1 Wednesday, 4 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
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 Both parties have announced that they had some preliminary
12 matters to be raised.
13 Mr. Lukic.
14 MR. LUKIC: Not at this moment, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: -- not --
16 MR. LUKIC: I apologise.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.
18 MS. EDGERTON: I do, Your Honour, if I may, some sort of
19 housekeeping matters first of all related to exhibits, because there's a
20 fair number of them.
21 First of all, yesterday I played a short clip from 65 ter number
22 33269, time code 8:06 to 8:16. That was a video from the school for the
23 blind. It was MFI'd as P7605, and we've created a 65 ter number for that
24 excerpt, which is 33269A. The clip has been burned onto a CD which we
25 have, and could I now ask that 65 ter number 33269A be admitted, formally
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, no objections?
3 MR. LUKIC: No objections.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, P7605, the content now is found in
5 65 ter number 33269A. You have received the disk. P7605 is admitted
6 into evidence.
7 Please proceed.
8 MS. EDGERTON: I also omitted to tender 65 ter number 33333,
9 which was the unmarked version of the clip from this video, which -- the
10 still, pardon me, not the clip, which Mr. Poparic then later marked. So
11 if the unmarked version could be admitted, please.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. Was 3333 not admitted as P7604?
13 MS. EDGERTON: Ah-ha. Absolutely. My mistake. Thank you.
14 Now, with respect to D1336, which is a document my friend
15 tendered, the statement of Huso Palo, admitted at T4 -- or I think
16 admitted at T.40540, it was clear to me that this statement had been
17 taken from part of the local investigative file for the incident, which
18 Your Honours now have parts of in parts. And I thought, in the interests
19 of effectiveness and having the context, fairness, that it would be
20 prudent to use the whole investigative file which is now 65 ter number
21 33373; and I should also point out that in addition to subsuming D1336,
22 this also subsumes P614, P615, P617, P618, and P619.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Whether the -- if I could say so, the consolidated
24 version, is that one that contains anything more than the -- the exhibits
25 you have just mentioned?
1 MS. EDGERTON: Yes, it does. It contains other contemporaneous
2 statements recorded at the time.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, it's not just giving it a new --
4 MS. EDGERTON: No, no.
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- it's adding to it as well.
6 Mr. Lukic, what's your position in relation to that because --
7 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, we should check. We could not object to having
8 police file.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then what I would suggest is that you -- that
10 you check it first and that we then take such action as suggested by
11 Ms. Edgerton. And then perhaps also put it such a way that we're not
12 later lost if we are trying to find, because the link with the other
13 portions may easily be lost and we should take care that that doesn't
14 happen. So I leave it at this moment. Suggestion is there. Mr. Lukic
15 will look at.
16 Mr. Lukic, shall we hear from you not later than by tomorrow?
17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then another matter, Ms. Edgerton.
19 Madam Registrar draws my attention to the fact that P7604 is the marked
20 still of 33333. I don't know whether we need the unmarked still at all.
21 Usually the marking doesn't take the view of what is under the marking,
22 so therefore -- and it's usually sufficiently clear what the marking is
23 and what the original photograph or the original still is. So if you
24 wouldn't mind, then we leave it as it is. It's in evidence but the
25 marked still.
1 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. If I could deal with another document
2 which we discussed yesterday, Your Honours. It's 65 ter number 10027,
3 which is admitted under seal as P7614, and that relates to
4 Scheduled Incident F-10. And 10027 are -- or is a collection of
5 photographs that are part of the forensic file for this complete -- for
6 the investigation, but I also realise 65 ter number 15704 is the complete
7 investigative file for that incident, and also if I can just check the --
8 Mr. Poparic's report, I believe one of the -- includes some source
9 material from Mr. Poparic's report.
10 Your indulgence for a moment.
11 Yes, indeed, I'm correct. 65 ter number 15704 includes
12 document -- includes the photo file as I indicated yesterday and includes
13 the material referred to at footnote 317 in Mr. Poparic's report, as well
14 as, if I can go further, 311 and 315.
15 So I don't know how this procedurally might work, Your Honour,
16 but my recommendation would be - if it's at all possible - or my request
17 would be to substitute 65 ter number 15704 for the document that was
18 admitted as P7614 --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MS. EDGERTON: -- replacing that item with the whole
21 investigative file.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's simpler than the previous one which was
24 Any objections against --
25 MR. LUKIC: I think we should go through this document as well to
1 see what that is.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. So we'll wait for a second. We'll hear
3 from you not later than tomorrow, Mr. Lukic, before we decide on the
4 request to have 65 ter 10027, which is admitted as P7614, to be replaced
5 by 15704, which is the complete investigative report.
6 MR. LUKIC: Only as I can see now, there are some documents in
7 German so we might use help of Judge Fluegge. So I don't know what kind
8 of compilation this is. We have to really go through the document
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do that and if you needs some German
11 lessons, Judge Fluegge is available; and if he is not there, I might even
12 assist you.
13 We leave that until tomorrow as well.
14 Ms. Edgerton.
15 MS. EDGERTON: And a couple more, if I may, just all related to
16 incidents we've discussed in the cross-examination so far, Your Honours.
17 65 ter number 33377 is the investigative file into the shooting
18 of Adnan Kasapovic dated 24 October 1994, which was discussed -- which
19 shooting was discussed yesterday, Your Honours, and is mentioned in
20 Mr. Poparic's as well as Mr. Van der Weijden's report. And perhaps I can
21 just go through the list because there's a couple more, if I may,
22 Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If we are -- it's all about full investigative
24 reports replacing portions. Let me just -- I wasn't there yesterday,
25 part of it, so let me just confer with my colleagues.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ORIE: My colleagues tell me that at least 65 ter 33377 was
3 not put to the witness in any way. If it is in his report, please guide
4 us where it is to be found.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Because then if it's footnoted somewhere in the
7 report, it could be considered to be associated with the expert report.
8 MS. EDGERTON: And then what I would like to do, Your Honour, is
9 come back to you on that more comprehensively at one time before the
10 witness leaves the stand, if I may.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MS. EDGERTON: That would be more efficient I think.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And the best would be if you make a kind of a table
14 with all the relevant data, when or how it is to be linked to the
15 testimony of the witness, either through his report or through his
16 testimony. If it is his testimony, at what page it was; what was or is
17 already admitted or marked for identification; what you suggest should
18 replace that original document, so that we have a full overview and then
19 can decide on it in a more organised way.
20 MS. EDGERTON: Perfect. Thank you.
21 And the only other matter, Your Honour - and it's just by way of
22 avoiding any surprises - as you know, I have been doing this a long time
23 and I keep an eye on my time and I allotted for a extremely -- a generous
24 cross-examination and I'm informed that I have one and a half hours left.
25 JUDGE ORIE: That's my information as well.
1 MS. EDGERTON: And, Your Honours, this report - as Your Honours
2 are aware - deals -- is a comprehensive one dealing with
3 charged/uncharged, scheduled and unscheduled incidents. And while I
4 apologise for not being accurate in terms of my anticipated time, I do
5 have a concern at this moment that I may need more time, but --
6 JUDGE ORIE: You mean ten minutes or --
7 MS. EDGERTON: No, Your Honour, if it was ten minutes I would do
8 it a little bit closer to the end of my time. I think, Your Honours,
9 based on things now, I might be making the exceptional -- the
10 extraordinary request of an extra hour and a half. But that being said,
11 Your Honours, of course I'll make every effort to move through more
12 efficiently, keeping in kind the guidance that I have received from
13 Your Honours over the course of these day. And I'd like to, at the end
14 of this session, just update Your Honours with my time estimate.
15 JUDGE ORIE: So that we are in a position to consider it during
16 the break.
17 MS. EDGERTON: One way or another, yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Indeed, I think I yesterday reminded you that
19 spending a lot of time on the wrong photograph is -- if it has no effect
20 at all, then of course it's -- perhaps a bit of a credibility/reliability
21 issue, but could have been limited in time because we didn't hear
22 anything about any effect on the conclusions.
23 Perhaps the best way to use our time is to get the witness into
24 the courtroom.
25 Ms. Lukic.
1 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, as you know, we never object if our
2 friends from the opposite side need more time, but then I have to inform
3 you that Mr. Poparic cannot finish tomorrow.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which means that how much time would you need
5 in re-examination?
6 MR. LUKIC: By now, I have in between four and five hours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: We'll also consider that. Let's not forget that the
8 reports presented by Ms. Subotic and Mr. Poparic are approximately 1.000
9 pages, which gives ample opportunity to address whatever one wants to
10 address and -- so therefore, the Chamber - although giving some guidance
11 as well - seven and a half hours is quite a lot. If we go to nine hours
12 but then have another five hours then, that's -- we'll consider it,
13 Mr. Lukic, but I leave to that at this moment, and we'll hear from
14 Ms. Edgerton by the end of this session what her new time assessment is.
15 We will ask the usher to escort the witness into the courtroom.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: The preliminary view of the Chamber is, Mr. Lukic,
18 is that five hours for re-examination would be -- of course we do not
19 know yet exactly what will follow in the next one and a half or two, two
20 and a half, or three hours, but five hours it's likely that we will not
21 allow the five hours.
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, so many issues are raised --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. LUKIC: -- and I was directed to raise it in a re-direct
1 examination, otherwise I would have to object all the time, get on my
2 feet, interrupt.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, at least organise your re-examination in such
4 a way that you start with the most important matters, and then we're able
5 to follow what level of importance and what level of relevance we are
6 going through the -- so don't leave the most important and the most
7 relevant questions for the end and the less relevant to start. Organise
8 it in such a way that you convince us that it's really of great
9 importance and great relevance and could not have been dealt with
11 We leave it to that for the time being.
12 Mr. Poparic, you had to wait for 20 minutes. Apologies for that.
13 We'll now continue, and I remind you that you're still bound by the
14 solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.
15 Ms. Edgerton will now continue her cross-examination.
16 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
17 WITNESS: MILE POPARIC [Resumed]
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 Cross-examination by Ms. Edgerton: [Continued]
20 Q. Good morning, Mr. Poparic.
21 A. Good morning.
22 Q. I'd just like to deal very briefly with the incident we broke off
23 dealing with - and that's incident F-8 - and take you right away to image
24 117 in your report and it appears between paragraphs 144 and 145.
25 Now, you see your image 117. Now, I just want to ask one
1 question before we begin. You didn't inspect - just to be perfectly
2 clear - you didn't inspect the actual physical hole in the tram, just
3 this one photograph; right?
4 A. Of course.
5 Q. Right. And yesterday, when you talked about bullets making
6 perfectly round holes, I would -- I just want to understand the import of
7 what you're saying. You're saying, is it your contention that bullets
8 always make perfectly round holes?
9 A. No. Only if the impact is at an angle of 90 degrees. Any other
10 angle produces an elliptical cross-section.
11 Q. So you're -- it's -- you're saying that the distance from the
12 target - the distance the bullet has to travel - has no effect on whether
13 or not it makes a perfectly round hole; is that what you're saying?
14 A. No, that's not what I'm trying to say. I'm trying to say that
15 the shape of the hole depends on the angle of impact, and the angle is
16 also related to the distance, et cetera. It's part of the trajectory.
17 Q. Does the shape of the hole depend on the velocity the bullet is
18 travelling when it impacts?
19 A. We could say it does; but in this case, since the velocity is
20 very high, we get a perfect imprint. I reminded you what high velocity
21 means. When a bullet at high velocity hits glass, the glass is not
22 shattered; that's why you get a good imprint.
23 Q. So the shape of the hole depends on the velocity of the bullet?
24 A. In this case, no, because the velocity is high. It's a specific
25 case. We are not talking in general. If we are talking in general, then
1 we can consider what you are saying; but in this specific case, no.
2 Q. Does the shape of the hole depend on the bullet type?
3 A. Of course, it depends on the size.
4 Q. I didn't ask about the size of the bullet. I asked about the
5 type of the bullet.
6 A. Well, since a bullet is round in shape, in this case, I would say
8 Q. So because bullets are round, they produce perfect holes if
9 they're fired at high velocity; that's your position?
10 A. No. My position is that the imprint on such a surface would be
11 good even if the bullet is not round. Let's say that it had a star-like
12 cross-section, the imprint would look like a star. I have cases when
13 projectiles have wings and then you get the shape of wings on the
14 imprint. It doesn't matter what the shape is. The shape remains the
16 Q. And does the shape of the hole depend on the material the bullet
18 A. Yes, that much is true. If it's a soft material, for instance,
19 canvas, the imprint would be less clear; but if it's a solid material,
20 such as this tin sheet, then we get a very clear imprint.
21 Q. And that tin sheet is material you didn't -- it's made of
22 material you didn't analyse; right?
23 A. I did not analyse it and there was no need because I know the
24 specifications of the tin that is used for this kind of product.
25 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... you don't need to repeat
1 yourself and you're repeating yourself from yesterday, so let me move on.
2 So if -- even if we were to assume that bullets would make a perfectly
3 round hole from a 90-degree angle, if they were entering from a
4 90-degree, angle - which I don't accept is accurate for a minute - but if
5 we were to assume that, to conduct the type of analysis that you carried
6 out in this case, you would have to take a photograph at a perfect
7 90-degree angle as well; right?
8 A. Yes. This photograph was taken at that angle, more or less, it
9 was taken up close; and if there are any errors in terms of angle, they
10 are very small. That is why I could analyse it well. It was the only
11 case where a magnification of the hole existed. In other cases, such
12 photographs were not available. This is the only case with a zoomed-in
13 picture of a bullet.
14 Q. [Previous translation continues]... Mr. Poparic. You're just
15 saying that because you weren't there at the time this photograph was
16 taken, you don't know the angle it was taken from, and all we've got in
17 front of us is an enlargement. You have no idea what angle this photo
18 was taken from, do you?
19 A. I do. I explained already. It was taken up close and could only
20 have been taken from an angle very close to 90 degrees. Of course, I
21 don't know it in absolute term, by the margin of error is very low.
22 Q. Mr. Poparic --
23 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... otherwise we'll
24 have -- we'll go for days. The witness has the right to answer the
25 question the best way he knows how to. He cannot be told how to answer
1 the question. He has to be let to answer the question.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's ... in general terms, I would agree with
3 you. To say that you would need more days, Mr. Lukic, on the basis of
4 just this may go a bit far.
5 Witness, you said it was taken up close and could only have been
6 taken from an angle very close to 90 degrees and that you don't know it
7 in absolute terms but that the margin of error is very low.
8 What would you want to add to that which seems to be an answer to
9 the question?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I said it all. The error
11 is small, and I've already explained how the photograph was taken.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, there's also -- Ms. Edgerton is also
13 bound by time, so if she has received an answer to her question, often
14 where the witness has an inclination to go well beyond that, it is not
15 under all circumstances impermissible to interrupt the witness.
16 Witness, could you tell us if it would be -- well, let's say, not
17 90 degrees but 80 degrees, what would be approximately the oval -- what
18 would be the distortion compared to a full circle, do you know?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There would be some kind of
20 deformation of the circle, albeit it small; I don't know to which side,
21 though. It is very important to which side the angle is turned.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I interrupted you because you were not giving
23 an answer to my question. Apparently you do not know exactly how it
24 would change, in centimetres or millimetres, the shape of the hole.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As regards the size itself, the
1 difference would be very small, although I can't tell what you it would
2 be off the top of my head. In any case, there would be a very small
3 deformation to the circle.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would you also agree that if there is a
5 possible margin of error in how you put the circles in the -- on the
6 photograph, if you move it just a few millimetres, it would still be more
7 or less the black hole, isn't it? There's some margin of appreciation
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct. I did bear that
10 in mind. I based my conclusion on the difference related to the
11 direction that is alleged as the trajectory of the projectile, and the
12 right angle - and the difference taken into account - allowed ne to draw
13 my conclusions to sufficient degree of accuracy.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, again you're not answering my question, but I
15 leave it to that.
16 Ms. Edgerton.
17 Judge Fluegge would have a question.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm sorry for that.
19 You said, I quote: "It was taken up close and could only have
20 been taken from an angle very close to 90 degrees."
21 What is the factual basis of your knowledge that this was taken
22 have a close distance?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had the photograph that I used.
24 It comes from the photograph. In my assessment, it was taken at a
25 distance of 50 or 60 centimetres, so quite up close. One could see the
1 hole very well, and it was obviously the intention of the photographer to
2 show the shape of the hole.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Do you know which camera was used?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.
7 MS. EDGERTON: Could we just go one page earlier in both
8 languages in Mr. Poparic's report, please, to image 116.
9 Q. And you see it on the right-hand side of the page in front of
10 you, Mr. Poparic.
11 MS. EDGERTON: Could we just blow up the English page, please.
12 Q. That's the photograph you're talking about, isn't it,
13 Mr. Poparic? That's the photograph you enlarged to make the image that
14 appears as 117 in your report; right?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Oh, fine [Microphone not activated] --
17 A. No, no. I referenced the photograph in question.
18 Q. So, Mr. Poparic, we don't have the report -- we don't have the
19 photograph -- we don't even have the photograph you enlarged to make your
20 image 117, do we? It's not in your report?
21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's a question, I take it.
22 MS. EDGERTON: Yes.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not in the report itself, but it is
24 referenced. It was an exhibit from the Galic case; that is where I found
25 the photograph. I would have never been able to do this on the basis of
1 the photograph you showed; it would take much magnification and it
2 wouldn't be clear.
3 MS. EDGERTON:
4 Q. Mr. Poparic, let's move on then and thank you, you've answered my
5 question. I'd like to go on to incident F-11 which is at page 188 in
6 your report in English and B/C/S page 183, paragraphs 171 to 192.
7 So this is an incident, Mr. Poparic, where -- and it took place
8 on the 8th of October, 1994, and it's an incident that involves the
9 targeting of two trams within minutes of one another and pedestrians.
10 And your contention is that the origin of fire in all three incidents was
11 a shooter in the Executive Council building and not from anywhere in
12 VRS-held territory; is that fair?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, your position is based on a number of things: Dust clouds
15 on a bit of film; right?
16 A. Right.
17 Q. Glass shards on another bit of film?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. A bit of film on which General Rose appears?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Rather than getting into an argument of what bit we're talking
22 about, I'll just move on and we'll come back to this.
23 The angle of fire as measured by UNPROFOR?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And the position of a man who was killed riding in tram 206?
1 I've covered just about everything now; right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. All right. Let's deal first with the dust clouds --
4 A. And if I may add, witness statements.
5 Q. Mr. Poparic, the more you add without me asking you, the longer
6 you're going to stay here. So let's talk about dust clouds.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Edgerton, that was unfair because you put two
8 questions and he was waiting for the translation of the questions.
9 MS. EDGERTON: Oh.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And this second question you put to the witness
11 he addressed in his answer.
12 MS. EDGERTON: I accept that. Thank you.
13 Q. Mr. Poparic, it's correct that you admitted in your Karadzic
14 testimony that your dust cloud analysis isn't based on any published
15 studies or trials; right?
16 A. It is not based on the results of published studies, but these
17 are some general principles of the strike theory. I don't know what your
18 interpretation of it may be, but I have never claimed that the method was
20 Q. And I'm just going to ask you about what you said in the Karadzic
21 case. And when we asked you this in the Karadzic case, this very same
22 question, your answer was, at pages 39252, 19 to 21, 65 ter 32790,
23 page 90, your answer was:
24 "A. It is based on experience. I see no reason for conducting a
25 study. It would be irrelevant."
1 That was your evidence in the Karadzic case; do you stand by it?
2 A. I do. What I had in mind was my experience, which is very
3 extensive, and I know what kind of dust trail is left at a sharp angle as
4 opposed to other angles - I have seen it countless times - however, as I
5 said already, I also base it on the strike theory.
6 Q. And --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, I'd like to briefly pay
8 attention to the transcript where Judge Fluegge intervened, because
9 otherwise it may be very difficult to understand.
10 I think that when you put the question to the witness:
11 "All right. Let's deal first with the dust clouds --"
12 That it was then the witness who said:
13 "And if I may add, witness statements."
14 And he rightly did so because you suggested to him that you had
15 dealt with every source, and therefore it was totally appropriate for the
16 witness to add this because he corrected a suggestion which was wrong.
17 But I think it should be clear on the transcript that it was not your
18 question in which it was said: "And if I may add, witness statements"
19 but it was the witness who introduced that.
20 Let's proceed.
21 MS. EDGERTON: Yes, absolutely accepted.
22 Q. Now, in terms of your experience that you've just talked about,
23 it's correct that you also testified in the Karadzic proceedings that
24 your experience is with level trajectories; right?
25 A. Right.
1 Q. And there's no citations in your report to any publications that
2 deal with -- or that detail what conclusions we could draw from the shape
3 and size of dust clouds by a bullet striking the ground, are there?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. So you're just asking us to take your word for it that this
6 necessitates the conclusion that the bullets in this case hit the ground
7 at a high angle of descent; right?
8 A. It is rather difficult to answer it with a yes or no because I
9 don't fully agree with this assertion. I do not assert that you have to
10 take my word for granted. I thought it was well explained why it should
11 be taken into account, at least in my view.
12 Q. Thank you. Now I just want to move on to the shards of glass.
13 Now you told the Judges in your testimony in-chief that shards of glass
14 or the shards of glass shattered on the ground by this tram were evidence
15 that the tram was hit at that place where we saw the glass on the ground.
16 Now you've spent a little bit of time today explaining your testimony
17 yesterday which was that glass doesn't shattered when it's pierced by a
18 bullet, and maybe you need to explain why -- and I'll read you exactly
19 what you said yesterday. You said:
20 "When it pierces the glass, the velocity" -- actually, no, let me
21 go earlier.
22 Referring to F-8 you talked about the speed of the projectile and
23 the homogeneity of the material. And you said:
24 "So it's out of the question. The best example is glass. When
25 it pierces the glass, the velocity is such that the glass is not
2 So putting your testimony yesterday against your earlier evidence
3 about the glass shards, you contradict yourself; right?
4 A. No, no, I can explain.
5 Q. I think you should explain the contradiction. Would you like to
6 do that?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Or to explain whether there's no contradiction,
8 Ms. Edgerton --
9 MS. EDGERTON: Accepted.
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- please try to -- it's the witness who testifies.
11 Please proceed. Can you please explain.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I mentioned glass in the
13 previous case, I mentioned it because there are great differences in
14 terms of material between glass and steel, plus there are different types
15 of glass. There are numerous examples of rifle bullets flying through
16 glass panes without the pane being shattered, with only a hole left
17 behind that projectile. That is why I said that there are such cases
18 where the glass is not shattered but, rather, intact with some cracks
19 around the hole. It doesn't mean, though, that it will not shatter
20 later, especially because in this specific case we don't know when it
21 happened and perhaps there could have been two bullet, the other one
22 shattering the pane. It is not mandatory that the pane wouldn't shatter,
23 but there are many cases where bullets fly through the glass, leaving
24 just a very clear hole with cracks. On the other hand, I do not try to
25 say that a glass pane not shatter if hit by a bullet, so neither is
1 mandatory. It doesn't have to shatter as a must.
2 MS. EDGERTON:
3 Q. So you've just said that there are cases where, when glass is hit
4 by a bullet, that it could shatter later; yet you pointed out to the
5 Trial Chamber that the evidence of the shards of glass shattered on the
6 ground beside the tram were indisputable evidence that the tram was hit
7 at the place where we saw the grass [sic]. Now, in fact, based on what
8 you've just said, we can't exclude the possibility that the glass could
9 have been hit somewhere other than where you say the tram stopped?
10 A. I think it was hit at that spot, and I can explain why, with your
11 leave. We've already discussed it during examination-in-chief, but I can
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps in your explanation you focus on what
14 was put to you by Ms. Edgerton. Ms. Edgerton says: You told us that the
15 shattering may occur later, therefore how could you conclude for certain
16 that the shattered glass indicates where the shot was fired because it
17 could have been earlier? That's the question. If would you explain that
18 to us, not why - otherwise - your conclusions are right or wrong but that
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will try. We've touched upon
22 that in examination-in-chief. I said that I base my conclusion on
23 witness statements, and the witnesses said that --
24 JUDGE ORIE: I'm stopping you there, because that may be other
25 good reasons to draw your conclusions. Please focus on the matter which
1 was raised. We are not inviting you to defend your final conclusions.
2 You were asked a question about what conclusions you can draw alone from
3 finding the shattered glass there, in view of your testimony that
4 sometimes it shatters immediately, sometimes it does later, and sometimes
5 it just leaves a hole. That's the question.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this case, it shattered and fell
7 on the ground next to the tram where it was stopped.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Which leaves the question: Why? Where you said
9 sometimes it shatters, why you could conclude that in this case it
10 shattered immediately?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because the shards are next to the
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think that somebody
15 shattered the glass subsequently.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, nevertheless you testified that sometimes it
17 shatters after the impact and not immediately at the time of the impact.
18 But please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.
19 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
20 Q. And also in your examination-in-chief, talking about this
21 incident at transcript page 40511 to 40512, you said -- you referred to
22 the UNPROFOR reports about the incident and you said:
23 "In the grass they found six craters and managed to put antenna
24 of radio equipment there, and that shows that the angle was also much
25 bigger than the one that was possible if fire had come from positions of
1 the VRS. If that had a been the case there would have only been a
2 shallow furrow. An antenna couldn't stick into it. Practically it would
3 fall on the ground."
4 So your position is if the shot in this case came from VRS-held
5 territory, the projectiles would have come in at a shallow angle; right?
6 A. Right.
7 MS. EDGERTON: I would like to play a very short bit of film in
8 that regard now, please now, P784 and I think it might be even less than
9 a minute.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so, if you say, "very shallow angle,"
11 where do you think an angle is still shallow and where -- what makes --
12 is that 30 degrees? 20 degrees? 15? 40? Where do you make it?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this case it is below 10
14 degrees. The highest degree that could have been achieved from VRS
15 positions was 5.71 degrees at house number 12, as marked by UNPROFOR.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Again, you're not answering my question,
17 unfortunately. I didn't ask you what -- what -- what the --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Below 10 degrees, as I said.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say it's shallow if it's below 10 degrees?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When you say "shallow," do you mean
21 a low angle, a small angle? Let me try to be clear because I'm confused
22 about the interpretation. If the angle is below 10 degrees, the furrow
23 will be shallow, the trace left will be shallow; that's what I wanted to
25 JUDGE ORIE: We leave it to that for the time being.
1 Please proceed.
2 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. And I should note we're not going to
3 play P784 with any sound. If we could play it, it begins at time code --
5 [Video-clip played]
6 MS. EDGERTON: Stop, at time code 46:7.
7 Q. These -- this is film of the UNPROFOR officers doing their
8 analysis with the antenna. I'm just going to ask that we back up a
9 couple of seconds and then continue and then I'm going to ask you a
11 [Video-clip played]
12 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
13 Q. That film of UNPROFOR doing their line-of-sight analysis with the
14 antenna shows that there was only a shallow furrow. The antenna, just
15 like you said it was, would -- was practically falling into the ground.
16 That shows an angle consistent with fire from VRS-held territory, doesn't
17 it, according to your own analysis?
18 A. In this footage I cannot estimate the angle at which the antenna
19 is set, but I maintain that if the bullet came in at an angle of
20 5 degrees, it's absolutely impossible for it to land in that hole.
21 MS. EDGERTON: Your Honours, I see it's break time.
22 JUDGE ORIE: It is.
23 We'll take a break. We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes.
24 You may follow the usher.
25 [The witness stands down]
1 JUDGE ORIE: We'll resume at ten minutes to 11.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 10.50 a.m.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
6 MR. LUKIC: I would like to interrupt before the witness is with
7 us. I have two translation issues.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. LUKIC: At page 20, line 3, the witness mentioned --
10 [The witness takes the stand]
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Shall the witness wait outside the courtroom.
12 MR. LUKIC: Yes, may be better.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be -- Mr. Poparic, could you, one
15 [The witness stands down]
16 MR. LUKIC: It's nothing major but then it can be checked with
17 Mr. Poparic. So here, page 20, line 3, he said:
18 "There are great differences in terms of material between glass
19 and steel ..."
20 After this comma, he said:
21 "... unlike metal glass is amorphous material," and then it goes
22 "plus ..."
23 Obviously there was something that was before, so that could be
24 checked with him and --
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's a question if the transcript is correct and
1 not a translation issue.
2 MR. LUKIC: Yes, I don't -- I didn't hear that it was translated,
3 so whatever was translated is entered in the transcript.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I will try to deal with it in a quick way.
5 MR. LUKIC: Yes. And then page 24, line 8, in this sentence:
6 "It's absolutely impossible for it to land in that hole."
7 It appears that it's addressing the bullet, but actually what
8 witness was addressing is antenna. So it's -- then it should be:
9 "It's absolutely impossible for it to be placed in that hole."
10 So I would like you to check with him. Because he was --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We'll check both items.
12 Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, we briefly discussed in your absence a few
15 possible errors in translation or transcription. I go with you through
17 First, I read part of an answer as it was translated and
18 transcribed. It was about -- I read it:
19 "I mentioned it because there are great differences in terms of
20 material between glass and steel, plus there are different types of
22 Is there anything in what I just read to you, what is missing
23 from your answer?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot remember whether it's in
25 that sentence, but I meant the difference in homogeneity of material
1 between glass and metal. And I said glass is amorphous, which means that
2 it's structure is not always equal in all parts. That was the essence.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I think that was, indeed, the issue raised.
4 Then I would like to take you another part, and I read the answer
5 as it was translated and transcribed for us. You said:
6 "In this footage, I cannot estimate the angle at which the
7 antenna is set, but I maintain that if the bullet came in at an angle of
8 5 degrees, it's absolutely impossible for it to land in that hole."
9 Is there any correction you'd like to make to what I just read to
10 you? And perhaps you focus on the last part of what I read.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This conclusion is correct. I
12 didn't -- I can't remember whether I said 5 or 5.71 about the angle at
13 which it was possible to fire a bullet from the positions of the VRS. I
14 don't know if I said 5.71, but that's basically it.
15 JUDGE ORIE: If you'd focus on the last, and I repeat that
17 "... it's absolutely impossible for it to land in that hole ... "
18 Is that what you said and did you -- and could you explain what
19 you meant by "it"?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it's impossible for the furrow
21 to be such as to set the antenna there. It had to be a shallow furrow,
22 and then the antenna could not be placed in it.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I think we've dealt with it.
24 Ms. Edgerton, you may now proceed.
25 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
1 Q. Now, the film that we just saw, P784, before we broke, includes,
2 Mr. Poparic, images that you included in your report at page 199 as
3 image 149 - and you did that without actually citing to a specific piece
4 of film - but there you say that these images depict UNPROFOR member
5 pointing out a detailing on the BiH Executive Council building to
6 General Michael Rose.
7 Now in the Karadzic case, you can confirm that in the Karadzic
8 case, when you first listened to this film, it had no soundtrack, right,
9 because that's what you said in the Karadzic case?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So you also confirmed that your assertion that an UNPROFOR member
12 is pointing out a detail on the Executive Council building is just an
14 A. No, it's no assumption. He was showing a shape and pointing at
15 the building. It's just one action that I noticed in the footage. I did
16 not make any claims on the basis of that and I didn't assume anything.
17 Q. P670, which is the UNPROFOR report -- leaving the video aside.
18 P670, which is the UNPROFOR report that you spent a lot of time on in
19 your analysis, has no mention of anyone in UNPROFOR suspecting that the
20 shots came from the Executive Council building. You saw that, so you
21 would agree? There's not a single mention in that report of the shots
22 coming from the Executive Council building?
23 MR. LUKIC: Ms. Edgerton does not allow translation to finish.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the proper way of saying is: Could
25 Ms. Edgerton please wait until -- rather than to use an angry voice.
1 There's no reason for that.
2 At the same time, Ms. Edgerton --
3 MS. EDGERTON: Slow down.
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- it's true, slow down. Wait for the translation
5 to be finished.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. If that number denotes the
7 video we saw before, I didn't have the opportunity to see it. I saw a
8 movie which contains some parts of it and others not. For instance, I
9 had not seen before the part with the antenna. And in the movies that I
10 saw, there was no sound; I wasn't able to hear anything.
11 MS. EDGERTON:
12 Q. So you never saw film of UNPROFOR with the antennas before making
13 your assertions about the angle at which they would have hit the ground;
14 is that what I understand you to say? Can you just tell me if I have
15 that right?
16 A. No, you did not. I talked about the video, P670, in general. I
17 didn't have the footage filmed by UNPROFOR. I had the opportunity to see
18 a compilation of sorts which doesn't have all of these segments. I had
19 never seen the antennas or the whole report about the antennas.
20 Q. Thank you. Now the male victim whose profile you draw in your
21 report at your page 197, image 147, is the next thing I want to turn to.
22 And in respect of that, I just want to get you to confirm your testimony
23 in the Karadzic case in relation to that man.
24 It's correct, isn't it, that you specifically acknowledged that
25 if his position was different from your assumption that he was sitting or
1 standing at the time he was hit, that the -- your argument that the
2 shots -- according to which the shots were fired from the
3 Executive Council building would be brought into question. Can you
4 confirm that?
5 A. No, no.
6 Q. All right. I'd like to show you your testimony in the Karadzic
8 MS. EDGERTON: 65 ter number 32788, please, it was on the 30th of
9 May, 2013.
10 Can we go over to e-court page 53, please.
11 Q. So here you said, talking about this incident and this man, to
12 His Honour Judge Morrison the following. He said:
13 "Just one matter --" that's at line 3 at page 39019.
14 "Just one matter. I mean, that assumption is predicated on the
15 basis that the victim was in a vertical or near-vertical position at the
16 time of the impact on the ground [sic]. If he had, for instance, been
17 leaning over at the time of the impact of the round, the [sic] assumption
18 wouldn't stand, would it?"
19 And you responded:
20 "[As read] That is correct. He was leaning over, that is
21 correct, can be called into question."
22 Are you prepared to -- do you stand by the testimony you gave to
23 His Honour Judge Morrison in the Karadzic case?
24 A. I do, but I don't think your question is fair because I did not
25 deal with that in my report. I should like to be allowed to explain
1 how --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, first of all, the question was whether you
3 stand by what you said in the Karadzic trial. That is a question which
4 is fair; no question about that.
5 Then there was one minor thing, however, Ms. Edgerton. I heard
6 you read what is transcribed to us:
7 "He was leaning over, that is correct ..."
8 What he said and what we find in the transcript is:
9 "If he was leaning over, that is correct ..."
10 You misread there.
11 MS. EDGERTON: Yes, yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Now, listen carefully to Ms. Edgerton's next
13 question. If there's anything unfair in what was asked from you at the
14 time of your Karadzic testimony, then Mr. Lukic certainly will -- I take
15 it you have drawn his attention to that or that he can deal with that if
16 need be.
17 Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.
18 MS. EDGERTON:
19 Q. So you have no idea what position this man was in at the moment
20 he was shot, do you?
21 A. [No interpretation]
22 THE INTERPRETER: We cannot hear what the witness said.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat your answer and speak into
24 the microphone.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now I do have a picture.
1 MS. EDGERTON:
2 Q. No, my question to you relates to the man's position at the
3 moment he was shot. It's correct, isn't it, he could have been
4 crouching, turning, talking, even lying on the floor at the moment he was
5 shot. We have no evidence of what he was actually -- how he was actually
6 positioned at the moment he was shot, do we?
7 A. Yes, we have data. We have information and evidence.
8 Q. Are you trying to say that the picture on which you based your
9 drawing in your report is that evidence?
10 A. Not only.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let's get to the point. What is there you know now
12 about the position of the man? Is that statements? Is that anything
13 else? Could you clearly -- not conclusions, et cetera, but just what
14 information do you have which is not yet in the report?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That information is in the report,
16 but I can say it. First of all, we have the information in which part of
17 the body he was hit and where the bullet ended up, and we have an image
18 of the tram where the man was injured, it's tram 206, it's the first one.
19 And based on the traces of blood in that tram - in one video we have seen
20 today - we see where he could have been, in the front part of the tram.
21 And there are only two locations.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I'll stop you there. It's not an answer to the
23 question. The question is not where he was but how he was positioned,
24 lying up, et cetera. And you say: Where you could have been. We're not
25 interested in analysis of where he could have been -- we may be
1 interested in that, but if you could tell us what exactly the information
2 is on which you think you can determine, or what this Chamber can
3 determine, what the position of this victim was, lying, standing, bending
4 over, whatever.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He was standing, and that's
6 indicated by the damage inside the tram. In no other position could he
7 have been injured the way he was. The glass is intact. There are some
8 traces -- there are no traces below the seat, and the only thing
9 consistent with his injuries is that he was standing and there are some
10 traces of blood on the side of the tram inside, which indicates that he
11 was standing.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.
13 MS. EDGERTON:
14 Q. And with respect to incident F-16 in your report, which is
15 incident F-15 in this indictment, and it's at B/C/S page -- it begins in
16 a section at B/C/S page 232, English page 239. Just like the case of
17 this man, your argument is predicated on the basis that the victim was
18 taking a certain position. Now, your argument is predicated on the basis
19 that Mr. Agovic was sitting facing directly forward in his seat at a
20 45-degree angle vis-à-vis the tram. So when I -- and you confirmed that
21 to me in the Karadzic case at e-court page 32790 -- pardon me. 65 ter
22 number 32790, e-court pages 78 to 79.
23 You said:
24 "It's assumed that his sitting position was normal."
25 So your point, your position, your argument, wouldn't be valid if
1 Mr. Agovic's body had been angled a bit to the left or a bit to the
2 right, would it?
3 A. As to a little bit to the left or a little bit to the right, that
4 has been analysed and the conclusion would remain the same. As for the
5 assumptions you mentioned, these are all facts that are in the -- the
6 case file.
7 Q. If Mr. Agovic had been bending over, if he had been turning, if
8 he had been talking, your argument with respect to the angle of fire in
9 this incident comes into question, just like the incident we've just
10 finished with. Because you've just said --
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Wait for the translation.
12 MS. EDGERTON: Oh. I apologise. I thought I was. Sorry.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All the witness statements,
14 including Mr. Agovic's, indicate that he was not even making any
15 movements, he was not bending or anything. If you have any specific
16 information, then we can discuss what positions those could have been.
17 We cannot talk like this.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could I ask you: If you say, if someone is
19 not saying in a statement that he was bending over, then you take it for
20 a fact that he was not?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Even if the person had been
22 bending, in view of the height at which he was hit --
23 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Witness, would
24 you please answer my question. My question was: If someone in a
25 statement doesn't say that he was bending over, you take it for a fact
1 that he was not bending over?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
6 Please proceed.
7 MS. EDGERTON:
8 Q. And I just want to skip over -- actually, I'd like to ask you one
9 more question about this incident.
10 Your report shows you had a look at the criminal investigation
11 file for this incident. Now, so that you --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. So then you would know that this report emphasises the fact that
14 other trams immediately behind this one were fired on from the same Serb
15 positions and immediately afterwards there was an exchange of fire
16 between UNPROFOR and this position - and that's at P612, English page 8;
17 B/C/S page 7.
18 So having looked at the investigative file, you saw that?
19 A. I saw that stated and I had no other information, but I didn't
20 base my analysis on what was happening around. I based it on the
21 possibility that the tram was hit as alleged from the positions said, so
22 I analysed all the traces that were sufficient for me to make this
24 Q. So you -- what you're saying is you didn't think the evidence
25 that UNPROFOR responding to the alleged origin of fire in VRS-held
1 territory was relevant to your analysis; that's what you're telling us?
2 A. I wasn't going to say that. I wanted to say that I did not have
3 information. It was stated by a witness who was not in the area but she
4 only heard an exchange of fire, and there was a French UNPROFOR member
5 apparently who was wounded. On the basis of that statement, I don't know
6 where that exchange of fire was and I would have to speculate. It was
7 stated as such, though, but I based my conclusions on my analyses on the
8 basis of the traces left. I don't know what happened before or later. I
9 cannot relate that to the case. I have no information that would make me
10 establish a connection between the two or even three incidents. I don't
11 know how many there were exactly.
12 Q. I'd like to move on to incident F-14 in your report which is F-13
13 in this indictment, and the section in your report that that deals with
14 begins at English page 225, B/C/S page 218, paragraphs 209 to 218.
15 Now if we can just go over to your image 164, which is I think at
16 English page 221 and -- pardon me, B/C/S page 221; English page 228.
17 Thank you.
18 Now you say in the caption of this report without citing to any
19 part of Huso -- pardon me, the caption to this image without citing to
20 any part of Huso Palo's testimony per se, you say that the circle that
21 says tram 263 is the position of the tram according to his evidence. But
22 you know that -- but you know that that's not where Huso Palo says the
23 tram was, don't you? In fact --
24 A. I know that Huso Palo said that the tram was at that location.
25 He clearly stated that as he was about to go across the intersection, he
1 could hear it - the fork, that is to say, for the tram, that Huso Palo
2 testified about.
3 Q. Mr. Poparic, Huso Palo, in his statement given to the police on
4 24 November 1994, which is 65 ter number 1D00691, states that the tram
5 was hit when he reached the section between the technical school and the
6 Marsal Tito barracks, specifically turning towards the railway station.
7 In his statement P162, dated February 24, 1996, he says that the tram was
8 hit between the technical school and the Marsal Tito barracks. And then
9 in his testimony in the Dragomir Milosevic case, in 1D05751, he says that
10 the tram was fired at between the two museums.
11 None of that evidence puts tram 263 at the location where you
12 marked it. In fact, according to the evidence of Huso Palo, tram 263 was
13 further east in the intersection, wasn't it?
14 A. No. The first two statements he provided that were available to
15 me indicate that spot. As for what he said in his testimony, I did not
16 have it at my disposal. It is further towards the east, that is correct;
17 but the first two statements are precisely at the location where I
18 indicated, perhaps not to the metre, but that is the intersection.
19 Q. Well, in fact, the effect of the difference between whether the
20 tram is in the intersection or not, the effect of it puts the tram in
21 better view of four white sky-scrapers in Grbavica where you agreed there
22 were VRS sniping positions, and that's what Mr. Palo's evidence does?
23 A. Well, there are two issues here. If it is correct that the tram
24 was where he put it in his testimony, he was not visible from the white
25 high-rises, as we could see in the photograph you showed yesterday. He
1 was then at the Holiday Inn and visible from the Metalka building, and I
2 treated it in my report. In that case, it was visible from the Metalka
3 building and not from the white high-rises. If he was at the
4 intersection as I marked, according to his two statements provided
5 previously, then it was visible from the white high-rises but not from
6 the Metalka building. That is the only difference; however, I treated
7 both scenarios in the report.
8 Q. One --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one question. You said in one of
10 your previous answers:
11 "It is further towards the east, that is correct."
12 When did you learn that it was further to the east, which you now
13 say is correct?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The testimony of Huso Palo, I
15 learned about it now, but there are other testimonies indicating the
16 place he pointed out. I had learned that previously and that is why --
17 and analysed both tram positions.
18 JUDGE ORIE: So I do understand that while Ms. Edgerton was
19 reading to you a statement that you never had -- oh, his testimony, you
20 never heard about that before?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had not heard that testimony of
22 his previously, but I did hear the testimony of others, that he was at
23 the place he indicated. Therefore, I was aware of the two positions, and
24 I analysed them both in the report. There's no dispute.
25 MR. LUKIC: We can get exact citation from the transcript, since
1 we want to check it and it's not read from the transcript.
2 JUDGE ORIE: If there's any doubt about that, Ms. Edgerton,
3 you're invited to read literally from the transcript. If you did not --
4 and if you did, please give the reference to Mr. Lukic.
5 MS. EDGERTON: I didn't read exactly, but I can certainly give
6 the page and line reference. It's --
7 JUDGE ORIE: And would you then also read it -- if you did not
8 read it exactly, could you then please read it exactly so that we have an
9 opportunity to verify that now.
10 MS. EDGERTON: It's at 1D05751, please, e-court page 3, lines 14
11 to 17 Mr. Palo says:
12 "I remember the date. I remember the date that I read. On that
13 day, I drove a tram between Marin Dvor and the technical school and the
14 Marsal Tito barracks. I was fired at between the two museums. On the
15 left there were the four sky-scrapers and there was firing."
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, that's at least one of the sources which
17 is pretty accurate, I would say, as far as between the two museums.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... I apologise.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps during the next break if you need
21 further references then we don't need to spend time on it in court,
22 unless there's any accuracy and then, of course, we would --
23 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, but we have to have a reference to
24 be able to check. I wouldn't raise --
25 JUDGE ORIE: No, but that's the reason why I -- this was an open
1 invitation to Ms. Edgerton to give you those references for the other
2 sources she mentions, and then can you check it. And if there's any
3 problem, we'll hear it.
4 Please proceed.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And Ms. Edgerton referred earlier to the
6 document, the number.
7 MR. LUKIC: But not the page, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That's true.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, as precise as possible, Ms. Edgerton, for
10 Mr. Lukic so that he can always verify.
11 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. I'll always do my best.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
13 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
14 Q. Just one last thing with respect to this incident is --
15 A. I apologise. I apologise, if I may, since I was answering the
16 question as the testimony of this person was read out, he said that he
17 was at the location I indicated. He did not change it. He said between
18 the two museums, one of them being the museum of the revolution, the
19 other one being the national museum. He confirmed the location; it is
20 just that he described it differently. That location is identified in
21 image 164 of my report. You can look at image 164, the two musea are
22 marked with 3 and 4, and he stated that the tram was between the two.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which doesn't allow any plotting. It could be
24 anywhere between the two, isn't it? Could be further to the east as
25 well. It is still between number 3 and number 4 on your sketch, isn't
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct. Then it would be
3 visible from the four high-rises but not visible from the Metalka
4 building. That is the gist of it.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you just don't know. It's just between the
6 two, between 3 and 4, and you put it somewhere arbitrary.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Around there, approximately. That
8 is how I indicated it and analysed it. What I'm trying to say is that he
9 did not testify differently to that, but he confirmed it.
10 JUDGE ORIE: You've answered my question.
11 And may I take it that 263 and 263 [sic] as we find it on the
12 sketch is some kind of an error. On the plotting, it is 263; in the
13 legenda, it is 236.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is a mistake. It was copied
16 from elsewhere.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's try to avoid mistakes.
18 Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.
19 MS. EDGERTON:
20 Q. One more hopefully short area with respect to this incident. You
21 said in your testimony in-chief that given their position and their
22 detailed explanations and given the description of their wounds - and
23 that's referring to the two victims - that they could only have been hit
24 if the bullet came through the joint of the articulated tram, the soft
25 part; but in that case, it would not have come from the building of the
1 Executive Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina and not from the Metalka or
2 the high-rises, irrespective of the tram's location.
3 Now, and I just want to focus on Mrs. Karacic, one of the victims
4 in this regard. During your cross-examination in the Karadzic case, you
5 confirmed you had never seen the entry or exit wounds Mrs. -- the
6 injuries Mrs. Karacic suffered that day. Can you confirm that?
7 A. Yes --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness kindly
9 repeat his sentence. We did not understand.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could you repeat your sentence. You were not
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not see the wound, but I did
13 see a report indicating where the entry and exit wounds were.
14 MS. EDGERTON:
15 Q. And can you also confirm that in the Karadzic case you agreed
16 there were no measurements in the official report showing the vertical
17 distance the bullet fragment travelled inside her arm?
18 A. That is correct. There's only a general description.
19 Q. And --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could I give some guidance both at this moment to
21 you, Ms. Edgerton, and also later to you, Mr. Lukic. At various moments
22 several times this Chamber pointed at the fact that this witness is doing
23 our job assessing/evaluating the evidence, et cetera, et cetera. Now by
24 focussing so much on all which is beyond his expertise, you are taken by
25 the witness rather than to stick to what this witness could tell us, and
1 that is what is within his expertise. I'm afraid that happened quite a
2 bit during examination-in-chief, it happens in cross-examination as well,
3 and it may have all been triggered by the way the witness deals with such
4 matters in his report. But I think we are the ones -- the lawyers know
5 where the limits are of expert evidence, and if you would stick to that
6 more strictly, then that would certainly shorten some of the time. And
7 perhaps it shouldn't have been there already from the beginning, but
8 that's too late to establish at this moment.
9 Please proceed.
10 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. And now I want to move over to F-12
11 which is at English page 210, B/C/S page 204, and paragraphs 193 to 208.
12 Q. Now -- and this is the incident dealing with Mrs. Sokolovic and
13 her son Nermin.
14 Now you would accept that if the mother and boy who were shot in
15 this case were standing at the zebra crossing at the intersection of
16 Zmaja od Bosne and Franje Rackog at the moment they were shot, they would
17 have been visible with the naked eye as civilians to any shooter in the
18 Metalka building. You'd accept that, wouldn't you?
19 A. Based on all the material shown to me --
20 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
21 A. -- I analysed --
22 Q. I don't want to hear about the material. Mr. Poparic, I want to
23 hear, based on -- Mr. Poparic.
24 A. I can't --
25 Q. -- I want to hear - based on your experience and whatever
1 expertise you might have and from your personal visits to the area -
2 whether you'd accept that if they were standing at the location I said,
3 they would be visible with the naked eye as civilians to any shooter.
4 A. If they were standing at the place alleged, they would have been
5 visible. That is not something I disputed.
6 Q. And at a distance -- and you -- you would agree with me that
7 Metalka building is about 300 metres from the location I've just
8 described; right?
9 A. Right.
10 Q. And at a distance of 300 metres, the victims in this case were
11 targets that were easily attainable with one well-aimed shot from the
12 Metalka building, weren't they?
13 A. A good shooter could make that hit.
14 Q. Now just in terms of the thrust of --
15 JUDGE ORIE: I see -- your microphone was open as is mine now but
16 I can't hear anything through our earphones. And I think it's now okay
18 Please resume.
19 MS. EDGERTON:
20 Q. Now just in terms of thrust of your argument, I want to deal with
21 two points, and that's your assertion that Sokolovic and her son were hit
22 in a cross-fire, and you say that in paragraph 204; and that the boy was
23 shot in a different location, and you say that at paragraph -- English
24 page 290, B/C/S page 271.
25 MS. EDGERTON: I think I've got those pages right.
1 Q. So just with respect to the first point about the cross-fire.
2 You can confirm, can't you, that -- I'd like you to confirm your
3 evidence in the Karadzic case that anything you saw -- no, let me
4 rephrase that, if I may.
5 In terms of the cross-fire, you specifically accepted that you
6 could have been referring to UNPROFOR's anti-sniping team's responding to
7 the source of fire in this incident, right, and not cross-fire between
8 the warring factions?
9 A. No. I don't think you stated what I said properly. I simply
10 registered that in his statement she said that once she approached the
11 municipal building, shots were heard and people fell to the ground. I
12 was not discussing any exchange of fire.
13 As for what you said about the anti-sniping team, you put it to
14 me in my Karadzic testimony, but that happened afterwards. And then,
15 based on what you read out to me, I could not confirm where the shooting
16 occurred. It was a simple daily report by UNMO, no direction of fire was
17 indicated in the document. Therefore, I exclude the possibility of an
18 exchange of fire between UNPROFOR and someone else, because I simply did
19 not have such data. You put to me later on that there was a report
20 showing that UNPROFOR intervened on the day, but I didn't see where or in
21 what direction. There was just some very general information.
22 Q. Let's have a look at that UNPROFOR report.
23 MS. EDGERTON: It's 65 ter number 11215.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton, whether there was fire or not is a
25 factual matter for which we do not need expert evidence. I think we --
1 yesterday or the day before yesterday we had lengthy discussions about if
2 you hear shots fired that it's important to know whether it happened
3 immediately after the incident or before that, but even that is not
4 something which falls within the expertise of this witness. It is just
5 dealing with a few matters where he went out, where he started
6 interpreting all the evidence. Now we hear that he had looked at this
7 but he hadn't available that -- and that's, of course, not what really
8 matters at this moment.
9 I would have a very short question to you. In paragraph 204,
10 when you say that what you saw on the video, that that indicates that
11 fighting was going on at the time and that fire was being exchanged
12 between the warring parties, are you referring to any firing you heard in
13 that video which preceded the incident?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If the footage is accurate, it is
15 something that happened later, but the video is a compilation --
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- it should be afterwards.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Therefore, it doesn't say anything about any
19 exchange of fire before that.
20 Second, if you hear shots being fired and if you conclude that
21 there is an exchange of fire, what is there that makes you so sure that
22 it's a fire exchange between the warring parties and not any other party?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't say there was an exchange
24 of fire. I did not analyse the footage. I just wanted to show that
25 something could be heard --
1 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Witness, I stop
2 you there and take to you paragraph 204. You are describing that in the
3 video that what you hear and what you see, and you said which indicates
4 that fighting was going on at the time and that fire was being exchanged
5 between the warring parties.
6 As far as the time is concerned, you have now confirmed that it
7 must have been after the incident. Now how can you hear if you hear a
8 shot, who fires it, and whether it's from the warring parties?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this paragraph, I only indicate
10 what I could hear on the footage because it seems that there was some --
11 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... and I asked you:
12 How can you hear that the shots you hear are part of an exchange of fire
13 between the warring parties? That's my question.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is only an assumption, but I did
15 not rely on it when analysing the case. It was just a statement --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.
18 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. I think can I deal with one more
19 incident hopefully before the break very quickly.
20 Q. It's F-3 in Dobrinja, Mr. Poparic. And just -- and the way I
21 want to deal with that is this: In your report, you specifically
22 accepted that SRK forces manned and maintained observation posts in the
23 tower of the church in Veljine, and that was based on a document I showed
24 you during your cross-examination in Karadzic and I need to show you the
25 document now.
1 MS. EDGERTON: It's P2389.
2 Q. So two-thirds of the way down the first page in your language -
3 and by the way, this is an Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
4 intelligence report of the 5th Motorised Battalion dated 2 October 199 --
5 pardon me, 5th Motorised Brigade dated 2 October 1993.
6 So about two-thirds of the way down the first page and at the
7 English page 2 at the top of the page, there's a paragraph that says:
8 "The enemy uses the church at Veljine exclusively as an
9 observation post. According to our information till now in the church
10 there are six observers per shift. The observers are armed with snipers
11 and one PAM which is in a well-fortified nest in the church. From the
12 church, fire is rarely building opened, and when it is opened, a sniper
13 with a silencer are used."
14 These are exactly the types of weapons you identified last week
15 as being able to target the victim in this incident, aren't they?
16 A. It could have, but it's not the only weapon that could have fired
17 that particular shot. I didn't say it was the only one.
18 Q. No, I didn't ask you about these being the only ones, but you've
19 answered the question now. Thank you.
20 MS. EDGERTON: And I think that takes us to the break,
21 Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes from
23 now. You may follow the usher.
24 [The witness stands down]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton, you promised that you would give us a
1 better insight in the time you would still need by the end of this
3 MS. EDGERTON: Yes. And I think, Your Honours, subject to the
4 answers, I might need 20 minutes more.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Twenty minutes more than you had asked -- then you
6 announced earlier, that's 20 minutes more now or 20 minutes above the
7 seven and a half hours?
8 MS. EDGERTON: Twenty minutes from now.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Now.
10 MS. EDGERTON: From when we resume, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then one second.
12 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: You've used seven hours and nine minutes, so
15 20 minutes would bring you to seven hours, 29 minutes. You have one
16 minute left, Ms. Edgerton, at the end. That's --
17 Mr. Lukic, please also keep in mind the guidance I earlier gave
18 as to what should be covered and what should not be covered with this
19 expert witness. And unless you have anything to add at this moment,
20 we'll later hear from you how much time you really need. As I said
21 before, the five hours are, as matters stand now, not accepted yet by the
23 We take a break and resume at quarter past 12.00.
24 --- Recess taken at 11.56 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 12.17 p.m.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Before the witness enters the courtroom, Mr. Lukic,
2 the Chamber was informed that you proposed a changed schedule.
3 Now, as far as the next witness is concerned, of course, if there
4 are any personal matters which are needed, but at the same time we'd
5 rather not interrupt at this moment the evidence of Mr. Poparic; we'd
6 like to finish that.
7 Now, we don't know -- for how much time was the necessary witness
9 MR. LUKIC: He should go tomorrow and Monday because he --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Tomorrow and Monday. And when is the -- I do
11 understand that there is some surgery within the? Family.
12 MR. LUKIC: Tuesday.
13 JUDGE ORIE: When is that? That's Tuesday. So --
14 MR. LUKIC: Or we return home and bring him at some other time.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And if you would have another witness, then --
16 but you may not have him available. We also could consider to see
17 whether -- no, I can't extend the session tomorrow because I have
18 commitments elsewhere, but perhaps with two Judges the -- perhaps is a
19 possibility because -- I'm speaking too quickly. We have considered your
20 request for how much time you'd need for Mr. Poparic. I make a few
22 First of all, Ms. Edgerton now remains within the time-limits she
23 stated before, so that is not a reason anymore. Second, you have
24 presented a report together with Witness Subotic which in many respect,
25 really, is beyond what the expertise can tell. Third, Ms. Edgerton took
1 quite some time to take the witness back to everything he had changed or
2 thus corrected in his Karadzic testimony, and that's of course something
3 you should have done before. That's not for cross-examination. If the
4 witness states or testifies in slightly different way in another case,
5 you should anticipate that; and you can't just blame the Prosecution for
6 taking a lot of time of that.
7 And then we had the general problem which is going beyond the
8 expertise triggers of course also the Prosecution to respond, but again,
9 the basic problem there lies within your expert not being able to limit
10 himself to what his expertise tells him. Evaluating statements of other
11 witnesses is really not something such a witness should do. A lot of
12 assumptions. There are many reasons. For those reasons we have
13 considered your request and we consider that you should finish your
14 re-examination tomorrow in the second session, which still leaves you --
15 MR. LUKIC: I really cannot, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we impose these limits to you. There is some
17 time left today and then you have approximately three hours for
18 re-examination. And again, I gave you the reasons why this Chamber
19 considers it appropriate to not grant you full five hours you are asking
21 We'll now continue. Ms. Edgerton, your 20 minutes will start
22 soon, that is when the witness enters the courtroom.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: To the extent I was unclear - and my colleagues have
25 drawn my attention to it - I said you have presented a report where I
1 referred to the Defence, a report for this witness, which I left out, for
2 Mr. Poparic, together with Ms. Subotic. I'm not at this moment referring
3 to the third author, but that's what I meant to say.
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 JUDGE ORIE: And then, of course, I don't know exactly how much
6 time is scheduled for the next witness but whether we could deal with it
7 tomorrow in an extended session is still to be seen, although I couldn't
8 go beyond quarter past 2.00 but we'll see whether there's any possibility
9 to perhaps even finalize the testimony of the next witness already by
11 Mr. Poparic, we'll continue.
12 Ms. Edgerton, I'll have a close look at the clock.
13 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
14 Q. Mr. Poparic, I want to go back to your -- the outset of your
15 examination-in-chief where referring to video-clips taken by
16 Mr. Van Lynden of a burning building in Cengic Vila in December 1992 you
17 made some statements. And in respect of that incident or evidence of
18 Mr. Van Lynden you said at T.40373, lines 11 to 14, and it's referring to
19 the question whether tracer bullets shown in a video were incoming or
20 outgoing from the burning building. You said:
21 "Now, had this bullet been fired from any position of the Army of
22 Republika Srpska Grbavica, I don't know where, it couldn't have had this
23 kind of trajectory. The angle would have been much smaller. It would
24 have almost -- it would -- it would almost have a straight trajectory in
25 relation to the building."
1 And then you are said at 40373, lines 18 to 20:
2 "And any bullet that would be fired at this building would
3 basically hit this building at a 90-degrees angle."
4 So when you say "straight trajectory" in relation to the building
5 you mean horizontal; right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So if that building had been shot at from VRS-held territory, the
8 trajectory of the bullet would have been horizontal; that's what you're
10 A. No, it can't be absolutely horizontal. It would be a smaller
11 angle. In fact, if we are talking -- we have to look at it at a -- in a
12 vertical plane. In the horizontal plane, it's at an angle relative to
13 the axis of the building. If we are looking at the front of the
14 building, in the horizontal plane, it would be an angle between the
15 trajectory and the building; and in the vertical plane, it would be the
16 angle at which it impacts the building.
17 Q. I'd like to you have a look at some still frames we've made of
18 that same building, and they're referred -- or the film from which
19 they're made is referred to in Mr. Van Lynden's statement, P66, at
20 paragraph 126, English page 33. And he says that this film is film taken
21 from the side of the building that we saw in the clips you were looking
22 at in your examination-in-chief by a cameraman from the Holiday Inn. And
23 we're going to play those now slowly.
24 MS. EDGERTON: 65 ter number 33380, 56 still frames from
25 V000-3772. And we're going to show that, actually, from our terminal
1 from time code, I should say, 1:48 to 1:58. So we're going to show them
2 slowly as we can, one after the other.
3 [Prosecution counsel confer]
4 [Video-clip played]
5 MS. EDGERTON: Stop right there.
6 Q. Have a look at this image.
7 MS. EDGERTON: We're at number -- I'll put the number of the
8 still on the record in a minute when we can find it.
9 And go further slowly, please.
10 [Video-clip played]
11 MS. EDGERTON: Stop right there. Keep going.
12 [Video-clip played]
13 MS. EDGERTON:
14 Q. So, Mr. Poparic, what we saw was a bullet coming in at a
15 horizontal trajectory. Did you see it too?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So, according to your own theory, that means the bullet is coming
18 in from Serb-held positions; that's what you said?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MS. EDGERTON: Could I have these frames as a Prosecution
22 Exhibit, please.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could I again look at them. Could you just go ten
24 frames back and then slowly move again so that ...
25 [Video-clip played]
1 JUDGE ORIE: I think we needed to go further back. Yes.
2 [Video-clip played]
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Stop.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps even a tiny little bit further back one or
6 [Video-clip played]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. It's tendered.
8 Mr. Lukic, no problems? I think it's a novelty to have the
9 stills in a row, but it has not been released and -- 33380 is not yet
10 uploaded or released in e-court if I understand Madam Registrar well.
11 Madam Registrar, could you already reserve a number.
12 THE REGISTRAR: 33380 receives Exhibit Number P7616,
13 Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And I understand that it's now uploaded and
16 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
17 JUDGE ORIE: It is. Therefore, P7616 is admitted into evidence.
18 Please proceed.
19 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
20 Q. Now just for one last incident, I want to go over to one of the
21 things you dealt with in your Annex 6, and it's your incident number 2
22 involving 120-millimetre mortar shelling next to a building that housed a
23 temporary school on 9 November 1993, killing the teacher, Fata Gudic
24 [phoen], and three students all under the age of 10 and injuring a number
25 of other people. I would like us to have look at 65 ter number 33379,
1 please, which is the investigative reports -- one of the investigative
2 reports created around that day. And, for the record, it's the same as
3 1D05670, which is referred to in -- pardon me. I have the number wrong.
4 It's the same as 1D00742, which is referred to in footnote 530.
5 So --
6 JUDGE ORIE: You said Annex 6, I think you said. Could you give
7 an e-court page where to start approximately so that ...
8 MS. EDGERTON: In a minute.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we'll wait for that. Please proceed.
10 MS. EDGERTON: I have it at English page 324 -- no.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
12 MS. EDGERTON: I stand corrected. I correct myself. English
13 page 323.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
15 MS. EDGERTON: So this report is the same as 1D00742 but it's
16 been scanned in colour.
17 Q. Now, you must recognise this report then since you referred to it
18 and you used some of the pictures from it in your own report; right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And it's from image 16 in your report that you ascertain the
21 azimuth -- actually, let me go back for a minute.
22 As part of this report, you would have reviewed witness -- you
23 would have reviewed witness statements, right, witness statements
24 compiled related to this shelling?
25 A. Correct.
1 Q. That -- that would include the statements of people who heard the
2 shell being fired from Nedzarici; right?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Now, from your report, image 16, and that's on English
5 page 328 --
6 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's 329, but --
7 MS. EDGERTON: Pardon me. It is indeed.
8 Q. It's from this image of the shell that hit Trg Zavnobih on this
9 day; right?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. Now I'd like to go to 65 ter number 33148. It's another police
12 report dated November 1993, the day after the incident, with more and
13 additional photo documentation.
14 MS. EDGERTON: Can we go, please, to page 12 in B/C/S and page 11
15 in B/C/S.
16 Q. And there's a translation thing I'd like you to correct,
17 Mr. Poparic, so if you could just -- if my friend Mr. Registrar could
18 enlarge the subject line under the heading "Foto Dokumentacija," please,
19 and maybe you need to make it a little bit bigger. Thank you.
20 It's correct, isn't it, that this is a photo documentation file
21 for a shelling at a place called Trg Rade Koncara dated 9 November 1993;
23 A. That is written on this cover page.
24 Q. Now can we go to the next page, I think in both languages,
25 page 13 in B/C/S and page 11 in English, it should be.
1 So, Mr. Poparic, this image that we see now is the same thing as
2 image 11 in your report, isn't it?
3 A. It's on image 11, yes.
4 Q. Let's go now again over to page 14, the next page in B/C/S. So
5 the image we see here is identical to your image 16.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So you've ascertained the azimuth of the shell that hit the
8 school and killed the school teacher and three children using a
9 photograph of the wrong shell crater; that's what this shows?
10 A. No.
11 Q. No, Mr. Poparic, the caption on your image 16 says:
12 "The place where shell exploded at the corner of the building at
13 Trg Zavnobih."
14 That's not what this shell -- what this picture is of. Can you
15 see that or not?
16 A. I don't understand. Picture 16 and this picture are the same.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MS. EDGERTON: Could I have this -- these two investigative
19 files, please, admitted as Prosecution Exhibits, that would be 33148 and
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, before we do that --
22 Witness, the issue apparently is that Ms. Edgerton puts to you
23 that you used a picture from another incident to establish the angle of
24 descent in the incident you're describing in your report. Any comment to
25 that? Or do you think what you described here is the same as what the
1 investigative -- the photographic documentation is about?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have an explanation. The
3 photograph that I put in the report which is better quality was received
4 from KD477 [as interpreted]. It was taken at the Zavnobih Square and I
5 had a certain photo documentation file about the Zavnobih Square and they
6 are consistent, these pictures, with this one here. It says there that
7 there were pictures of the Rade Koncara Square which I didn't have but
8 these here show that this is it the Zavnobih Square, as suggested by the
10 JUDGE ORIE: A very long answer. Is the incident you're
11 describing in this report -- in your report, which shows image 16 as
12 basis for your assertion of the angle of descent, is that the same
13 incident as the photographic documentation deals with? That's the simple
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are the same photographs, but
16 I'm --
17 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... didn't ask you.
18 We can see that these are the same photographs.
19 Is it the same incident you're describing in this report where
20 you take to -- as an illustration image 16, is that the same incident as
21 is dealt with in the photographic documentation? There 's a simple yes
22 or no, I would say.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not simple. I deal with this
24 photograph, but I consider it's the incident I put here, not the one
25 that's written there. Over there, it said it's Rade Koncara Square;
1 that's not the incident I'm dealing with. I have evidence that that
2 belongs to the Zavnobih Square.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm talking about the incident. So you allow
4 for the possibility that you used image 16 as an illustration of what you
5 deal with there, although it comes from another -- a report related to
6 another incident?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those are the same photographs. I
8 used that photograph --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that was not what my question was about.
10 I didn't suggest that they are not the same photographs.
11 Mr. Lukic, if there's any -- any translation.
12 MR. LUKIC: Yes, this is totally -- completely misleading. The
13 same document we were shown page --
14 JUDGE ORIE: One second. One second. One second. Before you
15 start explaining everything, can we do it in the presence of the witness
16 or not?
17 MR. LUKIC: Yes. He just said: I have the evidence that this is
18 for the incident --
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- he talks about the street --
20 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: -- about a place.
22 MR. LUKIC: Yes. That's the -- this is -- those pictures were
23 for that incident, and I will show you in the same document.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Well, if the witness says it's the same
25 incident --
1 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: -- then we'll hear from you in re-examination
3 whether the photographic documentation --
4 MR. LUKIC: -- I don't have time because this is misleading.
5 This is misrepresentation of the evidence --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Speakers are kindly asked not to overlap for
7 purposes of B/C/S interpretation. Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... certainly start
9 with the most relevant and most important issues. If you say this is
10 misleading, then one --
11 MR. LUKIC: -- one page --
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- that should be one of the first issues you would
13 raise in re-examination --
14 MR. LUKIC: -- Your Honour, just to see one page before the page
15 was shown to us which -- which clarifies everything.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.
17 MR. LUKIC: So Ms. Edgerton can then explain why she didn't show
18 that page.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton, the Prosecution firmly takes the view
20 that the photographic documentation is about an incident different from
21 the incident described by the witness and illustrated by image 16?
22 MS. EDGERTON: And I think it would be useful or helpful to see
23 if we could have an English translation of the line underneath the
24 photograph that we have on the left-hand side. And --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then show it -- I mean, it's clear, it's clear
1 here are two completely opposing positions.
2 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: You say it's misleading.
4 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton is now certainly aware how important --
6 MR. LUKIC: -- she's jumping to another topic, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton is certainly aware, if she's misleading
8 the witness in this respect, that she'll be heavily criticised by the
9 Chamber. I leave it to that at this moment because you know misleading
10 from whatever side is something that the Chamber accepts. Whether it is
11 or not we'll find out on the basis of what follows, either questioning by
12 Ms. Edgerton or questions put to you, and I think Ms. Edgerton would like
13 to draw your attention to the title under the photograph. I don't know
14 whether you should call that a title but a description beneath the
15 photograph in the photographic documentation.
16 Ms. Edgerton, you may proceed.
17 MS. EDGERTON:
18 Q. Do you know where Rade Koncara Square is in relation to
19 Trg Zavnobih?
20 A. I do.
21 Q. It's about 500 metres away; right?
22 A. Right.
23 Q. So -- and you don't take issue with the fact that there was a
24 shelling on Rade Koncara Street on 9 November -- Rade Koncara Square on
25 9 November 1993, do you?
1 A. I have no such information.
2 Q. So when you made the allegation that police had covered up the
3 fact that there were two shells that landed on Trg Zavnobih, you weren't
4 referring to the shelling on Rade Koncara Street at all; is that what
5 you're saying -- Rade Koncara Square, pardon me?
6 A. I wasn't aware of that.
7 Q. And now going back to your answer to an earlier question which
8 was whether or not you had seen the statements of people who said they
9 heard the shell being fired from Nedzarici, I'd like to ask you this:
10 That would imply these witnesses were involved in the cover-up you're
11 alleging; right?
12 A. No, it is simply the way they perceived it.
13 Q. Well, you allege the police covered up the fact that two shells
14 had landed at Trg Zavnobih and that --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And that the origin of fire of Nedzarici was incorrect. That
17 would imply -- your allegation of a cover-up implies a conspiracy,
18 doesn't it?
19 A. I wouldn't say it is a conspiracy, but the fact that the other
20 shell was not shown is true.
21 Q. Well, when witnesses and survivors say the shells are fired from
22 Nedzarici, are you saying that they're lying or that they are part of the
24 A. No. No.
25 Q. Irrespective, then, of what you feel their perception is, you
1 chose to disregard that evidence; correct?
2 A. I was guided by the traces. That is the strongest proof for me.
3 I did not neglect anything. I simply analysed the traces as shown to me
4 and the policemen who brought the photographs said they originate from
5 the Zavnobih Square.
6 MS. EDGERTON: So -- no, I think I'll leave at that. I hope,
7 I've tried in my question, given the witness's answers with regard to
8 misunderstandings, I hope I've - for all of us - been able to come to the
9 bottom of that. We've found reports of a shelling 500 metres away on the
10 same day, and the witness now has said that he simply wasn't aware of
12 JUDGE ORIE: There's no need to repeat what the witness said.
13 Please. You are done?
14 MS. EDGERTON: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then we will -- now, yes.
16 MS. EDGERTON: Oh, just to put on the radar, Your Honours, as
17 discussed and requested, we've had a team working on assembling the
18 investigative files for the incidents we referred to earlier. We have a
19 tentative list here, Your Honours, but in the interests of accuracy, I
20 would just like to take a little bit more time to verify the contents and
21 put it in the format that Your Honours had requested.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll hear from you.
23 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
24 JUDGE ORIE: I interrupted you, Ms. Edgerton, when you tendered
25 two documents, that's 65 ter 33379, which would receive number?
1 THE REGISTRAR: P7617.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
3 The next one would be 65 ter 33148.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Receives Exhibit Number P7618, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
6 Mr. Lukic.
7 MR. LUKIC: No, no, don't remove this document from the screen.
8 Put it back. Now it's P7618, please.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. LUKIC: First I'll start with page 62 from our transcript
11 where Ms. Edgerton - it's page 62, line 7 - said in her questions:
12 "When witnesses and survivors say the shells," plural, "are fired
13 from Nedzarici ..."
14 So she is talking about plural. Then at page 61, 13, the
15 question was, I quote:
16 "So when you made the allegations that police had covered up the
17 fact that there were two shells that landed on Trg Zavnobih, you were not
18 referring to the shelling on Rade Koncara Square at all, were you?"
19 So obviously there is a plural.
20 In this document that is in front of us now, P7618 -- can we see
21 pages 12 and -- in B/C/S and 11 in English, and that was shown to the
22 witness as cover page for the photographs we saw. It was presented that
23 only should be some translation issue because in English it says
24 "Toncar," in B/C/S it says "Koncar," and this is -- it says "Foto
25 Dokumentacija," so "Photographic Documentation." Can we go back one page
1 back, please, so page 11 in B/C/S and 10 in English.
2 Before that page, there is another cover page, and it is -- this
3 cover page says that this is photo documentation number 431/93 of 9th
4 November 1993 of the shelling of Zavnobih Square, Alipasino Polje,
5 Sarajevo. So in front of the previous cover page we can find this cover
6 page, and on page 57 today's transcript, line 24, the witness said:
7 "I have an explanation. The photograph that I put in the report
8 which is better quality was received from KD477."
9 And it, actually, I think it should be KDZ477.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And KDZ --
11 MR. LUKIC: Is from Karadzic case.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. LUKIC: It was taken at the Zavnobih Square. And I have one
14 question for Mr. Poparic.
15 Re-examination by Mr. Lukic:
16 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, please explain to us how this came
17 from KDZ477.
18 A. Before the testimony, he brought a set of photographs about
19 various incidents, including a set of photographs concerning the incident
20 at Zavnobih Square.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What do you mean by "he brought a set of
22 photographs"? Who is "he"?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is Witness KDZ --
24 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... otherwise we
25 have to go to private session.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You're referring to a witness in that case?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the Karadzic case. Before the
4 testimony, he brought a set of photographs.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I just wanted to know who is "he." You explained
6 it. Thank you.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. You say he brought a set of photographs?
9 A. Covering different incidents, including the photographs of this
10 incident, and I relied on them in my report.
11 Q. Therefore, photograph number 16, who provided it and what
12 incident does it concern?
13 A. It was received from KDZ477 related to the incident at
14 Zavnobih Square.
15 Q. Given that we have two photographs 16 in the report, this one is
16 found on page 329 of the English version. I would like to conclude with
17 this exhibit.
18 Let us move on from day one. At the time I requested was cut
19 short, hence I would kindly ask you to try and move more -- move along
20 more speedily?
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one question. This investigative
22 report, Ms. Edgerton, from where you took the photographs, who has
23 uploaded this?
24 MS. EDGERTON: We've uploaded the one that we've used, and we
25 took everything that was uploaded within that -- that we had been given
1 within that ERN range.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Because I was looking at a glance at it. The whole
3 of the report is apparently about the incident the witness describes in
4 his report. At the same time, the photo documentation which has two
5 title pages with two different number.
6 It looks, Mr. Lukic, as if the photo documentation, the second
7 title page, has a different number compared with the other title page;
8 and therefore, the reason why I'm asking is I'm wondering how you compose
9 a document which deals with two different matters. The whole of the
10 report about 431-93 and then the photo documentation about 430-93, and
11 then to expect that if -- I don't know who put this together, that
12 someone else would immediately notice that and not be misled, not perhaps
13 that much by your questions but at least by the composition of this file
14 is very optimistic.
15 Do you have any explanation for -- for putting this together?
16 Because I do understand that it was the Prosecution who put this together
17 and the ERN range may be -- indeed, is a sequence, but the numbering and
18 mentioning of the place where the incident happened certainly is not the
20 MS. EDGERTON: No, it's not the same, Your Honour. And we
21 noticed the same thing. A discrete section within a much larger file
22 and, in fairness, we gave the whole file. It's not us who put the things
23 together. They're scanned into the system as they are received.
24 JUDGE ORIE: But you are asking questions. You are giving to
25 this witness a photograph and say: Look you took it from the wrong file,
1 whereas it is found in a context which really deals with a file which
2 deals with the incident you are -- he is describing in his report; and
3 then surprisingly at the end we finds photographs of a different
4 incident. So the one who put together this 65 ter and only looked at ERN
5 numbers has not done his job properly because there's more than ERN
6 numbers. There's also the internal logic, even the preceding page going
7 to the other incident, different numbers, and nevertheless they are
8 presented without any comment as to the inconsistency of its composition.
9 MS. EDGERTON: And I should have made a comment at the outset
10 about the overarching composition, and --
11 JUDGE ORIE: What you should have done, I'm just putting this
12 question to you, and I better understand the emotional expression by
13 Mr. Lukic, as a matter of fact. Still - and that's, of course, what is
14 of greatest importance to this Chamber - is whether you can draw any
15 conclusions on the basis of these photographs for an incident which may
16 not be the same. I still do not know yet who composed it and whether --
17 from the holes in the pages, it seems that the photographs are more or
18 less taken from the same file because the holes in the pages are
19 different in the other part of the report. But certainly this is a
20 matter which should not have been introduced the way you did it,
21 especially not if you were aware of the problems that become clear to us
23 I leave to that.
24 Mr. Lukic, this time will not be deduced [sic] from your time.
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you for noticing the
1 number; I didn't because I didn't have time. I noticed the different
2 cover pages.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Even the holes in the pages, you can clearly see
4 them in the photographic --
5 MR. LUKIC: And if we can go just cover -- several pages in
6 front, we'll see that this is the case of 431. And if we -- page 8, for
7 example, in B/C/S, and probably page 9 in English, if we can have on our
8 screen, we can see that it deals with number 431. So the only page
9 extra -- the only page extra in this file is that that allegedly shows
10 the cover page on which it says 430 and it does not. The pictures, the
11 rest of the pictures after that cover page are from this file, and it was
12 said by the witness that it was brought as such by KDZ477.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I've drawn your attention to the holes in the pages
14 which suggests, as a matter of fact, that the photographs are linked not
15 to the first title page, but rather, to the second. I say "suggest." I
16 don't know yet. We have to carefully look at it, but you see that the
17 holes are made twice apparently and are in a position which does not
18 match with the page -- the holes in the pages in the previous portions of
19 this document.
20 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, but the picture --
21 JUDGE ORIE: We don't have to discuss it now but --
22 MR. LUKIC: But the picture with -- the specific picture with
23 that marking, with that explosion marking, does not have those double
25 JUDGE ORIE: You mean the picture in the report or --
1 MR. LUKIC: In this document. I'll -- I cannot -- it's a bit ...
2 can we go to page 14, please, in B/C/S and I don't have English. This
3 picture does not have holes, does not have double holes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: It's cut off at the side and there is -- for the
5 upper hole, there is at least some trace of what may be a second hole
6 which, in view of the position of the holes, may have fallen off at the
7 lower part.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It shouldn't be enlarged. Please go back to the
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Correct.
12 JUDGE ORIE: We will have to further analyse that, but there are
13 various aspects of these documents which require special attention, that
14 is, numbers, that is holes that is --
15 Let's move on. I think I expressed already the view of the
16 Chamber on the way in which this was introduced and also my understanding
17 for your emotional reaction, Mr. Lukic.
18 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: But emotions are now under control again I hope.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Let me just add one thing. The Prosecution could
21 bring the original document, the original file, to the courtroom so
22 that -- if it is an available so that we have a look at it.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.
24 MS. EDGERTON: I would do anything to help and certainly had no
25 intention of misleading.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then to the extent possible, we'd like to see the
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, Mr. Poparic, on day one, you were
6 asked something about the locations in question and whether you visited
7 all of them. It was our transcript page 40560, lines 17 through 21.
8 The changed locations - because obviously, for example, in
9 incident F-2 there were additions or extensions to the house - did it
10 affect your findings and conclusions?
11 A. No, it didn't.
12 Q. Let me ask something about plotting the scene with the use of GPS
13 co-ordinates. It was put to you that you did not go to the exact
14 locations assisted by co-ordinates. It is transcript page 40565, line 5.
15 And from line 14 on of the same page, you were asked whether you ignored
16 the co-ordinates provided. You answered the question but, in my view,
17 did not complete your answer. I would like that ask you to explain why
18 you believe the GPS co-ordinates were not necessary for your report.
19 A. The GPS co-ordinates were not crucial for my report because there
20 's no precise information about the position of the shooter and of the
21 victim as at the time of the incident. The co-ordinates, based on the
22 GPS system, were marked by Mr. Van der Weijden. I accept it is a very
23 good thing to do because it enables anyone else to come to the same
24 location. I did not have a GPS device, since I could not be provided
25 with one by the Defence and I didn't use it. Mr. Van der Weijden also
1 did not rely on the co-ordinates in any of his calculations because there
2 were no valid elements required to make any calculations relying on GPS
4 Q. Very well. Do you believe you went to a wrong crime scene in any
5 of these instances?
6 A. No.
7 Q. How familiar are you with Sarajevo?
8 A. Very well. I lived there for a long time, and I know all of
9 these locations.
10 Q. Thank you. Let us move on. I will skip over a few things in
11 order to move along more quickly. I will ask you something about your
12 education because you were asked about it today.
13 You were asked whether you received any formal education in
14 criminal investigations, formal training. It is at transcript
15 page 40570.
16 Did you conduct any investigations, not necessarily criminal
17 investigations but any similar ones?
18 A. Yes, in certain extraordinary circumstances - such as different
19 technical issues in the process of manufacture - we had to determine the
20 cause of such problems and such investigations are very complex. I
21 worked on a number of such cases, including a case where a warehouse of
22 ammunition was blown up. In all of those cases, we were able to
23 establish the cause of incident.
24 Q. What is your profession?
25 A. I am an engineer. I specialised in ballistics. And after the
1 university, I completed reserve school for officers and was later made a
2 member of the armed forces who retired in 2006 with the rank of
3 colonel [as interpreted]. The engineering academy I completed was the
4 Military Engineering Academy.
5 Q. It was recorded that you retired as a colonel.
6 A. No, I was lieutenant-colonel.
7 Q. It was recorded that you specialised in ballistics. I think you
8 said something else as well, although I forgot what it was. You said you
9 were an engineer specialised in ballistics?
10 A. After that, at the Military Technical Academy in Zagreb, I
11 completed the school for reserve officers.
12 Q. It is recorded now. Thank you.
13 Let us now look at -- well, it's actually time for a break.
14 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a break. And we'd like to see you back
15 in 20 minutes.
16 [The witness stands down]
17 JUDGE ORIE: We'll resume at 25 minutes to 2.00.
18 --- Recess taken at 1.15 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 1.37 p.m.
20 JUDGE ORIE: We'll briefly move into private session.
21 [Private session]
11 Pages 40861-40862 redacted. Private session.
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
24 Before I give you the floor, Mr. Tieger, of course, we have also
25 considered an extended session tomorrow, but for many reasons that was
1 just impossible; otherwise we would have perhaps have sought to resolve
2 it in that way.
3 Mr. Tieger.
4 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President. This concerns a matter
5 that Mr. McCloskey has dealt with for quite a while, so it's unfortunate
6 he can't be here, but he is away at the moment, so -- because of the
7 timing I will deal with it. And it concerns the Trial Chamber's request
8 back in December 2014 about whether or not there was a recording of an
9 interview or interviews conducted of Mr. Milutinovic by NIOD [Realtime
10 transcript read in error "NIAD"] about which the witness noted and I
11 would observe somewhat tentatively:
12 "As far as I remember, there was just the hand-held -- it was a
13 long time ago, 14 years ago, and they did record it."
14 And so the Trial Chamber asked us to follow up on that; that was
15 a long process. Most recently on the 29th of October, Mr. McCloskey
16 reported to the Trial Chamber about the status of those efforts and
17 proposed that in view of the circumstances the Prosecution would consider
18 filing a request for an order by the Court to the Dutch authorities in
19 this case, the public prosecution service. However, we did continue to
20 communicate with the authorities and it may have been the imminent
21 prospect of such that order that galvanised them, but in any event we
22 received yesterday a letter stating that they had been by NIOD that the
23 archives had been searched for the requested audio recordings of the
24 interviews with Mr. Milutinovic and, as a result - although they did
25 again come across the materials about which we are aware - they did not
1 find any audio recordings of those interviews. And they also noted, I
2 should mention, that not all interviews were audiotaped, and that was
3 particularly true for the interviews with "the Bosnian subjects."
4 So -- although, of course, we remain in the Trial Chamber's
5 hands, it is no longer our intention to seek an order from the
6 Trial Chamber and we would consider that we had followed up on the
7 request by the Chamber regarding whether or not there was such an
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. If you just give me one second.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, there being no reason for us not to
12 believe the information given, it -- I mean, you have done everything to
13 meet our request; and therefore, the Chamber, at this moment, is not
14 inclined to take any further. Please proceed.
15 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President. The second --
16 MR. LUKIC: Only -- I'm sorry.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. LUKIC: Only maybe spelling of this organisation should be
20 MR. TIEGER: By the way, I should mention and failed to mention
21 that we did upload this for the benefit of the Chamber the letter -- for
22 the benefit of the Chamber and the parties as 65 ter 33378.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And it's --
25 JUDGE ORIE: The spelling, it's -- as a native Dutch speaker I
1 would pronounce as NIOD rather than NIAD.
2 MR. TIEGER: And I should have known better myself, my apologies.
3 The second matter is much more along the lines of a quick
4 housekeeping matter. Ms. Edgerton noted quickly at the end of her
5 examination that we were assembling a table, as had been discussed
6 earlier, of investigative files for incidents referred to in the
7 witness's report and -- as had been done by analogy in the shelling with
8 the shelling expert with Ms. Subotic. And I simply wanted to make sure
9 we met the Trial Chamber's expectations on timing. Did you expect that
10 tomorrow morning? By the close of business tomorrow? I just didn't want
11 there -- us to have something in mind by a way of responsive time that
12 didn't conform with the Trial Chamber's expectations.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: When do you think you could complete that?
15 MR. TIEGER: I don't see it as any -- I'm not aware of any reason
16 why we couldn't have it at some point tomorrow.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I think it would be good, since tomorrow we may have
18 one or two hours extra that already that list is on our table, that
19 Mr. Lukic looks at it, and that we see how to proceed with that
20 evidentiary material which is -- well, linked to the expert report.
21 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ORIE: So if that would be tomorrow, then preferably not at
23 ten minutes past 2.00 but perhaps a bit earlier in the morning then, so
24 that Mr. Lukic can have a look at it. And if you have a draft or a first
25 draft, you send it already to him perhaps even today.
1 MR. TIEGER: Understood. Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes?
3 Then could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, please proceed.
6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, you were asked about the incident
8 F-5 of 2nd November 1993. I will now show you a document which is now
9 marked P07592.
10 When you see the photograph, you will remember. It was put to
11 you that you marked the place wrong by 130 metres. I think you had
12 started to answer, but I would like to ask you -- you started to answer
13 at 4085 -- [In English] 40585.
14 [Interpretation] Line 4 and on. And I want to ask you: Why did
15 you believe it was not necessary to change this part of your finding?
16 A. [No interpretation]
17 THE INTERPRETER: The witness's microphone is off.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, perhaps you switch the button so that your
19 microphone is on. Yes.
20 THE WITNESS: Okay.
21 JUDGE ORIE: After so many days in court, you are already able to
22 handle matters without the assistance of the usher.
23 Please proceed.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believed I did not need to change
25 anything because I had conducted the whole analysis precisely from this
1 place up there, and I found later that I really marked in this image, 88,
2 this spot that was 130 metres away, but that's a purely technical error
3 made during the drawing. The entire analysis was made for the upper
4 point that is the real place of the incident.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask here one clarification.
6 I remember that you had these sketches - that's part of your
7 analysis - but that certainly goes from the lower position, not from the
8 higher-up position, isn't t?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. That's what I said. I
10 said that through a technical error when making the sketch, and I can
11 explain how that functions, how the error could occur. But the entire
12 analysis and the directions that I drew, they applied to the position
13 where the incident really happened. What was shown on the image is a
14 technical error, but I stand by all the assertions that I put in my
16 JUDGE ORIE: That means that from that higher-up point you find
17 exactly the same obstacles in terms of line of sight, et cetera, as you
18 would finds it from the lower point, because the lower point gives a
19 wide, open area, whereas the higher-up point where there is far more --
20 far more houses, et cetera, I have some difficulties in understanding
21 that the outcome would be exactly the same.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably not. I did not go to the
23 lower point, but according to the position I conclude that the view would
24 be much broader. The one that I drew here, the one that I marked, I
25 marked it to show the view from the place of the incident. Everything
1 applies to the place of the incident. And by technical error, I marked a
2 spot a bit lower.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
4 MR. LUKIC:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Did you mark this lower spot at this photograph
6 only or in other photographs? Could you just explain how this technical
7 error occurred.
8 A. I worked in a programme call Corel. I upload the photograph and
9 then I apply lines. When all the lines have been applied, I group them,
10 and they become one feature; and then I create a new photograph showing
11 this group of lines. But sometimes it happens when you first draw these
12 lines if the mouse moves a little, the lines also move, and I
13 inadvertently put them in this point, because when you move one, you move
14 all of them together. That's the only way I can think this mistake could
15 have happened.
16 Q. Thank you. In the Karadzic case, what mistake was pointed out to
17 you? Do you remember what was put to you today?
18 A. The discussion was not about this place; if that had been
19 noticed, I would have corrected it. The only objection was to the width
20 of the field. I said at the time that to me it is not crucial. I can
21 agree, it could be a little wider or a little narrower, as you wish,
22 because the point of this image is not to show the width of the field of
23 vision. It was just to show the two sides, the two warring sides, from
24 which this place is visible. That's why I didn't correct anything in
25 this photograph because, in my view, it doesn't change anything to what
1 has been done.
2 Q. Let us look at your report now, D01330.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We'll need only the English version,
4 because we need one photograph.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Which page?
6 MR. LUKIC: We need page 123, please, in English. And if we
7 could enlarge this photo from this page.
8 Q. [Interpretation] This is a photograph from the video made by the
9 OTP investigator, Barry Hogan. On this photograph, could you please mark
10 the territory controlled by the BH Army, visible from this place, of
12 A. Across here. You see this lamppost and perhaps a bit further, in
13 this direction.
14 Q. Put number 1, please.
15 A. Accidentally it looks like 4. Can it stay 4?
16 Q. We'll say --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Could the usher assist. We still need the
18 assistance of the usher now and then, and then you make it a 1.
19 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
20 MR. LUKIC: If the usher can change the colour, please.
21 Q. [Interpretation] Could you now mark the territory under the
22 control of the VRS.
23 A. It would be here, going further.
24 Q. And put number 2 now, please.
25 A. [Marks]
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. LUKIC: Can we save this image, please, as next Defence
4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Image 85 on page 123 of document D1330 marked by
6 the witness receives Exhibit Number D1339, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
8 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
9 Can we now see from the same document next photo, it's on page
10 125, please. So we need upper, upper picture, or image.
11 Q. [Interpretation] On this photograph, Mr. Poparic, can you explain
12 in what way you established the territory from which the place of the
13 incident is visible?
14 A. At the time when I was there, a lot of buildings have been built
15 that are very specific, very characteristic, so I could use them. This
16 photograph is not the best. In the previous one, we could see the left
17 side too, and we can see there is a good view to the target. And this
18 one is made closer to the place of the incident, or maybe it was zoomed
19 closer. In the previous photograph, we saw that it is a broad area
20 where, in the distance, you can see the buildings, and based on the
21 angle, I drew the lines roughly. And also using the available separation
22 line from the 1995 map, I drew these lines of separation and thus
23 obtained a clear picture what was on the VRS side, what was on the ABH
24 side, and which zone was neutral. That was the method I used.
25 Q. Speaking of which, it's not among the questions, but when you
1 mentioned this 1995 map and the incident was in 1993, did you have any
2 way of determining how often separation lines shifted in Sarajevo?
3 A. According to the documents available to me, there were no major
4 shifts, but when you get down onto the ground, you are able to see where
5 it could have been because there are rail tracks and roads which
6 represent certain restrictions. That's a natural position of the
7 separation line, and the separation line follows this natural boundary.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Irrespective of whether the lines changed, could the
10 witness specify which 1995 map he used to mark that photograph?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Footnote 206, working map of the
12 chief of division of the land forces, 08282.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, is that in evidence before us?
14 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: That working map, is that in evidence?
16 MS. EDGERTON: It is. I can give you a number in just a moment.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Meanwhile proceed, Mr. Lukic.
20 Yes, Ms. Edgerton.
21 MS. EDGERTON: I think P2952, page 1.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
25 Can we see ...
1 [Defence counsel confer]
2 MR. LUKIC: Can we see P01130, please. Only English version.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's on the screen.
4 MR. LUKIC: P. This is P.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sorry, you're right.
6 MR. LUKIC: It's very similar number, Mr. Van der Weijden's
7 report and this report.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You're absolutely right.
9 MS. EDGERTON: I'm sorry, but we do have a public, redacted
10 version of that report so that this could be broadcast. It's, as I've
11 mentioned before, 65 ter number 28541B.
12 JUDGE ORIE: If we would use that, Mr. Lukic, then --
13 MR. LUKIC: I will use only one image from that.
14 JUDGE ORIE: If it's just image, then I think there should be
15 no -- I don't know what image but ...
16 MR. LUKIC: It's image on page 32, so if you want to check. I
17 don't think that we have to go to the private session because of this
19 JUDGE ORIE: I haven't looked at it. In general I would suggest
20 to the parties that not to take any risk in this respect, but if it's
21 just a picture, nothing more, then we could proceed.
22 MR. LUKIC: So we need page 32 in English version. Yeah. And
23 maybe just enlarge the picture without the text.
24 MS. EDGERTON: And this can be broadcast. It's not been redacted
25 out of the public version.
1 JUDGE ORIE: So then let's proceed.
2 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
3 Q. [Interpretation] Are you familiar with this photograph,
4 Mr. Poparic?
5 A. Yes, I am. It comes from Mr. Weijden's report.
6 Q. What can we see in it? What place is this?
7 A. This is the place next to the fence we saw on the previous
8 picture seen just below the place of the incident, and the view is
9 towards the VRS positions. We can also see some very specific features
10 and buildings which assisted me in determining the direction. This is
11 not the view from the place of the incident, just so as not to get
13 Q. That was going to be my next question. I have to go to another
14 document, but could you please remember the angle.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Next we need to have a look at P7593. Do you know what we can
17 see on the upper photograph?
18 A. The upper photograph is mine, and below it is
19 Mr. Van der Weijden's photograph. That's how I understand it.
20 Q. We can see that Mr. Van der Weijden arrived at a much smaller
21 angle than the one you marked, where we can see both VRS and ABiH
23 A. That is partially correct. Mr. Weijden marked the area visible
24 from VRS positions, and the previous picture showed that. We see the
25 angles of 57 and 37 being the bearing taken from the point in the field,
1 and next to the fence is the 217 degrees angle as well as 237 degrees.
2 So the difference is 180 degrees. He marked these directions which
3 assisted him in determining the visibility angle from VRS positions. He
4 did not specify whether any of it could be seen from ABiH-controlled
6 Q. Would this angle have been the same had it been measured from the
7 place where Ms. Nafa Taric was standing when she was injured?
8 A. There would be a small difference because the place of the
9 incident is between 10 and 15 metres away from that wall, and there is a
10 small incline. The difference would be small but we wouldn't be able to
11 notice it on the image because it would 1 to 2 degrees. In -- basically,
12 it isn't that important because it is established that there was
13 visibility from VRS positions.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put one question to the witness, although
15 we are approaching the end of today's hearing.
16 The upper map and the markings on it, it's based on a wrong
17 location; is that true? Do I understand your testimony previously today
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I claim that that the red,
20 blue, and purple lines were created based on what can be seen from the
21 place of incident with -- or due to a technical error, they were drawn in
22 the image slightly below that location. I think my finding --
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Poparic, the yellow box on top of that map
24 puts the incident at a place where you previously said that was done by
25 mistake; correct?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. If you look at the photograph
2 with the lines shown of 135 metres, you could see that the two buildings
3 are very similar in shape; and by mistake, I simply moved it slightly
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This was not my question, but you agree that the
6 point in the yellow box is the wrong location? You agreed to that.
7 Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I have another --
9 When did you find out --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, correct, no problem.
11 JUDGE ORIE: When did you find out that it was the wrong
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When Ms. Edgerton saw that. I
14 simply didn't check because I was quite certain I marked it in the right
15 spot. In my testimony in Karadzic, no one pointed out that mistake to
16 me. Therefore, I did not realise there was anything wrong.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'm puzzled by one of your previous answers
18 because you said: I plotted it wrongly but I had -- I knew the right
19 place, and all my analysis is on the basis of the place where that person
20 stood. If you only found out here in court that you took the wrong
21 place, how could you possibly have based your analysis on the right
22 place, which you didn't even know until two days ago? I'm puzzled by
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We were speaking at cross-purposes.
25 I saw here that the mesh I created with the lines was placed next to the
1 building in the yellow box, but that is not the right location; however,
2 all of the values I calculated were analysed from the location itself --
3 JUDGE ORIE: But as you said before, it had -- and you started
4 even explaining it again, that you took the wrong place because that
5 house looked that much like the one you had seen on the photographs and,
6 therefore, I'm -- you say you plotted it wrongly, you found that out only
7 a couple of days ago, you have explained to us that you took the wrong
8 position because the house looked so similar, and now you're telling us
9 that the whole analysis was based on the accurate place, the right place,
10 and that it was only a technical error in your report that you drew the
11 lines through a computer programme slightly wrongly. I'm -- I'm lost, to
12 be quite honest.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. Perhaps we misunderstand
14 each other. I explained how the error was created. When I drew the
15 lines from the place where the incident took place, in the computer
16 programme I grouped the lines as a single object, and then can you move
17 them all together, without changing a thing.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By error, I moved them and when I
20 corrected it, I also did not correct it to the right position, but the
21 angles were determined on the basis of what I established on the spot.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you have not addressed my concern,
23 unfortunately, but it's time to adjourn for the day.
24 Witness, we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.30 in
25 the morning in this same courtroom, and we expect to conclude your
1 testimony tomorrow. I again instruct you that you should not speak or
2 communicate in whatever way with whomever about your testimony, whether
3 already given or still to be given. You may now follow the usher.
4 [The witness stands down]
5 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day, and we resume tomorrow,
6 Thursday, the 5th of November, 9.30 in the morning, in this same
7 courtroom, I.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.20 p.m.,
9 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 5th day of
10 November, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.