Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 44110

 1                           Wednesday, 15 June 2016

 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             Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

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

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11             The Chamber was not informed of any preliminary matters to be

12     raised.  Therefore, we'll wait for the witness to be escorted in the

13     courtroom.

14             Perhaps I could briefly deal with one item which is about

15     Exhibit D1871.  On the 30th of May of this year, the Chamber admitted

16     this exhibit into evidence.

17             On 6th of June, the Chamber emailed the parties, noting a

18     discrepancy between the original document and its English translation and

19     requesting that the Defence provide a revised translation.  I'll continue

20     with this in a moment.

21                           [The witness entered court]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Demurenko.

23             THE WITNESS:  Good morning.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, I'd like to remind that you

25     you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the


Page 44111

 1     beginning of your testimony.  You'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Tieger.

 2     You'll find Mr. Tieger to your right.  Mr. Tieger is counsel for the

 3     Prosecution.

 4             Mr. Tieger, please proceed.

 5             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 6                           WITNESS:  ANDREY DEMURENKO [Resumed]

 7                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 8                           Cross-examination by Mr. Tieger:

 9        Q.   Morning, Colonel.

10        A.   Good morning.

11        Q.   Yesterday we had the opportunity to see the video of the press

12     conference you conducted shortly after you completed your investigation

13     and hear your explanation of what had you done.  I just want to touch on

14     a few of those specific points that you raised during the conference.

15             First of all, you explained to everyone gathered into the -- to

16     those to whom the film was ultimately disseminated that you used the

17     findings of the investigators who had examined the scene and specifically

18     their findings on the angle of descent and the line of direction to

19     identify the possible locations of the firing point; correct?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   And the angle of descent that you used was 70 degrees, 7-0;

22     correct?

23        A.   If you take into account that I was relying on other people's

24     information, I'm sure, but that doesn't mean that I was able to check

25     those 70 degrees.

Page 44112

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Would you please answer the question rather than

 2     explain matters which are on your mind but apparently not on the mind of

 3     the one who examines you.

 4             MR. TIEGER:

 5        Q.   And the line of direction that you used was 176 degrees; correct?

 6     As you explained during the video.

 7        A.   With your leave, I'll just answer briefly using two or three

 8     sentences.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  You're invited to tell Mr. Tieger whether the line

10     of direction that you used was 176 degrees.  Did you?  Or did you not?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll tell you, I used the line on

12     the map that was charted by the previous investigation.  I believed what

13     the French and the BH side gave me.  The figure didn't matter, 176 or

14     106.  What I used, what mattered, was the line drawn on the map.

15             MR. TIEGER:

16        Q.   Well --

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I was just going to ask if you are done with this

18     one, could we please get back to the previous question, to which you had

19     no answer; the 70 degrees question.  Once are you done with this one.

20             MR. TIEGER:  Okay.

21        Q.   Well, Colonel, I'm going suggest to you that the line of

22     direction does matter and I'll be asking you questions about that.  But

23     right now, I want to ask you to confirm or deny that almost immediately

24     after you completed your investigation, you told the press conference

25     and, therefore, everybody who was available to listen to it, that you

Page 44113

 1     followed a line of direction of 176 degrees.  That was your position at

 2     the time of the press conference almost immediately after your

 3     investigation; right?

 4        A.   Absolutely correct.  I stuck to the line, I underline, not

 5     degrees, but the line drawn by the previous investigation.  It didn't

 6     matter to me how many degrees were indicated.  You remarked upon it

 7     yesterday when I made a mistake and said 106 instead of 176.  That

 8     doesn't matter.  The line on the map matters.  Because at the previous

 9     session you tried to catch me in a mistake in tables and angles, and

10     different French --

11             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Demurenko,

12     there's no need to start a kind of debate as you just started.  Please

13     listen carefully to the questions and answer them.

14             Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

15             MR. TIEGER:

16        Q.   Well, let's assume for the same of this question, and I can tell

17     you that as the parties and the Court is aware, this is reflected in the

18     evidence, that there was more than one line of direction referred to in

19     those reports, so I'm suggesting to that you it's important for purposes

20     of determining what you did to identify which line you followed in your

21     investigation.  Do you know that or not?

22        A.   I know that I followed both lines drawn on the map.

23        Q.   And do you know the -- the -- what those lines represented in

24     terms of degrees?  Could you identify them for us in that way?  You

25     identified them for everyone who was listening to the press conference,

Page 44114

 1     identified as 176 degrees, and then you pointed to another line where you

 2     were at a single location, according to the video, that was unspecified.

 3             So can you tell what you say those two lines on your video; that

 4     is, on the chart you made when you were making the press conference,

 5     represented?  Did that first line represented 176 as you indicated on the

 6     video, as you wrote down on the chart, or not?

 7        A.   As you were able to see in the video, I used only my hand.  I

 8     didn't use any instrument.  My hand cannot draw 170 degrees, and neither

 9     can yours.  It was just an illustration of what I had done, and it could

10     have been exactly 176 degrees.

11        Q.   Well, tell me if this is a fair characterisation of what I have

12     just heard that you don't know what line you followed, you're just

13     indicating, I followed some line in the course of my investigation and

14     I'm putting down 176 and I'm saying 176 at the time of this press

15     conference as an illustration but it could be anything.

16             MR. IVETIC:  Objection.  As it mischaracterises the evidence.

17             MR. TIEGER:  It's a question.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  It's a question but this is how the answer should be

19     understood.

20             Would you please answer the question.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm answering, no, that's not

22     correct.  Because you put it like, do you know which line you followed?

23     I'm answering:  I know which line I followed.  I know which line I

24     walked.

25             MR. TIEGER:

Page 44115

 1        Q.   And you said earlier it could have been exactly 176 degrees,

 2     which I take to mean it could have been something else; is that correct?

 3        A.   No, that's not correct.  If you mean to say that I just walked

 4     around freely, that's not true.  I followed exactly the line drawn on the

 5     map given to me by the previous investigators.  It was probably exactly

 6     176 degrees as indicated.  I didn't check, that was not my purpose.

 7        Q.   I'm going to move on.

 8             MR. TIEGER:  Your Honour, I understand that you had a question

 9     about the angle of descent, the 70 degrees.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I just wanted to insist on getting an answer to

11     your question.  Because that question was not answered.

12             MR. TIEGER:  Okay.

13        Q.   Just going back to the angle of descent of the projectile, is it

14     correct that you relied on an angle of descent of 70 degrees at the time

15     or at least that's what you represented during the press conference?

16        A.   That's true.  I relied - I repeat - on the results of the

17     previous investigation.

18        Q.   And then you applied those figures to a --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger, Mr. Tieger, it's still an ambiguous

20     answer.  If you say, I relied on the previous figures, the established

21     figures, was that 70 degree, yes or no; or do you say, I don't know?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In that case, I will opt for I

23     don't know because I myself did not measure.  I simply believed.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  But if you follow a line, even if you have not

25     measured it yourself, then at least you should know, if you say, I relied

Page 44116

 1     on the figures established by others, what those figures were.  Were

 2     those figures 70 degrees, yes or no; or don't you know?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Regardless of the fact that I was

 4     repeating those figures, 70 degrees and 176, I still don't know because I

 5     didn't take the measurement myself.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Well --

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  -- you are now telling us that the figures you

 9     followed, as established in the report, were 176 and 70 degrees.  Is that

10     correctly understood?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was written, yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

13             MR. TIEGER:

14        Q.   And then you applied those figures to a firing table, the data in

15     a firing table for an M52 120-millimetre mortar; correct?

16        A.   No, not correct.  I was showing mortar firing tables as a

17     demonstration of the fact that we know that system.  I didn't know either

18     the table or the figures.  I only needed the line on the map which we

19     physically walked.

20        Q.   You didn't use a firing table to make any of the calculations to

21     identify the alleged locations of the firing positions?

22        A.   For the assumed firing points, we did use them, but only for

23     them.  We just walked the distance.  The points themselves didn't matter.

24     It was a demonstration of the fact that we know the weapon.  It didn't

25     matter 1200 to 2600, et cetera.  We just walked along that line.

Page 44117

 1        Q.   Colonel, you said in the video at page 2, paragraph 2 of the

 2     transcript of the video, which is D2122, and at approximately 6 minutes

 3     and 28 seconds going on into the video itself, you said:  "... and in

 4     accordance with this angle 70 degrees and this is a direction 176 we can,

 5     after comparison with the standard data, see on the following map," and

 6     then you went on to identify six and circle -- and write in script the

 7     locations of six positions.

 8             Now, that appeared to indicate that you used the firing table,

 9     that is, the data that you had referred to earlier in the firing table as

10     you held it up on the screen, to identify those six locations.  Is that

11     true or not?  Or did you come up with those six locations that you

12     circled on the chart in some other way?

13        A.   Once again, let me repeat, to chart the line of the trajectory,

14     the firing table was not essential and it was not necessary.  We used the

15     previous results.

16             To show these six points, the six standard charges that could

17     determine the firing positions emerging from the previous material, yes,

18     we used those tables, but these points did not have any importance for

19     the inspection.

20        Q.   I'm focussing now on exactly what you said at the time of the

21     video.  That is, almost immediately after you completed the

22     investigation.  So you have just confirmed that you used a firing table,

23     that's the M52 firing table, correct, that you held up in the video;

24     correct?

25        A.   I held it up in the video?  You mean the table?

Page 44118

 1        Q.   You held up the M52 firing table to show what you used when you

 2     were conducting your press conference.

 3        A.   I held the firing table.

 4        Q.   Okay.  So I think we've got at least that --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we have an answer to the question.

 6             You -- apart from how you walked, you pointed at certain

 7     locations, certain distances from the point of impact.  You had that

 8     firing table.  Did you use that firing table when figuring out where the

 9     potential firing positions on that line might have been?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The table for the 120 millimetre

11     mortar helps determine possible firing positions.

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

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And I really demonstrated them.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Did you use that firing table when even if

15     preliminarily identify possible point of impact points of -- firing

16     points?

17             Did you use that firing table?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  --

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- to determine the points, yes.

21             MR. TIEGER:

22        Q.   And, again, focussing on what your position is, that is what you

23     were asserting almost immediately after your investigation was concluded,

24     you then said you went to the four locations which were on the Bosnian

25     Serb side, those four locations you had drawn on the chart, and you found

Page 44119

 1     that each of those spots was "unacceptable or unsuitable for firing

 2     position mortar shell."

 3             Right?

 4        A.   You are twisting my words.  I said at the press conference that I

 5     walked with my own two feet that whole route, including the points that

 6     could have been firing positions.  I'm talking about my own two feet and

 7     the whole route.  These words are used in the interview.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger, could you please literally read from the

 9     transcript what the witness is recorded as having said.

10             Before you, if you say that Mr. Tieger is twisting your words,

11     then we'll verify what you said as it appears on the transcript.

12             MR. TIEGER:  Okay.

13        Q.   So we're now on page 2 of what you said --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  And Mr. Tieger will now read exactly the words as

15     recorded.

16             Please proceed.

17             MR. TIEGER:

18        Q.   Just to place it in context --

19             MR. IVETIC:  If we are using an exhibit or document, it is

20     customary to have it up on e-court, so the parties know what it is, cite

21     what it is --

22             MR. TIEGER:  D2122.  That's fair enough.  D2122.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  It is a good suggestion to have it in e-court but I

24     think, as a matter of fact, Mr. Tieger referred already to the number of

25     the exhibit.  That is the exhibit which was -- it's on the record.

Page 44120

 1             But we'll now also see it on the screen.

 2             MR. TIEGER:  It has also the transcript attached.  Is the

 3     English -- there it is.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I think we need page 2.

 5             MR. TIEGER:  Okay.  This is a little harder because this isn't

 6     broken down in paragraphs like [indiscernible]

 7        Q.   As we go down the page, toward the middle you see all the numbers

 8     and you just explained you used 70 degree, 176 we see them there.  Then

 9     you identify specific locations, 900 metres, 1400, 2.000, 2700, 3.000 and

10     the last it says church but I think we know that means charge they can

11     use for 3600.

12             Now -- okay.  And please move the --

13             Now, you then said:  "Today, personally, with my special, not

14     special, very small investigation group including artillery officers, we

15     was on this place, this place, this, this, and this.  Really by my foot.

16     And I can affirm, absolutely without, or beyond any doubts, this is place

17     unacceptable or unsuitable for firing position mortar shell.  No

18     perspective stay on this position and shell to this area.  And therefore

19     conclusion of material of investigation was wrong."

20             I'm also going to remind you, Colonel, that you circled those

21     specific areas as you were identifying this place, this place, and this.

22             So I put to you again, sir, that what you said at the press

23     conference and what you explained you had done was that you had gone to

24     the specific locations, you had identified on -- already identified on

25     the chart, that ones in the Bosnian Serb area, that is 2000, 2700, 3000

Page 44121

 1     and 3600, this place, this place, this, and this, and asserted that those

 2     places were unacceptable or unsuitable for firing a mortar.  That's

 3     correct, isn't it?

 4        A.   I confirm that what is written in the text corresponds to what I

 5     said.  Maybe the problem is in the translation.  Twice it was said, you

 6     went.

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's remark:  The Russian verb "to go"

 8     differs depending whether you use a vehicle or your own two feet.  And

 9     the colonel is now saying that "went" in English was translated as if he

10     had been using a vehicle, where he actually walked all the way.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  We got information from the interpreters about the

12     use of certain Russian words.  Now, whether that explains everything is

13     still to be verified.

14             We do understand that you confirm -- by the way, it's not a

15     matter of translation because you confirmed what you said at the press

16     conference but you've added today several times, although you didn't say

17     it at the time, that you went on foot along the whole of the trajectory

18     as defined by that line.  That's how --

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On my own two feet and that's

20     written in the text.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Yes, and that's on foot.  I understand that

22     you do that with two feet, not with one.  But that's, you say you did at

23     the time, and Mr. Tieger was asking you questions about what you said

24     during the press conference.

25             Let's move on.

Page 44122

 1             MR. TIEGER:  All right.

 2        Q.   Let's look now at what you next explained about this at least

 3     next in the -- as far as we have access -- I won't say next, but let's

 4     just look at what you said in 2007 to the Dragomir Milosevic Trial

 5     Chamber about your investigation.

 6             First of all, you explained to the Milosevic Trial Chamber, as

 7     you had in the -- in the press conference, that you used the data of

 8     experts which allowed you to chart the line that allows -- that -- that

 9     provides possible firing points; right?  You used the expert data?

10             MR. IVETIC:  I'm going to object.  Again, this is day one in this

11     trial when we cite to other cases, we get a transcript reference so it

12     can be checked by the parties so we can see if the wording is accurate.

13     I don't why we're departing from that tradition.

14             MR. TIEGER:  I'm not making a specific -- I'm not quoting the

15     witness, I'm not showing him what he said, I'm asking him if he doesn't

16     know, then I'll go to something specific and I'll ask him whether or not

17     that's true.  But I think I'm entitled to ask the witness if he recalls

18     what he said, especially because he signed the amalgamated statement --

19     attested to an amalgamated statement that contains large portions of that

20     testimony.

21             MR. IVETIC:  Well, then we can go to the statement but to give

22     a --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I think it's fair to start asking the witness

24     the gist of what he testified before and then later, perhaps with

25     technical means, that is, transcripts, to verify the answer and to

Page 44123

 1     further test the reliability and the credibility of what the witness now

 2     testifies about in court.  Certainly, Mr. Ivetic, at some point in time,

 3     if it becomes an issue, then certainly we'll carefully and closely look,

 4     and if Mr. Tieger doesn't spontaneously do it, we'll invite him to look

 5     at that transcript.

 6             Please proceed.

 7             MR. TIEGER:  Okay.

 8        Q.   So that's my question, Colonel.  Did you explain to the Dragomir

 9     Milosevic Trial Chamber that you relied on the data of experts,

10     specifically the angle of descent and the line of direction, to chart a

11     line on which you could identify possible firing points?

12        A.   Am I supposed to answer?

13        Q.   Yes, sir.

14        A.   Naturally I cannot remember verbatim what was said nine years

15     ago, but I take your word for it that I had said that.

16        Q.   All right.  Well, since this question has arisen, let's turn to

17     65 ter 33683, e-court page 10.  This is you answering, sir.  Your answer

18     is:

19             "A.  Yes, but it's only when you have in front of you reports

20     from specialists who used specialised tools in their work who calculated

21     possible angles of descent.  Only with that using firing tables, takes

22     into account that angle and the bearings can you chart the line which

23     allows to check possible firing points."

24             So, as you had explained in the press conference, you told the

25     Dragomir Milosevic Trial Chamber that you used the angle of descent and

Page 44124

 1     the line of direction from the investigators and the firing table to

 2     chart -- to follow a line on which you considered you could find possible

 3     firing points; right.

 4        A.   No, that's not right.  Speaking about the angle of descent and

 5     the direction of the possible trajectory of the shell and repeating those

 6     figures, I meant that they were taken from the previous investigation,

 7     but I never said anywhere that only these figures led me to investigate

 8     what I did on site.  It was just an argument to show that I didn't just

 9     take these figures out of nowhere.  I used previous investigators'

10     documents, but it doesn't mean that I relied only on them for my own

11     investigation.  Those were just lines that I had to investigate, among

12     others.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you a perhaps relatively simple

14     question.  If all these locations are not of that importance, why didn't

15     you say, I checked the whole of the trajectory line where distances are

16     totally irrelevant apart than it could not be closer than a minimum, and

17     could not be further than a maximum.  You, both in the Dragomir Milosevic

18     quote, and in the press conference, you were not focussing on the whole

19     of the line, but you explained that there were, on the basis of the

20     tables, certain points that you inspected.  Why did you refer to those

21     points rather than said, I went through the whole of the line, which may

22     be 2 kilometres, 3 kilometres?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's understandable why.  For

24     military professionals, not amateurs, it's quite clear that firing

25     positions could not just be anywhere.  They had to be consistent with the

Page 44125

 1     technical features of that particular mortar.  That's why I spoke about

 2     these particular points.  But my words to the effect that I went on my

 3     feet the whole distance was to say that my task was to walk the whole

 4     route to establish there had been no mortars anywhere there.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Couldn't firing positions be anywhere on that line,

 6     if not below the closest distance and not further away than the maximum

 7     reach of the weapon system?  They could be anywhere or not?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely.  Absolutely.  They could

 9     have been at any point along that line.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And now you're telling us, at least if I

11     understood you well, that in order for the public to fully understand,

12     you pointed at specific locations, whereas, if I understand you well, you

13     say, That's not what it is.  It's the whole of the line.  So why draw the

14     attention of the public to four specific spots where you, as a

15     professional, understand that it's not about these specific spots but

16     it's just the whole of the line?

17             I still do not understand what you wanted to explain to the

18     public to better understand.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my view, it's all very simple.

20     I had only a few minutes for that interview.  If you had had an hour or

21     two, I would have in great detail described that whole weapon, how it

22     fires, what positions are possible, and everything.  I had to put a

23     maximum of information into two, three minutes, including the view of the

24     city to make it more plain, more demonstrative.  And, indeed, only the

25     specialists were involved in this work, whereas, that programme was meant

Page 44126

 1     for laypeople.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Would then not it have been the simplest way to

 3     explain by saying, This is the direction where it came from.  I inspected

 4     the whole of that line, and there was no spot which was suitable for

 5     firing.  Which would saved you a lot of time for this long interview --

 6     this short interview because you didn't have to calculate and show the

 7     tables, et cetera.  It would have saved a lot of time.  So I'm still

 8     puzzled by your explanation that this was the way to save time and to

 9     better explain what you say is not exactly what professionals would

10     think.

11             If you want to add something fine; if not, then I'll ask

12     Mr. Tieger to proceed.

13             THE WITNESS:  Please one minute, one comment.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I gave you an opportunity.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I absolutely agree with you, but at

16     that time, I was just a field commander, a regular field commander.  I

17     was not a PR specialist.  If I had that opportunity all over again, I

18     would have done much better in keeping with your advice and my experience

19     since then.  I had no experience then with talking to the media, and I

20     had not been prepared as I am for -- for this session or my appearance at

21     a previous trial.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger, please proceed.

23             MR. TIEGER:

24        Q.   Well, Colonel, you seem to have focussed on the relatively short

25     time you claim you had during the press conference, but I'm suggesting to

Page 44127

 1     that you when you came to testify in the Dragomir Milosevic, which

 2     encompassed several days, you emphasised, among other things, two things:

 3     Number one, that you followed a specific line of direction; and, number

 4     two -- specific line of direction rather than canvassing the entire

 5     slope.  And, number two, that you focussed on specific locations.  Is

 6     that true or not?

 7        A.   I believe that's what I said.  No problem.

 8        Q.   All right.  I may return to that -- well, we'll see in a moment.

 9     Let me --

10             Now, at paragraph 121 through 123 of your amalgamated statement,

11     you address the Dragomir Milosevic Trial Chamber's rejection of your

12     conclusions about the -- about following your investigation, rather.  And

13     you say they got confused.

14             Do you recall that portion of your amalgamated statement or do

15     you need to see that again?

16        A.   Shall I answer now?

17        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... please.

18        A.   I not simply agree with that.  I was emphasizing to myself even

19     that the expertise of the people at this Tribunal, specifically the

20     Office of the Prosecutor, and, of course, I got confused because I was

21     getting such masterful questions, so sophisticated questions, that I was

22     not always able to follow the logic of these questions as a military man,

23     and I am specialised only in military matters.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, Mr. Tieger, you said:  "I was

25     explained the finding of the Dragomir Milosevic Trial Chamber in relation

Page 44128

 1     to my evidence in that case."

 2             Did you read the judgement or was it just conveyed to you, or did

 3     you receive a translation?  Could you tell us exactly what you were --

 4     knew about that judgement.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just trusted what I was told.  I

 6     didn't check anything.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Told by whom?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe they told me, but I just

 9     don't remember.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  You don't know who explained to you what was

11     found -- to be found in the Dragomir Milosevic Trial Chamber's judgement?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After my appearance at that trial,

13     I never saw any materials about it.  I never read anything.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Nevertheless, you felt free to tell that the Trial

15     Chamber was wrong in its understanding.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you are now, again, quoting back

17     my comments, it's obvious that I had not been able to argue my points and

18     show that I was right.  It just shows the artfulness of the other party

19     when they are catching me out, using tables, using different materials.

20     You can see the -- the art they are using in their work.  I am not artful

21     in that way.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  It's not exactly an answer to my question, but,

23     Mr. Tieger, please proceed.

24             MR. TIEGER:

25        Q.   Colonel, you stated and have affirmed to this Court in

Page 44129

 1     paragraph 121 of your amalgamated statement, D2120, that it is not --

 2     that your evidence in the Dragomir Milosevic case "was not accepted

 3     because I allegedly did not investigate the entire possible area where

 4     Serb mortars could have been located and fired from at Markale II."

 5             And then you go ...

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, the part that has been read by counsel

 7     is not a quotation in verbatim format of what the witness actually said.

 8     Which begins with:  "Also I was told that this determination was

 9     consistent with the Prosecution's line of my cross-examination that

10     Colonel Demurenko confined himself to too narrow an area in seeking to

11     identify the possible launching positions.  In other words ..." and then

12     what Mr. Tieger said.

13             If we present what the witness said, we should present what the

14     witness actually said and not what Mr. Tieger wishes he said.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Isn't it true that the witness paraphrased by saying

16     in other words and that Mr. Tieger is perfectly allowed to rely on the

17     way in which the witness himself rephrased his previous testimony?  "In

18     other words," that is what the witness says in his statement.

19             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honours.  But Mr. Tieger is not saying "in

20     other words."  He is saying this is what's written in the statement and

21     it's not.  It is only half of what is in the statement in relation to

22     what the witness said in his statement.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You never read the whole of the statement if

24     you say this is what is stated here.  You choose your portion and then in

25     re-examination, you can put the other part to the witness apart from -- I

Page 44130

 1     think the appropriate way of trying to get the whole of it in is to

 2     invite Mr. Tieger, say, Mr. Tieger, could you please also read the

 3     previous four lines to the witness and that takes less time than the way

 4     in which it is done now.

 5             Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

 6             MR. TIEGER:

 7        Q.   The fact is, Colonel, as you just acknowledged a few moments ago,

 8     that it was you, during your Dragomir Milosevic Chamber [sic] who

 9     focussed on the precision or specificity of locations you examined.

10        A.   And where is the question?

11        Q.   I'm suggesting to you, sir, that the Dragomir Milosevic Chamber

12     was not confused as say in paragraph 122 about whether you claim to have

13     scoured the entire slope of the mountain for possible firing points

14     rather than focussing on specific locations but that you yourself

15     emphasised during your Dragomir Milosevic Chamber that your investigation

16     was predicated upon the fact that you had identified and examined

17     specific locations.

18        A.   Yes.  Again, I walked the whole line, focussing on certain

19     points.  That's true.

20             MR. TIEGER:  Can we have 65 ter 33683, page 41, please.

21        Q.   All right.  You can see here you're asked a question about what

22     you talked about in your TV appearance.  Went through these rocky areas,

23     determined it was impossible to fire.  When did you go.  You say:  "I

24     understand now."

25             Explained there was several of you, perhaps somebody else joined

Page 44131

 1     you.  Then you go on to say:  "The principle was quite simple.  We were

 2     to look at the fire tables and co-ordinate in order to establish with a

 3     margin of error of 1 to 2 metres the exact location."

 4             If we turn four pages from there to page 7781 of the transcript,

 5     page 45 in e-court.

 6             "Q.  Very well.  And what you did, and you explained it nicely on

 7     the chart behind you, is you followed this or looked at these four

 8     possible locations which were on the Bosnian Serb side which correspond

 9     to the possible charges used to fire that shell, namely charge three,

10     four, five, and six.

11             "A.  Yes, correct.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we move down.

13             One second.  Mr. Tieger is still reading.

14             MR. TIEGER:

15        Q.   And so -- and the question, the next question is:

16             "Q.  So the guiding principle for you to look at these locations

17     was this line of 176 degrees.

18             "A.  Both the line and the angle.  The angle indicated the exact

19     locations of fire points."

20             And perhaps one more example, at ... 3368 -- 65 ter 33684,

21     e-court page 51.  And this is questioning by Defence counsel,

22     Mr. Tapuskovic.  He asks you about photographs:  "...and I'll show you

23     just a couple of more.  Each of those photographs depicts one such

24     possible firing position.

25             "A.  That's precisely how it was.  Each photograph was made in

Page 44132

 1     one particular occasion which had been identified in advance with a

 2     margin of error of 5 metres.  My team and I travelled to these locations

 3     and took these photographs precisely in order to show that it was

 4     impossible to fire from there."

 5             And then I'll just continue.  "You mentioned --

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can we scroll down, please.

 7             MR. TIEGER:

 8        Q.   "You mentioned that explicitly earlier.  In the vicinity of this

 9     location where you took this photograph, were you able to observe the

10     entire area?  Were you able to see whether there were any traces showing

11     that a 120-millimetre mortar was placed in that area?

12             "A.  Certainly, as we were approaching this spot, we observed the

13     entire area around it, and had I seen 10 to 20 metres away from this spot

14     a possible firing position, then, yes, this could have been something

15     that could have prompted me to draw some other conclusions in my

16     investigation.  However --"

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can we turn the page.

18             MR. TIEGER:  Next page.

19        Q.   "However, there were no such traces anywhere."

20             Those portions of your testimony reflect, do they not, Colonel,

21     your emphasis on the precision of your identification of the alleged

22     potential or possible points of firing; correct?

23        A.   Is that a question?

24        Q.   It is.

25        A.   I'm not denying anything that's shown in the transcript.  More

Page 44133

 1     attention was paid to these points simply because questions were asked

 2     constantly about these points, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the

 3     route had not been inspected.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Demurenko, could I ask you the following.  One

 5     of the portions that was read to you was whether you were guided by the

 6     line of the direction, and then, without any further question, you said,

 7     Not only the line but also the angle so as to be better able to find the

 8     locations.

 9             So where you now say that in the questioning the focus was on the

10     spots but that you inspected the whole of the line, you yourself

11     corrected one question which was focussing on the whole of the line by

12     saying, Well, not only the whole of the line but the specific positions.

13             So to say, I was led to do this by the questions, that seems to

14     be an example, but if I understand it wrongly, please explain it to me,

15     that it was you yourself who moved away from the whole of the line to a

16     specific position.

17             Do you have any comment on what I think I read in the transcript?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now and then I'm saying the same

19     thing.  I walked that line.  Attention was paid on certainly points, but,

20     still, it was the whole line.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  That's not an answer to my question.  But let's move

22     on.

23             MR. TIEGER:  Given the time, Mr. President, and --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we'll move on after the break.

25             Mr. Demurenko, you may follow the usher.  We'd like to see you

Page 44134

 1     back in 20 minutes.

 2                           [The witness stands down]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll take a break, and we'll resume at ten minutes

 4     to 11.00.

 5                           --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.

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

 7                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I'll just continue where I stopped at the beginning

 9     of this session when I was dealing with Exhibit D1871.  I told you that

10     we informed the parties about the discrepancy between the original of the

11     English translation.

12             Now, on 13th of June, the Defence informed the Chamber and the

13     Prosecution by e-mail that it had uploaded a revised translation into

14     e-court.  The Prosecution responded that same day, noting that it had no

15     objections to the revised translation, and the Chamber hereby instructs

16     the Registry to replace the existing translation of Exhibit D1871 with

17     the document up loaded under doc ID 1D31-0739.

18                           [The witness takes the stand]

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger, if you are ready, please continue your

20     cross-examination.

21             MR. TIEGER:

22        Q.   Colonel, before we broke, we were discussing your testimony in

23     the Dragomir Milosevic case and looking at some of your comments there,

24     as well as paragraphs 121 through 123 of your amalgamated statement.

25             During the course of the testimony in the Karadzic case, you were

Page 44135

 1     asked, after you had explained as you did here this morning, that you

 2     searched the whole area, why you didn't say to the Dragomir Milosevic

 3     Chamber  that you covered the entire area, and you explained in response

 4     that, It was because they probably didn't ask me.

 5             MR. TIEGER:  And in that connection, if we could turn to 65 ter

 6     33680, e-court page 49.  Two pages past, please.  It's transcript page

 7     28931.

 8        Q.   Now, and this is the backdrop to your comment as we see here, so

 9     with the opportunity to tell the Dragomir Milosevic Chamber , indeed not

10     just an opportunity but an obligation because the Judge was asking you

11     that very question, you didn't say that you went -- you covered the

12     entire area for thousands and thousands of metres around.  You said:

13     Look, we looked at the precise spot and the 20 to 30 metres around it in

14     order to determine that the mortar couldn't have been fired from there,

15     and that's why the Milosevic chamber" --

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Could we scroll down, please.

17             MR. TIEGER:

18        Q.   "And that's why the Milosevic chamber reached the conclusion it

19     did.  Isn't that right?"

20             Your answer is:  "I'll answer that.  Concerning the first part,"

21     now, that's about an issue related to a [indiscernible] which is not in

22     response to this.

23             MR. TIEGER:  Could we turn the page, please.

24        Q.   And there we see at the second paragraph:  "The second thing: Why

25     I didn't talk more about the area we covered.  As a professional - not in

Page 44136

 1     geology but in another area of expertise - it's difficult for me to

 2     explain why I didn't speak about it.  Perhaps they didn't ask me.  They

 3     probably didn't ask me."

 4             And then you go on to say:  "But I have to say that in the

 5     interview on the video I said that we explored the locality.  I didn't

 6     say a particular location or point.  We explored the locality, and that

 7     means that we explored a large area lest we later be accused of a biased

 8     conclusion.  And that's all I have to say."

 9             Now -- okay.  And I take it you stand by the accuracy of that

10     transcript, that is, that reflects what you said to the Karadzic Chamber;

11     correct?

12        A.   I have no doubt about this transcript.

13        Q.   So with respect to your explanation that you didn't talk about

14     the vast area you had allegedly covered but instead focussed on specific

15     areas because they "didn't ask me, they probably didn't ask me," I'd like

16     to look at an exchange in the Dragomir Milosevic case.

17             MR. TIEGER:  And if we could turn to 65 ter 33682, e-court

18     page 48, please.

19             Can you scroll up, please, so I can see that page number.  If we

20     can turn back one page, please.  Okay.

21        Q.   Now, this is immediately after the playing of the press

22     conference video that we saw here in court and its admission, and then

23     one of the Judges at the bottom of the page asked -- asks for some

24     clarification.

25             And if we continue to the next page, please.

Page 44137

 1             And he says:  "You said, I think, several times during your

 2     interview in the footage that it would have been impossible for anyone to

 3     fire a mortar grenade from those areas depicted on or indicated on your

 4     line going down 176 degrees.  Because you said that there were hills and

 5     forests, I believe, and it would be impossible to fire a mortar grenade

 6     from anywhere in that area.  That's how I understood it.  But I'm not

 7     sure I understand why would it be impossible.  A mortar grenade, I

 8     suppose, can be fired from many places and -- and if there's a clearance

 9     in the woods or if there's a road, then you can probably fire it from

10     there.

11             "So what supported your conclusion that it would have been

12     impossible to fire a mortar from anywhere in that area?

13             Just explain to us very briefly.  Thanks."

14             You make apologies for your poor English and you say you will try

15     to do it shortly.

16             And then you say in response:  "120-millimetre mortar is very

17     specific, very old type of weapon.  Really this is tape and tube.  No

18     special equipment for very, very specific point of firing.  And as you

19     know maybe, we have this type of weapon, only six charges.  It's a

20     specific small back with explosion.  The principle of the firing for a

21     mortar, this is a tape, this is a tube and we can to change this angle

22     only on the vertical, not on horizontal and six charges.  And therefore

23     during the maximum multiple horizontal, for example, 89 degrees and like

24     this, and one charges, the maximum parabola" --

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can we scroll down, please.

Page 44138

 1             MR. TIEGER:

 2        Q.   "... if we will have this angle as a minimum, for example, 30 --

 3     30 degrees and the six charges of this.  If this is a parabola, but a

 4     little bit other like this.  And in Sarajevo, in this incident, it was

 5     absolutely clear that this is the -- two building, this is the crater,

 6     this is the terrain, this is boundary, confrontation line, this is BiH,

 7     this is the Serbian.  Both sides.

 8             "And we know exactly in accordance with data of expert, I don't

 9     know -- approximately 60, 70 he degree, maybe 70, I forget it, but all

10     the same now.  And in this case, I mean this angle, this angle has

11     therefore only one, two, three, four, five, six point for firing

12     position, and we inspected each -- I mean on Serbian side, even on

13     confrontation line each position with photoparat in each of these firing

14     positions, it was stones.  It's not road.  It's stones.  Absolutely

15     impossible to stay plate on the stones.  In accordance with military

16     point of view, absolutely impossible.  And one position is the forest,

17     the mine can't move through there, the part of the trees, because blast

18     immediately.

19             "Therefore --

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tieger could you please slow down.

21             MR. TIEGER:

22        Q.   "Therefore, we check it on the photoparat photo, each four

23     positions and five position with other angle.  Do you remember from this

24     point?  No inspection of the BiH."

25             And then you said:  "We said, okay, maybe could be next step for

Page 44139

 1     us, but absolutely clear 100 per cent that Serbs can't organise the

 2     provided shelling from this position according with this angle.  Angle is

 3     no without doubt, because expert, ballistic expert.

 4             "That's all.  It is it clear, more or less."

 5             Now, the Judge continued to press for an answer and said:  "But

 6     Colonel would there not be quite a large margin around each of these six

 7     firing points and even so, the further out you get, the larger the margin

 8     within which the fire could have been shot is increased?  So if you take

 9     the example with the six charges" --

10             MR. TIEGER:  Turn the page, please.

11        Q.   "That -- I mean, if it was fired from there, it could have been

12     fired, I suppose, quite a large area.  It did not necessarily have to be

13     fired from the position where you were and you took the photograph.  If,

14     for instance, a couple of hundred metres away there would have been a

15     road or something else, the shot could have come from there.  So are you

16     able really to exclude that the mortar could not have been fired each

17     from an area adjacent to the place where you were?"

18             And this is what you said to the Dragomir Milosevic Chamber :  "I

19     want [sic] to emphasise one thing once again.  I know this weapon very,

20     very well.  Maybe my -- maybe the interpretation of the word charge was

21     misleading.  There are no different shell, six shells there.  There are

22     six charges.  And it's charged manually.  You put the shell inside the

23     tube and it flies up.

24             "So the firing tables for the mortars that you saw in that video

25     footage show that in that direction only six charges are possible, either

Page 44140

 1     one, two, three, all the six were taken into account.  Margins of

 2     deviation are measured in metres, like 10 to 15 metres, the size of this

 3     room, but the margin of deviation cannot be 100 metres.  We took into

 4     account ballistic trajectories.  It's the science of physics.  We cannot

 5     go beyond that.

 6             "If you take a certain line of fire, only six possible firing

 7     points exist, depending on the charges used.  We photographed an area of

 8     20 to [sic] 30 square metres.  We always proceeded from a certain surface

 9     on which the mortar had to rely.  It cannot hang in the air.  It cannot

10     be suspended on a tree.  We showed the photographs and we saw the ground

11     was pure, clear.  No mortar had stood there."

12             Now, first of all, Colonel, I take it that you do not dispute the

13     accuracy of what was recorded of your words in that transcript.  That's

14     an accurate reflection of what you said.  Correct.

15        A.   Again, I'm not doubting the materials before this Court.

16        Q.   And, therefore, Colonel, contrary to your suggestion that you had

17     failed to explain the wide area you covered in your investigation because

18     the Dragomir Milosevic Trial Chamber probably didn't ask you about that,

19     in fact, the Trial Chamber focussed you directly and repeatedly on

20     precisely that issue, and you continued to emphasise that you went, you

21     were -- you had calculated with precision the possible areas of fire and

22     went to those locations where you determined, according to you, it was

23     impossible to fire.

24             That's the truth about your testimony in the Milosevic case;

25     right?

Page 44141

 1        A.   You can put different interpretations on my testimony as you

 2     wish.  I said then and I'm saying now that our objective was not to find

 3     firing positions.  Our task was to refute the lie that had been presented

 4     as the truth previously.  We did not find the firing positions, so it was

 5     a lie about Serbian aggression.  All the rest was a repetition of the

 6     previous lie about the Serbian aggression.

 7        Q.   Well, in fact, during the course of the Karadzic case, you

 8     conceded that the Dragomir Milosevic Trial Chamber was not confused by

 9     margins of error but understood you to be saying exactly what you were

10     saying that you focussed on very precise locations.

11             MR. TIEGER:  In that connection, let me turn to 65 ter 33680,

12     e-court page 48.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before you continue, Mr. Tieger, I have a

14     question for the witness.

15             You just said, and I quote:  "Our task was to refute the lie that

16     had been presented as the truth previously ..."

17             Who gave you this task?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To unmask the lie, nobody gave me

19     that task.  I put it to myself.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  But would that mean, on from the beginning you knew

22     it was a lie and you only had to establish that?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course not.  My position was one

24     of impartiality, and it was true then it remained.  If we had found the

25     firing positions along that line, I would have certainly confirmed it,

Page 44142

 1     recognised it, and I would have said so plainly.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I have another question.  Let me see, I need to

 3     find it.  Let me ...

 4             I'll find it in a second.

 5             Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

 6             MR. TIEGER:  Can we scroll up, please.  Yeah, that's it.

 7        Q.   Colonel, this is your testimony in the Karadzic case.  You can

 8     see at the top I'm asking you about what you said previously about

 9     precise locations, exact locations, et cetera.  And then, about midway

10     through the page at line 17, I -- you were asked:  "So Colonel, I put it

11     to you that the Dragomir Milosevic Trial Chamber was not confused about

12     the two different kinds of margins of error reflected in the tables you

13     put into your amalgamated witness statement, but they understood you to

14     be saying exactly what you were saying, that you were focussed on very

15     precise locations.  That is the testimony you gave to the Dragomir

16     Milosevic Chamber , isn't it? "

17             And you said:  "Let me respond.  That's right, because otherwise

18     had I covered the map with my hand and said I investigated this entire

19     area, it would not have sound convincing."

20             And then you go on to say:  "One needs to be precise in military

21     [sic] sense, et cetera" --

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Artillery.

23             MR. TIEGER:  "In the artillery sense, precise and show everything

24     that is open for calculation, that is, that can be calculated.  So what

25     we investigated were specific locations and I covered -- I spoke about

Page 44143

 1     all of them in quite precise terms because we had to show that we knew

 2     how to make calculations using the known angles in order to define the

 3     possible firing points.  However, let me draw your attention to the fact

 4     that that doesn't exclude the possibility that not only 10 to 15 metres

 5     further, but 150 metres further and 200 metres further, everything was

 6     thoroughly investigated and photographed.  And one doesn't contradict the

 7     other.  Have I answered your question?"

 8             So, again, Colonel, this accurately reflects what you said in the

 9     Karadzic case?

10        A.   I confirm that I have no doubts about the records from the

11     previous trial.

12        Q.   Okay.  And in that case, you confirmed that rather than

13     explaining to the Dragomir Milosevic Chamber  that you covered vast

14     amounts of area, that you were focussed on very precise locations and you

15     explained that that was correct because otherwise had you covered the map

16     with your hand and said you investigated the entire area, that wouldn't

17     have sounded convincing.  That was your position in the Karadzic case;

18     right?

19        A.   I'm now having difficulty, all day today.  The difficulty is

20     this:  From the very beginning, I've said that I, indeed, stand by all

21     that I said before.  However, interpretations of my words are completely

22     different between Mr. Tieger and I.  I was saying one thing, and he keeps

23     highlighting something entirely different.  And that's where the trouble

24     starts.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, you have explained where the trouble

Page 44144

 1     starts.  But could you perhaps also answer the question.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm ready.  Please give me the

 3     question.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  The question was whether what Mr. Tieger put to you

 5     as your position in the Karadzic case, whether that was right or not.

 6     And I'll read it again to you.

 7             Mr. Tieger put to you in the Karadzic case you confirmed that

 8     rather than explaining to the Dragomir Milosevic Chamber  that you

 9     covered vast amounts of area that you were focussed on very precise

10     locations and that you explained that that was correct because otherwise

11     had you covered the map with your hand and said you investigated the

12     entire area, that wouldn't have sounded convincing.  Whether that was

13     your position in the Karadzic case.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.  We focussed on a

15     particular line and certain points on that line.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I don't know whether it's a precise answer to

17     the question, but I -- I have the following question for you.

18             You talked about the calculations.  What calculations were made

19     in your team?  I mean, you had the angle of descent.  You had the

20     direction of the origin of fire.  What else did you calculate?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, we had a map with the

22     line of possible firing already drawn.  We didn't draw it.  Then we took

23     one line, that line, and the additional line, the possible line of

24     descent --

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

Page 44145

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The angle of direction.  And after

 2     that --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  "Possible line of descent."  Could you explain to me

 4     what you mean with "possible line of descent"?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I meant angle of descent that was

 6     written by the BH experts on the map.  And the direction that we were

 7     given.

 8             Why am I saying possible?  Because nobody before investigating

 9     could either confirm or refute.  They just drew a line and said it was

10     the Serbs.  And I put a task to myself.  Let's see if it was indeed the

11     Serbs.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  My question was what exactly you calculated.  I do

13     understand that you took into account the angle of descent, that you took

14     into account the line of the origin of fire as plotted on a map.  I did

15     understand that you also consulted the tables for this mortar.  Did you

16     consider anything else when calculating what may have been the origin of

17     fire?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  If you mean documents, we

19     used the table; and if you mean instruments, we used the artillery

20     compass with which we used to -- with which we -- we tried to get the

21     same line we saw on the map.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Well, I didn't mean that, as a matter of fact.

23     Because you're now talking about the instruments or the -- but what I'm

24     talking about is:  Did you take into account in your calculations

25     anything else than angle of descent, direction of the origin of fire, and

Page 44146

 1     the data as contained in the tables?  Did you consider anything else?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not that I remember.  There was no

 3     need.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  And the possible locations, the distances from the

 5     point of impact, was that established on the basis of these tables,

 6     taking into account the line of the origin of fire and the -- and the

 7     angle of descent?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  The line of fire and the angle

 9     of descent were given to us.  We didn't calculate that ourselves.  And

10     the possible firing points, yes, we calculated them, according to the

11     table.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's not a real calculation.  That's just

13     looking up this angle of descent, so many charges, would result in this

14     and this and this.  It's, rather, consulting the tables than making any

15     calculations, isn't it?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, consulting the table is the

17     preparation for artillery fire.

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

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mortar is the most basic primitive

20     weapon.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I see your point.

22             Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

23             MR. TIEGER:

24        Q.   Well, as long as we're focussed at the moment on consulting the

25     firing table, let's take a look at that, Colonel.

Page 44147

 1             Now, just a few moments ago at page 30 and yesterday in the video

 2     of the press conference, you emphasised your knowledge of the weapons

 3     system.  And I believe that yesterday, at about transcript page 4489

 4     [sic] or so, you referred to your -- 44088, you referred to your mastery

 5     of the weapon, so I want to ask you some questions about the firing

 6     tables that you used or didn't use.

 7             First of all, you assumed in the course of the exercise you

 8     conducted that the calculations that you obtained from the M52 firing

 9     table could be used to identify the precise locations from which the

10     mortar was potentially fired; right?

11        A.   The key word you are using is "could be"; right?  Or potentially.

12        Q.   Well, you used -- it was the M52 firing table that you relied on

13     to identify what you described to the Dragomir Milosevic Chamber  as the

14     precise locations from which a mortar which landed at that angle might

15     have been fired from on that particular line of direction; right?

16        A.   Yes.  The key word is "particular line," points are of secondary

17     importance.

18        Q.   And you were shown in the Karadzic case a document reflecting

19     that the inventory of the VRS included not only M52 120-millimetre

20     mortars but M74 and M75 millimetre mortars.  And you affirmed that was

21     consistent -- you didn't dispute that, right, you agreed that that was

22     accurate for purposes of your analysis?

23        A.   [No interpretation]

24        Q.   Let me ask you this -- I didn't get an interpretation.

25        A.   120 millimetres.  Is that what you said?

Page 44148

 1        Q.   Yeah, just trying to shortcut this because I showed you this

 2     document in the Karadzic case and you didn't dispute it.  But if you have

 3     a problem with that I'll show you the document.

 4             That's a document reflecting that the inventory of the VRS

 5     included not just M52 120-millimetre but also M74 120-millimetres and

 6     M75s; right?

 7        A.   I'm not denying this.

 8        Q.   And then when you were asked in the Dragomir Milosevic case,

 9     whether you were aware of evidence about an M74 mortar system along with

10     an M52, you said:  It's one and the same system, regardless of whether

11     it's an M52 or an M74, it's one and the same gun with the same firing

12     tables.

13             First of all, do you remember that testimony or do you want me to

14     show you the portion of the transcript where you said that?

15        A.   I believe I said that.

16        Q.   Okay.  And that's similar to what you told the Trial Chamber

17     yesterday, that all these systems are essentially the same and there's --

18     you can use -- you can rely on one firing table interchangeably with the

19     others because the data in those firing tables is going be to --

20     essentially the same; right?

21        A.   I am not denying my own words.

22        Q.   Okay.  And for that reason, you didn't check a firing table for

23     an M74, and you didn't check a firing table for an M75; right?

24        A.   There was no need for that.  Those were secondary firing points.

25             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Witness,

Page 44149

 1     Witness, whether there was any need to do that is not the question.  The

 2     question is whether you did compare them.  Did you or did you not?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, let me answer.  In that case,

 4     you need to invite my whole investigating group and examine my artillery

 5     officers, how in depth they actually calculated.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me stop you there.  It's not for you to tell us

 7     whom to address with our questions.  I did put this question to you and I

 8     asked you whether you compared the two tables, the one table you had in

 9     your hands when you gave the interview and a table for an M74 or an M75.

10             My question is: Did you compare them?  So did you; did you not;

11     or don't you know; on don't you remember?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

14             MR. TIEGER:  Can we turn to page 289 -- sorry.  65 ter 33681,

15     e-court page 9.

16        Q.   And, there, you were asked the following question:  "In any

17     event, based on your responses, it appears that you did not check any

18     firing tables [sic] for mortars in making your calculations other than

19     the M52 firing table.  You didn't check a firing table for an M74, you

20     didn't check a firing table for an M75; is that right?" --

21        A.   No --

22        Q.   I'm reading -- oh, it's not right?

23        A.   I just said a moment ago that I don't know whether my artillery

24     officers checked other tables or not.  I just said that.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, could I remind you that I asked you whether

Page 44150

 1     you did it.  Whether you did it, whether you didn't do it or whether you

 2     didn't remember.  And then you said: I don't remember.

 3             I didn't ask you about that team.  You introduced that.  Would

 4     you please focus on the question asked and not on the question which you

 5     may have on your mind.  And you interrupted Mr. Tieger when he was

 6     reading a portion of the transcript.

 7             Mr. Tieger, please proceed.

 8             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, I'm told there might be an issue with

 9     translation in the Russian language, "you" can be translated in the

10     plural as well.  So, by you saying "you," it's not the same meaning as --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's have a look at what exactly the transcript

12     tells us.  One second, please.

13             The witness moved away from the question when he talked about

14     inviting his whole team to give an answer to that question.  I then

15     interrupted him and I said, Well, don't tell us whom we should ask the

16     questions.  I asked you whether you compared the two tables, the one

17     table you had in your hand or not.  And it's theoretically possibly that

18     after -- in this course of events, the witness still thinks on the basis

19     of language that I could have referred to the plural although by stopping

20     him it was, I think, perfectly clear to the witness that I was not

21     interested in what others may have done but in what he did.

22             I leave it to that at this moment.

23             Mr. Tieger, please proceed.

24             MR. TIEGER:  I just completed repeating -- witness, you have your

25     hand up.

Page 44151

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Demurenko.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Until this moment, I thought that

 3     when you are saying "you," what is meant is me and my group.  If that is

 4     not so, then you should say "you personally."

 5             I personally didn't make photos.  I personally did not make

 6     calculations.  My group did everything.  In that case, you should always

 7     formulate things as you personally.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  We will try to formulate our questions as precisely

 9     as possible, but I'll check with my colleagues whether it would have

10     been -- should have been clear to you that when I interrupted you when

11     you referred me to members of your team, whether, in the follow-up

12     question, it was clear enough that I meant you, but we'll use you

13     personally in the near future.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You could also understand that when you're asked

15     if you did something that it means you and if the intention is to include

16     your group we would say did you and your group do the following.  So you

17     can understand "you" to mean you.  We were talking to you.  We were not

18     talking to your group.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  But we'll try to avoid whatever confusion there may

20     be, and it's good that you have expressed -- and that we are now aware

21     that "you" can be used both, as in English, in the singular and the

22     plural.

23             Please proceed.

24             MR. TIEGER:

25        Q.   Colonel, I had just finished repeating to you what had been asked

Page 44152

 1     you in the Karadzic case.  "You didn't check a firing table for an M74.

 2     You didn't check a firing table for an M75; is that right?"

 3             And on 17th of October, 2012, you said:  "Yes, that's correct."

 4             You continue:  "The principle that I followed was quite simple,

 5     to unmask the initially wrongly made conclusions.  I started from what

 6     you say in my sketch, a shell and then the mortar, et cetera.  My task

 7     was to show that that was a lie.  I had no other goal.  It wasn't my

 8     objective to establish what actual weapon was used to fire the shell,

 9     et cetera, et cetera.  That's the task for police, for ballistics expert,

10     and so on."

11             So the fact is, that you testified in 2012 that the M74 and the

12     M75 firing tables had not been consulted in the course of this exercise;

13     right?

14        A.   I personally did not.

15        Q.   And you had no idea whether or not your team did -- you're

16     smirking, Colonel.  Why is this so funny?

17        A.   Is that a question?

18        Q.   Well, it was a question.  If you want to answer, you can.  If you

19     don't, we can move on.

20        A.   I'm just smiling ...

21             JUDGE ORIE:  I think there is a problem with the channels at this

22     moment.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In that case, it changes the logic

24     of the first two trials and our trial.  The majority of the questions was

25     formulated as "you."  I didn't take it always that I personally am meant.

Page 44153

 1     A Colonel doesn't write all the instructions out.  His team does that.

 2     So in future, it would be simpler to specify "you personally."

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you have repeated that now.  But could I ask

 4     you now the following.

 5             Did your team consult the other tables?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.  Quite possibly.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  So if the question was put to you, you didn't check

 8     a firing table for an M74.  You didn't check a firing table for an M75;

 9     is that right?  And you answered in the affirmative, yes, that's correct,

10     now, if you understood "you" as being you personally, which, apparently,

11     you didn't do, then it means that you have not consulted the firing

12     tables yourself.

13             If you understood you didn't check a firing table to be you, the

14     team, then you apparently also confirmed that that's correct, meaning

15     that the team did not consult the firing table.

16             So, therefore, in both cases, when you confirmed, you included

17     your team, whereas, now you say I don't know.

18             I just did put this to you.

19             Mr. Tieger, any further questions now?

20             MR. TIEGER:

21        Q.   Well, Colonel, if anyone had consulted the M74 and M75 firing

22     tables and if those firing tables were not exactly the same in terms of

23     the data contained as the M52, then that would have resulted in more than

24     six possible positions based on six possible charges; right?

25        A.   Correct.

Page 44154

 1        Q.   But your position is they're exactly the same and so it didn't

 2     matter anyway; right?

 3        A.   Of course it doesn't matter because the line is the same.  It's

 4     50 metres to one side or to the other, but the line is the same.

 5        Q.   Well, let's --

 6             MR. TIEGER:  Sorry, Mr. President.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I wondered about the 50 metres but perhaps you

 8     can explore that on the basis of the tables given by the witness in his

 9     statement.  And I'm specifically referring to - let me see - to Table 1

10     in paragraph 122.  You may address that.  I will wait.  Where the witness

11     said 50 metres to the left or to the right.

12             MR. TIEGER:  I'm going to follow up on this in the questions I

13     have been focussing on now, Mr. President.

14        Q.   Colonel, you were the person who said --

15        A.   Sorry, I didn't say to the left or to the right.  I said closer

16     or further on the line.  Only the line matters.  I didn't mean to the

17     left or to the right.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I, indeed, used words you didn't use because as it

19     was translated to us, you said - let me see -

20             You said 50 metres to one side or the other which is commonly

21     understood as left and right.  But if you intended to say closer or

22     further, that's fine, then we know what you wanted to say.

23             MR. TIEGER:

24        Q.   Colonel, irrespective - and we'll talk about that - of anything

25     else following from what the firing tables may or may not show, you're

Page 44155

 1     the person who told this Chamber and the Dragomir Milosevic Chamber  that

 2     you knew this system very, very well, that you had mastery of the system

 3     and assured everyone that there was no difference in the firing tables

 4     for these three types of weapons.

 5             So why don't we look at what the firing tables actually show.

 6     And in that respect, if I could call up 65 ter 33827, please.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honour, are we having a question or are we

 8     having commentary by Mr. Tieger.  If it is commentary, I object and ask

 9     for it to be stricken.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  It's an introduction to the question, I think.  He

11     reminded the witness of part of his testimony as an introduction to his

12     next question.

13             Please proceed.

14             MR. TIEGER:

15        Q.   Now, what we see on the screen, Colonel, is an excerpt from P7539

16     which is a firing table, I believe, for an M74, but the reason I'm

17     showing you this is that this portion of the firing table contains a

18     chart showing the correspondence of degrees in mils.  And the reason I'm

19     showing that is because we'll see the reference to distances reflected in

20     the other portions of the table in mils.

21             So if we look down the degrees until we get to the last item in

22     the fifth row down, we see 70 degrees.  And if we look to the right, we

23     see that in the system used by the JNA, which corresponds to this table

24     we have 1166 mils.  1166.67 to be exact.

25             MR. TIEGER:  And, Your Honours, I'm sorry that is not

Page 44156

 1     highlighted, other portions will be.  But if you look at the various

 2     aggregations of degrees, beginning with 46 through 50 on top, and then

 3     you go down the little combinations from 46 then to 51 then to 56 then to

 4     61, until you get down to 70, and then you scroll right across you see

 5     1166 mils.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  I saw that you used the word row which in tables is

 7     used in a different way.  You were talking about the fifth group under

 8     the heading "degrees," and then the last item which says 70.

 9             MR. TIEGER:  Okay.

10        Q.   So you see that, Colonel?  And that's the way to look at the

11     firing tables and if you see mils, you know what -- what -- if you know

12     the degree, then it's translated into mils for you and then you can use

13     the information in the firing table accordingly; right?

14        A.   Is that a question to me?

15             I have no argument with the table.  I'm just saying, it doesn't

16     matter because it affects only distance, not divergence from the line.

17        Q.   Let's continue down.  Let's go to the M52 firing table, which is

18     65 ter 33685 --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger, do you think that going through the

20     tables could be finished in the next two minutes?  If not, then I suggest

21     we take a break first.

22             MR. TIEGER:  [Microphone not activated]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Therefore, Witness, we'll continue after the break

24     with the mils and the degrees, but for the time being, take a break, and

25     the usher will escort you out, and we'd like to see you back in 20

Page 44157

 1     minutes.

 2                           [The witness stands down]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Meanwhile, I'll briefly deal with a procedural

 4     matter, which is about remaining MFIs from Jasmin Odobasic.

 5             On 7 September 2015, the Defence tendered a statement of

 6     Jasmin Odobasic and 12 associated exhibits into evidence pursuant to Rule

 7     92 bis.  The Prosecution responded on 21 September, not opposing the

 8     motion and tendering three additional documents.  On 15 December, the

 9     Chamber conditionally admitted the statement and 14 documents pending the

10     filing of an attestation and declaration in compliance with Rule 92 bis.

11             Subsequently, the Defence decided to present the evidence of

12     Odobasic in court.

13             On 26 April, the Chamber ordered that the remaining Defence

14     witnesses, including Odobasic, commence their testimony during the week

15     of the 30th of May at the latest.  This can be found at transcript pages

16     43702 and -703.

17             As the week of the 30th of May has passed and the Defence has not

18     brought Odobasic to testify, the Chamber hereby understands that the

19     Defence is not proceeding with the presentation of the witness's

20     evidence.

21             And the Chamber would like to know whether it understands this

22     situation well.

23             MR. IVETIC:  It does not understand the situation well.  We are

24     exploring methods of obtaining that evidence as was communicated to

25     Chamber's staff.  In a meeting with the Office of the Prosecutor wherein

Page 44158

 1     both the Prosecutor and I were on the phone with Chamber's staff and

 2     advised of that.  I apologise that we did not do a formal filing after

 3     that.  We've been trying to explore many options with the various

 4     departments of this Tribunal and the capabilities of the witness, given

 5     the multiple medical documents that have been sent by this witness.

 6             Since we're in open session, I won't go into the details of the

 7     same, but the Defence talked to the Prosecution again yesterday after

 8     court about the various possibilities of proceeding with that evidence,

 9     and we anticipate having a filing seeking to have that evidence

10     introduced without the necessity of hearing the witness.  So the evidence

11     will still be sought to be introduced into -- into the trial record

12     without the attendance of the witness.  So I can clarify with respect to

13     that, that the attendance of the witness will likely not be -- will

14     likely not be necessary and that we will seek to have the written

15     evidence of the witness introduced by one of the rules available for the

16     same, and we -- based upon out discussions with the Prosecution, we hope

17     to have a filing which will have a portion that will be a stipulation by

18     the parties as to that.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, then, we'll wait and see that ...

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  This history now, as I started saying, goes back to

22     the 7th of September of last year, when the Defence tendered the

23     statement of Mr. Odobasic.  We were aware that thoughts had not yet

24     finalized on the matter, but that's how we put it here since we had

25     received no further information that, at a certain moment we have to

Page 44159

 1     assume that if you went well beyond our deadline and if it is still

 2     unclear that you at least inform the Chamber also formally about what

 3     situation we are, the Chamber would like to hear not later than this week

 4     how the Defence wishes to proceed, and then we'll decide whether that's

 5     acceptable for the Chamber, yes or no.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  As to the how, I can let you now it would be Rule 92

 7     quater but, of course, the filing would have to specify the

 8     justifications for that and it would be up to your chamber whether it

 9     suffices or not.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, yes, we'll -- I do understand that if it's

11     under that rule, that -- of course, an application will have to be made,

12     and we'd like to receive that application not later than this week so we

13     can decide without further delays.

14             Waiting your submissions, we'll refrain at this very moment

15     from -- from giving instructions to the Registry as how to deal with

16     P7812 to P7814 and D1427 up to and including D1438, which were

17     conditionally admitted.  We leave that open, but it's already clear that

18     on the basis of -- on the basis on which they were presented, that that's

19     apparently not the basis on which they can finally be admitted.  So we

20     leave that open for the time being and wait first for your written

21     submissions.

22             We -- one second.

23                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll take a break, and we'll resume at quarter past

25     12.00.

Page 44160

 1                           --- Recess taken at 11.54 a.m.

 2                           --- On resuming at 12.16 p.m.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll wait for the witness to be escorted into the

 4     courtroom.

 5                           [The witness takes the stand]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

 7             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 8             If we can move now to the next page, 65 ter -- which reflects

 9     65 -- let me back up.

10        Q.   Witness, we're now going to be looking at the various firing

11     tables, beginning with the M52.

12                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

13             MR. TIEGER:  So, the most efficient way to go through this is we

14     have the relevant pages uploaded into a PowerPoint presentation to go

15     through them quickly.  I provided the Defence with a hard copy of all of

16     the relevant exhibits so that they can refer to that as we're going

17     through the PowerPoint should they wish to do so.  So I think that would

18     allow us to move through this much more economically.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, apparently there are two issues.  One is

20     whether the tables are the same, and the second is how to interpret that.

21     Is there any dispute about the first question, whether the tables are

22     similar, or -- I mean, is there any dispute between the parties on that

23     issue, because then it may be easy to put it rather quickly to the

24     witness.

25             MR. IVETIC:  Well, I -- I admit I have not gone through all of

Page 44161

 1     this since getting it in the first session, but I think we can agree that

 2     they're similar and that there are some differences as to the ranges.

 3     That I think we can agree to.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  And also more or less in percentages would

 5     1.000 metre be 1.002 or would it 1.030, which of course makes a

 6     difference.  Is there any dispute about -- you do not challenge the --

 7             MR. IVETIC:  I do not challenge the authenticity of the tables if

 8     that's what you're asking.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Also -- that's fine.

10             MR. TIEGER:  If we want to do this extremely quickly if the Court

11     is willing to admit the tables and I have the last page of the PowerPoint

12     has a listing of all of the relevant -- yeah, the relevant distances

13     related to the degrees and I can put that to the witness because it was

14     put to him in the Karadzic case also.  So we might be able to do that as

15     well.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic -- and then, of course, we can verify on

17     the original tables whether any mistake was made by Mr. Tieger.  I hope

18     he didn't make any mistake.

19             MR. IVETIC:  I have no problem with it being presented to the

20     witness in the manner suggested, since it was done that way in Karadzic,

21     which is what I assumed was going to happen.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Then feel free do it in the most efficient way,

23     Mr. Tieger, as you suggested.

24             MR. TIEGER:  Okay.  That would mean that Ms. Stewart should take

25     the con and -- very good.

Page 44162

 1        Q.   Now, what we see on the screen at the moment, Witness, are five

 2     different sets of distances and mils relates to charges.  So let me first

 3     go to the M52 -- let me ask you this question first:  It's correct, isn't

 4     it that neither --

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I interrupt for a moment.  I'm not sure if

 6     the witness has the same table or chart in front of him.

 7             MR. TIEGER:

 8        Q.   Witness, can I confirm that what you see on the screen in front

 9     of you is a -- you see a large -- on the left side of the screen, a white

10     sheet of paper with the letters 0401-4631 at the top and then you see to

11     the right a set of -- large set of numbers broken down into five

12     different essential combinations?

13             All right, first I want to confirm -- we see in the first two

14     columns the M52 which you used with an M49 shell and an M62 shell, and

15     the values revealed for the M52 using an M49 shell are as follows:  That

16     a charge 1, we have 700 metres, and these are the -- you can see the

17     mils, the closest approximation in the firing table to the 1166.67 mils

18     we saw earlier which would reflect 70 degrees.  And we see the following

19     distances resulting, 700 metres at charge 1, 1200 metres at charge 2,

20     1800 metres at charge 3, 2400 at 1169 and 3600 at charges 4, 5, and 6

21     respectively.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You should slow down while reading numbers.  The

23     transcript --

24             MR. TIEGER:  That was very unfair.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  -- should be correct.

Page 44163

 1             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Your Honour, and I will do so.

 2        Q.   Now those seem to roughly correspond to the figures that you

 3     wrote on your chart in the press conference during the press conference

 4     that was videotaped; correct?

 5        A.   Right.

 6        Q.   Now, you did not know at the time whether or not the M52 fired

 7     more than one shell, did you?

 8        A.   At that time, I didn't know whether the mortar fired at all or it

 9     was an impersonation.

10        Q.   No, Colonel, it's perhaps ... I don't think my question was so

11     difficult to understand.  But the point is you were not aware that an M52

12     mortar system was capable of firing more than one shell which is exactly

13     why you only have six locations identified on the chart that you drew

14     during the press conference; right?

15        A.   Tell me, what is the question?

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me try as a layperson to put the question to

17     you.

18             When you gave the press conference, were you aware that with an

19     M52 mortar system that you could fire different shells?

20             That's the question, Mr. Tieger?

21             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was aware that for mortar

23     systems, there exist different shells.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Also for the M52?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Including that one too.

Page 44164

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

 2             MR. TIEGER:  Well, let's turn, then, to 65 -- from this 65 ter

 3     33681, e-court page 14, please.

 4             And better go back two more pages, please.  Back to page 52 of

 5     the transcript.  So page 12, I guess, of the -- or -- of the ...

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Page 12 e-court, yes.

 7             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you.

 8        Q.   Colonel, you were asked the same -- essentially the same question

 9     I posed to you, that the Presiding Judge just posed to you a moment ago.

10     You were asked that question in the Karadzic case.  The question was:

11     "Colonel, a moment ago you said that you used the firing tables and

12     referred to the shell that we assumed was used in order to calculate the

13     six possible locations of potential firing based on the six charges.  Do

14     you -- did you know at the time whether or not the M52 fired more than

15     one shell?

16             "A.  No, I didn't know about the details of the shelling can

17     except for the facts that I enumerated yesterday."

18             Then you continue:  "Yesterday, I said that in the sitrep that

19     was issued on that day, on the 28th of August, they spoke of six

20     instances of mortar shelling in town.  So I compared the results of the

21     explosions in that instances and other instances.  Now, as to the

22     specifics of that particular shelling, what mortar -- what shells were

23     used in that instance, I am not aware of that and I did not explore

24     that."

25             Then the questioning continued:  "Well, Colonel, if the M52 fired

Page 44165

 1     more than one shell, and if those two shells travelled different

 2     distances, then you would need to check out not six locations for six

 3     charges but 12 different locations for six charges for two different

 4     shells; isn't that correct [sic]?

 5             "A.  Yes, yes, you're absolutely right.  And I said yesterday,

 6     and I will repeat today that order to fully support the work of my

 7     commission, I spoke of six possible locations.  What we did in reality is

 8     that we drew on the map the entire territory where the mortar could have

 9     been placed and we explored 10, 20, 30, 40 possible locations, all the

10     places where mortars could have been placed except in the forest on the

11     steep slope and on the rocks.  And we checked all ... those locations.

12     So regardless of whether there was one shell, two shells, whether there

13     was one mortar or more, all of that was explored in the area that was

14     accessible for a mortar to be placed there.  And we didn't find any such

15     locations.  That was the essence of our investigation.  We did not look

16     for a single location.  That would have been strange."

17             So, in any event, Colonel, you did not make any calculations for

18     more than one type of shell for the M52 mortar system, correct, because

19     you consider it to be unnecessary.

20        A.   Your question says "you," you mean me personally or my team?

21        Q.   I don't care.  You or your team, sir.  Either one.

22        A.   I personally did not make any calculations.  It was not my duty

23     as the leader.  And my team took into account all the factors that could

24     have been pertinent at the moment.

25        Q.   You don't know that.  You have no idea what tables they consulted

Page 44166

 1     other than the M52; right?  You made representations to that as we saw

 2     earlier.

 3        A.   I'm repeating, my task was rather broad.  I did not restrict my

 4     group to any particular documents that they should consult.  I told them

 5     to prepare all the data that would -- we would be using on location, and

 6     that's what they did.

 7        Q.   All right.  And you've acknowledged that if the M52 system using

 8     a different shell yielded different distances that you would have had to

 9     look at 12 locations, not just the six you specified in the press

10     conference you gave immediately after the investigation; right?

11        A.   Absolutely right.  And in all other variants, for instance, with

12     a different shell or with an incendiary shell or with any other

13     variations there would be divergences in distance.  But we checked the

14     whole distance, the whole route.  There could be no other differences

15     except in distance.

16        Q.   Let's look at what you said in Karadzic case again.  This time at

17     page 14 of the e-court in the same ...

18             "Q.  And those six locations and the four that you checked were

19     based on the M52 firing tables but completely ignored whether or not the

20     M52 fired two -- at least two different shells that travelled different

21     distances.  That is correct - isn't it? - because we're going to check

22     the firing tables in just a second.

23             "A.  Very well, yes, that's right.  If we're going to check the

24     firing tables, that's excellent, because if you're going to check [sic]

25     the firing tables with various modifications 120 mortar and the shells

Page 44167

 1     used there, you will see that the differences are not great, not huge and

 2     in principle it makes no difference what shells were used.  We checked

 3     everything.  It makes no" --

 4        A.   [No interpretation]

 5        Q.   -- "difference between shells."

 6             Now, we looked at that -- first of all, as you've repeatedly

 7     done, I take it you confirm that this accurately reflects what you said

 8     in the Karadzic case.

 9        A.   I never once contested the record of what I said.

10        Q.   Thank you, sir.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  In any part of another record in another case would

12     you please inform us if you change the accuracy of that record.  If not,

13     we will assume, since you have repeated it so many times that you will

14     not agree with the words the way they were recorded.

15             Please proceed.

16             MR. TIEGER:

17        Q.   We looked a moment ago at the distances in the M52 firing table

18     at 70 degrees angle of descent for an M49 shell.  Looking at the M62

19     shell ...

20                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

21             MR. TIEGER:  I'm sorry.  Now, we need to go back to the

22     PowerPoint.  I'm sorry.

23        Q.   And now, sir, looking at the M62 shell we see the following:

24     That at charge 1 the distance at 70 degree angle of descent is 900

25     metres; charge 2, 1600 metres; charge 3, 2400 metres; charge 4, 3200

Page 44168

 1     metres; charge 5, 4.000 metres; charge 6, 4700 metres.  So, Colonel,

 2     contrary to your assertion in the Karadzic case that the differences are

 3     not great, there's a difference of more than a kilometre between the

 4     distances at charge 6, from the firing point to the point of explosion

 5     between an M49 shell and an M62 shell fired from an M52 mortar; correct?

 6        A.   Evidently.  Different types of shells reach different distances

 7     but that does not affect the investigation because along all the line

 8     from zero to 6.000 metres everything has been walked and everything has

 9     been inspected.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, you have another question on your mind than

11     the one Mr. Tieger puts to you.

12             Do you agree that there's a considerable difference between the

13     range, dependant on whether you fire an M49 or an M62 shell?  Mr. Tieger

14     said more than a kilometre.  Do you agree with that?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The table shows that clearly.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed.

17             MR. TIEGER:

18        Q.   And just -- we see these figures will be entered into evidence

19     with this slide.  But just looking down now at the M75 using an M62

20     shell, we see that at charge 6, the distance from the point of fire to

21     the point of explosion at -- at -- at a 70-degree angle of descent is

22     5200 metres.  Now, that's more than a kilometre and a half from the

23     distance at charge 6 that you placed on the chart during the press

24     conference when you were explaining to those people filming it for

25     distribution to the world, the points that you had looked at.  Isn't that

Page 44169

 1     correct?

 2        A.   It's correct that I showed it on the sketch, and what is shown in

 3     the table is also true.  It doesn't contradict what I said.

 4             MR. TIEGER:  I tender these items, Mr. President, that is, the

 5     firing tables and this portion of the PowerPoint presentation and thank

 6     the Court for its suggestion and the Defence as well.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, could you please indicate what numbers we are

 8     talking about.  65 ter numbers.  And, Mr. Ivetic, do you want to respond

 9     right away or do you want to ...?  By respond, I mean objection, no

10     objection, that's ...

11             MR. IVETIC:  I thought I'd actually invited to do this way.  I

12     make it clear no objection.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  You also said you had a bunch of papers so I don't

14     know whether you agree with what is in this part of the PowerPoint.  And

15     would we look at more of the PowerPoint or just this page?

16             MR. TIEGER:  I mean, this page summarizes everything that came

17     before.  It's -- it can be useful.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

19             MR. TIEGER:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

20             JUDGE ORIE:  I invite the parties to see whether they can agree

21     if the rest of the remainder is useful then the PowerPoint presentation

22     is MFI'd so we know whether we take the whole of it or portions of it.

23             MR. IVETIC:  We'll do that, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then, could you please, Mr. Tieger, give the

25     numbers.

Page 44170

 1             MR. TIEGER:  The M52 firing table is 65 ter 33685.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar, that would receive number?

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be MFI P7838, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted.

 5             MR. TIEGER:  The M75 firing table is 33239B.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P7839, Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted.

 9             MR. TIEGER:  And the M74 firing table is in evidence as P07539.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar --

11             MR. TIEGER:  So that's -- just letting you know, it's already in

12     evidence.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, that's already in evidence.  And may I take that

14     in the tables we find different types of shells reflected.

15             MR. TIEGER:  Yes.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17             MR. TIEGER:  And probably should give a number for the PowerPoint

18     and then we can determine how much of it --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And the PowerPoint will be uploaded under.

20             MR. TIEGER:  Sorry.  That was 65 ter 33827.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar, that would receive number?

22             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be MFI P7840.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, marked for identification.

24             One question, Mr. Tieger.  If you are talking about the degrees

25     and the mils, you were focussing -- because you have two angles.  The

Page 44171

 1     angle of descent and the angle of firing, well, I think that the witness

 2     based all his -- all his theory on the angle of descent as established by

 3     the local team.

 4             Now, from what I seem to remember, whether it's from this case or

 5     from another, there's a slight distinction between the angle of firing

 6     and the angle of descent.  May I take it that you have used the angle of

 7     impact or have you used in your comparison the angle of firing.

 8             MR. TIEGER:  No, actually I think the firing tables make that

 9     fairly clear so you will see in the translation there's a specific column

10     for angle of descent.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Fine.  The problem is, of course, on the basis of

12     this page I couldn't see what angles are used, but I seem, indeed, to

13     remember I have seen a few tables before in my life that a distinction is

14     clearly made.

15             MR. TIEGER:  That's partly why I showed that -- went to that

16     first page initially to try to make that clear.  You will see it in the

17     translation.  If there's any question, I am happy to address it.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

19             Mr. Ivetic, if there is any disagreement on this matter, then

20     we'd like to hear from you.

21             Please proceed.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I put at this point in time a question to the

23     witness.

24             Mr. Demurenko, several times you told us that you were walking on

25     your own feet along the line others have drawn.  Can you tell us where

Page 44172

 1     did you start your walk and where did you stop?  Can you describe exactly

 2     these two places and the distance between your starting point and where

 3     your walk ended.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.  We started out to

 5     remove any doubt from anyone's mind from the point of impact.  Before

 6     that, we charted a route using the compass, marking points that we --

 7     marking landmarks that we need to pass, and we charted that line on the

 8     map.  Of course, we couldn't cut through buildings in Sarajevo, but we

 9     started to stick as closely as possible to the line.  And then crossing

10     fences, fields, little houses, lines of confrontations, communicating

11     trenches, et cetera, we went at least 6 kilometres ahead to make sure

12     that nothing escaped our vision.  120-millimetre shell reaches 62 to 6400

13     metres.  So we walked all that distance, taking photos at those places

14     where it would have been possible to put a base plate for at that mortar.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No need to repeat everything what you told us

16     before.  I just wanted to know where you started and where you stopped.

17     That means that you started from the point of impact, went through

18     confrontation lines, and stopped at -- at least 6.2 -- no, 6 kilometres.

19     That is correctly understood?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, right.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

22             Mr. Tieger.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Were you also able to exclude that within the

24     confrontation line that mortar might have been fired?  I mean, I now

25     understand, which is, to some extent, new to me, that you went all the

Page 44173

 1     way through both areas controlled by the two parties.  Did you notice

 2     anything on the first part of this stretch, well, let's say, up to the

 3     confrontation line?  Because you emphasised again and again that you're

 4     not interested in that, but I now understand that you inspected the whole

 5     of the line.

 6             Did you see anything of interest for this Chamber in the first

 7     part, which means within BiH-controlled territory?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand the question.

 9             Yes, of course, we passed the first and then the second line of

10     BH troops.  We saw their fighting -- combat positions with communicating

11     trenches, with machine-gun nests, et cetera, but we didn't see any mortar

12     batteries along that line.  We didn't see that.  I confirm it.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Did your line on the whole of the trajectory, did it

14     cross any roads anywhere?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were two or three tracks,

16     dirt roads used by horse-drawn carriages or maybe old cars, but my task,

17     our task, was to search for possible firing positions, so when we crossed

18     such roads we took photos, and we didn't see any firing positions or

19     traces or previous firing positions.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, so your explanation that they could have not

21     have been fired because it was rocky, it was wooded, whether it was too

22     steep, et cetera, you -- I -- did you also report on roads and perhaps

23     even with possibility of mobile mortars?  Did you -- did you consider

24     that?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I've already said, we took all

Page 44174

 1     possibilities into account.  Those were not tarmac roads; those were dirt

 2     roads and tracks.  And we know from long experience that a base plate of

 3     a mortar leaves a trace.  It cannot leave a flat surface behind it.  It

 4     also leaves traces of fired shells, et cetera.  Nobody does the cleaning

 5     up after firing a mortar.  In any case, the trace of a plate, base plate,

 6     always remains in the -- in the ground, so we go along such a place, we

 7     are walking soft surfaces, and we are taking photos everywhere to show

 8     that we did not ignore such traces or that we didn't see any.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Did I understand you well, that nowhere your line

10     you inspected crossed any tarmac road?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely.  There were no tarmac

12     roads.  At that time, there were none.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  If I just -- I'm -- don't know whether my

14     recollection serves me well, that would include that there would be no

15     tarmac road between Lukavica and Pale which that line may have crossed?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know the road between Lukavica

17     and Pale.  It goes further up the slope.  It doesn't cross the line that

18     we walked.  It's higher up.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  What distance is that from the point of impact?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't want to confuse you by

21     making a mistake accidentally.  It's easy to check on the map.  It's 7 or

22     maybe 10 kilometres.  But it's not crossing that line.  That's sure.

23     There were not even populated areas where we went.  There are just

24     separate, stranded houses, isolated ones.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So that road, you say, was certainly more than

Page 44175

 1     6 kilometres because you didn't cross that road certainly more than 6

 2     kilometres from the point of impact.  Thank you.

 3             Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I have another question too.

 5             You've talked about taking photographs as you were walking along

 6     that distance.  Do you have those photographs?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I handed them over at the last

 8     trial I attended.  Of course, we made a huge number of photos, hundreds,

 9     but I supplied the most important ones, I think 10 or 20.  I had brought

10     them with me to prove my point.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  When you say you handed them over in the last

12     trial, which trial are you specifically referring to?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it was the Autumn of 2012.

14     October.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Which trial was this?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Karadzic case.  Radovan Karadzic,

17     October 2012.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You handed 20 photographs to that trial, to that

19     Chamber?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said "approximately" for a

21     reason.  I don't know exactly how many photos.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... down to the

23     number.  Okay.  Thank you so much.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  To whom did you hand them over?  The Defence, to

25     the Chamber, to the Registry, to the Prosecutor?

Page 44176

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think the Defence team.  I think

 2     the lawyer who proofed me on behalf of the Defence team.  I can't

 3     remember the moment of hand-over but it must be in the materials of the

 4     Court.  It must be in the case file.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Now --

 7                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it's even on the Internet.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... handed them

10     over to the Defence lawyer.  Can you confirm whether the Defence lawyer

11     did tender them into evidence?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I -- I don't answer for Defence

13     lawyers and what they do, but I remember the man.  His name was Mark.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  When you were in court and he was asking you

15     questions, did you use those photographs during the hearing of the case

16     and were they discussed in court?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I remember the Court had no doubts

18     about the veracity of my testimony because the Court accepted the

19     photographs.  But which party offered the photographs into evidence, I

20     can't remember.  It's on the -- it's on the Internet.

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction to the previous

22     question:  The lawyer' name was Marko.  Marko.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

24             Thank you, Mr. Tieger.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  And could I invite the parties because I would

Page 44177

 1     rather not do that myself; we have a lot of maps.  Whether the distance

 2     in the direction as pointed out by the witness on which he oriented

 3     himself, I think it was 170 degrees, whether the distance to the

 4     Lukavica-Pale road is indeed more than 6 kilometres.

 5             MR. IVETIC:  It is 176 degrees, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay, fine, 176, that's close to south, I think.

 7     That's -- 180 is south.  Looking at the maps as we have them in evidence

 8     but I'd rather not start calculating and drawing conclusions myself, so

 9     if the parties would sit together and see whether, on a 176-degrees line

10     from the point of impact, whether the Lukavica-Pale road is more than

11     6 kilometres as the crow flies.

12             And for you, Witness, you're certain that it's more than

13     6 kilometres that that the trajectory did not cross that road within the

14     6 kilometres you walked?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sure that we did not cross a

16     road that was not controlled by anyone, and I remember no tarmac roads.

17     Now, I don't know at exactly what distance is the Lukavica-Pale road.  It

18     is difficult for me now.  But it is very easily established on the map.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  But you didn't cross that road, or did you,

20     possibly.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think so.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  A second ago you were firm about it, that you did

23     not cross it because it's further away.  I think you referred to 7 to 10

24     kilometres.  Is that a firm answer?  Do you still stick to that?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I stick to the answer that we did

Page 44178

 1     not cross a tarmac road.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But that was not my question.  My question was

 3     whether you stick to your answer that from the point of impact that in

 4     the direction of the fire, in the incoming fire, whether the

 5     Pale-Lukavica road was more than 6 kilometres away.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think so.  I'm not an expert on

 7     roads.  I just took that road a few times.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But you gave an answer a minute ago that it

 9     was more than 6 kilometres away, and I didn't ask for any expertise on

10     roads.  Do you stick to that answer?  That's my question.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  Yes, I stick to that answer.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, could you tell us - you said you travelled that

13     road a few times - is that road a tarmac road, or is that a dirt road?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think on sections, there is

15     tarmac on the surface, but mostly it's removed.  It's -- it's a dirt road

16     in most places.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  If you say it was removed, does that mean that there

18     was tarmac but that they removed that or ...

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was not specially removed.  It's

20     wear and tear.  It's before the war or during the war, they did not think

21     of repaving it.  They had no time for such niceties.  So the tarmac was

22     missing in places.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But it was basically a tarmac road with

24     perhaps damage to it where the tarmac disappeared here and there.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, probably.

Page 44179

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, that tarmac missing, was that on a

 2     stretch of 5 metres or 10 metres, or 50 metres?  The wear and tear, what

 3     was, well, let's say, the longest where there was no tarmac?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know.  I did

 5     not study the issue especially.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 7             Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

 8             MR. TIEGER:

 9        Q.   Witness, you've just referred to the hundreds of photos you

10     took - you've repeatedly referred to that - the number of photos you

11     allegedly provided in the Karadzic case.  I'm going to turn your

12     attention to a couple of portions of your Dragomir Milosevic testimony

13     first.

14             MR. TIEGER:  65 ter 33684, e-court page 28.  Scroll down to the

15     bottom if that's the -- no, it's not the right.  It's ... can we scroll

16     up so that I can see the transcript page, please.  Yeah.  That's it.

17     Okay.  To the bottom.

18        Q.   Judge asked you a question:

19             "Colonel, which point is this photo taken on?  Is that the 3400

20     or the 3600 metres on the 176-degree bearing line?"

21             Witness, you answer:  "It's certainly on that light.  And second,

22     I have to be honest, now, I don't remember any longer which photograph

23     pertains to which locations, because I sent a set of" --

24             MR. TIEGER:  Turn the page.

25        Q.   "... photographs and there were four photographs in total.  I

Page 44180

 1     found three.  My finger is pointing at the wooded area.  It could be the

 2     3400.  But to be perfectly honest, I don't remember which location it

 3     is."

 4             MR. TIEGER:  And if we could then turn next to 65 ter 33 -- no,

 5     it's the same 65 ter.  Turn to page 57 in the e-court.

 6        Q.   You say that's true.  "In fact, I visited hundreds of locations.

 7     It's just that I have photos of four or five of them, you understand?

 8     The principle by which he found those sites, we went to the lowest point

 9     between the sites and then we found 170 degrees and went up the mountains

10     in that line.  It's only a flat line on the map, but it's kilometres in

11     length that we crossed on foot.  We visited hundreds of those location

12     locations and in my mind it's like a very, very long and very dense film

13     that I cannot rewind and replay right now in accuracy."

14             Now, Witness, I'll ask you about the locations in a moment and

15     I'll tell you that no one is suggesting that you simply parachuted into

16     those individual four spots that you circled in the chart on your video

17     but right now I'm focussing on the photographs and in the Dragomir

18     Milosevic case you referred to four photographs that you took and four

19     photographs that you provided.  There are no other photographs in the

20     Karadzic case that I'm aware of.  The fact is you provided only four

21     photographs because those are the photographs that you took referring to

22     the specific locations that you claimed to have investigated on the basis

23     of your angle --  of the angle of fire and number of charges used

24     measured against the M52 firing table; right?

25        A.   That's right.  I just want to know when you say "you," you mean

Page 44181

 1     my team or myself?

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Demurenko, did you testify in person or your

 3     team in the other case?  You were asked by Mr. Tieger about your

 4     testimony in the other case.  It was not your team who testified; right?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I was the one giving evidence,

 6     but in the three trials before and in the first part of this trial,

 7     whenever I said "I," I meant I, myself, and my team.  And today, it turns

 8     out that I should interpret every question to mean me personally.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  But, Witness, this is just obstructive.  I want to

10     be very clear to you.  If you were asked about providing photographs in

11     cases where you testified, the question could possibly only be understood

12     as you personally doing that.  Don't play games.  Try to answer the

13     questions, and if there's a reason to make a distinction between you and

14     the team, you may ask for that.  But you should not do it in the way you

15     did it because there's no possibility that it could be understood that

16     anyone else than you giving testimony in this Court would have provided

17     those photographs.  That was the gist of the question.

18             So please refrain from doing this again, and limit yourself to

19     there where it may really be an issue.

20             Please proceed.

21             MR. IVETIC:  Actually, I do have to, on the record, state a

22     point.

23             Looking at the transcript as I have now, the witness very clearly

24     did answer the question but if you look at the question, the question

25     says from lines 9 through 19 and then I'll skip to the part.  It says:

Page 44182

 1     "In the Dragomir Milosevic case" - line 12 - "in the Dragomir Milosevic

 2     case, you provided, you referred to four photographs that you took.  So

 3     in the Dragomir Milosevic case you, in the singular, provided, that you,"

 4     in perhaps the singular or plural --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Totally irrelevant here.  The question is not who

 6     took the photographs but who provided the photographs.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  And the witness answered that and he said that's

 8     right and then he asked for clarification when you say you because you

 9     was used multiple times in the question --

10             JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...

11             MR. IVETIC:  So Your Honours' admonition to the witness does not

12     take into account that the fact that the question of the counsel referred

13     to various yous and to the best of his knowledge, the witness did answer

14     it and said that's right but asked for clarification of whether the "you"

15     that was used was singular or plural in each of the instances it was

16     used.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Your observations are on the record.

18             Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

19             MR. TIEGER:

20        Q.   Now, Witness, in response to questions by Judge Fluegge, you went

21     through an elaborate description of the route you took and how you

22     painstakingly walked this route.  Now, you've previously made clear,

23     haven't you, Colonel, that you didn't walk the entire route, that you

24     used APCs to get you as close as possible, given the terrain, and then

25     walked from there to the locations that you identified as the possible

Page 44183

 1     firing positions; right?

 2        A.   What is right is that we used all ways to investigate.  We went

 3     on foot, we travelled on APCs, we travelled the same section of the road

 4     several times different ways.  So all of these are true.

 5        Q.   Let me turn to 65 ter 33683, page 43.

 6             Question:  "Just following on your last answer, what dozens of

 7     locations did you visit, so you not only visited these four locations you

 8     identified and pointed out during your presentation, you also visited

 9     dozens of locations?

10             "A.  Yes.  We visited them.  We travelled there in APCs and then

11     continued on foot.  So we would get to a certain point that we calculated

12     on the basis of the angle of descent, and then we would go on foot,

13     either climb or descend, and it was probably thousands of metres that we

14     walked on foot."

15             So, Colonel, what you were indicating to the Dragomir Milosevic

16     Chamber  is not that you started from a place and walked through this

17     whole area, but that you used an APC to get to the point that you

18     calculated on the basis of the angle of descent was one of the possible

19     firing positions, got out, and then traversed the area necessary to get

20     from the point where the APC could bring you to the point where that

21     possible firing location, based on the angle of descent, could be found.

22        A.   If that's a question, I'll say again:  We followed the line.  We

23     walked and we travelled sometimes on the APC, just a few times.  It's a

24     combat zone, so you cannot really walk around a lot.  You can just lose

25     all your men.  But in none of the texts, today or earlier, was it said

Page 44184

 1     that we travelled only on APCs.  All possible modes of transportation

 2     were used.  We walked, we travelled.

 3             MR. TIEGER:  Sorry, I wanted to indicate it's break time and I

 4     saw the Court --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  It is break time, Mr. Tieger.  We'd like to see

 6     you --

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before we break, let me put a very short

 8     question, just to follow up on this.

 9             When I asked you where did you start your walk, you said you

10     started from the point of impact.  No mention of APC.  You just -- I

11     gave -- you gave the impression that you walked from the point of impact

12     6 kilometres up the hill.  You didn't mention the APC.  Can you explain

13     that.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can.  Because you didn't ask me

15     which other vehicles did you or didn't you use.  If you had asked me, I

16     would have said so.  But you asked me where I started the way and where

17     we ended it, and I did.  If you had asked me about the APCs, I would have

18     told you about the APCs.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I didn't know anything about APCs.  I asked

20     you -- several times you told us that you were walking on your own feet

21     along the line others have drawn.

22             Can you tell us where did you start your walk and where did you

23     stop.  That was clearly the question about walks.  And then you said you

24     started at the point of impact.  You didn't mention in your answer that

25     you used an APC.

Page 44185

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I stand by everything I said.  I'm

 2     not going back on any words.  But if you want to go into the detail of

 3     that route, we didn't just use APCs.  We used other vehicles as well.

 4     But that was not part of our discussion.  It -- the issue hadn't been

 5     raised.  That's why I didn't mention it.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I asked you about your walking route and nothing

 7     else, and you didn't mention any vehicle.  I leave it to that.  And,

 8     indeed, we should take the break.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  We take a break, and we'd like to see you back in 20

10     minutes from now.  You may follow the usher.

11                           [The witness stands down]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  We resume at 20 minutes to 2.00.

13                           --- Recess taken at 1.18 p.m.

14                           --- On resuming at 1.42 p.m.

15                           [The witness takes the stand]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

17             MR. TIEGER:

18        Q.   Colonel, in response to a number of questions posed by me or the

19     Court, you've repeatedly emphasised during the course of today and

20     earlier most recently, for example, at page 73 of today's transcript,

21     that "we followed the line."  You said:  "I'll say it again.  We followed

22     the line."

23             Now, as we heard earlier in connection with -- in particular, in

24     connection with your testimony about the press conference that line was

25     176 degrees; correct?

Page 44186

 1        A.   What is correct is that the line was on the map.  I did not check

 2     myself whether it was 176 degrees, but probably it was.

 3        Q.   Okay.  Well -- during the course of your -- of the press

 4     conference, you emphasised -- let me find that.

 5             MR. TIEGER:  Sorry, Your Honour, I'm just locating that portion.

 6        Q.   You emphasised that the line was 176 degrees -- I'll give you the

 7     exact quote:  "In accordance with investigations direction of fire was

 8     176 degrees, or in accordance with French custom, 2976 mils.  And that

 9     appears at the first page of the transcript of the press conference.  I

10     can replay that if you need to.  You may remember that.

11             So is that accurate, that's what you said during the press

12     conference?

13             Colonel, that's what you said?

14        A.   That really reflects what I said, but I want to point out your

15     first words "in accordance with investigations."

16             It doesn't mean that those were my investigations that yielded

17     176 degrees.  It's the previous investigation and that's written here.

18        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... I think that's clearly

19     understood but it is certainly understood now.

20             Now, if we could look at 65 ter 14297, we can see a portion of

21     the video, and I can replay it if we need to, where you're referring to

22     that.  You may not find it; it's going to be under either 14297A or B.

23     Let's see A.  Okay.

24             So just going back and forth.  That's the screen shot of what you

25     were referring to.

Page 44187

 1                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 2             MR. TIEGER:  If we could have A, please.  Okay.

 3             This seems to be indicating one page.  I need two pages.  One to

 4     show the screen shot, one to show the document.

 5             MR. IVETIC:  If I can perhaps assist.  Is it perhaps B, not A?

 6             MR. TIEGER:  No -- thank you, Mr. Ivetic, but this is the --

 7     okay.

 8        Q.   This is what you were referring to on -- in the press conference

 9     the moment you explained in accordance with the investigation direction

10     of fire was 176 or in accordance with French custom, 2976 mils.  And on

11     the right side we see the actual document.  If we zoom in on the right

12     side, we can see that rather than 2976, that seems to indicate 2850;

13     correct?

14        A.   Possibly.  That figure looks like 8 or 9.  But it doesn't matter,

15     you are right.

16        Q.   Okay.  And if we could go to B, 14297B, again, this is a screen

17     shot on -- as part of the documents.  We'll need both the page of the

18     original document and the screen shot.

19             And this is a screen shot, Colonel, from 2 minutes and 14 seconds

20     of the video.  And if it is possible to flip that around a bit so it is

21     in the same position as the ... well, the previous position was a little

22     better.

23             In any event, Colonel, I think you can see from the formatting

24     and the words that you can make out that those two documents are the

25     same, that is, the screen shot and the document to the right, and here we

Page 44188

 1     see again in the second paragraph that this is referring to 2850 mils;

 2     correct?

 3        A.   I see it, I see the document.  I believe it.

 4        Q.   All right.  Now, I don't want to get into too much of a

 5     mathematics exercise but let's see if we can follow this generally

 6     quickly to get to a final figure.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we do, could you tell us, Witness, who added

 8     the handwriting on the document which you showed, because not only on

 9     this page, but also on the other page, that someone has written

10     additional, or drawn something.

11             Do you know?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean what's underlined?  I

13     don't see anything added in hand.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Here it is underlined.  In the other one, it's in

15     addition to the document.  Do you know who did that?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  We received this document from

17     the French.  We didn't write anything on it.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

19             MR. TIEGER:  Okay.

20        Q.   So, we've look at 2850 mils, let me ask you if you accept this,

21     that since the French system uses 6400 mils, that is in a complete

22     circle, to identify the number of mils corresponding to degrees, you

23     would divide 6400 by 360 and then you would get the figure for the number

24     of degrees, the number of mils for each degree; right?

25        A.   What's correct is that every country uses their own system.  But

Page 44189

 1     I have to add, 100 metres, it's .8 kilometres or half a mile.  But it's

 2     still 800 metres.  It doesn't matter how you call it in mils or degrees.

 3     It's the same value.

 4        Q.   The question is translating degrees into mils or vice versa.  In

 5     this case, to get to how many degrees is represented by 2850 mils, you

 6     would first divide 6400 by 360 which I can tell you will reveal -- will

 7     result in the figure 17.8 mils in each degree.  Accept that or not?

 8        A.   What I agree with is that the French system doesn't apply to us

 9     at all.  You ask how is it translated.  We don't translate it.  We use in

10     Russia a system that uses 6.000 degrees, but we are not using it.  We --

11     we just drew a line on the map.

12        Q.   Well, maybe --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, Mr. Tieger more or less asked you whether

14     you are familiar with the way in which you translate French mils into

15     degrees.  Are you familiar with that?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean I personally, no.

17             MR. TIEGER:  Yeah --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not addressing you at this moment.  Let me

19     directly address you, Mr. Demurenko, it's you.  Yes?  Then the parties

20     will carefully check whether the translation from French mils into

21     degrees or not, as Mr. Tieger presents it.

22             Please proceed.

23             MR. TIEGER:  Okay.

24        Q.   Well, I'm going to tell you, Colonel, that my calculations is

25     that by dividing 6400 by 360, you get a -- results in a figure of 17.8

Page 44190

 1     mils for each degree, and, therefore, to determine the number of degrees

 2     represented by the figure 2850, you divide it by 17.8, which reveals a

 3     figure of 160, and that is, in fact, precisely the figure that the French

 4     found themselves.

 5             MR. TIEGER:  If we could look at P797, page 7.

 6        Q.   And there we see, again, the figure 2850 mils and below it, 160

 7     degrees.

 8             So, in fact, the conclusion by the French in the report that you

 9     were relying on was not -- that the line of direction was 176 degrees but

10     that it was 160; correct?

11        A.   Probably.  I didn't count.  In any case, we didn't take the

12     French calculations as a basis.

13        Q.   Now, by the time you came to testify in the Karadzic case and

14     gave your amalgamated statement there, that is, after the press

15     conference and after the Dragomir Milosevic Chamber, your position was

16     the following, and I turn to paragraph 122 of your amalgamated statement.

17             Paragraph 122, you say you want to clarify this issue once and

18     for all, and with -- since this is in evidence I won't go into the

19     entirety of this thing but you say that the UNPROFOR established that the

20     bearing was 170 plus or minus 5 degrees, or to be precise it was 171 plus

21     or minus 5 degrees, which is up to 176 degrees.  And based on the firing

22     tables, I established that the possible firing positions could have been

23     one of the following.  And again, you recite the same numbers that appear

24     in the press conference that you gave on your chart.

25             Then in paragraph 123 -- and you're welcome to -- this is D2120.

Page 44191

 1     You're welcome to see if it you want, sir.  You say you personally

 2     visited and inspected each location and saw the terrain at that location,

 3     "and could see with my own eyes the terrain encompassed within the radius

 4     of the margin of deviation."  You continue, then you say that -- excuse

 5     me.  "They weren't occupied by mortars on 28th of August, 1995.  On the

 6     photographs that I took at the time, I'm pointing to the places that

 7     could have been potentially a firing point, but I could also see the

 8     terrain beyond those possible firing position, that is, the terrain

 9     encompassed within the radius of the margin of deviation given in the

10     Table 1."

11             Which is shown on the previous page.

12             You also say:  "I would like to emphasise that the terrain east

13     of the direction of my investigation, east of 170 plus or minus 5 degrees

14     was rocky and full of slopes, therefore not suitable for the mortars.

15     This would apply to bearings less than 170 degrees."

16             I'll point out the next one because we'll be dealing with that.

17     You refer to a document you were shown in the Milosevic case.  You say

18     you saw some places, 20 to 30 such places on the bearing 170 to 176

19     degrees that would have been suitable for the mortar positions but none

20     of them showed traces of the mortar use or mortar activity.

21             Now, do I understand this correctly, Colonel, when you say -- you

22     refer to the area east of the direction of your investigation that you're

23     giving us information about a portion of the terrain that you didn't

24     investigate but that you were able generally to observe?

25        A.   Your Honour, it's a very complex sentence with many subclauses,

Page 44192

 1     undivided by commas.  I don't understand what this question is driving

 2     at.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, what is driving at -- if you do not understand

 4     the question, I'll ask Mr. Tieger to rephrase.

 5             MR. TIEGER:  Okay.

 6        Q.   Colonel, you were able to follow my recounting of your -- those

 7     portions of your amalgamated statement; right?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   So with reference to your assertion that you also wanted to

10     emphasise that "the terrain east of the direction of my investigation,

11     east of 170 plus or minus 5 degrees was rocky and full of slopes,

12     therefore not suitable for the mortars, this would apply to bearings less

13     than 170 degrees," I simply wanted to ask you if that meant that you --

14     that in referring to the area east of the direction of your

15     investigation, you are providing the Court with information about a

16     portion of the terrain that you didn't investigate but that you were able

17     to generally observe?

18        A.   If the question is does that mean, my answer is no, it doesn't

19     mean that.  We investigated the line given us by the previous

20     investigators.  The degrees and the mils did not matter.

21             The comments I made in the previous trial I hoped would be

22     clarifying concerning certain details of the investigation and the

23     incident.  Eventually, I understood there were many attempts to confuse

24     the whole issue.  What I can only repeat is that the line is the central

25     thing.  The degrees don't matter.

Page 44193

 1        Q.   Colonel, this is your statement, not mine, and I'm asking you

 2     what it means when you refer to the terrain east of your investigation,

 3     east of the direction of your investigation, and you refer to it in terms

 4     of degrees.  Does that mean nothing because you don't know what the

 5     degrees of the line of direction you followed was?  Or does that have

 6     some meaning that we can follow on a map?

 7        A.   I'm saying again it doesn't mean anything.  It doesn't affect the

 8     final results or the conclusion.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, Witness, if you say, To the east, it was

10     rocky, et cetera, east of the investigation, that suggests, first of all,

11     that you looked at what was at the east, not with the same precision

12     because it was east of the part you investigated.  Is that correctly

13     understood?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly.  Exactly.  We followed

15     the route.  We know where the west and the east.  And as we climbed the

16     slope that was east, by the way, we saw that it was increasingly rocky,

17     and it was increasingly unsuited for a mortar.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And, therefore, you did not test that area

19     with the same details as you did with the part that you considered to be

20     the investigation?  Is that true?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's true that we checked only the

22     line that fell into the field of our vision.  In the forest, that field

23     of vision is narrower; in clearings, it's -- it's broader.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Again and again, you're referring to the line.  How

25     broad would be the line for you which you thoroughly checked?

Page 44194

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you look at the map and you

 2     transfer that line, you will see that it takes about 100 metres.  We

 3     checked that width of 100 metres climbing up the slope.  A pen is also

 4     not an exact instrument.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And that would be true for the whole of the 6

 6     kilometres you said you checked?

 7             Could Mr. Mladic not speak aloud?

 8             And that would be true for the whole of the 6 kilometres?

 9             Mr. Mladic, don't speak aloud.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, in Table 1, you are using the 5 per cent

12     margin and, well, let's say, at a distance of 2.000 metres, that's 2

13     kilometre, you already indicate that it could be plus or minus 175 metres

14     and further up even more, 3200 metres distance you gave 280 metres plus

15     or minus, which gives a total of 560 metres.

16             So I understand that you did not check, apart from the 100

17     metres, you did not check the terrain in detail any further than the 100

18     metres you earlier referred to.  Is that well understood?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's well understood.  Following

20     the line, we looked around carefully.  To the left and right.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

22             MR. TIEGER:  Can we call up P2380, please.

23        Q.   Colonel, this is a satellite photo of the Trebevic area with

24     markings on it which I know you're familiar from the Dragomir Milosevic

25     case because it was shown to you there.  It has on its -- on the left

Page 44195

 1     side a line indicating 170 degrees, and, on the right side, and here's

 2     how it was presented to you in the Milosevic case, on the left side it is

 3     176 degrees, the line you claim was your guidance to visit these

 4     locations, on the right side is 170 degrees, other witnesses have said

 5     was the likely direction of fire.  It's also I think, included in -- it's

 6     referenced in your statement at para 109.

 7             Now, those markings, WP4, WP5, 3, 2, 10 and 6, as you are aware

 8     because it is referenced in your statement, are locations that an OTP

 9     investigator visited and at which photos were taken from those locations.

10             MR. TIEGER:  Now -- and for benefit of the Court and parties,

11     P3282 identifies those photographs by ERN range and indicates them.  So

12     I'd just like to take a look at some of those photographs at the

13     positions WP5, WP10, WP6, that is east of Trebevic, that were taken by

14     the OTP investigator and, of course, I'm in the Chamber's hands in light

15     of the time.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And you should repeat the number of the document

17     because it's not rightly recorded.

18             MR. TIEGER:  The document reflecting the ERN ranges of the

19     photographs was P02382.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  I don't think we have time to do it today --

21             MR. TIEGER:  Okay.  Before we adjourn, may I tender 14297A and

22     14297B.  I should have done that earlier.  Those are the screen shot and

23     underlying document.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibits P7841 and P7842,

Page 44196

 1     respectively.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Both are admitted into evidence.

 3             Mr. Demurenko, we'd like to see back tomorrow at 9:30.  And I

 4     give you the same instruction as I did yesterday, that is, you should not

 5     speak with anyone about your testimony, whether that testimony is already

 6     given or whether that testimony is still to be given.

 7             I may -- yes, you want to ask something?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I want to ask something.

 9     Your Honour, if I understand correctly, plans have changed I have an air

10     ticket, but I'm not flying tomorrow; right?

11             JUDGE ORIE:  I must admit I'm not familiar with your flight

12     schedule.  We'd like to have you tomorrow in court and we are all pretty

13     certain that we will be able to finalize hearing your testimony tomorrow.

14     But I don't know what the initial plans were, neither do I know whether

15     they were changed.  But if you ask VWS they will certainly tell you.

16             And, Mr. Registrar, I take it that you draw the attention of the

17     Victims and Witness Section to the question of the witness.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A second question, if you please.

19     I would be very grateful to you, very grateful, if you could enable me

20     tomorrow, after the session is over, to ask you kindly for a favour.

21     Will that be possible tomorrow?

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I don't know what kind of favour you want to

23     ask from me or from the Bench, I take it, so if there's anything you'd

24     like to ask, tell us now what it is about, and then we'll tell you

25     whether you -- whether it's wise to ask such a thing or not.

Page 44197

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I do it now.

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

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I appreciate this

 4     opportunity to testify.  I know that in my life I will not have again an

 5     opportunity to meet Ratko Mladic.  Will you enable me to shake his hand

 6     tomorrow, without any comment?

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  First of all, not in the courtroom.  Whether

 8     Mr. Mladic may receive visitors, yes or no, is not within our hands, but

 9     in this courtroom, there will be no opportunity for a direct

10     communication between witnesses and the accused.  So, in this courtroom,

11     as you were instructed, you should refrain from any direct contact, eye

12     contact, or in whatever other way with the accused.

13             You may now follow the usher.  We'd like to see you back tomorrow

14     morning at 9.30.

15                           [The witness stands down]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mladic should not speak aloud and certainly not

17     after what the witness said.  And I also put on the record where I said

18     to the witness that he should not have eye contact with the accused, that

19     the first thing he did when he stood up and left the courtroom, to seek

20     eye contact with the accused.

21             Having put that on the record, we'll adjourn for the day, and

22     we'll resume tomorrow, the 16th of June, 9.30 in the morning, in this

23     same courtroom, I.

24                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.18 p.m.,

25                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 16th day of June,

Page 44198

 1                           2016, at 9.30 a.m.