1 Thursday, 5 November 2015
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.31 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 The Chamber was informed that the preliminaries were postponed
12 until later. Therefore, there are no preliminaries anymore.
13 Yes, Ms. Edgerton.
14 MS. EDGERTON: Not a preliminary, just an indication that in
15 response to Your Honours' request yesterday for original materials in
16 respect of the document that was marked at P7618, thanks to the support
17 and co-operation of colleagues in different sections of the building, we
18 have, in court with us, the originals of those materials for
19 Your Honours' inspection, and I just wanted you to be notified of that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'd like to have a look at it.
21 Has the Defence had an opportunity to look at it?
22 MS. EDGERTON: Not yet, Your Honour. And I just wanted to put
23 this out and we're in Your Honours' hands as to how to procedurally you
24 want to have a look at these things.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I think, as a matter of fact, we first allow the
1 Defence to have a look at it and then the Chamber will look at it.
2 Unless there's any objection by the Defence.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: If Mr. Lukic heard you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then, sooner or later, he'll find it on his
5 desk and he'll ask himself what to do with it.
6 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MS. EDGERTON: And, Your Honours, I would -- my colleague has
9 another -- has a part of the document --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
11 MS. EDGERTON: -- we discussed.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps the usher could already fetch the other
13 part. Because I think what we saw yesterday started with the number 2,
14 where I usually start counting at number 1.
15 MS. EDGERTON: And if I may, Your Honours, because we've -- this
16 document comes to you today in parts, I'd like to just briefly read out
17 where those parts come from so that we're fully transparent about how the
18 document has been used, if I may.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Would you like do that or would you like to do that
20 when you further introduce them, the parts?
21 MS. EDGERTON: I'd actually like to do it now, before
22 Your Honours and my friend have a more detailed look at the documents.
23 So 65 ter number -- what was 65 ter number 33148 and is now P7618
24 has an ERN range, the range of the entire document is 00269212 to
1 JUDGE ORIE: It's sequential.
2 MS. EDGERTON: Yes. So the originals of portions of that
3 document have been admitted as exhibits in prior cases, and the range
4 00269215 to 00269218 was admitted as Exhibit P1840 in the Galic case;
5 while 00269223 to 00269226 has been admitted as P586 in the
6 Slobodan Milosevic case.
7 Now, the Galic exhibit I just mentioned consists of pages 4 to 7
8 of P7618; while the Milosevic exhibit I mentioned consists of the cover
9 sleeve and three photographs, pages 12 to 15, of P7618.
10 Now, it may not necessarily make anything clearer, but what I'd
11 felt I needed to do is put on the record the history of the handling of
12 that ERN range so that Your Honours can understand why it comes to you
13 today in parts.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And I see that the ERN range starting with
16 00269212 starts with a page with a number 2 on it. I wonder, of course,
17 where the number 1 preceding that would be.
18 MS. EDGERTON: We'll do what we can immediately to find it for
19 Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that the parties will have a look at
23 it, because it still seems even as it is split up in two portions that
24 it's still, here and there, mixed up one file with another one.
25 That's -- and I invite the parties to also carefully compare the
1 description of the incident with the photographs, the photographs which
2 appear under a different number. And from what I think I saw yesterday,
3 that the photographs may not be about the same incident as the remainder
4 of the file is, and I especially draw your attention to the fact that in
5 the description, I think the tiles on the ground are described as being
6 40 centimetres by 60 centimetres, which is a different shape from a --
7 it's rectangular rather than a -- than a square. And also there's a
8 description about what is against the buildings to protect the ground
9 floor. In the description, I think, it's 5 metres concrete high,
10 whereas, on the pictures we see certainly some protection of a building
11 but that also is, if you compare that with the persons walking by,
12 certainly would not be 5 metres high and most likely is not of concrete.
13 So I'm wondering still whether it's not two still mixed up,
14 portions, the one dealing with one file and the other one dealing with
15 two files, as a matter of fact.
16 I leave it to the parties to see whether they can reach agreement
17 whether -- and I think that's the main question, whether these
18 photographs as we find them in these -- in this photo documentation,
19 whether that is photo documentation which relates to what is elsewhere
20 described in this investigative file.
21 Mr. Lukic.
22 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. One more thing. We have
23 cover page then that there was photo documentation in the case 431/93.
24 Where is that?
25 JUDGE ORIE: I think that is also a very valid question. Let me
1 just see --
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lukic, could you just repeat the number.
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. The number is 431/93.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's corrected now.
5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
6 MS. EDGERTON: Um, the file that was 65 ter number 33379 and
7 1D00742 contains -- and is now P7617 contains the photos related to not
8 only 431/93, the contemporaneous investigation, but also the
9 reconstruction of the crime scene that took place in 1995.
10 JUDGE ORIE: But that's not in what we see -- look at now.
11 MS. EDGERTON: No. This is -- what you see now is related to
12 P7618, the subsequent document.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then -- but I think the question we have a
14 page in the -- if I could say so, in the 431 case, which says "5 foto
15 dokumentacija" and then 431/93 and the date and mentioning the Trg
16 Zavnobih, which means that the -- at least suggests that there has been a
17 photo documentation of what is described in that file, and I think that's
18 what Mr. Lukic is seeking, whether that is available as well.
19 MS. EDGERTON: It's our position that those photos are what are
20 contained in P7617.
21 MR. LUKIC: That one is done in 1995.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Your microphone was not ...
23 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Mr. Lukic, I think you referred to the fact
24 that that is a document which was created in 1995. Now, in itself --
25 MR. LUKIC: But, Your Honour, we have page 16 at least in B/C/S
1 version. It says: Date of taking pictures, 16th of November, 1995.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. LUKIC: In the document my learned friend just quoted. So
4 it's not from 1993.
5 JUDGE ORIE: No. But an investigative file can be created at a
6 later point in time, not before the incident. We'll have to carefully
7 look at it and I hope you have some confidence, Mr. Lukic, that we're
8 really carefully looking to sort this out --
9 MR. LUKIC: I do have confidence --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Whether the file gives any suggestion that there
11 must be already a photo documentation from 1993, or whether the file,
12 rather, has -- gives clues to the photo documentation being produced only
13 in 1995. We'll have to carefully look at that.
14 I'll now return the two -- I keep them nicely apart. And I think
15 it's now time for the --
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One should be returned to the Prosecution and
18 the other one stays in the hands of Madam Registrar because it's in her
19 custody as admitted exhibits in another case.
20 Any other matter?
21 MS. EDGERTON: Just to be helpful, Your Honour, if everyone goes
22 to P7617, page 8, you see there the photos from 1993. I just wanted to
23 point that out.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see.
25 MS. EDGERTON: In fact, page 8 is the cover page, and the photos
1 begin at page 9.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We'll ...
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Obviously only in B/C/S.
4 MS. EDGERTON: That's correct.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then I --
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we go to the next page in B/C/S.
7 Next page in B/C/S perhaps.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Next page in English so we can see what's the
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Then we have to go to the next page in B/C/S as
11 well. Because, in English, it's now photo 3.
12 How many more photos are in this file?
13 JUDGE ORIE: I think that's the last one, but ...
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If there's another one, then move to that.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. On page 16, another series of photos appear,
16 and I think this second series bears a date in 1995; whereas, the first
17 series, Mr. Lukic, at least on the cover page, bears the year 1993 and it
18 looks as if --
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we go to page 16. The next --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Here we see the new year.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And the corresponding page in English, please.
22 Obviously a reconstruction of the scene made in 1995 with respect
23 to the event on 9th November 1993.
24 Can we go to the next photograph, if there's another one.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we now have a first impression of what is
1 there. I think it raises quite a few other questions as well comparing
2 description with photographs, but for the time being, let's move on, and
3 let's have the witness enter the courtroom.
4 MR. LUKIC: To continue with this topic, is it possible if we --
5 if Ms. Stewart could play for us 1D05911, which is V000-0325-1-A.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: And what are we supposed to look at?
8 MR. LUKIC: This incident, I would start from the -- from the
9 page 8, where it's cover page, saying that it's from 1993, and then I
10 would go to page 9, where we can see those concrete barricades and on
11 that movie we would try to show the real place.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
13 MR. TIEGER: It's my impression now that we're sort of bouncing
14 from point to point by the counsel, which presumably implicates the
15 reason why the Court wanted us to get together so we could come to an
16 understanding of what we agreed on, perhaps what was in dispute and bring
17 it back to the Court rather than going through that process in real time
18 and in court.
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 MR. LUKIC: I need the witness for this. I'm sorry.
21 JUDGE ORIE: What -- I understand that you would like to play a
22 video, Mr. Lukic, and you seek the assistance of the OTP to have that
23 played so that you can put questions to the witness.
24 Good morning, Mr. Poparic. Before we continue, I'd like to
25 remind you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration that you'll
1 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We did some
2 puzzles over the last 20 minutes, but Mr. Lukic will now put further
3 questions to you.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
6 MR. LUKIC: First, I don't know if we can get that help from
7 Ms. Stewart, if she can play that one or not.
8 MS. EDGERTON: We could that but we need to know from where what
9 the time code is of what my friend would like played.
10 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. The time code is 8 minutes, 57 seconds up
11 to 9 minute, 15 seconds.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, perhaps -- I take it that you want the
13 witness to have a look at a video that will now be played, Mr. Lukic.
14 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could you carefully watch your screen and look at a
16 video that will start in a second.
17 MR. LUKIC: But before we play the video, can we see on our
18 screens in the e-court P7611, please. It's on our screens. We need
19 page 8 in B/C/S, at least. It's not what I have in e-court as page 8. I
20 just checked.
21 JUDGE ORIE: B/C/S in e-court, page 8, is the cover page of the
22 photo documentation.
23 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
24 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Are we looking at the right document, Mr. Lukic.
1 MR. LUKIC: I need P07617.
2 WITNESS: MILE POPARIC [Resumed]
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 Re-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]
5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, it is stated in the document that
6 it is a photo file created for the incident which took place at Zavnobih
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see the next page.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so, Witness, is this the first time you
10 see this document?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see this document for the first
12 time in this format. I did have a copy, but nothing could be seen in it.
13 The initial photographs I was able to view were received from the witness
14 I mentioned yesterday. I did have a copy previously which was too poor
15 to be able to see anything.
16 MR. LUKIC: May I continue, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
18 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
19 Q. [Interpretation] So on this first photograph following the cover
20 page, we can see that it says, "photo 1: Zavnobih Trg," where the shell
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And we see the concrete slabs.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. I will next show you a video with Ms. Stewart's assistance.
1 We'll have a look at 1D05911, starting with 8:57 and ending at 9:15.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... tell Ms. Stewart
3 to stop the video. And can we start, please.
4 [Video-clip played]
5 MR. LUKIC: Can you stop.
6 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, have you seen this video
8 A. Yes. And I also took a still from it which I included in my
9 report. If it is useful, I can indicate it for you. It is photograph 14
10 of page 309 in the B/C/S. It is very similar to this particular still.
11 It is the classroom where the children and the teacher were injured and
13 Q. The lighter part of the picture at the top, what is it?
14 A. Well, conditionally put, it is a window. There were boards
15 against the wall but not all the way up to the ceiling so as to leave
16 some daylight. On the side we can see the board full of shrapnel holes,
17 the shrapnel killed and injured three children and the teacher.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness kindly
19 repeat his very last sentence.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Your last sentence was not heard.
22 A. The shrapnel that flew through the boards injured or killed three
23 children and the teacher and one child was hurt while being outside the
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: For the record, we are looking at the still at
2 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And when you said these are the shrapnel holes, you
4 are pointing at the small white dots or dots to the upper left side of
5 the --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is light coming through.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. On the wall, when we keep viewing it, we'll see some small holes.
10 What are they in this still?
11 A. These are shrapnel holes on the boards placed against the
12 windows. These premises used to be shops before the war and these used
13 to be shop windows. Some boards were put against them during the war,
14 some of them were concrete, but elsewhere they were made of tin,
15 actually, such as the type of tin used in construction.
16 Q. Where we see the shrapnel holes, what kind of boarding could that
17 have been? Could there have been concrete slabs outside?
18 A. There were concrete and tin slabs outside.
19 Q. But the part where the shrapnel flew through?
20 A. In that part there were only tin boards because shrapnel could
21 not go through concrete. If we look at some other photographs showing
22 the concrete obstacles, they are some 20 centimetres thick. The tin
23 boards on the other hand, were brought in and it was the -- of the
24 construction type. The shrapnel could have not gone through the concrete
25 slabs and even if had gone through there would have large pieces of
1 concrete strewn about, because concrete as a rule is brittle and no small
2 holes could be made in this way.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, what you're now describing was
4 that still there when you visited the place or is it on the basis of the
5 documentation that you draw these conclusions?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This room was changed, and I'm
7 saying all this based on the footage and photographs I used.
8 JUDGE ORIE: So the details about the tin is to be found in the
9 documentation? Because you said it's this type of tin which is used for
10 construction, et cetera. Is that -- what's your basis of knowledge for
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I can see what these sheets
13 look like. They're provided in image 11 of the report. I had the
14 occasion to see them at construction sites. They're made of tin, and
15 sometimes they're made of plywood, which is water-resistant.
16 JUDGE ORIE: No, I do understand that. But how were you able to
17 what you saw on construction sites to say, Well, this is exactly the same
18 as what was there at the time of the incident. That's my question.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I made the conclusion based on the
20 dimensions and the way it looks. It is clear in my mind that that is it.
21 It can't be anything else.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
23 MR. LUKIC: Can we play further this video, please.
24 [Video-clip played]
25 MR. LUKIC: Can we play even further, please.
1 [Video-clip played]
2 MR. LUKIC: Can we stop now. Thank you. We stopped at 9
3 minutes, 38 seconds, .9.
4 Q. [Interpretation] In your view, what can we see on this video?
5 A. On the video, we can see the area in front of the room moved
6 westwards to a certain extent. It is image number 1 from the photo file
7 that can be compared to the still we see. However, that is not the room
8 where the students were. If we were to move towards the camera, we would
9 come across another room at the very corner of the building where the
10 classroom was. This is the place that the police indicated as the
11 explosion site. It is not in dispute because we see explosion traces and
12 shrapnel traces on the thick concrete slabs, which are about 20
13 centimetres thick. Behind those slabs were some 35 children, according
14 to the police report, who luckily went unhurt. What I'm trying to say is
15 that these slabs provided full protection against shrapnel. There were
16 35 children, 1st graders, there waiting for the period to end so as to
17 enter the classroom. Had such slabs been placed against the classroom,
18 no one would have been hurt inside.
19 MR. LUKIC: Can we go back -- and I would tender this video,
20 Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'm afraid that you'll have to invite
22 Ms. Stewart as well to make an excerpt, the one you played, that will put
23 on a disk that Ms. Stewart will then give it to Madam Registrar but a
24 number could be reserved I would say.
25 THE REGISTRAR: D1340, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Is reserved for an excerpt of a video as it was
2 played a minute ago.
3 Ms. Edgerton.
4 MS. EDGERTON: And just way of a description for the record, this
5 is an excerpt from a video regarding incidents of shelling and sniping
6 civilians in Sarajevo received from the State Commission for the
7 Gathering of Facts on War Crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
8 JUDGE ORIE: That certainly will help to give a description of
9 this -- what will be an exhibit.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Now can we go back to P7617. Yeah, we need this page which is in
13 front of us. It's page 9 in B/C/S, where the picture is.
14 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, in your view, is this the place of
15 explosion the same where the small holes were seen in the video?
16 A. I explained already it's impossible. Here there were first
17 graders who were unscathed and an explosion did happen here. You can see
19 Q. So how many explosions were there?
20 A. In my view, two. I find from this video that there were two
21 explosions. It is completely consistent with the situation that reigned
22 at that moment.
23 Q. Thank you. I've finished with the incident.
24 I should now like to go back --
25 JUDGE ORIE: And the first graders, we find them exactly where?
1 In the documentation, I mean.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here, in image number 11 is a
3 broader view of the scene. In my report, I mean. It's a broader view of
4 the scene where you can see the place of explosion and this manhole, and
5 a close-up of the same is on image 16, a close-up based on which I was
6 able to determine the direction. And on image 15 is the place where the
7 classroom was, where a wreath was hung, and that corresponds to image 11.
8 It's the same place.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could we briefly go and look at those images. We
10 need the -- what's the number again of the report of the witness?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Image 11.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... D1330.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 308 in B/C/S.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I repeat: D1330.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Picture 11.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Is that again the classroom incident, picture 11?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. This is the place where
18 the classroom was.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because that's the picture we see in the other
20 photo documentation. But I'm still ...
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I can point out on this
22 photograph something that's important. This drain, here, next to the
23 light point, it's the place of the explosion, and next to the light point
24 is the rain-water drain.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And on picture 16, we can see both
2 the drain and the place of the explosion.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I think the -- I think the real issue is whether
4 these are photographs taken from the same incident, yes or no. That's
5 the basic question. But apparently you are convinced that they are.
6 We'll have a closer look at it.
7 Meanwhile, Mr. Lukic, you may put your next question to the
9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If it can be of assistance ...
11 JUDGE ORIE: You best assist us by waiting for the next question.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. If you wanted to say something very brief, tell us what you
14 meant. You said you had something --
15 A. I just wanted to say if it's of any assistance, there's also
16 picture 15 which shows the place where the classroom was, and you see it
17 as it was after the war when a wreath was hung there.
18 Q. Thank you. Let's now move from the Zavnobih square.
19 Yesterday we discussed incident F-5. We showed where Mr. Van der
20 Weijden took his measurements and where Ramiza Kundo was standing. In
21 the video, you even see her with Mr. Hogan. I don't want to go through
22 it again. Do you remember it?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. You marked the photograph which is now D1339 approximately the
25 positions of the BH army and the VRS.
1 From the place where Mr. Van der Weijden did his analysis, which
2 is below the position of Mrs. Kundo, was he able to see the positions of
3 the BH army?
4 A. From the place where he was, he couldn't see them. And whoever
5 looks at that report could be misled into thinking that from the place of
6 the incident you can't see the territory controlled by the BH army
7 because the place of the incident was above and the wall is below and the
8 wall does not obstruct the view, which means, Mr. Van der Weijden was
9 determining visibility not at the place of the incident but from where
10 the wall was, from the direction of the wall.
11 Q. If he had done it from the place of the incident, would he have
12 been able to see the positions of the BH army?
13 A. From the position -- from the place of the incident, certainly.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I must confess that I can't follow at the moment.
15 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could you explain how do you know where
17 Mr. Van der Weijden was --
18 MR. LUKIC: Can Your Honour --
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- when he established the location.
20 MR. LUKIC: Yesterday we saw -- [Overlapping speakers] ... can we
21 see P1130, page 32.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And can you now answer the question.
23 MR. LUKIC: Yesterday we agreed that this can be broadcasted.
24 MS. EDGERTON: We could use the public redacted version that I've
25 given the 65 ter number of a few times now. And if it is at all helpful,
1 I'll give it again. It's 28541B.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Which avoids whatever risk that there's anything
3 shown which should not be shown.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We were just discussing this
5 photograph. We see here how Mr. Van der Weijden determined visibility
6 from the territory controlled by the VRS, but the place of the incident
7 wasn't here. It was, in my estimate, at least 15 metres above this point
8 and from that place, you can see the territory. I marked it yesterday.
9 But looking from this point, we cannot see anything to the left, and
10 that's where the territory controlled by the BH army was. Even a bit
11 ahead of this wall you can see from the place of the incident, but the
12 place of the incident was not strictly defined so we can say, yes, both,
13 there is a view or -- and there isn't a view. But over the wall you can
14 certainly see.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you for that. But, again, you say: This
16 photograph depicts where Mr. Van der Weijden was, but the place of the
17 incident was somewhere else, 15 metres away.
18 How do you know that?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, we know that from the
20 testimony of Mrs. Kundo and the video of Mr. Lynden. She showed that
21 place and it's in the report. We saw it yesterday. I marked that photo.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Exactly that was what I was asking
24 JUDGE ORIE: I have one --
25 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... some things from yesterday.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I have one other follow-up question.
2 We, yesterday, looked -- also in your report, we looked at
3 Google Earth picture where there is a lot of houses which would possibly
4 obstruct the view further to the left of this wall. What's your opinion
5 about those houses? Could they have obstructed the view in any way?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time of the incident, no.
7 The Google Earth image - and we have to bear that in mind - started
8 posting these images in 2001 or 2003, I can't remember. And I don't know
9 to be honest from which time this image dates.
10 Now, for instance, there is a four-storey house there and now
11 there is no visibility, but in the 2001 images taken by Mr. Hogan or
12 somebody around him, there are no houses there. Now if you were to go
13 there, the situation is different. The area has been developed. There
14 are houses. And now on Google Earth you can see these houses.
15 JUDGE ORIE: How the situation exactly was in --
16 contemporaneously, you do not know, you can look at --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time -- I know how it was
18 in 2001. That means six years later. At that time, there were no
19 obstacles to visibility --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- which means that in 1993, there
22 were none either.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Unless there have been buildings which were torn
24 down, isn't it? It's a loose conclusion. It may be right, it may be
25 wrong, but there's no proper basis for such a conclusion, is there?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is no indication whatsoever
2 that a house was demolished in that area. In 2001, there was nothing
4 JUDGE ORIE: There's no indication that there was a house
5 demolished. There's also no indication that there was no house
6 demolished, isn't it?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No, there is no such
9 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, it's almost impossible to draw any
10 conclusions. Your conclusion may be right or wrong. I'm not contesting
11 that. But I'm testing the basis for your conclusions.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
13 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
14 Q. [Interpretation] When you were reading the statements of
15 Mrs. Kundo and watching the video made by Mr. Hogan, did anybody ever
16 indicate or suggest that there had been a house that was demolished
18 A. No, there was just one woman saying that there was damage to the
19 houses, that the roof tiles had fallen off, that they had to do repairs.
20 That's the extent of the damage. Nobody ever mentioned that in her
21 immediate vicinity a house was demolished.
22 Q. You mentioned a name but it's not on the record.
23 A. Mrs. Rasema Menzilovic.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. LUKIC: Can we see P7594 shortly, please.
1 Q. [Interpretation] While we are waiting, on our transcript, 40615,
2 it was put to you that this document includes things from medical
3 reports. Did you see autopsy reports for the victims?
4 A. No. All I was able to see were excerpts from autopsy reports,
5 for instance, a sentence: Killed by an explosion, et cetera. There were
6 no details of the autopsies.
7 Q. Did you find in that documentation how it was established that
8 gun-fire injuries were, in fact, inflicted by sniper?
9 A. No, I did not. And I don't know how it could possibly be
10 established if it was a sniper or not. One can only establish that it
11 was an infantry weapon or a -- or an explosion.
12 Q. In the incident F-17, you remember Tarik Zunic said he was
13 injured by a machine-gun. He recognised it.
14 A. He said a light machine-gun, which is not an infantry weapon.
15 It's a complete opposite to the sniper.
16 Q. I'm waiting for the interpretation to finish. My waiting doesn't
17 mean that I'm unhappy with your answer.
18 A. All right. Sorry.
19 Q. What was noted about Tarik Zunic? How was he injured?
20 A. I think it was said he was hit by a sniper, but we would need to
21 check. In fact, all these incidents are considered here as sniping
23 Q. Thank you. Regarding F-6, it was put to you on transcript page
24 40626 that -- I'll read it in English from line 4: "[In English] And you
25 also agree that there is a clear unobstructed line of sight between the
1 place of the incident and the Orthodox church in Veljine; right?
2 "A. Yes."
3 [Interpretation] Can you tell us what is characteristic about
4 this particular place of the incident.
5 A. What is characteristic is that the whole length of the bridge
6 metal -- a metal barrier, 2.5 metres high, was set up. One could not see
7 the cars passing. There was only a stretch of about 5, 6 metres of
8 visibility towards the church at Veljine and that photograph was marked
9 by Mrs. Sanija Dzevlah, and it's in image 19 in my report. So the whole
10 bridge was not completely open towards the church at Veljine. It had a
11 protective barrier made of steel slabs, 2.5 metres high. Only in a
12 narrow stretch was there a view, and I confirmed it.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. LUKIC: I see it's time [Microphone not activated]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's break time.
16 We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes. You may follow the
18 [The witness stands down]
19 JUDGE ORIE: We will resume at ten minutes to 11.00.
20 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
21 --- On resuming at 10.51 a.m.
22 JUDGE ORIE: We're waiting for the witness to be escorted in the
24 Perhaps we could use the time in relation to P6970. On the 2nd
25 of December in 2014 during the testimony of Milorad Sajic, a military
1 diary was marked for identification as P6970.
2 On the 7th of October, 2015, the Prosecution informed the Defence
3 and the Chamber that it had uploaded an extract of this diary under
4 Rule 65 ter number 8656D. Having heard of no objection from the Defence,
5 the Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to assign the extract to P6970,
6 and admitted P6970 into evidence, under seal.
7 [The witness takes the stand]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, please proceed.
9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Can we have 1D5677 on our screens, please.
11 Q. [Interpretation] While waiting for the document, I just wanted to
12 have something recorded in the transcript. It has to do with the
13 incident F-6. My learned friend Ms. Edgerton, at transcript page 40627,
14 put to you that the witness never said that she was visiting her mother
15 and that it was stated by the Prosecutor in error.
16 Let us look at page 7 of this document in e-court. It should
17 correspond to transcript page 3518, starting with line 19, I will read
18 out this part. [In English] I quote:
19 "Q. You have testified that you had visited your mother at the
20 hospital and you were on your way back. I presume you were on your ...
21 back home.
22 "A. Yes."
23 [Interpretation] Did you bear this part of her testimony in mind.
24 A. I did. I quoted it in my report. I did not follow this
25 discussion in the further than that. I was simply interested in learning
1 whether it was possible for her to be there at 4.30 p.m. as she had
2 stated in her first statement. It is irrelevant whether she was visiting
3 her mother or not. I was just trying to establish whether the time
4 indicated would fit with her initial statement where she said that it was
5 at 4.30 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could I ask you, you drew more or less
7 conclusions from the fact that patients could not be visited apart from
8 at certain times. So if you say it's irrelevant, you did put some weight
9 on visiting the mother rather than fetching medication. I'm just giving
10 you an opportunity to explain what I consider to be not fully consistent,
11 that it's irrelevant, and, at the same time, you draw -- you pay
12 attention to it and even draw, to some extent, conclusions.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think we understood each
14 other well.
15 Mrs. Kundo, in her first statement, said that the incident took
16 place at half past 4.00. Then in another statement, she repeated that
17 she left her home at around 3.00 p.m. and headed towards the hospital.
18 Later on she said that she was there to visit her mother but changed the
20 JUDGE ORIE: I'm -- you're not addressing the point I raised.
21 You have an opportunity to do so. If not, we'll move on.
22 MS. EDGERTON: And if I may, Your Honours, if at page 24, line 8,
23 there is some inference that I might have been making a false
24 representation, I feel I need to rise on that and invite my friend to
25 identify that portion --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's -- could we leave that until after I
2 have received an answer from the witness.
3 So I gave you another opportunity to address the matter and --
4 otherwise we'll move on.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll try.
6 In the report, I made reference to both times and I only relied
7 on the statement to check whether it was possible for her if she had left
8 whom at 3.00 and if she was indeed visiting her mother to be able to be
9 at that location at half past 4.00. That was my only interest, to see
10 whether it was possible at all for her to be there if she had left her
11 home at 3.00, and bearing in mind the distance to the hospital. I was
12 trying to assess whether she could be there at that time. That's all.
13 That was why I used this statement.
14 JUDGE ORIE: At least in one of the options visiting hours played
15 a role, isn't it?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] She came at that time and was held
19 back a bit ... and so on.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
21 MR. LUKIC: Can we have now 1D05675 on our screens, please.
22 Q. [Interpretation] We are about to see a statement, the statement
23 of this witness. There, we see she says as follows: "On 6 January 1994
24 around 1630 hours, I was coming home by bicycle."
25 Is that the statement you just referenced?
1 A. Yes, that is her initial statement from back in 1993 or 1994
2 where she specified the time of 4.30 p.m.
3 Q. We can see that the statement was provided on the 30th of
4 September, 1994. In the signature block, we see her signature.
5 A. Yes. We can see her signature.
6 Q. And a date in 1995?
7 A. Yes, 1995. But this was probably affixed later after she had
8 reviewed some document. The statement itself was taken on the 30th of
9 September, 1994.
10 MR. LUKIC: We would offer this document into evidence,
11 Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 1D05675 receives exhibit number
14 D1341, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
16 I now address the matter raised by Ms. Edgerton.
17 Mr. Lukic, you said: "My learned friend Ms. Edgerton put to you
18 that the witness never said that she was visiting her mother."
19 That's not what Ms. Edgerton did. If you look at the relevant
20 pages that is 40627 and 628 -- sorry Mr. Lukic. Yes.
21 Ms. Edgerton read to the witness portion of a transcript in which
22 it clearly is stated that earlier the witness had said this, and whether
23 she now still says the same. So that the witness had never said that is
24 not what Ms. Edgerton put to the witness. She put to the witness whether
25 the witness had ignored that the then witness had corrected her statement
1 during the testimony upon questions put to her by Judge El Mahdi. That's
2 the situation and let's move on.
3 MR. LUKIC: Can I just direct your attention, Your Honour, to
4 line 2 of page 40627:
5 "Q. Let's just focus on your assertion about her visiting her
6 mother. She never said she was visiting her mother."
7 JUDGE ORIE: I overlooked that. Later, however, what she read
8 clearly indicates that she accepts that the witness said that once,
9 having drawn my attention now to line --
10 MR. LUKIC: 2.
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- 2, Ms. Edgerton, I think Mr. Lukic is right, that
12 if you said that she never said that is certainly inconsistent with what
13 you put later to the witness. How inappropriate it is, is still to be
14 considered. I mean, it is apparently is not a way of confusing the
15 witness, because later it was laid out very well. Nevertheless,
16 Ms. Edgerton, if you use your own words to introduce these matters, if
17 you'd be a bit more cautious in what words you use, that certainly would
18 assist both the witness and the Chamber and would save Mr. Lukic some
19 emotional responses.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. LUKIC: Happens from time to time. Thank you, Your Honour.
22 I would move on to incident F-2 now. And if we can have P07598
23 on our screens, please.
24 Q. [Interpretation] While we're waiting for it, at transcript
25 page 40627, lines 7 to 13, my learned friend told you that the photograph
1 shown to you -- perhaps I did not cite the right page. Just one moment.
2 MR. LUKIC: Next one. Can we have page 2 from this document,
4 Q. [Interpretation] She put to you that there was an unobstructed
5 visibility from Spicasta Stijena and the location of the incident. You
6 said that it was not the case and you were stopped. You were not allowed
7 to continue. Please explain to us briefly whether you wanted to add
9 A. I wanted to add about something that we can see here. I wanted
10 to dispute the assertion that VRS positions at Spicasta Stijena are
12 First of all, this photograph, in my view, was taken by a person
13 standing in front of the house where the victim had stood. In the
14 photograph you have shown, there was a crossed-out area and it represents
15 a room added on to later. When Mr. Hogan was there one could see that
16 there was a door. It would have been fair to take a photograph so that
17 the door is visible and that the direction is known.
18 In my report, in image 57, I show that these were not VRS
19 positions. I was able to do so because the last roof -- the last trench
20 at Spicasta Stijena is clearly visible. It was a large trench and some
21 parts of it remain. I visited the area personally and as I explained in
22 examination-in-chief I measured the distance between the warring parties.
23 We can also see the footage involving the Black Swans that has been shown
24 in the courtroom. Based on all that, I concluded that the VRS positions
25 were slightly to the right from the last point of the roof that we can
1 see. So to the right. That is where the VRS positions were. I claim
2 that in this photograph we cannot see the place where VRS positions were,
3 and I showed that in --
4 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... having consulted
5 my colleagues, Mr. Lukic, I am going to stop what happens here. What
6 happens is you've introduced a report in which approximately 60 per cent
7 of the materials are not directly related to the expertise of this
8 witness. He assumes, he compares statements, he says what he has seen,
9 what he hasn't seen, he evaluates the evidence, et cetera, it's only
10 missing that he also tells us that he is writing the Judgement for us.
11 That is not -- and what this has triggered that the Prosecution, perhaps
12 understandably, paid a lot of attention to that as well, which perhaps
13 for reasons of testing credibility and reliability is something the
14 Prosecution would have to do.
15 Now, in re-examination, we just continue with that. Again, the
16 whole of the evaluation of the evidence, that's -- Mr. Lukic, limit your
17 questions which you've failed to do in reviewing the report already,
18 limit your questions to the expertise of this witness, and that is not
19 what he's talking about 80 per cent of his time.
20 Please keep this in mind. We're not going to continue like this.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. But if I may, please, if
23 Mr. Van der Weijden as the OTP expert witness discussed the same issue,
24 our position is that we can rebut and refute his claims through our
25 expert witness.
1 JUDGE ORIE: To some extent, it's right. To some extent, it's
2 not, because this witness goes far, far further than Mr. Van der Weijden
4 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, Mr. Van der Weijden exactly pointed out
5 here that there were Serb positions visible and Mr. Poparic checked and
6 found that it's not true, so we have to address this issue.
7 JUDGE ORIE: To some extent.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... this is perhaps an example
10 where you are more right, but weighing what A, B, C and D said and again,
11 let me be quite clear to you the testimony of Mr. Van der Weijden is,
12 indeed, has some flaws in this respect as well and that was not remain --
13 that did not remain unnoticed by the Chamber. Let me leave it to that.
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.
17 MS. EDGERTON: What I'd just like to underscore is that this
18 incident was not a charged incident in this indictment.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's another matter that -- but, again, just
20 as I -- the Chamber accepts, to some extent, that by testing the
21 Unscheduled Incidents, if there was serious flaws in evidence presented
22 by the Prosecution, if testing that evidence could shed additional light
23 on reliability and credibility of the OTP witnesses, the Chamber has
24 allowed you to do that. We never said you should not deal with this one.
25 That is certainly not where we have drawn the line.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. [Interpretation] I will now move -- P07599?
4 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... we have to go to
5 the private session for a short period of time, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
7 [Private session]
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
4 MR. LUKIC: I need D01330 on our screens, please.
5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, it's your report.
6 MR. LUKIC: I need page 59 in English version only.
7 Q. [Interpretation] The Prosecution showed you one document which is
8 now P01007. In fact, it's --
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can that be broadcast, Mr. Lukic?
10 MR. LUKIC: I thought to skip that, I don't have time I just
11 mention it. And actually the picture number is P07595, where Mr. Djozo
12 marked where the wood that was cut down was in relation to Spicasta
13 Stijena, and I wanted to ask Mr. Poparic something based on this photo
14 which is on our screens.
15 Q. [Interpretation] So, Mr. Poparic, you see before you image 32
16 from your report. Who took this photo?
17 A. I did.
18 MR. LUKIC: I need help of the usher so Mr. Poparic can mark
19 something, please.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. On this photograph, could you mark the young woods that had been
23 cut during the war?
24 A. And it stretches over to the left which you can't see in this
1 Q. So in relation to Spicasta Stijena, where is it?
2 A. It is below a bit to the left or shall we say to the east.
3 MR. LUKIC: We would offer this, if we can make a photo out of
4 this screen and I would propose it into evidence.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, screen shot marked by the witness.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Receives exhibit number D1342, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I --
9 JUDGE ORIE: But we still need to have it ...
10 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I ask the witness: Do you see the house
12 where the person was shot? The location of the incident.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. It's not the photograph that
14 relates to. It's the photograph where those seven forests are marked but
15 it's from another angle, so it wasn't clear which forest it is relative
16 to Spicasta Stijena.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This forest is much larger.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I don't think that it needs to be under seal, this
22 MR. LUKIC: I don't think either, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then we -- Madam Registrar, it's admitted not under
24 seal but as a public exhibit.
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
1 Q. [Interpretation] Now, very briefly about incident F-17 where
2 Tarik Zunic was injured on 16 March 1995. You don't have to go to that
3 page in your report. I'm just going to ask you: Could that place be
4 seen from Grdonj?
5 A. Yes, there is a view. It's not a very good view but ... we
6 didn't deal with it in great detail, but there is visibility.
7 Q. Now, I'd like to ask you about incident 9 in Djordja Andrejevica
8 Kuna Street number 7 from 15 May 1995. It's in your report, page 346 in
9 English; and B/C/S, 327.
10 After that, you were shown one document. First of all, my
11 colleague showed you, on transcript page 40676 from lines 4 to 12, and
12 she said she saw no reference to the school for the blind in this
13 document. She asked if that is true. You said yes. And I'd like to see
14 that document again, which received number P07600.
15 In the second paragraph, it says: "On 15 May 1995 around 1730,
16 this SJB received information from the third police station of the same
17 SJB that in Nerkez Smailagic Street number 10, citizen Stevan Bjelac had
18 been wounded by a sniper shot fired from the aggressor's positions in
20 What place do you think was designated in this paragraph?
21 A. You mean the aggressor's position in Nedzarici? Those were
22 positions around the school for the blind.
23 Q. Why do you think Nedzarici so? Nedzarici is a large area.
24 A. It is, but the school for the blind is also there and it's the
25 most forward Serb position relative to this location of the incident.
1 Other positions, it's pointless to consider them, because they were all
2 obstructed by buildings. The only position possible was the school for
3 the blind and that's what the police noted. It was only possible from
4 there, impossible from other positions.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'm not sure if this document is
6 uploaded, 1D05937. [In English] Can we see it, please.
7 Q. [Interpretation] I don't know how well you can see it; but could
8 you, on this map, with the usher's assistance, mark the co-ordinates.
9 The first is 859 and the second is 578.
10 So 859 and 578.
11 A. It's not writing. Shall I draw lines to make it clearer?
12 So at the intersection of these two lines -- let me try again.
13 Let me just check. 859?
14 Q. And 578.
15 A. This is it, at the intersection of these two lines.
16 Q. The problem is I can't see any intersection of lines.
17 A. I'll mark it with a 1. Can you see it now?
18 Q. You mean this point?
19 A. Let it be number 1.
20 Q. Where is that location?
21 A. It's a bit to the north from the school for the blind.
22 Q. Can you put a circle around the school for the blind and mark it
23 with number 2.
24 A. This is number 2.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. LUKIC: Can we -- we would offer this document into
2 exhibits -- exhibit -- as marked by the witness.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Receives exhibit number D1343, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
6 Just to make everything perfectly clear --
7 MR. LUKIC: Mm-hm.
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- the highest-up marking looks like a letter L,
9 more or less, and it is exactly at the corner of that L that the witness,
10 I think, marked number 1, so where the two lines are crossing, whereas,
11 in the circle, he marked where the school of the blind is.
12 Let's proceed.
13 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. [Interpretation] I'll skip two incidents. Let us focus on F-7 of
15 25 May 1994. In B/C/S, it's page 151 in your report; in English, it's
17 We won't dwell on it, but you know that it was put to you here
18 that there were weapons of 120 millimetres, there was one Praga there,
19 and you told us that you investigated only infantry weapons.
20 Do you remember now which type of weapons was dealt with by the
21 Prosecution expert, Mr. Van der Weijden?
22 A. He also dealt only with infantry weapons.
23 Q. No cannons or Pragas?
24 A. No.
25 Q. You were shown image 105 from your report. In B/C/S, it's 148;
1 and in English, it's 150.
2 On transcript page 40742 - 40742 - it was said by my learned
3 friend that there are absolutely no trees blocking the line of sight from
4 the theological faculty, so I should like to show now a photograph, the
5 same one shown by my learned friend, P07610.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need page 10 in the English
8 Q. We can see the photograph on our screens. As for the two sides
9 we can see in front of us on the photograph, can one hit the bus that was
10 at the intersection at Nikola Demonja and Bulevar Avnoja?
11 A. From the firing positions we can see here, it was not possible.
12 It covers the angle between south-east and south-west in the direction of
13 Alipasino Polje and Vojnicko Polje, whereas Dobrinja is in the direction
14 of south-east or south-west. That is where Dobrinja is, so to the left
15 of this area.
16 MR. LUKIC: I kindly ask the assistance of the usher so I would
17 ask Mr. Poparic to mark something on this photo.
18 Q. [Interpretation] To the extent possible, please, mark the
19 location where the tree was that we can see in photograph 106 of your
21 A. It is in front of the large building on the other side. This is
22 the only way I can indicate it, if it helps any. If we stood on the
23 opposite side from the side we see here, on the right-hand side of the
24 right-hand side building, then we would be able to see the tree, and we
25 would be looking in the direction of Dobrinja.
1 MR. LUKIC: We would offer this marked picture into evidence.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: It receives exhibit number D1344, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
5 Let me just try to fully understand. Are you saying -- you mean
6 from the firing positions here. Do you mean that are these the firing
7 positions in that wall, it is relatively dark, black, one hole, and one,
8 more or less, a line, apparently. Is that what you had on your mind?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The wall was broken through
10 and probably a firing position was arranged.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So that's a probability.
12 What about any firing positions at the side of the building we
13 cannot see at this moment?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I said that I reviewed the
15 photographs and there are no such firing positions, except on this side
16 and on the opposite side, the far end. There, there are also some firing
18 JUDGE ORIE: But whether they would have fired through windows
19 they could open or whether at not the far end but at the long end of the
20 other side, whether there would have been any possible firing positions,
21 you wouldn't know?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot know that and I have no
23 such evidence. What I could see is what I registered.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
1 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. [Interpretation] You were shown P07611. I'll be brief about it.
3 You were shown page 13 in the B/C/S and 14 in the English version.
4 My learned friend started with the 4th of September, 1993,
5 specifying the wounded. There is mention made of the Sanac settlement.
6 Where is it located in terms of the warring parties' positions?
7 A. There's a reference to the Sanac settlement and Sremska. It is
8 all part of Sremska Street, with some small streets around it. The
9 settlement itself is called Sanac. That settlement is at Hrasno Brdo
10 overlooking the stadium at Grbavica but below Ozrenska Street and there
11 were separation lines there practically. The Sanac settlement was
12 controlled by the ABiH. It is in the immediate vicinity of the Grbavica
13 stadium and Ozrenska Street.
14 Q. Then you were taken to the 6th of September where Topal Osman
15 Pasa street number 20 is referenced.
16 A. Yes, that is its current name whereas before it was called
17 Milutina Djuraskovica. That street takes you from the Grbavica stadium
18 to Elektroprivreda.
19 Q. And the warring parties' positions?
20 A. If looking from the Grbavica stadium towards Elektroprivreda, on
21 the left-hand side of the street there was ABiH-controlled territory to
22 the west, whereas the eastern or right side was Grbavica, i.e.,
23 VRS-controlled territory.
24 Q. Do you recall whether the Prosecution expert Mr. Van der Weijden
25 investigated any other cases of wounding in the area?
1 A. No, I remember he did not.
2 Q. Did he investigate any other cases that go beyond the scope of
3 the indictment or of your report?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Let me briefly -- no, let's stay with F-4.
6 Something about Ozrenska Street. At transcript page -- you don't
7 have it in your report. At transcript page 40755, in line 20, you
8 explained where the photographs were taken, and you said: "I dispute
9 that the photograph was taken by Mr. Van der Weijden from that spot."
10 In my view, you did not mention the spot you had in mind. What
11 is the spot that you think Mr. Van der Weijden did not take the
12 photograph from?
13 A. From the place he indicated, which is at 829 metres from the
14 place of the incident.
15 Q. Thank you. Let us next look at P --
16 MR. LUKIC: This should not be broadcasted. 01130 which is
17 Mr. Van der Weijden's report. We need page 32 only in English version.
18 Q. [Interpretation] For ease of reference it is image 74 of your
19 report, at page 106 of the B/C/S version.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.
21 MS. EDGERTON: This can be broadcast if we used 65 ter number
22 28541B, please.
23 MR. LUKIC: But then we can be confused later when we review the
24 evidence from the case because --
25 JUDGE ORIE: At this moment I suggest to do at the same time we
1 note that this picture doesn't hurt. So let's continue rather than to
2 start a battle over that.
3 MR. LUKIC: Sure. And I apologise, I probably misspoke. I need
4 page 25 in English version from this document. That also can be
6 First, can we see middle -- picture in the middle of the page,
7 please, enlarged with the title above it. In the middle of the page with
8 the title.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, you were asked about the
10 co-ordinates and who used what. Did Mr. Van der Weijden make a link
11 between the co-ordinates and the place from which the bullet was fired?
12 A. Yes. In this case, he said that these were the co-ordinates,
13 specifying that it is some 829 metres away from the place of the
14 incident, as we can see it in this image at the end of this yellow
15 building. That is where the incident took place.
16 MR. LUKIC: Can we see -- hmm. I'm trying to calculate ... can
17 we go three pages back, please, from this point. So page 22.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Are we still safe as far as broadcast is concerned,
19 Mr. Lukic?
20 MR. LUKIC: I think so. We -- but.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Let's take no risk. Then please refer to the
22 redacted version.
23 MR. LUKIC: Yeah. Can we see --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton knows that number by heart.
25 Ms. Edgerton, it was ...
1 MS. EDGERTON: 28541B.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that's the 65 ter number. Could we have a
3 look at that.
4 MR. LUKIC: Can we see the next page, please.
5 Q. [Interpretation] I don't know if you can see it in this page --
6 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... B/C/S version,
7 I'm sorry. I cannot locate it. Aside from English version.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Edgerton, has the public redacted version
9 also a B/C/S translation?
10 MS. EDGERTON: Yes.
11 MR. LUKIC: We need page 29 in B/C/S.
12 Q. [Interpretation] In the B/C/S, towards the middle, it says: "The
13 alleged position."
14 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... position.
15 Q. [Interpretation] In the English translation, it is the alleged
16 shooting position. That what was going to ask you about.
17 The alleged shooting position from which fire was opened in
18 Ozrenska Street, and then we have the co-ordinates. Can you see it?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And distance to incident site: 829 metres.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. If you recall, did Mr. Van der Weijden provide a photograph from
23 the alleged shooting position?
24 A. Yes, he did provide a photograph of that building at 829 metres,
25 according to his assertion, and we viewed it during examination-in-chief.
1 Q. Stop there. Just a second, please.
2 MR. LUKIC: Can we go back to D01330, please.
3 [Defence counsel confer]
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In the B/C/S, it is page 109. [In
5 English] And if we -- I cannot locate it in -- there it is. It's page
6 108 in English version.
7 Q. [Interpretation] What can we see here?
8 A. In this photograph, the lower one, is the one provided by
9 Mr. Van der Weijden from the distance of 829 metres. He marked in the
10 little square in the photograph the house at that distance as specified
11 in the previous paragraph as the place of firing. But the house is not
12 at the distance of 829 metres. It is some 600 metres away in
13 ABiH-controlled territory.
14 Q. What about the position at 829 metres marked by the co-ordinates,
15 in whose territory is that?
16 A. It is in Ozrenska Street, just above the pavement in that street.
17 It corresponds approximately to the positions where VRS trenches were.
18 They were slightly below but, more or less, that would be the location.
19 However, it would not be the location as marked here.
20 MR. LUKIC: I see it's a break time.
21 JUDGE ORIE: It is.
22 Witness, we'll take a break. We'd like to see you back in 20
23 minutes. You may follow the usher.
24 [The witness stands down]
25 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at ten minutes past 12.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 11.51 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 12.11 p.m.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton, as matters stand now, could you give
4 us any idea on how much more time you'd need once re-examination is
6 MS. EDGERTON: Think very moment, my estimate would be 30
7 minutes. Subject to what might come.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 Mr. Lukic, could you try to conclude in such a way that 30
10 minutes would be left or at least 20-plus minutes would be left for
11 Ms. Edgerton.
12 MR. LUKIC: Of course, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
14 MR. TIEGER: Can I quickly raise one matter that was alluded to
15 yesterday, Mr. President. That was the submission of the table that we
16 discussed at the end of the day and discussed timing on that. We're
17 prepared to send that to the Trial Chamber right now. I discussed it
18 with Mr. Lukic. Obviously he's not in a position to review it now so we
19 consider that the best expedient would be to handle it in the same way
20 the analogous table was handled with expert Subotic, and that was
21 provided the court sees they are appropriate, they be admitted and then
22 he have several days or a week to review it afterwards.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, always appreciated if the parties agree on
24 something. No problems as far as the Chamber is concerned.
25 Mr. Lukic, please proceed.
1 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. [Interpretation] Now something about incident F-8. That's 14
3 June 1994. You don't need to open the report. It was a tram along the
4 Zmaja od Bosne Street.
5 You were asked about the Jewish cemetery, and you were shown
6 P00077. That's a video. Do you remember it?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Could we now see photograph 112 from your report, D01330,
9 image 112.
10 MR. LUKIC: In B/C/S ... in English it's 158, and it's enough if
11 we see only English version.
12 Q. [Interpretation] In your report, we have a similar photograph
13 under number 110 taken by Mr. Hogan, but we'll work with this one.
14 Who took this photo?
15 A. I did.
16 Q. From where was it taken?
17 A. It was taken approximately from the place the witness claimed the
18 tram was hit.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... usher now. We
20 have to mark something on this, this photo.
21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, first of all, could you mark - if
22 you know and if can you see it - the Jewish cemetery.
23 A. It's very small, but I recognise -- I'll put a circle around it.
24 To me it's a landmark. This little chapel, it's the entrance to the
25 Jewish cemetery, and ahead of it and above is the Jewish cemetery. Maybe
1 this perspective is not the best.
2 Q. What do you think is the Jewish cemetery?
3 A. This. Roughly.
4 Q. Thank you. Can you put number 1 there.
5 A. On the chapel?
6 Q. 1 on the chapel; and the rest marked by 2.
7 A. [Marks]
8 Q. On this photograph, can you mark the trench or the bunker where
9 we -- which we saw on the photograph.
10 A. I can only mark the approximate direction from which it is seen.
11 That's where the trench was. Shall I put number 3?
12 Q. Yes, please.
13 A. [Marks]
14 Q. Could you now mark Debelo Brdo. But before do you that, which
15 forces were there at Debelo Brdo?
16 A. The BH army.
17 Q. Can you mark here the territory controlled by the Army of
19 A. The separation line stretched in this direction, downwards. I
20 cannot mark it precisely. At Grbavica after Miljacka, and then from the
21 Jewish cemetery, here. You can't see it in the picture, it's in the
22 background where there were positions of the VRS. I'm trying to mark
23 behind this forest at Zlatiste, I can't mark it precisely, it's all
24 green. At Zlatiste, were the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska
25 and all this, this was the city, was controlled by the BH army. I can
1 mark it with 4. Debelo Brdo shall be 5.
2 Q. So 4 and 5 were under the control of who?
3 A. The BH army.
4 MR. LUKIC: We would offer this into evidence, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: It receives exhibit number D1345, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can I ask a follow-up question to that.
9 You marked 4 and 5 on two sides of the separation line. And you
10 say both are BH-held territory? 4 and 5; is that correct?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But the separation line in between two areas held
13 by the BiH?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But number 5 I marked Debelo Brdo.
15 It's a bit at the top. You can't see it very well from the forest. It
16 was around there. That's where BH army positions were and behind them
17 were the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska. 5 was just supposed
18 to denote where, approximately, Debelo Brdo was. Is.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In that case, you should have put the 5 a little
20 bit below the separation line; correct?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I could have. I wasn't thinking
22 about that. Maybe I should mark it with a dot.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think it's sufficient. You have clarified that
24 matter and now I understand it.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, may I take it that the Chamber is better
1 served by orienting itself on the maps because this inherently is
2 inaccurate. I mean, to draw a line somewhere between some trees, there's
3 no way that it could add to what is more accurate that is, what we find
4 in the various maps were the confrontation lines where, of course, is
5 clearly stated where Debelo Brdo is, where Zlatiste is because it's not
6 from the left to the right, it goes a bit further, a bit further back.
7 But let's move on.
8 MR. LUKIC: I apologise. I didn't prepare the map so ...
9 JUDGE ORIE: Fine. But that, perhaps, better assists us.
10 I had not said yet, which I should have done, that D1345 is
11 admitted into evidence.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. And thank you to
14 Judge Fluegge for clarifying the matter.
15 Q. [Interpretation] Now I would like us to look at a photograph that
16 was perhaps a bit confusing. It's incident F-10.
17 [In English] And we need your document, which is D01330. And we
18 need only English version, page 180.
19 MS. EDGERTON: That shouldn't be broadcast.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. You were asked, Mr. Poparic, about this liquid. You said it was
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. How did you conclude it was water, not blood?
25 A. Based on two facts. This surface, you see how large it is? And
1 considering that the victim had sustained a relatively small injury to
2 the tissue, he couldn't have bled so much. He was immediately
3 transported to the hospital. And the other thing is that, at the right
4 corner of this stain, there is a mirror.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, this witness telling us what kind
6 of [Overlapping speakers] ...
7 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... why he thinks.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And we're not interested.
9 MR. LUKIC: Okay, and --
10 JUDGE ORIE: We are not interested in quasi-expertise where the
11 witness is not an expert, and we first listen to his answer and then he
12 says something about injuries and that slight injury, he could not have
13 bled, that requires expert evidence.
14 MR. LUKIC: I will move on. I was just felt obliged because he
15 was questioned on this issue. If he does not have anything to say on it,
16 I will gladly move on.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
18 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Then we can move to open
20 JUDGE ORIE: We return into open -- we were in open session.
21 MR. LUKIC: Oh, we were?
22 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Ms. Edgerton, I think,
23 kindly drew your attention to the fact that the picture should not be
25 MR. LUKIC: Broadcast.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Nothing more, nothing less.
2 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: We were not in private session.
4 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let's proceed.
6 MR. LUKIC: I would kindly ask to have D01330 or our screens
7 again, please. And we just need page 162 in English version.
8 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. On transcript page related to this photograph - that's page
11 40795 - my colleague asked you at line 25 and straddling the next page
12 until line 4, the following question: "Did you investigate the hole in
13 the tin?" In fact, you did not do that. You based your opinion on the
14 photograph, and you confirmed?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. When you were reading the report of Mr. Van der Weijden, the
17 Prosecution expert, did you determine whether Mr. Van der Weijden
18 examined the hole in the tin sheet or he, too, used only the photograph?
19 A. He didn't investigate the hole either. He couldn't.
20 Q. Why do you think he couldn't?
21 A. Because it was many years after the incident. That item was not
22 available anymore.
23 Q. You were also asked -- in fact, it was put to you on T.40797 that
24 you did not examine the material either.
25 A. I did not.
1 Q. Reading the report of Mr. Van der Weijden, did you find that he
2 had examined the material?
3 A. Of course he didn't.
4 Q. I want to ask you something about materials and Honourable
5 Judge Fluegge asked the same thing. You were asked about the homogeneity
6 of materials. You told us yesterday that he were a mechanical engineer
7 by training. In your career, did you have any contact with tin sheets
8 and quality control of tin sheets?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. In what capacity?
11 A. Well, I dealt with construction and I prescribed in my technical
12 drawings the material and it was often tin, so I had to provide a
13 specification for that tin and the quality control necessary. In the
14 production, everything is standardized, from manufacturing to quality
15 control. It's a highly controlled product.
16 Q. Are there control standards in place?
17 A. Of course. All over the world.
18 Q. Were you familiar with them?
19 A. Of course I was.
20 Q. Can you mention some of such steel control standards now.
21 A. I don't know the standard numbers but I can tell you what they
22 deal with.
23 First of all, there is control of chemical quality then a
24 separate standard for the control of mechanical characteristics as well
25 as standard to control the technological characteristics, or technical
1 characteristics. If you have some technology retirements that have to do
2 with the way steel is manufactured, such controls are also in place so
3 that the product contains appropriate characteristics; for example, in
4 the case of nuts and bolts.
5 Q. Very well. Let us move onto another topic. We'll talk about the
6 dust cloud which appeared after a shot was fired.
7 At transcript page 40803, from line 13 to 15, it was put to you
8 that in the Karadzic case you accepted that the analysis of the dust
9 cloud was not based on any published papers or studies.
10 In your response, you said that general principles apply, in
11 terms of the strike theory. However, I would like to ask you the
12 following today. Where can we find these general principles of the
13 strike theory?
14 A. The strike theory can be found in any significant textbook for
15 mechanical engineering as studied at universities. It was also something
16 I studied in the course of my studies in quite some detail.
17 Q. Thank you. We are now moving quickly to a different subject.
18 That's incident F-11. And let's look at image 147.
19 MR. LUKIC: We can have only English version. It's page 202.
20 Q. [Interpretation] I just want to refresh your memory about what
21 you discussed with my learned friend, Ms. Edgerton. You were asked if
22 you had investigated whether the wounded person had moved in this case,
23 whether he was changing position. You explained that you were collecting
24 material evidence. And my question only to you regarding this incident
25 is this: Do you remember whether in his report, Mr. Van der Weijden, the
1 Prosecution expert, had investigated the possibility that this man had
3 A. No, he did not investigate anything about that.
4 Q. Now F-14. And in the indictment, it's F-13.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need image 164. In B/C/S, it's
6 page 218, but we need on the screen page 228 in English on the screens.
7 Q. It's just to refresh your memory about the incident. Do you
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. My colleague put to you on page T.40288 --
11 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm sorry. Maybe
12 I misspoke.
13 Q. [Interpretation] 40828. She asked you if you agreed - at line
14 15 - that in the Karadzic case you had agreed it had not been measured in
15 the official report what the vertical distance was of the entry and exit
16 wound in the man's arm, and you agreed there was just a general
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you remember today when Mr. Van der Weijden examined the same
20 incident, did he measure that vertical distance and did he put it in his
22 A. He did not.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Please bear with me. Can we have on
24 our screens, 1D00691.
25 Q. My friend asked you yesterday about determination [Realtime
1 transcript read in error "the termination"] of the scene of incident
2 based on Palo, Huso's statement. He provided the statement on the 23rd
3 November 1994 about the incident of the day before. Actually, he
4 provided a statement on the 24th and the incident took place on the 23rd?
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic did you say the witness was asked about
6 the determination of the scene? I'm only asking because --
7 MR. LUKIC: Statements were shown to the witness.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah, I'm only asking you because you are recorded
9 as having said, "the termination" and I think you said "determination."
10 MR. LUKIC: Determination. Should be determination. Thank you,
11 Your Honour.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
13 MS. EDGERTON: And that statement is actually marked for
14 identification already. It's a Defence exhibit D1336.
15 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. I appreciate help from my learned friend.
16 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Palo on -- says that on the 23rd of
17 November, 1994, he was driving the tram garage number 263. At 1535
18 hours, he was heading towards Marin Dvor and Remiza. What is Remiza?
19 A. It's a tram garage.
20 Q. Based on that, were you able to determine the direction from
21 Marin Dvor towards Remiza?
22 A. Of course.
23 Q. He goes on to say: "And when I reached the section between the
24 technical school and the Marsal Tito barracks, specifically the turning
25 towards the new railway station, I heard a sound of something hitting the
1 tram as if someone had thrown a stone at it."
2 Do you know where the turning point is?
3 A. Of course I do.
4 Q. And what about the photograph you marked?
5 A. It is photograph 164. Somewhere towards the front of the
6 ellipsis where we see the words "tram 236," that is where the turning is.
7 MR. LUKIC: So if it ...
8 [Defence counsel confer]
9 MR. LUKIC: So can we go back now to D01330, back to that image.
10 We need ... we need page, only in English version, 228, please.
11 Can we enlarge this image 164, please. Can we have help of the
12 usher, please.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, using this photograph, can you mark
14 the position between the technical school and the Marsal Tito barracks at
15 the turning.
16 A. Now that the photograph is enlarged, I can see that the turning
17 should be approximately where the letter T is. It means that the tram
18 had already turned to the west, towards the station.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The letter T meaning?
20 MR. LUKIC: Tram 263 ^ [Overlapping speakers] ...
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
22 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. [Interpretation] Is that what you had in mind?
24 A. Yes, yes, it says tram. Approximately this is where the turning
25 should be in the photograph, just before the bend itself.
1 Q. Where is that location in relation to the two museums?
2 A. It's in between. One museum is marked with the number 3; the
3 other with the number 4.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I'm a bit puzzled where you had said: "It had
5 turned already to the west ..."
6 Could you then -- because I do understand that west on this
7 picture is to the left. It came from Marin Dvor. Where has this tram
8 turned to the left?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps I did not express myself
10 well. It actually kept going straight. It was moving from Marin Dvor
11 and went past the turning. He didn't turn right towards the train
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And what makes you believe that if you read
14 the description that it would be where the T is now and not, for example,
15 at the middle of that T-junction?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The turning is just before the
17 intersection. The road to the train station is to the right so it needs
18 to turn in the intersection, but before the intersection, it needs to
19 assume its position, or, actually, move along the railings that make it
20 turn geometrically. The turning must before the intersection itself.
21 JUDGE ORIE: That depends on the interpretation of what you
22 consider to be a turning point, when the turning is complete, or when you
23 start the turning, or when you're halfway the turning. Isn't it true
24 that this is rather interpretation used by a witness rather than anything
25 you were -- that your expertise could tell us?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is just a piece of information
2 that I took into consideration to analyse the case.
3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In our language the term "turning"
5 is a technical term.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. We can see in the transcript that it is recorded that a turning
9 is a technical term. What did you say above that -- or in addition?
10 A. It is a mechanical element on the rails which actually directs
11 the train. It is controlled from the train itself. It's a mechanism, a
12 switch. That is what I had in mind rather than a line of turning. A
13 turning or a switch is a technical element, technical word in our
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, we're began back at interpreting other
16 evidence rather than -- please proceed.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. In order to be able to do your job as the ballistics expert, and
19 I would say it involves all of the cases, would you first need to be able
20 to determine the location when -- where someone was wounded in order to
21 check where the shot could have come from?
22 A. Yes, of course. And in two cases, as far as I know, I was
23 unsuccessful in doing so. We specified it in the report. We said that
24 we could not assess precisely because we lacked precise information.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Just a few moments, please.
1 Q. Mr. Poparic, this would be all we had for you. Thank you for
2 answering our questions.
3 A. You're welcome.
4 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I think the witness marked where the
6 letter T of the tram was. He just put a dot on the T. Do you want that
7 to be in evidence or is it clear enough that it's at the T.
8 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, but we can save this.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, then we'll save it. Madam Registrar.
10 THE REGISTRAR: It receives exhibit D1346, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
12 Mr. Lukic, I'm -- you are aware that you could have used more
13 time but you decided to do as you did.
14 Ms. Edgerton, any further questions for the witness.
15 MS. EDGERTON: Yes, Your Honour. And two submissions with
16 respect to two documents that were still outstanding from the
17 cross-examination but I could do that at the end of re-direct, one being
18 the frame stills that I talked about last week from clips that the
19 witness commented on and the other on P7068. But, as I said, I could do
20 that at the end of re-direct.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then, at this moment, please proceed with your
22 re-examination -- with your --
23 MS. EDGERTON: Re-cross.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Re-cross, yes.
25 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
1 Further cross-examination by Ms. Edgerton:
2 Q. Mr. Poparic, now in your redirect examination incidents, we've
3 discussed incidents F-2, F-6, F-7, F-8, F-10 in your report.
4 Now, those incidents weren't charged in this case but you're
5 aware, because you testified in the Karadzic case that
6 Mr. Van der Weijden has made a report which addressed each of these same
7 incidents. You're aware of that; right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And you know, for example, that in respect of incident F-2 -- oh.
10 To help everyone, that report is 65 ter number 13574.
11 And you know from having studied that report that in respect of
12 incident F-2, for example, Mr. Van der Weijden provided photos showing a
13 clear line of sight from Spicasta Stijena to the incident location and
14 also noted that the victim had been playing outside for an hour and a
15 half before she was shot, which contradicts your position as to line of
16 sight. You know that; right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And in respect of incident F-6 which you've also discussed, you
19 know that Mr. Van der Weijden says in his report for the Karadzic case on
20 this incident that the victim must have been seen before getting onto the
21 bridge, which would contradict your assertion that the shooter must have
22 fired .99 seconds before she came in view of the Orthodox church. You
23 know that, don't you?
24 A. First of all --
25 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
1 A. -- it hasn't been proven --
2 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Poparic, I asked you
3 whether you were aware of Mr. Van der Weijden's position in his expert
4 report in the Karadzic case relating to this incident. Could you answer
5 the question: Were you aware?
6 A. Yes, yes.
7 Q. And you also know that in his report, in respect of incident
8 F-9 -- pardon me, F-8 he visited the alleged sniping location and
9 reported that it offered several good positions with a view to the
10 incident site, which would tend to contradict your position that the tram
11 was shot from the Executive Council building. You know his position,
12 don't you?
13 A. I do know that Mr. Van der Weijden mistakenly indicated the spot
14 where the trams were.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- before we continue like this. You have
16 studied the report of Mr. Van der Weijden?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: You are aware that, in many respects, your
19 conclusions differ from his opinions and conclusions?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
22 Could we now come to the point which you apparently would like to
23 make, Ms. Edgerton, because the witness the whole of the report has
24 clearly shown that his conclusions are not the same as those of
25 Mr. Van der Weijden very often.
1 MS. EDGERTON: And what I would like to do, Your Honours, is ask
2 that those sections of Mr. Van der Weijden's report in the Karadzic case
3 dealing with these unscheduled incidents, which are not included in his
4 report in the Mladic case, be tendered as a Prosecution Exhibit. And
5 that would be excerpts from 65 ter number 13574 which we would upload,
6 Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think I was too early, Ms. Edgerton. I
8 missed the point that you -- one second. I missed the point that these
9 were sections of the report which were not part of the Mladic sections.
10 I ignored that or neglected and therefore I should not have intervened.
11 You want to.
12 MR. LUKIC: I would object at this point, Your Honour, because
13 the Prosecution should reopen the case for this, I think. If they want
14 to introduce something else through their expert witness.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, isn't it true that --
16 MR. LUKIC: His expertise.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just, first of all, give an opportunity to
18 Ms. Edgerton.
19 MR. LUKIC: As I can -- if I can say one more thing.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
21 MR. LUKIC: Why we asked our expert witnesses to address many
22 issues in their reports is that the Prosecution already introduced
23 documents in connection of those incidents. So we had in our case
24 documents that address like police records for the incident that was not
25 in our indictment. So we cannot just leave it like that. But the
1 Prosecution does not have the right to introduce their expertise or the
2 expertise of their expert witness in this manner.
3 That's our position.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.
5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 [Prosecution counsel confer]
7 MR. TIEGER: Because this is a bit systemic, I'll be happy to
8 address it.
9 Under normal circumstances, it would be a classical 94 bis
10 submission, which would give rise to the tendering of documentation
11 arising from an expert. But as we see here, the Defence has tendered
12 evidence and proffered testimony from a purported expert, whose expertise
13 and conclusions are subject to challenge from a variety of sources. And
14 in this particular instance, given, in particular, the circumstances
15 where this witness chose to address systemically the issue of campaign,
16 the issue of the various aspects of the Prosecution's case, through the
17 testimony of their expert who had been previously confronted with this
18 very information in another context, and who, therefore, was well aware
19 that in the course of forming and framing his opinions is a perfectly
20 valid and, indeed, virtually inevitable means of testing his evidence.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Tieger, is it correct that in any case the
22 Prosecution had in its possession the report of this witness before
23 cross-examination began?
24 MR. TIEGER: No question about that, Mr. President --
25 Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: And that therefore these incidents as discussed by
2 this witness in his report, the Prosecution was aware of.
3 MR. TIEGER: Yes. The Prosecution was aware of the positions
4 this witness took in his report but --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Shouldn't the Prosecution therefore have prepared
6 to tender Mr. Van der Weijden's evidence in the Karadzic case during the
7 cross-examination of this witness? Rather than the re- cross.
8 MR. TIEGER: Well, you can -- that may be better addressed for
9 Ms. Edgerton in terms of the allocation of the time she had to address
10 all of the potential issues raised in the report. But it's clear that
11 was directly confronted with allegations related to these specific
12 incidents in the course of the re-direct examination and dealt with that
13 in a timely fashion immediately upon the conclusion of the re-direct,
14 when we were directly confronted with that.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will consider whether it should grant
17 the objection, yes or no. We want to take more time for that.
18 Therefore, the -- those reports will be marked for identification and --
19 no, it's not -- Ms. Edgerton, you refer to it -- do we have numbers for
20 it already? Because you referred to it only in general terms.
21 MS. EDGERTON: The report in -- the public redacted report in its
22 entirety has been uploaded at 65 ter number 13574 and my request was for
23 those incidents unscheduled in the present indictment, the sections
24 related to those incidents to be admitted.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So therefore you make an excerpt. We reserve
1 a number for it.
2 Mr. Tieger.
3 MR. TIEGER: One matter occurs to me, Mr. President, and that's
4 in light of the Court's remarks. I mean, there are two ways of moving
5 through the materials. As the Court is aware, in circumstances, for
6 example, where we have considered that tendering the difference between
7 determining what an expert knew and asking that witness about it and
8 obtaining information about the matters considered or not considered
9 might be different from what one would tender. And Ms. Edgerton was
10 moving systematically through those aspects until the point at which the
11 Court raised its question, subsequently noting that if it had considered
12 that it related to materials not in evidence it wouldn't have. So I just
13 don't want to find us in a position where she was moving through a
14 determination of what matters this expert was aware of and did or didn't
15 consider, in contrast to the admissibility issuing which is obviously a
16 slightly different issue. So that's a compromise position the Court can
17 consider, permitting her to continue her re-cross-examination as it was
19 JUDGE ORIE: As I said before, I intervened too early and not on
20 a right basis. That is a matter which is -- apart -- let me just consult
21 with my colleagues. Unless, Mr. Lukic, you'd like to add something.
22 MR. LUKIC: Just to add something on the topic --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
24 MR. LUKIC: -- Judge Moloto just raised.
25 Timing. The same was addressed in Karadzic report. The same
1 issues, same topics. So it's been in Mr. Poparic's product in his work
2 for a long time. There is nothing new. So it is -- we think that it's
3 absolutely not appropriate to address it in re-cross. It's not that --
4 it's not me who raised these issues. Absolutely not me. It's been there
5 for a long time.
6 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, the parties are invited to make
9 written submissions on the admission of these materials and we'd like to
10 receive that within ten days from now.
11 Further, Ms. Edgerton, you may proceed with your line of
12 questioning, which is not in any way anticipating what our decision will
13 be on the admission.
14 MS. EDGERTON: In fact, Your Honours, I made my point with
15 respect to that, and I'd just like that move on with an effort to
16 conclude -- or in an effort to conclude before we break.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Which will be in five minutes.
18 MS. EDGERTON: I may be able to achieve that, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
20 MS. EDGERTON:
21 Q. Now, in respect of P7617, page 9, you gave some evidence in your
22 redirect examination.
23 MS. EDGERTON: And I'd like to look at that, please.
24 [Prosecution counsel confer]
25 MS. EDGERTON: It's not the photo that I was after. If I could
1 just have your indulgence for a moment.
2 There we have it. Thank you.
3 Q. Now, Mr. Poparic, in respect of this photograph, you said at
4 temporary transcript page 15 -- actually you were asked: "Mr. Poparic,
5 in your view, is this the place of explosion the same where the small
6 holes were seen in the video?"
7 And you said: "I explained already it's impossible. Here, there
8 were first graders who were unscathed and an explosion did happen here.
9 You can see that."
10 So my question for you is: Is that the photo of the explosion of
11 the shell that killed Mrs. Gunjic and the school children? The scene of
12 the explosion, I should say.
13 A. The interpretation that I got is not really what I said but I can
14 answer nevertheless.
15 This is not the scene of the explosion that -- where Mrs. Gunjic
16 was a victim.
17 Q. Right.
18 MS. EDGERTON: Could we move into private session then, please.
19 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
20 [Private session]
11 Page 40946-40947 redacted. Private session.
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
14 MS. EDGERTON: Nothing further, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
16 Have we dealt with the other matters you -- we have not, but we
17 should take a break first. Do we need the witness for that after the
18 break? No reason to --
19 MS. EDGERTON: No.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Poparic, although there are some administrative
21 matters still to be dealt with, we have concluded hearing your testimony.
22 I'd like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague, for having
23 answered the many, many questions that were put to you, both by the
24 parties and by the Bench, and I wish you a safe return home again.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You may follow the usher.
2 [The witness withdrew]
3 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break. We'll resume at 20 minutes
4 to 2.00. We'll deal then with some left-overs, and we might deal briefly
5 with a few procedural matters as well.
6 --- Recess taken at 1.17 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 1.43 p.m.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first start with any remaining matter from the
9 testimony of the last witness.
10 Ms. Edgerton.
11 MS. EDGERTON: Yes, just very briefly, Your Honour. I just
12 wanted to raise the frame-by-frame stills that we had made at 65 ter
13 number 33365, hearing Your Honours' express of interest in having stills
14 of the video that was 1D05925, which was played in court and commented on
15 by the witness. So the matter was -- I had brought those to Your Honours
16 at the beginning of this week and the matter was put in abeyance pending
17 some input or review by Mr. Lukic and so that we don't lose track of
18 those, I wonder if those could be admitted now, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can you give a number of this separate document?
20 Not the number of the video but of the stills.
21 MS. EDGERTON: The stills have 65 ter number 33365.
22 JUDGE ORIE: The number was incomplete on the transcript.
23 MS. EDGERTON: Yes, I see that now, thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: That's a series of 64 stills, if I remember well.
25 MS. EDGERTON: Actually, 46.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Six and four were right but the order was wrong.
2 65 ter number 33365 receives exhibit number?
3 THE REGISTRAR: P7619, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: P7619 is admitted into evidence.
5 Yes, Ms. Edgerton.
6 MS. EDGERTON: Yes. Thank you. And the second one was with
7 regard to P7608, MFI, which was a document dated 11 August 1993, strictly
8 confidential ABiH, enemy assessment - an enemy assessment was title of
9 it - from assistant Chief of Staff for intelligence and security. Now
10 having looked at the document, Your Honour, understanding my friend's
11 objection to be an inability to know who wrote the document, I would
12 submit that would only go to its weight, Your Honours. The document was
13 manifestly prepared by the army for contemporaneous reporting purposes
14 through the intelligence chain, and I would note is not dissimilar in
15 content to P7609. So given this, I would think the inability to identify
16 a particular signator would not go against its admission and ask for that
17 to be fully admitted at the time.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could you tell us what its provenance is.
19 MS. EDGERTON: Yes. This was the document that had been duly
20 authenticated from the military archives from the ABiH Ministry of
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Was that the document where after each and every
23 page was such a certification included?
24 MS. EDGERTON: Correct.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the issue is weight or admissibility.
1 MR. LUKIC: Issue is admissibility. First of all, I would like
2 to see that manifestly, that is manifestly visible, it's prepared by the
3 army. It's not in the document. That's exactly why we objected. That's
4 not at all there. Not that it's manifestly there.
5 So there is no source and we don't who prepared it. And it's not
6 that we objected to the content and then it's similar to something else.
7 No. We object to admissibility because we do not know the source who
8 prepared it.
9 JUDGE ORIE: If that's what you wanted to submit then ...
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will give a decision on admission or
12 nonadmission in due course, having heard the submissions by the parties.
13 Mr. Tieger.
14 MR. TIEGER: And finally, Mr. President, before we move on from
15 matters related to the recent testimony, may I raise one matter that will
16 move things further forward, and that's with respect to the tendering of
17 the excerpts from Mr. Van der Weijden's report in the Karadzic case,
18 which was uploaded as 65 ter 13574. On consideration, the Prosecution
19 would withdraw its tendering of those excerpts and simply rely on the
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That saves you, Mr. Lukic, also making further
23 Any other matter in relation to the testimony of the witness
24 which has left us half an hour ago?
25 MR. LUKIC: Probably we will have to deal with documents
1 mentioned in the report and we submitted our list to Madam Registrar and
2 probably my learned friend from the opposite would -- she just provided
3 us with a list but I really cannot comment on this, at this moment.
4 JUDGE ORIE: No. I take it that we have seen that list now.
5 Table of Prosecution materials in relation to Mile Poparic. We haven't
6 seen yours yet, and that is a -- if I can see that well, it's a --
7 MR. LUKIC: We provided updated one, since documents were
8 admitted during the examination of Mr. Poparic. So we provided one this
9 morning that is updated.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And what I would like very much the party to
11 do as well is to consider whether there's any objection against the
12 admission of any of those documents once they are exchanged.
13 MR. TIEGER: And the -- I was going to rise to make a distinction
14 between those two and that my interest in doing so is further amplified
15 by the Court's -- perhaps, understanding that it is an exchange. We
16 don't accept for a moment that the submission of the voluminous materials
17 by Mr. Lukic following his examination is the equivalent of our
18 submission of the linked documents and the very narrow submission of the
19 linked documents, akin to precisely was done with expert Subotic as we
20 mentioned repeatedly. So that was, as you recall, from the manner or
21 presentation and the manner of submission when expert Subotic was here,
22 Mr. Weber noted that he could expedite matters simply by providing the
23 Court with a very limited number of investigative files or similar
24 documents that were linked to the report that -- of incidents that were
25 discussed in the report or specific source materials. And he -- and
1 those matters were, in fact, admitted before the expert had concluded,
2 against the possibility that Mr. Weber might have to actually go through
3 a more formal process with the witness on the stand for that.
4 Now, and we, throughout the discussion about the Poparic
5 materials, we followed that precise format; a very limited number of
6 documents specifically arising from the expert's report that could have
7 been presented but were more efficiently dealt with in this manner.
8 Now, that would contrast to that in a very dramatic way to
9 Mr. Lukic' list which is a dramatic list --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Drama is expressed in numbers what, how many ...
11 MR. TIEGER: And --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps Mr. Lukic could tell us [Overlapping
13 speakers] ...
14 MR. LUKIC: It changes all the time, but it is cut down from 28
15 pages to 12.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And that's just the title.
17 MR. LUKIC: You can see the Table 1 or two documents on a page
18 but I don't -- I haven't counted yet I can count if you want.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, there's no need to do that immediately and I
20 have an impression of what it approximately is.
21 MR. LUKIC: It's around 46, I was just told.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. LUKIC: Forty-five or 46. This large.
24 MR. TIEGER: And it's not just the number of documents, not just
25 the quantity, but it's the nature of the documents, the quality of
1 materials being submitted, after testimony, without hearing what the
2 witness might have to say about it, without having cross-examined on it,
3 et cetera.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. LUKIC: So if we want to have this really formal, then we
6 proposed all the documents from our updated list to be admitted and, of
7 course, the Prosecution can then object if they want.
8 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a closer look at it anyhow. Of course,
9 if there are any specific objections already against some of the
10 documents we'd like to know.
11 One of the problems the Chamber may face, Mr. Lukic, is that if
12 you -- in order to illustrate a certain portion of the report, if you
13 tender then a longer document, is it then your intention that we look
14 only at that portion of the document which illustrates the testimony or
15 the portion of the report of the witness, or because if everything is in
16 evidence, this Chamber has a habit of considering everything, what is in
17 that document. So, therefore, that may ... otherwise, of course, you
18 would be invited to limit it to that portion of a document and, again, I
19 have not looked at the list.
20 MR. LUKIC: We could limit ourselves to only portions of the
21 document and you have footnote when that is already mentioned so if you
22 just for you to be able to check in the document, otherwise --
23 JUDGE ORIE: That's the issue, whether we are presented with new
24 evidence or whether we are presented with an opportunity to verify the
25 accuracy of what the witness has quoted.
1 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I can assure that it is just for you to
2 verify if the quotation in this work is accurate or not.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's hereby on the record. The change will
4 consider whether or not we can work on that basis, because that leaves
5 open discussions later on what is still verification, whether it can look
6 one paragraph before, after, same page, next page. We'll consider that,
7 but it's clear you want to give us an opportunity to verify the accuracy
8 of the sources this expert witness has relied on.
9 We'll consider the matter and we'll then deal with both your
10 lists. If there's any comment from you on the Prosecution's list or the
11 other way around, then we'd like to hear from you as soon as possible.
12 Any other matter? In relation to the witness.
13 MR. TIEGER: No -- no distinction additional matter. No,
14 Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 Mr. Lukic.
17 MR. LUKIC: Yes. I owe, Your Honours, one explanation. During
18 the testimony of Mr. Bruce Bursik, we challenged past of Mr. Nikolic, and
19 I wrongly told you that he was charged according to the paragraph 167 and
20 I told you, I was on my feet, that it is counterfeiting money, which is
21 not true. It is next paragraph, 168, I missed by one and 167 is trading
22 in gold coins, foreign currency and other foreign bills. So, and the
23 Prosecution uploaded it under number 65 ter 33236 and the translation
24 into English is not complete yet. We are awaiting for that, and I
25 promised Ms. Hasan that I will do this so she can confirm if I did this
1 correctly or not.
2 JUDGE ORIE: She's smiling, so she has certainly confirmed.
3 MS. HASAN: Good afternoon. Yes, that's correct, the English
4 language translation has been uploaded, and Your Honours, you'll find the
5 question that had been asked specifically about Article 167 at transcript
6 page 38885 and what we've uploaded as Mr. Lukic has said is the original
7 Article 167 from 1976 and there were two subsequent amendments, one in
8 1984 and one in 1987, which can also be found in that -- that upload that
9 we've made available.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Now, isn't it true that the parties now agree on
11 what Article 168 says? And do we need it in evidence at all or could you
12 stipulate that --
13 MR. LUKIC: We can stipulate that I was wrong and that's what --
14 what is said in the document. We have no problem for having it uploaded,
15 but we can stipulate.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan, any need to still add more to the
17 evidence although?
18 MS. HASAN: No, Your Honour, if that is satisfactory to the Bench
19 as well.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Unless you expect us to go into the whole of the
21 case law on selling gold, but I don't think that you would. I think the
22 uploading was mainly to settle the slight dispute and the dispute has
23 been settled by now.
24 Then I think we leave it to that for the time being.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, can you just repeat the 65 ter number
1 that you referred to at page 77, line 7.
2 MR. LUKIC: It's 33236.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then I -- Ms. Hasan.
5 MS. HASAN: Yes, Your Honour. One more matter that arises from
6 the testimony of Mr. Bursik and Your Honours raised this on the 22nd of
7 October at transcript page 40253 to 40257, and it relates to three
8 excerpts from documents that the Defence used during the direct
9 examination. These were provisionally admitted, subject to our
10 submissions on their admissibility and we will not be objecting to the
11 three excerpts tendered by the Defence, and they are D1322, MFI; D1323,
12 MFI; and D1324, MFI.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Under those circumstances, D1322, D1323, and D1324
14 are admitted into evidence.
15 MS. HASAN: Just one final matter.
16 And that's a correction that needs to be made to the Srebrenica
17 trial video; that's P01147, as well as its accompanying stills book
18 P01148. It relates to DutchBat soldier footage of a convoy of buses
19 leaving Potocari to Kladanj. In our video and in our stills book, it is
20 recorded that this footage was taken on the 13th of July, 1995. That is
21 an error, and that footage was taken on the 12th of July, 1995.
22 We have uploaded, under 65 ter number 28781A, a correction to the
23 trial record which sets out specifically where in the trial video a
24 correction needs to be made and in the stills book. And, of course,
25 there is a transcript that accompanies the video and that too, on pages
1 78 in the English and 73 in the B/C/S, should reflect the correct date,
2 12th July 1995.
3 So we propose, and we've discussed the matter with the Defence
4 and we have their agreement on this, that this correction that we've
5 uploaded be admitted so that the record is clear.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll have a look at it because it's a bit
7 uncommon to make a correction to a video. But we'll have a look at it
8 and then we'll -- we -- it's on the record that the parties do not
9 disagree on the matter. Therefore, a decision in due course will follow.
10 We also have to find out whether, for example, this is the best technical
11 way. Because the stills book can be amended. So, therefore, then you
12 would have the complete one. But we'll consider what's the best
13 technical way of doing it. I mean, to change a video is a bit difficult.
14 Therefore, the submission perhaps adds --
15 MS. HASAN: Yes, you're right it would be difficult for us to
16 change the video. In fact creating a new ERN number, a new compilation.
17 Same goes for the stills book. The reason --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Stills book is easier.
19 MS. HASAN: Certainly. We just have to track down where
20 witnesses have been referred to certain pages.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We'll have a look at it and it's clear that
22 the parties do not disagree.
23 Any other matter? If not, I have a few of such exciting matters
24 again as I often address.
25 The first one is -- deals with the ICTY witness statement given
1 by Tarik Zunic on the 10th of November, 1995 which on the 29th of
2 October of this year was admitted into evidence as D1337. The Chamber
3 notes, however that it was already admitted into evidence as part of
4 Exhibit P1945, and that is the Rule 92 bis package of witness
5 Tarik Zunic. And the Chamber therefore instructs the Registry to vacate
6 Exhibit D1337.
7 Next one is about D1334.
8 On the 28th of October, 2015, this exhibit, a video, was admitted
9 into evidence the Chamber puts on the records that contrary to what was
10 previously stated on the record it is not a four-second video but an
11 eight-minute video that was admitted into evidence. The Chamber also
12 notes that this eight-minute video contains dialogue and that a
13 transcript of the dialogue is not available on e-court.
14 And the Chamber would like to know whether the Defence wants to
15 rely on the dialogue.
16 MR. LUKIC: I will have to go back to the video, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we'll -- we'll hear from you later.
18 Another opportunity perhaps would be to limit the excerpt but we'll hear
19 from you.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could we hear not later than next week,
22 Mr. Lukic.
23 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I'm just trying to check if
24 it's on our list.
25 JUDGE ORIE: If you wouldn't mind, I'd prefer to already
1 continue. We hear from you not later than next week.
2 Then, I have item, a remaining issue from the testimony of
3 Sveto Veselinovic.
4 On the 12th of November of last year during the testimony of
5 Sveto Veselinovic, Exhibit D778, a video, was admitted into evidence.
6 And I refer to transcript page 28247.
7 The Chamber notes that the portion of the video from 3 minutes,
8 57 seconds through 6 minutes, 12 seconds, has dialogue but an English
9 transcript has not been uploaded into e-court. The Chamber contacted the
10 Defence on the 30th of July and on the 13th of October 2015, via e-mail,
11 asking if it intended to rely on that part of the video and, if so,
12 notifying it that an English transcript would be needed. Given that the
13 Chamber has not heard from the Defence on the matter, the Chamber
14 understands that the Defence does not intend to rely on the dialogue in
15 that part of the video.
16 Then, I move to my last item, related to D1227.
17 On the 8th of September, 2015 during the testimony of
18 Radoje Vojvodic, an ICRC report was marked for identification. The
19 Chamber has reviewed the documents and finds that even though there were
20 no questions asked of the witness in relation to the content of the
21 document, its content is related to the subject matter of the witness's
23 D1227 is admitted, under seal.
24 No matters remaining. We'll adjourn for the day, and we'll
25 resume, Monday, the 9th of November, 9.30 in the morning, in this same
1 courtroom, I.
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.09 p.m.,
3 to be reconvened on Monday, the 9th day of
4 November, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.