again on our screens. And it's different
8 documents from the one that we have on our screens now. One is 1D05731.
9 This is like photograph 90 from your paper. And parallelly, I would like
10 to have another document on our screens.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Lukic please repeat the number of
12 that document. Thank you.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] 1D05729.
14 Q. This witness marked the map when he testified on 1st March 2007
15 before this Tribunal, also in the Dragomir Milosevic case. You
16 referenced it in your footnote 381 about mortar shells -- shell attacks
17 in Sarajevo.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In this document on the left, in the
19 transcript, we need page 78 in e-court.
20 In fact, we can move on straight to page 79. It should
21 correspond to page 3037 in the transcript, line 3:
22 [In English] "Q. Thank you very much. I see that the map is now
23 on the screen. Witness, do you see the map on the screen?
24 "A. I do."
25 Mr. Cannata now tries to zoom in. And line 8, I quote:
1 "... at the time of the shelling incident, you stated that you
2 heard a sound of a shell when you were on your way to the front line; is
3 that correct?
4 "A. Yes. It was in the area of Brajkovac.
5 "Q. Very well. Would you be able to mark, with the electronic
6 pen that Mr. Usher will kindly provide you with, the area that you just
7 indicated on the map. And if you need it to be zoomed, just tell us.
8 "A. Yes, this is where Brajkovac is.
9 "Q. Can you put a small A, a letter A, within that circle.
10 "A. [Marks]"
11 Now we have to go the next page. Line 16. Where you --
12 "Q. Very well. Did you see where these shells landed? Where
13 did it impact?
14 "A. No, I did not. The weather was bad. But we assessed that
15 it was the old part or the old quarter of Bascarsija.
16 "Q. Can you mark this -- this quarter on the map in front of
17 you, as you did with the circle. Can you circle that area.
18 "A. [Marks].
19 "Q. Can you put a letter B within the circle.
20 "A. [Marks]"
21 And then we need the next page, line 10:
22 "Q. Would you be able to locate on the map the location which
23 corresponds to the direction of the sound you heard that day? In other
24 words, what you think is the place where the shell was fired. Can you
25 mark it.
1 "A. Yes, I can. It's the Vidikovac area.
2 "Q. Can you put a letter C within the circle you have just
4 "A. Yes.
5 "Q. Thank you."
6 And if we go three pages ahead, we need transcript page 3042.
7 And we see that from line 13 to line 22, this witness was marking his
8 brigade, 115. And he marked it with the letters 115 -- with numbers 115
9 and letter B.
10 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, we've seen that you referenced this
11 photograph and the testimony of this witness. At the very end when
12 you've reviewed everything, how did you understand his evidence, that he
13 heard one or two explosions?
14 A. Well, at the end of the day I understood that he heard one
15 explosion and that's what he said. In fact, he heard one firing and one
16 explosion. That's how I understood him and that's how we treated his
17 evidence in our report after all this analysis.
18 MR. LUKIC: I know it's break time and I will stop now. I will
19 just offer this photograph into evidence.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, before we take that break, you stopped
21 reading somewhere where I saw on the next line that the witness was
22 talking about shells in the plural rather than in the singular.
23 MR. LUKIC: Can you -- can you --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, as a matter of fact, it moved immediately
25 away, but I'm seeking perhaps your or Mr. Weber's assistance in finding
1 the spots where the witness was apparently talking about shells. But
2 again, I had no opportunity to read it, but it was just following a
3 portion you did read. And therefore, I'd -- I would be assisted if you
4 would take care of that.
5 Meanwhile, we will decide on admission of this document as ...
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: I wait for the parties to give context and -- but
8 for the time being, is there any objection against the map at the time
9 marked by the witness to be admitted into evidence?
10 If not, Madam Registrar.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D5731 receives Exhibit Number D1281,
12 Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Is admitted into evidence.
14 Witness, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes. You may follow
15 the usher.
16 We resume at 11.00.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 --- Recess taken at 10.41 a.m.
19 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
21 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Your Honours, we checked the transcript of W-12, and we found no
23 mentioning in plural of mines or shells by him, only by the lawyer who
24 posed the question on page 3038, line 16.
25 [The witness takes the stand]
1 MR. LUKIC: He posed the question in a plural way, but then
2 corrected himself and put it in a singular. And the next one is on 3041,
3 line 7, also singular.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's one of the problems if you have to
5 follow it very quickly. I appreciate your assistance. If Mr. Weber
6 disagrees, then we'll hear from him. And whatever he needs for context,
7 of course, Mr. Weber, you can apply for adding that.
8 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, on page 39772 of the transcript in
11 our case, Mr. Weber asked you if you had ever used the Cymbeline radar.
12 [In English] I will actually read so we know I don't miss anything.
13 So in line 9, it starts with a question, I quote:
14 "Q. You have never operated a Cymbeline radar system; correct?
15 "A. That's correct.
16 "Q. You do not know that these Cymbeline radar systems can be
17 pointed in different directions known as arcs; right?
18 "A. Yes, I know that. I read reports compiled by UNPROFOR."
19 [Interpretation] Now I'll show you one document to see where the
20 Cymbeline radar was directed on 28th August 1995 at the time of the
21 Markale incident at the market.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need 65 ter 05703.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know what questions will follow, Mr. Lukic,
24 but of course it's usually not that you -- if the witness can clarify any
25 matter which is in there, that's fine, but of course not to establish
1 what it was or was not.
2 MR. WEBER: And is this document in the witness's report? If I
3 could have that section.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic. You could ask the witness --
5 MR. LUKIC: I don't need this document, so obviously either the
6 number is wrong or I misspoke. Give me one second. That's the number I
7 have with me.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you could first ask the witness whether --
9 MR. LUKIC: It's 1D -- sorry. Now I can see. It's 65 ter number
10 1D05703, please.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, do you have any knowledge as to where the
12 Cymbeline radar was directed on the 28th of August, 1995, at the time of
13 the Markale incident? We are talking about Markale II. Do you know
14 anything about that?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, of course. And we cited it in
16 our report.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you'll forgive me for not having all the
18 footnotes on the top of my head or to remember all of the thousand pages
19 by heart.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
23 MR. WEBER: Still if counsel could direct me if this document is
24 referred to, just so I can follow.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And that we can see what was cited.
1 MR. LUKIC: I can see it's in -- that it's footnote 477 in
2 Markale --
3 JUDGE ORIE: In the Markale report.
4 MR. LUKIC: -- report, yes. It's 1D05496. Page 196 in B/C/S
5 version. But we have another document, different document in front of
6 us, and I will deal with that document. We need --
7 JUDGE ORIE: And is that document referenced in the --
8 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: This document we're looking at --
10 MR. LUKIC: This document.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, fine. Please proceed.
12 MR. LUKIC: And it's on 127, page 127 in English version.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We have before us the statement that
15 Mr. Bleakley gave to the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal.
16 We need in B/C/S page 12 and in English page 10. In B/C/S we
17 need the second paragraph from the bottom, and in English the fourth
18 paragraph from the bottom.
19 Q. It says:
20 "The tables give you the height with different charges. We
21 combined this information with the ceiling of the Cymbeline radar. I
22 think that we came to the conclusion it could have been two gunpowder
23 charges. The radar was looking at that part of the city.
24 "The second charge would have cut the beam. We then went to the
25 Cymbeline radar. Warrant Officer 2nd Class Andy Harries was the Warrant
1 Officer in charge. He took me to the back of the radar. I went with
2 Powers. He showed me the arc on the map that the radar was looking at.
3 At 170 degrees or 240 degrees a shell would have cut the beam -
4 Gunner Rooney was the operator in the back of a vehicle. He was glued to
5 the screen. This was within two hours of the impact. He was at the
6 airport looking east. He had to have a high elevation for some reason --
7 terrain? But he said nothing had broken the beam."
8 So you told us that you cited this, but did you take into account
9 this fact stated by Warrant Officer Bleakley -- by Major Bleakley?
10 A. Yes, our analysis are consistent with what he stated here.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I thought I heard a fact, but are you talking about
12 facts or -- because there are a lot of facts in that statement.
13 Mr. Weber.
14 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I did -- I appreciate that I did ask
15 some general questions about Cymbeline, but then I think I -- if I recall
16 my examination correctly, I went very specifically to a chart that was in
17 her -- a photo and the origin of that information. That was kind of the
18 point of the cross-examination. I believe Your Honour even admonished me
19 about it, me calling into question that it's not to scale and where it
20 said it.
21 I'm not sure that this is in the report. I read the exact text
22 that was just read out. At this time, really, I don't think -- after all
23 these hours, re-examination should be -- just be used to -- when I ask a
24 basic question or two to establish the personal knowledge or lack thereof
25 of a witness, as a basis to then launch into further evidence that should
1 have been led on direct.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
3 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, exactly. That's why I read -- read
4 portion. I didn't change anything, but I read the portion from the --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. LUKIC: -- transcript.
7 JUDGE ORIE: But that's --
8 MR. LUKIC: But Mr. Weber said about the -- he was discussing
9 directions in which this radar can be --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Can be.
11 MR. LUKIC: -- pointed.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Can be. The difference is that Mr. Weber dealt with
13 the matter in more general way, whereas you're focusing now on a specific
14 thing. But I wouldn't stop you there at this very moment, but please
15 keep in mind the limited time we have.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
18 Q. [Interpretation] You said your report agrees with this. Will you
19 tell us what exactly in your report is consistent with this observation?
20 A. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the first part of the question.
21 Q. You said you agreed with these statements of Major Bleakley and
22 that they conform to what you found. Could you just tell us what exactly
23 in your report is corroborated by this statement by Major Bleakley?
24 A. It's this part that relates to the determination that the second
25 charge would cut the Cymbeline beam and all the others, of course.
1 Although he didn't deal with that. So he said the second charge would
2 cut the beam. That's the same conclusion that we came to, whereas the
3 first charge would go under the beam.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one question.
5 Witness, Mr. Lukic read to you:
6 "He was at the airport looking east. He had to have a high
7 elevation for some reason - terrain? But he said nothing had broken the
9 Could you tell us what does that mean: "He had to have a high
10 elevation for some reason"? What does that mean in this context?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He obviously had to set up the
12 radar in such a position so as to have it cover the critical parts of the
13 trajectory, and the radar had to be in such a place so as to cross all
14 the six trajectories with its beam. That's a position that he had to
15 ensure in order to be sure that he would catch everything.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Now, what should have been and what was may not
17 necessarily be the same. What was the -- how was the beam in vertical --
18 in vertical direction, how was that -- how was it? Do you know? Because
19 I do understand that if you have a system, you can move to the left, you
20 can move to the right, you can move a little bit up, you can move a
21 little bit down. Do you know how this Cymbeline radar at that moment was
22 installed or -- do you know it?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's written in the statement with
24 just the red; that's to say, at 170 or 240 degrees, a shell would cut the
25 beam, said the gunner. Those are the azimuths that were investigated.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But high and low. I mean, I do understand
2 these are compass bearings. But do you know whether -- what the ceiling
3 exactly was, how it was at that moment installed?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's stated here that a second
5 charge would certainly cut the beam.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That was not my question. I mean, whether or
7 not it would have cut the beam depends on how it was -- the beam was
8 directed, vertically and horizontally. Would you agree with that?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I certainly agree with this, but we
10 are just reading a statement that says how the beam was directed. And it
11 says that azimuths 170 to 240 would certainly cut the beam and all the
12 charges from 2 upwards would also certainly cut the beam. There is no
13 reason to discuss technical possibilities and options when we have a
14 specific statement saying how it was actually directed.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we don't have such a statement. We have a
16 conclusion by someone who may have known how it was directed. He said on
17 a charge 2 it would have cut the beam. That's a conclusion. That's not
18 exactly -- we don't know on what exact given information that conclusion
19 is drawn. Would you agree with that?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I assume that they took information
21 from the area where they were and then they came to a conclusion on that
22 basis and on the basis of the firing tables. Otherwise, we practically
23 do not have any conclusions, exact technical ones, anywhere in this
24 entire case.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's still to be seen.
1 But, Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we -- are you done with this document?
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes, I am, Your Honour. If you have --
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to go to the last page. I don't see
5 any signature or affirmation. On the first page it was said that this
6 was a draft, which was not signed. I just state that for the record.
7 You may proceed.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
9 MR. LUKIC: I think that we will be able to locate the signature,
10 so if you have anything else.
11 But -- I'll continue in B/C/S.
12 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, did you see anywhere in any
13 UNPROFOR report that it was recorded that this beam had been cut in any
14 other report?
15 A. No. All reports made attempts to see how the shell went
16 underneath the radar beam.
17 Q. Thank you. You were asked about incident G-10. That's the one
18 in Aleksa Santica Street number 50. It's air bombs. The 1st of July,
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] 1D5497, page 47 of the B/C/S version
21 and page 46 in the English version. Incident G-10.
22 Q. In your report, were you contesting the fall of an air bomb there
23 in Aleksa Santica 50?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Did you contest that that bomb had arrived from the Serb
2 A. No.
3 Q. It is the size that was being contested. That is what my
4 colleague Mr. Weber had put to you.
5 A. Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, you're on your feet.
7 MR. WEBER: I just -- we might be confusing two instances here.
8 G-10, I believe, has a different date, not the 1st of July, 1995, at a
9 different address than Aleksa Santica number 50. So I think that we're
10 conflating some incidents in questions.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could you check, Mr. Lukic, whether --
12 MR. LUKIC: We have it marked as incident G-10. And it's -- it's
13 dealt with in this report on modified air bombs at page 138 in B/C/S.
14 MR. WEBER: G-10 is on the 7th of April, 1995. I see the report
15 discusses that date clearly, and I believe that the questions now have
16 confined of conflated different things that I asked related to --
17 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
18 MR. WEBER: -- two separate incidents on two different dates.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you would say you are talking about another
20 G-10 than Mr. Lukic is doing at this moment.
21 MR. WEBER: I think the cases talked about a different G-10 than
22 what Mr. Lukic is talking about.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please keep that in mind.
24 MR. LUKIC: Okay. Thank you. Let's then disregard G-10. I am
25 talking about incident in Aleksa Santica number 50 from 1st of July,
1 1995, and all my questions were posed to Ms. Subotic in relation to that
2 incident, and I think that she answered in relation to that incident.
3 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, were your answers pertaining to
4 Aleksa Santica?
5 A. Yes, and that's the conversation I had yesterday with the
7 Q. It's the size of the bomb that is being challenged that was
8 established. So how did you establish the size of the bomb?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
10 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, my questioning related to the size,
11 whether it was a 250- and a 100-kilogramme air bomb went to incident G-10
12 on the 7th of April, 1995. We are now talking about a different incident
13 on the 1st of July, 1995, where my questions went to the report that she
14 cited and the injuries and woundings, I believe.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
16 MR. LUKIC: Obviously I confused matters.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed --
18 MR. LUKIC: I apologise.
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- without further confusion.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: And, Mr. Lukic, if it does help, I see on the
21 English version of what's on our screen that the first paragraphs says:
22 "At approximately 0850 hours on 7 April 1995" --
23 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: It doesn't talk about the 1st of July.
25 MR. LUKIC: No, it's not -- it's not the same.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
2 MR. LUKIC: I apologise.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. So why -- why did you just deal with the incident in Aleksa
6 Santica and not the incident in Bunicki Potok?
7 A. The incident in Aleksa Santica was dealt with in the document
8 that our colleague Mr. Zecevic dealt with, and that is why we dealt with
9 it. In Aleksa Santica 50, there wasn't a single bomb that exploded there
10 and there were no casualties, no injured persons.
11 Q. What happened in Aleksa Santica?
12 A. In Aleksa Santica an air bomb hit the corner of the house and,
13 therefore, part of that corner was broken. Then it hit the yard next to
14 the house. It went through the soil, and its rocket motors fell off and
15 were there. Then it got out of the soil. And then about 150 metres
16 away, it ended up in Bunicki Potok.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] For the record, there is an
18 adjudicated fact in the third decision of the 13th of April, 2012, number
19 2855. And with regard to this incident in Aleksa Santica 50 and the
20 incident in Bunicki Potok, they are referred to as two different
21 incidents, that is.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. This is what I'd like to ask you now. I'd like to go back to
25 mortars. Yesterday, Judge Orie asked you something about your work,
1 1D05498. Specifically --
2 MR. WEBER: Sorry --
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. -- photograph 43 --
5 MR. WEBER: Just to clarify, just so it's clear on the record.
6 Is counsel saying that that was all on the 1st [Realtime transcript read
7 in error "16th"] of July, 1995, what was just discussed?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Is that the context of your question that what you
9 asked the witness about happened on the 1st of July, I take it?
10 MR. LUKIC: 1st of July or 16th of July?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now I see.
12 MR. LUKIC: 1st of July. I can ask the witness. I think it
13 is --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Well, what you -- what your questions are, of
15 course, is for yourself to --
16 MR. LUKIC: Only the size --
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- determine.
18 MR. LUKIC: -- of the bomb is not, of course, in connection with
19 this incident.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And everything deals with events which
21 happened on the 1st of July --
22 MR. LUKIC: The rest of it, yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
24 MR. LUKIC: Both. Aleksa Santica number 50 incident --
25 JUDGE ORIE: I said the 1st of July. I now read for the second
1 time where I hear "1st of July" I see on the transcript 16th of July.
2 Could you please again confirm that --
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- we were talking about events on --
5 MR. LUKIC: On the 1st of July.
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- 1st of July. Okay. That's clear now.
7 Please proceed.
8 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Specifically, Judge Orie asked you about
10 photograph 43.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. That's the incident in the street Spasenije Cane Babovic. We can
13 summarise that these questions boil down to the angle in terms of the
14 firing point of this shell. And then 52a was moved on to.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Any question for the witness, Mr. Lukic?
16 MR. LUKIC: Yes, I'm just waiting for -- we need one, maybe to
17 have English version, one of these -- of this picture, one picture on our
18 screen in English.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Which picture? Let me see.
20 MR. LUKIC: Actually figure 52a. In B/C/S it says "picture" but
21 it's figure 52a.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is that what you were looking for?
24 MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated] Yes, yes, Your Honour.
25 Just one. And then you can have only figure. And now if we can --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for Mr. Lukic.
2 MR. LUKIC: And now if we can enlarge bottom right-hand corner of
3 the picture. So lower quarter of the picture on the right-hand side.
4 Thanks. Thank you. Excellent.
5 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, it can be seen but just barely.
6 Could you first mark for us, with the assistance of the usher, that angle
7 of descent of the shell if the shell arrived from 352 degrees, that
8 direction. North. A bit towards the west. Can you place a line there?
9 Say to the end of this picture on the top?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, perhaps to make clear what I did
11 yesterday, I verified with the witness whether the conclusions she drew
12 on the basis of what she marked on that photograph were accurate, yes or
13 no. Whether that was the situation, yes or no, is a totally different
14 matter. I didn't ask any questions about that.
15 And, I mean, to plot 352 on the map is -- well, we could do it
16 ourselves without any problem.
17 MR. LUKIC: But I have a reason, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then I'll wait what now comes up, but please
19 be aware that I did not in any way touch upon the accuracy either of the
20 yellow line in 43 or anything else. I just checked whether what the
21 witness told us what the consequences of what she found was that it was
22 east of north, whether that was correct, yes or no. I didn't touch upon
23 anything else.
24 Mr. Weber.
25 MR. WEBER: Maybe it goes without saying, just based on the line,
1 but I presume it's -- it's implicit in counsel's questions that these
2 would be approximations.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course, it's better be than -- on paper
4 rather than -- I mean, it's just west of north. Let's please proceed.
5 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
6 Can we have green colour on the pen if possible.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, on this excerpt from the map can
8 you show the separation line? Can you see it?
9 A. Well, it's marked in green. And perhaps it can be seen better in
10 my photograph than this screen, but --
11 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, could counsel please lay a foundation
12 for how the witness knows in July 1993 how the confrontation lines
13 existed before marking?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
15 MR. WEBER: I don't believe the witness has been called as a
16 military expert.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Ms. Subotic, on page 96 in B/C/S of your report, that's
19 paragraph 61, this is what is written there: On the map, the separation
20 lines are marked in green. Figure 52a.
21 So who marked this line and where did you get this information?
22 A. This is from the report by Richard Higgs.
23 Q. Thank you. Can you now mark the following on this map, if you
24 can see it, on the screen: The separation line --
25 A. I see it better on my map.
1 Q. Or if you could try --
2 A. I'll try -- well, yes. Fine. I got this other ... I think that
3 would be it. I'm trying to copy it from my map where it's very clear.
4 Q. And now can you -- can you just put VRS on one side of the line
5 and ABH on the other side?
6 A. [Marks]
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We would like to tender this sketch
9 that was marked by Ms. Subotic in relation to this question.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
11 THE REGISTRAR: The marked picture of the document 1D05498
12 receives Exhibit Number D1282, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence. And I put on the record
14 that marking has been done both in blue and in green; blue in
15 handwriting, because the original blue plottings were already on the map.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
18 [Interpretation] P7564, please. Could we have that on our
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise. The line that is
21 7 degrees in relation to north is also blue and we added it today.
22 JUDGE ORIE: That's what I put on the record already.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, in relation to these firing tables
1 you were asked certain things yesterday. Since not everything has been
2 translated, I'm going to show you page 15 in the B/C/S version. And we
3 will bear in mind that there is no English translation, so everything
4 that we will be saying will require explanation.
5 This is the firing table for M-21-OF. Yesterday we heard what
6 it's called colloquially. What's the colloquial name?
7 A. Grad. And I see that in this table it says "Vihor."
8 Q. If we look at column 6, at the very top it says: "Probable
10 A. Yes.
11 MR. WEBER: Just --
12 JUDGE ORIE: The witness told us that in the table it says
13 "Vihor," but I'd like to know what that means or is it just Vihor? And
14 where to find it.
15 Where do you read "Vihor" and what does "Vihor" mean, Witness?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To the best of my recollection, the
17 creation translation of these tables is "Vihor," not "Grad."
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Therefore, if you would wait for a question
19 and not starting commenting on the matter -- on matters. We apparently
20 do not see "Vihor," we do not know what it means. Just answer the
21 questions, then.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated]
23 JUDGE ORIE: All fine. But it's not what you asked, isn't it?
24 MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
1 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I was just going to state for the
2 record that this wasn't the same page that I showed to the witness.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. It's a different page but let's --
4 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, let's move on.
6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
7 Q. [Interpretation] So column 6: "Probable deviation in terms of
8 length." And let's look at line 6 from the bottom in this column.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What is the dispersion?
11 A. 78 metres.
12 Q. And --
13 MR. WEBER: Your Honours --
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. -- for which --
16 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, I do not see any numbered columns or
17 do I --
18 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, we have to calculate them, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then please say what --
20 MR. LUKIC: Sixth row, sixth column.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Sixth column --
22 MR. LUKIC: Sixth column.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- with the -- let me just check.
24 MR. LUKIC: "Po daljini," yes. Excellent.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we know what we are talking about, we
1 are talking about the "Po daljini," and we have to look at -- you said
2 the sixth row is the row --
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes --
4 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
5 MR. LUKIC: In the first one we see 20.000, number 20.000 in that
6 row. Sixth row from the bottom.
7 JUDGE ORIE: From the bottom, yes. That's the row dealing with
8 20.000 --
9 MR. LUKIC: Yes. And for that column we have title on top that
10 says "Daljina."
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. You would like to ask a question about
12 that --
13 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, just so we have a clear record when
14 we're going through it. If counsel could introduce the range that we are
15 discussing so it does define the row, so he's done it now that we are
16 discussing an entry relating to the range of if a Grad rocket was fired
17 at 20.000, at a distance of 20.000 metres from target.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's 20 kilometres.
19 MR. LUKIC: Yeah.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
21 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just add, it would help us if you can
23 also give us the English equivalents of the various headings and the
24 various words that you are talking about. Then we know what you're
25 talking about.
1 For instance, I may be able to pronounce "Po daljini," but I
2 don't know what it means.
3 JUDGE ORIE: If you briefly will read that into the record so
4 that we receive interpretation.
5 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
6 First line -- first row, "Daljina." Then --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: First column.
8 MR. LUKIC: Column, sorry. First column, "Daljina."
9 JUDGE ORIE: And "Daljina" means?
10 MR. LUKIC: "Daljina" means "distance."
11 JUDGE ORIE: Distance, yes.
12 MR. LUKIC: Then second and third column, it says "Daljinar."
13 JUDGE ORIE: Which means?
14 THE INTERPRETER: Range finder.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ranger finder. And that's the two systems --
16 MR. LUKIC: Yes --
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- the mils, the thousands, or the 1 to 6.000 or the
18 1 to 6.400.
19 MR. LUKIC: 400. It is too small for me.
20 The next column says "Pomak daljine." [B/C/S spoken].
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Since we don't receive English interpretation for
22 these words, it doesn't help.
23 MR. LUKIC: I expected that you should receive -- that I should
24 read and you should --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could I exceptionally invite the interpreters to --
1 if Mr. Lukic is reading the headings of these columns to receive them in
2 English from the booth. And I think we are now at the fourth column
3 which starts with -- and you perhaps read it slowly, Mr. Lukic --
4 perhaps, zoom in it slightly so that Mr. Lukic's eyes can cope with it.
5 "Pomak daljine," that's -- could you read that, Mr. Lukic.
6 MR. LUKIC: Yes. [Interpretation] Shift in distance in relation
7 to the shift in angle of elevation by one-thousandth.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could you read the following column.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Magnitude of the first line.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We are not certain about
11 this term.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. LUKIC: Me neither.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then the next one?
15 MR. LUKIC: And then we have: [Interpretation] Probable
16 deviation in terms of distance, in terms of direction.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I think now we can --
18 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- go back to the entire picture. Yes, please. And
20 we go now to the sixth row from the bottom, which starts with 20.000.
21 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. --
23 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
24 Q. [Interpretation] My question to you, Ms. Subotic, you've read to
25 us the value, but I would like to ask you: Is the dispersion of a shell
1 in flight higher or lower at the beginning of the trajectory than at the
2 end of the trajectory? Can you explain?
3 A. Such systems have high dispersions at small distances. At
4 maximum ranges -- in fact, the greater the distance, the smaller the
5 dispersion, as I tried to explain yesterday. This is dispersion at
6 maximum range, and it's 78 in distance and 142 in range. So 6.000 in 20,
7 that's less than one-third of maximum range. That's what we looked at
8 yesterday during cross-examination.
9 Q. How about the results you got for modified air bombs? They
10 seemed rather incredible to my colleague Mr. Weber. He said even do you
11 expect anyone to believe you when you quoted the results.
12 A. Yes, they appeared incredible to him. But I still expect because
13 the maximum range of --
14 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness slow down with the numbers.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, Witness, Witness, whenever you give
16 numbers, could you please slow down and could you resume.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll repeat. I apologise.
18 So the maximum range of FAB-100 is 9.842, and FAB-250 with four
19 motors is 8.603. So we took into consideration dispersions at estimated
20 two-third of maximum range for the FAB, and we compared it to a
21 completely different situation with Grad where the range -- the spectrum
22 is completely different. So we had results for two-thirds of maximum
23 range, and in Grad we see that at maximum range it's good. It's just the
24 kind of system that it is.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask the witness the following. You said the
1 maximum range of FAB-100 is 9.842. Where is that to be found?
2 THE WITNESS: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And the same question for the FAB-250.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the tables.
5 JUDGE ORIE: The tables from the early 1990s or the tables that
6 were produced after the war?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have tables that were made after
8 the war, and they relate to a launcher from 1994. They were made for a
9 launcher carrying M94, that's the name of the model. That's what it says
10 in the tables.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Since you emphasized this, the fact that they were
12 launched from the same launcher doesn't mean that the -- that what you
13 put on that launcher would have similar characteristics as the unknown
14 characteristics of what was put on them in the early 1990s. Would you
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot agree because I've seen
17 both tables and numerically they don't differ.
18 JUDGE ORIE: You mean the tables of the early 1990s and the
19 tables produced after 2000, and your recollection allows you to say that
20 the numerical details are the same?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it's not based on my memory but
22 the data that I have.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But I think we didn't have the tables anymore
24 from the early 1990s.
25 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, we don't have the tables period.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, perhaps the witness says that the tables
2 are still in existence. But we don't have them. At least not the ones
3 from the early --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- 1990s.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, if I could be directed where -- these
8 were very precise figures that -- where are these in the report?
9 JUDGE ORIE: I asked the witness and she's given her answer as
10 she --
11 MR. WEBER: In her report. Not in some other extrinsic document
12 that we don't --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Did you refer to those numbers in your
14 report? I don't remember, as a matter of fact.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, you don't remember
16 because we didn't cite these numbers because we didn't need to use them.
17 I'm telling you this now because it's being compared with this.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So the simple answer is no.
19 MR. WEBER: Your Honour --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
21 MR. WEBER: Well, we're getting irrelevant [overlapping
22 speakers] --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber --
24 MR. WEBER: -- on re-examination without any disclosure of it or
25 information about it in a report. I mean, this is not the way that
1 evidence should be led, and the witness is now coming up with very
2 precise numbers.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I think she wasn't asked about those numbers. I
4 mean, she came spontaneously up with them, and therefore what I can do is
5 I can guide Mr. Lukic. I cannot guide the witness in what answers to
7 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
8 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Regarding these tables while we're on them,
10 could you advise us how to get hold of them when you finish your
11 testimony? Or do you think that an official request for assistance must
12 be made to a state? Do you think it will be a problem?
13 A. I think there will be no problem. You just ask the Defence
14 Ministry and you will get them with the explanation that you provide. I
15 see that all the tables are there, all that exist.
16 JUDGE ORIE: This is not a subject for examination. You have had
17 an opportunity for a long time to discuss the matter with the witness.
18 You could have advised you to do it, you could have asked the Chamber's
19 assistance in the matter. Let's not spend our time in re-examination on
20 how you get your materials.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I am sorry for deviating
23 from the topic.
24 Q. [Interpretation] Now we are talking about air bombs. I have only
25 two more questions and then I'll finish to leave enough time to my
1 learned friend and the Court, because they asked for some time.
2 This has to do with your colleague Mirjana Andjelkovic Lukic and
3 the reference made to her at the very beginning. Air bombs, were they
4 made or did they arrive from the depot already ready-made?
5 A. They came from the depot. Why would they be made on the spot if
6 they had been manufactured and delivered?
7 Q. Therefore, should the report about these bombs cross the desk of
8 Mirjana Andjelkovic Lukic?
9 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear the answer.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat your answer.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that both bombs were already
12 in serial production and were on sale, and that's not something that
13 would have gone for special testing or verification to DOC.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please answer the question.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Should the reports about these bombs have crossed the desk of
17 Mirjana Andjelkovic Lukic?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Ms. Subotic, thank you very much for answering our questions and
20 dedicating so much of your time to us.
21 A. You're welcome.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Lukic. We'll take a break first.
23 Mr. Weber.
24 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I don't think I'll have more than
25 15 minutes. Just so --
1 JUDGE ORIE: That's --
2 MR. WEBER: I thought I might have more, but I don't.
3 JUDGE ORIE: That must be a relief for Ms. Subotic.
4 We'll take a break. You may follow the usher. We would like to
5 see you back in 20 minutes from now.
6 [The witness stands down]
7 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at 25 minutes past midday.
8 --- Recess taken at 12.02 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 12.27 p.m.
10 JUDGE ORIE: We briefly move to private session.
11 [Private session]
15 [Open session]
16 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, you may proceed.
20 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours.
21 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Weber:
22 Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Subotic.
23 A. Good afternoon.
24 Q. At transcript page 39862, you discussed how you resolved issues
25 of perspective in photographs. You were asked:
1 "Q. All right. Problems of perspective because you used
2 photographs from police files."
3 Your answer:
4 "The problem of perspective is one that we practically did not
5 have to resolve by special methods. Where it was necessary to resolve
6 it, we used programmes and we carried out many analyses on the spot, and
7 then we compiled photo documentation about that. So ..."
8 When you say "we used programmes" to resolve issues in
9 perspective where it was necessary, what kind of computer programmes did
10 you use?
11 A. I meant specifically the resolving of the problem in the
12 Vase Miskina Street, putting the photograph in an orthogonal position.
13 It's a very standard programme. The name escapes me at the moment, but
14 it's a standard programme. That's how he put the photograph in the
15 orthogonal projection. I believe we did that. We covered it in the
17 Q. Okay. So I understand that occasion and that being a reference
18 when you say "he" to Mr. Poparic. Could you tell us what percentage of
19 the photographs in your reports did you apply this programme to?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Could you give us a percentage in terms of the number of
22 photographs in your reports that you applied this programme to?
23 A. It was that one photograph that was put through that programme,
24 and I don't know how many it is compared to the total number of
25 photographs but it's far more than 1 per cent.
1 Q. So there are other images in your reports in which you applied
2 this similar type of programme to?
3 A. I'm sorry. I don't understand the question. I told you that
4 it's that one photograph. And in that case, there are two photographs
5 for that incident. That's what I remember at the moment. And these two
6 photographs were put through that programme: One in order to be put in
7 the orthogonal position to enable precise measurement; and the second one
8 was used without any additional intervention using that programme. It
9 was just rotated. Both are for the Vase Miskina incident.
10 Q. Are you then saying that you did not apply any computer programme
11 to any other images to resolve perspective aside the one that we
12 discussed for Vase Miskina?
13 A. No, unless you mean the Klare Cetkin Street number 3 where a
14 programme was used to determine the place, time, and the azimuth of the
15 sun at the moment when Barry Hogan was filming. But that's not an
16 intervention of the photograph. That's just determining the exact
17 azimuth of the sun when the filming was done.
18 Q. I don't want to waste a huge amount of time on this but just a
19 simple answer: Did Mr. Poparic or yourself adjust the angle in a
20 computer programme or the perspective in a computer programme on any
21 other photos aside from the Vase Miskina one that we looked at?
22 A. I don't think so. But if you have an example, please remind me.
23 Q. Yesterday at transcript pages 39856 to -62, you were shown a
24 120-millimetre mortar table from 1982, and you discussed the screwing of
25 the primary charge into the stabiliser. Did you review this entire table
1 before providing your answers yesterday, or were you just commenting on
2 the specific information that your attention was drawn to?
3 A. I commented on specific information to which my attention was
4 drawn to, but I didn't speak about screwing because that model does not
5 have any threads and is not screwed in, but it's simply pressed in.
6 Q. Is it your view that the information related to the screwing or
7 non-screwing of the primary charge only applies to an M49 mortar shell,
8 which was, as we saw, one of the many kinds of shells referred to in the
9 table shown to you?
10 A. M79? You mean M49.
11 Q. Yes. I don't know how it was translated, but I meant the
12 screwing of the primary charge into the stabiliser, is it your view that
13 it only applies to M49?
14 A. I don't think so. I believe that in the illuminating or a smoke
15 projectile, the charge is also pressed in, not screwed in. But I would
16 have to look at the tables.
17 Q. At transcript page 39564 to -65, when I initially showed you a
18 firing table for a 120-millimetre light mortar, you stated:
19 "These are old tables that envisaged that possibility; that is to
20 say, for the base powder charge not to be in the stabiliser already.
21 However, for decades now, people haven't been doing it that way."
22 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have P7548 for the
24 Q. These are the tables that I showed you previously. Do you see
25 that they are in fact from three years later than the ones you commented
1 upon from 1982?
2 A. Yes. That's not in dispute. But turn the page and see what's
3 written on page 1. It says that the tables are identical numerically to
4 those from 1992. They just don't contain the shells that are out of use
5 in the JNA. And in this table, you don't find the shell M49. That's
6 page 3, if you look.
7 Q. I see where you're going. Page -- I think that was referenced in
8 the other one.
9 MR. WEBER: If we could see the next page in this one.
10 Q. You agree with me that these tables apply to an M62 shell;
12 A. Yes, yes.
13 Q. And on this page we see no reference to M49 shell; correct?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. So --
16 A. But on the page before, you will see written what I've just said.
17 Q. So we see that this ERN ends in 4542. Could we have the next
18 page, and you referred to page 3. We see that the next page actually is
19 4543, and it is the -- there is no more of the index.
20 So I put it to you that -- actually that I do not see information
21 listing the -- I'm even checking another page here. I do not see
22 information that this applies to the M49 shell. Can you -- we'll check
23 it, but you see that the index only includes -- includes reference to the
24 certain types of shells and that did not include the M49; right?
25 A. No. And that's what I just said. It seems the interpretation
1 you get is wrong. I said in the tables from year 1985, the text says
2 that they are identical numerically and in language to the tables from
3 81. Only those shells and ammunition that are no longer in use are
4 missing from the 85 table, and that's why you won't find there M49.
5 That's what I said. I don't understand why you understood the contrary.
6 Q. Well, I don't know, then, if you answered my question directly.
7 All I want to know and what seems clear from these tables is that they
8 don't apply to an M49 shell, and you seem to be offering some additional
9 different information about the similarity of language that was carried
10 over from a previous table. That's what you're doing; right?
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: One clarification. I would like to be shown where
12 that similarity is referred to in this?
13 MR. WEBER: I don't know where the witness is referring to,
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sort of asking her.
16 MR. WEBER: Okay.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] -- these rules are they
18 compared to the 1981 rules?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yesterday I looked in electronic
20 form at 1985 firing tables, and that's where I saw the --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm -- we are looking at what is on the screen
22 now. I'm asking you to guide me on what is on the screen, please. Not
23 what was referred to yesterday.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the screen at this moment there
25 is no such language. I don't know what's on the next page. But this was
1 an edition of the administration of artillery in Belgrade, what I looked
3 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe it's actually page 4.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we go to page 4, please.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It's this language.
6 MR. WEBER:
7 Q. Okay. So you agree that this table absents any descriptive or
8 information or numerical data for heavy shells such as an M49; correct?
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thanks.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
11 MR. WEBER: Okay. Now could I just please have quickly
12 65 ter 33075A for the witness. And, Your Honours, we haven't been able
13 to obtain a translation for this yet, but it is very similar, if not
14 identical, to the translation in the 75 manual.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: What's the 65 ter number?
16 MR. WEBER: 65 ter 33075A. If we could have page 2. And I don't
17 believe there is a translation for this page. If I can have that
19 Q. So in the 1985 manual we looked at paragraph 78 of the -- and if
20 we see in paragraph 78 of the -- this the 1982 manual, the one that you
21 were shown on your redirect, and it's relating, if you could confirm, to
22 the handling of shells; right? That's what title 7 is above paragraph
24 A. Yes, that is the title of paragraph 78.
25 Q. Now, I looked at this language and in comparing it, it appears to
1 be the same in many respects. The only reason I leave some room is
2 because there is not an actual translation. But I see that it does
3 indicate that shells should be handled carefully during preparation for
4 firing, and then it discusses how they should not be thrown or dropped.
5 And then similar to the other -- the later manual, if we could go on to
6 the right -- directing your attention to the right page, about four or
7 five possibly -- actually, it's the one -- seven -- seven bullet points
8 down that refers to the stabilisers. It states the same thing:
9 "Pressing the basic powder charges into the spaces in the body of
10 the stabilisers if the charges are not already" --
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Slow down, please.
12 MR. WEBER: My apologies.
13 Q. "Pressing the basic powder charges into the spaces in the body of
14 the stabilisers, if the charges are not already screwed in or
16 That's what it says there; right?
17 A. Of course that's what it says there. And nobody is challenging
19 Q. I put it to you that the older manual, just like even the more
20 updated one a few years later, applied the same provisions to -- to the
21 same -- all -- the same types of shells, not just the M49, but also the
22 M62 and the other shells that are referenced in this older manual.
24 A. Unfortunately you're not right. You misunderstood this. These
25 are models that are pressed in. It says so very nicely. And you cannot
1 press in something that is supposed to be screwed in. If that is the
2 model that was envisaged for M62 shells and others, then it would have
3 said "screw in the primary charge."
4 I said a moment ago that I think that an illuminating one has
5 this solution. However, the one that we analysed does not have this kind
6 of primary charge, and it cannot be pushed in when it's supposed to be
7 screwed in.
8 MR. WEBER: The -- I know counsel has used part of this. I'm
9 happy to have this included in the one eventually tendered by counsel.
10 If not, I'd ask that this one be marked for identification.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
12 THE REGISTRAR: The document 33075A receives Exhibit
13 Number P7567, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Marked for identification.
15 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, yesterday I communicated that there
16 were -- there is actually nine remaining exhibits that I'd like to admit
17 prior to the conclusion of the witness. I'm in a position to tender
18 these now again.
19 With respect to the Defence exhibits, unfortunately I did not get
20 the information until today and I haven't had a full opportunity to go
21 through it carefully. What I do see in it is that there is many
22 documents that we indicated that there would be no objection to.
23 However, there is also ones that we have previously communicated that we
24 would oppose, so I would need to look at that more carefully before --
25 before actually responding to that.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
2 MR. LUKIC: Yes, I also did not have time really to go through --
3 it's not too many documents. It's only nine. But I got up this morning
4 at 4.00 to finalise my questions for today, so I have -- I need the end
5 of this day to be able to respond.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You received it at five minutes past 4.00 this
7 morning, Mr. Weber, I take it. No, don't take me seriously.
8 MR. WEBER: My son might have kept me up then, but yes. No, I
9 wasn't looking at that.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then I suggest we don't need the witness for it. If
11 you tender your documents, if Mr. Lukic knows where there are any
12 objections, and then we'll deal with Mr. Lukic's documents later.
13 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I'll probably -- Mr. Lukic's documents
14 are -- it's quite a lengthy list, so I don't think that that -- it's a --
15 JUDGE ORIE: No --
16 MR. WEBER: -- a matter that can be addressed today.
17 MR. LUKIC: I don't think that Mr. Weber can make it today,
18 really. I agree with him.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If you would sit together then and see this
20 is the document, objection, yes or no, then we can deal with it quite
21 quickly and we don't have to spend much time on it. We don't need the
22 witness for it, do we?
23 MR. LUKIC: No, we don't. And I'm ready to do it tomorrow
24 because this afternoon I have to go to the Detention Unit.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 Yes, if you'll -- next week we're not sitting, so you have in, I
2 would say, seven days time for coffee and tea and --
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes, and I'm staying in The Hague. I am not leaving.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's good. Mr. Weber, you are hereby ordered
5 to stay in The Hague as well. No, no, you're leaving.
6 MR. WEBER: Well, I will communicate it by -- I will try to go
7 through it in a diligent matter in the next day and a half.
8 JUDGE ORIE: On the 19th of October we have our next session. I
9 expect the parties to have dealt with it by then.
10 MR. WEBER: Understood.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Irrespective of where they go.
12 MR. WEBER: I just -- could I -- could we then, since it's just a
13 very limited number of Prosecution outstanding documents, could we admit
14 them and then if counsel has any objection by the 19th to communicate it
15 by that date?
16 JUDGE ORIE: No, perhaps --
17 MR. WEBER: I'm just worried about the witness actually being
18 excused if there is any opposition to them, because --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, is the one -- you would say if there is any
20 objection then --
21 MR. LUKIC: But he --
22 JUDGE ORIE: I mean, it wouldn't help you anyhow because the
23 witness would leave and he would --
24 MR. WEBER: Right. So --
25 JUDGE ORIE: If Mr. Lukic would have an opportunity to revisit
1 the matter later, then the witness would be gone as well. So that
2 doesn't make any change.
3 MR. WEBER: Yes, but these are -- these are the investigative
4 files related to her report, a document from her report, and one other
5 document that we're seeking to bar table. So I just want to be -- I
6 mean, I cut my examination short as I said yesterday --
7 MR. LUKIC: But there is --
8 JUDGE ORIE: No --
9 MR. LUKIC: If there is anything critical, they can ask
10 Mr. Poparic. He was co-author of the report.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's perhaps not the entire solution,
12 Mr. Lukic. We do not sell the witnesses as couples. We take them each
13 apart seriously.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could you tell us to which documents you object so
16 that there is limited number?
17 MR. WEBER: We --
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: He's tendering.
19 MR. WEBER: I'm tendering.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. WEBER: It's the incident G-11 investigative file, which is
22 actually marked for identification right now as a Defence exhibit, D1270.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you want to retender it?
25 MR. WEBER: Yeah, could we -- could we -- could we admit it?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Admit it. It's marked for identification.
2 Any objection against that file as a whole? I mean, usually --
3 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I don't think that we will object on any
4 official file, but we really have to see it.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I think we looked at it several times or at least
6 portions of it.
7 MR. LUKIC: No, no, it was added -- a lot of pages were added by
8 the Prosecution under the same number.
9 JUDGE ORIE: No, but the whole report -- okay. Let's -- we'll --
10 MR. LUKIC: Reports that we did not have before. We just saw
11 them now. Out of 150 pages we were disclosed only four pages before --
12 or five now --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --
14 MR. LUKIC: -- so I have to go and see what it is.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: The next one would be, Mr. Weber.
17 MR. WEBER: 65 ter 33107, the G-12 investigative file. The one
18 after that would be the 65 ter 33108, the G-14 investigative materials,
19 the file. 65 ter 33109, the 16th of June, 1995, Cobanija Street file.
20 65 ter 33110, the remaining materials from the G-15 investigative file.
21 65 ter 10208, the G-17 investigative file. 65 ter 33131, which is a
22 rather brief report but there is -- due to the nature of this incident,
23 there is limited investigative material for -- related to the 28th June
24 1995 Safeta Hadzica modified air bomb impact.
25 Then there were two military documents. One I was seeking to bar
1 table which was 65 ter 24659 from 24 May 1995. And then a second
2 military document which is in -- set in footnote 80 of Ms. Subotic's
3 modified air bomb report which is 65 ter 33130. So the first military
4 document was not cited in her report, the second one is.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, on the basis of there generally being no
7 objections to these investigative contemporaneous investigative reports,
8 the Chamber will admit these documents but give you an opportunity to
9 revisit the matter by the 19th of --
10 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour --
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- October.
12 MR. LUKIC: -- I was just informed, since the checking is
13 ongoing, that we do have the problem with one -- D1270, although it's
14 D number. It's not included everything that should be included, and I
15 would --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
17 MR. LUKIC: I don't know how.
18 JUDGE ORIE: We leave that one out for the time being. We mark
19 that for identification -- no, it has been marked for identification
20 already, so we leave that.
21 And then, Mr. Weber, you can live with that?
22 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour. And if there is anything like
23 that, I'm happy to address those with Mr. Lukic.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then let's then go through them one by one.
25 Let me just check.
1 Yes, Madam Registrar. Apart from D1207, the other numbers,
3 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 33107 receives Exhibit Number P7568.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
5 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 33108 receives Exhibit Number P7569.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Document number 33109 receives Exhibit Number
9 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
10 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 33110 receives Exhibit Number P7571.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
12 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 10208 receives Exhibit Number P7572.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
14 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 33131 receives Exhibit Number P7573.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
16 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter --
17 MR. LUKIC: Just one second. I'm sorry for interrupting --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. LUKIC: -- at this very precious moment, but I think my
20 colleague said that something is for bar table, not for admitting.
21 MR. WEBER: Taking heed of the Chamber's guidance in terms of the
22 scope of the witness --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if it is directly related to the -- or closely
24 related to the testimony of the witness, then -- and Mr. Ivetic pointed
25 that out several times to us, that it's not bar tabled, it's not part of
1 a bar table motion. But if it's so closely linked to the testimony of
2 the witness, that it will be -- that admission is decided directly,
4 Therefore, we were at -- the last one you'd mentioned was -- I
5 think it was --
6 THE REGISTRAR: P7573, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I said it was admitted. That remains as it
8 is, Mr. Lukic.
9 Please proceed, Madam Registrar.
10 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 24659 receives Exhibit Number P7574.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
12 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 33130 receives Exhibit Number P7575.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
14 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, with that, I have no further questions.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you.
16 Mr. Lukic, as I said before, you have an opportunity to revisit
17 the -- and the Chamber will listen to any objections coming in not later
18 than the 19th of October.
19 Then I would have only one or two small questions for the witness
20 in relation to the minimum angle of descent of shell in front of the city
21 market-place which she provided to us.
22 Do we still have a clear copy of that that could be put on the
23 ELMO? I have one but there are a few notes on it.
24 Madam Registrar, could this be given to the usher and could it be
25 put on the ELMO. Is it visible to everyone?
1 Questioned by the Court:
2 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, the diameter of the shell you took into
3 consideration, the diameter was how many centimetres?
4 A. 6 centimetres.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Is that the diameter of the -- that's the whole of
7 A. Only that half of the diameter was taken into account that should
8 be taken so that the shell would not rub off the edge of the roof.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that's -- therefore you say --
10 A. That's the radius. Not the diameter.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The radius is 6 centimetres and I think we
12 talked about that. At least that's what I see in the transcript.
13 Now, your first calculation, you corrected it by -- you said:
14 CSB, security services centre, it would be 11.45/4.8 = 67.25. And now
15 you take into account the calibre of the shell. And your next
16 calculation is 11.45/4.76.
17 I'm puzzled by -- I'm puzzled by that because I thought you would
18 deduce 6 centimetres rather than 4 centimetres.
19 A. I do apologise. I made a mistake there.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, a lot has been said about mistakes these days.
21 Thank you very much for -- I don't see any reason to have it in
22 evidence with the mistakes which are in there. Therefore, the Chamber
23 refrains from doing anything with it at this very moment. Thank you for
24 that answer.
25 This concludes the testimony of you, Ms. Subotic. I would like
1 to thank you very much for being with us a long time, coming from a long
2 way. Distance is always important, isn't it. And for having answered
3 all the questions that were put to you, both by the parties and by the
4 Bench. And I wish you a safe return home.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: You may follow the usher.
7 [The witness withdrew]
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 MR. LUKIC: I have one --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
11 MR. LUKIC: -- one question.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. LUKIC: Procedural. You said you had approximately half an
14 hour of deliberations today?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, deliberations not, but to deal with all kind
16 of matters.
17 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: We have one urgent decision which I would like to --
19 MR. LUKIC: I see it's -- is it break time already or not?
20 JUDGE ORIE: It's almost break time. I have a very short, that
21 means 3 minutes --
22 MR. LUKIC: Okay. Why I'm asking is whether I should propose
23 that we do not start Mr. Poparic only because of five, ten minutes at the
24 end of the day.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think that's understood.
1 MR. LUKIC: That's all I wanted to raise.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I even wonder whether we can go through all of our
4 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
5 JUDGE ORIE: But let's try to -- no, Mr. Poparic is -- is not
6 expected to begin his testimony today.
7 MR. LUKIC: Okay. Thank you, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I would read one decision before the
9 break and then deal with quite a few other matters after the break.
10 The decision is a decision on the Defence motion to admit the
11 evidence of Witness GRM125 pursuant to Rule 92 bis. The Chamber will
12 deliver this decision now.
13 It's a decision on a motion filed on the 7th of September, 2015,
14 to admit the evidence of Witness GRM125 pursuant to Rule 92 bis of the
15 Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and Evidence. I add to this that a
16 tendered associated exhibit is already in evidence.
17 In its motion, the Defence submits that the witness offers
18 relevant and probative evidence in relation to the historical, political,
19 and military background of events in the municipality Kotor Varos,
20 specifically the activities of the municipality's civil protection staff
21 and its sanitation platoon, as well as refuting claims by Witness RM009
22 on these matters.
23 In its confidential response of the 21st of September, the
24 Prosecution opposes the motion. While it accepts that a small part of
25 the proffered evidence relates to the historical, political, and military
1 background of events in the municipality of Kotor Varos, it argues that
2 the majority of the statement constitutes a judgement on the credibility
3 and reliability of Witness RM009, usurping the role of the Chamber and
4 making the evidence unsuitable for admission pursuant to Rule 92 bis.
5 The Chamber recalls and refers to the applicable law in relation
6 to the admission of evidence pursuant to Rule 92 bis of the Rules as set
7 out in previous decisions.
8 The parties do not specifically dispute the relevance or
9 probative value of the tendered evidence. In relation to the
10 Prosecution's objection, the Chamber considers that the statement
11 contains numerous conclusions about Witness RM009's evidence without
12 providing a factual basis. The credibility attacks does appear to be
13 very personalised instead of focusing on factual descriptions of events.
14 Under these circumstances, pursuant to Rule 92 bis (A)(ii)(c) of
15 the Rules, the Chamber considers that it is appropriate that the
16 Prosecution be given an opportunity to test or clarify the witness's
17 candid attacks on Witness RM009.
18 For these reasons, the Chamber finds that the witness should be
19 made available for cross-examination if the Defence wants to present the
20 proffered statement as evidence. Accordingly, the Chamber denies the
21 Defence's Rule 92 bis motion and invites the Defence to indicate within
22 one week from the date of this decision whether it wishes to reinstate
23 the Rule 92 ter motion which had been filed for this witness at an
24 earlier date.
25 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.
1 We take a break. We'll resume at 25 minutes to 1.00 -- to 2.00,
2 and then deal mainly with procedural matters.
3 --- Recess taken at 1.14 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 1.37 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I will deal with a few procedural matters. I'll
6 start with delivering a few decisions.
7 The first one is a decision on a Defence motion which was filed
8 on the 31st of August, 2015, to admit the evidence Witness GRM162
9 pursuant to Rule 92 bis of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and
11 In its motion, the Defence submits, inter alia, that the witness
12 offers relevant and probative evidence in relation to military courts and
13 military judiciary investigations. According to the Defence, the
14 proffered evidence directly relates to crimes alleged in counts 1 to 8 of
15 the indictment.
16 The Defence submits that the witness's evidence relates to the
17 historical, political, and military background of events in Sarajevo and
18 is largely descriptive, therefore weighing against calling the witness
19 for cross-examination.
20 In its response of the 14th of September, the Prosecution opposes
21 the motion on two grounds. First, it submits that the tendered statement
22 is misleading as its content has been clarified and sometimes
23 contradicted by the witness's testimony in the Karadzic case. In view of
24 the nature and number of the differences between the statement and the
25 witness's Karadzic testimony, the Prosecution considers that tendering
1 additional material from the witness for contextualisation is, in this
2 instance, not a viable remedy to the one-sidedness of his statement.
3 Secondly, the Prosecution submits that the witness's tendered
4 evidence relates to a live and important issue in this case weighing in
5 favour of denying the motion. It submits that the evidence relates to
6 the military justice system which represented one way in which VRS
7 soldiers could have been punished for crimes, thus directly relating to
8 the accused's alleged command responsibility and contributions to the
9 alleged joint criminal enterprise.
10 The Chamber recalls and refers to the applicable law in relation
11 to the admission of evidence pursuant to Rule 92 bis of the Rules as set
12 out in previous decisions.
13 The parties do not specifically dispute the relevance or the
14 probative value of the tendered evidence. In relation to the objections
15 by the Prosecution, the Chamber is concerned that the Defence apparently
16 takes statements of witnesses without ensuring that any corrections or
17 clarifications made in prior examinations are included.
18 The possibility for the opposing party to add contextualisation
19 to the tendered material is one safe-guard to avoid receiving one-sided
20 evidence. However, adding portions to the contextualisation can also
21 reach a level where it is more efficient to have the witness come to
22 court as opposed to trying to understand various sources of contradicting
24 More importantly, having reviewed the submissions of the parties,
25 the Chamber considers that Witness GRM162's evidence on the military
1 justice system relates to a live and important matter in this case as the
2 military justice system's functionality is directly relevant to the means
3 available during the indictment period to, inter alia, the accused. The
4 Chamber considers this to be a factor weighing strongly against granting
5 the motion.
6 Accordingly, the Chamber finds that the witness should be made
7 available for cross-examination if the Defence wants to present the
8 witness's evidence.
9 Accordingly, the Chamber denies the Defence's motion and invites
10 the Defence to indicate within one week of this decision whether it
11 wishes to reinstate the Rule 92 ter motion which had been filed before
12 for this witness, that is, before at an earlier date. And this concludes
13 this Chamber's decision.
14 I move to my next decision, which is a decision on the admission
15 into evidence of associated exhibits tendered through Witness GRM130.
16 On the 8th of September, 2014, the Defence filed a motion
17 tendering a witness statement and 13 associated exhibits through
18 Witness GRM130 pursuant to Rule 92 ter of the Rules of Procedure and
19 Evidence. On the 12th of February of 2015, at the invitation of the
20 Chamber, the Defence filed a submission withdrawing three of the
21 13 associated exhibits. The Prosecution filed its response on the
22 26th of February, not opposing the admission of the ten remaining
24 The Chamber recalls that documents can be admitted as associated
25 exhibits if they form an inseparable and indispensable part of the
1 witness's written testimony. In order to satisfy this test, the
2 tendering party must demonstrate that the witness's statement would be
3 incomprehensible or of less probative value without the admission into
4 evidence of the associated exhibits.
5 The Chamber has discussed its interpretation of the applicable
6 case law at transcript pages 530 to 531, 5601 to -03, and in its written
7 decisions of the 23rd of July, 2012, and the 7th of February, 2013.
8 The Chamber considers that some of the documents are needed to
9 properly understand the statement and that a denial would result in the
10 statement having less probative value. The Chamber therefore finds that
11 each of these documents forms an inseparable and indispensable part of
12 the statement and admits documents bearing Rule 65 ter numbers 1D02872,
13 1D02873, 1D02894, 1D02912, and 31148 into evidence.
14 As the Prosecution is still seeking the authority of the Republic
15 of Serbia to publicly use document bearing Rule 65 ter number 1D02895,
16 the Chamber admits it provisionally under seal and will await submissions
17 from the Prosecution in this regard.
18 The Chamber finds that the four remaining documents are not
19 discussed by the witness to such an extent that they form an inseparable
20 and indispensable part of the witness's statement, and therefore denies
21 admission of documents bearing Rule 65 ter numbers 1D02635, 1D02874,
22 1D02893, and 1D03736 into evidence.
23 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to file a memorandum
24 assigning exhibit numbers to the admitted documents.
25 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.
1 I now move to delivering the Chamber's decision on the admission
2 of a military notebook marked for identification as P7321 during the
3 testimony of Branko Basara, pending, inter alia, additional submissions
4 by the Prosecution concerning the document's provenance.
5 On the 20th of May of this year, the Prosecution filed additional
6 submissions regarding P7321. The Defence did not respond.
7 During Basara's testimony, the Defence challenged the
8 authenticity of the document and raised a general objection against the
9 admission of, and I quote, "any documents received by the AID." I refer
10 to transcript page 34492.
11 The Chamber recalls that the applicable law for the admission of
12 evidence is set out in Rule 89(C) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence,
13 which allows a Chamber to admit any relevant evidence which it deems to
14 have probative value.
15 Document P7321 concerns a 72-page military notebook which was
16 provided to the Prosecution through the BiH Agency for Investigation and
17 Documentation, or AID.
18 In its 20 May submissions, the Prosecution requests that only a
19 five-page excerpt of this notebook, as put to Witness Branko Basara, is
20 admitted into evidence. This excerpt has been uploaded into e-court
21 under Rule 65 ter number 31873a. The Prosecution further provides
22 detailed submissions on how the notebook is cumulative of other evidence
23 admitted in this case.
24 The Chamber is satisfied that the excerpt bearing Rule 65 ter
25 number 31873a is relevant, inter alia, to the charges concerning the
1 municipality's component of the indictment. It is cumulative of other
2 evidence admitted in this case and has probative value within the meaning
3 of Rule 89(C) for the purposes of its admission into evidence.
4 Lastly, the Chamber considers that the document's probative value
5 is not outweighed by the need to ensure a fair trial pursuant to
6 Rule 89(D) of the Rules. In this respect, it notes that the Defence has
7 not provided information as to why the document's source, the AID, would
8 render it unreliable and, more importantly, how its unreliability is
9 reflected in the document itself.
10 For these reasons, the Chamber admits the document bearing
11 Rule 65 ter number 31873a into evidence as Exhibit P7321.
12 The Registrar is instructed to replace the B/C/S original and
13 corresponding English translation, currently uploaded in e-court under
14 P7321, with the documents uploaded under the document bearing Rule 65 ter
15 number 31873a. And this concludes the Chamber's decision on document
17 I move on, and I start with a remaining issue from the testimony
18 Dragic Gojkovic.
19 During the testimony of Dragic Gojkovic between the 10th and the
20 12th of August, 2015, D1171, D1172, and D1184 were marked for
21 identification pending communication of a revised English translation for
22 D1171, of the English translation for D1184, and of the revised B/C/S
23 original and English translation for D1172.
24 Furthermore, D1183, Gojkovic's expert report, was marked for
25 identification pending agreement between the parties on the parts of the
1 expert report to exclude.
2 On the 14th of September, the Chamber e-mailed the Defence to ask
3 for an update about these exhibits. As of today's date, the Defence has
4 not provided any update. The Chamber gives the Defence a dead-line of
5 one week from today to update the Chamber.
6 I now move to a remaining issue from the testimony of
7 Goran Krcmar. It's about D918.
8 During the testimony of Goran Krcmar, D918 was marked for
9 identification pending receipt of the English translation. On the
10 15th of April, 2015, the Defence advised the Chamber, via an e-mail, that
11 CLSS believed that the original document was actually in English and
12 therefore they suggested that the Defence contact ICMP for the original
13 English version. The Chamber understood that the Defence expected to
14 receive the document in May. The Chamber e-mailed the Defence on the
15 21st of August and the 11th of September to ask for an update, but as of
16 today's date, the Defence has not provided an update. The Chamber gives
17 the Defence a dead-line of one week from today to update the Chamber.
18 The next item is a remaining issue from the testimony of
19 Ewan Brown about P2930.
20 On the 28th of August of this year, the Prosecution informed the
21 Chamber, via e-mail, that a revised English translation of
22 Exhibit P2913 -- I said -- I think I pronounced 13, but I meant "30,"
23 that is therefore P2930, had been uploaded into e-court under doc ID
25 The first question is whether there is any objection from the
1 Defence? I take it that you need more time for that, Mr. Lukic.
2 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the English
3 translation of Exhibit P2930 with the document bearing doc ID
5 And, Mr. Lukic, you have until the 19th of October to express any
6 concerns and make any submissions in relation to this matter so then to
7 revisit it.
8 Next item is about P7532 and P7277.
9 On the 2nd of September of this year, document bearing
10 65 ter number 11377a was marked for identification as P7532 under seal.
11 On the same day, the court officer informed the Chamber via e-mail that
12 the number P7277 was reserved for this excerpt on the 30th of March.
13 This is to be found on transcript page 33855.
14 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to vacate
15 Exhibit Number P7277.
16 On the 28th of September, the Prosecution informed the Chamber
17 that the revised translation, under doc ID R103-0361a-1-BCS has been
18 uploaded into e-court.
19 Same question, Mr. Lukic, whether there is any objection to the
20 newly uploaded translation. You again have a -- until the 19th of
21 October to revisit this matter if you wish to do so. Meanwhile, we'll
23 A question to the Prosecution is whether P7532 needs to be
24 admitted under seal. Any reasons? You're all alone, Mr. Tieger. I see
25 that -- well, not all alone, you're assisted, but ...
1 MR. TIEGER: Mr. President, it appears to us that there is no
2 such reason when we look at our records.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then ...
4 MR. TIEGER: I don't know whether the Chamber raised the inquiry
5 for a particular reason that we should follow-up on and we're happy to do
6 so if that's the case --
7 JUDGE ORIE: No, it was marked for identification under seal.
8 That's the reason why. That's at least my information.
9 MR. TIEGER: Yes. And based on the nature of the document, the
10 manner in which we received it, the witness involved at the time, we
11 simply can't see a basis. It looks -- it appears to us to be a public UN
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, since the exception needs reasons and not the
14 ordinary, which is public, the Chamber hereby admits -- yes, Mr. Lukic,
15 any objections?
16 MR. LUKIC: Is this the one that I have to respond until 19th of
17 October? You gave that dead-line to me before.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. No, I think that's another one.
19 MR. LUKIC: Because the same document, 75 --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see, that it's -- the objection is to the
21 translation. Yes. But as we usually do, we decide on admission,
22 although you can revisit the translation issue. But of course --
23 MR. LUKIC: Now I understand.
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- the other question is in view of protective
25 measures and in view of admission itself whether you have any objections.
1 MR. LUKIC: No, I don't.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Not at this moment.
3 Then the Chamber hereby admits P7532 into evidence.
4 I move on to the next item, which deals with Exhibit P474.
5 On the 28th of April of this year, the Prosecution e-mailed the
6 Chamber and the Defence advising that a revised English translation of
7 Exhibit P474, which is a VRS Main Staff order dated the 6th of June,
8 1992, had been uploaded into e-court under doc ID 0362-9105-0-ET, and the
9 Defence responded the next day advising that it did not object to the
10 translation being replaced.
11 The Chamber therefore hereby instructs the Registry to replace
12 the old translation of Exhibit P474 with the new one of which I just read
13 out the doc ID.
14 I move on to my next item, similar in kind, about Exhibit P4005.
15 On the 12th of May of this year, the Prosecution e-mailed the
16 Chamber and the Defence advising that there was an error in the e-court
17 upload of Exhibit P4005, a Prijedor municipal assembly decision dated the
18 31st of August, 1992, in that the second page was missing. A corrected
19 version of Exhibit P4005 was uploaded under doc ID 0190-4149-ET.
20 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the old
21 version of Exhibit P4005 with the corrected one, and the Defence has an
22 opportunity until the 19th of October to revisit this matter.
23 I now move on to Exhibit P3045, similar matter.
24 On the 9th of June of this year, the Prosecution e-mailed the
25 Chamber and the Defence advising that the revised English translation of
1 Exhibit P3045, a decision of the Bijeljina wartime commission dated the
2 17th of September, 1992, had been uploaded into e-court under doc ID
3 0090-3110-ET. The original translation referred to the members of the
4 war commission in the Ugljevik municipality which was not in the B/C/S
6 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the old
7 translation of Exhibit P3045 with the new one and gives the Defence one
8 week, or let's say until the 19th of October, to revisit the matter.
9 Next item, perhaps doesn't come as a surprise, also an English
10 translation replacement, now in relation to Exhibit P3794.
11 On the 11th of June of this year, the Prosecution e-mailed the
12 Chamber advising that a revised translation of Exhibit P3794, a
13 Republika Srpska MUP article, had been uploaded into e-court under doc ID
15 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the old
16 translation of Exhibit P3794 with the new one and gives the Defence until
17 the 19th of October to revisit the matter.
18 Yes, I think there was one number which I may have pronounced
19 unclearly. The newly uploaded revised translation of P3794 was uploaded
20 under doc ID 0220-1005-1 ET.
21 I now move to the next one, unless, Mr. Tieger, you want to
22 interrupt me.
23 MR. TIEGER: Well, at some point we need to -- and I think this
24 is the best opportunity. We need to return to a previous matter raised,
25 and, in fact, I would ask to do that in private session.
1 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
2 [Private session]
18 [Open session]
19 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
21 Earlier today P7532 was admitted. The status is hereby changed.
22 P7532 is admitted under seal.
23 I move to the next item which is P379 -- no, I have dealt with
24 that one already. I move on now to Exhibit P41, which deals not with the
25 replacement of an English translation but the replacement of a B/C/S
2 On the 30th of March of this year, the Prosecution e-mailed the
3 Chamber advising that a revised B/C/S translation of Exhibit P41, an
4 UNPROFOR situation report dated the 6th of July, 1995, had been uploaded
5 into e-court under doc ID R111-3217-BCST. In the original, the entry for
6 03.15 to 03.22 at the top of page 5 referred to rockets, whereas the
7 previous translation referred to "projektila."
8 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the old
9 translation of Exhibit P41 with the new one. I think I said to replace
10 the old translation with a new one and gives the Defence until the
11 19th of October to revisit the matter.
12 Next item deals with Exhibit P1247, again English translation.
13 On the 23rd of February of this year, the Prosecution e-mailed
14 the Chamber and the Defence advising that a revised English translation
15 of Exhibit P1247, an intercept dated the 12th of July, 1995, had been
16 uploaded into e-court under doc ID 0107-7909-1 ET. The previous English
17 translation of the intercept says that: "At 1920 there was no carrying
18 signal," whereas the original reads "1900."
19 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the old
20 translation of Exhibit P1247 with the new one and gives the Defence until
21 the 19th of October to revisit the matter.
22 Next item deals with Exhibit P3307.
23 On the 16th of February of this year, the Prosecution e-mailed
24 the Chamber advising that a page was missing from Exhibit P3307, admitted
25 under seal, and that the corrected version had been uploaded into e-court
1 as document bearing 65 ter number 30602a.
2 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the old
3 version of Exhibit P3307 with the corrected version and gives the Defence
4 until the 19th of October to revisit the matter.
5 I move to what most likely will be the last one I can deal with
6 today, which deals with P7260.
7 On the 27th of March of this year, the Prosecution e-mailed the
8 Chamber and the Defence advising that a revised English translation of
9 Exhibit P7260, a Drina Corps command order, had been uploaded into
10 e-court under doc ID 0436-7186-ET.
11 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the old
12 translation of Exhibit P7260 with the new one and gives the Defence one
13 week -- and gives the Defence until the 19th of October to revisit the
15 To the extent I would have forgotten that, and most likely I did,
16 Mr. Tieger, I'm -- P7532 gives repetitious problems. I think that the
17 English translation newly uploaded should replace the old translation and
18 the -- Madam Registrar is hereby instructed to do so.
19 Not to say that my agenda is empty, there are quite a few
20 remaining issues, but we have no further time.
21 We adjourn for the day. We'll not sit next week. Therefore,
22 we'll resume on Monday, the 19th of October, 2015, 0930 hours,
23 courtroom I. And I already announced to the parties that most likely on
24 the 20th of October we'll have a bit of a shorter session that we'll
25 conclude earlier than the usual quarter past 2.00. I think it would be
1 likely at approximately 12.00.
2 We stand adjourned.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.15 p.m.,
4 to be reconvened on Monday, the 19th day
5 of October, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.