1 Thursday, 19 April 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see the witness is here. Let him make the
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
9 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
10 WITNESS: MIRZA SABLJICA
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva, you're up.
13 MR. SACHDEVA: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours.
14 Examination by Mr. Sachdeva:
15 Q. Good morning, Witness.
16 A. Good morning.
17 Q. Just to let you know that your request for -- or our request on
18 your behalf for protection was granted and your image will be distorted so
19 that the public will not see your face.
20 Can you start by telling the Court your full name, date and plays
21 of birth, please.
22 A. My name is Mirza Sabljica. I was born on the 26th of February,
23 1966 in Sarajevo.
24 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, may I lead the witness through some
25 of his personal details.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
2 MR. SACHDEVA:
3 Q. Mr. Sabljica, it's correct that you obtained a degree in
4 mechanical engineering before the war; is that right?
5 A. Yes. I graduated from the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering in
6 Sarajevo on the 10th of October, 1991.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The interpreter didn't hear
8 the year very well.
9 MR. SACHDEVA:
10 Q. Can you repeat the year again, please.
11 A. 1991.
12 Q. Did you join the CSB in June 1993?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And what was your job description at the CSB?
15 A. I was hired as an expert for ballistics and mechanical traces.
16 Q. Before you were hired in that position, did you undergo any
18 A. You mean before I was admitted to the police force or to that
20 Q. Before or upon being admitted to the police force for that job.
21 A. Before that, I was a member of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina
22 from the beginning of the war until June 1993; and when I transferred to
23 the police, I had intensive training on the job for the -- for the
24 profession in which I continued later.
25 Q. And being an expert from June 1993 for ballistics and mechanical
1 traces, what did that job entail precisely?
2 A. In addition to examining the traces made by use of fire-arms and
3 the use of various tools on various types of locks, our job was to work on
4 cases of shelling of civilian targets in the city of Sarajevo, to examine
5 traces created by the use of various types of artillery pieces, determine
6 the direction from which projectiles were fired and to determine the type
7 of projectile. That is brief my job description for the period I worked
8 in the police.
9 Q. You said "our job." Did you work with other people in this
10 particular department for ballistics and mechanical traces?
11 A. Certainly. Since I was the most junior member of that team, I had
12 the benefit of the knowledge and experience of my more experienced
13 colleague, my senior colleagues who had been on the force for a long time
14 and who were experts in ballistics and mechanical traces. Unfortunately,
15 I must say that all three of them are no who are no longer alive.
16 Q. You said you worked on cases of shelling of civilian targets in
17 the city of Sarajevo. Can you be more specific. Did you work on cases of
18 mortar explosions in Sarajevo?
19 A. I can say that in 90 per cent of cases I dealt with mortar
20 projectiles, and we exclusively went out to perform on-site investigations
21 when civilian targets were involved.
22 Q. When you went on site to conduct your investigations, was it your
23 job to determine the direction of fire from evidence that you may see on
24 the ground?
25 A. Yes, the direction of fire, trajectory, and the type of
1 projectile. We never discussed the location.
2 Q. And with respect to mortars, what was it that assisted you to
3 determine the direction of fire when you went to an on-site investigation?
4 A. The traces you find on the spot after a shell hits are useful. We
5 used a special method, the same one used by members of the UNPROFOR and
6 other ballistic experts, and I can explain that method if you wish me.
7 Q. I'm going to ask to you explain that with the assistance of
8 photographs in a moment.
9 Let me ask you: From the period that you joined the CSB in 1993
10 to the end of the conflict in December 1995, roughly, how many mortar
11 incidents involving civilians did you investigate?
12 A. I can say with certainty there were more than 50 cases, and let me
13 emphasise, again, that we went out to perform on-site investigations only
14 when there were human losses. We didn't go out when there were only
15 casualties, wounded, or injured people. There were over 50 such cases
16 involving death.
17 Q. And when you went out on the scene, you said that you would look
18 at -- you said that you would look at traces that you would find on the
19 spot. Traces from what exactly?
20 A. Mechanical traces resulting from impact of projectiles and
21 fragments and that would be contoured on an asphalt surface or some other
23 Q. What is that analysis typically known as?
24 A. We called it analysis of the central axis, and it's a very simple
1 Q. And was this from the craters that were left on the asphalt, from
2 mortar explosions?
3 A. Yes. Yes, based on the appearance of the crater and traces
4 resulting from the explosion of a projectile.
5 Q. And this analysis that you conducted from the craters on the
6 ground, would you say this was a complicated or a simple process?
7 A. For laymen, it may appear complicated at the beginning, but
8 basically it's a very simple process that is based on the basic principles
9 of mathematics and geometry.
10 Q. When you came to a conclusion of a direction of fire from this
11 crater analysis from this process, how accurate would you say you were?
12 A. Normally, in our reports, we would indicate a margin of error that
13 was plus/minus five per cent concerning the direction of the shell.
14 Q. Was it ever the case in your work, and indeed the work of your
15 colleagues, that upon seeing a crater on the ground that you could be
16 mistaken in terms of direction of fire by some 40 or 50 degrees?
17 A. Not as far as I know. That never happened.
18 Q. Mr. Sabljica --
19 JUDGE MINDUA: Excuse me.
20 [Interpretation] Excuse me, Prosecutor. I have a question before
21 we go any further.
22 Witness, please, the question on your training, you graduate in
23 mechanical engineering and you said that as far as -- that crater analysis
24 is quite simple and the procedure is quite simple. So as a civilian
25 engineer, when you were trained as a civilian mechanical engineer, did you
1 study crater analysis or was it something that you were trained on
3 When I read your resume, I see that you're a mechanical engineer,
4 and it also says that you are expert on mechanical traces and ballistics.
5 So when did you get the training on ballistics and on crater analysis?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I received my training at the
7 Security Services Centre; that is, on the police force, as soon as I began
8 working there in June 1993. I under went intensive courses while working
9 in the specific conditions of war. So that with the assistance of my
10 senior colleagues who were high instructors, I acquired skills and
11 improved my knowledge. But in order to be able to do that job as all, you
12 have to have a background knowledge; a degree in mechanical engineering,
13 for instance.
14 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Fine. So in order to be able to
15 understand the analysis and crater analysis, you need to have a good
16 background, possibly in mechanical engineering. Is that what you're
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
19 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you. But did all police
20 officers follow this training in crater analysis? All the other ones,
21 were they also trained as their background in mechanical engineering, the
22 more experienced ones who trained you?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Two of them did have degrees in
24 mechanical engineering. Another one was an electrical engineer.
25 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you saying then that some kind of a
2 background in engineering, whether it be mechanical or electrical, is
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, certainly, because basically
5 the most important things are mechanics and mathematics.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: How long did your training last?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My intensive training was for eight
8 and a half months.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: On completion of the training, were you awarded
10 with a certificate or anything else to indicate that you had undergone
11 that training?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Upon finishing that course, I
13 got a certificate saying that I was an expert for ballistics and
14 mechanical traces in the Security Services Centre in Sarajevo.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: The certificate actually said that the training
16 that you received qualified you as an expert for ballistics and mechanical
17 traces; is that correct?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
20 MR. SACHDEVA:
21 Q. Mr. Sabljica, just following on from questions from the Bench.
22 You said earlier when I asked you about the specific process when you
23 determine the direction of fire from a crater you said it was basically a
24 simple process.
25 Now, I want to ask you this: Do you have to have had a background
1 or would you have had to have been a mechanical engineer to have and able
2 to analyse a crater and come to a conclusion as to direction of fire? Is
3 that what you're saying?
4 A. Yes. Basically, yes. You had to have some sort of background in
5 engineering in order to be able to perform that job at all, to qualify
6 under the requirements prescribed for that job.
7 Q. Now I want to ask you: Did you testify for another case at the
8 Tribunal before you have come here today?
9 A. Yes. I think five years ago in the Galic case, I believe.
10 Q. And when you testified for the Galic case, just very briefly, what
11 was the subject of your evidence?
12 A. I testified about three cases and three corresponding reports of
13 our ballistic team; that is, Markale 1, humanitarian aid in Dobrinja, one
14 case of shelling in Alipasino Polje.
15 Q. And the Markale 1 incident and the humanitarian aid incident in
16 Dobrinja, were they also shelling cases?
17 A. Yes. Mortar projectiles were involved and a large number of
19 Q. And for those cases, did you determine the direction of fire?
20 A. Yes, certainly, like in any other case.
21 Q. And you said that the mortar projectiles were involved in a large
22 number of deaths. Were these deaths civilians or were they military
24 A. I repeat: We only went out to perform on-site investigations
25 where civilians had met their death.
1 Q. You mention that you conducted an investigation into an incident
2 in Alipasino Polje. The casualties in that incident, what kind of
3 casualties were they?
4 A. That case involved children only.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic is on his feet.
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
7 make a small objection to the question posed by Mr. Sachdeva because all
8 these events, according to the information I received from the Prosecution
9 a couple of days ago, all of these events fall beyond the period with
10 which Mr. Milosevic is charged with. Alipasino Polje happened on the 24th
11 of January, 1994, and the other case was on the 4th of February, 1994. So
12 that is outside the scope of the indictment.
13 I don't think, therefore, that these matters can be directly
14 relevant to what this witness is supposed to testify about. He is
15 supposed to testify about the cases that fall within the indictment of
16 Mr. Dragomir Milosevic.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.
18 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, what I would say to learned counsel
19 is, firstly, the Prosecution indictment states specifically that the
20 accused inherited a campaign of shelling and sniping when he took over
21 command of the SRK.
22 Secondly, given the decision -- given Your Honour's decision with
23 respect to the adjudicated facts and, of course, pending the request for
24 certification on that decision, the Prosecution's position -- the
25 Prosecution is therefore necessitated for the Prosecution to lead some
1 evidence of crimes committed -- alleged crimes committed in that period
2 prior to Dragomir Milosevic taking command, but when he was -- the
3 Prosecution says Chief of Staff of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps.
4 And the material I'm asking the witness about is material that is
5 closed to the Defence. I don't intend to tender any exhibits through this
6 witness pertaining to those incidents, and in fact I'm finished with that
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: So tell us even more specifically why you're
9 leading this evidence.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: The reason I'm leading the evidence is because the
11 evidence will eventually, we allege, go to the notice of the accused while
12 he was Chief of Staff and prior to him taking over command, and, of
13 course, the Prosecution's position is that there were -- there was a
14 campaign already in place against civilians through shelling and sniping.
15 And while Dragomir Milosevic was Chief of Staff, the Prosecution'
16 submission would be that he must have known about these incidents. And in
17 light of the adjudicated facts decision where, as I understand it, facts
18 from the Appeals Chamber decision and the Trial Chamber decision
19 concluding that there was shelling and sniping of civilians in the period
20 prior to the accused's command, they have not been admitted as adjudicated
21 facts, and therefore the Prosecution is leading this type of evidence, in
22 a very, very brief fashion.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber will allow the evidence to be led for
25 the reason stated by the Prosecutor.
1 MR. SACHDEVA:
2 Q. Mr. Sabljica, I think we -- we stopped at your answer with respect
3 to the incident, Alipasino Polje, that involved children, and I want to
4 ask you about the Markale 1 incident. Do you remember how many people
5 were killed in that incident?
6 A. I think there were 69 dead and over 90 wounded.
7 Q. Do you remember the date, roughly, of that incident?
8 A. 4th or 5th February.
9 Q. You also mentioned an incident involving humanitarian aid in
10 Dobrinja. Do you recall roughly how many people -- how many casualties
11 there were in that incident?
12 A. I think there were about six dead and wounded. I don't remember,
14 Q. What were these people doing in Dobrinja at the time?
15 A. They were queueing for humanitarian aid.
16 Q. Now, you -- we've just spoken about shelling. Did you also
17 conduct investigations into sniping incidents?
18 A. Certainly. That was an integral component of my job.
19 Q. And while you were at the CSB, can you tell the Court roughly how
20 many incidents involving sniping did you investigate?
21 A. Certainly more than shelling incidents. I believe there were over
22 60 cases.
23 Q. Now I'm going to show you a photograph, and I'm going to ask you
24 more specific questions about the process that you take when analysing a
1 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, if I could ask for 65 ter 2112, and
2 if we could move to the third photograph, please. Can it be enlarged?
3 Q. Witness, do you see a photograph on the screen?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 MR. SACHDEVA: Maybe it shouldn't be broadcast. Thank you.
6 Q. What do you see there?
7 A. I see a clear trace made by a mortar shell and some people
8 standing around. One is there at the entrance to building number 26.
9 There are also these three sticks that we used in order to graphically
10 depict how we worked and what method we employed; that is, the method of
11 the central axis in order to determine the direction of the projectile
12 based on the trace it left on the surface.
13 Q. Do you know which incident this is?
14 A. I believe that this was the shelling of Kosevsko Brdo, Livanjska
16 Q. And were you involved in that investigation?
17 A. Yes, I was.
18 Q. Do you remember the date of that incident?
19 A. This was 13 years ago.
20 Q. If you can't remember, it's okay.
21 A. No, I can't remember.
22 Q. And in that incident, do you recall how many shells landed on
23 Livanjska Street?
24 A. I believe that in this particular case there was only one shell.
25 Q. And when you say "in this particular case," are you speaking with
1 reference to this mortar -- the crater that you see in the photograph?
2 A. Yes, that's the one I'm referring to.
3 Q. And on this location, do you recall if there was another shell
4 that landed?
5 A. I remember that we conducted an on-site investigation on Livanjska
6 Street where two more shells fell but not in front of building 26, but it
7 was number 30 or something. But I also am not sure whether that was on
8 the same day.
9 Q. Okay. Now, in this photograph, just explain -- I want you to
10 explain, first, how many sticks do we see here?
11 A. You can see three sticks here.
12 Q. And where the three sticks meet, what is that point?
13 A. That's the centre of the explosion, or rather, the centre of the
14 crater, and you can see the projectile stabiliser there in the centre.
15 Q. And the two horizontal sticks, do you see the two horizontal
16 sticks? What do they signify?
17 A. In order for you to comprehend more fully this method, I think it
18 would be useful if I can explain it in more detail, if you wish.
19 Q. Please do.
20 A. A mortar shell, when landing, its axis creates a angle with the
21 surface which is normally less than 90 degrees. During contact with the
22 surface and the explosion, there's a fragmentation of the shell that
23 occurs, and the traces on the surface are visible and they spread at a
24 longer distance from the centre of the explosion in the direction from
25 which the shell had come.
1 They create an irregular ellipsis in the shape of a fan, because
2 from that direction the explosive impact is directed lower to the surface;
3 whereas, on the opposite side, the impact of the shell grenades tend to go
4 upwards, and therefore there are fewer traces on the surface than in the
5 place indicating the direction of fire.
6 In order to employ this method, you have to have approximately
7 this arrangement or this picture that I explained which depicts how
8 explosion occurred. These sticks actually indicate the hands of an angle
9 by connecting the farthest traces from the direction of fire with the
10 centre of the explosion, and then you draw a central axis on them, which
11 at the same time indicates the direction from which the shell came.
12 If you allow me, I can also say that usually these are more
13 sharper angles, and this is a typical case here on Kosevsko Brdo, and you
14 can see that there is in the shape of a letter T.
15 Q. I'm going to ask the court usher to hand you a pen to mark this
16 photograph. You talked about the traces on the surface that are visible,
17 and they spread at a longer distances from the centre of the explosion in
18 the direction from which the shell had come. I want you to take a pen and
19 mark those traces.
20 A. These are the traces.
21 Q. And you also said these sticks actually indicate the hands of an
22 angle by connecting the farthest trace of the direction of fire to the
23 centre of the explosion. Can you indicated where these farthest traces
25 A. This one here and this one here, as can you see in the photograph.
1 Q. So they correspond to the ends of horizontal sticks?
2 A. Precisely so.
3 Q. And the vertical stick coming from the -- from the centre of the
4 explosion, what does that signify?
5 A. It signifies that central axis, and it indicates the direction
6 from which the shell came.
7 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I ask that this photograph is
8 tendered into evidence -- admitted into evidence, sorry.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit it.
10 THE REGISTRAR: As P571, Your Honours.
11 MR. SACHDEVA: May I now ask for exhibit --
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Prosecutor, before we leave this picture, I
13 would like you to ask the witness if he can testify to the kind of mortar
14 we see here and also explain to us what he was saying about the tail-fin
15 of the mortar. I understood him to say that the tail-fin was embedded in
16 the crater, and I would be curious to know just why the tail-fin would
17 remain there and not be thrown away by the explosion.
18 MR. SACHDEVA: Very well, Your Honour.
19 Q. Mr. Sabljica, did you hear that question. Firstly, you said that
20 the tail-fin was embedded in the crater. Do you know why it remained
22 A. Usually, due to an explosion, we often found the tail-fin embedded
23 in the asphalt surface. And I can easily say that in 95 per cent of
24 cases, we did find it at the place of impact. However, there were cases
25 in which it ricocheted depending at which angle it hit the surface and
1 what kind of surface was involved, because mortar shells have enough power
2 that they can simply penetrate the upper layer of the asphalt and become
3 deeply embedded in the asphalt; that is, their tail-fin.
4 So you can always see this trace and it also facilitated our
5 investigation. I say facilitated in terms of determining the type of the
6 shell used in the particular incident.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
8 Mr. Prosecutor, can I put some more questions directly to the
9 witness that might facilitate this.
10 Mr. Witness, if you find the tail-fin embedded in the crater, are
11 you then able to determine the angle of descent of the mortar as it hit
12 the ground? Is that a possible indication of the angle of descent.
13 And, secondly, if the tail-fin is not found, then how would you
14 normally determine the kind of mortar that you have -- that have you
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on the traces and clues found
17 on the spot, if you find the tail-fin in the centre of the crater, it is
18 possible to determine the descent angle by applying the method that we
19 also used. You take a protractor; and by using geometry, you determine
20 the arms of the angle, and then you calculated the sine and the cosine of
21 the angle and, therefore, you get the angle of the descent.
22 If, however, we did not find the tail-fin at the point of impact,
23 we usually did recover other fragments of disintegrated body of the shell.
24 In that case, a criminal investigation technician retrieves the evidence
25 and proceeds with sending them to the experts from the KDZ; that is, the
1 countersabotage department. Based on that, they reach a unanimous opinion
2 of what type of shell was involved and also based on the size of the
3 damage because an 82-millimetre creates smaller damage than that created
4 by 120-millimetre shell.
5 So based on their findings an opinions and after coordinating and
6 dovetailing them with our opinions, a final report is prepared.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
8 Now, once you have determined the angle of descent and you know
9 the kind of mortar that you are dealing with, does that enable you to
10 determine the distance from which the mortar was launched?
11 Now, you have the incoming -- the direction of fire, you had the
12 angle of descent, and you have the impacts on the ground. Would that
13 enable you, normally, to determine the distance from which the mortar was
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is possible, and that is the
16 domain of the ballistics by using tables relevant for the weapon used and
17 the charge used. However, this was not our job. This was the job of
18 other experts. We only determined the direction and the type of the
19 shell. I was never involved in determining based on the input parameters
20 the origin of fire.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Who would do that in your teams.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Normally, the KDZ had an expert team
23 support by mechanics, professors from the university involved in
24 ballistics and rocket science and things like that, so they helped them in
25 the process.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Were they present at the crime scenes normally, or
2 were they back in their offices?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Usually, the KDZ had their people
4 along with us. However, these expert analysis were conducted in their
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Prosecutor.
7 Thank you, Mr. Witness.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in order not to go
10 back to this issue, His Honour Judge Harhoff asked another question that
11 witness failed to respond and that deals with the calibre.
12 Your Honour, you asked about the calibre of the shell, didn't you?
13 So I would kindly ask the witness to give his response. What was the
14 calibre of this shell.
15 MR. SACHDEVA: I was going to ask the witness that.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think he answered. Well, yes, please, put the
17 question to him again. I'm satisfied as to the answer he gave to me.
18 Thank you.
19 MR. SACHDEVA:
20 Q. Witness, what calibre of the shell was this, the incident that we
21 see here.
22 A. It is difficult to say by looking at the photograph, but I
23 remember this particular instance and that was an 82-millimetre shell.
24 Q. And just in follow-up to His Honour's question regarding the angle
25 of descent. If a tail-fin was not embedded in the asphalt, could an angle
1 of descent nevertheless be determined?
2 A. Yes. I just mentioned that we use the method of an extra stick
3 that was placed in the centre of the crater that had a certain depth, and
4 by that you get one leg of the triangle and then you calculate a cosine of
5 the hypotenuse by using mathematical method.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: Can I now ask that we move to photograph --
7 photograph 5, please. 6, actually. Sorry.
8 Q. Mr. Sabljica, what do we see here?
9 A. These are mechanical traces on asphalt caused by an impact of a
10 mortar shell. We can see the tail-fin of the shell in the centre of the
11 crater and also you see a metal rod stuck in the crater, and there's a
12 chalk-marked arrow which indicates the direction of fire.
13 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I ask that this photograph be
14 admitted into evidence.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
16 THE REGISTRAR: As P572, Your Honours.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's occurring to me, Witness, that this might be
19 a good example and an opportunity for you to explain the science behind
20 this. How were you able to determine the direction of fire as represented
21 by this arrow?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you allow me, I would
23 respectfully correct you. I think it would be better if I explained to
24 you how a descent angle is measured, because this is a close-up photograph
25 of the centre of the crater. Therefore, these fragmentation traces in the
1 shape of a fan cannot be quite clearly seen here.
2 If you wish, I can explain to you how a descent angle is
3 calculated because that was precisely the purpose of this photograph.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
5 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I'm happy for the witness to explain
6 how to establish the angle of descent. I was going to show the witness
7 another photograph and again for him to comment on establishing the
8 direction of fire.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, okay. Let him explain then the descent
11 MR. SACHDEVA:
12 Q. Witness, from this photograph, as you were saying, please explain
13 how would you come to the angle of descent?
14 A. May I use this pen?
15 Q. Yes, absolutely.
16 A. Given that this is the centre of the crater created by a mortar
17 shell, we use a metal rod which shows the hypotenuse of the triangle that
18 it forms, the distance between the impact and the centre of the crater you
19 measure by using a triangle or any other measures device, and therefore
20 you get one element, X.
21 If you know what kind of projectile is involved, and I cannot say
22 precisely judging by this photograph whether there was a 82 or
23 120-millimetre shell because it's too close for me to determine that. We
24 use the tables used by the JNA, and we knew the size and the dimension of
25 the projectile.
1 We use a dimension from the top of the fuse to the middle of the
2 shell which is stated in the table and we get the height H, and we get the
3 standard formula cosine of Alpha equals H over X. And with the help of
4 this rod, we can determine the descent angle with the accuracy and margin
5 of error of plus/minus two per cent.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, this explanation is contained in a
7 diagram that has been tendered through a previous witness. Because it
8 involves going from one exhibit to another exhibit, I can show the witness
9 currently this diagram and ask him to confirm if that is the mathematical
10 equations that he is talking about, if that would help.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, go ahead.
12 MR. SACHDEVA: Firstly, I would like to have this photograph
13 admitted into evidence, Mr. President, please.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's admitted.
15 THE REGISTRAR: As P573, Your Honours.
16 MR. SACHDEVA: And if I could ask for 65 ter 84 to be brought up,
17 and I would ask for page -- it's either 12 or 13 of that exhibit.
18 Q. Witness, do you see that diagram on the screen?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. And was that the equation you were speaking about beforehand?
21 A. Yes. That is what I explained a while ago. This was normally
22 done by our colleagues from the KDZ as part of a composite report. They
23 prepared this kind of charts and additional drawings because in some
24 cases, when a tail-fin couldn't be found, they provided this calculation
25 of the angle of descent.
1 Q. Would you be able to explain that diagram?
2 A. Certainly. As I explained previously on the photograph, you see
3 on this chart. The centre of the impact is the tip of the shell. One
4 dimension down there is X. That's from the centre of impact to --
5 Q. Once second, Mr. Sabljica. I'm going to ask you to mark -- as you
6 speak, I'll ask you to mark that.
7 First, mark the centre of impact of the shell.
8 A. There it is.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Maybe we should scroll the picture up a bit --
10 THE WITNESS: Up.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: -- so we can see the X.
12 MR. SACHDEVA: If that could be done, please.
13 THE WITNESS: Little bit more. Okay.
14 MR. SACHDEVA: That will be it, Your Honour.
15 Q. And where is the centre of the projectile, centre of the shell?
16 A. The centre of the projectile is here. That created a central
17 crater that has certain dimensions, if you look at the cross-section.
18 Q. Sorry. Did you mark the centre of the projectile?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Or is that the centre of the impact?
21 A. Centre of the explosion, yes.
22 Q. What's the circle? You see the circle in the projectile where
23 these dotted lines stem from? What is that circle?
24 A. That little circle is the crossing point of those lines that are
25 created by other traces evolving from the central crater which itself was
1 developed by the impact of the shell. And they provide us with the
2 dimension of the hypotenuse necessary to calculate according to this
4 Q. You say, "the other traces evolving from the central crater." Can
5 you mark on the diagram where those other traces are or where those traces
6 are depicted, please.
7 A. It's here. That's their depth in the asphalt of the central
9 Q. And from -- from the other traces that you just marked, as opposed
10 to the central crater, you'll see two dotted lines that are -- that go
11 back into the projectile. You see a small circle in the middle of the
12 projectile itself.
13 A. You mean this one here?
14 Q. In the projectile, yes. What is that?
15 A. It's the denomination of the crossing point where these transverse
16 lines meet in one point. Probably the colleague who did this sketch
17 marked the point where these lines meet, and that will be the beginning of
18 the distance from the tip of the projectile from the centre of the shell
19 that is necessary for this equation.
20 Since he knew which type of projectile was involved, he could
21 calculate this dimension and place it in the formula, in the equation, H1.
22 Q. So the small circle is the centre of the shell? That's what I
23 wanted to ask.
24 A. Approximately. That's the focal point.
25 MR. SACHDEVA: Unless there are any further questions from the
1 Bench, Mr. President, Your Honours, I will tender this diagram into
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit it.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As P574, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, please, if the stabilising
6 fin is not found, in the case where it is not found, isn't it difficult to
7 find the centre of the shell, and thus to calculate figure H as well as to
8 find out the X. What do you think of it?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] X is easily calculated on the spot.
10 You can calculate -- you can measure the dimensions of the crater to get
11 it. But if you don't find the tail-fin, then based on other evidence,
12 other traces, fragments, parts of the fuse that are often found on the
13 place of impact, other shrapnel, experts of countersabotage protection
14 determine the type of the projectile in their laboratory; and then using
15 their tables that were taken over from the JNA, tables of mines and shells
16 used in mortars, it is very easy to calculate these dimensions because
17 they are given in tables; H, for instance, or a distance from the centre
18 of gravity to the tip of the shell. This particular chart was not done on
19 the spot. It was done in the laboratory using the tables, knowing the
20 type of the projectile.
21 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 MR. SACHDEVA: May I ask the registrar to bring up again 65 ter
23 2112, and I'd like to move to photograph 8, please.
24 And can it be moved -- can it be scrolled a little bit to the
25 right, please.
1 Q. Okay. Witness, you see a photograph on the screen?
2 A. I do.
3 Q. And -- well, just explain what you see here.
4 A. We see the mechanical traces created by the impact of a mortar
5 projectile on an asphalt surface that has spread in the form of an
6 irregular ellipsis. We see the fragments, the tail-fin, and I see a pair
7 of shoes worn by a person standing there.
8 Q. And do you see -- there appears to be chalk around some of the
9 traces; do you see that?
10 A. Yes. This is an initial stage of the on-site investigation.
11 Traces are first marked on the asphalt surface by chalk so that those
12 transverse lines can be drawn to the -- to the centre.
13 Q. And from this photograph, one can see that the preponderance or
14 the majority of the traces are on the side closest -- on the side towards
15 the right on the photograph. What would that tell you about the direction
16 of fire?
17 A. This photograph is not really perfect for determining the exact
18 direction, but the traces on that side where they are spread more
19 extensively show where the shell came from. From the other angle where
20 the person is standing, it would have been impossible to determine with
21 the methods that we used.
22 Q. Can you just take a pen and draw roughly the direction of fire?
23 A. With the proviso, as I say again, this photograph is not perfect.
24 There are probably other traces on this side so it would be easier if it
25 wasn't so close up, but the traces that are spread in this way make it
1 possible to draw it this way. I'm ruling out the other side, of course.
2 I'm not talking that into account.
3 Q. That is what I essentially want to the achieve. The other side is
4 ruled out; is that right?
5 A. Yes, precisely. Because the impact of the explosion was upward.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender this photograph into
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's admitted.
9 THE REGISTRAR: As P575, Your Honours.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: Can I ask now that Prosecution Exhibit 378, under
11 seal, be brought up.
12 Q. Mr. Sabljica, I'm just going to show you a document in a moment,
13 and I will ask you a few questions.
14 MR. SACHDEVA: It's not being broadcast, is it?
15 Q. Do you see a document there on the screen, Witness?
16 A. Yes, I can see it.
17 Q. And what is this document?
18 A. It's an official report of the crime investigations inspector who
19 was on the spot performing a on-site investigation together with a mixed
20 team of employ employees of the Security Services Centre.
21 Q. Do you see your name there in the middle?
22 A. Yes, of course, under number 3.
23 MR. SACHDEVA: May I just inquire, is there an English
25 If we could go to the next page, please.
1 Q. Witness, at the end of the, I guess, the first paragraph, you'll
2 see the words -- it talks about the angle of descent, and it says that the
3 shell arrived from north, five degrees west. Do you see that there?
4 A. Yes, I've read it.
5 Q. What does that mean, "north, five degrees west"?
6 A. After completing the determining of the direction, as I explained
7 before, in the kit used by ballistic experts and the scene-of-crime
8 officers, there is a map of the city, a street finder, and a compass. On
9 the street finder, you locate the exact spot as far as the scale enables
10 us, the exact spot where the shell hit, then the north is found on the map
11 using the compass; and then by drawing a line on the ground, you make it
12 coincide with the direction of north. In this case, the angle was five
13 degrees to the north in relation to west. That's very simple.
14 Q. Sorry. I heard on the translation that it said it was five
15 degrees to the north in relation to the -- in relation to the west. Do
16 you mean five degrees to the north in relation to west, or do you mean
17 five degrees to the west in relation to north?
18 A. From north to west, that's the direction of north-west. It's five
19 degrees from north. We always measured from north, to calculate the
20 degree shown on the compass.
21 Q. Thank you for that clarification. And this report pertains the
22 Livanjska Street incident at number 26, doesn't it?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. If I were to show you a map, would you be able to mark, firstly,
25 the rough location of Livanjska Street, and then would you be able to draw
1 a line in the direction of five degrees from north to the west?
2 A. I'll try. I think I could.
3 MR. SACHDEVA: Could I ask that the street map 2872 be shown on
4 the screen, please. Can the top right-hand side be enlarged, please.
5 Q. Okay. Mr. Sabljica, do you see where Kosevsko Brdo or Livanjska
6 Street is?
7 A. This is Kosevsko.
8 Q. And, if you can, mark where Livanjska Street is.
9 A. Is it possible to enlarge this section a little more, please.
10 Q. Yes.
11 MR. SACHDEVA: Can the map be enlarged a bit more, please.
12 THE WITNESS: To the right.
13 MR. SACHDEVA: Can we move it to the right, please.
14 Q. Is that clearer?
15 A. Yes, yes. [In English] This is Livanjska Street.
16 Q. Can you just mark -- can you mark that with an L.
17 A. [Interpretation] This red line I drew, that's Livanjska Street.
18 Q. And with a dotted line, can you mark the direction from which the
19 projectile came; and that is, five degrees west of north?
20 A. First, I shall mark the direction of north, and the football
21 stadium is of assistance. The direction of north is this, and this would
22 be a five-degree angle in relation to north. That's the direction from
23 which the shell came.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender this still into evidence.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit it.
2 THE REGISTRAR: As P576, Your Honours.
3 MR. SACHDEVA: May I now ask for 65 ter 00084 to be brought up,
4 and pages 8 and 9.
5 Q. Mr. Sabljica, do you see a document on the screen?
6 A. I see one half of it because the other half is covered by the map.
7 Q. And what is this document, please?
8 A. I see the document now. It's a report of the scene-of-crime
9 officer, and that's an integral part of the documentation that he is
10 required to write up after performing an on-site investigation.
11 Q. Does it pertain to the Livanjska Street incident at number 26?
12 A. Yes, that is clearly indicated. The site of perpetration is
13 Livanjska Street.
14 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender this document; that is,
15 pages 8 and 9 of 65 ter 00084, into evidence.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Prosecutor, do we have the same document on
17 each side of the monitors?
18 THE WITNESS: No, it's not the same.
19 MR. SACHDEVA: The translation is the wrong one.
20 THE WITNESS: No.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 MR. SACHDEVA: The translation is page 6.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 MR. SACHDEVA: Your Honour, I think the translation is there now.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
1 MR. SACHDEVA: If that is fine, then I tender pages 8 and 9 of 65
2 ter 84 into evidence.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit it.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As P577, Your Honours.
5 MR. SACHDEVA:
6 Q. Mr. Witness, this incident at 1525, at Livanjska Street 26, do you
7 recall if UNPROFOR also conducted an investigation?
8 A. The UNPROFOR expert teams were usually present on such sites, and
9 I believe they were there as well, if I remember well. But they do their
10 own independent investigation and then at the end they discuss their
11 findings with us, but that depends on the disposition of their commanders.
12 Q. And with respect to -- to this shelling, the first shell at 1525,
13 do you remember whether UNPROFOR came to a conclusion as to the direction
14 of fire; and if they did come to a conclusion, did it correspond to your
15 conclusion of direction of fire?
16 A. I know that we worked at Livanjska Street doing one of the on-site
17 investigations and that an UNPROFOR team was present, but I'm not sure
18 whether this was the one. But I think on Livanjska Street we agreed as
19 far as the direction of fire was concerned, because our debate ceased
20 there concerning the origin of fire. We did not get involved in that.
21 MR. SACHDEVA: Can I ask that 65 ter 2113 be shown on the screen,
23 Q. Mr. Sabljica, I'm just waiting for the translation in your
24 language to come up.
25 Do you see -- firstly, do you see this is a report from the United
1 Nations Protection Force?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. And do you see where it says, "mjesto," which is location. What
4 does it say there?
5 A. "Location, Livanjska Street, BP 915-607."
6 Q. And just above that, it talks about the date and time of
7 shelling. Can you read that there?
8 A. Yes. "8th November 1994 at 1523."
9 Q. Does this appear to you to refer to the same incident that we've
10 just spoken about that you conducted the direction of fire investigation?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. SACHDEVA: And if we could go to the last page, please.
13 Q. Mr. Sabljica, you see where it says "conclusion."
14 A. [No interpretation]
15 Q. And what does it say?
16 A. "Conclusion: It may be concluded that undoubtedly the area is on
17 the Serbian side between Brijeg and Izlaze."
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: We are at the time for the break, so we will
19 adjourn for half an hour.
20 According to the time allocated, you would have half an hour more.
21 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I know I made promises before, but I
22 will finish within the half an hour.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
24 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: I should say in the absence of Judge Mindua,
2 Judge Harhoff and I sit pursuant to the provision the of Rule 15 busy.
3 Mr. Sachdeva.
4 MR. SACHDEVA:
5 Q. Mr. Sabljica I, have half an hour left so let's try and move as
6 quickly as possible.
7 Before we broke, we were looking at an UN document where it said
8 that the conclusion was that the most suspected area is on the Serbian
9 side between Brijeg and Izlaze, and what I want to ask you is: Well,,
10 firstly, do you know roughly where Brijeg and Izlaze is.
11 A. I know about Orahov Brijeg, probably that is what they were
12 referring to. And Izlaze approximately on that axis and direction that we
13 established. It's the location in the area and I know this suburb. It's
14 a closer to Vogosca municipality.
15 Q. I think you have answered the question but just to confirm. The
16 area of Oraho Brijeg and Izlaze, the direction from Livanjska Street to
17 those locations, does that correspond to the direction that you drew on
18 the map a moment ago with respect to the first shell at 26 Livanjska
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender this UN report into
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's admitted.
24 THE REGISTRAR: As P578, Your Honours.
25 MR. SACHDEVA: Could I now ask for 65 ter 63 to be brought up,
1 pages 5 and 6; again, not to the broadcast.
2 Q. Mr. Sabljica, while that is coming up, you told the Court earlier
3 that after the shell that landed at 1525 or so on the 8th of November,
4 there was another shell that landed on Livanjska Street. Do you remember
6 A. I think there were two more shells. One of them fell onto the
7 asphalt surface, and the other one I think in a garden in front of a
8 house; that is to say, on the soil.
9 Q. Do you see on the right-hand side of the screen, you see a
10 document in B/C/S. And I want you to just tell the Court had a does that
11 document relate to?
12 A. It's an official report compiled by a criminal investigation
13 inspector with relation to an on-site investigation. It describes the
14 event, the on-site investigation of the -- carried out on the 9th of
15 November, 1994; and as I can see from the document, the shell fell on the
16 8th of November.
17 MR. SACHDEVA: Just for the benefit of the Bench, the English
18 translation is page 2.
19 Q. While that is being brought up, do you see in that document,
20 Mr. Sabljica, your name there?
21 A. Yes. The last-but-one name is "Mirza Sabljica, criminal
22 investigation technician and ballistic expert from the Sarajevo CSB."
23 MR. SACHDEVA: And if we could go to the next page, please.
24 Q. Mr. Sabljica, in the third paragraph from the top on that page, do
25 you see -- do you see where it describes the direction of fire for this
2 A. Yes. It shows that the shell was fired at 20 degrees from north
3 to east.
4 Q. What does it exactly say in the report, if you could just read it
5 out, please: "20 degrees ..."
6 A. "From the east." "Fired from a direction 20 degrees from the
7 east," probably from the general area of Spicasta Stijena, and this is a
8 report compiled by Dragan Miokovic, a homicide inspector who usually acted
9 as a member of our team. So these are his personal suppositions. This --
10 what it says from the wider area of Spicasta Stijena, I suppose is his
12 Q. And when it says "20 degrees from the east," as you told the Court
13 beforehand, when you calculated the direction of fire, you would first
14 indicate where north is and then you would calculate the degrees from the
15 north. Do I take it, then, that the 20 degrees from the east --
16 A. From the north to the east. I think that Dragan here made a
17 mistake. This is what it should have read. And if you have a ballistic
18 report, I'm sure that it is noted there in a proper and correct way.
19 Because I repeat right, we always took the north as a benchmark and then
20 calculated the rest with respect to the north.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender this document into
23 evidence, under seal. This is pages 5 and 6 of 65 ter 63.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit it.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this entire document of 65 ter 00063
1 is already in evidence as Exhibit D85.
2 MR. SACHDEVA: I'm grateful to the registrar for that. That will
3 save a lot of time.
4 If I can now ask for 65 ter 03041 to be brought up. These are
5 photographs, and if we could go to photograph number 10, please -- well,
6 page 10. Sorry.
7 Q. Mr. Sabljica, we now see something similar to what we saw before.
8 Can you just for the sake of clarity, can you indicate with a pen - I ask
9 the assistance of the usher - indicate where the preponderance of the
10 mechanical traces can be found.
11 A. They are marked with chalk on the asphalt, and I'm also going to
12 mark them with the pen. This is the damage caused by the impact.
13 Q. And the vertical stick stemming from the centre of the impact
14 point, does that indicate the direction of fire?
15 A. Yes. That's the direction of fire, after we applied the method
16 that I explained earlier.
17 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender this photograph into
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's admitted.
20 THE REGISTRAR: As P579, Your Honours.
21 MR. SACHDEVA: If we can now move to photograph number 15, page
22 15, please.
23 Q. Mr. Sabljica, while we're getting to that photograph, do you
24 generally recognise these photographs to be from the second shell that
25 landed on Livanjska Street?
1 A. Yes, yes.
2 MR. SACHDEVA: Actually, it's my mistake. Can we just go to the
3 last photograph, 7405.
4 Q. Mr. Sabljica, I know that it -- it's not the clearest of pictures,
5 but are you able to on this photograph indicate with an arrow the
6 direction of fire?
7 A. Yes, I can. This is the very beginning of the on-site
8 investigation. We didn't touch anything pending the arrival of UNPROFOR
9 team that can you see in the picture.
10 Now I'm going to mark the direction; approximately here, where
11 this gentleman is standing.
12 Q. And can you just place the letter C above the crater that we see
14 A. [Marks]
15 MR. SACHDEVA: I tender this photograph into evidence,
16 Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit it.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As P580, Your Honours.
19 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, in the interest of time, I would
20 like to tender the set of photographs for this incident, an incident which
21 the witness has testified to having been involved in the investigation,
22 and that would be the full 65 ter exhibit 03041.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, any objection?
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence has no
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit them.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As P581, Your Honours.
4 MR. SACHDEVA:
5 Q. Now, Mr. Sabljica, you earlier testified that UNPROFOR was also
6 present in these investigations, and I'm -- I want to ask you with respect
7 to this shell at 1725 hours, did you and the Bosnian police have a
8 discussion with UNPROFOR about the tables that were used for calculations?
9 A. Yes, we did, of course. As you can see, UNPROFOR prepared a
10 comprehensive report. They even tried to identify the zones of the origin
11 of fire. So together we established it was a 82-millimetre mortar shell,
12 and I think that we also agreed on the direction from which the mortar
13 shell came.
14 However, we noticed that the gentleman from UNPROFOR didn't use
15 mortar tables used for mortars produced by the JNA. Instead, they used, I
16 think, some Finnish tables that envisaged different charges and different
17 ranges as opposed the one that was used by the JNA.
18 Q. Is it possible then to establish an accurate range or to establish
19 the appropriate charge that was used for projectiles that were produced by
20 the JNA with Finnish firing tables?
21 A. I wasn't involved in that. It is possible, though. What we
22 noticed was that maximum charge zero plus six in the Finnish tables has
23 the range twice -- twice the shorter one than those applicable to the
24 mortars produced in -- in the former Yugoslavia.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 Now, I'm going to move on to sniping. You testified earlier that
2 you investigated 60 sniping incidents. And I want to ask you about an
3 incident that took place on the 8th of November 1994, involving -- well,
4 firstly, let me ask you: Did you investigate a sniping incident in -- in
5 the general area of Grbavica that took place on the 8th of November, 1994.
6 A. There were several sniping incidents involving Grbavica. I don't
7 know which particular one you had in mind.
8 Q. Perhaps I'll bring up a report.
9 MR. SACHDEVA: If I could ask for 65 ter 00062 to be brought up on
10 the screen, please.
11 Q. Do you see that document there on the right-hand side?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. And what does the document relate to?
14 A. It's an official report compiled by a criminal investigation
15 inspector regarding a sniping incident of November the 8th, 1994 in which
16 Nermina Omerovic was wounded. The incident happened on Djure Danicica
17 Street, 9/5, where she was -- where the lady in question was wounded to
18 the head.
19 MR. SACHDEVA: Can I just confirm that this is not being
21 Q. And, Mr. Sabljica, at the middle of the page, do you see your name
23 A. Yes, under number 6. I was a member of the team. The late
24 Stankov, who used to my mentor, and I were a member of the ballistic part
25 of the team.
1 Q. Did you then conduct an investigation into this incident. Do you
2 remember conducting an investigation into this incident?
3 A. Based on this report, my memory is refreshed now.
4 Q. And when you went to the scene, what did you find and what did you
5 do? Very briefly, please.
6 A. We were mostly focussed on the clues and physical evidence that we
7 recovered. I know that there was no -- the windows were not glazed;
8 instead, they were covered with thin wooden panels. We found traces on
9 these panels. They were about 12 millimetres apart, and they were put
10 there instead of glass. The bullet penetrated these panels, hit the woman
11 in the head, and we found it on the carpet in the room.
12 I think it was a tracer bullet because the carpet was burned. We
13 also found a lead charge of the bullet and the casing. We applied a
14 method often used by ballistics in order to determine the direction of
15 sniper fire or fire from infantry weapon by using a piece of string and a
16 metal tube 8 millimetres in diameter. You connect the points of
17 penetration of the bullet, and you can visualize the place from which the
18 bullet was allegedly or probably fired with a margin of error plus/minus
19 ten per cent.
20 Q. The pieces of string, which points in particular did you connect?
21 A. We connected the damage on the wooden panels, which was in the
22 shape of an irregular ellipsis, and the trace on the carpet where we found
23 the slug. And we drew the line between these two points, and we inserted
24 this metal tube into the hole into the obstacle. In this case, it was the
25 window covered by wooden panels, and you can you can establish by
1 visioning the direction of the bullet.
2 Q. And you said that the bullet went through these wooden panels
3 through the lady's head and left a hole on the carpet. Does the fact that
4 the bullet went through the lady's head, would that affect the trajectory
5 of the bullet, in your opinion?
6 A. Not in this case, because the distance was rather short between
7 the place of accident to the next building from which the sniper fired.
8 It's a distance of between 450 to 500 metres.
9 Q. Which building? You said, "the next building from which the
10 sniper fired." Which building was that?
11 A. The well-known building in Sarajevo known as Metalka.
12 Q. Why do you say "well-known"?
13 A. There are three buildings that were built at the same time before
14 the war. They have the same structure and the shape; and on the ground
15 floor of that particular building, there used to be company premises of
16 Metalka. That is how it got its name.
17 Q. Do you know what that building was used for during the war?
18 A. A sniper was usually firing from this building, across the river,
19 targeting the civilians who were under the -- the territory under the
20 control of the Bosnian army.
21 Q. And the Metalka building under -- which party to the conflict
22 controlled the area where the Metalka building was?
23 A. It's the area of Grbavica controlled by the VRS.
24 Q. I'm going to show you a photograph.
25 MR. SACHDEVA: If I could have 65 ter 2 -- firstly, Mr. President,
1 I would like to tender this document into evidence, under seal.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit it.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As P582, under seal, Your Honours.
4 MR. SACHDEVA: And if I could have photograph 2825 shown on the
5 screen. Yes. If we could leave it like that, please.
6 Q. Mr. Sabljica, do you recognise that photograph, or what's in that
8 A. Yes, I can. You can see part of Grbavica and Marindvor and the
9 museum on the other side, and the building on Djure Danicica Street and
10 Franje Rackog.
11 Q. Now, the place that you went to investigate the sniping incident
12 on Djure Danicica Street, can you see the building or the house on that
13 photograph; and if you can, can you please mark it?
14 A. I'm not quite sure whether this number was in this building here
15 or the other building. Anyway, they are all on Djure Danicica Street, and
16 they are close to the river. I'm not sure whether it's the first building
17 or the one next to it. I can't remember.
18 Q. Can you just place two letters DD for Djure Danicica in between
19 those two buildings, if you can, please.
20 A. [Marks]
21 Q. Thank you. And can you see where the Metalka building it; and if
22 you can, can you just put a M on it?
23 A. This is the one in the middle.
24 Q. Now, you said that you conducted up to 60 sniping incidents --
25 investigations into sniping incidents. Did you ever conduct
1 investigations where -- involving trams.
2 A. Yes, I did, at least a dozen times.
3 Q. And did you conduct investigations involving trams in locations
4 that can be seen in this photograph?
5 A. Yes. The trams were the most frequent target in this area.
6 Because there's a curve there, it has to slow down in order to proceed on
7 the other side of the street.
8 Q. Just indicate where that curve is and where the trams had to slow
10 A. I'll put a circle here because this is where the tram tracks make
11 a curve and cross over to the other side of the street, and usually this
12 is where trams were most frequently targeted.
13 Q. Where would the fire come from?
14 A. The investigation usually established that shots came from the
15 area where the Metalka building is.
16 Q. And do you remember -- I just want to going to the incident on the
17 8th of November, 1994. You said a lady was wounded. Do you remember how
18 old this person was?
19 A. I am sorry, but this victim was a girl who was shot in the head
20 and died. She wasn't wounded.
21 Q. In the area where she lived where you have marked DD, who lived in
22 those buildings? Were there civilians or were there military people
24 A. Civilians, of course.
25 Q. When you went to the building to conduct your investigation, did
1 you see any evidence of military personnel or military facilities there?
2 A. Not that I have seen.
3 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender this photograph into
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit it.
6 THE REGISTRAR: As P583, Your Honours.
7 MR. SACHDEVA: And Mr. President, might I just inquire how much
8 time I have left?
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: You have actually exhausted the half an hour.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: Very well. That is the end of my
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
13 Mr. Tapuskovic.
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Cross-examination by Mr. Tapuskovic:
16 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Sabljica, I appear here for Dragomir
17 Milosevic as Defence counsel, and I would like to question you on certain
18 matters that have been discussed before between you and the Prosecutor.
19 And in the interests of efficiency, I will try to phrase my questions as
20 clearly as possible, and you try to answer as briefly as possible.
21 First of all, I would like to ask you about all these matters that
22 you have discussed with the Prosecutor. You have told us already that you
23 have done a lot of work on shedding light on problems related to shelling.
24 You said that in 90 per cent of your cases you dealt with shells?
25 A. Mortar shells.
1 Q. And that you had about 50 cases?
2 A. At least 50 cases.
3 Q. Since you started working on such cases, as I see from your
4 statement and your prior testimony on the 15th of July, 1993, I would like
5 to know, in fact, could you explain to the Trial Chamber in how many cases
6 you dealt with the problems that you have spoken about from August 1994 to
7 end November 1995?
8 A. It's a very specific question. All right. In that period, there
9 were perhaps around 40 on-site investigations involving civilian deaths
10 that I took part in as a member of the team or as an assistant.
11 Q. Could you tell me with regard to that period, to that time, how
12 many of your cases fell within the period between mid-June and November,
13 or rather, between mid-June until end August 1995? In that period, were
14 there -- was there a preponderance of such incidents?
15 A. Compared to which other period? Compared to the beginning of the
16 war, the middle of the war?
17 Q. If we compare it to the period between beginning of August 1994
18 until beginning of June?
19 A. Shelling was very frequent in the summer of 1994 until the end of
20 that period you mentioned; maybe 60 per cent of on-site investigations out
21 of the total that I mentioned as the number of cases I participated in.
22 Q. And if we talk about your sniping incidents, did you have a single
23 one that you personally helped investigate between May and November 1995?
24 A. I really can't tell you. I don't know, honestly.
25 Q. You mean you can't remember?
1 A. I cannot remember a particular incident that stuck in my mind.
2 Q. Could you tell me about this certificate you were issued
3 confirming your qualifications from the job? Who had to authorise it to
4 confirm your qualification?
5 A. I was issued with that certificate from the republic MUP of
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Ministry of the Interior; whereas, in former
7 Yugoslavia, you had to pass the so-called state exam to get that
8 certificate. However, in the conditions of war, the republic Ministry of
9 the Interior of Bosnia and Herzegovina was the establishment that took
10 over the authority to issue the certificate to me, because I was a
11 policeman. I was not a reserve soldier.
12 Q. In order to avoid going back to this, could you clarify now: In
13 that case where you worked on a shelling incident, or incidents, the
14 distance to the origin of fire, could it be determined if you didn't know
15 the exact charge the shell had to have in order to have range, the
16 necessary range?
17 A. It's an appropriate question, but I have to tell that you we did
18 not determine in our work the origin of fire. We only determined the
19 direction of fire. Although, I always asked myself that question, the
20 person who fired knows which charge they used.
21 UNPROFOR teams and some other experts have demonstrated that it is
22 possible [Realtime transcript read in error "impossible"] to determine
23 even that, but I myself did not determine such things. I only determined
24 the direction of fire, not the origin of fire.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.
1 MR. SACHDEVA: I'm sorry, Mr. President. I heard in the
2 translation that the witness said that UNPROFOR teams and some other
3 expert have demonstrated that it is "possible" to determine even that and
4 it's written "impossible." I'm wondering if the witness could clarify.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Did you hear that, Witness?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I understood. I have to go
7 back a few years to the case of Professor Dzalic, a professor of the
8 mechanical engineering faculty of the University of Sarajevo. He was an
9 assistant lecturer.
10 He made a very comprehensive analysis using a lot of evidence,
11 demonstrating that it was possible, and he did it, to determine the origin
12 of fire. I didn't go into that analysis and the resulting debate, so I
13 couldn't tell you how and why.
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Sabljica, I didn't even ask you about the theory. The expert
16 who will come to testify soon will do that. I asked you about your
17 practical work. You, who were on the ground, who dealt with such cases
18 daily, you did not determine such things based on the charge of shells.
19 Is that right?
20 A. No. No. We couldn't do that, because we couldn't determine what
21 the charge was, based on the elements that we examined.
22 Q. Let me put it this way: In this configuration of the area, you
23 know very well how Sarajevo is situated in that depression surrounded by
24 hills and the deployment of forces on both sides. Let me go back to one
25 question, in fact: Who was on the hills around Sarajevo?
1 A. The army of Republika Srpska, or whichever way you like to call
2 it. There is only one hill that was held by the Bosnian army: Hum and
4 Q. And who held Stupsko hill?
5 A. It's not in fact a hill, although the word "hill" features in the
6 name, Stupsko Brdo, but it's an elevation of no more than 20 metres.
7 Q. On the southern side, who held Mojmilo?
8 A. I am sorry. I forgot about Mojmilo. Mojmilo was held by the
9 Bosnian army. So in the north, they held Hum and Zuc; and in the south
10 they held Mojmilo. That was within the circle, and outside the circle
11 there were other front lines that I did not visit. There was Igman.
12 Q. Could we say that the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina also held Debelo
14 A. You mean the one above Grbavica? Apart of it, yes, but not the
15 higher part. That was under the control of the VRS.
16 Q. What about Colina Kapa?
17 A. They had lost that very early on. It was held by the VRS; the
18 small one, in fact. The big part was no man's land for a long time before
19 it was taken by the VRS.
20 Q. Let me ask you about Grdonj.
21 A. That's where the repeater was, and Bosnian forces were there.
22 Sedrenik was held by the VRS. That was common knowledge.
23 Q. I happen to know Sarajevo, and I know certain geographic reference
24 points. Stupsko Brdo and Grdonj, who had the geographic advantage?
25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness repeat
1 the answer?
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. With such configuration of the terrain, and with you determining
4 only the direction -- I'm sorry. The interpreters asked to you repeat
5 your answer to the previous question.
6 A. Grdonj is higher than Stupsko Brdo. It's at a higher altitude.
7 Q. Thank you for this.
8 Now, with this configuration, with this lay of the land, and with
9 you determining only the direction of fire, wasn't it important and wasn't
10 it necessary to at least try to determine the origin of fire?
11 A. I agree with you that it was important, but the fact remains we
12 didn't do it at the time nor had we orders to do so. At least our team of
13 experts did not deal with determining the origin of fire.
14 Q. You mean to say that even when the forces of the VRS were behind a
15 hill and the hill was held by the Bosnian army, you always assumed that
16 something was fired by the Serbian side?
17 A. I never assumed that, and none of our reports say definitively who
19 Q. But it is frequently written, "fired by the aggressor."
20 A. In reports by other employees of the police, you can see two
21 reports signed by Dragan Miokovic. Unfortunately, I don't have any of my
22 reports. We never assumed anything or jumped to conclusions about who
23 fired which side. We usually gave an indication of an area; for instance,
24 on that side, in that direction, there is a field; in that direction,
25 there is a hill. And if anyone wanted to go further than that, there were
1 other experts, other teams who could do a more detailed analysis.
2 Q. We'll go back to a related document, but let me first ask you
3 something else. I want to go as quickly as possible.
4 I want to go through your statement you gave on the of November,
5 1995, DD00-1950. Can you confirm it's your statement, looking at the
6 cover page?
7 A. Yes, this is my signature. I see the English translation. On the
8 Bosnian version there is no signature, but that is my statement. That's
9 the statement I gave on the 19th of November, 1995.
10 Q. I have some questions concerning that statement, and that's why I
11 would like the following page shown to you, page 2.
12 If you look at that first sentence, you have already told my
13 learned friend from the Prosecution that before the 15th of July, 1993,
14 you worked in the army?
15 A. I was a regular soldier in the BH army.
16 Q. You did not use your professional skills in any way. You were
17 simply a regular soldier?
18 A. You have to take my word for it.
19 Q. And what positions did you hold?
20 A. I exited the former JNA as a lance corporal. In the BH army, I
21 was -- you mean on what lines I was deployed? Our unit held the line
22 between the Elektroprivreda building to the school of economics from May
23 1992 -- until May 1992 and then we were moved to Hrasno Brdo, where we
24 stayed until mid-October 1992 until, following which we were on Stup. We
25 worked in stints; seven days on the line and seven days at home, until I
1 transferred to the police force.
2 Q. Mr. Sabljica, could we then say that Hrasno Brdo was also under
3 the control of the BH army?
4 A. Well, the neighbourhoods around Hrasno Brdo, but the -- the
5 thoroughfare was under the control of the VRS. I mean Vojvadanska
6 Street. We held only three streets: Zargorska, Milinklatska, and I don't
7 remember the name of the third one. The main part was under the VRS
9 Q. But since you were there on Hrasno itself, this is where Dobrinja
10 is. Is it close?
11 A. No, it isn't.
12 Q. Well, Grbavica is close.
13 A. Yes. The Zeljeznicar Football Stadium was a no man's land. We
14 can see it at about 150 metres.
15 Q. I do apologise. It means that we overlapping and that we will
16 have to slow down?
17 A. Yes, we both are.
18 Q. Can you tell me something about the position of Grbavica.
19 Grbavica was down there at the bottom of the town?
20 A. Yes, right next to the river bank of Miljacka. That is the part
21 of the town that is in the plain, on the flat ground of the city.
22 Q. From three sides, Grbavica was surrounded by the BH army?
23 A. Yes, by the BH army.
24 Q. Apart from that, there is Debelo Brdo above it?
25 A. I said part of it was under the control, and from there they could
1 have the few of the beginning of Zagrebacka Street. It was difficult to
2 control the whole of Grbavica from that point, and I'm talking as a
4 Q. While you were there and maybe after that, if you know, there were
5 frequent conflicts there and exchange of fire?
6 A. I know there was fierce fighting up there, but my unit was never
7 on that front line. I told you where we were deployed down there between
8 Elektroprivreda, school of economics and the [indiscernible] part of
9 Debelo Brdo; and after that, the whole unit was redeployed to Hrasno.
10 Q. Do you know where Sanac is?
11 A. If we have the same thing in mind, it is between the Zeljeznicar
12 Stadium and Vraca.
13 Q. Yes. Who held that?
14 A. I think it was the VRS.
15 Q. Let's go back to Debelo Brdo now. Beneath Debelo Brdo, how far
16 was the Jewish cemetery from it.
17 A. There's the Bosut barracks, and then below the barracks at some
18 400 or 500 metres.
19 Q. Who held the Bosut barracks?
20 A. The VRS.
21 Q. Where was the barracks located?
22 A. It is in the part of Debelo Brdo. It was well fortified. It is
23 the beginning of the Grbavica, and under it is the Jewish cemetery and
24 Kovacici Settlement. These were the forward front lines.
25 Q. Who had the dominant point on Debelo Brdo. Was it the BH army?
1 A. To tell you the truth, I don't know. I didn't go to this front
2 line, and I think it was held by the VRS.
3 Q. Jewish cemetery --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the speakers please
5 repeat what they said at the same time.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: The interpreter is asking you to repeat. Ask the
7 question and then we'll get the answer.
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. I asked the witness about the Jewish cemetery.
10 A. It was divided. Half was held by the BH army; half was held by
11 the VRS.
12 Q. Talking about sniping activity, was it possible, in view of what
13 you said, for sniper to shoot from Debelo Brdo as well? Yes or no.
14 A. Yes. It was possible.
15 Q. Was it possible for snipers to shoot from the Jewish cemetery from
16 both sides?
17 A. It was possible, geographically speaking. You could see these
18 streets from up there.
19 Q. At any rate, whoever was on Debelo Brdo had control and
20 commandeering view of Jewish cemetery and Grbavica?
21 A. I suppose so. I didn't go up there, but let us suppose that that
22 is the case.
23 Q. Since you were a fighter for a time on Hrasno, I suppose that you
24 know the southern part very well.
25 A. You mean the one facing Vraca.
1 Q. Yes.
2 A. Well, relatively well, I could say.
3 Q. But also facing Dobrinja and Nedzarici.
4 A. I'm not very familiar with this new part of town. It's always
5 been new to me.
6 Q. It's a new part of town, but it stretches also in the valley?
7 A. That's true.
8 Q. And all of that is below Mojmilo?
9 A. You mean Alipasino Polje and these buildings? Yes.
10 Q. Yes. I'm referring both to the Serbian positions and the BH army
11 positions where the separation line ran below Mojmilo through Hrasno,
12 Dobrinja, Nedzarici? Yes or no.
13 A. I don't know about this other side. I can only talk about Hrasno
14 and Zeljeznicar Stadium; whereas, where the defence line ran of both part
15 parties in the area of Dobrinja, I don't know. I never went there and
16 never worked there.
17 Q. In any case, speaking about these positions, in the core of
18 Sarajevo, in the inner-city where separation lines were, is that true,
19 that there were separation lines in the town itself?
20 A. In the town itself, yes, there were separation lines.
21 Q. During the time of your military service, there were constant
22 conflicts along the separation lines?
23 A. I can say that I was, to a certain extent, fortunate with my unit
24 that we weren't solved in so many incidents, because this line that runs
25 along the river Miljacka was rather peaceful. However, there were
1 skirmishes an occasional shootings on other lines that were close to our
3 Q. Is it fair to say that neither army practically did not fire at
4 separation line; instead, whenever they operated, they were active in the
5 depth of the territory?
6 A. I cannot confirm that. You'd better ask that of an officer or a
7 general. I don't know anything about that.
8 Q. Very well. Thank you.
9 A. You're welcome.
10 Q. Let us now move to specific issues that my learned colleague
11 Sachdeva asked you about.
12 You were --
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, bear in mind the purpose for
14 which this witness is here. He is here to testify. He is an expert in a
15 particular area.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, I believe that this witness
17 is an eye-witness. He is not here in the capacity, as far as I can
18 understand, of an expert. He is giving evidence about the things that he
19 was involved in as someone who was present at the scenes.
20 In addition to that, he was a fighter for a certain period of
21 time, and he can give us some explanations about the issues that I asked
22 him about, which are relevant. He himself said that he was a soldier. I
23 didn't know that.
24 I will move now to specific incidents. I was about to do that,
25 but he is just a witness.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. He is a witness, but stay close to the
2 incidents in relation to which he can actually testify.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. You said that --
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I will try to be as quick as
6 possible, Your Honours. That is why I dwelled on this previous issues,
7 and I'm will certainly not consume all the time that my learned friend the
8 Prosecutor used.
9 Q. Witness, you spoke about sniping and shelling incidents. Let me
10 start with sniping incidents, first, because you mentioned more about them
11 in your statement. And here, at the beginning of the second paragraph,
12 you say - I presume you still have the statement in front of you - .
13 "I have done a lot of investigations since July 1993. We always
14 worked in a team, and usually there were two ballistics experts."
15 A. Two ballistics experts were involved in most serious cases.
16 Mr. Stankov and Mr. Medjedovic, as you could have seen earlier, were
17 involved in the Livanjska incident when two shells were fired.
18 Q. In order not to go back to this statement again, let me ask you
19 this, and it's mentioned in the second part of your statement. Here you
20 say, in the second part, below this dotted line in the middle of the page,
21 at the very end of the first paragraph: "It was impossible to determine
22 the calibre of the weapon because the bullets fragmented."
23 You mentioned an incident of 9th November, 1994. My question is:
24 As you said, you were involved in ballistic examinations. When a bullet
25 dispersed and becomes fragmented, it is possible at all to establish the
2 A. No. It was not possible, and that's what we said. I don't
3 remember this particular incident to tell you the truth, but of course it
4 is impossible to determine the calibre, unless you have at least a core
5 the bullet. If you only have the casing and other small pieces, it's
7 Q. Least of all the direction?
8 A. Yeah. The direction can be determined on the basis of other
9 elements based on the obstacle was hit, based on the entry holes or the
10 holes op the clothes of the victims and other things. Direction is
11 something completely different. However, for the determining the calibre,
12 you at least have to have the bigger part of the bullet in order to be
13 able to even discuss the calibre.
14 Q. I'm asking you about this because what you said in the next
15 paragraph: "It was not possible to establish the precise origin of fire
16 because the car was driving very fast."
17 This is what you said. Is this correct?
18 A. Yes, that's correct. The car was driving fast; and in that case,
19 it would involve a wide range not only plus/minus ten degrees. And one
20 would prejudge any conclusions, and we would be precluded from drafting an
21 accurate report.
22 Q. Well, basically speaking, that should have applied to every car
23 and vehicle on the move.
24 A. Well, yes, basically speaking.
25 Q. Thank you. I'm going to pose my questions in relation to specific
2 Let us now move on to the incident of 8th November, 1994. And
3 that's document -- Prosecution document, under seal, 582, 65 ter 0062.
4 You have been shown this document today.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours, lest I
6 forget. This statement that I just showed to the witness, can it be
7 admitted into evidence?
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
9 THE REGISTRAR: As D168, Your Honours.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. This is a Prosecution Exhibit, and this is, as you can see, the
12 official report. This little girl was killed on the 8th of November; is
13 that correct?
14 A. Yes. We came to the scene the day after.
15 Q. This report reads that it was done not on the following day
16 because, as you said, it was impossible to conduct an on-site
18 A. Because of the firing, the on-site investigation was conducted on
19 the 12th of November, 1994. Yes. This was probably drafted by a homicide
20 inspector. I don't know who signed it.
21 Q. We could say then it was four days later?
22 A. Well, that's what's written there.
23 Q. Now, could you please focus on the last paragraph. It says, that
24 what you noted is, last paragraph on the first page.
25 A. I see.
1 Q. "On the window of the room, looking in the direction of Grbavica,
2 instead of glass, there was plywood."
3 A. It was not plywood. It was thin wood. Otherwise, it wouldn't
4 have held, and those were two panels with an open space in between of ten
5 to 12 millimetre; rather thin.
6 The person who report this report - and this is not my report; it
7 is Mr. Stankov's - said that it was a wooden plate. He wrote plywood
8 instead. Plywood is something quite different.
9 Q. I have a reason for asking you this.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. We speak the same language, regardless of this term B/C/S and its
12 various variants.
13 A. I agree.
14 Q. But in that language, plywood has a very specific meaning. It's
15 rather thick wood. Would you agree?
16 A. Yes, yes. And it's manufactured using special technology. We
17 could say that.
18 Q. On the 12th of November, it was noted that the windows were
19 boarded up with plywood, which is thick wood. Could you tell me how could
20 something like that have been written, while you now describe it as thin
22 A. It's not me who wrote that. It's not my report.
23 Q. Mr. Sabljica, you see all the names of people who were involved in
24 this on-site investigation, and it says, under number 6, "Mirza Sabljica."
25 A. I did attend, but the report was written up by a criminal
1 investigations inspector, and he used his own words to describe what he
2 found on the scene. In my report, I certainly didn't write that it was
3 plywood. It wouldn't have looked the same after the impact of a bullet.
4 It would have been the plate was there was deformed.
5 Q. You just said -- state a fact. But you also - I mean your team -
6 note here that not only was there plywood, but on the window on the
7 outside there was also a wooden blind. That's another obstacle? Yes or
9 A. But the blind was not pulled down, and that's not written here.
10 Q. It's not written here, and it couldn't have been omitted, if what
11 you say is true. So you say it's incorrect?
12 A. There was -- there were shutters. There was a blind, but it
13 doesn't say whether it was opened or closed. And it was open all the
14 time, because at the beginning of the war it had been detached by
16 Q. Now, if we read on, it says in your official report: "On the
17 floor, on the carpet below the window, a blood-stain was found."
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva has a point.
19 MR. SACHDEVA: Just a small clarification, Mr. President. It's
20 not his official report, at least the report that is being spoken about
21 right now.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well, yes.
23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Your Honours, up to
24 now, in the course of our work over the past few months, never, ever have
25 we dealt with a report that was signed by all eight members of a team.
1 This report was done by a team consisting of eight persons, including
2 Mirza Sabljica, and it would be illogical now to look in this report for
3 all the eight signatures of all the eight persons involved.
4 Does the Prosecutor perhaps challenge the authenticity of this
5 report; otherwise, what have we been doing all this time? Unless we were
6 dealing with reports made jointly by teams.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
8 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, of course, I'm not challenging the
9 authenticity of this report. I'm simply saying, in fact, what the witness
10 said himself that yes. He attended this investigation, but he did not
11 draft there particular report. It doesn't mean to say that it's not
12 authentic. And, of course, the line of questioning is perfectly
13 appropriate. But just to be clear, when you talk about a report and when
14 you say it's his report, technically that is just not right.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, the point is taken. Let's move on.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't want to go deeper into
17 this debate, but I can't believe my ears.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: You are not going to go anymore into it. Let's
19 move on.
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. "On the floor, on the carpet below the window, a blood-stain was
23 Is that correct?
24 A. Yes, it's written there. "Of an irregular shape and dimensions
25 were 50 by 60 centimetres."
1 Q. I quote on: "Also on the carpet, next to the table, traces of
2 burning were noted; and from those traces from the carpet, a fragment of a
3 bullet was extracted" Is that written there?
4 A. Yes, that's what is written there.
5 Q. It's written there?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You confirm a moment ago that a bullet was extracted, but here it
8 says "part of a bullet"; is that correct?
9 A. Yes, part of the core of the bullet, and the casing that burst and
10 fragmented was not found.
11 Q. So it's in relation to that part of the bullet that you determined
12 the direction?
13 A. It was one of the reference points.
14 Q. And there were other reference points.
15 A. On the wooden plates, we attached this piece of string through a
16 tube, et cetera.
17 Q. Was it a piece of string or something made of glass?
18 A. You take this length of string, put it through a tube, you attach
19 it to the points; and then when you look through the tube, you can do the
20 sighting and determine the direction.
21 Q. It reads on: "On the floor next to the bookshelf, a part of the
22 copper casing was found."
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You didn't use it as a reference point for anything?
25 A. No. Those were traces that probably burst in impacting the head
1 of the victim. That's my assumption at least.
2 Q. Now pay attention to this part, to this sentence: "In the plank
3 in the bookshelf above the TV set, a lead part of the round of the bullet
4 was found embedded."
5 A. I don't remember that. Possibly.
6 Q. Wasn't this found embedded -- wasn't that the core of the bullet?
7 A. [No interpretation]
8 Q. If that was just the part of the bullet, and in this other spot,
9 we found the lead part of the bullet, at least the part of it, how is it
10 possible that you didn't use it as a reference point for determining the
11 direction of fire?
12 A. I believe the technician, in fact, the inspector, who wrote this
13 report, erroneously indicated the location of various parts of the bullet.
14 The core was found in the carpet and another fragment was probably stuck
15 in the bookshelf.
16 Q. So you are now claiming that what was found in the carpet,
17 according to the report, was in fact found in the bookshelf; and vice
18 versa, the fragment found on the bookshelf was in fact the one that was
19 embedded in the carpet?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So what was used as a reference point? The lead part of the
22 bullet or the other fragment?
23 A. One point was on the carpet; the other point was in the wooden
24 plate. Those were the points linked by the string. We didn't do anything
25 with the bookshelf. It was not an element in our examination.
1 Q. Let us clarify this. This lead part was in the carpet.
2 A. Yes. The core of the bullet was in the carpet.
3 If you allow me, usually, these reports are accompanied by the
4 ballistic report that was signed by Mr. Stankov, me, and other experts
5 involved. In the Galic case, these other reports were also attached.
6 Q. So, in this most important part of this report, we have a piece of
7 information that is absolutely not consistent with what you found on the
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And if the reference point used was the one on the bookshelf above
11 the TV set, if that had been used, then you would have gotten a horizontal
12 alignment of the direction of the bullet?
13 A. I don't know. I didn't do that. What could have been if it had
14 been? You are jumping at the gun a bit.
15 Q. I will put it to you, and that's my right, that you came to the
16 scene where a young girl was tragically killed with the intention to show
17 that the bullet could not have come from any other place than the one you
18 ended up indicating?
19 A. I didn't come to the location with that intent. I came to
20 determine the direction of fire and a possible location from which it
21 could have been fired.
22 Q. If the lead part of the bullet was stuck in the bookshelf, then we
23 could in no way claim that it come from Metalka.
24 A. Metalka building is right across that building. It could only
25 have come from a lower floor. However you look at it, whatever the
1 alignment, the bullet had come from that building. It looks directly at
2 the building of the victim.
3 If you used a different reference point, you could have obtained
4 perhaps a lower position of the origin of fire. The trajectory we
5 obtained was downward. If we had used the piece in the bookshelf, you
6 would have gotten maybe a flatter horizontal line, but it would again lead
7 to the Metalka building.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's time for the break.
9 We'll adjourn.
10 --- Recess taken at 12.21 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 12.42 p.m.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. Could we say, Mr. Sabljica, that whatever it was, plywood, blinds,
15 shutters, or a thinner plate of wood, wherever the bullet had come from,
16 from the spot where it was fired, the room cannot be seen on the inside?
17 A. We could say so.
18 Q. Could we then say that that girl could certainly not have been a
19 target of a direct attack and hit in the way in which she was killed?
20 A. If the shooter couldn't see her, then she couldn't have been a
21 direct target.
22 Q. If we could look again at the second page, and I would like to
23 deal with the report for a little longer.
24 It says at the very beginning: "The scene, as well as all the
25 traces found, have been photographed."
1 Yes or no.
2 A. Yes. The scene-of-crime officer has to do that. That's his job.
3 Q. Was the spot where the first fragment of the bullet was found
5 A. I suppose so. If the scene-of-crime officer did his job properly,
6 then that should have been the case.
7 Q. Was the spot photographed, the bookshelf above the TV set?
8 A. Probably. I haven't seen those photos.
9 Q. Is there a photograph of the black hole in the plywood?
10 A. I'm saying again, it should be among the photographs of the scene.
11 Q. Tell me, if it had been indeed plywood, and we know the thickness
12 of plywood, would the bullet have pierced it?
13 A. No. I told you. It couldn't have pierced it and it wasn't
15 Q. And can you tell me, is there a photo documentation of this?
16 A. I don't know. I haven't seen it. This is a 13-year-old case.
17 There must be. There should be. I left the police force in 1996.
18 Q. This child that was killed, you photographed her in the mortuary,
19 I mean someone from your team?
20 A. Probably. It's written there. I think the scene-of-crime officer
21 should have done that. That was the usual procedure.
22 Q. In principle, throughout your work, from the first case to the
23 last, be it shelling or sniping, did you ever photograph a victim on the
25 A. Yes. There were cases where we found corpses on the scene. We
1 sometimes examined scenes where there was a body.
2 Q. What about the cases that you talked about in your evidence,
3 Livanjska Street and the other cases discussed? Were there any corpses on
4 the scene?
5 A. No, not as far as I know. When we did our examinations, the
6 corpses had already been removed.
7 Q. You must understand that I'm not questioning in any way the
8 tragedy of it, especially in the case of such a small girl. But the place
9 where it happened was practically on the separation line?
10 A. Well, if you look at it, yes. Grbavica begins on one side of the
11 river and the Djure Danicica Street was on the other side of the Miljacka
12 River, but people inhabited these buildings, at least the area controlled
13 by the BH army; of course, at their own risk.
14 Q. Can you tell that due to the proximity of the front line, it was
15 possible, not only in the case of this little girl, that as a result of
16 exchange of fire it could have happened that somebody got killed. Were
17 there such cases?
18 A. Yes, there were.
19 Q. Can you explain a couple of things to me with regard to the
20 photograph showing the Metalka?
21 A. Be my guest.
22 Q. Do you see -- do you see the photograph?
23 A. Yes, I do. It's in front of me.
24 Q. Do you see the letter D, indicating one of the buildings?
25 A. I don't see a single letter on my photograph, if we are looking at
1 the same photograph, that is.
2 Q. I can see it on my screen. There's a letter D.
3 Oh, I'm sorry. It's just a red -- red surface. Do you know who
4 was -- is this building behind the Metalka?
5 A. You mean what army --
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
7 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, before counsel continues, I'm just a
8 little bit concerned that the photograph that the witness marked -- that
9 his markings have not been recorded as was the case yesterday. Can I just
10 confirm with the registrar if that is not the case.
11 THE REGISTRAR: His markings were recorded, and they were recorded
12 as Exhibit P583. And if Defence counsel would like the markings to be
13 shown, we can do that.
14 MR. SACHDEVA: I'm grateful to the registrar.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please proceed, Mr. Tapuskovic.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like my case manager to
17 show me this photograph.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is it you want to have the photograph with the
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I didn't receive the translation.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you wish to have the photograph that you
23 marked? P583.
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Mr. Sabljica, you marked in the photograph the place from which
1 you assess a gunshot came.
2 A. The Metalka, yes.
3 Q. And you marked the location where the window was through which, as
4 you say, this girl was shot.
5 A. Yes. But only I'm not sure, as I said, whether it was the first
6 or -- building or the one next to it. In any case, it is Djure Danicica
7 Street. You see these two red dots.
8 Q. Can you tell me behind this building, these rectangle building
9 were belonging to the BH army?
10 A. No. They were all under the control of the VRS, except for the
11 front one that resembles Metalka, and half of the building was practically
12 no man's land. Both parties used to take position there is but those were
13 not permanent positions, as much as I was able to gather with regard to
14 the situation on the front.
15 Q. Can you mark this building?
16 A. Certainly.
17 Q. With colour blue.
18 A. [In English] May I?
19 [Interpretation] This is the one, and I will mark it with an
20 arrow. This is the building that was subject to constant incursions by
21 members of both armies.
22 Q. Yes. That's the building where the point of the arrow is.
23 A. Yes, this whole building. In actual fact, it was never under
24 permanent control by either side, as much as I can remember.
25 Q. And this building located behind it, and there is the one that
1 leans on the Metalka and there's another one behind it, were you aware
2 that BH army had positions there?
3 A. You mean this new red one?
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. I don't think so. All this area was under the control of the VRS,
6 as much as I was able to tell.
7 Q. Very well. In any case, from this location where, as you say the
8 BH army was occasionally, was this position in the same place as the
9 position viewed from the Metalka with regard -- with respect to the flat
10 where the girl was?
11 A. No. It is more to the left, viewed from that point. So the line
12 of sighting, if you make it, you don't have this building in your field of
13 vision, and therefore we ruled it out immediately. Maybe this photograph
14 doesn't show it precisely.
15 If you had a photograph made from a different angle, it would have
16 given you a better pick of how dominate the Metalka is over the buildings
17 on Djure Danicica Street.
18 Q. Can we say that you immediately ruled it out, primarily because
19 those were the BH army positions?
20 A. Absolutely not. I repeat, again, at least black expert team never
21 went to carry out an investigation with intention to blame any party. We
22 wanted to do our job professionally, and we wanted the reports to be
23 integral part of the files for some future trials. No one ever assumed
24 that this is how it was going to end.
25 Q. And my last question concerning this document. Can you explain at
1 all how these drastic changes occurred in your evidence compared to this
2 report, and I'm talking about the plywood, the shutters, the traces of
3 bullets, et cetera. How is it possible that now you are saying that this
4 is inconsistent with this document?
5 A. First of all, I didn't compile this report, and maybe I can
6 explain to you the procedure. It was only part of the report that was
7 used for the purpose of investigation, conducted and directed by a an
8 investigating judge. An integral part to every report in addition to the
9 criminal inspector's report, who notes down facts in his notebook, he
10 extracts some information from ballistic experts, arrives at his own
11 conclusions, writes the report in his office, and signed it. Based on the
12 accurate methods that we employed, we reached valid conclusions both
13 mechanical and ballistical. And in addition to the criminal investigation
14 technician's report, we submitted all the material.
15 I will go back, again, in time. For fire years, in the Galic
16 case, I solely spoke about my own reports that I signed myself.
17 Therefore, I didn't change what I said before, but, rather, these are the
18 facts that were written down by my colleague, based on his own
20 Q. Can we then conclude that everything that is written here does not
21 reflect the actual state of affairs?
22 A. I wouldn't agree with that completely. There are some accurate
23 things; but as for traces produced by fire-arms, I wouldn't agree on that
24 section. I would have preferred to have a report written by my deceased
25 colleague, which is also an integral part of this case file, so that we
1 can make a comparison.
2 Q. From this report, as we can see, there are Borislav Stankov and
3 Mirza Sabljica, who are ballistic experts, and these two involved in the
4 investigation and their names are listed as members of the team that
5 stands behind this report?
6 A. But they didn't sign the report.
7 Q. Thank you. I think this is enough on this subject.
8 Since we don't have much time left, if we can clarify these
9 matters relating to the Livanjska Street that we devoted most attention
10 to, or rather, the Prosecution devote the most attention to.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] If we look at this document,
12 DD00-85, page -- Please, can we receive this photograph with the markings
13 as a Defence exhibit. The photograph is still on our screens.
14 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We will admit it.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As D169, Your Honours.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please take a
19 look at the document D85. It's already been shown today by the
20 Prosecutor. Let us go to page 5; English page 2.
21 Q. This is about an official report dated 9th of November, and it
22 relates to Livanjska Street, number 36.
23 A. Yes, I can see that.
24 Q. According to this report, this event took place at around 1730
25 hours, and you visited the scene at 9.00 on the 9th of November, 1994.
1 A. Yes, that is what is written here.
2 Q. And we can see you acted as an expert in ballistics?
3 A. Yes, I did.
4 Q. If we look at page 2, and in order to save time, it says that the
5 official report was compiled by Dragan Miokovic?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Witness, you also didn't sign this report. It was signed by
8 Dragan Miokovic. But as a member of this team, do you stand behind the
10 A. I would have to first read it in its entirety. And I'm telling
11 you, again, a ballistics report was an integral part, as a rule, of every;
12 report, and if that was the case, I could stand behind what Dragan
13 Miokovic said?
14 Q. In other words, it is possible that you may contend something from
15 this report, and therefore you would disagree?
16 A. It depends on your questions. If there is some disputable issue
17 that I can remember, then that will be acceptable. But if I cannot
18 remember something, then I wouldn't contend it.
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look now at page 2 to see
20 if there are any issues in dispute. There it is.
21 Q. If you look at paragraph 3 in B/C/S version, it says: "The MUP
22 RBH and the OSB Sarajevo learned that the shell was fired from a direction
23 20 degrees from the east, probably from the wider area of Spicasta Stijena
24 occupied by the aggressor."
25 A. I immediately noticed a mistake. It says "20 degrees from the
1 east," and I think I replied and discussed this with the Prosecutor. It
2 should read, "20 degrees from the north to the east," because I said we
3 always decided the angle with reference to the north. And, probably, the
4 second part that mentioned Spicasta Stijena was probably personal
5 assessment of Mr. Miokovic. We just noted that this or that area was
6 there. So the only mistake here is that it should read "20 degrees from
7 the north to the east."
8 Q. Can we say then that this is not true --
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: What do you mean from the north to the east? Is
10 that the same thing as north-east?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely so. We always marked
12 north in the map of the city; and then with regard to the north, we
13 decided the direction of fire. So that would be approximately north,
14 north-easterly direction, if you take into consideration this is 20
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I understand now. 20 degrees from the north
17 to the east.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Can you then explain why the report simply says
20 20 degrees from the east? You say it's a mistake.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that this is a mistake, an
22 unintentional one, of course. An unintentional mistake on the part of
23 Mr. Miokovic.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's a very bad mistake.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Because if you go into
2 ballistic reports, nothing was ever determined using east as a reference
3 point. It's always the north and this --
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: This 20 degrees from the east could also take you
5 in the direction of the south, conceivably.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. Perfectly right.
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] May I continue?
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Can we then say it's an error?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. If I understood correctly what you said, even the reference to
13 Spicasta Stijena is a mistake?
14 A. It's a free assessment of the inspector who authored this. He's
15 prejudging the conclusions as to the possible origin of fire without
16 having been able to determine anything precisely, and he didn't possess
17 the methods. It is in the broader area. He could have phrased it
19 Q. But you disagree even with that.
20 A. I agree that it's in that area, the area of Spicasta Stijena, But
21 from which position it was fired is another matter.
22 Q. Well, that's what I'm trying to say. You disagree with his
24 A. I don't agree with his assessment, phrased this way, at least.
25 Q. Towards the end of this official report, it says: "The head of
1 the UNPROFOR investigation team was Colonel Renuits [phoen]?
2 A. I don't remember his name. All I know was he was a Frenchman. He
3 frequently led those teams. I think it was a ballistic expert himself
4 specialising in artillery, I believe.
5 Q. And again, towards the end. It says, that by comparing the
6 findings of the MUP team on the one hand and the UNPROFOR team on the
7 other hand, it was determined that the direction of fire of shells
8 including those that fell next to 36 were identical as determined by both
10 A. Yes. We completely agreed on the fact that it was 20 degrees
11 north to east, and we didn't discuss the origin of fire at all.
12 Q. And that relates to the event that happened at 1730?
13 A. Yes, the one that happened outside number 36. Is that it?
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could the witness
16 be shown photograph P575.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Can I ask the witness something.
19 Suppose you're able to identify that the missile or shots came
20 from 160 degrees south, would you still describe it as 160 degrees from
21 the north to the south? It would be very near to the south, to 180
22 degrees, just 20 degrees from the south, you know. So because you're
23 telling us that you always start from the north, you would --
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't understand that. Because if it's 160
1 degrees, only 20 degrees from the south, why would you say 160 degrees
2 from the north to the south when it is so near to the south?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We've always used the same
4 terminology so that findings be compatible, because the map would be
5 always oriented to the north, using compass. And even if it's a bit
6 closer to the south, we don't say it's 20 degrees from south. We say 160
7 from north.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Am I right, Mr. Prosecutor and Mr. Tapuskovic,
9 isn't this the first time that we're being told that this is how maps are
10 read -- were read by the authorities in Sarajevo?
11 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, all I can say is that whether it
12 is -- in my submission, it's a question of terminology. And whether it's
13 160 degrees from the north or south from the north or -- sorry, 20 degrees
14 from the south or 160 degrees, the direction of the angle is still going
15 to remain the same.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Can we just find the statement which the witness
19 corrected, which said 20 degrees east. Can you put that on the screen,
20 because what I'm trying to see is in the absence of that explanation, how
21 would we have interpreted that? In the absence of his explanation that it
22 is in fact 20 degrees from the north to the east, how would we have read
23 the simple phrase 20 degrees east?
24 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, that's, indeed, why the explanation
25 was sought from the witness, and I would also add that --
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: But doesn't it have an implication for what we
2 have been doing?
3 MR. SACHDEVA: What I would say is that when you have, at least in
4 this incident and also in the Markale incident, for example, you have very
5 clear craters that have been formed on the asphalt, and the Prosecution's
6 submission is that there is within the range of five to ten
7 degrees -- there is only one possible direction of fire that can be
8 ascertained. And the witness, Richard Higgs, who is coming on Monday will
9 explain all of this.
10 And whether it's a question of terminology, where you say 20
11 degrees west of north or 170 degrees, it doesn't change the
12 calculations -- the scientific calculations that are made when you see a
13 crater on the ground.
14 And so the expert will hopefully make this clearer to you,
15 Mr. President and Your Honour, Judge Harhoff.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: But could I perhaps just ask the witness why --
17 why is it that you did not use the ordinary measurement by the compass;
18 this is to say, to use the 360 degree all around. And so if a shot came
19 from almost the south, you would say that simply it came from the
20 direction of 160 degrees, or as we had an example just a while ago, that
21 you had an indication of something being shot from a position five degrees
22 to the west. That, in my view, would perhaps more clearly be referred to
23 as a direction of 355 degrees.
24 So why is it that you did not use the ordinary compass indication?
25 Do you know that?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, of course. Because I adopted
2 the terminology that I was taught during my training. It's only a matter
3 of terminology. We always determined positions from the north. I think
4 Dragan, my colleague, made a mistake here. He could have written 110
5 degrees from the north. I'm absolutely sure that he made a mistake there.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Your Honours, what
8 you just asked of both parties is precisely the way you put it.
9 Throughout reports that dealt with similar matters, we come across the
10 same deficiency in the practice of the police and the army in
12 But let us come back to this problem. I asked for a photograph to
13 be shown, 575, P575.
14 Q. Can you see it?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. That's the first incident at 1530.
17 A. Probably.
18 Q. This arrow shows the direction from which the shell came from?
19 A. That's the probable direction. It's not a perfect photograph
20 because we don't see all the traces. We don't see the other end of the
21 ellipsis of the splash.
22 Q. Can you explain to me these traces on the right-hand side of the
23 arrow, is that the dispersion of the splinters of the shell?
24 Logically, if the shell came from this direction and the energy of
25 the shell is spread in that direction, how come that all the splinters and
1 fragments of the shell were splashed on one side?
2 A. That's what I was telling you. We don't see but one side. Maybe
3 another photograph. Here we see only one part of the scene. We don't see
4 the traces on the left side, at least not completely.
5 Q. Witness, please, in the direction from which the shell came from,
6 you don't have a single splinter. Is that visible on the photograph?
7 A. No. I can mark them for you, if you don't see them.
8 Q. Do splinters have to predominate in the direction from which the
9 shell came from?
10 A. Yes. According to laws of physics, splinters get stuck at the
11 first obstacle. Here, there is no obstacle, and the projectile falls
12 under an angle of 90 degrees, right?
13 Q. Yes. How is it possible that this piece of asphalt remains here
14 if that's where the shell came from?
15 A. Which? Which piece?
16 Q. This, this largest piece. This largest chunk that was simply dug
17 out of the asphalt when the shell impacted.
18 A. I'm sorry. I don't see a single piece that remained. I just see
19 the damage on the pavement.
20 Q. If you look at the direction that you drew yourself, you see
21 number 1?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. We see where the remnants of the shell are, and before that you
24 see a large chunk. If the shell came from there, how come this chunk is
1 A. On the basis of this photograph, I couldn't tell you.
2 Q. This damage on the left-hand side, the fragment remaining from the
3 shell. Look at the damage to the pavement.
4 A. Yes, I see it.
5 Q. Isn't this evidence proof as to where the shell came from and the
6 dispersed splinters?
7 A. No. I explained to you how direction of fire is -- is normally
8 established, and this photograph is not a proper basis for determining it.
9 I told the Prosecutor the same thing when he asked me to draw the
10 direction of fire to make this arrow on this photograph. This must be a
11 better photograph.
12 Q. Apart from this, such fresh traces of an impact show that the
13 distance was not great.
14 A. And how do you know that?
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will put to the
16 witness, but let us just show him the other shell and the traces. That's
17 photograph 579.
18 Q. Can you see it?
19 A. Yes. One can see more clearly here.
20 Q. Yes. But here, again, you mark the dispersed traces on the other
21 side. How is it possible and can you explain it to me that these
22 dispersed traces of shrapnel were behind the from which the shell came, or
23 rather, behind the point of the impact instead of them being dispersed in
24 the direction of the shell?
25 A. But you see that they were dispersed in that way. Only the
1 descent angle was a little bit bigger here. There was dispersion
2 elsewhere but not ought such a great distance from the centre. You can
3 see look at this fan-shape arrangement. Ideally speaking, if it falls
4 under the angle of 90 degrees, then we would have had a perfect ellipsis.
5 Q. Mr. Sabljica, traces of shrapnel, according to your drawings, are
6 all marked as being situated behind the line indicating the source of
7 fire. There is not a single trace that you marked corresponding or
8 parallel to the direction from which the shell was allegedly fired. Is
9 that correct?
10 A. No, it's not. This stick shows the direction from which the shell
11 came. It goes all the way to the centre of the explosion, and it
12 indicates the origin of fire. You see how dispersed the shrapnel are
14 Q. Do I see properly the direction?
15 A. Yes, this is the direction. The direction is marked by this -- by
16 the red arrow, providing that we are looking at the same photograph
17 6067397, and this vertical stick indicates the direction from which the
18 shell was fired.
19 Q. Was the shell fired behind the wall, from that direction?
20 A. What? What wall?
21 Q. Do you see it?
22 A. No, I don't say it. I see somebody's feet here and I see pavement
23 or I see some grass in the area. I don't know if we will looking at the
24 same photograph.
25 Q. Mr. Sabljica, I see these feet, and I see this wall.
1 A. This is not a wall. This is a pavement, and this is a curb.
2 Q. Very well, the curb. Did the shell fly over the curb?
3 A. Of course, the curb is ten centimetres high.
4 Q. How is it possible then that there were no shrapnel dispersed in
5 the direction from which the shell came and spent its energy and it's
7 A. You see, there is. You see all the traces on the curb and the
8 damage inflicted on the curve, and you see how this fan is spreading.
9 Either, I don't understand your question or you don't understand what I'm
11 Q. I'm going to shorten this. This is a self-explanatory photograph.
12 All traces of shrapnel are behind these two horizontal sticks. There is
13 not a single shrapnel on the opposite side, and the shell came across the
15 A. That is not true. What do you think? This is what I marked with
16 the red pen.
17 Q. This photograph speaks for itself. I'm asking you: Explain to me
18 why there are no shrapnel on the other side at the bottom of the
20 A. Because the explosion went upward, and it corresponds to the
21 direction from which the shell came. I think I was clear on that.
22 Q. This photograph speaks for itself, and all my questions were put
23 to you because I wanted to present to you Defence exhibit DD00-84;
24 English page number 3 and also page number 3 in the B/C/S version. So
25 page 3 in English and also page 3 in B/C/S.
1 And with this I will conclude my cross-examination. I think this
2 will be sufficient, although I could have tackled other issues as well.
3 Mr. Witness, do you see this conclusion?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. It reads as follows, and it all has to do with this last crater:
6 "It is possible to conclude that the most suspected area is under the
7 control of BH. To fire from B/C/S positions for the same range and with
8 the same angle of descent, the direction of the mortar should be 4200 from
9 Grdonj or 700 from Orlovac, which means that the direction of the weapon
10 measured from the impact location should be 1.000 Grdonj or 700 Orlovac."
11 And at the end, it reads as follows: "The impact on the ground
12 are too clear to allow such errors."
13 You answered a minute ago where is it written what I asked you
14 about. This is where it is written. "The impact on the ground are two
15 clear too allow such errors."
16 A. All this is correct.
17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the witness, please.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was stated by UNPROFOR experts.
19 And they correspond to the north, north-easterly direction, the one that
20 we could have determined as well. It could have not been otherwise, as
21 you tried to demonstrate to me, that it came from north-west. According
22 to the crater, it is obvious that it came from north-east, and these
23 locations mentioned by UNPROFOR are to the north-east.
24 And based on the traces, it is definite that it came from
25 north-east, whether it came from Grdonj, Orovac, or other locations.
1 They're all to the north-east. If we adopted an approach that you
2 suggest, that it came from north-west, these locations are not there. It
3 is where Vogosca and other locations are there.
4 Q. I'm not putting anything categorically to you. It is up to the
5 Chamber to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the origin of fire. What
6 you said is completely contradictory to any logic because craters show
7 that shells came from a different direction. I am not going to
8 investigate this and establish this. I right or am I not right?
9 A. No, are you not. We agreed with UNPROFOR that the shells came
10 from north-east. That's what they said. You read it yourself. They came
11 from north-east, because these places Grdonj, Orovac are on north-east.
12 Q. If that is it all, as you say, it says that the most suspected
13 area was under the BH army?
14 A. I don't know about that. It was what they established. I cannot
15 confirm or deny that. Just as I cannot confirm that it was fired from
16 Spicasta Stijena, which is also to the north-east. You know all these
17 locations you are familiar with Sarajevo. And the crater clearly shows
18 the direction was from north-east.
19 Q. Let me just remind you that they suggest that it was fired from
20 Grdonj under the control of BH army. What do you say to that?
21 A. I cannot say anything to that, just as I cannot claim that it was
22 fired by the VRS positions because I never investigated that aspect.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this concludes my
1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Witness.
2 A. Thank you.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.
4 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President, and I will be brief.
5 If we can go to Defence Exhibit 85, please, and I want page -- I
6 believe it's page 8 and 9. Three more pages after this. Next page,
7 please. Sorry. Okay.
8 Re-examination by Mr. Sachdeva:
9 Q. Witness, you see a document on the screen, and can you just
10 confirm that this is an on-site investigation and analysis of traces from
11 the anti-terrorist division, the KDZ of the Ministry of the Interior?
12 A. Yes, yes. That's correct. This is a KDZ-produced report.
13 MR. SACHDEVA: And if we can scroll down to the bottom, please.
14 Actually, on the English it's on this page. We have to go to the
15 next page in the B/C/S. But keep to this page in the English but the next
16 page in the B/C/S, please.
17 Q. Okay. On this page, Mr. Sabljica, do you see, towards the bottom,
18 it talks about the angle of descent of the two mortar shells; and then the
19 next paragraph, it reads: "The first shell was fired from a direction
20 north-west to the explosion centre; that is, the first shell that landed
21 at Livanjska Street," and then it talks about the other two shells; do you
22 see that.
23 A. Yes, yes.
24 Q. What does it say with respect to the direction of the other two
1 A. You mean the third paragraph? "The first shell was fired from a
2 direction north-west to the explosion centre in the direction of Poljine.
3 The other two shells were fired from a direction north-east of the
4 explosion centre in the direction of Spicasta Stijena-Hladivode."
5 MR. SACHDEVA: That's the re-examination, Mr. President.
6 Questioned by the Court:
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Witness. Before we end, I would
8 just like to return briefly to the question that I put to you earlier on
9 in your testimony; namely, whether it is possible to measure when you have
10 the angle of descent and you have the direction of fire and you know the
11 type of weapon that has been used, the type of mortar, then I asked you
12 whether it was then possible to also determine the geographical distance
13 from which the mortar was fired.
14 And you said, "Yes. It was possible, but that was not done by you
15 but by some experts in the KDZ." Is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Then my question is: Do you know if such
18 calculations were ever made in the KDZ? I'm asking because we haven't
19 seen many of those, and I cannot recall off the top of my head that we
20 have seen any of those calculations from the KDZ.
21 So my question is: Do you know if they were actually made?
22 A. I think they were because they had on staff people like Emir
23 Turvusic, professors from the university. And I think they prepare this
24 kind of expert reports, particularly in cases of Markale 2, I think there
25 is such a report attached.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness that concludes your evidence. We thank
3 you for giving it and you may now leave.
4 We will adjourn until tomorrow.
5 But, Mr. Sachdeva, you have a point.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: One very small point, Mr. President, and I
7 apologise. It is with respect to Prosecution Exhibit 560 from yesterday.
8 I had on the record indicated that pages 31 on a 32 should be admitted;
9 In fact, it should be 31 to 33 of 65 ter --
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll take a note of that. 31 to 33.
11 MR. SACHDEVA: -- of 65 ter 73. Thank you.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Ms. Isailovic.
13 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 I merely wanted to point out that you asked the Defence to show
15 conclusions, our conclusions to the answer to the request from the
16 Prosecution of April 11, 2007, on the subject of introducing in the 65 ter
17 list of some documents used by the Prosecution, particularly videotapes
18 that might be used with some witnesses.
19 And we, from the Defence, are now in a position to say that we do
20 not oppose this request, because we don't want to -- given that we have
21 overwhelmed with other work, we want to avoid any problems.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much.
23 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] We don't want to have it written.
24 We have so much to do.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: We're adjourned.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.,
2 to be reconvened on Friday, the 20th day of April,
3 2007, at 9.00 a.m.