Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 40340

 1                           Tuesday, 27 October 2015

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.

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

 6     courtroom.

 7             Madam Registrar, may I invite you to 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             The -- we were informed that the Defence wanted to raise a

12     preliminary matter.

13             Mr. Lukic.

14             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  Good morning, Your Honours.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning.

16             MR. LUKIC:  We have to respond to -- actually, request to explain

17     our objections to the P07527.  It's Official Note composed by AID on 12th

18     of April, 2000, and in that official report, AID is addressing the

19     interview with Mr. Bilcar, Dusan, conducted on 10th of April, 2000

20     regarding the death of his wife, Ratke Bilcar.  From this document, it is

21     not visible to who this official report is addressed, is not visible who

22     composed this report.  There is no number, or case or number or protocol

23     under which case is recorded.  And there is no this interview attached to

24     the document although it was mentioned that the interview was conducted.

25             So those are basically our objections to this document.

Page 40341

 1             And another thing we would -- we should shortly go to the private

 2     session, please.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.

 4                           [Private session]

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 40342











11  Page 40342-40343 redacted.  Private session.















Page 40344

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4                           [Open session]

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 7             In relation to P7527, because that's what we started with, any

 8     response or any further submissions to be made on this Official Note?

 9             MR. TIEGER:  Not at the moment, Mr. President, although I had --

10     I mean, if obliged to do so, I would have a couple of preliminary

11     submissions.  But I would prefer, if the Court doesn't mind, to give us

12     an opportunity to review the quick history of the tendering of this

13     document and then get back to the Court.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Within the next two days, would that be

15     sufficient, Mr. Tieger?

16             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you very much.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we'll hear from you within two days.

18             Is the Defence ready to call its next witness?

19             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  We are calling Mr. Poparic.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could the witness be escorted in the

21     courtroom.

22             Mr. Lukic, perhaps I briefly ask your attention for D1211.  You

23     had asked that -- that Svetlana Radovanovic's expert report, you had

24     asked certain pages to be verified as to the accuracy of its translation.

25             Now, the report was the translation on all these pages were

Page 40345

 1     accurate.  Nevertheless you agreed uploading a new -- a new translation

 2     so the Chamber wonders and would like to hear from you why, if the

 3     accuracy was confirmed, why there nevertheless is a new translation.  So

 4     if would you inform us about that rather soon.

 5                           [The witness entered court]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Poparic.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Poparic, you are now in a different position

 9     compared to where we've seen you for a while.

10             Before you give evidence, the Rules require that you make a

11     solemn declaration that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth and

12     nothing but the truth.  The text is now handed out to you.  May I invite

13     you to make that solemn declaration.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

15     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

16                           WITNESS:  MILE POPARIC

17                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Poparic.  Please be seated.

19             It may be clear to you now that your role now changed from

20     advising the Defence to being a witness, an expert witness, who has a

21     different role.  You are aware of that, I take it?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All is clear.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Then you'll first be examined by Mr. Lukic -- well,

24     I usually say you finds him to your left but you know that he's there.

25     And what Mr. Lukic is, that is, that he's counsel for Mr. Mladic may not

Page 40346

 1     come as a surprise to you either.

 2             Mr. Lukic, please proceed.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 4                           Examination by Mr. Lukic:

 5        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Poparic.

 6        A.   Good morning.

 7        Q.   For the record, kindly state your first and last name.

 8        A.   I am Mile Poparic.

 9        Q.   Did you draft an expert report for of the purposes of Mladic

10     Defence?

11        A.   Yes.  I created several reports in co-operation with my

12     colleague, Mrs Zorica Subotic.

13             MR. LUKIC:  Can we have on our screens 1D05499, please.

14        Q.   [Interpretation] There's a document on the screen before you.  Do

15     you recognise it?

16        A.   I do.

17        Q.   Did you take part in the creation of this expert report?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Does the report require any changes or amendments?

20        A.   Basically, there's nothing.  There's just one thing, but perhaps

21     we can deal with it later when we get to that point and then I'll specify

22     the error.

23             As for the rest, and as far as I could see, it is correct.

24     Perhaps there is the odd small mistake here and there, but nothing of

25     significance.

Page 40347

 1             MR. LUKIC:  Since we are not offering this at this moment

 2     anyways, I will come back to those corrections, Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we'll hear from you.

 4             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Mr. Poparic, I will continue with my questions now and then we

 6     can turn to the corrections later on.

 7             In 2013, did you testify in a case?

 8        A.   Yes, I testified in the case against Radovan Karadzic.

 9        Q.   Since that time, did you gain any new insights in the incidents

10     you discussed in the Karadzic case?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Because of these new insights, did you change your report with

13     regard to any incidents dealt with in the Karadzic case significantly?

14        A.   No, things were not changed, but we simply tried to define a

15     particular incident more precisely.  For example, incident F-8 of the 8th

16     of October, incident F-16 of the 3rd of March, 1995, as well as a couple

17     of other cases, where we were able to define it more precisely.

18        Q.   Let us look, then, at F-16.

19             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In this document, it is page 232 in

20     the B/C/S and 239 in the English version.

21        Q.   As you were drafting this report and the Karadzic report, how did

22     you acquire the necessary information about the incidents?

23        A.   We received most of that information from Mr. Karadzic's Defence.

24     Later on, we received some from you, and that was the bulk of the

25     information contained.  However, there were cases where not everything

Page 40348

 1     was defined or there were contradictory pieces of information in

 2     existence.  Hence, it was highly useful to obtain as much information as

 3     possible, and we tried in different ways to acquire that information.  We

 4     also relied on the website of the Tribunal and various other websites

 5     where we could get some information about certain events, including

 6     footage and so on.  We were also in contact with the people involved and

 7     so on and so forth.  We tried hard to acquire as much information as

 8     possible, so as to be able to define the cases as precisely as possible.

 9             However, I have to say that there were about two incidents where

10     we were unable to say explicitly it happened this or that way because the

11     information about the incidents is contradictory.  We did not have a

12     defined threshold to screen the information and to say, This is correct

13     and that is incorrect.  Perhaps we would require -- or this Bench will

14     require some additional information obtained through some other witnesses

15     in order to be able to assess it properly.

16        Q.   So what were the basic problems you encountered in drafting this,

17     the fourth report, the report pertaining to small-arms?

18        A.   With incidents involving small-arms, traces are always a problem

19     because the location is quickly changed.  The people involved leave, and

20     they there are no significant traces left of the there may be some small

21     ones that need to be registered immediately.  It frequently happened that

22     it was not the case, and the police did not register all such traces.

23     That was one thing.

24             Another thing, all these cases are frequently tied to injury and

25     it is crucial that there is forensic documentation on file, but in most

Page 40349

 1     of the cases, it was non-existent.  There were some cases where there

 2     were doctors' reports, specifying the location of injury, but always

 3     quite limited in terms of information.

 4             That was one problem with these cases.

 5             There was a problem with police information as well, because it

 6     often proved unreliable particularly in terms of the place of incident.

 7     For example, we had cases where there was a distance of up to 200 metres

 8     between the place of incident specified and what we find in the report.

 9     For example, the 1st of November, 1995 incident, that case is not

10     scheduled in the indictment.  There is an incident of the 23rd of

11     November.  However, the previous case was discussed in the Milosevic case

12     and it was specified that the incident took place close to the

13     Holiday Inn and the Metalka building and the judgement contains that

14     information.  However, I received from you a ballistics report signed by

15     Emir Turkusic and Edin Suljic [phoen], if I were to go by the initials on

16     the document.  It is specifically stated in at that document that the

17     tram was in the Zmaja od Bosne street which is always 300 metres away

18     from the place of incident indicated in the judgement.  I don't know how

19     it came about that that piece of information was missing in the Milosevic

20     case.

21             Also, in the same incident, the police in their reports stated

22     that the incident took place as specified in the indictment and then the

23     same police force puts a different piece of information in their other

24     report.  There were other such cases.  For example, there is the case of

25     Miljenka Cvitkovica Street where a boy had been wounded.  All information

Page 40350

 1     pointed to Miljenka Cvitkovica Street but the on-site investigation and

 2     all evidence comes from Dzemala Bijedica Street which is a different

 3     street.  So that was one of the biggest problems.

 4             Another problem, as I said, was the lacking forensic

 5     documentation, which in some cases was crucial.  And in cases such as

 6     those we were unable to determine anything specifically.

 7             There was also a problem with the Prosecution asserting that an

 8     incident took place at a different location such as the case of the 27th

 9     of February, 1995, which, beyond dispute, happened in front of the Museum

10     of the Revolution and the Prosecution asserted and Barry Hogan took

11     footage with a witness indicating that it also happened at an

12     intersection in front of the Metalka building.

13             There was a witness testifying --

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  When I testified in

15     the Karadzic case, the Prosecution showed me a photograph allegedly taken

16     from the Faculty of Theology and it was very important to be specific

17     about the case.  Unfortunately, I wasn't able to recognise the photograph

18     and what was depicted because it was zoomed in.  Later on, after my

19     testimony, I received the photograph and I could see immediately that it

20     wasn't accurate.  There was a whole set of photographs whereby I

21     established that wasn't taken from the school of theology but from a

22     building next door which was under construction at the time and the

23     photograph was taken from the scaffolding.  From the school of theology

24     that place is not visible.  One could not take a photograph from there

25     because of a crown of a tree.

Page 40351

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, we've now heard for three pages an

 2     overall assessment of the whole of the case, the judgements delivered,

 3     comment on matters, photographs, that could not be taken from point A or

 4     from point B.  We understand that this witness had certain problems, and

 5     we invite you to get back to the expertise of this witness, what he could

 6     tell us, and this witness is not here to give his overall assessment of

 7     both -- all of the evidence before us or not before us, to give his

 8     overall assessment of the quality of our judgements.  You know that

 9     there's an Appeals Chamber who could deal with that.  And let's get back

10     to what the witness is here for; that is, to tell us what his expertise

11     can bring us, and then, please, in concrete terms and not in general

12     sweeping statements.

13             Please proceed.

14             MR. LUKIC:  I think the gentleman gave us exactly --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I invited you to proceed, not to comment

16     on what I said.

17             Please proceed.

18             MR. LUKIC:  I don't understand this sweeping statements.  Is it a

19     sweeping statement when he gives the exact address --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Then you don't understand me.  That's a pity.  But I

21     think my invitation [Overlapping speakers] ...

22             MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... What you don't understand

23     the witness.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic.

25             MR. LUKIC:  How can we --

Page 40352

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, we're not in a debate.  You can put the

 2     next question to the witness.

 3             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Mr. Poparic, when you refer to the particular addresses in the

 5     city, are they also referred to in your reports as well as in our

 6     indictment?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Did you use newspaper reports?

 9        A.   Yes.  I had the opportunity of seeing film footage, TV reports of

10     war reporters, and that was very useful.

11        Q.   Why do you think it was useful and why did you use newspaper

12     reports?

13        A.   Well, as regards small-arms fire, according to the indictment, it

14     is alleged that citizens were exposed to constant sniper fire, especially

15     at cross-roads in streets where they moved about, et cetera.  There are

16     quite a few newspaper reports to that effect.  These reports attracted my

17     attention because I noticed that in quite a few reports there is a

18     reference to cross-roads, intersections where people are running across

19     some intersection and one can see that there's some kind of danger.

20     However, in some footage I saw some illogical things, for example, people

21     lying by the intersection --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I asked you to get to concrete matters.

23     Newspaper articles, are they in evidence?  Can we look at them?

24             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, we can.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then please go to what you want to, that is,

Page 40353

 1     concrete information about incidents rather than all kind of background

 2     information which we do not know what it is.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Can we see video that is marked as 1D05925.  And

 4     we'll see the time-frame from 1 hour, 51 minute, 32 seconds to 1 hour, 51

 5     minute, 54 seconds.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we also know what incident we are talking

 7     about.  Is it one of the Scheduled Incidents in the indictment?

 8             MR. LUKIC:  This is in connection with testimony of

 9     Mr. Van Lynden.  I don't know if I pronounce his name.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Van Lynden.  Okay, what part of his testimony so

11     that we know what we are going to look at and we can have a focussed look

12     on what we see before us.

13             MR. LUKIC:  We can find this in the report of Mr. Poparic and

14     Ms. Subotic.  We'll first see the video and then I'll go to the report,

15     and we'll have some questions in connection with this.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you already tell us where you will take us

17     later, so at least we can have a look at the report --

18             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.  It's page 37 in English version, figure 8.  Of

19     1D5499.

20             Can we see the video now.  Can we start, please.

21                           [Video-clip played]

22             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.  And now if we can go to 1D05499, please.

23        Q.   [Interpretation] First of all, Mr. Poparic, what was depicted in

24     the video?

25        A.   Fire in a residential building in the street Zmaja od Bosne,

Page 40354

 1     which is close Marin Dvor, so it is close to the centre.  It was taken by

 2     Van Lynden, a reporter from Sky News, and in his report he claimed that

 3     this building had been hit with incendiary bullets --

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note, could all another

 5     microphones be switched off.  Thank you.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We see something is falling, and

 7     it's incendiary ammunition.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can help us to recognise the object falling?  I

 9     can't see anything like that.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps we could enlarge the photographs.  Where do

11     we see it.  Which --

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe it would be useful if I were

13     to mark it using a marker, so that it would be easier for you to fall.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  If you would first tell us what of the six

15     photographs we should look at.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] See here?  We're looking at all the

17     photographs A through D, that is to say, A, B, C, D.  These are segments

18     that follow the trajectory of this object.  On slide A, in the upper

19     left-hand corner, we see this object that is alight, then --

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could we zoom in only on A, B, C and D.  Thank

21     you.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you wish I can mark it.  So here

23     on slide A, this object --

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... the

25     assistance of the usher.

Page 40355

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, no markings without being invited to do so.

 2     If you would start telling us what you draw our attention to.  And are

 3     you at --

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I won't.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Slide A, you said, on slide A, the upper

 6     left-hand corner, we see this object that is alight.

 7             Do you mean in the upper left-hand corner of A --

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  If you would wait until I finish --

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  Now --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, if you would wait until I finish my

12     question, because there's no way you can taken not knowing what my

13     question will be.

14             Photograph A, is the left upper photograph.  What were you

15     drawing our attention to in that photograph?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm indicating this object that is

17     alight and it is underneath this window in the upper left-hand corner.

18     It's a bit below.  It's a bit below the window.  Can you see that?

19             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  Perhaps if would be good if the witness marks

20     that with the assistance of the usher.  Because at this moment I do not

21     see something in the upper left-hand corner which is alight.

22             Could you mark on photograph A.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll mark it with a number 1.  That

24     is position 1 of that object.

25             I drew this line a bit over that object --

Page 40356

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Could it be -- could it be rubbed out again so that

 2     can you do it around it, so that we could still see it.

 3             Mr. Usher, could you assist in removing the little circle so that

 4     the witness can now put the circle around and perhaps again.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Marks]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And now, again, you put a 1 next to that.

 7             THE WITNESS:  [Marks]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  And say that's a light object.  Yes.

 9             Please continue.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Did you say this is alight or did you say it's a

12     light object.  On the record I read that you said it was alight and I

13     want to understand how you make the determination that it's alight.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Physically, it's burning.  We saw

15     that in the film footage.  It's burning.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I don't see the burning.  The burning I see from

17     the window.  There, I see a red dot and I don't know whether it is alight

18     or something else and I don't see whether -- I don't see whether it's

19     burning, that's why I'm asking you how you make those determinations.

20     How do you see it's burning and how do you know it's alight.  I see a

21     dot, a red dot.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It can be seen very nicely in the

23     film footage, if you look at it carefully.  We can play it again.  As it

24     is falling, it has a kind of flame and Van Lynden is also claiming that

25     it's on fire, the man who was there.  It fell in front of him.  And he

Page 40357

 1     claims that it is on fire.  That it's aflame.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Well, maybe we should see the footage then.

 3     Because as a still I just see a dot.  I don't see what you are saying.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps you start with further explaining to us what

 5     we see here that we look again after that to see the video to see whether

 6     we can ...

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we look at slide B that object

 8     has a position that's a bit different.  It's further up.  See?  Number 2.

 9     So when we look at it in relation to the window it is higher up.  In

10     relation to the position in photograph A.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Next slide, C, I'll mark it with

13     number 3, this object is perhaps a bit above this, but this is where it

14     reaches its maximum in terms of height.

15             And let us move on to slide D now.  Here, it is already falling.

16     It is descending.  So let that be number 4.

17             So that is how it falls.  Well, we can't see it anymore.  Then it

18     hits the ground and then bounces off, say, 2 metres, and then falls

19     somewhere else.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, you know that the Chamber would like --

21             MR. LUKIC:  To see the video again, yes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  -- To look at it again.

23             MR. LUKIC:  We'll try and pause and play it in a very fast

24     sequence so, still, we'll have it a bit longer on our screens because

25     it's very fast.

Page 40358

 1             So can we play the video again.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  First, tender this marked photograph.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Oh, yes.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Once it is removed from the screen, it's lost.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Can we tender this marked versions.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, the marked version is the marked

 7     version which contains only four out of the six photographs which were in

 8     the original and the number would be?

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  D1325, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Can we start, please.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Is it any use for us first to look at the lower two

14     photographs?

15             MR. LUKIC:  No --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay --

17             MR. LUKIC:  I don't think it's --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

19             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah, continue.

20                           [Video-clip played]

21             MR. LUKIC:  Stop.  Okay.  Continue, continue.  Stop.  Continue.

22     Stop.  Continue.

23        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, in your view, how was this flame

24     created?  Is it incendiary ammunition or what?

25        A.   Mr. Van Lynden said that it's incendiary ammunition and that the

Page 40359

 1     JNA had incendiary ammunition in its equipment.  That is only partly

 2     true.  In the JNA, there was one bullet, 20-millimetre calibre.  It was

 3     called an incendiary bullet, armour piercing.  It had a steel top and

 4     then there was this mix that would be set on fire once it hits the

 5     surface.  I can also draw a sketch of this, if it would be useful for the

 6     Trial Chamber.  And if this projectile impacts - this is basically

 7     anti-aircraft ammunition - then this pyrotechnical mix is set on fire

 8     because of the pressure and then it sets off a spark and then that is

 9     supposed to set something on fire, say, fuel.  So it's a few grams, and

10     it just creates a blaze.  The entire projectile cannot be set on fire.

11     So it doesn't look like this.  So this is not that particular ammunition.

12             Secondly, the trajectory of this object cannot be a projectile.

13     Certainly not.  Because we see here that it goes underneath one window,

14     reaches another window, say, a metre and a half, and then it falls on the

15     ground.  That would mean that this projectile had ricocheted which

16     certainly could not have happened in this case.  There could have been a

17     ricochet only if it hit the building at a smaller angle, less than 20

18     degrees, and then there could have been a ricochet and then it could have

19     moved along the length of the building.  It certainly couldn't have

20     fallen underneath the building in this way.  It is a metal object because

21     it can be heard that it bounced off.  Also, a metal object where there

22     was some cloth or something, I don't know, say, you can just use crude

23     oil and throw it through the window.  The trajectory we see here, matches

24     that.  For example, you set this on fire, you throw it up, and then it

25     goes up about a metre and a half and then falls down.  This is obviously

Page 40360

 1     something --

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note, we can no longer hear the

 3     witness.  There are too many microphones on and there is a lot of

 4     background noise.  We apologise.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I put one question to the witness.

 6             You told us a lot about your conclusions and -- but you didn't

 7     specify where you got the details from.  Was it only taken the details,

 8     the factual details, from this video we have seen and the photographs,

 9     the stills, or do you have any additional sources?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The facts I presented about

11     ammunition, that came from other sources.  That has to do with

12     recognition of ammunition.  However, the flame itself, the torch, that is

13     a conclusion on the basis of this film, and that is sufficient.  So if

14     you look at it, it can be played once again.  If you look at how it

15     falls.  It bounces off.  We see that.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This was not my question.  I just wanted to know

17     the source where you draw your -- where you based your conclusions on,

18     that was so -- with respect to this object.  This is only the video.  Is

19     it true?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was only based on the footage

21     and my knowledge of the characteristics of the projectile.  I know very

22     well when ricochet can occur --

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... this is your

24     knowledge.  That's fine.  But you didn't see, personally, this piece on

25     flames which was falling down?  You didn't see that and you don't have

Page 40361

 1     any additional knowledge about this artefact.  Is it true -- is that

 2     correct?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I see in the footage was it.

 4     But I think it suffices to draw the conclusion I did.  It suffices.  I

 5     can see the picture --

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... I stopped

 7     you.  You said it is only the video what you base your conclusion on.

 8     Fine.  I understood it correctly.  Everything else is fine.  I just

 9     wanted to know that.  And please answer the questions which were put to

10     you.

11             Mr. Lukic.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, before we continue, I read in the report

13     that this is a comment to the testimony of Mr. Van Lynden.

14             Now I look at footnote which refers to the testimony of witness

15     Aernout van Lynden in 2010 which is, as far as I'm aware of, not in

16     evidence.  So we have no idea what we're talking about.  And then I find

17     in Mladic 65 ter number 1D05735 -- and apparently there is where we are

18     supposed to look, but that's not in evidence.  So we have no idea what

19     Mr. Van Lynden said and what he referred to because it was in a different

20     case.  I do not know whether it was -- whether there were any questions

21     put to him in this case or ... I mean, we need a basis for -- if we want

22     to follow the witness, we should know what he's talking about.

23             So if you would please organise it in such a way that we are able

24     to even evaluate the evidence of this witness, then that would be

25     appreciated.

Page 40362

 1             Please proceed.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  We'll go back to the video shortly.  So it's 1D05925.

 3     We'll play that video just from 1 hour, 51 minutes, 35 seconds to 1 hour,

 4     51 minutes, 36 seconds.  So only one second.

 5                           [Video-clip played]

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Stop.

 7        Q.   [Interpretation] In this footage, in the one second of it,

 8     Mr. Poparic, what could we see?

 9        A.   We could see shots being fired from the building, burst of fire

10     not only from this particular window but if you look at the footage more

11     closely it comes from several directions.  You can see tracer bullets,

12     and I can explain where it comes from.

13        Q.   Just one second.  Let us look at the same footage, starting from

14     1:50 and ending at 1:51.

15                           [Video-clip played]

16             MR. LUKIC:  We should stop at 1:51.  So 1:50 and stop at 1:51.

17                           [Video-clip played]

18             MR. LUKIC:  Bit further.  Continue.  Maybe it's different timing.

19     Can we see 1 hour, 51 minute, 33 seconds to 1 hour, 51 minute, 36

20     seconds.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Just for the record, the last piece we saw was

22     not starting at 1:50, but later.

23             MR. LUKIC:  It was from another video probably, and I had 1

24     minute, 50 seconds and we are working with ours here obviously.

25             So 1 hour, 51 second, 33 to 51 minute, 33 seconds.

Page 40363

 1                           [Video-clip played]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  We hear sound but we have no image.

 3                           [Video-clip played]

 4             MR. LUKIC:  My colleague is trying to find it.

 5                           [Defence counsel confer]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Edgerton.

 7             MS. EDGERTON:  If there's a problem with the system, Ms. Stewart

 8     is able to play it.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic.

10             MS. EDGERTON:  Just by way of offering some kind of assistance.

11                           [Video-clip played]

12             MR. LUKIC:  We'll try to play it now.  Can we start and stop

13     every half a second and play again.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I have 1:51.34.

15                           [Video-clip played]

16             MR. LUKIC:  Stop.

17        Q.   [Interpretation] What could we see in this particular still?

18        A.   We could see a tracer bullet being fired from a window and we

19     could see the smoke the trace left by the barrel of a gun.

20        Q.   In your view, was it -- was the building being shot at or was the

21     fire coming from the building itself?

22        A.   The shot was fired from the building.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  And could you tell us from where in the building.

24     At least what I thought I could see but, please, correct me when I'm

25     wrong, that something is going up and is then falling down.  Now from

Page 40364

 1     where would that have been fired if it was fired from within the

 2     building, if you see - at least that's how I understand it - see whatever

 3     the projectile may have been being outside the building going up and then

 4     hitting the building?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think you are correct in

 6     what you saw, when you saw something falling down.  It may have been

 7     something else.  It was fired from the third window, actually the third

 8     row of windows, the open one.  It was fired from there, and we could see

 9     smoke coming out of the fire-arm after the bullet had left the barrel.

10     That is precisely the footage that this shot -- the still that we can

11     see.

12             This wasn't the only window where such bullets were fired from.

13     There are others.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I would appreciate if we could see that part of

15     the video again and it is always better to introduce first what we have

16     to look at to understand the testimony of the witness.

17             MR. LUKIC:  That's my mistake, if I didn't do so, Your Honour.

18     Thank you.  We'll try to see the same sequence again.  We'll start to

19     play and stop, since everything finishes in less than one second.

20                           [Video-clip played]

21             MR. LUKIC:  Stop.  So we saw again --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we go one --

23             MR. LUKIC:  We can -- we'll see more.  If we continue, we'll see

24     more.  Continue.

25                           [Video-clip played]

Page 40365

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  But could we go one back before we see this smoke

 2     coming.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  We cannot --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  -- appearing.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Our technique does not allow it to play that way.

 6     We'll adjust again and then try to play it.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I mean, could we rewind and play again or make a

 8     still just half a second earlier.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Okay.  Stop.  Play from there.

10                           [Video-clip played]

11             MR. LUKIC:  Is that the part you wanted to see, Your Honour?

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And perhaps if you could go by the minimal --

13             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah, click and.  Play and stop.  Play and stop.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  What I saw, but perhaps I'm wrong, was that a kind

17     of a flash-light coming from the right up to the left.

18             Could we play this half a second again and could we see whether

19     we see anything before that little bit of smoke appears.

20                           [Video-clip played]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Shortest intervals as possible.  There -- did you

22     see -- at least I thought that I saw something coming from the right up,

23     like a bit of a red stripe.  No -- okay.  We'll -- the Chamber will look

24     at it and see [Overlapping speakers] ...

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Put on the record at which window we are looking.

Page 40366

 1     It's, in my view, the if I can call it like that, the third column of

 2     windows.  Don't move it at the moment, please.  And the fourth window

 3     from the top, which is now enlightened a bit.  And in the previous still,

 4     only part of a second before that, it was dark, this window was dark.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  And perhaps --

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Do we agree that we are looking at the same

 7     window, Mr. Poparic?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  And let me then see whether I'm also fully convinced

10     that we're looking at the same.

11             I see in the right -- yes.  I see in the most left column of

12     windows, I see one which out stands because it's the darkest of all of

13     them and it's the third from the top.  Do you see that one?  I'm just

14     identifying one window.

15             Now in that same row --

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  -- going from left to right, we are looking at the

18     third window which seems to even be a little bit greenish, where there's

19     only one other window closer to the half-round balconies, so we're in

20     that row, and we're looking at the third window to the right of the

21     darkest one in the most left column.

22             That's what we are looking at.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's the window.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  That's -- and you are telling us now exactly

25     what happened at that window.  Was it shot from there or ...

Page 40367

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Somebody fired from that window,

 2     and we can see the bullet.  It was fired through that window.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Through that window.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, out of that window.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Out of that window.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  That's your interpretation of this image.  It

 9     couldn't be a little bit off, well, say, a little bit of dust which --

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes --

11             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... upon impact if

12     the bullet was fired from elsewhere?  You can exclude that with certainty

13     that it's not dust, but it's smoke?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am positive.  Because we could

15     see the tracing -- the trace, the line that goes from the window upwards.

16     So it means the bullet went from the window outwards.  The smoke we can

17     see comes from a weapon.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  And what we later see fall down has got nothing to

19     do with this?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I could only see the smoke

21     dispersing.  I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say that

22     something is falling down.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, you earlier said that there was something

24     which then reached on the A, B, C and D photographs it was up and it was

25     at its highest point and then it went down again.  I will -- I'm asking

Page 40368

 1     you what the relation is between what you're telling us now and what we

 2     saw on those four photographs.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No relation whatsoever.  This is a

 4     completely different case from the one on the four photographs.  This is

 5     a tracer bullet from a weapon.  I'm sorry we couldn't play the rest.  You

 6     could see then that there are several other windows where shots were

 7     being fired from.

 8             What we could see in the four photographs depicted a rather large

 9     object, say, 10 centimetres big.  It was thrown upwards and then fell

10     down on fire.  What we can see here is typical of a tracer bullet, and I

11     can explain where it came from.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we -- could we -- apparently, I see something

13     which no one sees.

14             Could we once again play it very briefly or take the break first

15     and ...

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No.  I just wanted to put a question with respect

17     to this still we just had in front of us.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then please proceed.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We agreed thank we are looking at the same

20     window.  Can you tell me, is the window open or closed, Mr. Poparic?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think there is no glass pane.

22     You could see the footage, at times it is rather dark.  But, here, as far

23     as I can see, basically no window has a pane.  And some are covered in

24     plastic.  But I don't think there's any glass there.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Again, I'm only asking you about this specific

Page 40369

 1     window.  Is it open or closed or when it -- if it is closed, is it

 2     covered by anything?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is difficult to say.  It

 4     definitely does not have a glass plane but a dark shade we see could

 5     depicts plastic foil, although I can't be certain.  It definitely does

 6     not have a glass pane.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  If this window is closed by plastic, how is it

 8     possible to fire out of that window without destroying this plastic

 9     sheet?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was certainly damaged.  But it

11     doesn't have to be destroyed in full.  We can't see in the footage what

12     happened with the sheet, if there was any plastic sheet.  I allow for

13     that possibility.  But we could see a moment ago that in the same footage

14     the picture was quite darker, and this window resembles the one on the

15     far left, in this one.  However, there was definitely no glass pane.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's take a break.  We are already far beyond the

18     time we should take a break.

19             Witness, you may follow the usher.  We'd like to see you back in

20     20 minutes.  We resume at five minutes past 11.00.

21                           [The witness stands down]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Resume at five minutes past 11.00.

23                           --- Recess taken at 10.42 a.m.

24                           --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.

25                           [The witness takes the stand]

Page 40370

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, please proceed.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 3             If we can briefly have 1D5735 on our screens.  It's testimony of

 4     Mr. Van Lynden.  It's on our list of exhibits.  It's his testimony from

 5     Karadzic case from 19th of May, 2010, and on the second page of this

 6     document that has two pages, it corresponds to the page 2429 in Karadzic

 7     case.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  It's 56 in e-court.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Oh.

10                           [Defence counsel confer]

11             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.  On this page, at line 10, Mr. Nicholls asked

12     Mr. Van Lynden.

13             "Q.  Now first at one point -- thank you.  At one point in that

14     video, we see a red object bounce down and bounce over.  Can you just

15     tell us what we were seeing there?

16             "A.  That's a bullet, but the Yugoslav army had bullets that

17     caused fires."

18             And then he continues that they do not have it in NATO prior to

19     1989.  So that's the part that was footnoted in the work of Mr. Poparic

20     and Ms. Subotic.

21             And, just for the record, we have this transcript from that video

22     admitted as P71 in our case, and also video under that number.

23             We'll play again the same video from 1 hour, 51 minutes, 33

24     seconds.  We'll stop and go.  And then we'll play it until 1 minute

25     [sic] -- 1 hour, 51 minutes, 40 seconds, and then we'll again stop and

Page 40371

 1     play.

 2                           [Defence counsel confer]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Your microphone is open, Mr. Lukic.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Can we play it now, please.  We try to slow it down a

 5     bit.

 6                           [Video-clip played]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we play it again.  And could we carefully look

 8     at whether we see anything which looks like a bit of a red line coming

 9     from right above, immediately before we see this -- what is interpreted

10     by the witness as smoke.

11                           [Video-clip played]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we stop here.

13             Do we -- do you see, Witness, that there is a kind of a -- what

14     at least close to the balcony seems to be a red or reddish line which --

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  -- points exactly at the point where later some

17     smoke is seen and goes into the direction of the window we identified

18     earlier.

19             Could you explain to us what that line which can be seen, I

20     think, also a little bit further up, close to where the smoke is.  Could

21     you tell us what that line depicts?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] An incendiary bullet.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  That's at 1:51:34-02:06:56.

24             That is an incendiary bullet, you say?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No it's a tracer bullet.

Page 40372

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  And from where is that fired?

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We cannot understand the

 3     witness properly.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please repeat your answer.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Fired from the building, but I

 6     wouldn't say that it's the window up there but it's one storey down,

 7     roughly.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  One storey down of what?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From that window that we discussed.

10     Roughly.  That's the way it looked.

11             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... could you tell

12     us if that's a bullet, in which direction it travels?  Does it travel up

13     or does it travel down?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Travelled up.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Travelled up.

16             Now, then I would have the following question.  If this travels

17     up, I don't know -- perhaps if we look at the video carefully whether we

18     see how that lines develops, whether it develops in upright direction or

19     in downwards direction.

20             Do you have an explanation if that bullet apparently is already

21     travelling up quite a bit, that we see no smoke developing, which you

22     said would be there as a result of firing the weapon?

23             Do you have any explanation for that?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do.  As you said, it goes up,

25     considerably so, and --

Page 40373

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  [Previous translation continues] ... you did say it

 2     goes up.  I -- I asked you whether it went down or up.  So you say it

 3     goes up.  Yes?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But we can see that its angle is

 5     pretty big in relation to the building.  So maybe we can agree on that.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  I don't have to agree on anything, but that's your

 7     interpretation, yes.  Please proceed.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right, you don't have to agree.

 9     That's how I interpret it.  It is a big angle in relation to the

10     building.

11             Now, had this bullet been fired from any position of the Army of

12     Republika Srpska, Grbavica, I don't know where, it couldn't have had this

13     kind of trajectory.  The angle would have been much smaller, it would it

14     would almost have a straight trajectory in relation to the building.  I

15     know the positions of the VRS.  It could have been from one of the

16     high-rise buildings in Grbavica or something else, but it's a small

17     distance and the bullet would move in a straight line almost.  And the

18     VRS in this building are basically at the same distance.  And any bullet

19     that would be fired at this building would basically hit this building at

20     a 90-degrees' angle.  Well, not exactly.  But, any way, we see here that

21     the angle is bigger.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, you're going far beyond my question.  And if

23     you say the angle is far bigger, what angle are you exactly referring to?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mean, if you draw an angle from

25     this direction, here, and then there's this vertical line of the building

Page 40374

 1     itself, in my estimate, that's, say, 60, 65 degrees; right?

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I can't see it because it is all projections so I

 3     have great difficulties in even determining angle --

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  But it's a pretty big angle.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So that's your -- could we now move on --

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before moving on I have a question on this.

 7             You said in your view, it is outgoing fire from one of the

 8     windows of this building.  Did you understand you correctly?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  And it's not just one.

10     There's more.  You will see in the report on the next page --

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... please.

12     Please.  I'm asking you, you said it is not incoming fire.  It is a shot

13     fired from the building.  Is that correctly understood?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Now tell me, in your view, from which window was

16     that bullet fired?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, now that I look at it, I'd

18     say that it's this window here, in the second vertical line, the second

19     one viewed from the left going right.  One, two, three, four.  So if we

20     go underneath this window that is black we go one line down, one row

21     down, yes, that's the one, that's what -- it looks like to me, although

22     it's hard to tell.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  In your view is the window open or closed.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I have the impression that

25     there is some foil on the window.

Page 40375

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Do you see any trace -- do you see any trace of a

 2     weapon who could have fired this bullet from that window?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't.  The weapon can be

 4     withdrawn.  It can be inside.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  So quickly?  I'm asking you as an expert.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  He can fire even if he's a bit

 7     to the back in relation to the window.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I --

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Now, my colleague has a question.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I have a question --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps before we do that, this specific still, is

12     there -- I mean, we had quite a lot of discussion about this still.

13     Mr. Lukic, it's part of what you are tendering.  Would you be inclined to

14     accommodate the Chamber by tendering this still?

15             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour, I think my colleague already saved.

16     She printed [Overlapping speakers] ... in front of us.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Could that still be ... the screen shot could

18     that --

19             MR. LUKIC:  But we cannot see it.  It still has to be uploaded.

20     It's just saved.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps we already reserve a number.

22             MR. LUKIC:  If Madam Registrar could save it.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you assign a number, Madam Registrar.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  It receives exhibit number D1326, Your Honours.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  And is reserved for this still.

Page 40376

 1             Judge Moloto has a question and perhaps I may have a question as

 2     well, depending on what his question is.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sir, I've got a slightly different question.

 4             Looking at this line, when it comes to this building, it seems to

 5     me to hit the wall rather than the window.  Would you agree with me?

 6     It's below the window that is the second from the right.  From the right.

 7     The second -- third from the left.  It ...

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're right.  It's very close --

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We could not hear the

10     rest.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you repeat the last part of your answer.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I also have the impression that the

13     trace is very close to the edge of the window.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And, in fact, below the window.  Actually, against

15     the wall.  It's -- it doesn't go to the window.  It goes to the wall.

16     Would you agree with that?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's hard to say.  But it's

18     possible that --

19             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ...

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We cannot hear the rest.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sir, for me it is so clear that it is going onto

22     the wall.  It means if it is an outgoing bullet the person must be on the

23     wall outside the window and how that happens I'm not quite sure how it

24     would happen.  It is not pointing to any window.  Do you agree with that?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not agree.

Page 40377

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  It's a question of agreement or

 2     disagreement.  That's fine.  If you don't agree, that's fine.  I've just

 3     made the point, I've asked the question.  We'll look at it.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I have no further questions because I had the

 5     same question, as a matter of fact.

 6             The -- Mr. Lukic.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  We'll just play further the same video, Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's fine.  And perhaps also step by step, so

 9     we see exactly what happens there.

10             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, mm-hm.

11                           [Video-clip played]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Now --

13             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we go back a little bit there.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16                           [Video-clip played]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  We've looked at it.  And perhaps as a follow-up of

18     our questions where you say the smoke appears, isn't that below the

19     window?  We could go back for a second.

20             Please look at it carefully, Witness, and see whether you could

21     tell us whether it comes from the window or just from below the window

22     where, if you continue the line, it seems that it reaches the building.

23                           [Video-clip played]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  That point.  Is it your position that this is below

25     the -- it originates from just below the window or from the window

Page 40378

 1     itself?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my view, it is somewhere around

 3     the middle of the window.  And we see another trace down below, coming

 4     from a balcony.

 5             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I didn't ask you

 6     anything about other things.  But if Mr. Lukic would be interested ...

 7             So, therefore -- do I understand you well that you say that close

 8     analysis of what you see, that it's still your position that this clearly

 9     depicts a shot fired from the window we earlier identified, or is there

10     any doubt on your mind, or is it -- could you please, after having heard

11     all the questions, whether you still take the view that this is a shot

12     fired from that window?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, please proceed.

17             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.  We would ask also for this

18     still --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, even perhaps the previous one because if we --

20     this is not the first where the smoke or the dust or whatever would you

21     call it appears.

22             MR. LUKIC:  But can we save this one.  I don't know if we would

23     be able to stop on this point again.  And then if you want, we can go

24     back.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Is there any technical way of having that sequence

Page 40379

 1     of approximately 1 or 2 seconds.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  1 second.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  To split it up and have a full still of every single

 4     position where you can stop so that you see the line, you see the first

 5     development of the smoke, perhaps even the development of the line, and

 6     then how the smoke or whatever it is, then further --

 7             MR. LUKIC:  We do not have technical means unless going step by

 8     step manually.  So I don't know if the Prosecution has --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, if there's -- but there's no reason to not at

10     least --

11             MR. LUKIC:  Try it --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  -- admit this already.  And then if we could have --

13     if technical assistance could be given by the Prosecution to have every

14     single step --

15             MS. EDGERTON:  With respect, Your Honours, we would have to do it

16     manually.  We don't have any kind of programme or facilities to be able

17     to do it.  We would be doing the same way my friend would be doing it.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Mr. Lukic you're invited to do that.  But we

19     start already with this still, the first one we had already.  We had a

20     number reserved for this, and now for this still.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Receives exhibit number D1327.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  And we are waiting for it to be uploaded.

23             Please proceed.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

25             Can we now move on in the same manner, step by step.  Can we play

Page 40380

 1     it actually until 40 seconds.

 2                           [Video-clip played]

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Stop.  And, again, go step by step.

 4                           [Video-clip played]

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah.  Ah, too late.  We saw something as well.  Go

 6     further.  No -- let's go further and, then, we'll go back.  Can we stop

 7     here.  There's another trace at 1 hour, 51 minutes, 41 seconds.

 8     Everything is in 41 seconds.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  You say that here it is going through the smoke and

10     cuts off, if I can say so, the lower right lower part -- the right lower

11     part.  It goes approximately from the middle of the bottom to, I would

12     say, 70 per cent up to the right of the -- in the --

13             MR. LUKIC:  This one we have saved in the report of Mr. Poparic.

14     It's figure 9 from his report.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Let's have a look at it.

16             MR. LUKIC:  And one before that, that we just missed.  We didn't

17     stop in time.  So if we go to figure 9, it's page 39 of English version.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The left of the two -- the right of the two

19     photographs.

20             MR. LUKIC:  The right one that we have -- had on our screens in

21     that video.  And the left one is what we saw just fragment of a second

22     before.

23        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, in your view, the stills you took

24     from the footage depicted in image 9, does it show outgoing or incoming

25     fire?

Page 40381

 1        A.   It is outgoing fire.  And to repeat once again, this kind of

 2     trajectory could not have been achieved from VRS positions.  If it had

 3     come from VRS positions, it would have been far more horizontal.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, no one has asked you yet, I think, from

 5     what positions they were fired.  The simple question was whether it was

 6     incoming fire or outgoing fire.  And incoming fire may come from whatever

 7     positions.  Have you considered that?  Because apparently your conclusion

 8     depends on your analysis of who would have fired it from where; whereas,

 9     from a ballistic point of view, I think if you exclude that question,

10     could you tell us on the basis of what you see here, whether it's

11     incoming or outgoing?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is outgoing fire.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  On what basis from what we see here can you tell us

14     that it's outgoing?  We don't see the origin at -- for neither of the

15     two, or do we?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It cannot be seen because it is

17     covered by the screen of smoke.  But you can see the trace being created,

18     just on the basis of the still itself, we cannot see it.  But if you look

19     at the footage carefully you can see it, although it is very fast.

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We did not understand the

21     last sentence.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you repeat the last sentence of your answer.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on the photograph itself, one

24     cannot conclude the source of fire but on the footage, we can see that it

25     is outgoing fire.  What I said about the trajectory it further solidifies

Page 40382

 1     my opinion when I claim that is outgoing fire.  There were no positions

 2     on either the ABiH or VRS side --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  We've heard that.  What we're doing at this moment

 4     is to focus exclusively on what we see in this footage, which you

 5     commented on.  Is there anything we should specifically look at apart

 6     from whether we see it moving in one direction or another?  Is there any

 7     other aspect which we should focus on when, again, looking at this

 8     footage?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Only if we focus on the way the

10     trace was created, to the extent possible.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Perhaps we could --

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is difficult.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I suggest that we look at it once again.

14             Mr. Lukic, if you then have any further questions, please put

15     them to the witness.

16             MR. LUKIC:  Should we look at it once again?

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I would like to look at it again.

18             MR. LUKIC:  Interpose this as well, Your Honour?

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I think that would be best.

20             MR. LUKIC:  We are playing the video again.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22                           [Video-clip played]

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Were you able to see whether the lines went up

25     or down?  Were you able to see that or ...

Page 40383

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I could see, the lines

 2     were moving from the building upwards.  And I've said that a number of

 3     times.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I suggest that we move on.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I just want to ask a question about this one.

 6             This line, sir, at the end of the picture at the bottom, it seems

 7     like it is still in the air.  It hasn't reached the building.  So I'm not

 8     quite sure how one determines where in the building it comes from,

 9     according to your argument that is an outgoing shot.  Because we don't

10     see, unlike the previous one that we looked at that, we saw that it hits

11     on the wall, I don't see where it hits on the -- on this building for me

12     to -- if I go according to your argument to say that that is the source.

13     So how do you determine that?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When looking at it, we need to look

15     at the other trace which was far clearer and it came out of the building

16     to the left near the balconies.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm going to

18     stop you.  I'm not going to look at this and -- I'm looking at this one.

19     I'm asking about this one.  I'm saying this line goes through smoke which

20     seems to be outside the building.  We can see the building further on.

21     And it ends on the photograph before it has reached the building.  So I'm

22     not sure whether it is -- I -- I'm not sure where from the building, if

23     you say it comes from the building, where it comes from.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It cannot be established based on

25     the photograph because of the smoke.

Page 40384

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... no, it's not

 2     because of the smoke.  It's because of the direction of the line.  The

 3     direction of the -- the photograph ends before this line hits the

 4     building, so I don't know where it comes from.  And when I say where it

 5     comes from, I'm basing that question based on your argument that this is

 6     an outgoing bullet and not incoming.  So where it comes from, I don't

 7     see.  Can you see?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No photograph can show us that.  We

 9     need to take the footage to see the continuity, if possible.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Are you saying if we continue this line we'll come

11     back again and go to the source?  We have gone past this line.  If we

12     continue, you're going to pass this line and I'm not seeing where this

13     line comes from in relation to the building.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we were to extend the line, from

15     this angle, we would definitely be able to reach the place of origin.

16     But we can't do it on the photograph.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That -- I can agree with that.  But,

18     unfortunately, this photograph doesn't take us to the origin of the

19     thing.  And that's my question.  That's precisely my concern, that how

20     can we accept this as saying it comes from the building when we don't

21     even see how far it goes towards the building.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The footage is the only thing

23     that's valid.  This still was simply given to try and locate a position

24     in the footage itself.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  This still is a still in the footage.  If you move

Page 40385

 1     from this still, you're not going to see this still again.  So it -- the

 2     rest of the footage won't tell us where this line comes from, from the

 3     building.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The rest of the footage could show

 5     us the development of the line.  That's the only thing.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I just told you how impossible that is.  You keep

 7     repeating the same story.  Anyways.  That's your answer.  Thank you so

 8     much.

 9             As long as you can see that we can't see where it comes from --

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I also agree with you that it is

11     impossible to do based on the photograph.  But the traces.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  [Previous translation continues] ... if you agree

13     with me, then I have no further questions thank you so much.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  I have one short question, and please try to focus

15     on that one.

16             What's the sense of firing into a huge smoke area with a bullet

17     from a building which apparently has -- where you are in great danger to

18     be because of the fire?  Could you tell us what your -- whether you have

19     given it any thought at all.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

21             As I said, it's a dangerous spot.  It is; that's true.  But we

22     cannot conclude here that the marksman is in smoke; right?  Probably

23     somewhere on the side, as was the case before, the big question is why it

24     was fired there.  It's hard to give an answer to that.  Possibly fire had

25     been opened from this building and then on the other side, they

Page 40386

 1     responded, and then the place was set on fire.  That is realistic.

 2             Secondly, there were TV crews there.  Now, what did somebody wish

 3     to film?  Perhaps they wanted to see a building on fire and to film that.

 4     These are just assumptions.  I cannot say.  What really surprised me -- I

 5     mean, in my view, it is certainly that there was firing from that

 6     building and it is certain that Mr. Van Lynden said --

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We didn't hear what

 8     Mr. Van Lynden said.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now, who did all the firing and who

10     set the building on fire, that I have no way of knowing.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you --

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my view, it is realistic that --

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  One last question.

14             Sir, this is outgoing fire what would have been the target?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I mean, I've just said that

16     it's hard to say what the objective of the firing is.  In my view, there

17     are two possibilities; that somebody opened fire from this building and

18     that there was a fire that came in response and that's how the building

19     was set on fire.  However, the presence of TV crews, journalists, maybe

20     that created a necessity on somebody's part to have some firing filmed on

21     this building.  We shouldn't forget the object that was thrown.  This was

22     an effect.  I mean, I'm not saying who set the building on fire.  Maybe

23     the building was on fire but somebody took advantage of the presence of

24     the TV crew to create this propaganda impression with regard to this

25     building.  It is a very thankless thing for me to try to say what

Page 40387

 1     happened there, all the things that happened there.  In my view, I've

 2     seen this thousands of times.  And firing did come from this building.

 3     And I see that you have a problem also with ascertaining all of this.  I

 4     mean, I looked at this for days and that is why I am saying with

 5     certainty that --

 6             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... yes.  Witness

 7     you are going far beyond the field of your expertise.  Listen carefully

 8     to the next question that Mr. Lukic will put to you.

 9             We'll continue.

10             MR. LUKIC:  Only for the record, Your Honour, Mr. Van Lynden

11     testifying in this case on the transcript page 1344, line 1, until

12     transcript page 1345, line 1, claimed that this building was not used by

13     Army of B and H.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  And what's --

15             MR. LUKIC:  It was claimed in our trial.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  What has that got to do with what we just saw?

17             MR. LUKIC:  We think if it was proved that it was fired from that

18     building, that the building was --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, yes.  I do understand that if you assume that

20     this was outgoing fire and if it was assumed that it was ABiH fire, then

21     you -- that would shed some doubt, perhaps over Mr. Van Lynden's, but

22     that's a lot of presumptions.

23             Let's move on.  I invited you to put the next question to the

24     witness.

25             MR. LUKIC:  Can we have 1D5499 on our screens again.  Figure 9.

Page 40388

 1     So we had it before.  English page 39.

 2        Q.   [Interpretation] The left-hand picture was taken -- actually, did

 3     you take both from the same video?

 4        A.   Yes.  The one on the left, you can see clearly that it comes from

 5     the building --

 6             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We could not hear the end

 7     of the witness's answer.  Could he please be asked to speak into the

 8     microphone.  Thank you.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you come a bit closer to the microphone.  And

10     could you repeat the last part of your answer.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This photograph on the left, we

12     took it from the same film.  And it can be seen very nicely there that

13     this is outgoing.  It can be seen how it is coming into being.  It is

14     quite clear.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Next question, please.

16             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

17        Q.   [Interpretation] I'm going to ask you something now about

18     positions around Sarajevo, Mr. Poparic.

19             So we need your paper in both versions, 1D5499.  We need page 59

20     in B/C/S and page 55 in English.  Figure 26.  Photograph 26; that's what

21     we'll be looking at.

22             MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... 26.

23        Q.   [Interpretation] In figure 26, it says that it is from the area

24     of Spicasta Stijena?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 40389

 1        Q.   And Grdonj?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   You marked that using numbers as well.  Were you in the area?

 4        A.   Yes, twice.

 5        Q.   Could you establish the separation lines?

 6        A.   On the basis of the remnants of trenches and communicating

 7     trenches, it was easy to determine where the positions of the ABiH were

 8     and where the positions of the VRS were.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Can we go to the page 60 in B/C/S - it's the next

10     page - and next page in English as well, which is page 56.  Now we need

11     figure 28.

12        Q.   [Interpretation] You see image 27 before us.  Who took these

13     photographs?

14        A.   I most probably took these photographs.  Maybe it was

15     Mrs. Subotic, but I think it was me.

16        Q.   So what do we see in this photograph?

17        A.   In photograph 28, on the left, we see the view of Spicasta

18     Stijena from the other side.  So if we were to go on looking straight

19     ahead, there's Sarajevo.  So this is the approaches to Spicasta Stijena

20     and we see what these approaches are like.  It's not a very good view.

21             The copy is not very good and there is this communicating

22     trenches all the way up to there.  These were positions of the Army of

23     Republika Srpska and at the front side of Spicasta Stijena.  On the

24     right, we see these rocks, and these were the positions of the Army of

25     Republika Srpska at Spicasta Stijena.

Page 40390

 1             Well, cannot be seen very well, can it?  Maybe it can be seen a

 2     bit better here.

 3        Q.   We're going to move on.  You explained to us what it was what you

 4     photographed.  Now let us move on to image 30; page 61 in B/C/S and 57 in

 5     English.

 6             We see it very well.  In the English version, we see image 29 as

 7     well, photograph 29.  What is depicted in these photographs?

 8        A.   In image 30, we see positions of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 9     This is a panoramic photograph.  That is to say, several photographs were

10     taken.  Because it's a very big area.  And roughly in the middle, we see

11     this path than is the path that separates Grdonj on the left and

12     Spicasta Stijena on the right.  However, the position of the BH army move

13     right to Spicasta Stijena.  It wasn't possible to show absolutely

14     everything in this photograph.  We can see that in photograph 29 on the

15     right-hand side.  We can see the view.  The view of Spicasta Stijena, up

16     hill.  And the traces of these positions of the BH army can be seen

17     there, some of these deep trenches and also the rocks piled up for

18     communicating trenches.  And also there are these shelters that were made

19     at Grdonj, to the left, and to the right, is Spicasta Stijena.

20             These positions at Spicasta Stijena went basically up to the top,

21     I think.

22        Q.   How far away were the trenches and these fortified positions of

23     the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina in relation to the positions of the Army

24     of Republika Srpska?

25        A.   These trenches were very close to the trenches of the Army of

Page 40391

 1     Republika Srpska.  In my own estimate it is 20, 30 metres, I think that

 2     they literally could have talked to one another.  There is this film that

 3     shows that's the way it was, an action taken by the Black Swans.  That's

 4     a special unit of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  They came from Tuzla.

 5     And they attacked the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska.  And it

 6     can be seen exactly where it was that they could have come from.  That

 7     matches what I saw on the ground.  I think that film was shown here when

 8     Witness Rasevic testified, Rasko, if I remember correctly, and it can be

 9     seen very well, the position of these trenches.

10             MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated] for the record -- yes, yes,

11     I forgot to turn on my microphone.  Thank you.

12             For the record, in our case, that video is marked as D00553.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Let us move on.

14             Now I'd like to show you something else from this very same

15     report of yours.  Image 33.  In B/C/S, it's page 64; in English, it is

16     page 61.

17             MR. LUKIC:  If we can, only English version in front of us and

18     only this figure with legend.  Yes.

19        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, many of the incidents that are in

20     the indictment occurred in the area of Marin Dvor.  Can you describe the

21     characteristics of this area for us; and can you tell us how come you

22     know?

23        A.   The separation lines at Marin Dvor were very complex and there

24     are some very characteristic spots.  These two lines, the red line and

25     the blue line, denote the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska and

Page 40392

 1     the Army of the BiH.  They're blue.  And between them is the

 2     Miljacka river.

 3             On the side of the Army of Republika Srpska in Grbavica there are

 4     these characteristic buildings.  There is number 1, Metalka and the

 5     building number 4 -- sorry.  Sorry.  14, it is these four white

 6     sky-scrapers.  The indictment, the police documentation, most often

 7     mentioned these two facilities as sources of fire against civilian, trams

 8     and so on.

 9             The situation is so complex and that is shown by 2A and 2B that

10     was one building divided into two parts.  In 2A it was the BH army,

11     whereas 2B was under the control of the VRS.  That building was renovated

12     so it still seems to be divided because half of it is one colour and the

13     other half another colour.

14             As for BH army, there's this characteristic building of 8, that

15     is the BH Assembly.  Then 9, BH Executive Council.  And then in the back,

16     there is this tall building, the Unis building.  11 is the Holiday Inn

17     hotel.  Then 12 is the technical school, where Pretis was during the war.

18     That is to say, military production.  And the most important building

19     here is building number 13, that is the Marsal Tito barracks.

20             It was torn down to a certain extent.  The American embassy is

21     there now.  We can see the white sky-scrapers opposite the Marsal Tito

22     barracks and sniper positions were found there after the Dayton Agreement

23     when the VRS left this area, the police carried out an on-site

24     investigation and photographs were taken, and that is where there were

25     fortified sniper positions.  The same is alleged for the Metalka

Page 40393

 1     building, but there was no proof that was ever provided, that there was a

 2     fortified sniper nest there.  The police did not find that and nobody

 3     gave any concrete evidence of the existence of a sniper position there.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Just one more question that has to do with Metalka.

 5             In how many cases did you establish that they were caused by

 6     sniper fire or other kinds of fire from the Metalka building?

 7        A.   In all the cases that we looked at, we ascertained that not in a

 8     single case was fire from the Metalka the source or the cause.  There was

 9     only this one case where we could not establish whether that had been the

10     case or had not been the case.  I've already told you at the beginning

11     that there were such cases, but we will get to that as well, won't we?

12        Q.   It's time for our break now but I'm just going to ask you one

13     more thing.

14             These four sky-scrapers what is their link with the Marsal Tito

15     barracks?

16        A.   It's direct.  As you can see, they're right opposite barracks and

17     that's where the sniper positions were.  And in my view it is logical

18     that there would be sniper positions there.  Any commander would put

19     sniper positions there because that is how one controls the area of the

20     barracks; right?  I mean, that is only natural to take advantage of this

21     kind of building for a sniper position.

22        Q.   Thank you.

23             MR. LUKIC:  It's the break time, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  It is.  The witness may follow the usher.  We'd like

25     to see you back in 20 minutes.

Page 40394

 1                           [The witness stands down]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  We resume at 12.30.

 3                           --- Recess taken at 12.07 p.m.

 4                           --- On resuming at 12.33 p.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Edgerton.

 6             MS. EDGERTON:  Just one very small thing that I wanted to put on

 7     the record.

 8             I'm not completely sure that the small video-clips we were

 9     looking at today are all subsumed within P71 and I just wanted to note

10     we'll look at it overnight, the time codes, to make sure that everything

11     is there and if not we'll revert to you to see if we could get some extra

12     small video-clips admitted.

13                           [The witness takes the stand]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic.

15             MR. LUKIC:  That's very possible, Your Honour.  That's why we

16     didn't use P71, we used 65 ter -- the whole video.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  But I take it that you appreciate that Ms. Edgerton

18     will check so that we don't have unnecessary --

19             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, of course.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  You may proceed, Mr. Lukic.

21             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

22        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, we will now focus on the incidents

23     scheduled in the indictment.  I will start with F-1.  In your report,

24     which is 1D05499, we will need to see page 68 in both versions, item 18.

25             [In English] Obviously in English version, we should go one page

Page 40395

 1     back.  One more, sorry.  One more.  Yes, thank you.  Page 65, English,

 2     I'm sorry.  I had wrong page noted.

 3             [Interpretation] The incident happened on 13th of December, 1992

 4     in Zagric Street.  In the indictment it is stated that at house number

 5     38, Anisa Pita a 3-year-old girl was injured to the leg.

 6             Did you manage to establish where the girl was when she was shot

 7     according to the documentation you had?

 8        A.   According to the documents, she was at the entrance of her house

 9     taking off her shoes when a bullet hit her in the foot.  In this image,

10     at number 39, the door cannot be seen any longer because the low --

11     actually the wall with the yellow brick was constructed subsequently.  At

12     the time of incident, it wasn't there.  And a door was there instead

13     where the girl was wounded.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You are recorded as saying number 39.  I think

15     it's number 38, sir?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The house number is 38, but the

17     image number is 39 in the report.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.  My apologies.

19             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Mr. Poparic, what is characteristic of this case, in your view?

21        A.   In this case, the basic problem was to establish whether that

22     location was at all visible from Stijena Baba from which it was asserted

23     she was shot at.  Stijena Baba is some 900 metres away.  Between the

24     house and Stijena Baba, there are trees and buildings, as well as uneven

25     terrain, and it was necessary to establish whether there was clear

Page 40396

 1     visibility.  I also have to say that during the war the VRS positions

 2     were at Stijena Baba.  They never went further down below.  So we wanted

 3     to establish first whether the place was visible from there, whether the

 4     girl could be seen.

 5        Q.   Very well.  We'll check that analysis.

 6             In your view, was the place where the girl was wounded visible

 7     from Baba Stijena?

 8        A.   No.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10             Let us now look at page 75 in your report in B/C/S -- or perhaps

11     we can stay with the English version alone.  And it is on page 72.  We're

12     interested in image 47.

13             What can we see on this still from your report, image number 47,

14     what does the left-hand side one depict and the right side?

15        A.   The left-hand side photograph was taken by Mr. Van der Weijden,

16     an OTP expert.  The right-hand side was taken by me.  The difference is

17     that Mr. Van der Weijden zoomed in by six times, as specified in his

18     report, and I did not use any zoom.  Later on, I zoomed in digitally on a

19     particular piece of the photograph.

20        Q.   When did you take the photograph?

21        A.   In September 2010.  I think on the 17th or 18th September 2010.

22        Q.   Just one second.  For the transcript, I wanted to say that this

23     photograph -- or which of these photographs -- well, you said the

24     right-hand side was Mr. Van der Weijden's?

25        A.   The right-hand side photograph is Mr. Van der Weijden's; the

Page 40397

 1     left-hand side is mine.

 2        Q.   So the right-hand side one was taken from an exhibit in this

 3     case, and it is P01130, under seal, page 20 in the B/C/S and 15 in the

 4     English, photograph number 2.

 5             Let's look at -- well, do you want to say anything else in order

 6     to compare these two photographs?

 7        A.   Yes.  The two photographs were taken from approximately the same

 8     place.  Mr. Van der Weijden claimed he took his photograph from the

 9     entrance but in this case, I don't see how he could have ended up with

10     this photograph since there are two wire fences in between.  I don't know

11     how he managed to take the photograph without the fences being seen.  I

12     took my photograph in front of the first fence at a slanted angle, if a

13     line was drawn between the point and the door which was behind me by some

14     5 or 6 metres.  Apart from that, the two photographs are basically

15     identical.

16             Mr. Van der Weijden asserted, and he marked it on the right

17     photograph, that this outcrop of rock is Baba Stijena.  As I mentioned,

18     he took his photograph somewhat later in the year, in late November, when

19     there was less vegetation.

20             On my photograph, that part is slightly visible but more covered

21     in green.  It was probably grass.  He asserted that it was Baba Stijena,

22     and I claim it is not because it looks quite differently and is much

23     further away from the location shown.

24        Q.   Thank you.

25             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we next look --

Page 40398

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before we move to another part of the transcript

 2     or an exhibit, on the left photograph, Witness, you indicate a house.

 3     Where can we see a house there.  Can you --

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can you explain that a bit further?  I don't see

 6     a house.

 7             Or can we enlarge the left photograph.

 8             Is that a house?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are some houses there, as you

10     can see on a photograph taken from a distance.  It is true that this

11     photograph was zoomed in, and I can just make out the outline of a house.

12     It has the shape of a house.

13             On the photograph that can be seen in the report, we can see that

14     there are houses in that part, in the direction of Stijena Baba.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You're indicating a house, not houses.  Are you

16     telling us that the bended -- are you telling us that the bended line is

17     part of a house or the structure inside of this line, below this line?

18             What is the house?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The house is encircled.  It is in

20     the red line, and I'm talking about the only house we can see in this

21     photograph.  However, there are other houses in the area as can be seen

22     from another photograph, although I don't know the number exactly.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Please answer only my questions.  I'm not talking

24     about other houses, only to understand this photograph.  I asked you

25     about the house you indicated.  And you say it was -- "the house is

Page 40399

 1     encircled."

 2             Who did the encirclement?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes.  It's so easy to answer these questions.

 5     Thank you so much.

 6             Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  I thought maybe Judge Orie has more questions.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, no --

 9             MR. LUKIC:  He's studying very thoroughly.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  No, I'm carefully looking at the evidence.  You put

11     the questions to the witness.  I prefer that, as a matter of fact.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

13             Can we have page 66 only in this English version, please.  We

14     need image 41, the lower image, just to be enlarged.

15        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, can you explain what it is that we

16     see this in photograph and what would be important for us to note?

17        A.   It is the -- a photograph of the area, including, Zagric Street

18     and Stijena Baba taken from the Grdonj area, which is on the other side

19     of Sarajevo.

20             The resolution of the photograph is poor, though.  However, we

21     can make out Stijena Baba just to see what it looks like.  We also have a

22     red -- a yellow square depicting the word "shooter" which is where a

23     trench of the VRS was.  Just above that, we have a piece of rock that had

24     been cut into the mountain, and, as shown, that is the Stijena Baba.  We

25     can see how big it is, and it is quite different from the outcrop marked

Page 40400

 1     by Mr. Van der Weijden.  I think the difference is obvious.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The witness is talking about the difference.  I'm

 3     not what sure what this Stijena Baba, what is it being compared to.  If

 4     we can see the two things --

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Two image on -- on -- image 47 if you want to go

 6     back.  We saw 4.  Yes.  Can we have then English page 47 -- 72, excuse

 7     me.  English page 72.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Do you mean image 42 or page 42.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Image 47, page 72.

10        Q.   [Interpretation] You heard what Judge Moloto was interested in.

11        A.   On the right-hand picture, Mr. Van der Weijden marked with an

12     arrow this Stijena Baba in the terrain and it's much smaller and the

13     shape is different compared to Stijena Baba on the picture on the right,

14     47.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... Stijena Baba

16     on the left.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it cannot be seen.  No, no,

18     no, not this one.  No.  The right hand part of that picture.  Yes.  More.

19     Now it says Stijena Baba.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, Mr. Lukic.  I have seen what is being

21     compared.

22             MR. LUKIC:  I think we should go shortly into the private

23     session.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.

25                           [Private session]

Page 40401











11  Page 40401 redacted.  Private session.















Page 40402

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6                           [Open session]

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Can we have 1D05499 on our screens again, please.  We

10     need page 71.  And we need image 45 enlarged.

11        Q.   [Interpretation] So we see this.  Actually what do we see in this

12     photograph?

13        A.   In this photograph, we see the position of the building or,

14     rather, the house in Zagric Street, number 38.  This is Google Earth and

15     we see the position of Stijena Baba, or rather the place where the firing

16     position of the Army of Republika Srpska was.

17             In relation to what was mentioned previously, we see that road

18     depicted in that photograph.  It would be this, here.  Roughly --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  If --

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Getting to the arrow --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  If the witness says "it's here," I am unable to

22     follow him because I don't know what he points at.  Therefore, Mr. Lukic,

23     if you want us to understand that, then you have to either to ask the

24     witness to mark it or --

25             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.  That would be the fastest way, I think.

Page 40403

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  With the help of the usher.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And could you please make very clear what the

 4     witness exactly is marking.

 5             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   So do tell us it is that you're marking and mark it with the

 7     number 1.

 8        A.   I'll mark the road that I said is in the lower right-hand corner.

 9     It's what we saw in the photograph of Mr. Van der Weijden's report.  So

10     it would be this road here.  And I'll mark it with the number 1.  This

11     yellow arrow corresponds basically to the Zagric Street.  And since the

12     scale is large, this is Zagric number 2, and it my view, Mr. Van der

13     Weijden marked it as being here, 3.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, could I ask you, there's one part of this

15     picture where it's zoomed in.  Now, wouldn't it be clearer that you --

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes --

17             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... on the zoomed in

18     portion if that is possible, if it is not possible --

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, the zoomed-in portion is just

20     the surroundings of the building.  It cannot be seen.  So it's ... I

21     mean, I think it cannot be seen there.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I'm trying to understand then what exactly it

23     is that you zoomed in on.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Oh, I zoomed in in order to

25     determine where the house is in Zagric 38.  And then on that basis, I

Page 40404

 1     drew this line.  You see this line here?  It is actually the zoomed-in

 2     part.  The red line.  In the zoomed-in part.  From Stijena Baba to

 3     Zagric.  So it's the same part and just this part that has been enlarged,

 4     so that it can be seen clearly how far it goes.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  And does the street you are indicating, does that

 6     not appear on the zoomed-in part?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  No.  It's further up.  That's

 8     what I've been saying.  What I marked with the number 3, that is roughly

 9     the area that Mr. Van der Weijden identified as the location of the

10     house.  It's a bit further down.  Not a bit further down, but it's about

11     50 metres, in my estimate.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please proceed.

13             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.  Can we introduce this marked image into

14     evidence, please.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  It receives exhibit number D1328, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.  It's admitted into

18     evidence.

19             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   And another question related to this incident, Mr. Poparic.

21             What is your final conclusion regarding this incident?

22        A.   My final conclusion is that the girl was not visible from

23     Stijena Baba and she could not have been targeted intentionally at that

24     moment, from Stijena Baba.  She certainly was not targeted intentionally

25     at all.  Now where the bullet had come from, that I don't know.

Page 40405

 1        Q.   Just once again.  You mentioned it but I don't know whether it's

 2     been recorded, all of it.

 3             Were there any natural obstacles between Stijena Baba and the

 4     place where she was?

 5        A.   When we look at these photographs, there were all sorts of

 6     things.  In order to be as sure as possible, but you know it's very hard

 7     to say, I was there twice and I never managed to see all this.  However,

 8     in order to be sure I carried out analysis that is provided here.  Using

 9     a topographical map and a profile of the terrain from Google Earth, an

10     American map, a topographical map, that is, and a topographical map of

11     the Yugoslav People's Army.  In all three cases, I got results that were

12     almost identical; the configuration of the terrain is such that the house

13     in Zagrica 38 is not visible from there.  So this showed that it's not

14     visible.  There's not a single -- I mean, even if there were not a single

15     house or a single tree there, again, that spot would not have been

16     visible.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can you determine the visibility on the basis of

18     a topographical map?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I could establish whether

20     there are any obstacles in the terrain itself.  So let us disregard what

21     is on the terrain, forest, houses, et cetera.  I just looked at the

22     terrain itself on the basis of topographical maps.  According to all

23     three of the sources, the terrain is such that there is this elevation of

24     2 or 3 metres in one place that conceals this house.  It is very steep

25     terrain and that's how it is possible to be this way.  The results are

Page 40406

 1     very similar in all three cases, and that's why I believe they are

 2     reliable.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Can we shortly see page 76 and we need image 50.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we do so --

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  You said I don't know where the bullet has come

 8     from, but not from Stijena Baba.  I see in image 42 that you identify a

 9     place of a shooter which suggests that you know where the bullet came

10     from.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  You do know it?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no.  No.  I identified the

14     position where the VRS was.  That's where they were from the beginning to

15     the end of the war.  I visited that place, and it is visible to this day.

16             Now, what is it that I'm asserting?  That he could not have seen

17     this little girl and --

18             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I just want to

19     know what on image 42 the location "shooter" means.  That's what I want

20     to know.  Perhaps we can have a look at it.  It's page 67 in e-court.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll explain.  Since it is being

22     alleged that the girl was hit from Stijena Baba, I proceeded from that,

23     that the shooter who hit her was there.  But then I established that he

24     could not have seen her.  Now, whether he was firing along a trajectory

25     that's a parabola or something, I cannot say.  But according to the

Page 40407

 1     documentation I had available, there was some fighting going on at the

 2     time.  Now whether the bullet ricocheted somewhere or whatever, that I

 3     cannot say, but --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, what does "shooter" indicate.  It's

 5     apparently not Stijena Baba.  What did you depict where you said

 6     "shooter"?  What stands that location for?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That means that that is where the

 8     presumed shooter was, the one who shot the girl.  That's what we

 9     proceeded from, that he was there, that he fired at the girl.  We are

10     trying to ascertain whether he could have seen the girl.  There's no

11     denying that the VRS was there throughout the war.  I assume that that's

12     where he was.  I'm not denying that.  But then I ...

13             JUDGE ORIE:  So, that's where you think the shooter may have been

14     because he couldn't have been on Baba Stijena because he couldn't see the

15     girl from there.  And is that, then, the position from where you could

16     have seen the girl and where the shooter presumably has been?  Is that --

17     I just have -- don't understand exactly what you want to tell us.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, from that spot, there was no

19     visibility and that's where the position of the VRS was and it's quite

20     visible to this day.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  That's still not an answer to my question.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Do you mean by this indication "shooter" the

23     location according to the indictment?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, according to the indictment.

25     That's what they alleged, that that's where the fire came from and I

Page 40408

 1     proceeded from that fact and I analysed everything from there.  I visited

 2     the spot, analysed the terrain and so on and I came to the conclusion

 3     that --

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  [Previous translation continues] ... this is not

 5     a possible location of a shooter, if I understand you correctly.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mm-hmm.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  But may I then ask you, where you point at

 8     "shooter," is that the same as Baba Stijena or is that a different

 9     location?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  It is -- I mean, it's that

11     rock, Stijena Baba.  If you look at number 42, down there, it's very

12     steep and then the top of this rock, that's where the position was.

13     Where it says "shooter."  That is the top of the rock, the top of

14     Stijena Baba, and it is very high up, like 20 metres high.  You can see

15     it in image 42.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I'm looking at it, but it is --

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If necessary, I can mark it so that

18     it is clearer.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The locations "shooter" and location

20     Stijena Baba, are they identical in your view or are these different

21     locations?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They are identical.  It's just that

23     the location where the shooter was is a micro location.  The shooter was

24     at the top of Stijena Baba.  Perhaps it would be useful if I marked what

25     I believe to be Stijena Baba.

Page 40409

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  That's -- I think that's clear to me now.  But what

 2     does you make believe that the indictment puts the shooter not on the top

 3     of Stijena Baba but on a point close to that?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  There's misunderstanding about

 5     the top.  Perhaps you are confused by the marking.  Stijena Baba is above

 6     the road.  The shooter was on the top of Baba Stijena, in my view.

 7             What you see behind is a road and the rock was created

 8     artificially.  No one could have climbed up that way.  There's a

 9     photograph, perhaps it isn't the best, but it might assist.  It is

10     photograph 40.  Can you see the road and on the right-hand side

11     Stijena Baba, where the VRS position was.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I take it the two arrows from the rectangle

13     "shooter" and the rectangle Stijena Baba are pointing, if I look at it,

14     to different locations.  But do I understand you correctly that you

15     wanted to show that the shooter was exactly at the same location as the

16     top of Stijena Baba?  And, again, the shooter, according to the

17     indictment.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct.  The shooter was

19     at this position.  That's where he was supposed to be according to the

20     indictment.  The Stijena Baba marked above the road has no access path.

21     It just a rock, sheer rock.  Stijena Baba actually begins just below the

22     shooter box.  It is actually an abyss, some 20 metres deep, and that is

23     Stijena Baba, as a matter of fact.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

25             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.  Can we just briefly see image 50 on

Page 40410

 1     page 76.

 2        Q.   [Interpretation] Briefly tell us what you wanted to show here.

 3        A.   It's what I discussed when I talked about the lie of the land.

 4     It was done based on a topographic map created by the Military Mapping

 5     Institute in Belgrade.  Based on the map, this profile was created,

 6     depicting the land between Zagric Street and Stijena Baba.  If you draw a

 7     line between Zagric Street number 38 and Stijena Baba, at 483 metres, I

 8     believe, the slope actually goes over the line by some 2 metre, I think.

 9     We did something similar --

10        Q.   Let us look at the next photograph which is image 51.

11             MR. LUKIC: [In English] It's on the next page, 77.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did the same thing with an

13     American map here.  It is the same exercise I did with the -- previously

14     with the Yugoslav military map.  We see there's a slight difference

15     because the point occurs at 387 metres where the outcrop is preventing

16     the view.  That is on the left-hand side.

17             On the right-hand side, it is created by using Google Earth which

18     did it automatically, and the height is 4.2, according to Google Earth.

19     It may well be a bit more correct than the other two maps.  In any case,

20     it all fits well into the picture.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you:  What elevation from the ground

22     level you took from exactly where the girl may have been?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to these photographs, the

24     end point is Zagric Street number 38.  That is where the girl was and the

25     house --

Page 40411

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  But there is -- there's a house.  You can take the

 2     roof of the house.  You can take the foundation of the house.  You can

 3     take the terrace of the house -- would you please not interrupt me.  Yes.

 4             So what exactly did you take there?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You saw the house on the

 6     photograph.  It is picture 38.  The entrance -- no, it wasn't 38.  It was

 7     somewhere at the beginning.  39.  The girl was about -- some 1 metre

 8     above ground where the gate is.  There are two steps in between.  So I

 9     suppose she was at about 1 metre from the ground.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And what did you -- at the other side, did you

11     take the level or did you add 1 metre and a half for a standing-up

12     person?  How did you exactly measure where Baba Stijena is.  You say it's

13     all steep.  So one metre further up could make a difference of half a

14     metre or down.  How did you exactly determine those positions?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We determined the positions by

16     taking -- well, I didn't take into account the possibility that the

17     shooter climbed up and took up position because all positions on the

18     ground are made so that one needs to lie down during combat.  Why would

19     one stand up in combat in order to shoot?  They are behind a shelter, and

20     practically at ground level or maybe 50 centimetres up.  It also fits

21     within the 4 metre margin.  There's a very slight difference in angle, if

22     you move it half a metre up or down.  It wouldn't result in much -- well,

23     if we were to add 2 metres up and drew a line, it would also go through

24     the area where we have the 4.2 metres.  It is not linear.  Only the angle

25     is changed slightly.  So whatever we take, it will always go below the

Page 40412

 1     ground of 4 metres.  The altitude or the difference altitude is some 300

 2     metres at 300 metres 1 or 2 metres have a very small impact on the margin

 3     of error.  If the difference in altitude were 10 or 15 metres, then that

 4     would be much.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  So 10 metres could make the difference.  Is that how

 6     I understand you?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.  If the ground was quite

 8     flat and the shooter was only 10 metres away, if the shooter's at 10 and

 9     the victim at zero, and then if we make the correction of 2 metres then

10     the difference is great.  But when the difference in altitude is 300

11     metres, then 1 or 2 metres result in a very small percentage, having a

12     negligible impact on --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  If halfway there's an obstruction of 4 metres high,

14     wouldn't it be fair to say that for the full length, it would be 8

15     metres?  That's simple trigonometry, isn't it?  I mean, if halfway is the

16     obstruction - if you would please let me ask first - wouldn't it be true

17     that then at full distance it would be 8 metres?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If the angle is 45 degrees.  It

19     depends on the angle.  But that's what I was talking about.  The

20     difference in altitude of 300 metres reduces the impact of angle.  How

21     should I explain that?

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I simply ask you:  If you draw a line, from A

23     to B, and you draw another line, from A to a little bit above B, and if

24     halfway the distance is 4 metres, irrespective of the angle, wouldn't it

25     be true that, at the full distance, it would be 8 metres?

Page 40413

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

 2             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That depends -- well, it can be

 4     calculated by using triangles.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Please prepare for me a little sketch in which

 6     halfway two lines have a difference of 4 metres, starting at the same

 7     point, and at the end, it's not 8 metres.  If you would make such a

 8     sketch for me, I would appreciate that highly.  If you need any

 9     specific -- any specific angles, et cetera, or -- I have -- and then

10     please show it to me, I would be easily convinced if that's true.

11             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.  I'm looking at the clock.  We're

12     close to --

13             MR. LUKIC:  Only I have one question.  Should be for this

14     distance or some other distance?  Or --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I say if it's halfway 4 metres, then the full

16     stretch, then it's 8 metres.  That's the only thing I'm saying and that

17     is irrespective of distance because that would be at least, in my view,

18     but if the witness would convince me otherwise it makes no difference

19     whether it's 200 metres, 500 metres or a kilometre.  It's just like that.

20             MR. LUKIC:  I'll move to another topic so we can go to the

21     break --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes --

23             MR. LUKIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Is that a topic which you would deal with within

25     five minutes or perhaps otherwise we would better take the break first.

Page 40414

 1             MR. LUKIC:  I have to read from some transcripts as well.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then perhaps we take the break first and

 3     resume at quarter to 2.00.  Yes?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just one question so it's clear to

 5     me, to make sure I understand you.

 6             So you had in mind the height of 4 and 8 metres irrespective of

 7     the distance.  So at half the distance, the difference is 4 metres, and

 8     your question is:  What is the difference at full length; correct?

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Then it's fine.  I'll prepare that.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Thank you.  We'll take a break and we'll --

12     you may follow the usher, and we'll resume at quarter to 2.00.

13                           [The witness stands down]

14                           --- Recess taken at 1.25 p.m.

15                           --- On resuming at 1.50 p.m.

16                           [The witness takes the stand]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, were you able to make such a sketch?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Perhaps put it on the ELMO.

20             Yes, please put it on the ELMO.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Upside down.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I don't see anything at all.  At this moment I see a

23     box with -- a box with tissues.  I think if we ... yes, there we are.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's it.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Witness, thank you very much for doing it.

Page 40415

 1             Would you agree that the distance between A and D and B and C

 2     would also be the proportion of 1 to 2?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  So if I look carefully at your sketch, you would

 5     fully agree with me, which I said before, that if halfway, it is A, then

 6     the full way it's 2A.  Which also means that if the obstacle halfway is 2

 7     metres, then you would need, at the very end, 4 metres of difference in

 8     elevation to overcome it.  Would you agree with that?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Does that mean I should proceed, Your Honour?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, of course, Mr. Lukic.  I wouldn't have anyone

14     else on my mind.

15             MR. LUKIC:  We'll move now to F-3 incident from the 11th of July,

16     1993.  And we need 1D05499 on our screens, page 88 in B/C/S and page 85

17     in English.

18             MS. EDGERTON:  Your Honours.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

20             MS. EDGERTON:  Would Your Honours be inclined to receive this

21     sketch made by Mr. Poparic as a Chamber's exhibit.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I think, as a matter of fact, that as a result

23     of the sketch, Mr. Poparic agreed fully with me that if it's halfway a

24     certain distance then the full way, even if it is projected, doesn't make

25     any -- angles is irrelevant, distance is irrelevant, it's just a double.

Page 40416

 1     And I think Mr. Poparic agreed with that so I don't need the sketch to

 2     have in evidence.  It was just a means by which we could establish that

 3     we agreed.

 4             MS. EDGERTON:  And, indeed, he did.  Thank you.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 7        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, in this part of your report, in

 8     paragraph 45, you say that on the 11th of July, 1993 - actually you are

 9     dealing with this case - Munira Zametica was shot dead while collecting

10     water from the Dobrinja river near the pedestrian bridge.

11             In your view, what is characteristic of this particular incident?

12        A.   According to the available documents, it is considered that

13     Munira Zametica was shot from Dobrinja 4, an area that was under the

14     control of the VRS and the distance was roughly 1100 metres away from

15     where Munira Zametica was.

16             What is characteristic is that there was shooting in Dobrinja

17     practically all day and we don't have any precise information about the

18     gun-fire involved.

19             Further on, the time of the incident is in dispute.  According to

20     the police report, it was between 1900 hours and 1930.  A lady neighbour

21     who was with Munira Zametica claims that this happened earlier, and she

22     was with Munira Zametica.  She said during her testimony when it was just

23     about to get dark, so this matches the police report but later on she

24     corrected what she had said.  Then, there is the death certificate from

25     the hospital that refers to a different time, 1600 hours.  And so on.

Page 40417

 1             The greatest problem here is to establish whether Munira Zametica

 2     was visible from the positions where she was shot from as it is claimed.

 3     There is another detail.  What is claimed is that she was getting water

 4     from the Dobrinja river and that was shown in the film.  The witness

 5     explained what was happening, that she was getting water from the river

 6     and that is absolutely impossible.  There had to be some kind of steps so

 7     that she could go down to the water.  Otherwise she couldn't have gotten

 8     any water and she could not have --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic.  Mr. Lukic, would you please stop the

10     witness when he tells us whether there should have been steps, whether

11     there -- whether there's any difference in times given by one witness

12     according to the doctors.  That's fully, but then fully, out of the scope

13     of the witness's expertise.  That's one.

14             And, second, it's the task of the Chamber to do that.

15             So would you please not present the witness in such a way that he

16     tells us how we should do our job.  Let him testify about what his

17     expertise is.

18             MR. LUKIC:  Your Honour, with all due respect, he had to

19     establish full details about every incident, and there were no traces

20     like in mortar attacks, for example.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  All within his field of expertise, Mr. Lukic.

22             MR. LUKIC:  His field --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Not anywhere else.  His expertise, how reliable

24     hospital records are, whether one of the witnesses may have been

25     mistaken, whether it was summertime, winter time, dark, all that is not

Page 40418

 1     within the expertise of this witness.  So would you please stop him from

 2     doing that and would you please take him to what we are looking forward

 3     to, that is, the technical analysis in his expertise about whatever

 4     information would be there.  That's it.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Your Honour, time of the day is crucial for shooting.

 6     So he had to establish it.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I think I gave you sufficient guidance.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  If you can establish that but with focussed

11     questions, what is the difference between 4 and 4.30 in term of shooting.

12             MR. LUKIC:  4 and 7.30.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Whether the bullets fly at one hour in summertime

14     different at other times.  Visibility is another matter.  I don't know

15     whether the witness is a expert in visibility, but I accept that as

16     perhaps relevant.

17             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.  Can we have quickly P01905 on our

18     screens, please.

19             Before we get it, I'll ask Mr. Poparic.

20        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, do you know, you said that one

21     woman was there with the late Munira Zametica?  Do you know what his name

22     was?

23        A.   I think her name is Sadija Sahinovic or something like that.

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Could the witness please

25     speak into the microphone.  Thank you.

Page 40419

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, would you come closer to the microphone and

 2     speak into it.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And slow down.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.

 5             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   We have the testimony of Sadija Sahinovic before us now.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... interpreters

 8     couldn't hear the name of the person who was with the deceased and that's

 9     why they're asking the witness to tell us -- come closer to the

10     microphone.

11             MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... I think that he said the

12     same name.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Would you please repeat the name?  What was the

14     name of the lady?

15        A.   Sadija Sahinovic was with Munira Zametica.

16        Q.   [In English] Thank you.

17             [Interpretation] So what we need is page 5 in e-court.  [In

18     English] And line 3 -- actually line 2 the question was:  "At the time

19     that she was killed, what were you and she doing?"

20             And in line 3, there is an answer.  I quote:  "We were on our way

21     to get some water, and night was about to fall, and the river was exposed

22     to sniper fire."

23             MR. LUKIC:  And that's all we needed from this document.  And can

24     we now have P00973, please.

25        Q.   [Interpretation] While we're waiting for the report, you

Page 40420

 1     mentioned the police report.  We are now going to get an Official Note of

 2     the Novi Grad public security station.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Can we have page 2 in both versions, please.

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] The penultimate paragraph, we see what is

 5     written there:  "The murder took place on the 11 July 1993 between 1900

 6     hours and 1930 hours, under the bridge over the Dobrinja river which

 7     connects the Dobrinja II and Dobrinja III."

 8             [In English] And now we'll have to see P00661, please.

 9             [Interpretation] We see this photograph.  Mr. Poparic, can you

10     recognise this place?

11        A.   Yes.  This was taken from the bridge that is closer to

12     Dobrinja IV and in the background we see the bridge underneath which

13     Mrs. Munira Zametica was when she was killed.

14        Q.   From where was this photograph taken?  From the church or the

15     side opposite the church?

16        A.   The church.

17        Q.   Did you try to go down to the river-bed to see whether water can

18     be taken out of the river without having a ramp or something else to

19     assist?

20        A.   Well, I had to be careful not to falling into the water.  I

21     didn't have a reserve pair of shoes so I didn't really go down to check

22     whether this could be done.  Well, one could go down here, but not with a

23     bucket and water.  But I mean, there's no way you can get water out of

24     the river just with your hand.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Did you try that, with a bucket full of water?

Page 40421

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't try.  I've already told

 2     you, it's so steep that I didn't dare go down without a bucket even, let

 3     alone with a bucket.

 4             Now, what is all of this about?  What is --

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... no, no, no,

 6     sorry.  I just wanted to know if you did that, and you said you didn't

 7     dare to do it and that's all.

 8             Mr. Lukic.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Okay.

10        Q.   [Interpretation] Is the place of the incident visible from the

11     Orthodox church?

12        A.   It is, as we can see it in -- as can be seen in the picture.

13     There are no obstacles.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I just check.  The bridge before which is

15     slowly bending, that's the bridge under which the -- Munira Zametica was

16     shot at?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  That is the bridge.  And on

18     it, you can see sandbags.  Those sandbags were on both sides of the

19     bridge.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I think you can proceed, Mr. Lukic.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

23             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   On image 64, you marked a place under the bridge over the

25     Dobrinja, and we need to go back to your report.

Page 40422

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And it is 1D05499.  Image 63 in the

 2     report.  In the B/C/S, we need page 95; in the English, page 92.

 3             [In English] So we need lower photo from this page.  Thank you.

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] We can see that the photograph was taken on

 5     September 17th, 2010 from the centre of the bridge beneath which

 6     Munira Zametica was shot.  Who took the photograph?

 7        A.   I did.

 8        Q.   In front of us is the Orthodox church.  We can see it.  Four

 9     buildings are marked with numbers 1 through 4.

10             Were there any other buildings next to the church in the

11     territory controlled by the VRS from which the place of incident would be

12     visible?

13        A.   At that time building number 4 did not exist and the four crosses

14     also marks four new buildings that did not exist at the time in

15     Dobrinja IV controlled by the VRS.  The buildings 1, 2 and 3, were in

16     ABiH-controlled territory and existed at that time.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can I just ask a question for clarification.

18             The previous picture we saw, the bridge was sort of in an arc

19     form.  This one seems to be straight.  Are we talking -- are these the

20     same bridge or are they two different bridges?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is a different bridge.  The

22     bridge we saw on the previous photograph, the curved bridge, is the one

23     that this photograph was taken from.  So it's probably halfway or even

24     closer to the church.  In my assessment, it is about 400 metres away.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And between the two bridges, which one is it that

Page 40423

 1     it is alleged that she was shot under?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Munira Zametica was hurt under the

 3     bridge from which this photograph was taken.  I stood on the bridge and

 4     took the photograph of the church.  The other photograph was taken from

 5     the bridge we can see here with the red car on it.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I still don't understand.  I'm not sure my

 7     question is answered.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we go back to image 59, the

 9     bridge where we see -- with the carpet, that is the bridge you can see in

10     image 63, with the red car on it.  So this was taken from another

11     direction.  I took image 63 from the curved bridge you can see in the

12     background in image 59.  You can see in image 59, there is no church in

13     the background and in image 63 you can see the church.  So the direction

14     is opposite.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.  I'm just concerned that the --

16     I'm just wondering whether the bridge suddenly becomes straight when it

17     is taken from a different direction.

18             Carry on.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I think it's time to adjourn.

20             Witness, we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.30 in

21     this same courtroom.  But before you leave the courtroom - and you may

22     have heard this before - I instruct you that you should not speak or

23     communicate with anyone about your testimony, whether already given or

24     still to be given, and we'd like to see you back tomorrow.

25             You may follow the usher.

Page 40424

 1                           [The witness stands down]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume tomorrow,

 3     Wednesday, the 28th of October, 9.30 in the morning, in this same

 4     courtroom, I.

 5                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.15 p.m.,

 6                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 28th day of

 7                           October, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.