Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 40879

 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

 6     courtroom.

 7             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

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

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             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

Page 40880

 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

25     00269226.

Page 40881

 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

Page 40882

 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

Page 40883

 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

Page 40884

 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

Page 40885

 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

 9     description.

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

Page 40886

 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

Page 40887

 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.

Page 40888

 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

 7     square.

 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

21     fell?

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.

Page 40889

 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

 7     previously?

 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

12     killed.

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

24     school.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  For the record, we are looking at the still at

Page 40890

 1     09:00.1.

 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

Page 40891

 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

11     that?

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.

Page 40892

 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.

Page 40893

 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

18     that.

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?

Page 40894

 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.

Page 40895

 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

 8     witness.

 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.

Page 40896

 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,

Page 40897

 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

23     for.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  I have one --

25             MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... some things from yesterday.

Page 40898

 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?

Page 40899

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is no indication whatsoever

 2     that a house was demolished in that area.  In 2001, there was nothing

 3     there.

 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

 8     indication.

 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

17     there?

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.

Page 40900

 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

22     incidents.

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

Page 40901

 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

17     usher.

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

23     courtroom.

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

Page 40902

 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

Page 40903

 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

19     time.

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 --

Page 40904

 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?

Page 40905

 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

Page 40906

 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

Page 40907

 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,

 3     please.

 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

 8     something.

 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

11     visible.

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

Page 40908

 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.

Page 40909

 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

 3     does.

 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.

Page 40910

 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]

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 40911

 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

25     picture.

Page 40912

 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

21     document.

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.

Page 40913

 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

19     Nedzarici."

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.

Page 40914

 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.

Page 40915

 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

16     153.

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;

Page 40916

 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

 7     version.

 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

20     report.

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.

Page 40917

 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

17     positions.

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.

Page 40918

 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?

Page 40919

 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

Page 40920

 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

 5     broadcast.

 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 ...

Page 40921

 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.

Page 40922

 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.

Page 40923

 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

 5     concluded?

 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.

Page 40924

 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

Page 40925

 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

18     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

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

Page 40926

 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

Page 40927

 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

22     water.

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

Page 40928

 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

19     session.

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

24     broadcast.

25             MR. LUKIC:  Broadcast.

Page 40929

 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.

Page 40930

 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

Page 40931

 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

Page 40932

 1     Prosecution expert, had investigated the possibility that this man had

 2     moved.

 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

 8     remember?

 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

17     description.

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

21     report?

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

Page 40933

 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

Page 40934

 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.

Page 40935

 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

12     station.

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?

Page 40936

 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

14     language.

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.

Page 40937

 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.

Page 40938

 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] ...

Page 40939

 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.

Page 40940

 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

Page 40941

 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.

Page 40942

 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

Page 40943

 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

18     proceeding.

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

Page 40944

 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

Page 40945

 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]

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 40946











11  Page 40946-40947 redacted.  Private session.















Page 40948

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

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.

Page 40949

 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.

Page 40950

 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

21     Defence.

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.

Page 40951

 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

20     re-cross-examination.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That saves you, Mr. Lukic, also making further

22     submissions.

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

Page 40952

 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

Page 40953

 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

Page 40954

 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.

Page 40955

 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

Page 40956

 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

Page 40957

 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

Page 40958

 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

Page 40959

 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

Page 40960

 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

22     testimony.

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

Page 40961

 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.