Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 40700

 1                           Tuesday, 3 November 2015

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

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

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

 6     courtroom.

 7             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is case

 9     IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             Before the witness will be invited to enter the courtroom, we'll

12     first move briefly into private session.

13                           [Private session]

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 40701

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10                           [Open session]

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

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

13             I also announce that we'll have the second session of this

14     morning to be a little bit shorter.  We'll have an early break at 11.30.

15                           [The witness takes the stand]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Poparic.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I again remind that you you're still bound by the

19     declaration that you've given at the beginning of your testimony and

20     Ms. Edgerton will now continue her cross-examination.

21             Please proceed.

22             MS. EDGERTON:  I would like to start, Your Honours, by responding

23     to a query raised yesterday, Your Honour, with respect to 65 ter number

24     33333, and in fairness to Mr. Poparic, I'd like to do it in front of him.

25     If we could see that photograph.  Your Honours' query was whether we

Page 40702

 1     could assist with the direction from which this photograph was taken,

 2     and ... just by way of a reminder to everybody, and -- this is the

 3     photograph we were discussing yesterday, 65 ter number 33333.  Now if we

 4     could go to the image that's in P3, which is our court book, page 16

 5     [Microphone not activated].  Sorry.

 6             E-court page 20.  E-court page 20.  Hard copy page 16; e-court

 7     page 20.

 8             Now -- thank you.  Now this 65 ter number was -- is a still taken

 9     from a video-clip which has also been separately uploaded and can be

10     reverted to if there's a need.  But, Your Honours, this photograph was

11     taken from that part of the complex of the school for the blind, which is

12     the building sitting at the south-west corner of the hexagon which

13     encompasses the school for the blind.

14                           [Trial Chamber confers]

15             MS. EDGERTON:  So the school for the blind is the long building

16     at the north-east building of the hexagon, if I'm describing that clearly

17     enough, and this still was taken from a clip that was filmed from the

18     building in the south-west corner at the shortest end of the building.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I see that ... and that road on which we find

20     the red car is a road which is invisible because it is hidden by the

21     buildings themselves on the other photograph?

22             MS. EDGERTON:  It is, indeed.  But if we were to play the clip

23     that this was created from, which I can just refer to now and we can play

24     if there's a need, you are able to clearly see that road as we look out

25     the windows.

Page 40703

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I ...

 2             MS. EDGERTON:  And just, again, for the record, that -- the image

 3     comes from 65 ter number 33269 and a clip from time code 8:06 to about

 4     8:16 makes clear that this is one and the same road.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps we could -- if it's only ten seconds,

 6     perhaps we look at it so we are certain that our present understanding is

 7     correct.

 8             MS. EDGERTON:  Of course.

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             MS. EDGERTON:  So we'll just start at time code 8:06 of 65 ter

11     number 33269, and this is without the sound, this whole video.  We're not

12     relying on the sound.

13                           [Video-clip played]

14             MS. EDGERTON:  So, Your Honours, you see that road from about

15     8:09 to 8:14.  And, of course, we can play a longer clip, if there's a

16     need.  And we ended at time code 8:16.

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please proceed.

20             MS. EDGERTON:  All right.  I'm going to ask, if I may, that this

21     clip that we've just played from 65 ter number -- that this clip we just

22     played be tendered as the next Prosecution Exhibit, please.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 33269 receives exhibit number P7605,

Page 40704

 1     Your Honours.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And admission will be decided upon once the

 3     video-clip has been provided to Madam Registrar.

 4                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 5             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.

 6                           WITNESS:  MILE POPARIC [Resumed]

 7                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

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

 9        Q.   Now, Mr. Poparic, what I'd like to do now that we've dispensed

10     with this for the time being is come back to the pictures I promised you

11     yesterday, and we were talking about the building of the school for the

12     blind.

13             Now, when -- what you pointed out in commenting on this

14     photograph was that you can see the building in Djura Jaksic with a red

15     facade and that the garage was, from this location, an obstacle to the

16     specific F-9 incident location.  So what I wanted to do is show you some

17     progression from the south-western building, where this photo was taken

18     from, to the building that appeared in your report as image 122 and 120

19     and the basis for image 123.  Now, so what I'd like to us do is look at

20     65 ter number 26173A, please.

21             So here's a photograph, Mr. Poparic, taken on 12 October 2000

22     from the building that appears in 65 ter number 32782, which we saw

23     briefly yesterday and in your report.  And this can be broadcast.  And in

24     your report at image 122 and 123.  So it was taken from that building

25     from the furthermost window according to the description I have on the

Page 40705

 1     right, room 63 on the top floor as you approach the building from the

 2     direction of the intersection.  Now, this photograph shows a clear and

 3     unobstructed line of sight to the incident location for F-9, doesn't it?

 4     We can see it here.

 5        A.   Yes.  I never disputed that there is a part of the building from

 6     which there is a view.

 7        Q.   Great.  Thank you.

 8             MS. EDGERTON:  Could I have this as a Prosecution Exhibit,

 9     please.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter number 26173A receives exhibit number

12     P7606, Your Honours.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

14             MS. EDGERTON:  And this -- this is the photograph without

15     telephoto that was the basis for the image that is in the court binder of

16     the incident location as well.

17        Q.   Now, so here's my question related to this and the line of sight.

18     In your testimony in-chief, you remember we watched a part of an exhibit,

19     video-clip, and it's called P1934, and it was where the witness -- a clip

20     where the witness showed where she and her girlfriend were standing at

21     the time her girlfriend was shot.  Now, that position is what you marked

22     yesterday in -- I'll just look to get the number for a moment.  P7604.

23             MS. EDGERTON:  Could we have that on the screen, please.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             MS. EDGERTON:

Page 40706

 1        Q.   Right, the arrow that you marked there, you said was the incident

 2     location; correct?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Now, let's have a look at image 128 in your report, which is

 5     English page 176 and B/C/S page 172.

 6             MS. EDGERTON:  Not to be broadcast.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And the report is D1330, MFI.

 8             MS. EDGERTON:  Yes.  Thank you.

 9        Q.   And we only need -- because the question is about the image, so

10     we only need one image and you could blow it up.

11             Now you talked about this image in your testimony in-chief, and

12     you said at transcript page 40491 that Medina Omerovic and Sanela

13     Muratovic were in the street Djura Jaksica roughly at the spot marked

14     number 5 on this image.  Those two locations aren't the same.  Can you

15     see that right?  The spot that you marked at number 5, where you said the

16     witness said she was, and the spot you marked yesterday aren't the same?

17     You can see that?

18        A.   Yes, these are different places.

19        Q.   And, in fact, if you go and put your image 125 and your image 128

20     side by side --

21             MS. EDGERTON:  If we could do that, please.

22        Q.   So we've got here 128 on the screen and you said in your report

23     that the incident site for F-9 was marked at number 1.  So -- and here's

24     image 128 on the right-hand side, so you're even -- this shows you're

25     even internally inconsistent.  You've marked two different incident

Page 40707

 1     locations and, in fact, neither of them are where the witness said the

 2     victim was when she was shot; right?  You can see that.

 3        A.   Just a moment.

 4        Q.   Can you not see that neither of these images accurately mark

 5     where the victim showed us she was shot in the video-clip we watched in

 6     your testimony in-chief?

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The witness asked for some time.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, I see it.  You're right.

 9             This point 1 should have been moved to this intersection forward.

10     1 and 2 are shifted.  It's the intersection between the buildings around

11     point 2.

12             MS. EDGERTON:

13        Q.   Now, when you --

14        A.   No, no, no, sorry.  I apologise.  No, it's -- it's marked

15     correctly.  It's marked correctly.  This point 1 is the red building on

16     this picture 128, marked as 3.  That's correct.

17        Q.   So your image 128 that you talked about in your testimony

18     in-chief has number 5 marked incorrectly.  You can see that; right?

19        A.   No, no.

20             On image 128, point 5 would correspond to point 2, would

21     correspond to point 2 on image 125.

22        Q.   And I'll ask this one more time by looking at one more picture.

23             MS. EDGERTON:  If we can back, please, to P3, hard copy page 18.

24     I think it's e-court page 22.

25             Actually, let me move forward a couple of pages.  No, let's stay

Page 40708

 1     with that.  Thank you.  Okay.

 2        Q.   The red circle in the image you see on the left-hand side is a

 3     marking that denotes where the witness said the victim was standing when

 4     she was shot.  Your marking number 5 on your image 128 doesn't accurately

 5     represent where the victim said she was standing -- where the witness

 6     said the victim was when she was shot; right?  You can see that:  The two

 7     of them aren't the same; right?

 8        A.   It's correct they're not the same.  Point 5 is where the witness

 9     said they were when ABiH soldiers told them to hurry along because there

10     is a danger of enemy fire.  Somebody showed yesterday the statement of

11     this girl who was wounded.  She said that they were going from Senada

12     Dindic number 1 where she lived to this building marked 3 at the corner.

13     So from that direction they came to the intersection and then they were

14     warned about the danger and that point 5 is approximately where the

15     witness described they had been, and then they ran between buildings 2

16     and 3.

17             So the circle on this image that you showed, from point 5 they

18     came to that place.

19        Q.   I won't belabour this point.  We'll move on.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I put a question to the witness --

21             MS. EDGERTON:  Of course.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  -- with respect to image 128?  You describe in

23     your report the spot number 5 as -- and perhaps we can move it a little

24     bit to the left.  The spot where Sanela Muratovic was at the time in

25     question according to Medina Omerovic's statement and testimony.

Page 40709

 1             What do you mean by "the time in question"?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I meant at the time of the incident

 3     if it is correctly translated.  Let me see how it's defined here.

 4             No, no, that translation is not good.  In the original it says

 5     the place where Sanela Muratovic was according to the statement and

 6     testimony of Medina Omerovic.  No, it's good.  It's good.

 7             I don't have the time in the original.  I'm not -- I think it's

 8     not the best translation.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Number 5 is on the street near the intersection.

10     In your understanding, was she -- wait -- wait a moment, please, before I

11     finish my question.

12             In your understanding, was she shot there or after moving in the

13     direction to the right on this picture?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can repeat how this girl

15     described it.  When they were approximately at that place, number 5, they

16     were warned that there was a threat, and they started running.  At that

17     moment gun-fire was heard and in one statement Medina Omerovic says

18     that's when Sanela Muratovic was shot and then they ran to the trench to

19     get assistance from the soldiers.  In my view, that incident is very

20     probable because the traces on the buildings number 2 and number 3 from

21     the front on this red brick, as well as the traces on these buildings

22     marked as 4, indicate that there was a very intensive exchange of fire.

23     You can see that also on building number 2.  Building number 4 has been

24     renovated but in my report there is also a picture that indicates the

25     same.  In my view, fire was opened from that direction and she was hit by

Page 40710

 1     a ricochet bullet.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That was a very long answer to a very short

 3     question.

 4             Can we scroll a little bit down, please.

 5             What you just said in explaining the photograph and your

 6     markings, I don't see -- oh, thank you.

 7             It is at least the description of number 5 it's not very clear in

 8     the English language.  That's all that I want to say.

 9             Thank you.  Please proceed.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  I have two short follow-up questions.

11             If you say they were there and they started running, et cetera,

12     does that allow you to tell us exactly where they were when the one girl

13     was hit?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  In my view, they probably

15     don't know that either.  Because it's dynamic, a dynamic process and they

16     were hit somewhere around there.

17             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] One of them was.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  So you say when one of them told Mr. Hogan when and

20     where she was hit, she doesn't know actually because you, although not

21     knowing where that exactly was, that you think that she's wrong?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can say what I know in terms of

23     what she said.  She said at one moment to Mr. Hogan that they were at the

24     edge of the trench when the other one was hit, and I said that, that in

25     the testimony she described it a bit differently.  She said we ran and

Page 40711

 1     then fire was opened and then she was hit.  Yesterday we saw --

 2             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- the statement of the girl who

 4     had been hit and she is not saying that it was at the trench.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  So what you're saying is that the evidence in this

 6     respect may be not fully consistent because what was said to Mr. Hogan

 7     may be a bit different from what was said in the statement.  Is that ...

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is a slight difference,

 9     but --

10             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... yes.  Is it

11     within your expertise to tell us which is better to be believed than the

12     other?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not make any recommendations

14     in terms of what should be believed.  I looked at both cases.  The case

15     when she was standing at the trench, would it be possible for her to be

16     hit from the other direction, and I came to the conclusion that then

17     there was no such possibility.  Except that part of the window that we

18     see, that the marksman was not up there.  So he would have been somewhere

19     around the middle of the window because -- and I excluded that because

20     it's opposite BH army positions and, according to figure 123, we see that

21     that's very dangerous for a person to be there and then on the basis of

22     the rest, I concluded that it was not possible to do it from there.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  You say it was too dangerous, therefore, the

24     marksman couldn't have been there.  That's your position.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My position is that the window is

Page 40712

 1     open.  You see how big it is and I mean, I doubt -- well, I mean, at the

 2     time of combat, there was some fire there then and then it would be

 3     illogical for me to believe that during that combat he would come to the

 4     window.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I have another question which is the

 6     following.  You said due to the impacts, I understand bullet impacts on

 7     the various buildings, you concluded that there was an exchange of fire

 8     at that point in time.  Is that well understood?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  I said that on the basis of

10     these -- this enormous number of traces at number 2, 3 and 4, I came to

11     the conclusion that during the war conflict in that area there was an

12     intensive exchange of gun-fire between the warring parties and that is

13     why I assume that fire could have been opened from that direction.  So I

14     don't know where the firing position was.  I mean ...

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just --

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  The traces show --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The trace do not show anything about what

18     happened on that day, at that hour, do they?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, not explicitly, no.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Implicitly?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Implicitly, if we link up the first

22     statement or, rather, the testimony of Medina Omerovic who says that she

23     ran, I mean, and it would have been possible --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  I stop you there.  My question was whether the

25     traces do show anything about what happened on that day as far as

Page 40713

 1     exchange of fire is concerned at that specific time.  You said no, not

 2     explicitly.  Therefore, then I asked you whether they show anything

 3     implicitly.  That is, the traces.  I didn't ask you to --

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Traces, no.  Traces, no.  So many

 5     traces.  It would be pointless, I mean, to look for something there.

 6     They just give a general picture concerning the scene itself.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So they do not say anything explicitly,

 8     neither implicitly.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Just one small follow-up.  By virtue of the marks

12     that you see on the buildings, there was a exchange of fire.  What

13     evidence do you have to show that there was outgoing fire?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, take a look at photograph -

15     sorry, I don't know it by heart - 120.  120.  It's these buildings marked

16     with number 4.  This was a home for the elderly before the war and now it

17     is a company --

18             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... can we just --

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 128.  No, well, yeah.  But in my

20     report, photograph 120 shows the home for the elderly and --

21             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... 120 is at page

22     167, e-court.  English.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sure.  How do you -- what -- where's the evidence

24     to show that there was outgoing fire?  That was my question.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I see evidence on the facades

Page 40714

 1     of these buildings.  You see how many hits there are?

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yeah, is that outgoing fire or incoming fire.  Is

 3     that evidence of incoming fire or is that evidence of outgoing fire?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is evidence that fire was

 5     incoming for these four, that's to say, there was shooting from --

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's right.  I'm asking what evidence do you

 7     have that there was outgoing fire.  That is incoming fire.

 8             Oh.  In the opposite direction.  Because there was an exchange of

 9     fire, according to you.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  For outgoing fire, it's

11     building number 2 and picture 128.  And it is shown here.  Part of that

12     building is on 119.  It was hit in many places and that is to say that

13     that fire had come from there.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I don't know what you're saying.  If the house --

15     the building is hit and you say it's hit by fire that comes from there?

16     I am looking at number 2, picture 128.  If it is hit, it's hit by

17     incoming fire.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you look at that photograph.

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

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May --

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry.  In picture 120,

22     incoming fire is from building marked as number 2 in image 128.  Whereas,

23     in picture 119, incoming fire is from building 4.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We don't have picture 119 on the screen now.  You

25     asked for 120.  Now there's 119.

Page 40715

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You see?  The facade was repaired a

 2     bit, but the traces are still there.  Incoming fire is from this

 3     direction that I marked as A, roughly, but basically it's the area of

 4     this building number 4 that we saw in picture 120.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you one question.  This whole discussion

 6     is about whether there would have been fire during the war.  Does that

 7     got anything to do specifically with the date and the time of this

 8     incident?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think so.  I think so.

10             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Then let me ask you:  If we look at a wall with a

13     lot of bullet damage, what tells us that it was on that date that the two

14     girls were there that this damage was inflicted, or was it inflicted

15     somewhere during the war time?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that we could not say

17     anything about a concrete day but the volume of damage indicates that it

18     certainly must have been over a longer period of time.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I see that.  But that doesn't allow for any

20     conclusions on an exchange of fire on that day, would it?  It would only

21     allow for a conclusion that there must have been, at one point in time

22     during the war or during a longer period of time in the war, such

23     exchange of fire which would have caused that damage.  That's, I think,

24     the only conclusion that you could draw, or do you disagree?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I do not agree fully because

Page 40716

 1     if we look at the situation here on the ground, there is no denying that

 2     fire had been opened and there was testimony to that effect so it only

 3     could have come from this direction.

 4             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... so, but now you

 5     are moving away from my question.

 6             My question was:  What can you seen and what can be concluded on

 7     that photograph, if fire was opened on that day that might explain

 8     possibly, one, two, three, or five bullet-holes, if they hit a building

 9     at all, nothing more, nothing less.  So therefore showing a huge impact

10     of exchange of fire on a building is hardly to be related logically to

11     this incident?  Would you agree?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These traces cannot help us

13     establish whether the projectile hit the building that day in one spot or

14     another spot.  We cannot do that because there's a large number.  But as

15     we look at these traces and the surrounding buildings, we can conclude

16     that during the war there was an exchange of gun-fire in that direction.

17     We do not have any traces elsewhere.  So if it was opened on that day,

18     that is to be expected.  Now that's my position.  Then, we can expect

19     that fire had been opened from that direction.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's clear to me.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can -- may I put one additional question.

22             Do you have any evidence that, on that day, at that time, when

23     this woman was hit, a single shot was fired from or nearby the place

24     where she was hit?  Do you have any evidence to that effect?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No evidence as to where the bullet

Page 40717

 1     was fired from.  Nobody said anything about that.  Only a gun-shot was

 2     heard, so it's only the sound that was heard that is evidence.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  How can you then say that at the time of the

 4     incident that there was exchange of fire?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the basis of the statement of

 6     this girl, that soldiers had warned them and that shooting had started.

 7     That's what they said.  So soldiers warned them --

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... I stop you.

 9     Did the girl say anything about outgoing fire from that position?  Where

10     they were hit.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They didn't.  And I don't think

12     that they could have concluded anything.  They heard this sound and, of

13     course, they were afraid.  They ran away.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I take it from your answer that you have no

15     evidence about exchange of fire.  Thank you.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps for clarification, what Judge Fluegge

17     specifically pointed at, that exchange of fire is fire coming from both

18     sides; whereas, all of your answers seems to focus on shots being fired

19     not necessarily from two sides but could be from one side as well.

20             I just clarified my understanding of the question and your

21     answers so that if there's any further reason to comment you have the

22     possibility, but I first leave it in the hands of Ms. Edgerton.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I clarify?

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No, you have clarified.  I am satisfied with

25     that.  "Exchange" means exchange and not one-side fire.

Page 40718

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Therefore, if you have clear evidence that it came

 2     from two sides, you may explain that.  But all your answers, until now,

 3     has not pointed at that.  If you want to be focussed on that, you have an

 4     opportunity to do so.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I say something?

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you may.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not claiming that the girl was

 8     hit by BH army fire --

 9             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... --

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All my analyses show that it is a

11     ricochet from incoming fire so it doesn't have to be --

12             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Witness, you are

13     dealing with a matter different from what I raised during my question and

14     giving you an opportunity to further comment.

15             Ms. Edgerton, please proceed.

16             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.

17        Q.   I'd like to move onto another incident now.  And it's the

18     unscheduled incident you deal with in paragraphs 247 to 252 of your

19     report and it's the sniping death of Adnan Kasapovic on 24 October 1994

20     and it also deals with the school for the blind.

21             Now, the way I understand your argument in respect of this

22     incident is that because some trees which you claimed were evergreen were

23     there during the war, they would have blocked the line of sight between

24     the school for the blind and the incident location, and you said that at

25     paragraph 250.

Page 40719

 1             So I'd like to look at a photo we saw yesterday; 65 ter number

 2     32782, please.

 3             Now am I also correct in understanding based on what I read in

 4     your report that your only source for that assertion is what you see in

 5     this photo.

 6        A.   Yes.  I dealt with this incident because Mr. Van der Weijden

 7     dealt with that incident and he claimed that there was excellent

 8     visibility so --

 9             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... the question was

10     whether you exclusively relied on what you see in this photograph.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Wait for the next question.

13             MS. EDGERTON:  Can I have this photograph admitted as the next

14     Prosecution Exhibit.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Which photograph?  Yes.

16             MS. EDGERTON:  65 ter 32783, please.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and that would receive, Madam Registrar,

18     number?

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit number P7607, Your Honours.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

21             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.

22        Q.   Now, you have no idea whether there might be a line of sight to

23     the incident location from positions elsewhere in buildings in the

24     compound of the school for the blind, do you?  You have no idea; right?

25        A.   I didn't deal with that.  I just indicated that Mr. Van der

Page 40720

 1     Weijden did not take into account this fact that there's a tree there.

 2     At the time when he visited, it wasn't there, so he didn't know about

 3     this, so that was the only thing that was the subject of my observation.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  You answered my question.  I'd like now to go on to

 5     another unscheduled incident, one you dealt with, which is your

 6     unscheduled incident 9 from your Annex 6, and it's paragraphs 41 to 52 in

 7     your Annex 6.  I think pages 327 to 334 in your language; and 346 to 353

 8     in English?

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  While waiting for this to appear, Madam Registrar

10     would like to correct something.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit number P7607 was assigned to the 65 ter

12     number 32782, Your Honours.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that correction.

14             Please proceed.

15             MS. EDGERTON:

16        Q.   Now let's go to image 36 of your report which is, I think, on

17     page 350 in English, and I think, B/C/S page 330.

18             So you know -- and we only need, frankly, one picture.  You know

19     that this image which is for some reason I should say, labelled as image

20     41 in B/C/S but image 36 in English.  You know that this image does not

21     show the same room that the victim in this case, Enes Pasic, was shot in,

22     does it?  You know that?

23        A.   I know that that is what is shown.

24        Q.   No, Mr. Poparic, you know that the flat that Enes Pasic was shot

25     in faced west, and you know that the flat shown in this photo which you

Page 40721

 1     used is on the opposite side of the building with the balcony facing

 2     east.  That's correct, isn't it?

 3        A.   That's correct.  It doesn't change anything in my findings.

 4     These are completely identical apartments.  I just looked at --

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We didn't hear the rest.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The interpreters didn't hear the last part of your

 7     answer, sir.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that this is an apartment

 9     facing the east, whereas Mr. Pasic's apartment was facing the west, but

10     the apartments are identical, and I just put this in here to show what

11     apartments are like in this building.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But facing east or west may be relevant, isn't

13     it?  Because even if the layout of the flat is the same, the orientation

14     is 180 degrees different.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.  And I worked on

16     that basis.  I'm very familiar with this because I lived in an apartment

17     like that 100 metres away and I had a friend in that building who had an

18     apartment like this.  I know this perfectly.

19             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... that doesn't

20     change east and west, whether you lived there, how many friends you had

21     living there, east is east and west is west.  They're not the same.

22     Would you agree?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes --

24             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... thank you.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely.

Page 40722

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 2             MS. EDGERTON:

 3        Q.   And you know that from the buildings of the school for the blind,

 4     that complex encircled by the red hexagon that we saw in the photo in P3

 5     earlier this morning, you know that's a clear and unobstructed line of

 6     sight from those buildings to the building where Enes Pasic's apartment

 7     faces west.  You know his apartment is exposed to potential firing

 8     positions from the buildings of the school for the blind; right?

 9        A.   It's correct that you know that and I accepted that and I

10     analysed the incident from that aspect, and I was not denying that there

11     was visibility in that sense.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could we have the English version of the

13     description of photograph 41 on the screen, please.

14             MS. EDGERTON:  And if I may, Your Honour, the description is on

15     the immediately preceding page.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We see here now the indication image 36, as you

17     said, it must be an error, the numbering and it says the living-room in

18     the flat of Djordja Andrejevica Kuna Street.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I think that Ms. Edgerton is drawing our attention

20     to the previous page, the beginning of paragraph 49, which I think is

21     related to what we see here.  Could we move to the previous page, after

22     now having read the title of the image.  49 reads:

23             "Image 36 shows the living-room where Enes Pasic was."

24             Is that a mistake, Witness, because it shows a similar living

25     room, although differently oriented.

Page 40723

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's probably a mistake.  Let me

 2     see.  That's 49; right?

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I just read it to you.  Because from your

 4     previous answer --

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sorry.  It's a mistake in the

 6     translation here.  In my original, it says image 41.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Image 41.  So let's then have a look at the

 8     original.

 9             Ms. Edgerton, I take it that you know the page in the original.

10     I haven't prepared for that.

11             MS. EDGERTON:  The page in the original B/C/S should be page 350.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we have a look at that.

13             Yes.  But, Witness, I mean, there may be a reference to image 41,

14     but the -- image 41 in the original is the same as image 36 in the

15     English version.  So, therefore, the reference remains unchanged.  And I

16     do understand that you -- what you wanted to say is that this was a

17     living-room similar to the one in which Enes Pasic was and that the title

18     of the image itself should be the living-room in a flat, not the flat, in

19     the street mentioned.

20             Are these the mistakes?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's the caption approximately.

22     The living-room in a flat in Djordja Andrejevica Kuna Street.

23             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... a living-room,

24     not necessarily the living Enes Pasic was in.  As a matter of fact, not

25     the room he was in.

Page 40724

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that's just an apartment that

 2     was for sale and I took it from the real estate agency.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can I ask you to read paragraph 49 on the left

 4     side on the screen to clarify what you really wrote there.  Just that one

 5     line.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The aspect of the living-room where

 7     Enes Pasic was is given in image 41.  This is a bit misleading.  The

 8     orientation is not good on this image but it's correct on the sketches

 9     that I provided, on the basis of which I worked.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You would have said that at the beginning of this

11     line of questioning, that this is misleading and that this is the

12     mistake, we should -- we wouldn't have wasted so much time.  Thank you.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.

14             MS. EDGERTON:  I see we're past the break time.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, yes, we have to take a break.

16             We'll take a break.  And, Witness, we'd like to see you back in

17     20 minutes.

18                           [The witness stands down]

19             JUDGE ORIE:  We resume at five minutes to 11.00.

20                           --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.

21                           --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.

22                           [The witness takes the stand]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

24             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.

25        Q.   I'd like to go on to another incident that you dealt at English

Page 40725

 1     page 146 and B/C/S page 144 of your report in paragraphs 114 to 132.  And

 2     it's an incident in which two women were shot and wounded in their legs

 3     while travelling in a crowded bus near the junction of Nikola Demonja and

 4     Bulevar Avnoj, presently Nikola Demonja and Bulevar branilaca Dobrinje in

 5     Dobrinja and it happened on 25 May 1994.

 6             Now you're not disputing that these two women were shot and

 7     wounded, are you, Sehadeta Plivac and Hajra Hafisovic?  You agree that

 8     happened.

 9        A.   I agree.

10        Q.   Now, you also agree that there were VRS firing positions in the

11     faculty of theology in Nedzarici, don't you?  You don't dispute that?

12        A.   I don't deny that, except that firing position was looking in

13     another direction, not towards Dobrinja.

14        Q.   What then is your knowledge of the firing positions upon which

15     you base this assertion?  Were you there during the war?

16        A.   I wasn't there during the war, but during my tour of that

17     faculty, I believe the rector of the faculty, that man was, who offered

18     us photographs made after the reintegration of that area and he allowed

19     us to copy these photographs because it's very clear from these images

20     where the firing positions were around the faculty.

21        Q.   And let's talk about firing positions a bit more before we get to

22     direction.

23             Are you prepared to accept that these firing positions were

24     manned with anti-aircraft guns?

25        A.   According to what I saw on the photographs, hardly.  Perhaps in

Page 40726

 1     some other place but on that building the opening was too small, if I was

 2     able to estimate it correctly from the photograph.

 3        Q.   You've not seen any military documents, I take it, then, that

 4     might affect your position as to there were anti-aircraft guns at the

 5     faculty of theology; is that right?

 6        A.   I didn't have any documents.  I know there was a tank around

 7     there.  There was a garage inside the kitchen, that was shown to me as

 8     well, but I don't know which weapons were there.  I don't have any

 9     documents.

10        Q.   Retire --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Edgerton, could I see clarification of one of

12     the previous answers.

13             You were asked whether you are prepared to accept that these

14     firings positions were manned with anti-aircraft guns and then you said

15     according to what I saw in the photographs, hardly.

16             Now, not having been there and looking at the photographs alone I

17     imagine that it is difficult to say whether they were there or not there,

18     but do you allow for the possibility that these firing positions were

19     manned with anti-aircraft guns?  Because I'm a bit puzzled by your

20     "hardly."

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I allow the possibility that there

22     were anti-aircraft guns --

23             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... you've answered

24     my question.  But you think it may not have been very likely, if I

25     understood you well.

Page 40727

 1             Please proceed.

 2             MS. EDGERTON:  Yes, could we please see --

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, excuse me, if I may clarify.

 4     I'm talking about the firing positions that I saw on top of the building.

 5     It's in image 105.  I'm talking only about them, not about everything

 6     that was around the theological faculty.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 8             Please proceed.

 9             MS. EDGERTON:  Could we please have a look at 65 ter number

10     33219.

11        Q.   Now this document is dated 11 August 1993.  You'll see it when it

12     appears.  And it's an Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina enemy assessment

13     marked strictly confidential, and it's from the -- on the last page, from

14     the assistant Chief of Staff for intelligence and security.

15             Now at English and B/C/S page 1, paragraph 3, the last sentence

16     in this document reports with respect to the aggressors we see at the top

17     of paragraph 3.  "In the Trapera sector, in the sixth house, in the

18     second row, a PAM is positioned, while machine-gun nests are found on the

19     church and in the grove below the church in the houses below the Bijelo

20     Polje road, Ikic houses, the theology building, the Nedzarici

21     barracks" --

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Slow down, please.

23             MS. EDGERTON:  Oh, pardon me.

24        Q.   "The Nedzarici barracks and near the Aleksa Santic school."

25             So here's a document, contemporaneous document, from almost a

Page 40728

 1     year before the incident that says there's a machine-gun nest at the

 2     theology building; right?

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could --

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When it says machine-gun, he

 5     doesn't mean the anti-aircraft gun, PAM.  This term means --

 6             MS. EDGERTON:

 7        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

 8        A.   -- as machine-gun, it's usually M74 or M54.

 9        Q.   I didn't ask you that.  I asked you what the document says.

10     This -- can you confirm that this is a contemporaneous document that says

11     a year before the incident, there's a machine-gun nest at the theology

12     building.

13        A.   I see that it's a contemporaneous document and that there was a

14     machine-gun nest.

15        Q.   So you're prepared to accept that there was a machine-gun nest at

16     the faculty of theology; right?  Do you accept that?

17        A.   It's possible.  And now I can say that based on the appearance of

18     the building, it's possible that there was a machine-gun.  Before that, I

19     said I could not --

20        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

21        A.   -- be convinced that it was an anti-aircraft gun.

22             MS. EDGERTON:  Could I have this document as a Prosecution

23     Exhibit, please.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic.

25             MR. LUKIC:  Is this part of document or whole document?  What is

Page 40729

 1     this?

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I don't know?  It's --

 3             Ms. Edgerton, perhaps you could answer that question.

 4             MS. EDGERTON:  I have explained on the record, I thought quite

 5     clearly what it was, Your Honours.  An ABiH document dated the 11th of

 6     August, 1993, and I'm just repeating myself --

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  How many pages, Madam Edgerton.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I think in e-court, it's eight pages.

 9             MS. EDGERTON:  Yes, there are authentication details that are

10     uploaded as part of this document as well.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Now, the question is do you want the entire eight

12     pages admitted or do you want just this page.  I guess this is what --

13             MR. LUKIC:  No, no, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]

15             MR. LUKIC:  I am asking is this the entire document because

16     there's nothing on the first page, and it says page 9, as I can see on

17     the first page.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm sorry --

19             MR. LUKIC:  And there is no date only, although this is

20     typewritten document, probably my learned friend is quoting the date from

21     the last page written in handwriting.  So that's why I'm asking what this

22     document is all about.  Who composed and how can we know who composed it?

23             JUDGE ORIE:  And perhaps where does it come from.

24             MR. LUKIC:  And where does it come from, yeah.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Edgerton.

Page 40730

 1                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 2             MS. EDGERTON:  If we go over to B/C/S page 2, and I'm not sure

 3     off the top of my head which English page that might be, we can see

 4     exactly where the document comes from.  And.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  That should be page 2 in English as well, I think.

 6             MS. EDGERTON:  I think so.  One would hope.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  It is.

 8             MS. EDGERTON:  So this document comes from the archives of the

 9     Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  It's certified as being

10     authentic.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Doesn't that mean that are you tendering the two

12     pages we have looked at?

13             MS. EDGERTON:  I'd like to tender the whole document, please,

14     Your Honours.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  But what's on the rest because I see that page 3 in

16     e-court starts with the page numbering 2, which raises some questions as

17     where that page 1 comes from or whether -- no, let me just have a look.

18     I think I see it now what happens.  I think the -- what seems to be the

19     situation, if I look at it, is that we have, first, a page; then we have

20     a short page with -- an attestation where it comes from; then we have

21     another page, which is then page 2, though page 3 in e-court, which is

22     then followed again by such an attestation; the same is true for page 5,

23     which is page 3.  At least that's what we find on the top of that page.

24     And on page 6 we find the attestation that it comes from the archives.

25             So, in effect, if I could cut matters short, apparently we are

Page 40731

 1     talking about a three-page document which, for each page, an attestation

 2     where it comes from.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  That's also puzzling for us, Your Honour.  Why do

 4     attestation for every page?  There is -- there must be, then, the whole

 5     document, or we -- I don't know.  But usually attestation is given to the

 6     document.

 7                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Edgerton.

 9             MS. EDGERTON:  Is the question now about the practice of the

10     archives in the military archives in attesting to every page?

11             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  The question is, first of all, the structure of

12     the document.  It was unclear to us at the very beginning.  I think that

13     has been cleared now.  And I think -- is that a question or is that an

14     objection to admission, Mr. Lukic.

15             MR. LUKIC:  It's an objection.  We cannot see source.  We cannot

16     see who composed the document.

17                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's another matter.  And then you said

19     something about the date as well, I think.

20             MR. LUKIC:  The date we can find only on the original because of

21     these attestations pages on the second-last page entered by hand and we

22     don't know whether it is entered at the time when the document was

23     composed or later.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we have a look at that.  I take it that you

25     are looking at page 5 in e-court in the B/C/S original?

Page 40732

 1             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we look at that.

 3             You say what we find at the bottom there --

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, left-hand side.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Than seems to read:  11.08.93 and then .g,

 6     which I think often stands for "godine," which is date.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah, and Ms. Edgerton quoted this date as the date

 8     of the document.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Ms. Edgerton, these questions.  Apparently in

10     support of an objection to admission.

11             MS. EDGERTON:  Your indulgence for just a moment.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

13                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

14             MS. EDGERTON:  What I'd like to do is in interests of time for a

15     very long cross-examination is move on and come back to Your Honours with

16     a submission on this, please, if I may.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  But should the document be MFI'd meanwhile?

18             MS. EDGERTON:  So we can keep track of it, yes, please.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter 33219 is marked as P7608.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And is marked for identification.

22             Please proceed.

23             MS. EDGERTON:  Let's have a look at another document, 65 ter

24     33218.  And it's a document dated 12 October 1993.  And it's an

25     intelligence report from the 5th Motorised Brigade Command to the

Page 40733

 1     1st Corps Command intelligence organ.  Let's go over to English page 2

 2     and B/C/S page 3, please, the last sentence of paragraph 2.  It says --

 3     and it's just above the heading of paragraph 3 at the bottom of the

 4     English page.

 5             Oh, your indulgence for a moment.

 6                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 7             MS. EDGERTON:

 8        Q.   This says:  "A 120-millimetre mortar platoon and an 82-millimetre

 9     mortar battery are located by the faculty of theology and there is an

10     82-millimetre mortar platoon on the old Butmir road leading to the

11     airport.  PATs are deployed in the faculty of theology in Nedzarici."

12             A PAT is a 20-millimetre anti-aircraft gun, isn't it?

13        A.   That's right.

14        Q.   And it has an effective range of 2500 metres; right?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Now, in your report on this incident you said, in paragraph 30,

17     that the distance between the faculty of theology and the incident site

18     in this case amounted to 1527 metres.

19             Now, not accepting your distance measurements for a moment as

20     being accurate, you claimed that the weapons used by the VRS didn't have

21     the technical capacities -- capabilities required for taking aim and

22     firing at distances of 1527 metres.  This document, this contemporaneous

23     military document, confirms that weapons capable of hitting a bus at 1500

24     metres were actually deployed at the faculty of theology, doesn't it?

25     You're contradicted.

Page 40734

 1        A.   Well, PAT was certainly able to hit at 1500 metres.  However, the

 2     traces on the bus and the injuries exclude the possibilities that the

 3     fire was from a PAT.

 4        Q.   No, I didn't ask you that.  You said -- you said that the VRS,

 5     the weapons used by the VRS didn't have the technical capabilities

 6     required for taking aim and firing at distances of 1500 metres?

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you point us exactly where in the report this

 8     is it stated.

 9             MS. EDGERTON:  Paragraph 130.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  130.  I think earlier we were -- okay.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Could we see that on the screen, please.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before we take this document away, I would

13     just -- one -- put one correction on the transcript.  Ms. Edgerton, you

14     quoted from the last paragraph before number 3 and said:  "PATs are

15     deployed at the faculty of theology in Nedzarici," but there is one word

16     missing, the word "and."  It should read "in the faculty of theology and

17     in Nedzarici."

18             MS. EDGERTON:  Quite so.  Thank you.  I'm always happy to be

19     corrected.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, do we have on our screens paragraph 130.  No,

21     we don't have it --

22             MS. EDGERTON:  English page 153, is what I have.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, the question was whether in view of the

24     document just shown to you, whether you accept that the weapons used

25     could cover such a distance of 1527 metres.

Page 40735

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I stand by what I said in my

 2     report.  Because all the evidence indicates that the bus was hit from --

 3             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm not talking

 4     about the bus.  I'm just -- there may be many reasons to still support

 5     your conclusions, but the one and only matter which is asked at this

 6     moment is whether you stand by what you say in paragraph 130.  I'm not

 7     talking about any of the other paragraphs.  You may be fully right.  But

 8     whether you still take the view that the weapons used by the VRS members

 9     did not have the technical capabilities required for taking aim and

10     firing at these distances; that's 1527 metres.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I stand by it completely.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  But it was just put to you by Ms. Edgerton that

13     there was at least a report which says that there was a PAT at the

14     theology faculty which you said would cover 2500 metres.  Could you

15     explain why you still think that where such a weapon which was reported

16     to be there could cover 2500 metres, why the weaponry used by the VRS

17     could not cover 1527 metres.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I maintained that based on the

19     evidence gathered on the spot about the damage to the bus and the

20     injuries sustained.  Second of all -- it is not an infantry weapon --

21             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm not talking

22     about the bus.  The only thing I'm talking about - and I give a last

23     opportunity to answer that question - is whether in view of what was put

24     to you a minute ago by Ms. Edgerton, whether you still think, apart from

25     any bus or whatever incident, that the weaponry of the VRS at the

Page 40736

 1     theology faculty could not cover or strike at the distance of 1527

 2     metres.  That's the question.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I meant infantry weapons.  A PAT is

 4     a cannon.  It's not an infantry weapon.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, in paragraph 130, you say "the weapons used

 6     by the VRS members did not have the technical capabilities required for

 7     taking aim and firing at these distances."

 8             It doesn't limit itself to whatever kind of weapons.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm limiting myself to the weapons

10     that were there, the small-arms, whereas a PAT is an anti-aircraft gun.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.  Again, you have missed the opportunity

12     to answer my question.

13             Mr. Lukic.

14             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour, the next paragraph talks about the

15     specific weapon, 7.62-millimetres.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  I was not talking about the incident, I was just

17     talking about 130, paragraph 130.

18             MR. LUKIC:  He was discussing this incident so we cannot talk

19     about guns.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, there's -- no objections at this moment.  This

21     is debate, argument, rather than anything else.

22             Ms. Edgerton is invited to proceed.

23             MS. EDGERTON:

24        Q.   And a Praga, if I pronounce it correctly or Praga gun is a

25     30-millimetre anti-aircraft gun; right?

Page 40737

 1        A.   Correct.

 2        Q.   And that has an effective range of 2.000 metres at ground

 3     targets, doesn't it?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And a maximum range of 3 and a half kilometres; right?

 6             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We cannot hear the

 7     witness.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please repeat your answer.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can remember, yes.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Ms. Edgerton, could you please have a look at the

11     transcript.  If one of the previous pages -- questions is correct.  The

12     effective range of 200 metres.

13             MS. EDGERTON:  2.000 metres.  Rather than 200 metres.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

15             MS. EDGERTON:

16        Q.   So, in theory, a Praga, at a distance of 1500 metres from a bus

17     would have been perfectly capable of piercing it; right?

18        A.   Yes.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Edgerton, we'll -- as I said, we'll have a short

20     session.  At this moment, we'll conclude in one or two minutes.  I don't

21     know whether have you any follow-up questions or whether you wanted to

22     move to a different subject.

23             MS. EDGERTON:  Either one would take more than one or two

24     minutes, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then perhaps we first take a break.  And then

Page 40738

 1     most likely, and I must stress that - the Chamber will resume at ten

 2     minutes to 12.00 but then in a composition of two Judges, because I'm

 3     unable to sit and my colleagues will decide whether they consider it in

 4     the interests of justice to continue to hear the case for the --

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  They have decided.

 7             MS. EDGERTON:  May I then just ask one thing before we rise,

 8     Your Honours.  Could I have --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Do we need the witness for that?

10             MS. EDGERTON:  No.  Not at all.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay, then, the witness is already excused.  And

12     we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes.

13             MS. EDGERTON:  I think he may not have been -- and it was simply

14     to have 65 ter number 33218 marked as a Prosecution Exhibit, please.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter number 33218 receives exhibit number

17     P7609, Your Honours.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

19                           [The witness stands down]

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we adjourn, I had one thing but perhaps

21     there's a follow-up after the break which I will not -- which I'll have

22     to read then later on.

23             You spent a lot of time on demonstrating that the one room wasn't

24     the other one.  I expected more in the follow-up, how would that have

25     impacted or influenced the conclusions, but nothing followed.  That's

Page 40739

 1     something, of course, because if it has no impact, then it's something

 2     which is not, perhaps, accurate but without any consequences, and I

 3     wonder whether we should spend that much time if it does not affect the

 4     conclusions.

 5             Mr. Lukic, as far as the Defence is concerned, I think we -- or

 6     at least the firing tables for the -- at least firing tables without a

 7     translation for modified air bombs as they were presented, was given but

 8     nothing further happened with it.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Your Honour, we sent it for translation, and we are

10     actually applying, I think, to get the full versions of both.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Of both firing tables.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, yes.

14             MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...

15             JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... have a follow-up or not.

16     The only thing relevant for this witness is that he brought these

17     excerpts.

18             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  And that means they are there now.

20             We'll take a break, and my colleagues will resume at ten minutes

21     to 12.00.

22                           --- Recess taken at 11.31 a.m.

23                           --- On resuming at 11.50 a.m.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The witness may please come in.

25             As indicated before the break, the two of us have agreed to sit

Page 40740

 1     pursuant to Rule 15 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.  As soon

 2     as the witness comes in, you may proceed, Madam Edgerton.

 3                           [The witness takes the stand]

 4             MS. EDGERTON:

 5        Q.   So, Mr. Poparic, still talking about the faculty of theology, in

 6     point of fact, the location was heavily militarised during the war with

 7     machine-guns, with anti-aircraft guns, with heavy calibre anti-aircraft

 8     guns, with mortars, and that's confirmed by the documents.

 9        A.   Yes, I'm not challenging that.  I said there was a tank too.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's fine.

11             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.

12        Q.   Now, another leg of your argument with respect to this incident

13     is that from the school of theology the place is invisible, and you said

14     in your testimony in-chief at transcript page 40350 that you couldn't

15     take a photograph because of the crown of a tree.

16             So I'd like us to just to have a look at image 106 in your

17     report.

18             MS. EDGERTON:  It's at English page 150; B/C/S page 149.  All we

19     need is one of the pictures on either -- thank you.

20             Can we go down to the trees, please.

21        Q.   So this picture that you took with a five-fold zoom, you also

22     squashed it a bit so that the picture could fit within the indents of

23     this page; right?

24        A.   Well, I fit it into this page, its dimensions that's for sure.

25     This is a panoramic image, that is to say, it wasn't just one photographs

Page 40741

 1     that was taken.  It was several photographs and then this panoramic image

 2     was compiled.

 3        Q.   That's fine.  But, Mr. Poparic, in point of fact when you look at

 4     that photo one might gain the impression that the growth you identify is

 5     immediately in front of a line of sight from the faculty of theology, but

 6     that's not the case at all, is it?  There's a huge building separating

 7     this growth from the faculty of theology?

 8        A.   There is this -- well, they used it as a kitchen down there.

 9     There was this lower building.  Yes.  It was zoomed in so then you lose

10     this space between the person taking the photograph and the first thing

11     that can be seen in the photograph.

12        Q.   Now --

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Poparic, the question is there is a huge

14     building separating this growth from the faculty of theology.  Not

15     whether there was a kitchen somewhere or not.  Do you agree that there

16     was a building separating this growth from the faculty?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said -- I mean, the

18     interpretation I received ... I did not see any big buildings there.  I

19     said there is a building that is attached to this one.  Perhaps it's

20     about 4 or 5 metres high and that's the kitchen.  So that building is

21     there, in that direction.

22             MS. EDGERTON:

23        Q.   Now let's go to -- let's move up in this page to your image 105

24     which you say is the faculty of theology at the end of the war.  Now, you

25     cropped this picture to show that there were -- to avoid showing that no

Page 40742

 1     trees blocked these openings that you see in the building, didn't you?

 2        A.   That's not correct.  This is not my photograph.  This is the

 3     photograph that I mentioned from that album that the head of this faculty

 4     showed us and allow us to take this picture.  This was taken in 1996, and

 5     this is the other side.  This is the entrance into the faculty of

 6     theology.

 7        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... so you didn't crop this

 8     picture to put it in your report.  Is that what you're saying?

 9        A.   No -- yes.  I mean, this picture just shows those openings where

10     there were firing positions.

11        Q.   Let's look, please, at 65 ter number 3336, which is an

12     information report of a representative --

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could you check the number, please.  You

14     mentioned only a four-digit number.

15             MS. EDGERTON:  33336.  Thank you.

16        Q.   It's an information report from a representative of the Office of

17     the Prosecutor who visited the faculty of theology in Nedzarici in

18     October of this year.

19             MS. EDGERTON:  Now, I want us -- and he attaches a number of

20     photographs to his report and I want us to go to e-court page 10, please.

21     Thank you.

22             Now can we put that picture beside image 105 that we've just

23     seen.  Almost there.

24        Q.   Right.  So here's the uncropped version of your image 105 and

25     that shows that there are absolutely no trees blocking the line of sight

Page 40743

 1     from the faculty of theology.  A contemporaneous photograph obtained from

 2     the faculty of theology contradicts you again.  There's no trees.

 3        A.   Correct, there are no trees but that does not refute what I

 4     stated.  It only confirms it.  And these openings are in the direction of

 5     - how I do put this?  - towards the east, Alipasino Polje, not Dobrinja.

 6     That's what I said.  There weren't any firing positions facing Dobrinja,

 7     rather --

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic -- sorry [Overlapping speakers] ...

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ...

10     north-east.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic was on his feet.

12             MR. LUKIC:  We have a translation issue on page 42, line 21, and

13     I didn't want to intervene because Mr. Poparic gave his answer.  "And

14     here we can find this is the second page."  And actually he said, "This

15     is the other side."  And in B/C/S it sounds the same, "druga strana," so

16     that's why it might create the confusion but now when he answered, I

17     think the translators can confirm what I said and audio can be checked

18     for this line.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thanks for the correction, Mr. Lukic.

20             Yes, Madam Edgerton.

21             MS. EDGERTON:  Could we collapse image 105, please, and just go

22     back to page 10 of 33336.

23        Q.   Mr. Poparic, this picture was taken in 1996.  You don't see --

24     you don't see any trees blocking any part of the view from that building

25     at that time in this photograph, do you?

Page 40744

 1        A.   We do not see that in this photograph.

 2        Q.   Thank you.

 3             MS. EDGERTON:  Could I have this as a Prosecution Exhibit,

 4     please.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Madam Registrar.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 33336 receives exhibit number P7610,

 7     Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 9             Madam Edgerton.

10             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.

11        Q.   I want to move on to a couple of incidents in another area of

12     Sarajevo, and the first one is incident F-4.  And the area is Hrasno.

13     You talked in your report at English page -- in the section beginning at

14     English page 97 and B/C/S page 100.  That's at paragraphs 64 to 79.  And

15     in respect of this incident, you made the repeated assertion, referring

16     to the evidence of the victim in this case, that no one had been hit by a

17     sniper in that area and you made it your evidence in-chief, at transcript

18     page 40466 and 40467, and I want to know something:  Are you disputing

19     the targeting of civilians in Hrasno by sniping.

20        A.   I'm not disputing anything.  I did not deal with this in any

21     great detail.  I just said what this witness had said.  Namely, that to

22     the best of her knowledge, not before or after that no one -- I mean,

23     nothing more than that.  Probably there were other casualties there, too.

24     I think that I found in some documents that there were two or three

25     people but near the Miljacka, the bridge, not this area.  As far as I can

Page 40745

 1     remember.  I came across such cases, but that is from other documents

 2     that are not related to this incident.

 3        Q.   But in point of fact, civilians living in the area of Hrasno in

 4     Bosnian-held Sarajevo were persistently targeted by sniping from SRK

 5     forces day after day after day.  There was hardly a day that went by

 6     without some report of sniper fire.  That's the fact of the matter, isn't

 7     it?

 8        A.   That's what you're claiming.  I did not have any access to these

 9     documents, so I cannot confirm or deny anything.

10        Q.   Well, let's show you a document to see if it helps you towards

11     some kind of opinion.

12             MS. EDGERTON:  65 ter number 33073.

13        Q.   This is a war diary of the police station in Novo Sarajevo, and

14     you can go over to the next page in both languages because the first page

15     is just a title page.  And it's a document that dates from March 1995 and

16     it represents a compilation of reports on sniping and shelling incidents

17     in Novo Sarajevo from February 1993 to February 1995.

18             MS. EDGERTON:  Could we go over, please, to page 13 in B/C/S and

19     page 14 in English.

20        Q.   Now you see in both languages halfway down the page, about

21     halfway down the page, you see reference to the victims Nafa Taric and

22     her daughter Elma who were residing in Srebrenicka Street being wounded

23     on the 3rd of September, 1995.  Pardon me, 1993.

24             Now, I just want you to move forward -- and by the way she's not

25     the only one who's wounded that day.  Do you see reference to

Page 40746

 1     Munib Cutuk, the same entry.  Do you see that?

 2        A.   I do.

 3        Q.   And then another person Envir Omerovic was wounded within 15

 4     minutes of the same incident or the incident which wounded the Taric

 5     family.

 6             Now, look, Mr. Poparic, let's just go down in dates.  That was on

 7     the 3rd of September.  You see on the 4th of September, there's a report

 8     of Praga fire in the area of Hrasno.

 9             On the 5th, there's sniper fire from aggressor forces at

10     Dolac Malta.

11             On the 6th, there's another sniping incident.

12             MS. EDGERTON:  Can we go over, please, in English to the next

13     page, and we can stay on the same page in B/C/S.

14        Q.   Look, Mr. Poparic, almost every day during the month of

15     September 1993 - and we can go over to the next page in B/C/S now as

16     well - incidents of sniper fire in Hrasno were reported to the police.

17     Sniping was constant.  And now you've seen a document that confirms that.

18             So on the basis of what you've just seen, are you prepared to

19     accept constant sniping against civilians in Hrasno from February 1993 to

20     February 1995?

21        A.   In order to accept something like that, I would have to have

22     documents to analyse.  Because I see here that you're showing a few

23     pages, and then there's shelling and fire from small-arms.  So there's

24     the question what was intentional and what was unintentional.  On the

25     basis of this, I cannot say.  It is a fact that there was shooting and

Page 40747

 1     that this fell on inhabited areas but whether this was intentional

 2     targeting of civilians, I cannot say on the basis of these two or three

 3     pages only.

 4        Q.   With respect, I didn't ask about whether or not this was

 5     intentional, and that's not your job.  But you've answered my question.

 6     Thank you.

 7             MS. EDGERTON:  Could I have this as a Prosecution Exhibit,

 8     please.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Madam Registrar.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter number 33073 receives exhibit number

11     P7611, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

13             Madam Edgerton.

14             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.

15        Q.   Now you --

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry, the document is admitted into evidence.

17     Thank you so much.

18             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.

19        Q.   Now you repeatedly in your testimony in-chief referred to the

20     evidence of Mrs. Taric saying she claimed that there had been no sniper

21     victims there and that she and her daughter were the first ones and you

22     said that, as I had indicated earlier, at transcript page 40466.  And

23     then at 40467, you said, referring to Mrs. Taric, that she said that

24     according to the knowledge she had, no one had been hit by a sniper in

25     that area.

Page 40748

 1             And you also refer to them in your report at paragraph 76, saying

 2     or noting that Taric said that she and her daughter were the only ones

 3     who were shot in this area.  But, in fact, in her witness statement,

 4     which you saw and you sourced in your footnotes 165 to 167 and 175, she

 5     says:  "I never saw or heard that anybody was hit in that street."

 6             She doesn't say anything about area.  And then she goes on to say

 7     in the very same paragraph that within one hour, five persons were hit by

 8     sniper fire in that area.

 9             You would agree that's what she says, right, because you saw that

10     statement?

11        A.   I will agree that she spoke of that area.  As far as I can

12     remember, she lived in that street and she knew.  When you said -- well,

13     she said about later when she was wounded and that can be seen here in

14     this report that you showed, there were two or three other wounded

15     persons but not in that street but in other locations.  Maybe she meant

16     them.  And you read out yourself what she said, that until then, there

17     hadn't been any persons hit in that area.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's not what was read out, sir.

19             MS. EDGERTON:  I'd like to you have a look at what you sourced.

20     It's 1D02925.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  While we're waiting for the document, just to

22     place on record that also P7610 is admitted into evidence.

23             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.

24             Now could we go to the next page in both languages.  Let's see if

25     I have the page references right.  No, I have my page references

Page 40749

 1     incorrect.  It's the next page.  No, I have it, sorry.  I apologise.

 2     Halfway through this page, page 2 in both languages, she said and I'll

 3     give you that:  "I never saw or heard that anybody was in that street.

 4     We were the first and the last" --

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Was hit in that street.

 6             MS. EDGERTON:  "Was hit in that street.  We were the first and

 7     the last to be hit in that street.  I know that because my husband is a

 8     military commander and he knows the details.  I learned later, when I was

 9     in the hospital, that within one hour, five persons were hit by sniper

10     fire ..."

11             Oh, here she says "area."  "In that area..."  so my excuses --

12     sorry for earlier.  "... in that area, but not in the street.  These

13     people were taken to the same hospital.  This was ... reported on

14     television."

15             Now, before I deal with this document, I want to go to her Galic

16     testimony, because you even referred to her Galic testimony in your

17     evidence in-chief at transcript page 40469.

18        Q.   So you, then, were aware that in her Galic testimony she was

19     asked about this, and she said -- actually, let's have a look at it.

20             MS. EDGERTON:  65 ter number 32774; e-court page 61, please.

21             If we go down to line 8, she says:  "My husband didn't [sic] know

22     about this.  And the spot where my daughter and I were hit, wounded on

23     that day, this was a safe line, a [sic] safe area to walk in.  And this

24     was where we went, not just us but other citizens of Sarajevo.  We walked

25     there safely in this particular location.  And I'm talking about this

Page 40750

 1     location, I'm not talking about the next 20 metres to the left or to the

 2     right, or forwards" -- or, pardon me "backwards or forwards.  I'm talking

 3     about that particular location, that spot.  We were the only ones hit

 4     there.  I'm not talking about the location where there were other cases,

 5     15 metres from there, 15 to the left, 15 to the right, or 50 to the

 6     right."

 7        Q.   You read her Galic testimony.  You knew she had said this; right?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Now let's go over to page 68.  She speaks in page 68 about

10     meeting and that's at line --

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What line?

12             MS. EDGERTON:  Line 11.

13        Q.   Meeting the people who were shot in that area in the hospital,

14     and she spoke with them.  And she says, or she is asked at line 15:  "Do

15     you recall speaking about them, about the specific location where they

16     were in relation to where you and your daughter were shot on that day?

17             And she responds:  "Yes."

18             At line 19 she is asked:  "Do you recall approximately how close

19     to the location where you and your daughter were shot these other

20     individuals were shot?"

21             And she answered:  "One lady, perhaps in the same direction in

22     front, she was hit some 50 metres away from us.  The other two

23     individuals were to the right of that lady.  But from our spot, they were

24     approximately -- within a radius of 50 metres, I would say."

25             So, here, again, the effect of your selective excerpting has been

Page 40751

 1     to try and create an impression that this might have been an isolated

 2     incident but the evidence of Mrs. Taric shows that the wounding of her

 3     and her daughter was just another incident in a protracted campaign.

 4     That's what was going on.

 5        A.   That's not correct.  In my report, I did not deal with whether

 6     that area was constantly targeted or not.  I considered a specific case,

 7     and she specifically said that in the place where they were, nobody was

 8     wounded because there had been protective barriers.  I did not deal with

 9     other cases that occurred outside of the barrier.

10        Q.   So what you're saying is you don't think that evidence of

11     protracted sniping in the area of any one of these Scheduled Incidents is

12     relevant to your analysis as a ballistics expert?

13        A.   For these specific cases, I don't have any such information.  I

14     analysed only one case.  You cannot ascribe to me now other things.  You

15     can say there are so many people who were wounded in Sarajevo, and you

16     didn't take them into account.  No, I did not have information about

17     other things.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  [Previous translation continues] ... please answer

19     the question.  Have you told us your little story.  Can you now answer

20     the question.  Do you not take into account the incidents of sniping in

21     the area in your analysis as a ballistic expert?  That's the question.

22     Yes or no.  That's the -- if I must give you an idea how the question

23     must be answered.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, because I have no data about

25     these cases.

Page 40752

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You are not being asked about these cases.  You're

 2     being asked about taking into account the number of incidents as a

 3     ballistic expert.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.  That's an answer to the question.

 6             MS. EDGERTON:  Could I please have the statement of Nafa Taric at

 7     1D02925 admitted as a Prosecution Exhibit.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Madam Edgerton, my colleague is just pointing to

10     me that to find out from you is this -- was this statement made for the

11     purposes of Tribunal and does it have the normal attestation of a 92 ter

12     or 92 bis statement?

13             MS. EDGERTON:  Let me check.  Your indulgence for a moment with

14     respect to the second part of your question.

15                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  In the meantime, we can MFI it, and you can come

18     back to it, Madam Edgerton.  Is that okay?

19             MS. EDGERTON:  This was a -- this is a Defence upload,

20     Your Honours, and we're having a look at it now and it looks like they

21     might have only uploaded the first page.  So what we'll do is come back

22     to you on that after we've uploaded the full statement and the

23     attestation which does exist.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.  That's why I was mentioning

25     it.

Page 40753

 1             So, Madam Registrar, can give us a number, please.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter number 1D02925 receives exhibit number

 3     P7612, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And is marked for identification.

 5             MS. EDGERTON:  And, Your Honours, the pages of the Galic

 6     testimony, 65 ter number 32774, e-court pages 61 and 68 and 69, which

 7     were the pages we spoke about in court, I'd like to have those admitted

 8     as the next Prosecution Exhibit, please.

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Ms. Edgerton, I think you have read the relevant

11     parts into the transcript.  Could that suffice?  Usually we don't admit

12     transcript pages.  Only -- we do that only if there's a specific reason,

13     like we did, I think, this morning -- or yesterday about the marking we

14     wanted to have on the -- on the transcript.

15             MR. TIEGER:  If I can just note, Mr. President, my understanding

16     is that expedient is useful and appropriate where the witness confirms

17     the reading out of the material from the document.  That is, you read

18     from a transcript, the witness says, yes, I agree that's what was said at

19     the time.  So the tendering of the document then becomes superfluous

20     because it's been affirmed by the witness.  I just don't know if it

21     happened in this case.  And that's the only hesitation I think we have.

22     So we can take a closer look and see if the basis for moving beyond the

23     redundancy exists in the transcript, then the Court's point is well

24     taken, of course.

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 40754

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The pages are admitted, 32774, and may they please

 2     be given an exhibit number.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  P7613, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  But you have to upload the pages as a separate

 5     document.

 6             MS EDGERTON:  Understood.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We'll MFI it until it's uploaded.

 8             MS. EDGERTON:

 9        Q.   Now, just one last point in relation to F-4.  You said at -- in

10     your report at English page 106, you said that you visited

11     Ozrenska Street --

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   -- and say that you were able to establish there was no optical

14     visibility from the area toward the incident site.  So here's what I want

15     to know:  Are you telling us when you say "no optical visibility," that

16     you went to the assessed origin of fire identified by Mr. Van der Weijden

17     and, from there, you yourself couldn't see the incident location?

18        A.   Yes, I was there, marked by Mr. Van der Weijden as being at 829

19     metres from the place of the incident.  And at the time when I was there,

20     from the road - and I underline, from the road - I was not able to see

21     it.  That area has been developed a lot after the war.  It's possible

22     that Mr. Van der Weijden could see it in his own time, but I -- I

23     couldn't.

24        Q.   You didn't go to the location established by the GPS co-ordinates

25     that Mr. Van der Weijden provided; right?  Because you didn't have a GPS

Page 40755

 1     so you couldn't.

 2        A.   I could.  You don't have to have a GPS.  You can determine it

 3     using a map.

 4        Q.   All right.  All right --

 5        A.   So it's not correct that I --

 6        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... where is a single photo from

 7     your personal inspection from the identical location that Mr. Van der

 8     Weijden visited to show that there's no line of sight to the place where

 9     the Taric family got shot?  Where is a single photo?

10        A.   I took photos where something could be seen, not where there's

11     nothing to see.  I went through the whole area of the Ozrenska Street,

12     and I was looking for visibility.

13        Q.   So you don't have a single photo, so we're supposed to take your

14     word for it that you can't see the incident location.  That's what you're

15     telling us?

16        A.   Well, don't take my word for it.  In my report, I did not dispute

17     that there was a view from this area to the place of the incident.  There

18     were about 10 or 15 metres where the trench was, there were photographs

19     of the trench and I'm not disputing there was VRS firing position there,

20     but I do dispute that the photograph made by Mr. Van der Weijden was

21     taken from that place.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sir, you said earlier that you don't take

23     photographs where line of vision is not there.

24             Yesterday we referred -- we were talking about another picture

25     that you took in your report where you said the line of vision was

Page 40756

 1     obstructed by the garage.  So you do take photographs where the line of

 2     vision is not there, according to you.  Is that not so?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The photograph that we looked at

 4     yesterday was not taken by me.  It's a still from a video.  I just marked

 5     the locations where the place of the incident was.

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

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But in Ozrenska Street I have

 8     photographs --

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... you cropped it

10     into your report nonetheless.  It make --

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, not the photograph that we

12     looked at yesterday.  Is that the one you mean?

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

14             Madam Edgerton.

15             MS. EDGERTON:  I'd like to move on to another incident but I'll

16     have to do that in private session, if we can, Your Honours?

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May the Chamber please move into private session.

18                           [Private session]

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 40757











11  Pages 40757-40761 redacted.  Private session.















Page 40762

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15                           [Open session]

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

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.  Madam Registrar, I note the

18     time.  We'll take a break and come back at quarter past 1.00.

19             But before that, may the witness please follow the usher.

20                           [The witness stands down]

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We adjourn.  Come back at 15 minutes past 1.00.

22                           --- Recess taken at 12.52 p.m.

23                           --- On resuming at 1.16 p.m.

24                           [The witness takes the stand]

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The Chamber has been advised that the Prosecution

Page 40763

 1     has a preliminary matter they'd like to raise in private session.

 2             MR. TIEGER:  Yes, Your Honour.  This morning we --

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Private session.  May we please move into private

 4     session.

 5                           [Private session]

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 40764











11  Page 40764 redacted.  Private session.















Page 40765

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18                           [Open session]

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

20             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] Thank you so much.

21                           [The witness takes the stand]

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We're sorry about that little inconvenience,

23     Mr. Poparic.  These are the vicissitudes of the job.

24             MS. EDGERTON:  Before we broke I omitted to tender the exhibit we

25     had been dealing with, which is 65 ter 10027.  If that could be admitted

Page 40766

 1     under seal, please.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.  Madam Edgerton.

 3             Madam Registrar.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Receives exhibit number P7614, Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.  It is admitted into evidence,

 6     under seal.

 7             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.

 8        Q.   Now I want to move on, Mr. Poparic, to --

 9             MS. EDGERTON:  Oh, and one other additional administrative

10     matter:  The excerpted pages for P7613 have now been uploaded at 65 ter

11     number 32744A.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

13             MS. EDGERTON:  32774A.  My apologies, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  32774A.  Thank you very much.  Madam Registrar,

15     the MFI status can be removed and it can be admitted.

16             You may proceed, Madam Edgerton.

17             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.

18        Q.   Now, Mr. Poparic, in -- you talked in your testimony in-chief

19     about the area of Marin Dvor at transcript pages 40392 to -93 and you

20     described it in your report at paragraph 17 as the area stretching from

21     the Sveti Josip church in the east to the outer limits of the Marsal Tito

22     barracks in the west.  Now that strip is about 500 metres long; right?

23        A.   Well, approximately.

24        Q.   And that strip of territory was frequently targeted by sniper

25     fire.  You accept that, don't you?

Page 40767

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Now, just about the white sky-scrapers that you mentioned, and --

 3     at transcript page 40392.  Now, in your report, you said at

 4     paragraph 17a, pages 60 in English and 63 in B/C/S, that:  "The sniper

 5     positions in the white sky-scrapers were obviously professionally

 6     constructed and aimed at the Marsal Tito barracks, since the view from

 7     these positions reached only as far as the technical school."

 8             But, because you referred to in your footnote 51, the forensic

 9     file that is P620, I'm sure you would agree with the following.  Wherever

10     you think -- so here's my question:  Wherever you think the sniper

11     positions might have been aimed, the white sky-scraper positions, those

12     positions had a commanding view over territory past the technical school;

13     right?

14        A.   According to the documents that I have, that is not the case.

15     There were some parts where it could be seen, others that were a bit more

16     sheltered.  The situation a bit more complex.

17        Q.   Are you prepared to agree that positions in these sky-scrapers

18     had a view over territory that included the Holiday Inn?

19        A.   The building itself, yes.

20        Q.   Are you prepared to agree that the positions in the white

21     sky-scrapers had a view over tram tracks, tram tracks in front of the

22     barracks, in front of the Museum for Revolution, for two?

23        A.   In front of the barracks and the Museum of the Revolution, yes,

24     yes, and the Marsal Tito barracks.

25        Q.   In fact, based on what you would have seen in P620, you would

Page 40768

 1     have seen that some of these positions had a view far west of Marsal Tito

 2     barracks.  You saw that in the photographs that are part of P620.  Didn't

 3     you?

 4        A.   I saw -- I don't remember that I saw -- I mean, the Marsal Tito

 5     barracks is very big.  I mean, I'm not sure.  If you have this, you can

 6     show it to me.  I can confirm -- I cannot remember.

 7        Q.   So when you said these positions reached only as far as the

 8     technical school, it wasn't quite accurate, was it?

 9        A.   When I said that, about the technical school, I meant the area

10     that is of interest from the point of view of those incidents that I

11     dealt with.  I mean, the sidewalk.  I mean, it's not that precise, but

12     I'm explaining now what it was that I meant and what led me to say that.

13     So it was the sidewalk that was of interest to me, not the technical

14     school, the Holiday Inn, and so on.

15        Q.   And, in fact, what the photos in P620 show and P620 are - as I

16     mentioned, are the forensic photos of these sniper positions - what these

17     photos show is that every passing tram and pedestrian on Zmaja od Bosna

18     could have been exposed to gunfire from SRK sniper positions in the white

19     sky-scrapers?

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Ms. Edgerton, wouldn't it be fair to the witness

21     to show the photo instead of just referring to a P number of a document.

22             MS. EDGERTON:  No problem at all.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Since he indicated that he can't remember.

24             MS. EDGERTON:  No problem.  Could we have a look at P620, please.

25             Thank you.  We could go to page 5.

Page 40769

 1        Q.   So that's a photo from a firing position at Grbavicka 8A and it

 2     was taken on 25th April, 1996, apartment 56 on the 14th floor.  You can

 3     see the Holiday Inn.  And you can see part of the national museum and you

 4     can see an area of Zmaja od Bosne in this photo, can't you?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   So that shows the view reached past the technical school, doesn't

 7     it?

 8        A.   Well, it is almost in front of the technical school.  The

 9     technical school is right by this wall here -- well, if we're going to be

10     precise, it extends a bit further but the difference is not significant.

11        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

12        A.   I think that --

13        Q.   You either accept it or you don't.  This shows the view from the

14     sniper positions reached east of the technical school, doesn't it?

15        A.   Very little.  This is almost in front of the technical school.

16     We can see very little.

17        Q.   Let's look at page 10.  This is a picture that was taken from

18     Grbavicka 8.  This view shows an area along Zmaja od Bosne looking far

19     west of the Marsal Tito barracks.  You can see it.  Do you agree with it,

20     yes or no?  Can you see that this photograph shows a view -- [Overlapping

21     speakers] ...

22        A.   [Overlapping speakers] ... just a minute.  I can hardly see it.

23        Q.   -- of Marsal Tito barracks along Zmaja od Bosne.

24        A.   I don't think it's that far away from the barracks.  Although I

25     cannot see it very well at all, but it's further from the barracks.

Page 40770

 1             MS. EDGERTON:  Let's look at page 54.

 2             Ah, thank you for the enlargement.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can you recognise it now better, since it is

 4     enlarged.

 5             Can you now answer the question?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm trying to identify ...

 7             I cannot locate it exactly.  I'm a bit perplexed by these

 8     sky-scrapers, but it's further away from the Marsal Tito barracks.  I

 9     cannot say exactly.

10             MS. EDGERTON:  Could we go now to page 54.

11        Q.   This is a view from the 16th floor of Grbavicka 6, up Bulevar

12     Borisa Kidrica Street and the Museum of the Revolution is immediately on

13     the left-hand side.  Do you agree that this shows -- this photo shows a

14     view of tram tracks and pedestrian areas deep within Bosnian-held

15     territory?

16        A.   Yes.  We see the Museum of the Revolution here, the technical

17     school, the Marsal Tito barracks, and opposite the technical school, this

18     museum, this national museum.

19        Q.   And I want to do one more and then I'm going to ask the same

20     question I asked you earlier.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Ms. Edgerton, the question was about tram tracks.

22     The witness didn't respond to that.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Oh yes, part of the tram tracks can

24     be seen in the street Zmaja od Bosne from the Museum of the Revolution to

25     some place beyond the technical school.  Then the tram tracks can be seen

Page 40771

 1     going down this street towards the railway station and to the left of the

 2     Museum of the Revolution, we see part of the tram tracks.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And what about the pedestrian areas you were

 4     asked about?  Can you see that?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, there are pedestrians paths.

 6     I don't know what the lady meant by "pedestrian areas."  I mean, these

 7     are streets that had sidewalks along which pedestrians walked, and that

 8     can be seen.  There's no denying that.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Ms. Edgerton.

10             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.  Let's do one more before we leave

11     this.  Let's go to page 64, please.

12        Q.   This is a view from a sniper position at Grbavicka 14a onto

13     Bratstvo-Jedinstvo bridge.  You can see it with the naked eye.  Do you

14     accept that?

15        A.   Yes.  The Orthodox church is further beyond.  You can recognise

16     that.

17        Q.   So now do you accept that these photos show that every passing

18     tram and pedestrian in the area could have been exposed to sniper fire

19     from positions in these sky-scrapers?

20        A.   They were within the line of sight of any sniper shooter.  But

21     lest there be any confusion in this last photograph, there is no tram.

22     This is across the Miljacka river so it's the border and --

23        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... I didn't ask you that.

24        A.   You asked about all photographs, and I'm saying about this one,

25     that it's not the case.

Page 40772

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  This one, Madam Edgerton didn't refer to the tram

 2     tracks.  She is just saying that people on that bridge are in the line of

 3     sight of the building where the snipers are alleged to have been.

 4             MS. EDGERTON:

 5        Q.   Now, you have for -- you have no idea from which floors fire in

 6     these buildings might have been opened in any of the incidents you

 7     examined.  You have no idea; right?

 8        A.   I have no information about that.  There is no data supplied

 9     anywhere.  The possibility was considered that it was from any floor.

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

11             MS. EDGERTON:

12        Q.   But your analysis in almost every Scheduled Incident that's

13     alleged to have taken place in this area depends on angle, doesn't it?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And that angle differs depending on whether fire might have been

16     opened from the second, the fourth, or the tenth floor, or the roof of

17     any sniper position in these white sky-scrapers, doesn't it?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Now, I just want to move onto to another building within this 500

20     metre stretch of territory, and that's the Metalka building.

21             Now in your Karadzic testimony with respect to the Metalka

22     building, we talked about firing positions, and you said:  "If there's

23     someone who said that, I will not dispute it, but we did not have such

24     information which doesn't mean that no one included such information."

25             That's at Karadzic transcript page 39188, lines 2 to 15; 65 ter

Page 40773

 1     number 32790, page 26.  So, in the Karadzic case, you, as I understand

 2     you, didn't dispute the existence of SRK firing positions in the Metalka

 3     building, did you?

 4        A.   I neither disputed it nor confirmed it, but I did my analysis as

 5     if they had been there.  I took the allegations from the indictment and

 6     analysed the incident from that point of view.  I don't have data to

 7     confirm that they were really there, and it doesn't matter for my

 8     analysis.

 9        Q.   But you don't exclude the possibility at all that SRK firing

10     positions were located in the Metalka building, do you?

11        A.   I did not exclude that possibility and that's how I analysed the

12     incidents.  But whether they were really there, I can be of no assistance

13     there.

14        Q.   I'd like to show you a military document related to perhaps this

15     issue that may help you.

16             MS. EDGERTON:  Let's have a look at 65 ter number 12146.

17        Q.   So -- gezondheid.  This is a document dated 3 September 1992 from

18     the 1st Romanija Infantry Brigade to the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps command

19     and if we go over to English page 4, B/C/S page 2, you see that the 1st

20     pb, which I think is -- I think it's infantry company.  Is defending the

21     following front line:  Metalka, left bank of the Miljacka river up to

22     Strojorad, which is the right side of M. Djuraskovica Street into the

23     depth of Rave Jankovica Street.  So here's a contemporaneous military

24     document that puts SRK forces defending the line of the Metalka building?

25             You're not disputing that, are you?

Page 40774

 1        A.   Yes, that's written.

 2        Q.   Thank you.

 3             MS. EDGERTON:  Could we have that as a Prosecution Exhibit,

 4     please.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Madam Registrar.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter number 12146 receives Exhibit number

 7     P7615, Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.  And it's admitted into

 9     evidence.

10             MS. EDGERTON:

11        Q.   Now, I would like to show you a statement from an UNMO in

12     Sarajevo who was working in April 1995.

13             MS. EDGERTON:  It's 65 ter number 33352.

14        Q.   So let's go over to page 3.  This is the statement, ICTY

15     statement of Muhamed Butt who was an UNMO in Sarajevo as part of the

16     UNPROFOR contingent and an officer in the Pakistani army.

17             Now in your language and in English the paragraph I want to

18     direct to you is just the second one on this page, and I'll invite to you

19     read it and I'll summarise.

20             On the 5th of April, 1995, Mr. Butt described an incident where a

21     French soldier for an anti-sniping team, positioned between the museum

22     and the Holiday Inn, was shot by a sniper.  Later it was confirmed by the

23     French investigation team that there were all reasons to believe he was

24     shot by a Serb sniper.  "I was the incident," he writes, "in which the

25     soldier was killed in the fork-lift.  I came on site only seven to ten

Page 40775

 1     minutes after the incident."

 2             And then he goes on, saying, "Normally I wasn't supposed to

 3     investigate civilians in which UN personnel were involved, but I got a

 4     message that a civilian was hit.  When I came to the scene together with

 5     a Jordanian colleague and we were fired at too."  At that moment when

 6     they began their investigation, the two APCs that were on-site fled away.

 7             And Mr. Butt and his colleague had to say one to hour to hour and

 8     a half under fire due to the continuous sniping in their direction.  He

 9     could see the fire was coming from Bosnian-Serb-held positions.  He was

10     even able to give his colleagues on the Lima side the precise location of

11     the sniper.  He was positioned in what they called the Metalka building.

12             So my question to you is:  Now do you accept that SRK firing

13     positions were really in the Metalka building?

14        A.   Well, this is not sufficient evidence for me.  It's a statement

15     from an observer.  He doesn't say whether his colleagues from Lima had

16     gone to Metalka, whether they found something, he doesn't say what

17     indicated that the fire came from Metalka.  There are not sufficient

18     elements for me to conclude that it was really the case.

19        Q.   Oh, and I think I may have misread this.  This incident is the

20     15th of April, not the 5th of April.

21             Right.  So evidence that somebody was under fire for an hour to

22     an hour and a half from the Metalka building doesn't convince you that

23     there were Serb firing positions there.  That's what you're telling us.

24        A.   No.  I'm saying there are not sufficient elements here for me to

25     conclude.  He doesn't mention his colleagues.  He was the only one who

Page 40776

 1     noticed it was from Metalka.  Maybe it's true, but maybe ...

 2        Q.   You answered my question and you said no.  Let's move on.  I want

 3     to talk about a sniping incident that you address in your report, and

 4     it's incident F-8, and it appears on sections that begin at pages 156 in

 5     English, 155 in B/C/S, and paragraphs 133 to 146.

 6             Now this is a tram-sniping incident that happened on the 19th of

 7     June, 1994.  And just before we start, I just want to ask you one

 8     question:  Do you accept that trams packed with civilians are not

 9     military targets?

10        A.   Certainly.  Of course.

11        Q.   Good.  Now this incident, in this incident, there were a number

12     of wounded while travelling in a tram which was going west on Zmaja od

13     Bosna towards Alipasino Polje and the tram was near the Holiday Inn at

14     the time of the incident.  So you accept that this happened; right?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Now, in your report, you try to show that the shot that hit this

17     tram couldn't have come from SRK positions for a couple of reasons, and I

18     just want to talk about two of the -- the main ones.

19             First of all, you rely on a single video still from a report by

20     Aernout van Lynden which was recorded in 1992, and that's at

21     paragraph 142, and that report is P77, by the way.  So you rely on this

22     report, and you say:  "According to the report of the Sky News reporter,

23     Aernout van Lynden, the Army of Republika Srpska position at the Jewish

24     cemetery wasn't a sniper position as the soldier was armed with a simple

25     M70, 7.62-millimetre automatic rifle."

Page 40777

 1             Putting aside completely whether this meets your personal

 2     definition of what a sniping position should be, this soldier could have

 3     fired that type of rifle from that position; right?

 4        A.   He could have, but the police established that it was a

 5     7.9-millimetre bullet.

 6        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... ask you that.  I want to

 7     play this video, this clip, and it's not a very -- it's not a long one,

 8     at all, Your Honours.  It's about two minutes.

 9                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Madam Edgerton.

11             MS. EDGERTON:  Yes.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The image that was on the screen just now, you

13     didn't give us the 65 ter number for it.  I'm not quite sure what you

14     intend doing with it.  At some stage.

15             MS. EDGERTON:  I think that was just his report, Your Honours,

16     with those paragraphs, and I think the status of that report and whether

17     or not it will be broadcast are still to be dealt with.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

19                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

20             MS. EDGERTON:  So we're going to play now P77, and I'm going to

21     pause this at a couple of places.  It's going to play from time code --

22     begins at time code 11:34.

23                           [Video-clip played]

24                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

25             MS. EDGERTON:  Yes, we'll play the whole clip and I'm going pause

Page 40778

 1     at a couple of places.

 2                           [Video-clip played]

 3             "... to an elderly Serb neighbour.

 4             "The Convent of the Sisters of the Little Jesus is one of the

 5     very few havens in the area which even for Sarajevo standards is

 6     notorious for the ferocity of its war.

 7             "The no man's land that's given the area its name is the Jewish

 8     cemetery.  Across the jumble of graves new and old some of the fiercest

 9     battles have been fought.  The string of little villas lining the

10     cemetery have been turned into bunkers, sitting room walls roughly

11     redecorated with lines of logs, although some of the defences are more

12     imaginative.  Bathroom mirrors subtly deployed to allow one guard to view

13     all angles.  Of late the tanks against the Serb lines in this sector have

14     diminished, leaving the battalion commander exuding confidence.

15             "We are ready for a long struggle, but we believe we'll only

16     spend a short time in these positions.  Either they'll have to accept

17     peace or there will be an all out war in which we'll try to achieve

18     victory in a very short time.

19             "The major's confidence is understandable.  Unlike his opponents,

20     he does not face a lack of logistical support made worse by siege.  And

21     if he is ordered to attack he will do so from a commanding position.  So

22     commanding that in the streets below, few dare to move.  Aernout van

23     Lynden, Sky News, Sarajevo."

24        Q.   Having seen this video that you refer to in your report, you

25     would agree that there is absolutely nothing here to indicate that this

Page 40779

 1     is the only SRK firing position in the area of the Jewish cemetery;

 2     right?

 3        A.   Certainly.  But this just an illustration of where the Jewish

 4     cemetery was.

 5        Q.   I didn't ask you that.  You've answered my question.  There's

 6     also no evidence here that suggests that every SRK position in the area

 7     had the identical views to the view you have included in your report;

 8     right?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And surely you would acknowledge that just because one camera

11     shot viewed through one gun opening might show a tree partially

12     obstructing a view doesn't mean that every SRK shooting position had the

13     same view as that one?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Now, in your report, you also discuss how if the

16     bullet in this incident came from the Jewish cemetery, it would have

17     struck the tram more or less at a right angle and then, as I understand

18     your argument, you try and show that the bullet didn't strike the tram at

19     a right angle.

20             MS. EDGERTON:  Now if we could go to image 115, please.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Which page of the report.

22             MS. EDGERTON:  English page 160; B/C/S page 158.  Right.  It's

23     just to see the photo so we could just deal with one image.

24        Q.   So here at image 115 you've got this photo of a hole in the

25     exterior of the tram - right? - next to a photo of the hole inside the

Page 40780

 1     tram - right? - and then if we can go over to image 116 on the next page,

 2     please, then here you extrapolate where you think the bullet would have

 3     entered the interior of the tram.  And you say just beneath the photo the

 4     dotted red circle - right? - marks the point where the projectile exited

 5     the paneling on the inner side as assumed on the basis of image 115.

 6             So that's all this is; right?  Just your assumptions of where the

 7     interior hole would be; right?

 8        A.   Yes.  Below the picture, it says putative location.  It's not an

 9     exact value.  That's not what the conclusion was based on.

10        Q.   Right.  Let's go over one image to image 117 because there, you

11     also try to extrapolate the angle of entry from the shape of the

12     bullet-hole in the exterior paneling.

13             So how do you this, is you make a really big enlargement of the

14     hole and then you use this computer programme to do a measurement of the

15     hole's diameter from different positions.  That's what you do; right?

16     Just yes or no, is that a fair summary?

17        A.   Approximately, I cannot --

18        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... all I asked.  Is that a fair

19     summary of what you do?

20        A.   No, it's not.  I can explain how it's done because it's

21     important.  I cannot answer yes or no.

22        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

23             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Partly so, but partly not.

25             MS. EDGERTON:

Page 40781

 1        Q.   Okay.  Without getting into your methodology, you don't have a

 2     single citation to any ballistics literature about enlarging the image of

 3     the hole and using a computer programme to do a relative measurement of

 4     the hole's diameter.  You ... do you?  You don't cite anything to support

 5     your methodology.  So -- is that -- is that correct?

 6        A.   There is no need for me to cite.  These are the general

 7     principles of applied geometry which I studied at depth at school.  It's

 8     pure geometry.

 9        Q.   Let me just ask you, since you're talking about --

10        A.   [Overlapping speakers] ...

11        Q.   Mr. Poparic, since you're talking about geometry, my question is:

12     You didn't have any concerns about how pixilated and grainy this

13     enlargement was when you were using it for the basis of your conclusions?

14        A.   You can see for yourself that it's not of great influence.

15        Q.   So --

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Poparic, whether Madam Edgerton can see for

17     herself or not, is immaterial.  She wants you to answer the question that

18     she put to you.  Will you please answer that question?  Otherwise, if --

19     things we can see for ourselves, we wouldn't have called you as a

20     witness.

21             Will you answer the question, please.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this case, it was not a problem

23     for me.  The pixilation.

24             MS. EDGERTON:

25        Q.   Even if a bullet enters at hole at a perfect 90-degree tangent

Page 40782

 1     in every direction, that doesn't mean the hole is going to be perfectly

 2     round, does it?  Any slight imperfection or weakness in the middle of the

 3     panel could cause an irregular tear.

 4        A.   No.  The speed of the projectile is such and the homogeneity of

 5     the material is also very high.  So it's out of the question.  The best

 6     example is glass.

 7        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

 8        A.   When -- when it pierces the glass, the velocity is such that the

 9     glass is not shattered.

10        Q.   What's your basis for your assertions now about the homogeneity

11     of the material?  You've admitted to conducting this analysis on the

12     basis of photographs.  You've not done a material analysis, have you?

13        A.   I didn't do the analysis of the material but I know how that

14     material is obtained, and how it's manufactured.  It's obtained by

15     rolling.  You get a perfectly homogeneous material.

16        Q.   And even if we were --

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Do you know when and where this tram was

18     constructed and manufactured?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were produced in

20     Czechoslovakia, it was at the time, around 1980 or a few years earlier or

21     later.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This is common knowledge but what do you know

23     exactly about the manufacturing of such a part of the tram?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That tram on the exterior is made

25     of metal, steel.  Inside there is isolation, styrofoam and another layer

Page 40783

 1     of some artificial material.  I don't know what it is.  I don't know

 2     exactly how I could call it.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Did you visit a factory where this was produced?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't.  I just saw trams that

 5     were damaged so I saw what it looks like, how that surface was made.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You said in this way you get a perfectly

 7     homogeneous material.  What is the basis for this conclusion?  What

 8     factual basis do you have?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The factual basis is that I worked

10     such material quite a bit and I know how this is made.  In steel mills,

11     the steel is rolled so you get this perfect material, perfectly

12     homogenous material.  It's not that somewhere it is weaker and in other

13     places that it is stronger, and, of course, there is quality control

14     and --

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... may I stop

16     you.  Do you know anything about quality control in the Czechoslovakian

17     factory?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In that factory I mean, you're

19     referring to the tram factory or in steel mills as such?

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Not in any steel mill of the world.  The steel

21     mill where the metal was produced and used for trams.  We're talking only

22     about that.  Do you have any information about the quality checks?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have information on quality

24     control for sheeting.  Factories of trams buy that in the market so I

25     have that information --

Page 40784

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm only

 2     asking about trams, the material produced for trams, produced in

 3     Czechoslovakia.  I take it from your answer you don't have a factual

 4     basis especially not about quality control; correct?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not exactly.  A tram factory buys

 6     sheets from steel mills at --

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... general

 8     information how it is done somewhere in the world.  I'm talking about

 9     this kind of trams and the material used in the factory in

10     Czechoslovakia.  You are not answering my question, I think we are at the

11     end of today's session.

12             MS. EDGERTON:  Your Honour, I have been trying to finish this one

13     incident so we wouldn't have to go back to it so I've stretched my time.

14     My colleague has asked for a few minutes, so I apologise.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  How few, Mr. Tieger?

16             MR. TIEGER:  Two minutes, Mr. President.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You have stretched the time.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Before I let you do that, didn't you want to --

19     have you rounded off your questioning on this point?  Are you done?

20             MS. EDGERTON:  I can deal with it tomorrow very briefly.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay, thank you so much.

22             Mr. Tieger.

23             MR. TIEGER:  Thanks, Mr. President -- Thank you, Your Honour.  I

24     was trying to follow through on some housekeeping matters while

25     Ms. Edgerton attended to cross-examination duties.  The first is the

Page 40785

 1     following:  The Court MFI'd P7613 pending its uploading as a separate

 2     document.  I can report that it has now been uploaded as 65 ter --

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We have dealt with that already and it's admitted

 4     into evidence.

 5             MR. TIEGER:  My apologies.  Then the other -- then it's even

 6     quicker than two minutes.  The other issue was that the Trial Chamber

 7     MFI'd P7612 after Ms. Edgerton advised the Trial Chamber that she or we

 8     would get back to the Court on whether it had an attestation, since only

 9     one page had been uploaded.  And I can report that the entirety has now

10     been uploaded as 65 ter 33376 including the signed acknowledgment page

11     and would therefore ask that be admitted.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, Mr. Tieger.

13             MR. TIEGER:  33376, 65 ter and ask that to be admitted as P7612.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Madam Registrar will you please remove the MFI

15     status to P7612 and it's now admitted.

16             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, Mr. Tieger.

18             Mr. Poparic, we've come to the end of the day.  Just to remind

19     that you have you not finished with your testimony and therefore you are

20     not allowed to speak to anybody about your testimony, whether given or

21     still to be given, and not anybody.  Not any person at all.  If you

22     remember that, you are excused and you may follow the usher.

23             Do you want to talk before he leaves?

24                           [The witness stands down]

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry, Mr. Poparic.

Page 40786

 1             MR. LUKIC:  Just briefly because you ordered me to get back on

 2     this Rule 70.  My learned friend, Mr. Tieger, was right --

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Should we --

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, yes, sorry.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Private session --

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Rule 70 does not apply.  It was imposed by the party

 7     not by the court.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Is it by Court, or by the party who ...

 9             MR. LUKIC:  By the party.  It was not imposed by the Court.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, but the Rule 70 is normally imposed by the

11     party.

12             MR. TIEGER:  I think it would be clear, if I understand it

13     correctly, it was imposed by the party or by the witness rather than the

14     provider.  And there is no real provider in this instance I think is the

15     case.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.  That clarifies it.  Thank you

17     very much.

18             Is that all?  Okay.  We then stand adjourned and we'll sit

19     tomorrow, Wednesday, 4th of November, 2015, 9.30 in the morning, in the

20     same room, Courtroom I.

21             Court adjourned.

22                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.18 p.m.,

23                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 4th day of

24                           November, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.