151102ED

Page 40613

1 end of the testimony of this witness that you would revisit the matter.

2 Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.

3 MS. EDGERTON: Yes. And just the final thing for everyone.

4 We've now released a public redacted version of P1130, which was of

5 course admitted under seal. And that public redacted version has the

6 65 ter number 28541B. So if we could use that, unless otherwise

7 indicated, I think that might be helpful.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we can use it, but as always, public redacted

9 versions will not be admitted into evidence. They are just for use in

10 court and may be brought to the attention of the public by other means

11 but not as a part of the evidence before this Chamber.

12 MS. EDGERTON: I understand, Your Honour. It was just to avoid

13 going in and out of private session wherever possible.

14 JUDGE ORIE: That's appreciated.

15 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

17 WITNESS: MILE POPARIC [Resumed]

18 [Witness answered through interpreter]

19 Cross-examination by Ms. Edgerton: [Continued]

20 Q. Now, Mr. Poparic, before we go back to where we left off on

21 Thursday, I'd like to invite you to have a look at paragraph 10 of your

22 report.

23 MS. EDGERTON: Apologies for the delay. I had omitted the page

24 numbers, but in English it appears at page 39.

25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And you should give the 65 ter number again.

Page 40614

1 MS. EDGERTON: D1330.

2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That is the unredacted version, I think. But you

3 wanted to use the redacted -- public redacted version.

4 MS. EDGERTON: Actually, I'm referring to Mr. Poparic's report.

5 But when I described a public redacted version, that is

6 Mr. Van der Weijden's report.

7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

8 MS. EDGERTON: And just your indulgence for a moment and

9 apologies -- oh, thank you to my friend for finding the paragraph number.

10 Q. So here in paragraph 10, the very first line, you said --

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could we have the English version --

12 MS. EDGERTON: Oh, yes.

13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- on the screen as well.

14 MS. EDGERTON: Yes.

15 Q. You see the very first line of paragraph 10 reads:

16 "According to the reports available to us, the victims were

17 predominantly civilian."

18 Now, in this sentence you are talking about the victims of

19 sniping in Bosnian-held Sarajevo; right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Now --

22 A. But --

23 Q. You can -- thank you for answering my question. I just want to

24 move on. Now, in terms of the identification of those victims as

25 civilians, you referred to a document that's got the Defence 65 ter

Page 40615

1 number 1D05640. And if we could have a look at that, I'm going to ask

2 you a couple of questions about it.

3 Now, this isn't translated, and I think that for the -- oh, parts

4 of it are translated. Wonderful. And this document you know is -- is a

5 document in two parts; right? The first 40-some odd pages is --

6 actually, the first 44 pages is part of an index to a list of sniping

7 casualties in Bosnian-held Sarajevo; right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And this list - and we could just flip over one page in B/C/S -

10 this list, you know from reviewing it, also refers to supporting

11 material; right? So for each incident it lists persons killed or wounded

12 by surname and first name, date of birth, sometimes where they have it

13 location of the incident, and underlying each name there is a range of

14 supporting material; right?

15 A. Yes.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Edgerton, the English version doesn't seem to

17 accord with the B/C/S one on the screen.

18 MS. EDGERTON: No, it doesn't. And it's not my translation. I

19 would propose to -- this is a Defence-uploaded document I'm referring to,

20 so perhaps in the interests of accuracy we could just deal with the B/C/S

21 version for now. Thank you.

22 Q. Now, from reviewing this document, you would agree with me that

23 the range of supporting material for each incident includes things from

24 medical records; right? It includes medical records.

25 A. Yes, but not always.

Page 40616

1 Q. No, and --

2 A. Some cases.

3 Q. Sometimes it includes death notices; right?

4 A. Yes, there is different information. But --

5 Q. Now --

6 A. -- it's not the same for each and every case.

7 Q. Right. So just let me go through the range, if you don't mind.

8 Sometimes it includes official police notes, investigative material;

9 right?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And sometimes the supporting material refers to statements of

12 victims or survivors; right?

13 A. I'm not sure that there are statements, but if that's what you're

14 saying, I will agree with you. But I'm not quite sure about statements.

15 It's possible that there are statements.

16 Q. And sometimes the lists of supporting material include reference

17 to photographs and forensic reports, don't they?

18 A. I don't remember that I found that. But we can check.

19 Q. I'll give you a chance to do that, I think, later on. Now, you

20 relied on this document. You cite to it actually in your footnotes 23,

21 71, 241 and 242, 244, 299, and 600 as the basis for a range of

22 assertions. So I just want to ask you, since you relied so heavily on

23 the document, a couple more questions about the contents.

24 Just dealing with the first 45 pages that would have -- the ERN

25 number 0097-0276 to 0318. Now, that's a list of sniping victims from

Page 40617

1 September to December 1992; right?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And you acknowledge, by the way, that this material is

4 incomplete? You've skipped over all of 1993, haven't you? There is no

5 material for 1993 in this list at all.

6 A. It's not that I skipped anything. I didn't have it available. I

7 think that I've already said that, that there wasn't anything for 1993,

8 and I've already said that I analysed what it was that I had available.

9 Q. Okay. So what you analysed from September to December 1992 shows

10 258 people wounded as a result of sniping; right?

11 A. 256 according to my report. Well, there is a difference of two.

12 Well, it doesn't really matter, does it.

13 Q. Well, actually it does matter. That's why we're dealing with

14 these figures. And we've counted 87 killed from September to December

15 1992, this range of documents.

16 A. According to my report, 99.

17 Q. And this list includes children, you've indicated that; right?

18 A. Includes all who were registered as sniping victims; that is to

19 say, children, women, men, everyone.

20 Q. And you found among that the victim -- the victim of

21 Scheduled Incident F-1 who you referred to in your report; right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And you would have --

24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did not understand what

25 the witness said.

Page 40618

1 JUDGE ORIE: If I listened well to him, I think he mentioned the

2 name of the victim of F-1, that's what I heard directly.

3 Is that what did, Witness? Anisa Pita?

4 THE WITNESS: Anisa Pita, 13th of December, 1992. Yes.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

6 MS. EDGERTON:

7 Q. And you also found in that list a number of people with the date

8 of birth before 1930, didn't you? People who were over the age of 60 at

9 the time they were killed or wounded; right?

10 A. Yes, yes, there were such cases.

11 Q. Okay. Let's go on to page 46 -- either 45 or 46 of this

12 65 ter number. It's part of a different file index dealing with victims

13 of sniping in Bosnian-held Sarajevo from January to August 1994. And

14 it's correct, isn't it, that this different index breaks down the victims

15 month by month; right? You can look at the screen and you can see the

16 document I'm talking about in front of you. It's correct that they

17 breakdown the lists of victims killed and wounded by sniping month by

18 month; right?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And you found in there victims of scheduled sniping incidents

21 that you dealt with in your report, didn't you?

22 A. Yes.

23 MS. EDGERTON: Your Honours, I'd like to tender this 65 ter

24 number, please, as a Prosecution exhibit.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

Page 40619

1 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D05640 receives Exhibit Number P7594.

2 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.

4 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.

5 Q. And, Mr. Poparic, over the course of your cross-examination I'd

6 like to know, would you be prepared to have a look at the list from 1993

7 which was missing from the index that you offered and answer some

8 questions about it?

9 A. I haven't seen that list until now. I can take a look. Why not?

10 Q. That's fine. We'll make sure to have a copy of it prepared for

11 you and delivered to you and allow you enough time to be able to review

12 it.

13 But for now I want to get back to some of the incidents that we

14 were talking about before we left off on Thursday, and I want to stay,

15 please, with F-5. That's the incident in Brijesce Brdo. Now, in respect

16 of that incident you mention a tank and you mentioned it in a paragraph

17 89, which is at page 126 in English and 124 in B/C/S.

18 A. Correct.

19 MS. EDGERTON: Could we please have a look at Mr. Poparic's

20 report so he can see those pages, that reference.

21 Q. Now, you say here that Ms. Kundo did concede, however, that there

22 was a BH army tank by the church some 500 metres above her house, but she

23 didn't know if the tank had ever fired. And your comment is that the

24 presence of the tank in itself isn't directly linked to the incident but

25 it indicates that there were troops in the Brijesce Brdo area -- pardon

Page 40620

1 me, on Brijesce Brdo whose members could have been the target of attack

2 in this case.

3 Now, you mentioned this very -- this -- actually, you had the

4 identical paragraph in your Karadzic report, so we talked about it, if

5 you'll remember, in your Karadzic testimony. Do you remember that at

6 that time I pointed out to you that you had omitted to mention that

7 Mrs. Kundo actually testified that she didn't even know what year the

8 tank was there, that it could have been 1993 or 1994? Do you remember

9 that I pointed that out to you?

10 A. That's what you said, but I did not find that piece of

11 information that she said that; that is, the tank was there.

12 Q. Do you remember that I also pointed out to you that the tank was

13 only -- that she testified that the tank was only there on that site for

14 seven days sometime within that two-year period? Do you remember that I

15 pointed that out to you?

16 A. Yes, but the tank wasn't there only seven days. Mr. Brennskag

17 testified about that, a military observer who saw that tank from the

18 observation post number 4 at Vitkovac. So the tank was probably there

19 for a long period of time. That is my opinion. Which does not mean that

20 Ms. Kundo had to know about it. Maybe she didn't. But according to the

21 military observer's statements, the tank was there for a longer period of

22 time.

23 Q. Well, when I pointed this out to you in the Karadzic case, you

24 said:

25 "It's not for us to say when this happened. We just mentioned

Page 40621

1 that a tank was there."

2 You didn't say anything at that time about not finding that

3 information, so are you changing your evidence now?

4 A. I'm not changing my evidence. I just didn't mention it there. I

5 can't always answer exactly the same.

6 Q. Well, the effect of not mentioning it -- actually, the effect of

7 your selective excerpting might create the impression that Mrs. Kundo

8 said that the tank was there at the time of the incident. Right?

9 A. I don't think so. If she said it wasn't there, it wasn't there

10 according to her, which again doesn't mean that it wasn't. She knows

11 that it wasn't there in a period of seven days, whereas the military

12 observers were there for a much longer time. That's the extent to which

13 she knows the situation. If she claims it wasn't there on that day, then

14 that's her evidence. But that a tank was prevent in that area is a fact.

15 I don't know exactly when.

16 Q. No, let's just get back to her evidence. You're now arguing with

17 me about what her evidence might be and the weight of it. The fact is

18 you knew about this omission, the omission is significant because it goes

19 to influence your argument as to military targets or potential military

20 targets in the area, and you left that information out again; right?

21 That's the fact.

22 A. Well, that Mrs. Kundo didn't know the exact period, that's true.

23 But I'm telling you her knowledge does not coincide with the knowledge of

24 the military observers. That's why her evidence doesn't rule out the

25 possibility that the tank was there within a longer period of time.

Page 40622

1 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just -- could I just ask you where exactly

2 is the -- because we don't have the name of the military observer. Where

3 is that to be found exactly in your report, the observation by the

4 military observer about the presence of a tank?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't mention it in the report,

6 but --

7 JUDGE ORIE: You've answered --

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- in his statement it is there.

9 Brennskag is the name.

10 JUDGE ORIE: It's not in the report. In the report you present

11 it as if there would have been a tank. Any discussion about when that

12 tank was there, that there is apparently evidence which may have to be

13 reconciled is not something you mentioned. You just leave it to the

14 suggestion that the tank would have been there most likely at that point

15 in time. That's the impression you give us. Would you agree with that?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree. If there is other

17 information which confirms that, I have nothing against it. This is the

18 knowledge that I had as to what Mrs. Kundo stated. That's all.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Apart from the basic question of whether it's

20 for you to assess the probative value of one piece of evidence against

21 another piece of evidence, apart from that basic question, wouldn't you

22 think that it would be appropriate, if you do it, to present all the

23 elements so that it is transparent on which information your conclusions

24 are drawn?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, certainly it would be a good

Page 40623

1 idea to present as much evidence as possible. I only looked at her

2 evidence and didn't go into it deeply. I saw that there was mention of a

3 tank, but there were probably troops as well.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Probability, I -- now, if this was highlighted

5 in the Karadzic case, don't you think that it would have been

6 appropriate, where apparently there was a problem in relation to all this

7 or at least it was discussed, then at least in your new report to give

8 more information, more detailed information where you knew that it had

9 caught the attention that there was evidence which might not be fully

10 consistent in every respect?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it's true that I omitted that.

12 But even then I didn't claim that it was very important from my point of

13 view. I mentioned it in passing. I did not draw a single conclusion as

14 to how the incident happened.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you suggested that those -- that tank and

16 those troops may have been the target of the attack in this case. That's

17 a suggestion which goes in one direction. You have left out any

18 suggestion going into the direction that they perhaps probably would not

19 have been there and therefore could not explain it. You agree?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree, but I made a suggestion.

21 It's not a claim that it's the cause of the incident. That's one. And

22 two, I certainly did not have enough information in order to elaborate on

23 whether it was there at that particular moment or not. I only suggested

24 that there was mention about that tank, but I did not have enough

25 information. There could be other witnesses and other evidence that is

Page 40624

1 not available to me, so I mentioned it just in passing. It's not a basis

2 on which I am relying in this case. I said I don't have the necessary

3 elements, from the point of view of my profession, to make any

4 conclusions.

5 JUDGE ORIE: You considered to make these loose suggestions

6 relying on part of a witness testimony only, you find that in line with

7 your professional expert duties?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not quite understand you.

9 What is the question?

10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the question is whether you consider it

11 appropriate for an expert in your professional field to make loose

12 suggestions which are based only on part of what a witness said and leave

13 out other parts of what the witness said which might go in a different

14 direction. You find that appropriate for an expert?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time when I was writing

16 this, that's the information that I had. I did not mention simply what

17 was pointed out to me by the Prosecutor, but there was no intention to

18 misrepresent anything.

19 JUDGE ORIE: For your report in the Mladic case, you knew that

20 there was other information because you learned that during the Karadzic

21 testimony, isn't it?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I just omitted to add it. I

23 forgot. That's the only reason.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because I don't attach great

Page 40625

1 importance to this.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.

3 MS. EDGERTON:

4 Q. And when you just told us or referred to Brennskag's evidence

5 about the tank, you omitted to say that Brennskag never saw the tank

6 firing, didn't you?

7 A. I did not mention Brennskag in my report at all precisely because

8 I did not attach importance to that tank. Yes, it's true that Brennskag

9 said that. I just said that he was aware of that tank. I didn't quote

10 all of his evidence, and he did say, among other things, that he never

11 saw the tank firing.

12 Q. And that --

13 MS. EDGERTON: Brennskag's statement, by the way, Your Honours,

14 is P992, and the evidence about the tank is in paragraph 26.

15 Q. Now, in any case, whether or not a tank was in the area at

16 whatever time and whether or not it was even operational doesn't mean

17 that you can snipe at civilians engaged in civilian activities, does it?

18 A. I never said that anywhere. Of course that's no reason to target

19 civilians.

20 Q. All right. Thank you. I want to go on to the incident in your

21 report that's described as F-6, and you find it in the section beginning

22 at English page 132 and B/C/S page 130, paragraphs 96 to 113.

23 Now, the allegation in this incident is that on the 6th of

24 January, 1994, Sanija Dzevlan, a 32-year-old woman, was shot and wounded

25 in her buttocks while she was riding a bicycle across a bridge on

Page 40626

1 Nikola Demonja Street in Dobrinja. Now, first of all you agree that this

2 happened; right?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And you also agree that there is a clear, unstructured line of

5 sight between the place of the incident and the Orthodox church in

6 Veljine; right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Now, you talked about this incident in your Karadzic testimony

9 and told the Court at that time, and you've made the same claim here,

10 that, in your opinion, this incident took place at around 4.30 p.m., and

11 that was on the basis that the victim in this case went to visit her

12 mother in the hospital in Dobrinja and stayed on past normal visiting

13 hours. And you say that in this report at paragraph 99, English page

14 137, and pages 133 and 134 in B/C/S.

15 And then you proceeded to develop an argument on visibility from

16 the alleged origin of fire based in part on the time estimate I've just

17 outlined to you, but you know in fact that Sanija Dzevlan's mother wasn't

18 even in the hospital. She didn't go there to visit her. She went there

19 to get medicine. You know that, don't you?

20 A. Yes, I remember that very well because it was a big debate during

21 my testimony in the Karadzic case. She stated what I cited here and it's

22 in the transcript. Even the Prosecutor recalled that she had been

23 calling on her mother. I did not analyse the incident only from the

24 point of view of that time-frame. I used two versions. And the

25 conclusion was based not only on visibility but also on the ballistic

Page 40627

1 analysis.

2 Q. Let's just focus on your assertion about her visiting her mother.

3 She never said she was visiting her mother. Mr. Poparic, you've analysed

4 that testimony. It was the Prosecutor who said it in error. And if you

5 want, we could even look at that, but I'm sure you remember that point.

6 And then I pointed out to you in your Karadzic testimony that the victim

7 specifically explained this during her testimony in the Galic case.

8 And then before she concluded her Galic testimony -- and

9 actually, let's have a look at her evidence.

10 MS. EDGERTON: Could we have 65 ter number 32755 in e-court,

11 please. And if we could go to e-court page 45, I think. This is a

12 transcript -- a copy of the transcript of testimony of Sanija Dzevlan on

13 12 February 2002 in the Galic case.

14 Q. Just look at --

15 MS. EDGERTON: And perhaps it's easier if we just go over to the

16 immediately preceding page so we can see the whole paragraph and who's

17 speaking. So we would need 3555.

18 Q. Now, you see at the bottom of page 3555 His Honour Judge El Mahdi

19 has a few questions, and he says at line 23:

20 "First of all, you said that you were returning from a visit to

21 your mother at the hospital, and I was able to understand that in reply

22 to another question, you said that you left to look for medicines. I

23 don't know exactly whether I understood properly or misunderstood what

24 you said. Why did you, in fact, go out?"

25 And she responded:

Page 40628

1 "My mother was sick at home. I went to the hospital to fetch

2 medicines and to bring those medicines back [sic] to her."

3 You looked at her Galic testimony because you have a footnote to

4 it in your report. You knew this. You knew that she had corrected any

5 misunderstanding in response to a question by the Trial Chamber, but in

6 this report you haven't changed a thing about what -- about your

7 assertion as to what she was doing at the hospital; right? You haven't

8 changed a thing.

9 A. In the statement she said that after lunch she went to the

10 hospital to see her mother, and she testified here exactly the same as I

11 quoted. It's true that she went. And for me that was the only thing I

12 had in mind. I didn't judge on whether she stated accurately what she

13 was doing, whether she was going to visit. But I estimated if she was

14 going to visit, then it was around 4.00 p.m., and I said in my report

15 what kind of visibility is expected at that time. So I didn't judge her

16 testimony from the point of view of whether it is accurate or not. I

17 took into account two possibilities: Whether it was during daylight or

18 at dusk, twilight. And that's what I put in my report. And the final

19 conclusion was not even based on this but on the ballistic analysis of

20 the bullet. That's why I didn't go into any analysis of her statements,

21 because for me there are two statements --

22 Q. No. Stop.

23 A. -- that it was earlier or that it was later.

24 Q. Stop. When I pointed all this out to you in the Karadzic

25 testimony, you conceded: "Perhaps I missed that detail." And that's in

Page 40629

1 your Karadzic evidence at 39166 lines 17 to 20. And you still haven't

2 corrected it; right? You still haven't corrected it; right? Can you

3 answer the question?

4 A. I did not correct it and I explained why. I wasn't dealing with

5 whether she was giving correct or incorrect evidence. I took into

6 account two possibilities.

7 Q. You've answered the question. So the effect of picking this time

8 that's not supported by the evidence, picking this time that had her in

9 hospital as long as possible could put her on the bridge where she was

10 shot as late as possible, which would influence any argument you might

11 make on her visibility from the alleged firing position. That was the

12 effect of your excerpting; right?

13 A. That's not true. I repeat. For me in this case --

14 Q. No, you don't --

15 A. -- there were two pieces of information.

16 Q. You don't need to repeat anything. I want to go on to another

17 incident just for the moment, and I'm going to stay with, actually,

18 Dobrinja for a moment.

19 Now, in respect of the incident, which is F-3 in your report,

20 which is at English page 85 and B/C/S page 99, and beginning at

21 paragraph 45, you said that the time of the incident is in dispute, you

22 said that in your testimony here, and pointed out that according to the

23 police report the incident took place between 7.00 and 7.30 p.m. And a

24 lady neighbour, Sadija Sahinovic who was with Zametica claimed -- I'll

25 tell you what your testimony is. It was at 40416, lines 19 to 25. You

Page 40630

1 said Sahinovic said that during her testimony, when it was just about to

2 get dark. This matches the police report but later on she corrected what

3 she had said. Then there is her death certificate at a different to time

4 and so on.

5 Now, just with respect to the police report and Sahinovic, what I

6 noticed you didn't mention in your testimony or in your report --

7 actually, no, let's stick with your report. What I noticed you didn't

8 mention in your report was that in the Galic trial, Sahinovic was shown

9 the report, which is P973, page 2, she was shown it, the report that you

10 cite to that has the time of death between 7.00 and 7.30, and she

11 specifically noted that the time in it was wrong. And she specifically

12 said that she and the victim went to the river between 2.00 and 3.00.

13 That's what she said. Do you agree?

14 A. I agree. However, this is almost the same case as the previous

15 one you mentioned. I had two times here, and I didn't go into all the

16 evidence, judging what is accurate or not. I assume that both are

17 correct and I analysed the case in that way. So when one determines what

18 is correct, then it's easy to reject the other possibility. For me there

19 were two times: One given in the police report, one given in witness

20 testimony. I analysed --

21 Q. But --

22 A. -- the two. What is true, I don't know. It was not up to me to

23 judge.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Witness, you are recorded as having said:

25 "I assume that both are correct ..."

Page 40631

1 Is that what you said or did you say:

2 "I assume that both are not correct"?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that's not the point of my

4 answer. For me, there are two given times: One from the police, one

5 from the witness. I don't go into which one is correct, but I analysed

6 the case using these two times.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now I now better understand what you meant by

8 "for me both are correct." Of course they couldn't be both correct, but

9 for your line of thinking you assumed that both are correct. Yes. Which

10 gives two different scenarios.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it's a matter of

12 interpretation. Yes, it's clear.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

14 MS. EDGERTON:

15 Q. So what you're saying is -- or, actually, tell me if I have this

16 correct. What you're saying is you knew that Sahinovic had specifically

17 corrected the time of the police report. You knew that; right?

18 A. I said that.

19 Q. Right.

20 A. I'm talking about two times.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.

22 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, witness explained how he worked and why

23 he worked the way he did. If the Prosecution has the witness who claimed

24 two facts about the same event, I don't think that it's wrong on the

25 expert's side to analyse both of them. So if they think that he

Page 40632

1 shouldn't have analysed both scenarios, we object to that and this line

2 of questions.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton, do you deny the witness to analyse

4 both scenarios?

5 MS. EDGERTON: Oh, no, of course not, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then that's -- then we understand your line

7 of questioning not attacking the witness on that point but that you are

8 seeking other evidence. Therefore, you may proceed.

9 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.

10 Q. And if I may, the point is the other scenario isn't mentioned in

11 your report. You don't mention Sahinovic's specific correction in your

12 report; right? You're just telling us about it now.

13 A. No, I was using two times. That's the point. This correction is

14 contained in the two times that I am using: 1400 hours and 1430, or

15 1900 hours, 1930. I didn't take into account the testimony of

16 Mrs. Sahinovic as a whole.

17 Q. Thank you.

18 MS. EDGERTON: I was just having a look at my watch, Your Honour.

19 I think we might be one minute away from break time. Is that correct?

20 JUDGE ORIE: We are. The witness may follow the usher. We'll

21 take a break of 20 minutes, Witness.

22 [The witness stands down]

23 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a break, and we'll resume at 10 minutes

24 to 11.00.

25 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

Page 40633

1 --- On resuming at 10.51 a.m.

2 JUDGE ORIE: While we are waiting for the witness to be escorted

3 into the courtroom, I would like to briefly pay attention to a remaining

4 issue from the testimony of John Russell. On the 7th of September of

5 this year during his testimony, D1221, a report on crater analysis with

6 the witness's handwritten comments on it, was marked for identification

7 pending an upload of a B/C/S translation.

8 [The witness takes the stand]

9 JUDGE ORIE: On the 21st of October, the Defence informed the

10 Chamber and the Prosecution via an e-mail that a translation had been

11 uploaded into e-court under doc ID 1D26-2871. The Prosecution advised

12 the next day that it did not object to the translation, and the Chamber

13 hereby instructs the Registry to attach the translation to D1221 and

14 admits D1221 into evidence.

15 Apologies, Mr. Poparic, for dealing with administrative matters

16 when you entered the courtroom. Ms. Edgerton will now continue her

17 cross-examination.

18 Please proceed.

19 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.

20 Q. Mr. Poparic, am I correct in assuming that before filing at least

21 the corrigendum to your report you checked your citations? You reviewed

22 your report and checked your citations for accuracy?

23 A. [No interpretation]

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We didn't receive interpretation.

25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We cannot discern what the

Page 40634

1 witness is saying.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat your answer, Witness.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did my best to check whether

4 there were any mistakes. I cannot say whether I was successful. I hope

5 I was.

6 MS. EDGERTON:

7 Q. Okay. Then maybe you can answer my questions about a couple that

8 jumped out. One is in respect of Incident F-2 in your report, and you'll

9 find the section related to that incident beginning at, I think, page 83

10 and English page 80. And the allegation there is that on 17 April 1993,

11 a 9-year-old girl was shot and wounded in the back while playing in the

12 front garden of her house in Sedrenik. So you agree this happened;

13 right?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. So in your report for this case at paragraph 37 - and that's on,

16 as I said, English page 80, B/C/S page 83 - you said she was facing the

17 street at the moment she was shot, and you said the same thing in your

18 Karadzic report.

19 Now --

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. -- I want you to just have a look at the footnote for that

22 citation. All right?

23 So you footnoted your citation to her location to her transcript

24 in her testimony in the Galic case. Now, in the Karadzic case, during

25 that trial we talked about this as well. And I told you that I had a

Page 40635

1 look at the transcript page that you had cited and found that there

2 wasn't any reference on that page or actually anywhere in her testimony

3 that she was facing the street, but in fact she said she was facing

4 Spicasta Stijena at the moment she was shot. Do you remember my telling

5 you that and do you remember confirming that that was correct? She

6 wasn't facing the street, she was facing Spicasta Stijena.

7 A. To tell you the truth, I do not remember that you said that to

8 me, but she was facing the street, and in that position Mr. Barry Hogan

9 filmed it, and now the only debate is whether that direction is the

10 direction of Spicasta Stijena or not. However, she was in that position

11 facing the street a bit. Now, she was certainly facing the street.

12 That's the way she showed it herself.

13 However, I do have to say that the street cannot be seen very

14 clearly because there are some houses in between. But seen from the air,

15 she was facing the street. Now, whether she was facing --

16 Q. Now --

17 A. -- Spicasta Stijena or not --

18 THE INTERPRETER: We did not hear the end of the answer.

19 MS. EDGERTON:

20 Q. Let me stop you there and let's go to your testimony in Karadzic.

21 MS. EDGERTON: 65 ter number 32790, please. If we could go to

22 e-court page 60, please, that would be helpful.

23 Q. Here's where we talked about this. Starting at line 2, you said,

24 and I put this to you:

25 "... you said in your analysis of this incident that the victim

Page 40642

1 Q. Now, Mr. Poparic, I want to go from here to a neighbourhood that

2 you deal with in your report and four sniping incidents that are alleged

3 to have taken place in that neighbourhood, and it's Sedrenik. And as

4 part of your analysis, you made some general observations about the

5 neighbourhood and referenced in particular a witness by the name of

6 Nedzib Djozo. And that's at paragraph 16, English page 58, and B/C/S

7 page 61. And you said there:

8 "Some of the witnesses testified that the RS Army had been

9 sniping at civilians in contrast to the evidence of Nedzib Djozo who

10 testified that many citizens of Sarajevo, including himself, would come

11 to the woods beneath Spicasta Stijena to cut trees. That part of the

12 woods was cleared of trees, according to Djozo, and nobody was targeted

13 there, although it was close to Spicasta Stijena."

14 Are you actually trying to tell us that Djozo's evidence -- that

15 the crux of Djozo's evidence is that nobody sniped at civilians in

16 Sedrenik from Spicasta Stijena?

17 A. No. As for this part of Djozo's testimony, I mention it in

18 relation to this forest, and you can see that in image 26, that is a bit

19 above this number 3 as it is marked here. He himself said that he came

20 there and cut firewood and all of those trees were cut down. There is

21 only young trees there now. And he did not say that somebody fell victim

22 there. It was below Spicasta Stijena. I'm just saying -- I'm just

23 speaking about that area. So I mean they were coming there at night,

24 cutting trees, and the Army of Republika Srpska did not open fire at

25 them.

Page 40643

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.

2 MR. LUKIC: Just we need the next page in B/C/S. This is wrong

3 page -- wrong citation, so that the witness can follow what he was asked

4 about. He was asked about the first paragraph above the picture on this

5 page.

6 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.

7 Q. In fact, Mr. Djozo when he talked about tree cutting wasn't

8 talking about woods beneath Spicasta Stijena at all. He was talking

9 about Sedam Suma, Seven Forests. And Sedam Suma isn't between or isn't

10 beneath Spicasta Stijena at all, is it?

11 A. Sedam Suma? Is it Sedam Suma, Pet Suma, I don't know exactly.

12 Q. All right. Let's look at his testimony in the Karadzic case.

13 MS. EDGERTON: 1D00443. You could go over to page 9, please.

14 Q. Now, look, on page 9, lines -- starting at line 12, he lays out

15 the description of the neighbourhood and the immediate surroundings, and

16 he looks at a photograph -- and we'll come to the photograph in a minute.

17 MS. EDGERTON: Could we go to the next page.

18 Q. And he says, starting at line 18 and referring to the photograph:

19 "These houses are parts of Sedrenik, which lies to the right of

20 Spicasta Stijena. Here we see two elevations and the road that goes

21 around to Spicasta Stijena ... there is no forest. It was cut down

22 during the war. This area was known as 'Seven Forests,' but during the

23 war people in the city needed firewood, and they came here and cut down

24 trees and took them to Sarajevo to use as firewood."

25 MS. EDGERTON: Now, let's go, please, to 65 ter number 23143.

Page 40644

1 MR. LUKIC: I'm sorry, is my learned friend claiming that in this

2 part of the statement Mr. Djozo is not talking about area in between

3 Spicasta Stijena and Sedrenik? Is that the position of the Prosecution?

4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.

5 MS. EDGERTON: Mr. Poparic seemed to need some help as to what

6 area Mr. Djozo was discussing as to where the firewood was chopped down

7 and he couldn't remember if it was Seven Forests or Five Forests. And I

8 was simply showing him the testimony of Mr. Djozo that he referred to.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and I think Mr. Lukic is interested to know --

10 to find out and that the Chamber should know where Seven Forests is in

11 relation to Spicasta Stijena, Sedrenik, and he has an opportunity to

12 further elaborate that. But if you could already deal with it, since you

13 make quite a bit of -- you put quite some importance on Seven Forests not

14 to be what the other witnesses are talking about. Perhaps to clarify

15 that.

16 MS. EDGERTON: Of course.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

18 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. 65 ter number 23143, please.

19 Q. So this is the picture that Mr. Djozo marked in his Karadzic

20 testimony, and that happened at pages 9590 to 9591 of the document we

21 just looked at, e-court pages 38 to 39. He marked at number 1 the peak

22 of Grdonj. He marked --

23 MR. LUKIC: No, no, we have the different -- we have to go to

24 transcript that. That's how we deal with these markings --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.

Page 40645

1 MR. LUKIC: Ms. Edgerton has to show us first the transcript and

2 then the picture.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, what has to be shown first or second is --

4 apparently there is some dispute about what the marking means. If there

5 is dispute about that, Ms. Edgerton, I think it would be appropriate to

6 verify that in order to not waste time. And perhaps we could have

7 English transcript on the one hand side and then perhaps the picture on

8 the other, which would allow us to follow both the words spoken and the

9 markings made.

10 MS. EDGERTON: His -- this transcript is at 1D05713, e-court

11 pages 38 and 39.

12 Q. So if you look here, Dr. Karadzic asks Mr. Djozo to mark the peak

13 of Grdonj at line 10. Mr. Djozo, at lines 12 to 13, marks Grdonj with an

14 arrow from the sky pointing down to the peak and puts the number 1 next

15 to it and points out that there is relay towers at lines 15 to 16 on

16 Grdonj --

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The reference to the relay towers is contained in

18 the question not in the answer.

19 MS. EDGERTON: Oh, pardon me. I apologise.

20 Q. And then Dr. Karadzic asks whether he can mark Spicasta Stijena,

21 and that's at line 19. And he then responds by drawing a line where

22 Spicasta Stijena is and a number 2. They then deal with Pasino Brdo or

23 Streliste which is "located to the right, behind this part where you can

24 see that the trees are cut, Pasino Brdo is behind this ..."

25 MS. EDGERTON: And if we could go to the next page.

Page 40646

1 Q. "... area."

2 And Dr. Karadzic said: We're going to deal with that later. And

3 he asks him to mark the area where the trees were cut during the war.

4 And Mr. Djozo indicates that with a dotted line and marks it with a

5 number 3 at Dr. Karadzic's request. And that's at line 6. And he

6 asks -- Dr. Karadzic asks:

7 "So this clearing was made during the war. People cut the trees

8 down in order to have wood for heating; is that correct?"

9 "Yes," is the response.

10 And then he marks Sedrenik as his last item.

11 JUDGE ORIE: A reference to "4" is missing here but it's the last

12 marking. At least I don't see it at this moment.

13 MS. EDGERTON: I don't see it at this moment either,

14 Your Honours.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's uncertain, but at least there is a

16 marking and there is a marking with a number 4 attached to it.

17 Please proceed.

18 MS. EDGERTON:

19 Q. The woods where trees were cut are not beneath Spicasta Stijena

20 as you said in your report and that's according to the evidence of the

21 witness you cited; right?

22 A. The forest that I mentioned in the report that was marked by

23 Mr. Djozo is located below Spicasta Stijena, a little bit to the left.

24 And that's clearly seen on this picture number 26. The whole hill is

25 under a young forest. You were there, you saw it. The trees had been

Page 40647

1 cut down and now the forest is growing again. When you see the picture,

2 you see very clearly that young forest. It's just a little below

3 Spicasta Stijena but within the range of the weapons. It's that forest

4 and I didn't make a mistake.

5 MS. EDGERTON: Your Honours, could I have this photograph

6 tendered as a Prosecution exhibit, please.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Edgerton, are you going to also tender this

9 portion of the testimony just to see the markings?

10 MS. EDGERTON: Yes.

11 [Trial Chamber confers]

12 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be?

13 THE REGISTRAR: Document 23143 receives Exhibit Number P7595.

14 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

15 MS. EDGERTON: And pages 38 and 39 which reflect Djozo's evidence

16 about these markings that Your Honours have been looking at as the next

17 Prosecution exhibit, please.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

19 THE REGISTRAR: Pages 83 -- sorry, 38 and 39 of document 1D5713

20 receives Exhibit Number P7596, Your Honours.

21 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

22 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

23 JUDGE ORIE: I think it should be -- that excerpt is not

24 specifically downloaded, therefore we'll MFI it. And you'll take care,

25 Ms. Edgerton, that the portion we need will be given a 65 ter number.

Page 40648

1 Witness, could I just ... you say: I'm sure this is where the

2 trees were cut. Now, we saw that the witness marked the area where trees

3 were cut with a dotted line with number 3, which is not below

4 Spicasta Stijena. So therefore, I'm just --

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm talking about the difference in

6 altitude, and it's a bit to the left. There is a road here. I'm looking

7 at photograph 26 in my report --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see that -- what you may have presented, but

9 you are telling us what Mr. Djozo testified. And if I look at the

10 markings made by Mr. Djozo, I see that 2, that is, marked as

11 Spicasta Stijena, and number 3, the area where the trees are cut, that

12 area 3 is not below area 2. Therefore, when you say, well, that's how it

13 was, you are referring to his testimony, and I have some difficulties in

14 understanding how the dotted line with the 3 fits under 2, rather than to

15 the right of it.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we look at this arrow number 3,

17 a bit to the left of it is the top of this hill, and this dotted line is

18 going to the left towards Spicasta Stijena downhill --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, I do not see -- but perhaps I'm wrong, I do

20 not see the dotted line going any further than a little bit to the right

21 of where number 4 is marked. So is it that you say that is how it should

22 have been, or is it that you say I'm missing something in the marking in

23 this photograph? Which of the two?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It doesn't stretch all the way to

25 number 4. The dots go from the top of this hill marked 3, and you see a

Page 40649

1 curve, that's a slope. It can clearly be seen from Spicasta Stijena.

2 And that's all covered by the forest.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, what I'm still unable to see is how the

4 area marked by the dotted line with an arrow and number 3, how that is --

5 as marked, how that is below what is marked as number 2 and that is

6 marked, as the witness said, Spicasta Stijena.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. When you come there to that

8 spot, then it's very clear. This --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you are relying on the testimony of this

10 witness in your report. You're not saying: I inspected the place myself

11 and I know exactly where the dotted line should have been. That's -- you

12 say: Mr. Djozo said this. And I have difficulties in finding that on

13 this marked photograph. And if you could assist me in -- not by --

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I visited the place myself and I

15 understand why it's difficult for you to see it in the photograph. The

16 photograph was taken from a big distance and this is a projection.

17 JUDGE ORIE: You are relying on the testimony of a witness in a

18 certain context, and what you are now telling us is that it's not that

19 much that you relied on that witness but, rather, on your own

20 observation. Is that ...

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I'm only trying to clear up

22 the situation. I visited the place, and in the context of his testimony,

23 I recognised the place. I don't know if I can find a photograph here

24 where it's more clearly visible taken from Spicasta Stijena.

25 JUDGE ORIE: You've answered my question.

Page 40650

1 Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.

2 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.

3 Q. Now, with respect to incident F-16 in this indictment, which is

4 F-17 at your report, at the section beginning at English page 239, B/C/S

5 page -- oh, I think I might have the wrong page number. English page

6 247, paragraphs 236 to 246. And that's this -- one of the sniping

7 incidents from -- alleged sniping incidents from Spicasta Stijena.

8 Now, between your report and your testimony, you make two

9 assertions -- in fact, you make two identical assertions with respect to

10 this incident that you did in your Karadzic report. And the first is,

11 effectively, that when the victim of this shooting, Tarik Zunic,

12 testified and identified the location where he was hit by gun-fire on

13 March 6th, 1995, he identified the wrong spot. That's one of them;

14 right?

15 A. Yes, and I explained why.

16 Q. Well, yeah. What you did was you explained it's your view -- you

17 told us in your report that it's your view he identified the wrong spot

18 and you formed that view on the basis of information you received from a

19 couple who you happened upon who lived down the street; right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And this couple told you that it actually happened in front of

22 their house instead of where the victim said it happened; right?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. And you don't have any names or contact details of this couple;

25 right?

Page 40651

1 A. I would need to explain the context, if you allow me.

2 JUDGE ORIE: First answer the question, please, whether you have

3 any contact details.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have these details. I know

5 where they are and I can contact them, though. But for certain reasons,

6 I didn't take their contact details.

7 JUDGE ORIE: What --

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Although the man offered.

9 JUDGE ORIE: What were those reasons?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll explain. When we were touring

11 these locations in Sarajevo, had a meeting at the agency of

12 Bosnia-Herzegovina called SIPA. And the director of SIPA recommended,

13 for security reasons, that we do not tell people that we were experts for

14 the Defence team of Mr. Karadzic and to say instead only that we were

15 from the Hague Tribunal. We had police escort. And when we came to that

16 location, I told the driver -- upon recognising the spot that Tarik Zunic

17 identified as the place of the incident, there is a house there with a

18 distinctive roof, and the police car was already 15 metres ahead of us.

19 They were already in the street, and a man motioned to me: Come here,

20 come here. I came up to the man and then he explained to me that he was

21 an eye-witness of that incident and that he personally helped UNPROFOR

22 personnel to put Tarik Zunic in a vehicle. And he described the incident

23 in a way which is very consistent with the reports of the UNPROFOR.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you go far beyond my question. You've

25 answered my question. The reason is that you were -- you didn't --

Page 40652

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just didn't answer --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then, I mean, I did understand your answer to

3 be that you did not present yourself as investigating for the Karadzic

4 Defence, and that for that reason you just did not enter into further

5 details with them. But if I'm wrong, then please, instead of telling us

6 all kind of other things, tell us then exactly why you didn't take the

7 details.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You are completely right. The man

9 offered --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- I thanked him --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, what was the distance exactly between the

13 one spot and the other which --

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in my rough estimate it's

15 about 15 metres. For instance, on this photograph 181 where Tarik Zunic

16 marked his position -- excuse me. The place that I was shown was 2 or

17 3 metres from this lamp-post, so the difference is about 15 metres, I

18 think. These buildings are almost identical.

19 JUDGE ORIE: And you said that you believed them better than

20 Mr. Zunic himself. Is that ...

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct. I explained why.

22 Because people described the incident in the same way as described in

23 UNPROFOR documents.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Now did Mr. --

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And Tarik Zunic was wounded.

Page 40653

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did Mr. Zunic describe the incident in a

2 different way from what is found in the report? Or was his description

3 of the event also consistent with what we find in the report?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my report or the UNPROFOR

5 report?

6 JUDGE ORIE: UNPROFOR report.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] His testimony is a little

8 different. He only says that he heard two shots from an M84 machine-gun,

9 and he says he was lying on the ground until the UNPROFOR came. One

10 should bear in mind that he was on his way from school and it's possible

11 that he didn't know what had happened before or after. He says he was

12 lying on the ground and the man that I mentioned before said the same.

13 They were unable to put him in a car immediately because there was

14 shooting. Tarik Zunic does not mention that. At least not that I could

15 find.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But it's not inconsistent with what UNPROFOR

17 reported? I mean, if he's silent on a certain matter it doesn't mean

18 that he disagrees.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. I'm saying that

20 perhaps time intervals do not coincide with what UNPROFOR reports for

21 that day.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps. Because I'm trying to understand. You say

23 I have two narratives of the event: One by Mr. -- the victim himself and

24 the other by a neighbour. And then you say: Since what the neighbour

25 tells us is not inconsistent with and is rather consistent with the

Page 40654

1 UNPROFOR report, that's why I believe him.

2 At the same time when I ask you is then the Zunic narrative, is

3 that inconsistent with UNPROFOR, you say: No, it's not inconsistent. So

4 therefore, why do you choose for the one which is not inconsistent and

5 why do you not choose for the other which is not inconsistent? I'm

6 trying to understand your choice.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, here is why: Because this

8 man lives in that house, he still lives there today, so he has immediate

9 knowledge. Tarik Zunic was just passing by that house when he was

10 wounded. When he was wounded, he probably didn't give any thought to

11 remembering that house. Those houses are very similar, and it's

12 completely possible in my mind that he believes it was by the house next

13 door. He could be wrong about the appearance of the house, but this man

14 lives there and he had a better opportunity to view the incident.

15 JUDGE ORIE: That's how you weigh the statements, one by the

16 victim himself who, if I understand well, passed every day on his way to

17 school and perhaps back, and an unknown person who lived there. You say

18 he knows the area, therefore he is to be believed. That is your

19 conclusion?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's my conclusion, but it's up

21 to you to make yours.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Has this got anything to do with your field of

23 expertise? To believe A and not believe B because they are living there

24 or passing by, whatever, is that in any way related to your field of

25 expertise?

Page 40655

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it doesn't fall within my

2 field. It just concerns the place of incident.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please -- you've answered --

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those are two pieces information.

5 JUDGE ORIE: You've answered my question.

6 Please proceed.

7 MS. EDGERTON:

8 Q. So the location the victim identified -- the specific location

9 identified and marked by the victim has a clear and unobstructed line of

10 sight to Spicasta Stijena; right?

11 A. Right.

12 Q. And the one you chose doesn't; right? That's the difference --

13 A. No.

14 Q. -- between the two of them. The --

15 A. No, no, no. That place too is visible from Spicasta Stijena --

16 Q. No, no --

17 A. -- just a little bit less.

18 Q. No. Look at your own report and I'll read you the very last

19 sentence of paragraph 242. You said --

20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we have that on the screen.

21 MS. EDGERTON: In B/C/S I think it would be the immediately

22 preceding page.

23 JUDGE ORIE: I take it it's the last line above 181 -- image 181.

24 MS. EDGERTON: And I'm sorry, Mr. Registrar, in English you have

25 to go back over to the succeeding page.

Page 40656

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now we went on the wrong version to the page.

2 One page back in B/C/S and one page forward into -- in the English

3 version.

4 MS. EDGERTON:

5 Q. So the difference is that the location you chose when you

6 rejected testimony under oath and adopted the narrative of the people you

7 met on the street was to move the incident location from a place that had

8 a clear and unobstructed line of sight to Spicasta Stijena to a location

9 that's much less visible, in your own words, than the location identified

10 by the victim. That's the effect of what you did; right?

11 MR. LUKIC: And that's exactly what the witness said today on the

12 transcript. If we read the transcript. It's line 12.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I think we are --

14 MR. LUKIC: Although Ms. Edgerton tried three times to interrupt

15 the witness what he has to say.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Let's have a look at what the witness exactly said.

17 One moment.

18 MR. LUKIC: It's page 46.

19 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.

20 MR. LUKIC: And it's from lines 3 to 12.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see.

22 The first question was whether the location identified by the

23 victim was -- had a clear and unobstructed line of sight to

24 Spicasta Stijena. The witness confirmed that. And then the question was

25 put to the witness:

Page 40657

1 "And the one you chose doesn't; right? That's the difference."

2 And then the answer was:

3 "No."

4 Between the two of them, as a matter of fact, here the witness

5 interrupts Ms. Edgerton, as far as I can see, but at least the answer is

6 "no." And the issue therefore was whether there was a clear and

7 unobstructed line of sight. And did you want to say --

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And then the witness said:

9 "That place too is visible from Spicasta Stijena, just a little

10 bit less."

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's, Ms. Edgerton, an analysis to say that

12 the clear and unobstructed line was not confirmed, but that there was

13 visibility but a little bit less was confirmed by the witness. And

14 that's what is found in his report and that seems to be consistent with

15 the testimony he gave a moment ago.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The difference is in the report it says "it is

17 much less visible," and in his testimony today "it is a little bit less

18 visible."

19 JUDGE ORIE: So it's not exactly the same. There is a detail

20 there.

21 Please proceed.

22 MS. EDGERTON:

23 Q. And --

24 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.

25 Q. Now, your second -- sort of the main crux of one of your other

Page 40658

1 arguments is that you say, effectively, that the victim here was shot in

2 an exchange of fire; right?

3 A. Yes. But I didn't draw that conclusion on the basis of his

4 ability, if that's what you're referring to. I did it on the basis of

5 medical documentation.

6 Q. What you do is you assert he was shot in an exchange of fire and

7 you cite in your footnote 469 to an UNPROFOR report for this day, and

8 that report is now P674, as evidence in support of that.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Ms. Edgerton, could I ask one

10 question.

11 You -- earlier we had a look at the location as marked by

12 Tarik Zunic and there was a photograph in which apparently you were

13 measuring the vegetation. When was that photograph taken? That's

14 number 182.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was taken on the day of the

16 on-site investigation, September 2010. That's when we measured --

17 measured the road below.

18 JUDGE ORIE: So that's 15 years after the event?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

21 Please proceed.

22 MS. EDGERTON: Actually, Your Honour, I think it's time for the

23 next break.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So therefore let's not proceed but let's take

25 a break.

Page 40660

1 testimony in the Karadzic trial of Mr. Nedzib Djozo have been uploaded

2 under 65 ter number 33368, and P7596 was the exhibit number that's been

3 reserved for those. So may those please be admitted.

4 JUDGE ORIE: P7596, which is now a two-page excerpt of testimony

5 in the Karadzic case by Mr. Nedzib Djozo, is hereby admitted into

6 evidence.

7 And, Madam Registrar, the 65 ter number is?

8 THE REGISTRAR: 33368 [Realtime transcript read in error "3368"],

9 Your Honours.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

11 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.

12 Q. Mr. -- pardon me.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's correct. Please proceed.

14 MS. EDGERTON:

15 Q. Thank you. Mr. Poparic --

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: There is still one 3 missing. It should be

17 65 ter 33368.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Is that, Madam Registrar, the number you mentioned,

19 which is?

20 THE REGISTRAR: 33368.

21 JUDGE ORIE: There we are. And that document is now admitted as

22 P7596.

23 Please proceed.

24 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.

25 Q. Now, Mr. Poparic, when you talked about this incident in the

Page 40661

1 Karadzic trial, you said that all the facts -- to use your own words:

2 All the facts point to a conclusion that the victim was walking home from

3 school through a substantial exchange of fire and shot as a result, and

4 that UNPROFOR reports and other documents testified to that. And that

5 was at transcript page 38925 to -26, and it's found in e-court page --

6 65 ter number 32787, e-court pages 55 and 56.

7 Now, you've abandoned that argument, haven't you, because there

8 is no evidence that there was an exchange of fire going on at all; right?

9 A. On that day there was an exchange of gun-fire. There is no

10 denying that. A major exchange. I don't know whether it happened at

11 that particular moment, though. Assumption is that that did happen.

12 Q. The only exchange -- or the only firing, because there is no

13 mention of an exchange, the only firing that was going on that day in the

14 documents you cite at footnotes 468 and 469 of your report are -- is

15 firing -- actually is direct, deliberate targeting by SRK forces on

16 Spicasta Stijena of civilians and UN personnel who were trying to help

17 sniping victims. Is that what you're describing as an exchange of fire?

18 MR. LUKIC: Objection.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

20 MR. LUKIC: Where can we find this? Because my learned friend

21 already called P674. It's not what we can find in that document. Maybe

22 somewhere else.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Well --

24 MR. LUKIC: So if she can --

25 JUDGE ORIE: If there is any dispute about what is found in those

Page 40662

1 footnotes, Ms. Edgerton, you are invited to show it to us and to tell us

2 what is there not consistent with what the report tells us.

3 MS. EDGERTON: Sure. Let's have a look, please, at P674.

4 Q. And that's a document that you cited in your Karadzic report and

5 in this report at, as I said, footnote 469.

6 MS. EDGERTON: Let's go over and have a look at paragraph 4c of

7 this document, which is on page 2 of both languages.

8 Q. Okay. At the very top of the English page and about one-third of

9 the way down in the B/C/S page, you see the report of eight explosions,

10 seven machine-gun bursts, and 93 rounds of small arms fire. And then you

11 see the asterisk after the mention of the small arms fire that refers to

12 page 3a of this same document.

13 MS. EDGERTON: Can we go over back to page -- paragraph 3a. Can

14 we go over back to paragraph 3a. It's on page 1 in both languages.

15 So 3a specifically says:

16 "While assisting casualties reported at paragraphs 8.a.ii and

17 a.iii, UNMOs came under occasional small arms fire. Number of rounds

18 unknown but origin of fire assessed as being Spicasta Stijena ..."

19 Now, do you want to go to 3b? Let's move down a bit,

20 Mr. Poparic, and 3b says:

21 "As a result of coming under fire" --

22 Effectively it says as a result of coming under fire while

23 assisting small arms casualties, the UNPROFOR EgyBat anti-sniping team

24 returned fire on Bosnian Serb army positions at Sharpstone.

25 And then following this, it's about a third of the way through

Page 40663

1 the paragraph, the UNMO Vogosca team received a telephone call from the

2 commander of the Radava Battalion, Vogosca Brigade, Bosnian Serb army,

3 saying that if the EgyBat APC in his target practice area wasn't moved

4 within half an hour it would be fired on.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton, your quote from 3b is not very exact.

6 You started saying:

7 "As a result of coming under while assisting small arms ..."

8 Whereas the original reads:

9 "During the activity in the area of Sharpstone and the resulting

10 casualties reported," there and there and there --

11 MS. EDGERTON: Correct.

12 JUDGE ORIE: "... and the incident reported there."

13 That's not exactly the same. Would you please keep that in mind.

14 It may even have relevant difference of meaning here, I do not know. But

15 what results from what is changed in your quote compared to the original.

16 MS. EDGERTON: I'm happy to repeat myself, Your Honour, if you --

17 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you repeat what is written here rather than

18 to repeat yourself, that would be appreciated, yes.

19 MS. EDGERTON: Of course.

20 Q. "During the activity in the area of Sharpstone," giving some

21 co-ordinates, "and the resulting casualties reported at paragraphs 8.a.ii

22 and 8.a.iii and the incident reported at paragraph 3a," which is the one

23 I previously read, "the EgyBat anti-sniping APC at that location returned

24 fire onto BSA positions on Sharpstone. Following this retaliation, UNMO

25 Vogosca team received a telephone call from the Commander Radava

Page 40664

1 Battalion, Vogosca Brigade BSA at 061530 March 1995, stating that if the

2 'EgyBat APC in his target practice area (Sedrenik) is not removed within

3 30 minutes, it will be fired upon.' Shortly after this call the sector

4 commander arrived at the APC location and the UNMO Vogosca team received

5 another telephone call at 061550A March 95 from the Radava Battalion

6 commander, stating that he would also fire upon the 'UNPROFOR

7 reinforcements with the APC.' And the APC has subsequently been moved to

8 a position where it can continue to monitor the Sharpstone feature."

9 When you talk about exchange of fire, are you talking about

10 exchange of fire between the warring factions?

11 A. I see here that there was an exchange of gun-fire between members

12 of UNPROFOR and the Army of Republika Srpska. I believe that there was

13 an exchange between the warring parties, too. Because this kind of tense

14 situation -- I mean, I don't see what was the reason for this kind of

15 tense situation unless there had been some combat before that. So

16 obviously this commander believed the observers from the Egyptian

17 Battalion --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, whatever you may believe that must have

19 proceeded for reasons, is there any document which supports what you

20 consider to be logic?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, this document supports that

22 because I find it illogical that the commander of this battalion would be

23 threatening the members of the Egyptian Battalion unless something had

24 happened that he believed was irregular. Probably there was some kind of

25 an exchange there. I mean, that's my assumption. I don't have any -- we

Page 40665

1 see here, subparagraph a, even UNMO is not certain where the fire had

2 come from. Their assumption is that it came from Spicasta Stijena. So

3 in my view this was a complex situation and --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you've answered my question.

5 Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put then a follow-up question.

7 I take you back to pages 51 and 52. Ms. Edgerton put to you what

8 you said in the Karadzic trial, and I quote that part:

9 "... in the Karadzic trial," according to Ms. Edgerton, you said

10 "all the facts point to the conclusion that the victim was walking home

11 from school through a substantial exchange of fire and shot as a result."

12 In your following answer today, you said: "A major exchange,"

13 meaning of gun-fire. And then you say:

14 "I don't know whether it happened at that particular moment,

15 though."

16 There is a major difference between the two, that this young man

17 was shot as a result of exchange of fires. That suggests that you were

18 sure that there was an exchange of gun-fire. Now you say: I don't know

19 whether it happened at that particular moment. Which of the two is true?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my view, according to the

21 description of these things that happened, and we can see that from UNMO

22 reports, et cetera, there was a very complex situation there and there

23 was an exchange of gun-fire. Now, what happened at the moment when Tarik

24 Zunic came up, that I don't have any information about. He just says

25 that he heard firing from M74. There is no denying that.

Page 40666

1 Now, what happened before that and how everything happened, I

2 have no information about that. I mean, at least I don't have any

3 information.

4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Why did you say in the Karadzic trial that there

5 was a substantial exchange of fire and that the man was shot as a result

6 when he was walking through this substantial exchange of fire? I take it

7 from your answer -- the last answer that you don't know that.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, according to the reports a lot

9 of ammunition had been used in that period. I mean -- when we say

10 exchange of gun-fire, if one side opened fire, the other side does not

11 have to respond immediately. I mean, they can --

12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Poparic, Mr. Poparic --

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what --

14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- now you are changing your evidence from the

15 Karadzic case; correct?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, no. I still think that there

17 was an exchange of gun-fire. I mean, what preceded --

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Poparic, it's a serious matter we are talking

19 about. It was put to you that you said in the Karadzic trial:

20 "The victim was walking home from school through a substantial

21 exchange of fire and shot as a result."

22 Do you stand by that or do you change it.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I stand by that because it is

24 possible that before the boy reached that place, one side opened fire,

25 then there was a brief lull before the other side responded.

Page 40667

1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, I stop you. No, I stop you. You say "it is

2 possible." In the Karadzic case you didn't say that it is possible. You

3 say he was walking through a substantial exchange of fire and shot as a

4 result, without any reservation. That was a clear statement. If you say

5 you stand by that, then it is not true what you said today, or the other

6 way around. But I'm not insisting on that. I just put it on the record.

7 Ms. Edgerton.

8 MS. EDGERTON: Could we have a look at 65 ter --

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

10 MS. EDGERTON: -- 10408, please.

11 Q. Mr. Poparic, this is the document that you cite at paragraph 237,

12 footnote 468, in support of the following proposition: Due to combat

13 operations, no onsite investigation was conducted. Only an Official Note

14 was drawn up stating that at the Kosevo hospital they received

15 information that this was a case of slight bodily injury, i.e., an

16 entry-exit wound through the hand.

17 Now, my question for you is: This document says nothing about

18 combat operations, does it? It only refers to firing from the

19 aggressor's positions at the place where Tarik Zunic was wounded. Can

20 you confirm that?

21 A. That's a report of the police of Bosnia-Herzegovina. There is a

22 reference here to the firing and the situation was such that they could

23 not go to the site itself, which is not to say that the other side did

24 not respond. That is their report.

25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But do you have any information that the other

Page 40668

1 side responded?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, probably. If the gun-fire

3 went on for so long that the -- they could not go out to the site, that

4 means that something was going on all day. I don't think that --

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm not --

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- somebody would just be shooting

7 randomly all day just like that.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I am not asking you for probabilities. I have

9 asked you if you have any information that the other side responded.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't but there are

11 probably some witnesses that spoke about this event and certainly know

12 better about this.

13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Again, I'm not asking for probabilities. You

14 don't have any information. Thank you.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could I in more general terms invite you

16 not -- always to make very clear where in your report you rely on what

17 you considered a probability, and also in your answers to questions

18 always be clear when you are talking about probabilities and when you are

19 talking, which we expect you to do, about firm conclusions drawn on the

20 basis of facts - not probabilities, facts - which are within the realm of

21 your expertise.

22 Please proceed.

23 MS. EDGERTON: Could I have this document as a Prosecution

24 exhibit, please.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

Page 40669

1 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 10408 receives Exhibit Number

2 P7597.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.

4 MS. EDGERTON:

5 Q. Just staying with Sedrenik for a little while, I'd like to talk

6 for a second about Scheduled Incident F-2 which we've already had a

7 little conversation about, Mr. Poparic. It's -- now, you've already

8 explained in your cross-examination that you weren't at the actual

9 incident location in this case because it was changed. But it's correct,

10 isn't it, that despite the incident location being changed, you knew that

11 the crime scene was still preserved? You knew that, right? You knew

12 that the gouge mark where the victim -- the gouge mark that the bullet

13 that hit the victim made on the house was still preserved; right?

14 A. At the moment when I was visiting, I didn't know that. What you

15 are talking about is visible in the film made by Mr. Hogan. But at the

16 time of my tour, I did not have that movie. That place that you are

17 referring to is inside a room, inside a place with a fence around it, and

18 I'm not quite sure that's the place where the bullet hit.

19 Q. Well, in fact you had read the victim's witness statement, her

20 statement of 25 July 2001, because you footnote it at footnotes 92 to 98

21 in your report and you would have seen that evidence in her statement

22 that the gouge mark was still visible. So putting aside whenever you may

23 have had Mr. Hogan's videos, you read the victim's statement and you knew

24 from that the gouge mark was still visible; right?

25 A. I've read that but at the time -- the time when Mr. Hogan filmed

Page 40670

1 and this other time don't coincide. There was a lot of construction

2 material and debris in that place. I'm not quite sure, but I accept that

3 what was filmed was the reality of the event. I have no reason to doubt

4 it.

5 Q. And I'd like to put to you that you also know, because you

6 referred to the testimony of this witness on this point, you also know

7 that in the Galic case she marked a photo showing a clear line of sight

8 from the incident location to Spicasta Stijena. You know that.

9 A. I know the witness marked the photograph.

10 Q. You --

11 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear the last sentence.

12 The witness said something else.

13 MS. EDGERTON:

14 Q. Can you repeat your last sentence?

15 A. I accept she marked the photograph. But this visibility that you

16 are mentioning, we can talk about that. I'm not sure what's seen on the

17 photograph.

18 Q. Well, have you seen -- you've seen the photograph, though,

19 haven't you?

20 A. Yes.

21 THE INTERPRETER: The witness is very far away from the

22 microphone.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you come a bit closer to the microphone,

24 Witness.

25 MS. EDGERTON:

Page 40671

1 Q. So let's have a look at the --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic, no speaking aloud.

3 Please proceed.

4 MS. EDGERTON: So let's have a look at the photograph. It's

5 65 ter number 10476. If we can go to page 2, please.

6 Q. Now, that's the photograph that we're talking about, isn't it,

7 and that's the photograph referred to in the testimony you footnote to in

8 paragraph 41 of your report, isn't it?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And it's your position, having read the evidence of the witness

11 in the Galic case and not having been to the incident location -- no, let

12 me ask this a different way.

13 So this photograph --

14 MR. LUKIC: I would object at this point. We discussed this

15 whether this witness was --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Witness -- witness --

17 MR. LUKIC: -- at the scene or not.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you can object to a question.

19 MR. LUKIC: But this is repetitious all the time. He did not go

20 there.

21 JUDGE ORIE: No, I think this was an introduction to a question,

22 and if the question is objectionable, you may object and giving the

23 reasons for that.

24 Please proceed.

25 MR. LUKIC: We object to this kind of introduction, Your Honour.

Page 40675

1 (redacted)

2 [Open session]

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

4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

5 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. I want to go on to another area for

6 the rest of this session, and it's Nedzarici and the School for the

7 Blind.

8 Q. And the School for the Blind, if I have everything correct, is,

9 Mr. Poparic, the alleged origin of fire for F-9, the shooting of

10 Sanela Muratovic, the Unscheduled Incident of 24 October 1994 involving

11 the shooting death of Adnan Kasapovic, which is an Unscheduled Incident

12 you mention at paragraphs 247 to 252 and in your language 245 to 248.

13 It's the location you allege as the origin of fire for an incident that

14 appears in your Annex 6 on 15 May 1995 at paragraphs -- I'll check the

15 page reference, but -- for B/C/S, but in English I have paragraphs 18 to

16 22. And it's also the alleged origin of fire for your Unscheduled

17 Incident 9, which is also from Annex 6 of your report.

18 So first of all, I just want to deal briefly with the sniping of

19 Stefan Bijelac, which is your Unscheduled Incident 3 from Annex 6,

20 English pages 333 to 336. Take your time. I apologise, I don't have the

21 page references in your language here for you -- oh, maybe I do. 316 to

22 318, perhaps.

23 A. Incident number 3, right?

24 Q. 15 May 1995.

25 A. I found it.

Page 40676

1 Q. Okay. In this incident, your only source of information is the

2 investigative file; right?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Let's have a look at it. It's our 65 ter number 33149. Here

5 we've got it on the screen in front of us. Now, you've looked at this

6 file, as you said, and so you can confirm, I think, that the

7 investigative report for this incident says absolutely nothing about the

8 origin of fire as being the School for the Blind; right?

9 A. No, it says from the aggressor's position in Nedzarici.

10 Q. I don't see the words "School for the Blind" anywhere in this

11 document; isn't that true?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 MS. EDGERTON: Could this be marked as a Prosecution exhibit,

15 please.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

17 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 33149 receives Exhibit Number

18 P7600.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.

20 MS. EDGERTON:

21 Q. Now, as I read through your report and I heard your evidence in

22 this case, you make an assertion that seems to me kind of fundamental to

23 all the remaining incidents apart from this 15 May one, and that is that

24 no one ever presented evidence to you that there was a firing position at

25 the School for the Blind although the place was inspected after the

Page 40677

1 Dayton Accords. And you said that at T 40494 in this case. You said:

2 "I never received anything that would indicate to me that this

3 was an arranged firing position."

4 So you stand by that; right?

5 A. Yes, I do. I never received such information.

6 Q. All right.

7 MS. EDGERTON: Let's have a look, please, at 65 ter number 32782.

8 Q. So this is a photo from a video still of the School for the

9 Blind, and I showed it to you in the Karadzic case. And it's taken, by

10 the way, from 65 ter number 33269, which is a film made in 1996 after the

11 reintegration.

12 Now, we talked about this photo in the Karadzic case, and you've

13 adopted this photo and incorporated it into your report; right?

14 A. That's right.

15 Q. Now, when we talked about this photo in the Karadzic case, I

16 showed you a document about sniping from the School for the Blind, and

17 it's P1065.

18 MS. EDGERTON: Could we look at that, please. We can go over to

19 page 5 in English and page 6 in the B/C/S, paragraph number 2b. Actually,

20 I've got my letters wrong, it's 2d .

21 Q. Where it says:

22 "UNMOs confirm from the spot as well as hospital visit 1 times

23 Bosnian civ," I presume you mean a civilian, "male, age 17, injured by

24 sniping at co-ordinates BP 863578 near the house for the blind people

25 at Alipasino Polje area," giving the date, 111530 B July 1994.

Page 40678

1 "It is suspected in the sniping came from and co-ordinates BP

2 859578 BSA side. It may be highlighted that this is the third casualty,

3 all civilians, in the same spot in the last few days."

4 So this document reports sniping near the house for the blind

5 people. It's three weeks after incident F-9 and it reports at least one

6 sniping being the third casualty in the same spot in the last few days.

7 This doesn't indicate to you that there was a firing position of the Army

8 of Republika Srpska in the School for the Blind?

9 A. This report coincides with my assertion that it was not a firing

10 position at the School for the Blind. It wasn't there but it was in the

11 vicinity. The report also says near the School for the Blind --

12 Q. Right.

13 A. As far as I see, nobody is claiming --

14 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just seek to clarify this, Witness.

15 The report, as far as I can read it, says that the person was

16 injured near to the School of the Blind. I think it doesn't say that

17 much about a sniping position because usually the victims are not exactly

18 where the shooters are, isn't it. If they are shot nearby, it could be

19 any place which is nearby including the School of the Blind. Is that --

20 is that a interpretation you would follow?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it was near the School for the

22 Blind. You're right. When we look at it more carefully, you are right.

23 JUDGE ORIE: But you also said that this supports that it was not

24 a sniping position. Could you explain how someone being injured in the

25 vicinity of a certain building, that that would support your assumption

Page 40679

1 that it would not have come from that building?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not my assumption. It just

3 says here that it's not from the building. It's certain that it was near

4 it. In my report, I maintain that the firing position was somewhere near

5 that building. It was close and it's visible from the trace and the

6 surrounding buildings.

7 JUDGE ORIE: You would accept that to be a firing place only if

8 the person was shot at that building itself. Is that how I have to

9 understand your logic?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, certainly not. The discussion

11 here is whether there was a firing position on that building. I did not

12 see any document that would persuade me.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, Witness --

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But there was a firing position

15 near that building. It's visible from the traces of the exchange of fire

16 on both sides, and I put that in my report.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you've still not explained to me why -- if a

18 person is shot nearby a building, why that supports your position that

19 that person was not shot at from that building.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, then you misunderstood me. I

21 base that assertion on all the knowledge that I had which indicates that

22 a firing position of the VRS was somewhere close to that building. We

23 showed that in the examination-in-chief where it could be.

24 JUDGE ORIE: What you're telling me now is that you had other

25 information which would support your position, which I understand. But I

Page 40680

1 leave it to that.

2 Please proceed.

3 Mr. Lukic.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just to clarify.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.

6 MR. LUKIC: There is a translation issue in the document.

7 JUDGE ORIE: There is a translation issue.

8 MR. LUKIC: I'm afraid that I shouldn't raise it in front of the

9 witness.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Then we have -- we take a break in eight minutes

11 from now. Could you raise it --

12 MR. LUKIC: When he leaves.

13 JUDGE ORIE: -- when he leaves the courtroom.

14 MR. LUKIC: When he leaves --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay, we leave it to that and that perhaps put

16 this document for a second aside.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: But I have a clarification question to ask here.

18 It looks like -- and I don't know whether it will resolve the

19 translation issue.

20 Sir, in your discussion with Judge Orie, Judge Orie tells you and

21 reads from this document that the person injured was near -- was injured

22 near the house for the blind. You keep saying the firing came from near

23 the house. Therefore, it couldn't come from the house.

24 Just look at the document and see that it is -- it doesn't talk

25 about the firing being near the house but it talks about --

Page 40681

1 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour --

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- the injured person being injured near the

3 house.

4 JUDGE ORIE: This is -- from Mr. Lukic, I understand this is the

5 translation issue which should --

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: But if he clarifies my question, then there is no

7 need for that.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE ORIE: We'll first later hear about the translation issue,

10 where after Judge Moloto may still have further questions on the matter.

11 Ms. Edgerton.

12 MS. EDGERTON:

13 Q. You're not disputing, though, are you, that there were VRS

14 positions in the School for the Blind? You accept that, right?

15 MR. LUKIC: Asked and answered several times. He does dispute

16 that.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you're supposed not to -- to repeat the

18 answer.

19 Do you dispute that there were positions?

20 MS. EDGERTON: If I may. And I distinguish "military positions"

21 from "firing positions."

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Were there any Bosnian Serb soldiers in the --

23 I take it that you're -- Ms. Edgerton, that you are talking about Bosnian

24 Serb soldiers.

25 Was there any military presence in the School of the Blind from

Page 40682

1 the Bosnian Serb side?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that in the direct

3 examination. Yes. On the ground floor there were troops who were

4 deployed there, but the firing position itself was not inside the

5 building. It was further away, which I established from the traces of an

6 exchange of fire. In fact, traces on both sides.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, it may be clear that you were a bit early

8 with your intervention. I see that you're accepting that.

9 Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.

10 MS. EDGERTON: So let's have a look at another document, P1079.

11 And I think we should go to page 4, if I'm not mistaken, in both

12 languages. Paragraph 24b.

13 Q. So here, on 13 July 1994, is UNPROFOR reporting that the

14 commander of the 1st Battalion of the Bosnian Serb Army Ilidza Brigade

15 "admitted the sniping by BSA from BP 859578 (house for blind people). He

16 promised that there would be no more sniping from that place."

17 So here's a specific admission from an SRK military commander

18 that there was sniping from the School for the Blind. Now, does that

19 indicate to you that there was a firing position of the VRS in that

20 building sniping civilians?

21 A. It is correct that this commander admitted that somebody opened

22 fire from the Institute for the Blind, but that still doesn't prove that

23 this was a proper firing position that was operating all the time.

24 Perhaps this was sporadic gun-fire that somebody opened from this

25 building.

Page 40683

1 Q. So on the basis of this document, you're now prepared to accept

2 that there was firing from the School for the Blind; correct?

3 A. One case was registered here.

4 Q. How much more is it going to take, Mr. Poparic? Let me show you

5 65 ter number 33205.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Are you familiar with the document we just looked

7 at, Mr. Poparic?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. This is the first time I see

9 it.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

11 Please proceed.

12 MS. EDGERTON: Let's go over to page 2 in both languages.

13 Q. Mr. Poparic, this is a record of the testimony of the victim in

14 this case, Sanela Muratovic, given to the Cantonal Court in Sarajevo in

15 the trial of Goran Vasic in April of 1998. And she says at the bottom of

16 the largest paragraph:

17 "... I know snipers fired very frequently from that place. On

18 that spot, I could show you the place where I was hit. I can also

19 indicate the position and the direction I was facing when I was injured."

20 Here's some evidence from the victim of repeated, frequent sniper

21 fire from the School for the Blind. Are you prepared to accept it now?

22 A. Let me just take a look.

23 MR. LUKIC: That's just part of the sentence. The whole sentence

24 should be read.

25 JUDGE ORIE: You're invited to read the whole sentence. If you

Page 40684

1 follow the suggestion, Ms. Edgerton, we'll hear from you. Otherwise,

2 Mr. Lukic will deal with it in re-examination.

3 MS. EDGERTON: The sentence, if I understand correctly -- I

4 apologise for the delay.

5 Q. "I have the medical documentation and enclose it herewith. In

6 that section, the sniper fired very often from the direction of Nedzarici

7 and this bullet also came from the direction of Nedzarici - I would say

8 from the Institute for the Blind - and I know snipers fired very

9 frequently from that place."

10 And I don't think I need to bother repeating the last line.

11 So maybe I should repeat my question: What's it going to take,

12 Mr. Poparic? Are you now prepared to accept evidence that there was an

13 SRK sniping position in the School for the Blind?

14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please

15 speak into the microphone. Thank you.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please speak into the microphone and could

17 you repeat your answer, Witness.

18 Witness, could you -- yes.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the basis of this document, I am

20 not prepared to accept that. Because the way she described this

21 incident, that is roughly the way Medina Omerovic, her friend, described

22 it. They were walking from Djure Jaksica Street and she was hit. I

23 analysed that incident and she certainly could not have been hit from the

24 Institute of the Blind. She was hit by a ricochetted bullet, a bullet

25 that ricochetted off Djure Jaksica number 17, that building. What she is

Page 40687

1 --- On resuming at 1.43 p.m.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

3 Yes, Mr. Tieger, you wanted to raise a matter in the absence of

4 the witness or?

5 MR. TIEGER: Either way, Mr. President, it's fine.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please. Please proceed.

7 MR. TIEGER: Thank you. This is in connection with the upcoming

8 cross-examination of expert Kovac whose report spans all three of the

9 components in this case.

10 The Prosecution recently spoke with the Defence about its

11 proposal -- or our proposal that for efficiency of both preparation and

12 presentation, that two Prosecution counsel with expertise in different

13 areas of the case participate.

14 [The witness takes the stand]

15 MR. TIEGER: The Defence has no objection to this proposal. And

16 while we anticipate that the Trial Chamber would not either, we wanted of

17 course to alert you to that and confirm that that was the case.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although not very common, it's no problem for

19 the Chamber, especially since it's not a problem to the Defence, that --

20 that the evidence will be elicited by two counsel.

21 Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.

22 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.

23 Q. Have you ever seen, Mr. Poparic, any military documents from

24 either of the warring factions that would -- that show -- that would

25 show -- or with evidence of a firing position in the School for the

Page 40688

1 Blind?

2 A. I did not have any such evidence.

3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Unfortunately, the document we saw last before

4 the break has disappeared from the screen. Can we get that back. I

5 would like to raise one matter with respect to that document. It may

6 have been P7601. No, it's not that one. No, it must be P1065, yes.

7 JUDGE ORIE: The suggestion is that it would be P1065. Yes.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And can we go back to the page we had on the

9 screen.

10 JUDGE ORIE: I think it was page 5 in both.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And now we need the English.

12 MR. LUKIC: 6 in B/C/S, 5 in English.

13 JUDGE ORIE: 6 in B/C/S, 5 in English.

14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Witness, I take you back to the sentence under 2d

15 which was read out to you by Ms. Edgerton, but there is one sentence:

16 "It is suspected that the sniping came from BP 859578 BSA side."

17 Do you see that?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Try to remember this number and -- when we go

20 back to P1079, page 4, paragraph 24b. So in this UNPROFOR report, we see

21 under 24b -- perhaps this is going to the next page in B/C/S, that:

22 "It was admitted that the sniping by BSA came from BP 859578,"

23 then in brackets, "(house for blind people)." I take it that this is the

24 same number now with an addition that it should be the house for blind

25 people? Do you agree with me?

Page 40689

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. But I have to explain. These

2 co-ordinates show a broader area; that is to say, that house or, rather,

3 this Institute for the Blind is in that area.

4 JUDGE ORIE: What --

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We would need one more decimal

6 digit in order to have the exact location of the building. This is a

7 broader area.

8 JUDGE ORIE: How large is it, could you tell us? How large is

9 that area which is covered by these six digits?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, these co-ordinates -- I mean,

11 well, this co-ordinate is a square, if I can call it that, of a thousand

12 metres. So then there is 85, between 85 and 86. I mean, 900 metres and

13 then 800 metres, and then this other one between 57 and 58, that's

14 roughly around the eighth part. I can check. I can check on that map --

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can you please --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Witness --

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- just explain this six-digit number, does it

18 cover what kind of -- how large is the area which is covered by this

19 number?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Actually, this area is the ninth

21 point of 85, 86, so then this co-ordinate is divided into 10. And then

22 the one that divides it into the ninth part is --

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm asking you as an expert irrespective of which

24 number we are talking about. A six-digit number, how large is the area

25 which is covered by six-digit number, whatever number it is?

Page 40690

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, this number, this six-digit

2 number does give an intersection. Now, whether it is exactly at the

3 building of the Institute of the Blind, I cannot confirm that. I would

4 have to check that.

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You said it is a broader area. How big is the

6 area covered by a six-digit number? I'm asking you as an expert. If you

7 don't know, then tell us.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise. I rushed a bit

9 with my answer. There are six digits here and there is an intersection

10 of two lines, so there is one point that is denoted by this co-ordinate.

11 So I would have to check whether it is actually the Institute of the

12 Blind. If it were four, then it would to be a broader area than

13 1.000 metres by 1.000 metres, so I would have to check whether it

14 corresponds to --

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, there is nothing to check. It is an

16 intersection of two lines and this is a specific spot. According to the

17 UNPROFOR report, it is the house for the blind people; correct?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to their report, yes.

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

20 Ms. Edgerton.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, still I do not have an answer to the question.

22 With six digits, is that -- does that describe an area by 10 by

23 10 metres, 100 by 100 metres, 1 kilometre by 1 kilometre?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. When we have this with six

25 digits, then it's one point. It is an intersection.

Page 40691

1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

2 Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.

3 MS. EDGERTON:

4 Q. And if you were to see military documents from either of the

5 warring factions, what kind of weight would you give to military

6 documents?

7 A. It's hard to answer now what kind of weight I'd give. It depends

8 on what was written in them, what they say. I'd need to see these

9 documents. I cannot say anything in advance.

10 Q. Does it depend on which one of the warring factions generated the

11 document?

12 A. No. It depends on the basis on which something is claimed in the

13 document.

14 Q. I'd like to show you a military document, then.

15 MS. EDGERTON: 65 ter number 33221. So this is a Main Staff

16 report for the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina dated 25 August 1992 on the

17 security situation in the republic. And I'd like us to go over to

18 English page 4 and B/C/S page 3, please.

19 Q. So in your language, I'd like you to have a look at the -- pretty

20 much the eleventh line down in the first paragraph. And in the English,

21 it's the top of the first paragraph. And it says, as of the date of the

22 report:

23 "As of 5:15, the enemy carried the fire over to the settlement

24 itself," referring to Vojnicko Polje, in the sentence immediately

25 preceding, "shelling it for two hours. Activities were also manifested

Page 40692

1 in the sector of the Aleksa Santic School. A PAM was concurrently firing

2 from the sector of the school, Dom Slijepih, centre for the blind,

3 towards Dzemela Bijedica Street and the student dormitories."

4 What's a PAM?

5 A. Anti-aircraft gun, 12.7 calibre.

6 Q. So here is a military document, a security report from the ABiH

7 Main Staff that says VRS forces are firing an anti-aircraft gun from the

8 sector of the School for the Blind. Do you accept that VRS force --

9 based on this document, are you now prepared to accept that VRS forces

10 were firing from positions in the area of the School for the Blind?

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.

12 MR. LUKIC: It says from the region of school, from the area of

13 school, not from the school.

14 JUDGE ORIE: That's comment rather than anything else.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE ORIE: That's what -- yes, but in the question the word

18 "area" is not repeated, but it's comment rather than anything else.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this document, it says that fire

20 was opened from the area of the Institute for the Blind towards Dzemela

21 Bijedica Street and the student dormitories. That's correct. I claimed

22 that in the area of that school there were certainly certain positions.

23 MS. EDGERTON:

24 Q. That's fine.

25 MS. EDGERTON: Could I have this as a Prosecution exhibit,

Page 40693

1 please.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, Mr. Lukic, Ms. Edgerton -- I didn't have

3 my transcript opened at that moment but she said exactly what the

4 document says. She was talking about the area. Not positions in the

5 School of the Blind but positions at the area of the School of the Blind.

6 Therefore, I think that should have led me to say that, first of all,

7 it's a comment; and second, that it was an inaccurate comment.

8 Madam Registrar.

9 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 33221 receives Exhibit Number

10 P7602.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.

12 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. Now I'd like to go to 65 ter number

13 33220, please.

14 Q. Now, this is dated 27 January 1993 and it's a report from the

15 1st Corps -- or to the 1st Corps command on the situation in their area

16 of responsibility. Now, in both languages if you can just stay on the

17 first page, go all the way down to the entry on the bottom in English and

18 the entry on the bottom of -- the entry fifth from the bottom in B/C/S.

19 It's --

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Edgerton, do we know corps command of which

21 army?

22 MS. EDGERTON: That would be the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

23 Q. Now, it says at 11 -- it reports on enemy activities at 11.00 and

24 it says:

25 "Sniper activity from the centre for the blind targeting

Page 40694

1 Aleja B. Bujica Street."

2 So here a contemporaneous military document reporting sniper

3 activity from the School for the Blind.

4 MS. EDGERTON: And actually if we go over to the next page in

5 English I just want to see if there is a sentence that's been cut off --

6 no. Thank you very much.

7 Q. So to go back to my question. Here is a contemporaneous military

8 document reporting sniper activity by VRS forces for the School for the

9 Blind. Are you now, based on this document, prepared to accept that VRS

10 snipers operated from the School for the Blind?

11 A. There is no information here that would convince me that it was

12 exactly from the School for the Blind. It could be near the School for

13 the Blind and then the person who is observing would think it was from

14 the school, but it's a fact that this is written.

15 Q. So your answer is no. Despite what's written in this document,

16 you're still not prepared --

17 A. [Overlapping speakers] ...

18 Q. Can you not interrupt me, please. You're still not prepared to

19 accept that VRS snipers operated from the School for the Blind; correct?

20 A. I accept that it is written here, but I don't have the elements

21 to conclude that it was exactly from the School for the Blind.

22 MS. EDGERTON: Could I have this as a Prosecution exhibit,

23 please.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

25 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 33220 receives Exhibit Number

Page 40695

1 P7603.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.

3 MS. EDGERTON:

4 Q. Now, do you accept that there is a clear and obstructed --

5 unobstructed, pardon me, a clear and unobstructed line of sight from the

6 School for the Blind to the incident location for F-9?

7 A. Yes, from one part of the School for the Blind there is such a

8 view. One small part of the school.

9 Q. And that's on the basis of what?

10 A. On the basis of the fact that I was there, it was recorded, and

11 it is shown. You can see one part, the top ten windows. It's here on

12 the picture 124 in my report.

13 Q. Now, can I just clarify something. You said just now that you

14 were there, but at the beginning of your cross-examination you said

15 you've never been inside the School for the Blind; right?

16 A. I didn't go inside.

17 Q. So you're prepared to accept that there is a small line of sight

18 on the basis of this picture from the video still? Am I correct in

19 understanding that?

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I thought -- I'm not --

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it a small line of sight or is it a line of

23 sight from a small area of the school?

24 MS. EDGERTON: Ah-ha. A line of sight from one small part of the

25 school. I stand corrected. Thank you.

Page 40696

1 Q. I'd like you to have a look at a picture that was taken from

2 inside the School for the Blind in 1996, and it's taken from the same

3 video that you've pulled the picture that appears as image 123 of -- in

4 your report. It's 65 ter number 33333.

5 So, Mr. Poparic, however big the part of the school might be that

6 has a line of sight, you're prepared to accept it's not obstructed;

7 correct?

8 A. Let me just take a look. Yes, there are obstacles. I think this

9 is a garage here in front and it obstructs part of the area in front of

10 the building, if I'm not mistaken. I don't find the picture very clear.

11 Q. Fine. I have more to show you.

12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can the witness please indicate where is a

13 garage? I don't see it. Could you explain?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Shall I put a letter to mark it?

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: There is only one marking and you indicate here

16 that in your view this is a garage; correct?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: My question would be from which point does this

19 garage obstruct the view? Where is the person looking supposed to be

20 positioned?

21 MS. EDGERTON: I take it that's a question for Mr. Poparic.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Absolutely.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me just draw. As far as I can

24 see, the angle is not very convenient. It should be between these two

25 buildings. Down here, in that direction.

Page 40697

1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You pointed to that by an arrow from up to down.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the road, which is not visible

3 from here, that's where it should be.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: And where is the observer supposed to be having a

5 line of sight to?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This building on the left, if I'm

7 not mistaken, is in the Djure Jaksica Street. Behind it should be --

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I stop you there. Listen to my question.

9 Where is the observer supposed to be looking at to get the garage to be

10 an obstruction?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The person who's looking from this

12 window sees this building in Djure Jaksica Street with a red facade, if

13 I'm right. And the next building is number 17. Those two girls stood

14 behind the trench between these two buildings. The angle is shifted a

15 bit, so it's not quite clear. Between this white building and the red

16 wall, that's where the girls were standing at the trench.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: But the garage is not between the white building

18 and the red building.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's close to the School for the

20 Blind. It's a two-storey building with a garage below.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just listen to my question. The garage is not

22 between the white building and the red building. Is that not so?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: So if the girls were standing in front of the red

25 building, the garage is not obstructing the person who is observes from

Page 40698

1 where the arrow is.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's an obstacle because the garage

3 is taller. We don't see the road in that street, so these two girls

4 could not be visible.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Are you tendering this marked document,

7 Ms. Edgerton?

8 MS. EDGERTON: Yes, and I'm going to come back to it.

9 JUDGE ORIE: We have to do it right now --

10 MS. EDGERTON: Yes.

11 JUDGE ORIE: -- otherwise if it disappears from the screen ...

12 MS. EDGERTON: Oh, of course.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be?

14 THE REGISTRAR: P7604.

15 JUDGE ORIE: That is a photograph marked by the witness is

16 admitted into evidence.

17 Ms. Edgerton, could you assist me from where, in what direction

18 is this photograph taken?

19 MS. EDGERTON: I -- to speak perfectly accurately, Your Honour, I

20 can't do it from memory. I would prefer to check exactly and revert to

21 you with that information first thing tomorrow.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so. And if you can link it in one way or

23 another to image 123 in the witness's report, then that would be

24 appreciated.

25 MS. EDGERTON: In fact, Your Honours, in the few moments we have

Page 40699

1 left, I'd like to go to some of the images in the witness's report.

2 And --

3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, there is one minute left. I can't imagine

4 that you would be able to do that within that one minute.

5 MS. EDGERTON: No, it would take me about five.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we would adjourn for the day.

7 Mr. Poparic, we would like to see you back tomorrow morning, 9.30

8 in the morning. And I again instruct you that you should not speak or

9 communicate in whatever way with whomever about your testimony, whether

10 given last week or today or still to be given tomorrow or the days to

11 come. If that's clear to you, you may follow the usher.

12 [The witness stands down]

13 JUDGE ORIE: We will adjourn for the day and will resume

14 tomorrow, Tuesday, the 3rd of November, 9.30 in the morning, in this same

15 courtroom, I.

16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.14 p.m.,

17 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 3rd day

18 of November, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.