1 Monday, 10 February 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around the courtroom.

6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus

8 Stanislav Galic.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10 Is the Prosecution ready to --

11 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes -- to continue the cross-examination.

13 Then, Mr. Usher, would you please escort the witness into the

14 courtroom.

15 [The witness entered court]

16 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Dr. Kunjadic.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

18 JUDGE ORIE: From your answer, I take it that you still understand

19 me -- you can hear me in a language you understand.

20 May I remind you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration

21 you've given at the beginning of your testimony.

22 Then please proceed, Mr. Ierace.

23 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.

24 WITNESS: MILAN KUNJADIC [Resumed]

25 [Witness answered through interpreter]

1 Cross-examined by Mr. Ierace: [Continued]

2 Q. Good morning, Mr. Kunjadic. On Friday, I was asking you some

3 questions about --

4 A. Good morning.

5 Q. -- 17. In particular, the source of information that you relied

6 upon when offering your opinion about that particular incident. Do you

7 have with you a copy of the statement upon which you relied, that is, the

8 statement of Fatima Osmanovic?

9 A. The statement by Witness Fatima Osmanovic, I do have it in my

10 version, which I had written before and used during the compilation of the

11 final text of the report. The reason --

12 Q. Sorry. The question is: Do you have with you a copy of the

13 statement? I think you said yes. Is that correct?

14 A. Well, in the material that I have here, I can now -- in the

15 material that I have and that I call the working version, that is, the

16 first version that was done as a result of examining the incidents, there

17 are two statements given by the injured party. And in the case, I used

18 this because what I was primarily interested in were material traces that

19 exist --

20 Q. Excuse me. The question again was simply whether you have the

21 statement. And I think you said that you have a working document. Did

22 you put that working document together?

23 A. These are quotes from the statements. What I did was to take out

24 excerpts, that is, quotes from the statement.

25 Q. All right. Would you please take out your copy of the witness's

1 statement -- or the victim's statement, the statement dated the 24th of

2 February, 1996.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Do you have that statement in front of you? Not the working copy

5 but the original statement.

6 A. I don't know whether I have that in my material.

7 Q. All right.

8 MR. IERACE: Well, to save time, I ask the witness be given the

9 document. For the benefit of the Trial Chamber, Mr. President, this is

10 the statement of Fatima Osmanovic.

11 A. I do have it. I do have it. I do have the statement. It's here.

12 Q. Would you please place it on the ELMO next to you.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

14 MR. IERACE:

15 Q. All right. Now, are you able to read that document whilst it is

16 on the machine next to you? Are you capable of doing that at the distance

17 from the machine?

18 A. It's not very sharp.

19 Q. All right. Could you turn sideways so that you are actually

20 seeing the document on the machine. Does that help?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. If you could keep your voice up so that the microphone can pick it

23 up. Do you see in the second paragraph there is the name Rasema, end of

24 the sentence the name Rasema?

25 A. Yes. Yes, that's the witness.

1 Q. All right. Now, would you please read very slowly - very

2 slowly - from the end of that sentence; in other words, the beginning of

3 the next sentence to the end of the paragraph.

4 MR. IERACE: And perhaps the ELMO could be adjusted. Thank you.

5 A. "I got water and went back home. I heard a sound of shot.

6 Suddenly I felt I was hit by small stone on my face. Immediately I wanted

7 to climb the wall. There was a garage close to the wall. I heard

8 something was hitting on the garage too. I could not climb onto the wall.

9 I felt something --"

10 Q. All right. Stop there. All right. And now, would you read from

11 the beginning of the next paragraph, just the first sentence.

12 A. "I waited for the car. One of my neighbours by the name --"

13 Q. Please stop. The paragraph above. I think we might have two or

14 three paragraphs in the English language compressed into one paragraph in

15 B/C/S. Do you see a sentence that begins with the words "I found the

16 bullet had entered"?

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Purely didactically speaking,

20 could Mr. Ierace give us the statement in one of the languages. It might

21 be easier, then we might be able to navigate the text more

22 easier.

23 Thank you, Mr. Ierace, in advance.

24 MR. IERACE: I have copies, if you think it appropriate,

25 Mr. President. Though it is on the ELMO.

1 JUDGE ORIE: There's nothing against it when it helps

2 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

3 MR. IERACE:

4 Q. All right. I think you said you found the sentence. Could you

5 please read the sentence.

6 A. "I found the bullet had entered on the right side of my cheek and

7 got stuck in the left side of my cheek and sinus."

8 Q. All right. I thank you for that.

9 Now, would you please go to your report for incident number 17.

10 A. Should I read it or ...?

11 Q. No. Do you see -- at least, in the English version at the

12 beginning of the second paragraph you say, "In view of the fact that she

13 stated that in the instant of being wounded, she sensed gravel hit her

14 face," and you go on to conclude that you think she was wounded by a

15 fragment of a projectile.

16 Now, having reread the statement, do you accept that she was

17 describing the sensation of being shot in the mouth, in the face, by the

18 bullet? In other words, it felt like she was being hit by a small stone,

19 rather than saying that she in fact was hit by a small stone or gravel.

20 A. Here I didn't mean that she was hit by a small stone or that the

21 small stone had got stuck in her face. The small stones can be a kind of

22 by-product of a ricochetted projectile. Why did I write this? For the

23 simple reason is because I know that distances, if there's 100 metres in

24 question, then there has to be --

25 Q. Sir, what I'm suggesting to you is that the victim in fact was hit

1 by a bullet and she was describing the sensation --

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I object.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I object. The witness was

5 just explaining for technical reasons why he wrote this or that. And to

6 interrupt him while he was doing this does not seem to be acceptable to

7 the Defence. Thank you.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I think the problem was whether the witness

9 really responded to the question that was put to him by Mr. Ierace. But

10 since that your question can still be put to the witness, I would say

11 whatever you would like to -- you intended to add previously, please do so

12 and then Mr. Ierace will put the next question to you.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I wanted to say was that the

14 bullet was stuck or part of the bullet, a projectile -- a fragment of the

15 projectile, as I've already explained why we cannot be precise, cannot be

16 accurate. At this point we had no possibility to look at the x-ray and

17 really identify what this was. But I do know that bullets are

18 extremely -- can penetrate very deeply. For instance, a projectile from a

19 machine-gun at 1.000 metres will penetrate a flak jacket or helmet.

20 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. Now you enter into a more general

21 description of what bullets can do. If Mr. Ierace would like to know

22 that, he'll certainly ask you.

23 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.

24 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.

25 Q. Sir, is it true to say that when you read the victim's statement

1 and in particular the reference to her sensation of being hit by a small

2 stone, that you interpreted that as a experience by her that she was being

3 hit by part of a bullet rather than a whole bullet?

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. All right. Now, coming back to her statement, you read out to us

6 that she said that there was a garage close to the wall and "I heard

7 something was hitting on the garage too." Is it true to say that you

8 interpreted that as her relating that the garage was hit in the same

9 instant that she was hit?

10 A. Well, most probably. I didn't go into details of the statement in

11 relation to this, but this can be understood as it happening at the same

12 time.

13 Q. Indeed in your statement -- in your report you say "in view of the

14 fact that she stated that in the instant of being wounded she sensed

15 gravel hit her face and heard it hit the garage she was standing next to,"

16 and then you go on to identify other factors leading to your ultimate

17 conclusion. I suggest to you that that is not the only interpretation

18 that one can draw from the victim's statement. Another interpretation is

19 that the hitting of the garage occurred when she went to climb the wall

20 alongside the garage. Do you accept that that is another interpretation

21 which may be drawn from those words in her statement?

22 I'll read the words again: "Immediately I wanted to climb to the

23 wall. There was a garage close to the wall. I heard something was

24 hitting on the garage too."

25 A. Well, I'm not insisting that what I have written is 100 per cent

1 correct. The reason, because I cannot have a look at the x-ray of the

2 head, so I cannot state, ascertain, whether in the head there was such or

3 such a projectile. But, of course, I allow for the possibility, since I

4 cannot identify the exact location of her injury. But what points to me

5 that this was a ricochet of a projectile is precisely the gravel and the

6 relatively superficial part of either the projectile or part of the

7 projectile which has actually entered her head.

8 Q. What do you mean by "gravel"?

9 A. Gravel, small stones. That is just a by-product. It

10 could -- they could come from the wall which was hit or it could be

11 fragments of the fragmented projectile or something like that. Again, I

12 cannot say for certain what this is.

13 Q. All right. Now, on Friday a number of times you referred to the

14 ability of a person with your expertise to locate with relative precision

15 the source of fire, if there is an on-site forensic examination. If there

16 is more than -- if there are more than -- I withdraw that. If there are

17 two impact points of a bullet, say the bullet entered a membrane, not very

18 dense, and then impacted on an opposite wall. How would you go about

19 locating and determining the source of fire? Could you tell us. And

20 including whatever instruments you would use to do that.

21 A. Well, first of all, I have spoken about this on Friday, as you

22 said. And on the ground, in this case you do a sighting. A sighting is

23 to join the points which enable you to ascertain through an opening or a

24 hole where the source of fire was. But what you also do is to make an

25 assessment if it is possible, you record exactly every point, that is, the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 height, the descent of that point, of the trajectory, and then to see

2 everything that the projectile pierced through on its trajectory. If you

3 went through certain obstacle, how many centimetres? If you went through

4 the body, which part -- the tissue went through? Where did it enter the

5 body? And all of these data is then analysed. There are formula which is

6 used to assess the approximate energy of the projectile.

7 Q. The hypothetical case I give you did not involve the passage of a

8 bullet through a person. What I'm asking you for is an explanation as to

9 how you would actually go about establishing with precision the source of

10 fire where you have the bullet passing through the membrane, not very

11 dense, and then impacting, say, on a wall. Do you crouch down so the back

12 of your head is against the -- the impact on the wall and then look

13 through the hole in the membrane? Do you get a piece of string? How do

14 you actually do it?

15 A. That can be done on the ground in this way: With either string or

16 some ribbons or with some other straight items. But what's important is

17 the descent, the angle of descent. That is, the -- how sloping is the

18 angle? What is its degree of descent? That's when we can use from

19 ballistics tables for a certain type of projectiles that you found on in

20 scene of the incident and then you know which projectile has which

21 ballistics characteristics. And then with all that and with the ballistic

22 angle, then you can certainly -- you can very closely ascertain the source

23 of fire.

24 Q. If you don't have the remains of the bullet, I take it with two

25 impact points you cannot establish the angle of descent. Is that correct?

1 A. No. What you can do there is the analysis for each bullet and

2 then you say for a bullet of this kind, then it will be closer to the

3 distance. Then it is -- if it is higher energy, it will be further. And

4 then you do a kind of a range of possibilities. There is no other way to

5 do this.

6 Q. And I suppose the amount of energy depends on how far the bullet

7 has travelled before it impacts on the first membrane. Would that be

8 correct?

9 A. The energy is dependent on the velocity and the volume of the

10 bullet. But how far it will go depends from which distance it has been

11 fired.

12 Q. All right. So let's assume you've taken a piece of string or

13 ribbon. You've connected the two impact points, and you've established on

14 the other side of the membrane an area along that line of sight. What

15 steps do you then take in order to qualify the position on the line of

16 sight in order to establish the true source of fire? You've told us about

17 the tables. What do you then actually do?

18 A. What you look at the point of impact is the angle of descent. When

19 you connect two points, that is not a straight line unless distances are

20 very short. If distances are short, then you can have a very small

21 difference. Them it's an almost straight line. But if distances are

22 greater, then because of the curving of the ballistic curve, then it has

23 to -- it's not that angle. It has to be closer. The distance has to be

24 shorter than what you have seen. Then you make an assessment. You use by

25 assessing the energy of the bullet on the scene of the incident.

1 Q. All right. So in answer to the question, you say that you make an

2 assessment. Does that depend in part, if not entirely, on not only the

3 knowledge of the forensic ballistician or investigator but also the

4 experience of the person who forms that assessment?

5 A. Well, in any case, it does. The easiest operations, like a

6 criminal technical investigations, will depend on the knowledge, as will

7 everything else.

8 Q. All right. Now, you've told us about the statements, the fact

9 that you were given statements, I should say. You've told us you looked

10 at some videos. Which sites did you visit? Do you have a list somewhere

11 that you can tell us?

12 A. Well, I said something about that on Friday. I don't have the

13 list, but I think I know them by heart. I may forget something. But it

14 was on several occasions that I went, and we practically had a starting

15 point in the sense that we didn't know the locations in Sarajevo, because

16 the streets have changed its names, so we had to identify scenes of

17 incidents and so on. But in any case, I was interested in -- primarily in

18 the parts of Dobrinja and Nedzarici, Alipasino Polje, Vojnicko Polje,

19 parts of Hrasno Brdo.

20 Q. We don't have a lot of time. If you remember the sites, could you

21 tell us what they were, the ones that you visited.

22 A. Well, I started telling you about the sites. I went with a

23 military expert, so I visited Grdonj, Colina Kapa, Debelo Brdo.

24 Q. All right. Let me clarify it. Which incident sites did you

25 visit? We should add that in your report, you talk about a number of

1 incident -- a number of incidents. If you could go through your report

2 and tell us which ones of those particular sites you visited?

3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] The witness answered, but it

6 hasn't been entered in the transcript. He mentioned Dobrinja quite

7 clearly. This is not in the transcript. And perhaps that is why

8 Mr. Ierace has been so insistent. Could one just ask the witness to

9 repeat the names that he mentioned.

10 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, because Mr. Ierace does not

11 have -- received an answer to his question.

12 You are describing a number of incidents. Do you remember which

13 of the sites of these incidents you have visited? Do you know?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can be very precise. I'll read

15 them out one by one. Number 2 I didn't visit; number 3, I didn't visit;

16 Nor did I visit number 4; number 5, yes; number 6, yes; Not number 8; Not

17 number 9; number 10, yes; number 11, yes, I passed through that

18 part; number 13, yes; number 14, no; number 15, yes. I passed down

19 that street; number 17, yes; number 18, yes; Not number 20; Not number

20 21; number 22, yes. Again, I passed down the street; number 23, yes.

21 Number 24, yes; number 25, yes; Not number 26; number 27, yes.

22 MR. IERACE: [Microphone not activated]

23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.

24 MR. IERACE:

25 Q. I think you missed number 16. But that's the same site as number

1 17, isn't it?

2 A. Yes. I was there when the investigator was present.

3 Q. All right. Now, did you look at any stage at some electronic

4 360-degree photographs in relation to any of the incidents?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Was it explained to you that those photographs were taken either

7 directly on or as near as possible to yellow painted markings which had

8 been indicated by either victims or witnesses as the position where the

9 victim was shot? Were you told something along those lines by Defence

10 counsel?

11 A. Yes, I saw those photographs. They were taken from the positions

12 where the victims were. These were 360-degree photographs. And in

13 incidents number 5 and 6 this is something I did with our cameraman in

14 order to see the surroundings at the site, and I did that because of the

15 damage that could be seen there. I did see those 360-degree photographs.

16 Q. All right. And did you do that in relation to sites 5 and 6 so

17 that after you left the scene you could still conveniently observe what

18 could and could not be seen from where the victims claimed to have been

19 shot, or witnesses where the victim did not survive, in the case of number

20 6 and 5?

21 A. Yes. With regard to incident number 5, I did this because there

22 were barricades there and also because a lot of damage had been inflicted

23 on all sides and all heights. There was damage to the entire building,

24 not just at one level. And in the building that was in front of the

25 demarcation line and on the sides of the building. So I was wondering how

1 this damage was caused. I located this to be able to illustrate that

2 there was a large number of hits caused by shrapnel and projectiles.

3 Q. Mr. Kunjadic, I haven't asked you what was on the photograph that

4 you took, simply whether the reason that you did it was so that you could

5 look after you left the site at what was visible from the relevant point.

6 You understand? And I think you've said that that's the reason you did

7 it.

8 Now, coming back to the sites you visited, we've been given a

9 letter by the Defence setting out the sites that you visited. And

10 according to the letter, you visited site number 26 - that's incident

11 number 26 - but you've just told us that you didn't. Perhaps you could

12 just check that.

13 A. Yes, I'll check that. 26? No. That incident was in a flat. We

14 didn't visit any flats. We weren't able to enter anyone's flats or to

15 enter anyone's yard either.

16 Q. All right. Incidentally, just in relation to that, did you

17 approach the United Nations in Sarajevo at the field office to seek some

18 assistance in order to gain access to flats?

19 A. I know that this was requested by the Defence, but I don't know

20 why but we weren't provided the necessary assistance. On one

21 occasion -- for a certain number of incidents we were assisted, but later

22 on we no longer received any assistance.

23 Q. All right. Now, incident number 24, we were told by the Defence

24 that you had not visited that site, but you just told us that you did.

25 Could you check that one.

1 A. I did visit that area, so -- I didn't see much because at the time

2 I wasn't able to --

3 Q. It's okay. All right. Incident 21, we were told that you did

4 visit it, but you said you didn't. Could you check that. Again, just yes

5 or no. Did you visit it?

6 A. Just a minute. Yes. I don't know what I said, but I visited

7 this --

8 Q. Okay.

9 A. -- site. It had to do with incident number 13, and I visited it.

10 Q. All right. Now, you mention in your report that bullets of a

11 particular calibre could be fired by more than one weapon. What about

12 7.9-calibre rounds? Which weapons could they be fired by?

13 A. Well, it could be fired from a -- a classical M-48 rifle or from a

14 machine-gun. It could be fired from an M-76 sniper rifle too. It could

15 be fired from carbines, hunting carbines, which use 8 times 57 ammunition.

16 Q. If you go to incident number 2 in your report. Were you given a

17 statement by -- in relation to that incident by Ekrem Pita?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. What was the date of that statement?

20 A. The date is the 25th of September, 2001.

21 Q. And in that statement, does this appear: "I haven't been able to

22 find the bullet which wounded Anisa, but it was a 7.9-calibre bullet"?

23 A. Yes, I found that.

24 Q. In your report, you say that it's impossible to determine the type

25 of weapon. Given that there's some evidence it was a 7.9-calibre round,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 does that assist you in determining what possible weapons could have been

2 used?

3 A. I can't take witness statements because I don't know what they

4 know about ammunition. I really don't know whether the witness saw what

5 the calibre of the projectile was correctly or not. I really can't assess

6 this. So I consider this to be an unprofessional assessment, which is why

7 I don't say that we should exclude the calibre they say it was. But I

8 can't take their statements into account because that was not something

9 provided to the police later. The projectile was not provided to the

10 police. And if there was such a projectile, it caused damage at the edge

11 of the wall, near the door. And we really don't know what the degree of

12 the damage -- the force of the impact. I said that if a projectile hits a

13 wall, a hard surface, the surface can be destroyed. It can fall apart.

14 Since the wounds inflicted on the witness were not very serious --

15 Q. All right. The question was simply whether that calibre assisted

16 you to determine the type of weapon. And I appreciate that you don't have

17 any information on how reliable that identification was. But then again,

18 that's the only material that you were initially given, isn't it, witness

19 statements? Is that correct? And that was added to later by further

20 material.

21 A. At the beginning, yes.

22 Q. All right. Now, where you found an inconsistency between material

23 provided to you, you've mentioned that in your report; is that correct?

24 A. I don't think that I have been inconsistent, because I explained

25 that the projectile --

1 Q. No, no. No, I'm not suggesting that you're inconsistent. You've

2 been given some police reports, some witness statements, maybe more than

3 one witness statement. And where you have found an inconsistency, you

4 have mentioned that in your report, the inconsistency in the document; is

5 that correct? Would you like me to take you to an example perhaps to

6 illustrate?

7 A. Well, no. If I have understood you correctly, the inconsistency

8 is in that a material trace which was found wasn't handed over to the

9 organs of investigation. That is what is the most important factor when

10 you are trying to come to a conclusion, because you base all your

11 assessments on material traces. If someone says that he heard or saw

12 something, I can take this into account, but I simply can't say whether

13 such claims are true or not.

14 Q. I understand. And your training qualifies you to visit the scene

15 where the shooting has taken place as soon as possible after that event to

16 make your measurements, to locate material traces, and then to prepare a

17 report; correct?

18 A. That's correct. That's how one should proceed.

19 Q. But here we have shootings taking place in the midst of a war,

20 where in many cases to go to the site of the shooting, even assuming that

21 you had all the forensic back-up, could be dangerous and therefore perhaps

22 was not an option. Is that correct, as you understand it?

23 A. I agree. I don't know what the situation was like with regard to

24 each particular incident, but yes, this is quite possible.

25 Q. Even in some of -- I think some of the police reports there is

1 mention that it wasn't possible to carry out a forensic investigation

2 because there was continuing fire. Did you see such references?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. All right.

5 A. This was mentioned in some reports.

6 Q. So you're left in a very difficult position, that is, trying to

7 find objective corroborating or inconsistent evidence, that, corroborating

8 witness statements or inconsistent witness statement, when you have very

9 little forensic material to go on.

10 A. I know that the wartime situation was such that it was impossible

11 to carry out on-site investigations. But this is the basis for me to

12 compile a report. However, I have to point out that certain things, such

13 as traces, wounds, damage, projectiles, et cetera, these things can be

14 collected later on, three, four, or five days after the on-site

15 investigation, after the incident. In cases when only the duty officer

16 went to the site, I suppose that a forensics expert or a specialist team

17 could have gone to the site too. So I understand the difficulty of

18 carrying out on-site investigations in open spaces at times of war.

19 However, I would approach this in a selective manner. I wouldn't say that

20 this is the case for all cases because sometimes this could have been done

21 better.

22 Q. But you wouldn't be critical, would you, of the forensic

23 investigators in Sarajevo in the midst of a war with a number of people

24 apparently being shot on a daily basis?

25 A. I'm talking as an expert here and about traces. I can't talk

1 about matters that are not within my domain.

2 Q. Okay. Now, coming back to incident 3, perhaps to illustrate some

3 of these difficulties. When you gave us your thoughts on it on Friday,

4 you spoke about the difficulty of determining the angle of the -- the

5 body. I suppose you meant the angle of the back in particular in relation

6 to the impact point on the wall in order to determine whether the bullet

7 came at a parallel direction or from a high point and so on. But I put it

8 to you this way: Is there anything that you've seen of that incident

9 which is inconsistent with the possibility that the bullet entered the top

10 region of her back and exited the lower region of her back and then

11 impacted on the wall in the area that she indicated? Is there anything

12 inconsistent with that possibility?

13 A. I can neither accept nor exclude that possibility. For one

14 reason: I don't know the direction, the channel of the wound, and this is

15 because of insufficient information, whether the entry wound is at the top

16 and whether it goes downwards. So I don't know the channel of the entry

17 and exit wound.

18 And secondly, as far as I could see on the video, the difference

19 between the point of impact of the projectile and the position where the

20 casualty's legs were, this difference is minor. So I don't see how the

21 body could have fitted into that direction, could have been part of that

22 direction.

23 Q. Now, you said on Friday that you assessed the distance between the

24 impact point and the step to be in the order of 30 centimetres, and you

25 said that that should have been measured. Were you given by the Defence a

1 statement of Barry Hogan --

2 MR. IERACE: Excuse me, Mr. President.

3 Q. -- That statement being dated the 24th of May, 2002, in which he,

4 being an investigator, gave that measurement? Were you given that?

5 A. I don't have it. It may have been shown to me, but I don't have

6 it at this moment.

7 Q. All right. I can tell you that there was such a statement served

8 on the Defence in which he indicated that he did measure that distance,

9 and indeed it was 30 centimetres.

10 Now, coming to incident 4. In your report you point out a

11 contradiction between two statements and, therefore, two -- a witness and

12 the victim as to where the shots came from. You say, "The damaged party,

13 Witness G, stated that the shots came from Orahov Brijeg, and the witness

14 Brkanic Hamdo stated they came from Poljine."

15 MR. IERACE: Excuse me, Mr. President.

16 Q. Were you given a statement by Hamdo Brkanic dated the 5th of

17 January, 2002?

18 A. I have that statement here.

19 Q. Would you please go --

20 A. But he wasn't a witness who was questioned, but when the distance

21 is almost in the same direction, then it's difficult to determine. That's

22 what I was thinking of. But we could clarify this.

23 Q. Indeed he wasn't a witness who was questioned, but unfortunately

24 your report is based in part on the statements of witnesses who weren't

25 questioned. So would you please now read out aloud the last paragraph of

1 that statement.

2 I should add that I do not mean to be critical of you at all in

3 making that observation. Far from it.

4 JUDGE ORIE: When you read it, could you do it slowly, since the

5 space of speed usually is higher when reading. So would you please read

6 it slowly.

7 MR. IERACE: I have copies should that be required,

8 Mr. President. But it's a matter of four sentences.

9 JUDGE ORIE: If it's just a short passage, then it would depend on

10 whether any of the -- anyone present would need a written version. But

11 let's first read it. Yes.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the statements that the victims

13 gave and the witnesses, they said that there were several shots in their

14 direction. They assessed the distance in the direction from which the

15 fire came in different manners.

16 MR. IERACE:

17 Q. I asked you whether you had the statement of Hamdo Brkanic dated

18 the 5th of January, 2002. Are you reading from that statement?

19 MR. IERACE: It might be faster, Mr. President, if I give the

20 witness a copy.

21 A. I have it. I've got the statement.

22 Q. All right. Would you please go to the last paragraph of the

23 statement. And does it begin with the words "when I mentioned Poljine"?

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 Please proceed.

25 MR. IERACE:

1 Q. All right. Now -- so it seems from that passage that there may

2 not be an inconsistency after all between the account of that witness and

3 the victim - do you agree? - as to where the shots came from?

4 A. Yes, I do. Yes.

5 Q. All right. Now, given that you drew to the attention of the

6 reader of the report that difference -- I'll come back to my earlier

7 question. Is that what you have generally done in the report, where you

8 have seen a relevant inconsistency, then you have mentioned that in the

9 report, as you did with this?

10 A. What determined my conclusion was on the basis of the first part,

11 where I spoke about the material traces. And in the conclusions, I do not

12 mention the discrepancies that I illustrated in the sense of the

13 difficulty of determining that their action, dependent on the shot. As to

14 whether it's from one part of the village or another, I don't know that.

15 But in the conclusion, I only said that it was not possible to establish

16 what type of projectile had hit the injured party and from which weapon

17 this was fired. But I did allow for the possibility that the firing was

18 done with the infantry weapons, one of the infantry weapons.

19 Now, these discrepancies that I listed, they're just illustrations

20 in a sense that witness statements can be unreliable data. It's just for

21 orientation purposes. That's why I have mentioned this.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, just before I sign the redaction in a

23 second, I'd like to go into private session for one --

24 MR. IERACE: Yes.

25 JUDGE ORIE: -- Second.

1 Could we turn into private session.

2 [Private session]

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 [Open session]

15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.

16 MR. IERACE:

17 Q. Your job was to impartially look at the evidence. By that I mean

18 without favour to the Defence or the Prosecution. Is that correct? Bring

19 your professional opinion to the material that you read.

20 A. I have only worked on the basis of the material traces and what I

21 needed expertly speaking, nothing else.

22 Q. Given that you -- first of all, do you agree with me that nowhere

23 in the report do you comment on consistency between accounts of witnesses

24 or witness accounts and police reports? Nowhere do you say what this

25 witness said is consistent with the police report, what this witness said

1 is consistent with what another witness said. That's not in the report,

2 is it?

3 A. I didn't reject those reports either. Simply, it wasn't

4 established.

5 Q. And would it be fair to say that you have mentioned the relevant

6 inconsistencies and beyond those stated inconsistencies, the other

7 material was consistent, although you have not said that?

8 A. I think that does not influence my conclusion about the incidents.

9 Q. That's not -- perhaps you could listen to my question again.

10 Would it be fair to say that you have mentioned the relevant

11 inconsistencies and beyond those stated inconsistencies, the other

12 material was consistent?

13 A. Everything that I have mentioned is in relation to my work

14 directly. I don't see inconsistencies, only in the way that I have

15 written the report.

16 Q. In incident 4, you brought out an inconsistency between the

17 statement of Witness G and the statement of Hamdo Brkanic. Your comment

18 on that incident consisted of two short paragraphs, and yet you thought it

19 important, in those two short paragraphs, to make that point. Can we

20 assume where you don't bring forward inconsistencies that you found no

21 others which were relevant in preparing this report? Do you understand my

22 question?

23 A. I do. I do understand it.

24 Q. All right. Is that a safe assumption?

25 A. This inconsistency, I mentioned it only because on the basis of

1 sound - and I wanted to stress this - it's very hard to determine a

2 location. That's all. There was nothing else behind this. Everything

3 else is okay. The position of the injured and everything else stands.

4 Q. Now, in relation to incident number 6. In reading the statements,

5 did you understand that the witnesses identified the area where the victim

6 was shot as an area which was repeatedly under fire?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And if they're correct in saying that, your observation that there

9 should have been a reconstruction of the incident at the scene was not a

10 realistic option.

11 A. Yes. Yes, it was a realistic option.

12 Q. I'm sorry, you think it was a realistic option to have a

13 reconstruction at the scene.

14 A. A reconstruction of the scene can be done now at this very moment

15 if we know -- because the greatest problem in this incident is not knowing

16 the entry wounds on the bodies of the injured. That reconstruction can be

17 done in relation to that fact and in relation to the statement of the

18 witness who was heard. So without any problems in order to determine its

19 exact position at the moment where that person was shot. It is possible

20 to do that today. That's what I meant when I said "reconstruction."

21 Q. You say without any problems. Given that the victim was killed,

22 it would be necessary, I take it, to find a participant of a similar body

23 shape and height as the victim and that victim would have to stand -- I'm

24 sorry? Go on.

25 A. I'm sorry. Not just that. But in such cases where a good medical

1 examination has not been carried out, that is, a forensic medical

2 examination, you would have to exhume the victim and to establish its

3 injuries. And with a person of the same constitution, that's not a

4 problem. That is the easy part of the job. But I always insist on traces

5 have to be processed and that these traces have to be included in the part

6 of the trajectory of the projectile. That's all.

7 Q. All right. Now, in your comments to incident number 6, you say

8 it's impossible to say whether she had been hit by one or two projectiles.

9 Firstly, what is the relevance of that, whether she was hit by one or two?

10 A. It's very relevant for the following reasons -- perhaps I'm going

11 to just have to elaborate on this. For instance, the Dobrinja river

12 bed - and that's the first work we did in the photograph that is we took -

13 that's around the river bed of the Dobrinja River. It is sloping. It has

14 concrete sides. At along the river bed, going through Dobrinja, from

15 Dobrinja -- at an angle, and it goes all the way through Dobrinja. So the

16 conditions for ricochetting of the projectile do exist. Now, if the

17 firing is done in such a way that the projectiles go into the river bed

18 and then hit its sides, then the possibility for such a projectile to hit

19 someone else is -- does exist objectively. I looked at the photographs

20 yesterday that you asked me for, and it says that -- and the bridge, when

21 the woman on the bicycle was hit, in fact, the -- it's between Dobrinja IV

22 and where the location where the injured party was. Obviously there was

23 shooting in the direction of the bridge, and one of the possibilities was

24 that the projectile was going in and out of the river bed and that they

25 ended up in the river bed.

1 Q. All right. If she was hit by two projectiles, does that reduce

2 the possibility that she was hit by a ricochetting bullet? Is that

3 essentially what you're saying?

4 A. Not at all. What I'm saying: If there are several wounds, it

5 increases the possibility of a ricochet projectile or a defragmented

6 projectile. Let me just explain. For instance, if she has been hit by

7 one bullet - say it's a direct hit - and it was on the sloping side at an

8 angle towards the water. At one point it has -- she has to stoop down.

9 She cannot keep the same vertical position of the body. This

10 is -- depends on the nature of the injury. But she falls down.

11 Particularly if she's been lethally wounded. In order to fire the same

12 bullet, the same location, for instance, a distance of about 1.000 or more

13 metres, the projectile needs more than two or three seconds to get there,

14 to fly there. Under the condition that we fire one and then we target and

15 we fire another one, throughout that time the body has to keep in the same

16 position, so the body has been hit and it's at an angle at this sloping

17 side of the river bed, so it's very hard to assume. This is one of my

18 opinions on -- based on the number of the -- number of the injuries that

19 she suffered at one point and also the inconsistencies. And at one point

20 it said that she's been injured in the head and then it said that she's

21 been injured in the chest. So there is this inconsistency -- or in the

22 neck.

23 Q. One second. According to the English transcript, you said the

24 projectile needs more than two or three seconds to get there to fly --

25 A. If it's over 1.000 metres.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. For a distance of about 1.000 or more metres. Are you saying that

2 it takes two or three seconds for a bullet to travel 1.000 metres?

3 A. Well, I have data here. I can tell you exactly how long each

4 bullet needs. But two -- over two seconds. 2.8 seconds at a distance of

5 1200 metres, and that is under the condition that the projectile has been

6 fired from a machine-gun or a sniper rifle.

7 Q. Are you saying that the bullet travels at the same speed

8 regardless of whether it's fired by a machine-gun or a sniper rifle?

9 A. They use the same type, M-84 and the M-91 rifle, they use the same

10 type of bullet.

11 Q. I'd be grateful if you could give us a straight answer to that

12 answer. Are you saying that the bullet travels at the same speed

13 regardless of whether it's fired by a machine-gun or a sniper rifle; yes

14 or no?

15 A. Yes. But you just have to be accurate as to which machine-gun.

16 But if it's the same ammunition, then it take -- then it's the same speed,

17 the same velocity.

18 Q. Now, in your technical data at the back of your report, you give

19 observations about weaponry and ammunition. Did that all come from your

20 knowledge, or have you derived it from a different -- from another source?

21 A. I have mentioned this -- I've said this because the Defence has

22 asked me to. Of course, there are some books about -- literature about

23 weapons and basic data, ballistics data is listed along tables.

24 Q. No. The question is simply: Did you get this from a book? Did

25 you?

1 A. From a book. You don't learn that by heart.

2 Q. No. Which book was it?

3 A. From these two books. And there's another book, if you wish.

4 Q. And have you included those books in your report, the titles?

5 A. Yes. Yes, I have.

6 Q. Now, in that material, you mention special sniper bullets. You

7 say that the sniper cartridge with universal projectile M-75, due to

8 better ballistic characteristics has a greater precision of fire than a

9 normal cartridge. The sniper cartridge's box is marked 7.9-millimetre

10 sniper cartridge with universal bullet M-75. The bottom of the cartridge

11 is marked with the letter "S."

12 Would you expect those bullets to travel at the same speed as

13 bullets fired from a machine-gun?

14 A. To be precise, when I said from a machine-gun, what I meant was

15 machine-gun M-84, which uses the same type of ammunition, the same type of

16 bullet. Also, the mark "S," it means "sniper ammunition." And it is

17 only -- that's only done slightly more precisely. But there are

18 no -- any -- that ammunition for sniper weapons doesn't have any other

19 special characteristics.

20 Q. All right. Did you understand from reading the material given to

21 you that the victim after she was shot in the chest put her hands on her

22 chest, cried out, and then turned, and then another bullet hit her in the

23 neck, according to eyewitnesses, and she fell down? Do you understand

24 that?

25 A. Yes, I do know about that statement. But I don't have the medical

1 report to say whether that is really so.

2 Q. I think there was another statement to the effect that after she

3 turned, she was hit in the cheek. This is after she's been shot the first

4 time.

5 A. In the head.

6 Q. You say that --

7 A. Yes. I saw that.

8 Q. So did you also understand the evidence to be that some

9 individuals went down to the water's edge, ventured out from behind the

10 protection before she went down, and they weren't shot?

11 A. Yes. Yes, I do know about that as well. Yes.

12 Q. She went down and she was filling her bucket. And while she was

13 filling her bucket, she was shot the first time. Then she stood up, one

14 assumes, turned around -- or at least turned around, according to the

15 evidence, and was shot twice.

16 Now, do you say that those two impacts would have been

17 ricochetting bullets or bullet fragments?

18 A. The statements in relation to the wounds that the witnesses speak

19 about, I have to take them with a certain amount of reserve, without the

20 expert report of a forensic physician. And here we also don't have the

21 time differences at the moment when the first one occurred and all the

22 others.

23 Q. There is much information that we don't have that we would like to

24 have. I agree with you.

25 Perhaps I could I could put it to you another way; is there

1 anything about the incident that rules out the possibility that she was

2 shot deliberately twice?

3 A. I cannot rule this out.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, would that be a convenient time?

6 Perhaps one further thing.

7 Q. Sir, during the break, if it's convenient, subject to what you are

8 instructed by Their Honours, could you find the source where you indicate

9 the source of the technical information at the back. Thank you.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Kunjadic, you answered that the sources of the

11 technical information in respect of the rifles was contained in the

12 report. I do understand that Mr. Ierace has some difficulty in tracing

13 it. Could you perhaps during the break identify where in your report the

14 sources of this technical information on weaponry could be found.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the report, I mentioned under

16 "References." It's on a separate sheet of paper. I mentioned the book

17 separately.

18 JUDGE ORIE: May I just look at the Defence --

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It has also been handed over. And I

20 also have that in English.

21 JUDGE ORIE: I must admit that I've got a copy here at this

22 moment, just a spare copy. So I don't know whether it's complete.

23 Ms. Pilipovic, this additional sheet of sources was part of the

24 report or ...?

25 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there wasn't a part

1 of the report. That was handed over to the Prosecution, I think, on the

2 24th or 25th of December in a submission. There are two annexes, and

3 there are -- there is an addition, a slightly expanded, about the

4 literature of Mr. Kunjadic. And I think that this was

5 Mr. Slavenko Terzic. And I think there's a third -- I don't have the

6 submission here with me, but I know for sure this is together with the

7 submission as a response to the Prosecution submission. I think that was

8 filed the 24th or the 25th of December.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Ierace, I take it that you'll have a look

10 at this.

11 MR. IERACE: Yes. I'll check that over the break. Thank you,

12 Mr. President.

13 JUDGE ORIE: We'll then adjourn for half an hour.

14 Could you tell us, Mr. Ierace, how much time you'd still need

15 approximately.

16 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I'd be grateful if I could be reminded

17 how much time I have left.

18 JUDGE ORIE: As far as my bookkeeping goes, it would be something

19 like 20, 25 minutes.

20 MR. IERACE: I'd need that time, Mr. President.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you can use that time. Yes.

22 We'll adjourn until 11.00.

23 --- Recess taken at 10.28 a.m.

24 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.

25 JUDGE ORIE: May the witness be brought into the courtroom again.

1 MR. IERACE: Before that happens, Mr. President.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

3 MR. IERACE: The time remaining, I think you indicated before the

4 break, was about 20 minutes. The Prosecution requested four hours for

5 this witness and has used --

6 JUDGE ORIE: I do agree. We have not finally decided on that.

7 And I was -- when I was doing the bookkeeping, as a matter of fact, I was

8 referring to the time the Defence had used in -- in chief. Let me just

9 confer.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, the Chamber has looked with some

12 precision to the time that was spent on experts called by the Prosecution,

13 and that gives a very much -- yes. We've looked carefully to the time

14 used by the Defence and by the Prosecution on experts, and you see there's

15 a great disparity now then. For example, background witnesses, the

16 Prosecution took hardly any time to examine them. On the other hand, the

17 Defence took a lot of time.

18 On technical experts, I would say ballistic experts and military

19 experts, the time was far more in balance. And having taken into

20 consideration also how the cross-examination went until now, the Chamber

21 would invite you, first of all, to see whether you could finish as quickly

22 as possible, but preferably not take more than three hours as a total.

23 And that would mean until now I think you took approximately 1 hour and 40

24 minutes, so that would be 1 hour and 20 minutes remaining. Please

25 proceed.

1 And as a -- the Chamber has noted that quite some answers of this

2 expert witness might have a more general nature. Very often the point

3 comes back as to what the expertise of this witness could add to evidence

4 which is available in a different way, and there seems to be a pattern

5 of -- where the witness until now on a few incidents has testified that

6 because of the lack of reliable data, that from his expertise he could not

7 support but, on the other hand, also could not exclude certain

8 possibilities. The Chamber wonders whether it would be necessary to do

9 that exercise for all of the incidents.

10 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I can assure you I don't intend to

11 take the witness to all of the incidents. And that's something I factored

12 into my --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.

14 MR. IERACE: Thank you.

15 JUDGE ORIE: And try to keep within the limits I just mentioned.

16 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, might I also at this stage just

17 clarify whether there's any issue with the Defence that they were -- they

18 had disclosed to them have a supplementary information sheet in relation

19 to incident 3, in which the measurement of 30 centimetres was given, and

20 indeed later a 92 bis statement from Barry Hogan containing the same

21 information. If there's any dispute about that, I can tender the relevant

22 page. Perhaps if I might --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Until now I did not hear any objection against you

24 putting to the witness that it was measured. But if objection would be

25 raised about it, we'll hear about it. And then you might be in a position

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 to tender that document if necessary. I don't think it's -- the 30

2 centimetres as such might not be the core of the problem you wanted to

3 demonstrate.

4 MR. IERACE: Thank you.

5 Q. Sir, just no relation to incident 6, I think you told us that you

6 had seen a statement by the son of the deceased - and I won't mention his

7 name - in which he spoke of two wounds; is that correct? I withdraw that.

8 In which he spoke of a wound on the left side of the victim's neck

9 and -- that is, a penetrating wound, and an exit wound on her right check?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. All right. And I think you've told us that you also saw a

12 statement by an eyewitness to the effect that she was shot in her chest

13 and then she turned and another bullet hit her in the neck and she fell

14 down. Is that correct? That's a statement dated the 25th of February,

15 1996.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. All right. You don't have the benefit of the rounds, there is

18 some eyewitness evidence available to you to the effect of where the

19 penetrating wound was and where the exit wound was for one of the two

20 projectiles. Is that correct?

21 A. Yes. I had that information.

22 Q. All right. Now, moving on to incident number 10. This is the

23 incident where a woman and her daughter, daughter aged eight years, was

24 shot by a single bullet. And you make the point in your report that it

25 would be necessary to determine with precision the angle of entry of the

1 projectile into the bodies, and you would also prefer to have the defined

2 channels of the piercing wounds.

3 Is it the case that when a bullet enters the body that its line of

4 trajectory can change from the point of entry? In other words, in the

5 hypothetical case, where the bullet also exits the body, the trajectory is

6 not necessarily followed, that is, comparing the trajectory before it

7 enters the body with the trajectory in the body.

8 A. I haven't fully understood you. What do you mean by "the same

9 trajectory"?

10 Q. All right.

11 A. It's not inevitable if it has lost energy.

12 But with regard to this incident, I affirm that it was possible to

13 determine the direction of the shot, but I wasn't precise because I didn't

14 know the exact angle that the projectile came from. What would be

15 interesting in relation to this incident -- what is interesting is that

16 the victim did not hear the shot. That could confirm that --

17 Q. I'll just stop you there.

18 A. All right.

19 Q. You're getting away from the question. The question is: Is it

20 correct that the trajectory is not necessarily maintained when the bullet

21 enters a body, not only because the speed of the bullet is reduced by the

22 denser mass of the body but for other reasons as well?

23 A. The trajectory in the body is maintained, the same trajectory.

24 It's only the energy that is reduced, and the projectile comes to a halt.

25 If the projectile does not ricochet inside the body, because a projectile

1 does not only ricochet when it encounters an external obstacle. It can

2 ricochet when it hits a bone. I'm not claiming that this is the case in

3 this incident, but that's a possibility. The projectile maintains its

4 trajectory but it is simply slowed down.

5 Q. Does it not also happen that the bullet loses its shape when it

6 enters a body? Indeed, it can break up?

7 A. The deformation of the projectile depends on whether it hit a bone

8 or not. When you examine the projectile, it's possible to "read," it's

9 possible to determine whether the frontal deformation -- whether the front

10 has been deformed or not. But in any event, it's possible for a

11 projectile to be deformed, but this does not necessarily happen.

12 Q. And if it's deformed, does that not also affect its trajectory?

13 A. To a very insignificant extent, because the route it travels is

14 not very long. Only if it ricochets because it hits a bone, then the

15 trajectory can change. But when the projectile penetrates a body, the

16 trajectory is not modified to a significant extent.

17 Q. In this particular case, where you have a woman and her child aged

18 eight, a reconstruction would have obvious difficulties, would it not,

19 given that they were moving at the time that they were hit, given the age

20 at least of the child?

21 A. [No audible response]

22 Q. Would you agree with that?

23 A. Yes. With regard to the height of the child, only if we took into

24 account the height of the child at the time.

25 Q. I'm referring to the dependence one would have to place on the

1 recollection of the mother and child as to their precise position at the

2 instant they were shot. Whether they were slightly facing one way or the

3 other, where their limbs were, and so on. Whether they were crouched

4 slightly, if at all, that sort of thing.

5 A. Yes, that's true.

6 Q. All right. Now, in relation to incident 11, I think you told us

7 that you drove past that area. And you gave some evidence about this

8 incident on Friday as well. Did you stop and locate the position of the

9 witness as she appeared in the video when she was spoken to by the

10 investigator?

11 A. I passed down that street. I saw the surroundings. I watched the

12 video and I saw the photograph of people crossing over. The location was

13 fairly precise, especially since it is probably connected to --

14 Q. Just let me stop you. If you could focus on the question. Did

15 you stop and locate the position of the witness as she appeared in the

16 video that we saw on Friday?

17 A. Yes. Yes.

18 Q. All right. And had you seen before that visit two 360-degree

19 photographs, one taken from the position on the road and the other taken

20 from the position above the road?

21 A. I can't remember now.

22 Q. All right. Did you see those two 360-degree photographs at any

23 stage, either before the visit, during the visit, or after the visit?

24 Have you ever seen them?

25 A. The 360-degree photographs? Yes.

1 Q. Two of them.

2 A. Well, I don't know whether it was one or two, but I saw the

3 photographs and the 360-degree photographs, and everything that the

4 Defence provided. I saw that on several occasions.

5 Q. All right. Did you --

6 A. From a professional point of view, I was interested in this.

7 Q. Okay. When you went there, did you walk up the embankment and

8 look around the area above the embankment in the direction that the

9 witness can be seen on the video pointing?

10 A. I identified the incidents and the part of the streets they

11 happened in, but I don't remember examining the photographs and then going

12 to the site again because the methodology was not such that one proceeded

13 in this way and there wasn't enough time either --

14 Q. I apologise for interrupting your answer, but I'm interested in

15 specifically whether or not you walked up the embankment and looked at the

16 area above the embankment that we can see on the video. Did you or did

17 you not?

18 A. The area above, in the direction of Ozrenska Ulica -- yes, I was

19 in Ozrenska Street and the other streets, but I didn't climb up the

20 embankments, as you say.

21 Q. I'm sorry, did you say Ozrenska Street?

22 A. Ozrenska Street, yes, if we're talking about incident number

23 10.

24 Q. No, incident number 11.

25 A. I was thinking about incident number 10 all the time, because I

1 thought that you had mentioned incident number 10.

2 Q. I did. And then I thought I mentioned incident number 11. I'm

3 asking you about the incident for which we saw the video on Friday when

4 you were asked questions by Mr. Piletta-Zanin. All right. Now, did

5 you -- you told us this morning that you drove past that area. Yes or no,

6 did you go stop and locate the position where the witness can be seen on

7 the video?

8 A. No. No, because that was a large area and it was simply not

9 possible to identify it.

10 Q. Sir, I suggest to you there were two ways you could have

11 identified it. One way was by locating the approximate position according

12 to the buildings which appeared in the video and then looking for those

13 buildings as you drove along that street. Do you agree or disagree?

14 A. Well, I can't agree with you, because we really needed assistance.

15 If it was so difficult to find the location where the incident was, well,

16 we didn't have any other possibility, let alone the possibility of

17 carrying out such investigations in Sarajevo, given that we didn't have

18 any -- we didn't have authorisation and we weren't escorted either.

19 Q. It would have been a relatively simple matter as you drove along

20 that street to identify the area from the images on the video, I suggest

21 to you.

22 A. Well, I believe what the witness says, that it was somewhere in

23 that area. If the witness can't identify the position of the victim, then

24 I can only --

25 Q. Please, I'm asking you at this stage about identifying where the

1 witness stood as she appeared on the video, that part of the road.

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I'd like the witness to be

5 able to answer the question because he was just saying what he could

6 identify and what he couldn't identify, and I think that the witness is

7 being interrupted a little too frequently when he is answering questions.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Kunjadic, I noticed several times that your

9 answers, although perhaps on very relevant matters, did not correspond

10 completely with what you were asked. May I invite you to listen carefully

11 to the questions. And if, for example, someone asked, did you go on the

12 embankment, then first answer that question. And if you think it's of

13 great importance to tell us what else places you did go, you always can

14 ask me whether you could add something. But perhaps first concentrate

15 specifically on what you're asked. It might be that the next question

16 would invite you to tell us about what you had in mind already.

17 Please proceed.

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, to be more

19 precise, at line 43 -- sorry, line 7, page 43 the witness was answering

20 why he thought he couldn't identify the position and he was then

21 interrupted. So I think that he should be allowed to continue with his

22 answer.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just have a look again.

24 The question there was about the exact position of the witness.

25 The answer was about what the witness said as to the position of the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 victim. Therefore, Mr. Ierace was entitled to interrupt because the

2 answer was not about what he asked the witness, and that's what I pointed

3 out in my observation.

4 Perhaps one of the next questions would be about the position of

5 the victim; I do not know. But certainly Mr. Ierace was allowed to

6 interrupt at this very moment.

7 Please proceed.

8 MR. IERACE:

9 Q. When you drove along that road, who was in the vehicle with you?

10 A. I don't remember, because I went to Sarajevo on several occasions.

11 Q. Was it only the once that you drove along that road?

12 A. I think it was once.

13 Q. Had you seen before you drove along the road the video that we saw

14 in court on Friday?

15 A. I think I went there before the video was made.

16 Q. Was there a member of the Defence legal team with you in the car,

17 either Ms. Pilipovic or Mr. Piletta-Zanin?

18 A. Mr. Piletta-Zanin wasn't with me for sure, but Mrs. Pilipovic was

19 probably present. She was with me on each occasion I went to Sarajevo.

20 Q. Did you understand that there was a GPS reading taken of the

21 relevant sites?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. All right. Was there any attempt to use those GPS readings to

24 locate sites?

25 A. I didn't think it was necessary to locate that place.

1 Q. All right. Leaving aside GPS, if you didn't use the image on the

2 video, it would have been impossible to locate where the witness was at

3 the time of the incident, wouldn't it?

4 A. I would have located the place if I'd gone to Sarajevo on the

5 basis of the video. But I said that I didn't go to Sarajevo to verify

6 which position the witness was in the street -- which position the witness

7 was in in the street.

8 Q. Do you recollect what appears on the two electric 360-degree

9 photographs, the two computerised images?

10 A. In relation to incident number 11?

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. You can see the area that you can see in the video, and down below

13 you can see a slope. The street -- the road descends. I can't remember

14 the details, the houses, or the part of town concerned.

15 Q. I take it because you didn't stop that you didn't walk around the

16 area above the embankment in the direction that the woman was seen to be

17 pointing on the video. Is that correct?

18 A. No. No, no, I did not.

19 Q. All right. Now, that you have seen the video, do you accept it's

20 possible to drive along the road, identify approximately where the woman

21 was standing, look for the yellow marking that we saw made on the video,

22 walk up the embankment, look around that area, and compare it to a

23 360-degree photograph taken from the top of the embankment? All that is

24 possible, isn't it?

25 A. Yes, yes, yes.

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I am in doubt

2 now. Are we still speaking about incident number 11?

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I have no reason to believe that we talk about

4 anything else other than incident number 11. Yes.

5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well. Very

6 well. Thank you.

7 JUDGE ORIE: And I take it, Dr. Kunjadic, that you in your last

8 answers, you were thinking about incident 11. Yes.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct, yes.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed. I do not see that there was any

11 reason to take the view that we are not talking about incident 11 at this

12 very moment. Please proceed.

13 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.

14 Q. I now move to incident number 13, Dr. Kunjadic. This is the

15 incident where a boy aged 16 years was shot whilst travelling with his

16 father in a truck close to the present site of the UN field office in

17 Sarajevo. In your report, you mention a projectile that fragmented, and

18 then you have in brackets "(in fact, fragments flew in different

19 directions under the steering wheel so that the damaged --" and then you

20 mention the victim -- "was wounded in the neck by them.)" If I could just

21 firstly clarify something. Are you suggesting that the fragments which

22 wounded the boy in the neck first went under the steering wheel or not?

23 A. When I say "fragments," what I mean is that fragments defragmented

24 from the point of impact. And from the point of impact, they then

25 dispersed radially, into different directions.

1 Q. I understand that. But are you saying that the fragments that hit

2 the boy in the neck first travelled under the steering wheel or are you

3 not saying that?

4 A. No. No.

5 Q. All right. Now, when you expanded on your opinion on Friday, you

6 seemed to assume that the vehicle could only be seen in the space between

7 the end of the barricade and the commencement of the building line as it

8 travelled south down the road on which it was -- on which it was hit, that

9 is, Ante Babica Street. Is that correct? That was the assumption that

10 you made.

11 A. The assumption was that the vehicle could not be seen. Partly

12 because of the buildings, because this wasn't very clear and this is what

13 I noticed on the scene, on the site. It was unclear what had been built

14 by then and what not. So even today in a way it's hard to check this.

15 And on the other hand, I don't know what was the height of the barricades,

16 and I assumed when I was speaking about the assumption, about the

17 supposition that the vehicle had been appearing behind a barricade. It

18 was just -- whether it was hidden by buildings or barricade ...

19 Q. All right. Again, if you could please focus on the question. In

20 giving your evidence on Friday, you repeatedly referred to the time period

21 that the building would have -- I'm sorry, that the truck would have been

22 observed. And as I understood it, you assumed it could only be seen from

23 the Bosnian Serb side as it passed from the end of the barricade to where

24 it was then blocked by buildings further south. Is that correct? Was

25 that your assumption?

1 A. Yes, yes.

2 Q. Now, you also gave us some figures based on whether the vehicle

3 was travelling at 60 kilometres an hour or 40 kilometres an hour. Do you

4 remember doing that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. All right. Now, in reading or having read to you the evidence

7 given in court, did you understand firstly that the barricades were lower

8 than the top of the truck? In other words, the barricades did not obscure

9 entirely the truck from view.

10 A. I assumed that the barricade was high enough that you wouldn't be

11 able to see the lorry very well immediately. I -- that was just an

12 example. It wasn't a statement. If it had been a statement, I would have

13 included it in my report. But it was just an example to explain how

14 difficult it is to ascertain something.

15 Q. You may not remember this. I wouldn't expect you to. But we've

16 heard evidence that the truck was about 5 metres long, the cabin was

17 separate from the back of the truck, the back of the truck was about 3

18 metres high, and the cabin was about 2 and a half metres high. And the --

19 MR. IERACE: Excuse me, Mr. President.

20 Q. And the barricade was about 2 metres high. In other words, if

21 that evidence is correct, then the barricade did not obscure the truck.

22 That follows from those figures, doesn't it?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. All right. Did you also discern in the evidence that was read to

25 you a contention from the Prosecution that the student hostels at the time

1 did not entirely block the view from the Bosnian Serb side of traffic

2 travelling along Ante Babica Street?

3 A. I know that on the photograph it was marked which part of the

4 student hostel was missing. But as far as I know, there were one or two

5 houses there or one behind another. It can be seen on a photograph. I

6 don't know whether they existed at that time.

7 Q. All right. Do I take it that you don't remember being exposed to

8 evidence to the effect that walls were missing in those buildings,

9 allowing a line of sight through the buildings from the road to positions

10 held by the Bosnian Serb army? Do you not remember that?

11 For instance, the evidence given by the father who was driving the

12 truck, to the effect that the floors were completely hollow, one could see

13 right through them. Do you remember reading that evidence?

14 A. I remember all of it, yes. I remember that part. If there was a

15 view, then of course the situation is different, if there was. But I

16 don't know. If it was not possible to see -- this is what I listed, what

17 the problems are, if it is not possible to see.

18 Q. All right. No one expects you to draw final conclusions from

19 those aspects of the evidence as to whether it was possible or not

20 possible to see through the building. But in terms of preparing a -- an

21 impartial report, it's important to take into account different outcomes,

22 depending on different views of the evidence. Would you agree with that?

23 A. I agree. But what I stand by, what's in my conclusion is the

24 material traces. The statements, I have to always take --

25 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... Later. Let's stick with

1 the issue I'm asking you about for the time being. Now, if it was

2 possible for whoever fired that bullet to glimpse the truck making its way

3 up Ante Babica Street heading south, up the slope, just glimpse bits of

4 it, they could start to move their rifle in line with the truck, couldn't

5 they?

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I object. This

7 is purely hypothetical and subjective. The witness was not there at the

8 time. And to know what we were -- we would have been able to see, I don't

9 think it's possible to ask such questions.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The witness has testified on the basis of some

11 assumptions. The witness has also expressed himself on the issue of how

12 much time one would need to target, the time a bullet would need to

13 travel. I understand the question to be in the same area, and therefore

14 the objection is denied.

15 But let me be on one thing quite clear: Just as you gave your

16 expertise, starting from certain assumptions, I think neither counsel nor

17 the Chamber expects from you to have any knowledge as what has happened at

18 that time. You're just asked about what would be according to your

19 expertise and your experience -- what would be possible in the

20 circumstances as they have been presented to you. Whether these are true

21 or not is a totally different matter. I think you very well understood

22 this, but I just wanted to stress that again, that no one is expecting you

23 to give information of a situation you've never seen. You were at least

24 not present when the time -- at the time that it happened.

25 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.

1 MR. IERACE:

2 Q. You see, what I'm suggesting is that it would be possible for

3 whoever fired the rifle, if those floors were hollow, to glimpse the truck

4 as it moved up the street, follow it as the top of the truck moved behind

5 the barricade, and to be ready when the cabin window emerged from beyond

6 the barricades. And that assumes that you couldn't see the window above

7 the barricades. That would seem to be a possibility flowing from the

8 evidence, just as if not more acceptable than the conclusion that you drew

9 on Friday as to when the vehicle was visible. Do you agree?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. All right. Now, would you please go to incident 20. And again, I

12 draw your attention to an assumption or a conclusion that you've drawn

13 from the material that you've read. In the first paragraph, you say,

14 "Based on the data provided by the briefs, it is possible to conclude that

15 the victim could not have been the immediate target, that is, that no

16 aiming could have taken place prior to firing because of the fact that the

17 window was covered by a blind and a curtain (which made visual

18 communication impossible)." Have I correctly read the first sentence and

19 the first paragraph in your report of that incident?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Now, in reading the evidence, did you understand that the left

22 side of the window had glass and the right side was covered in thin

23 plastic which allowed some light through it. There was also a blind which

24 was holed from bullets and shrapnel. Do you remember that? If you don't

25 remember, that's fine.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 A. I know that there was a blind, and I've stated that, that there

2 was a curtain, plastic curtain --

3 Q. If you can -- do you remember reading that evidence or having that

4 evidence read to you?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Thin plastic on the right-hand side, glass on the left, and both

7 covered by a blind which had holes in it. Do you remember reading that?

8 A. I don't recall --

9 Q. Okay.

10 A. I recall that I read it, but I don't recall things as to left and

11 right-hand side, where was the glass and where was the plastic.

12 Q. No mention of a curtain though in the evidence, was there?

13 A. It's mentioned. The curtain is mentioned, as far as I recall.

14 But I can check.

15 Q. Are you now going to the statements?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Okay. Which statement?

18 A. The statement of the husband of the injured party.

19 Q. And what --

20 A. Dated 15th -- no, 23rd of November, 1995 -- 25th of November,

21 1995.

22 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, this is the problem. We don't

23 have -- we haven't been given notice of specifically which statements the

24 witness has had access to.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. To whom is this statement given, Dr. Kunjadic?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately it has not been

2 marked. I'll try and find it here.

3 Yes. Here's -- here's the statement. Here is the statement.

4 MR. IERACE: Yes.

5 JUDGE ORIE: And the statement, does it have a number or does it

6 have -- to whom is it given?

7 MR. IERACE: I have, Mr. President.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have it.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

10 MR. IERACE:

11 Q. All right. Could you please read the relevant part of that

12 statement.

13 A. I don't have to read everything. Perhaps I can use my own text.

14 JUDGE ORIE: If you would read the literal text there where the

15 statement deals with the way the window or windows were covered by blinds

16 and/or curtains.

17 THE INTERPRETER: Could the statement be put on the ELMO, please.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you assist, Mr. Usher, to put the

19 statement on the ELMO.

20 Mr. Kunjadic --

21 MR. IERACE: Just before that happens.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is there any protective --

23 MR. IERACE: I think that's all right, Mr. President.

24 JUDGE ORIE: It's put on the ELMO, Dr. Kunjadic, because that's

25 easier for the interpreters to read and translate.

1 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, perhaps I can just --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Did you identify the relevant spots, Dr. Kunjadic?

3 Yes. Would you please point at it.

4 If the usher could take care that it's entirely on the ELMO, a

5 little bit more to the left, I would say. Yes.

6 And could you then slowly read it.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "The windows were covered with a

8 green material of blind and with curtains. But now I believe that they

9 were not sufficiently well covered. When I arrived home, I criticised

10 them, why didn't put a blanket on the window."

11 MR. IERACE:

12 Q. All right. So in that statement, although he refers to curtain,

13 he also says he believes now they were not covered properly, that is, the

14 window, and he complained at the time when he arrived home that they

15 hadn't put up the blanket; is that correct?

16 A. Yes. But there's one other sentence which speaks of this. "The

17 window closest to her still had glass, but it was covered with a blind and

18 with curtains."

19 Q. All right. Would you now look further down the statement, the

20 third-last paragraph, at least in the English text, starts off with the

21 words "there was no shooting."

22 JUDGE ORIE: Could you also read that out slowly, Dr. Kunjadic.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If the text is below: "It was very

24 quiet --"

25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness move the -- could the

1 witness --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, would you place the microphone in such a

3 way that -- yes.

4 MR. IERACE:

5 Q. Could you please point to where you are reading?

6 A. [Indicates]

7 Q. No, that's too high up. If you come down to the third last

8 paragraph, I think it's -- all right, do you see this in the statement

9 towards the bottom: There was no shooting after that incident or before.

10 I assume it was a murder on purpose because the shooter could see the

11 shadow of the candle in the window." Do you see those words?

12 A. Yes, I can see that paragraph.

13 Q. And you can leave that now.

14 Were you also given copies of other statements by that witness

15 which talked about the covering on the window, the statement of the 27th

16 of June, 2001.

17 A. 27th of June -- just a moment. I have -- it's dated 4th of

18 September, 2000 -- no. No. 4th of September. No. I don't have that

19 statement.

20 Q. All right.

21 A. Just a moment. No.

22 Q. In any event, did you understand from the statements alone,

23 without going to the evidence, that he did not believe the window was

24 properly covered and at the time he was concerned that a blanket had not

25 been put up over the window when he arrived home? Did you understand

1 that?

2 A. I understood that, because the event had already taken place. And

3 he probably concluded that this was not covered enough, because there were

4 curtains -- they were not stretched enough. And the shot happened. The

5 shot was fired. So logically one could assume that something was not all

6 right.

7 Q. Especially, since the point of view which he formed at the time

8 was that you needed to put up additional covering, a blanket, to make it

9 safe; correct?

10 A. Probably. I don't know the quality of the curtains.

11 Q. All right.

12 A. And the other screens on the window.

13 Q. No. And you'd not be expected to know that. But coming back to

14 your report, you say that visual communication was impossible. Now, in

15 compiling your report, did you allow for the fact -- I withdraw that. Did

16 you allow for the possibility that whoever shot those bullets was

17 deliberately shooting them at a window with light, rather than the outline

18 of a body? In other words, shooting recklessly at the window through

19 which some light could be seen?

20 A. I cannot speak about the intentions, and technically it is

21 possible to fire at a window. Of course.

22 Q. However you cannot speak about the intentions, you did think it

23 appropriate to make a conclusion as to whether this visual communication,

24 as you put it, was possible. So what I'm doing is having taken you to the

25 material that you were initially briefed with, as well as the evidence,

1 pointing out to you that there were other possible conclusions; namely,

2 that the -- it would seem that light may have been emitted from that

3 window. Do you understand that, that that's what I'm putting to you? Do

4 you agree with that?

5 A. If you could see the light in the window - and it was already at

6 night, and this is just an assumption - then it could have been, in the

7 vicinity. But here the indication is the fire -- the shot came from

8 Hrasno Brdo, which is further away. And I agree that in this case it was

9 possible to determine with precision the source of fire. It's one of the

10 cases for which there were --

11 Q. We'll leave that. Now, you looked at the video, and did you see

12 where the two bullet holes were, that is, the entry points, one on the

13 window and one on the frame? I think that was indicated in -- yes.

14 A. Yes, yes.

15 Q. All right. And it seems that the fatal bullet passed through the

16 window frame, the bottom window frame of the glass, and killed her within

17 a matter of seconds.

18 A. The lower part.

19 Q. And given where she was seated, the higher bullet hole would seem

20 to have been just above where her head was. Do you agree with that?

21 A. I think the second hole was about 70 centimetres above that part.

22 Q. Yes.

23 A. I remember that that first projectile couldn't have hit her. She

24 was sitting. And the second one that passed through the wooden window

25 frame is in fact the projectile that hit the victim.

1 Q. So one hit her in the chest and the other came in just above her

2 head; correct?

3 A. About 50 or 60 centimetres above her head. I don't know the exact

4 figure.

5 Q. I don't think that was above her head, but we won't be too

6 troubled by that evidence at this stage.

7 Did you note also from the evidence that the bullets, the two

8 bullets, seemed to enter if not simultaneously then almost simultaneously?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. What did you make of that?

11 A. Well, nothing spectacular. I didn't come to any spectacular

12 conclusions. Two bullets hit the window. They could have been fired from

13 a distance -- well, if the windows were covered, as said, then it was

14 simply not possible to see because the distance was too great. I think

15 they said it was about 800 metres. This distance is too great to be able

16 to see the cover. If they were firing at some window, if there was some

17 additional source of light and they fired at some window, well, I can't

18 really be precise but -- I can't conclude anything in particular on the

19 basis of two bullets.

20 Q. Yes. If the two bullets had been fired from the same weapon, a

21 semi-automatic or an automatic, would you expect the impact to be

22 simultaneous or would you expect there to be some discernible gap in time

23 between the first and second bullet?

24 A. If they were fired in succession, then there would be a gap.

25 Q. And how long would that gap be?

1 A. I really don't know, but probably -- I don't know. I don't have

2 the information. I don't know whether it would have been after three or

3 eight seconds.

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I object to

5 this question because everything depends on how the man or woman reacts

6 with their hand on the trigger. How can one know? And if you have to

7 wait a minute before the shot is fired, then it will be a minute.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Dr. Kunjadic --

9 MR. IERACE: Mr. President. Might I --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.

11 MR. IERACE: In my respectful submission, that is entirely

12 inappropriate for Mr. Piletta-Zanin to --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin gave an example which would

14 stretch the time, which is certainly inappropriate. I think the

15 information you were seeking, Mr. Ierace, which might have been sought in

16 a more factual way, was how much would it take for a person who

17 uses -- let's start with a semi-automatic rifle -- to fire two shots

18 consequently on a same target? What's the minimum, approximately, for

19 someone who is skilled or -- yes.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A few seconds. Between five and ten

21 seconds, if he wants to fire accurately.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do I understand that this would not be possible

23 one second, two seconds?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You have to aim. When you fire from

25 a rifle, it shakes. You have to align everything again. You have to aim

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 again. And this takes time, if you want to be accurate when shooting,

2 unless a burst of fire is involved.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But then you're then still talking about a

4 semi-automatic rifle or ...?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I didn't establish the -- what

6 the weapon used was. I agreed --

7 JUDGE ORIE: I am asking you about a semi-automatic rifle, and of

8 course the same questions could be put for an automatic rifle but the

9 answer might not be that problematic, and the same could be asked about a

10 non-automatic rifle, an ordinary rifle. But you say that with a

11 semi-automatic rifle you would need five seconds or more to fire a second

12 shot with a -- with a reasonable, reasonable precision, precision of

13 targeting? I'm not talking about high precision.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That would be the minimum, yes.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Five seconds, the minimum.

16 Mr. Ierace --

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Between five and ten seconds.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

19 MR. IERACE:

20 Q. With an automatic rifle, what would be the time gap between

21 successive bullets?

22 A. Well, similarly if single shots are being fired --

23 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour. I think

24 that five to ten seconds has not been entered in the transcript. I

25 apologise. Perhaps I wasn't following carefully. But that's my

1 impression.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, at least the five seconds minimum are there,

3 and I take it that ten seconds is not an ultimate maximum, but -- but

4 that's what -- at least was translated to me as the words of the witness,

5 that at least five to ten seconds.

6 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.

7 MR. IERACE:

8 Q. What's the minimum time lapse if the rifle was automatic; in other

9 words, the shooter simply keeps the trigger depressed?

10 A. If the weapon is automatic, you can fire a lot of bullets in a

11 minute, for example, 120 bullets in a minute. But in this case, we're

12 discussing whether the target is aimed at, as far as I have understood.

13 Q. Do you think it unlikely that an automatic weapon could account

14 for the two bullets in this particular case? And if so, why?

15 A. I can't exclude the possibility, but I don't have an explanation.

16 I don't have a good explanation for excluding this. It's possible in

17 technical terms, but -- if it's technically possible, I see no good reason

18 to exclude this possibility. Naturally I'm not referring to any

19 particular kind of weapon. Any weapon could be the source of fire.

20 Q. Well, given the evidence that the bullets impacted simultaneously,

21 that would seem to exclude a single semi-automatic weapon as being

22 involved. Would you agree?

23 A. Well, on the basis of the information, on the basis of the fact, I

24 can't say whether it was simultaneous. Do you mean that -- when you say

25 "simultaneous," do you mean that two projectiles hit the window at the

1 same point in time?

2 Q. Yes. I'm not asking you to comment on that. Let's assume that

3 for the sake of my question that the two bullets impacted at the same

4 time. Assuming that, we therefore eliminate a semi-automatic -- a single

5 semi-automatic weapon as being responsible for both bullets, do we not?

6 A. It would appear so.

7 Q. So the remaining possibilities are either an automatic, if it's a

8 single weapon, or two weapons firing together; is that correct?

9 A. You mean if two weapons fire at the same point in time --

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. In theory, that's possible, if they fire at the same time or if

12 there is just a time lapse of a fraction of a second. But I can't really

13 imagine a situation in which two bullets would be fired exactly at the

14 same time.

15 Q. Now, can you eliminate the possibility of there being a silhouette

16 of the deceased on the blind?

17 A. I can't answer that question because I don't have the information.

18 Q. All right. But in any event, the only possibilities, it would

19 seem, are either an automatic firing two bullets in quick succession so

20 that they both seemed to impact simultaneously; alternatively, two

21 separate weapons being fired at the same moment, at the same instant. Is

22 that correct?

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I object to this question

1 because there's a third possibility, at least.

2 MR. IERACE: Well, Mr. President, that's -- that's a matter for

3 the witness. The witness can say that. And the witness is better placed

4 than Mr. Piletta-Zanin to respond to that, being an expert.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace presented you two possibilities and asked

6 you whether you would agree that there were these two possibilities.

7 Would you please respond to that question. If you see a third, a fourth,

8 or a fifth one, you're free to tell us.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me repeat this. It's possible

10 for an automatic weapon to open fire in succession and then one projectile

11 hits the window and it's followed by another projectile and the time lapse

12 is minimal. In theory, it's possible for two weapons to fire at the same

13 time and to hit a given target. In theory it's possible. Whether it's

14 possible in practice it's really difficult for me to say.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.

16 MR. IERACE:

17 Q. Can you think of any other scenario that could give the same

18 result?

19 A. Well, I'm not imagining various kinds of scenarios, but this is a

20 possibility.

21 Q. All right. Now, do you have your photographs with you, the ones

22 that you showed us on Friday?

23 No, I'm sorry. I apologise. Not in relation to this incident.

24 On Friday you showed us a bundle of about 50 photographs that you had

25 taken yourself in Sarajevo.

1 A. Yes. Yes.

2 Q. Would you please take out the photographs which have marked on the

3 back numbers "20" and "21." They're the photographs of the -- the

4 railings, I think in Dobrinja, the railings on the bridges.

5 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, perhaps they can be both placed on the

6 ELMO. I think they're small enough that both could fit on at the same

7 time.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please assist the ...

9 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. Kunjadic.

10 Yes, that's good.

11 Q. Now, are these photographs taken of the railings on the bridges

12 going over the Dobrinja River?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. All right. And on each of the bridges there are similar railings?

15 Do you agree?

16 A. This is the same bridge. But yes, they are similar.

17 Q. Yes. When you say -- all right. Now, which particular bridge is

18 this? Is this the bridge for incident number 6?

19 A. No. This is the bridge where the bicycle incident occurred.

20 Which one was it? I think it's the -- I think it's in Nikola Demonija

21 Street.

22 Q. And that's further to the south from incident number 6, isn't it?

23 A. Incident number 6 is downstream. It's further down.

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. Downstream the Dobrinja River.

1 Q. Now, these bridges -- I'm sorry, the railings, did you examine

2 them closely?

3 A. Well, no. But I can see that these are the projectile impacts.

4 That's why I took these photographs. When this happened, I don't know

5 exactly.

6 Q. Do you remember whether you took these photographs pointing

7 downstream or pointing upstream, or is one taken one way and the other one

8 the other way?

9 A. I think there's another photograph that was taken from this

10 bridge.

11 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you: Is the lower photograph a part of the

12 upper photograph?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. But it's taken from closer up.

14 JUDGE ORIE: From closer up. The same position. Yes, please.

15 Thank you. It was just for myself to better understand the testimony.

16 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it is.

18 MR. IERACE:

19 Q. All right. Did you find a third photograph? I think you were

20 looking at the photographs.

21 A. I was looking for the third photograph. But you can see that it's

22 the same photograph because of this building.

23 Q. Yes.

24 A. It's larger here, and it's smaller in this place.

25 Q. And at the time you took these two photographs, were you facing

1 upstream or downstream?

2 A. Both upstream and downstream.

3 Q. Now --

4 A. But this was taken downstream.

5 Q. Looking downstream; is that correct?

6 A. Downstream. Yes, here it is.

7 Q. Just before you go to the third photograph. In relation to the

8 two in front of you at the moment, were you facing downstream when you

9 took them?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. All right. Now, let's look at the third photograph.

12 Do we see the railing in the third photograph?

13 A. No.

14 Q. All right. We'll take that one away for the moment, please.

15 All right. Now, coming back to the other two. Do you agree with

16 me that when one examines those railings closely, there are a far greater

17 number of impacts on the sides of the railings which face upstream than

18 there are on the sides of the railings which face downstream?

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. In other words -- I withdraw that.

21 Now, do you also agree with me that when you examine those

22 railings closely, some of the bullets are seen to penetrate both skins --

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, could we zoom

24 in to the extent that this is possible so that we can verify what

25 Mr. Ierace means when he says "upstream and downstream."

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I ask you: You were asked about impacts on

2 the railings facing upstream and downstream. Could you for our

3 convenience and to better understand your testimony indicate where you see

4 those parts of the railing facing upstream and where you would see those

5 parts facing --

6 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.

8 MR. IERACE: I apologise for interrupting. I think the problem

9 lies in my question. I may have misled the witness. I'll clarify that

10 question. I'll go back to that question.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then please.

12 MR. IERACE:

13 Q. I'm not asking about what we see in these -- in this particular

14 railing in these photographs. Do you understand? I'm asking you about

15 observations that you made on the railings on the bridges crossing the

16 Dobrinja River when you visited Sarajevo. Do you understand my question?

17 Well, do you understand the basis of my question?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. All right. Now, as a result of your observations and leaving

20 aside what we see on the particular railing at the moment, do you agree

21 that there are more impact points on the sides of the railings that face

22 upstream? In other words, that are exposed to the south. I'm not asking

23 you about what we see on this -- on these particular two photographs.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. All right. There are more impacts on the sides of the railings

1 which face the south compared to the sides of the railings which face the

2 north. Would you agree with that?

3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. --

5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Before we ask this question,

6 I'd like to see if the witness could take the same type of photograph from

7 the other side to examine this before we contest the witness's answers.

8 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you, Dr. Kunjadic: Have you taken

9 photographs of the other side of the railings, or did you just photograph

10 this side of the railings?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I only photographed this side and

12 this side of the bridge.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Your testimony was that you took these photographs in

14 order to have a picture of the impacts; is that correct?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.

17 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, may I remind you that some of your

18 interruptions, objections, have a tendency of influencing the witness.

19 You should be very careful with that.

20 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.

21 MR. IERACE:

22 Q. Do you agree with me there are more impacts on the sides of the

23 railings facing south, that is, upstream, compared to the sides of the

24 railings facing north, that is, downstream?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Now, when you -- when one examines the railings, especially on

2 this particular bridge which appears in the -- on the screen at the

3 moment, do you agree that there are some bullet holes or holes which

4 penetrate both skins of the railing? The railing did not stop them. They

5 passed right through the railing. I'm not suggesting that we can see some

6 of those on these particular photographs, but rather, when there, one can

7 see such holes going all the way through.

8 A. It's possible.

9 Q. All right.

10 A. That's not to be excluded.

11 Q. Now, did you form a view as to what the -- the horizontal bar of

12 this particular railing was made from? What material was it?

13 A. I wasn't that interested in this. It was just something I had

14 observed.

15 JUDGE ORIE: But the question is whether you know what the

16 material was of which these railings were made, whether it was of specific

17 interest to you --

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A metal railing.

19 MR. IERACE:

20 Q. I suggest to you that not only is it metal but it's very thick

21 metal, in the order of in imperial measurements about a quarter of an inch

22 for each skin. Would you agree or disagree with that?

23 A. No.

24 Q. All right.

25 A. I can't be precise. I think it's too thick.

1 Q. All right. I'm sorry, too thick for what? Do you mean that the

2 thickness I suggest to you is inappropriately thick?

3 A. That's my assumption. But I really don't know much about railings

4 and how railings are made. But I think a quarter of an inch is too thick.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm not sure

7 whether the witness knows what a quarter of an inch means exactly.

8 JUDGE ORIE: If the witness doesn't know, he'll certainly ask

9 Mr. Ierace.

10 I take it that if you do not understand a question to the full

11 extent, that you'll be cautious enough to ask for further explanation.

12 Please proceed.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely.

14 [Prosecution counsel confer]

15 MR. IERACE: No further questions, Mr. President.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. We'll then -- we'll now adjourn for 20

17 minutes. There might be some more questions for you, Dr. Kunjadic, after

18 the break. But I'm certain that we'll finish by today.

19 We'll adjourn until five minutes to 1.00.

20 --- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.

21 --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.

22 JUDGE ORIE: May the witness be brought into the courtroom.

23 Is there any need to re-examine the expert?

24 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

1 Re-examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:

2 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, good afternoon again. And I'd like to

3 come back to some of the things that you answered. In relation to what

4 you stated on page 8, 10 or 11 today, in relation to a curve of a shot,

5 you say that if we have two points- one point of impact and one of

6 penetration - that it is possible to reconstruct -- or to find the source

7 of fire. But you say that the trajectory is not a straight line. That's

8 what I understood that you said. Could you please give us more precision

9 on this statement. When we are talk about great distances, does this

10 change anything?

11 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I object.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.

13 MR. IERACE: Re-examination does not, in my respectful submission,

14 entitle one to revisit the subject matter, because it came up in

15 cross-examination. There has to be some clarification that's required.

16 And the witness was asked quite comprehensively in cross-examination --

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'll deny the objection, since it took me too

18 much time up till the moment where I thought I understood exactly what the

19 expert witness said. So I think there is a need here to avoid whatever

20 confusion as to the exact meaning of the testimony of the witness.

21 Please proceed. But let's just start with what the witness said,

22 that is, on shorter distances that the line would be approximately a

23 straight line. And I understood that exactly in relation to the

24 questions -- questions about where a projectile would, for example, enter

25 into a building and then through a window or through whatever and then

1 would at a short distance - and I understand that it's within 5 to 10

2 metres. That's how I understood your testimony - would then impact on,

3 for example, a wall. Is that a correct understanding?

4 THE WITNESS: [No audible response]

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see the witness is nodding yes. The

6 interpreters cannot translate your nodding, so I would invite you to speak

7 in words rather than -- to affirm your nodding.

8 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. But so that the Defence

10 can understand perfectly:

11 Q. If I've understood you correctly, a long-distance shot implies, of

12 course, a trajectory which is not a straight line but that it is probably

13 a curved line. Is this what you said?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Thank you. You also said, witness, that there were tables. I

16 think these are technical tables that you spoke about. Do these tables

17 allow you to make calculations of a -- the way the trajectory descends and

18 the angle of descent?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And the curve as well?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. From all the scenes that you saw in Sarajevo, on some cases this

23 is possibly -- I mean, the cases you have analysed -- have you made my

24 reference to these scientific tables?

25 A. This is in relation to expert analysis, and it's not in connection

1 to the on-site investigation itself. But there are no data from the

2 on-site investigations that would allow us to make this analysis, to use

3 these tables.

4 Q. Very well. But when these investigations have been conducted, in

5 some incidents we have two points in order to determine the

6 direction -- have you found any trace of a reference to these tables in

7 order to ascertain the height of the point of firing if we have in front

8 of us a hill?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Thank you. According to your knowledge, would it have been useful

11 to refer to such tables?

12 A. Unfortunately, as I have said, there are no -- there's no data, so

13 nobody could have used any kind of tables.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just interfere to see whether we can clarify

15 the issue.

16 Is it true that these tables are assisting in calculating the

17 direct -- the trajectory of a projectile if you know at what angle it's

18 fired?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you know the angle of impact,

20 that is, the angle where the -- where there is the impact, that is the

21 angle of descent.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And that is a larger angle than the

24 one from where the shot was fired. So they would -- those -- those

25 two -- from the size and the data and according to the assessment of the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 energy, it would be possible with a high probability to determine the

2 location from where -- from which the shot was fired.

3 JUDGE ORIE: You would need the characteristics of the -- of the

4 shell as well.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely, yes.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. These data are missing in all these case,

7 as far as I understand. Both the angle and the --

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not in all of the cases. There is

9 one case, and we processed it here, where there is a projectile where the

10 points -- I'm talking about case number 27 -- where we also had the

11 projectile and we had the points. And if all this had been done properly,

12 we would have certainly had a part of the trajectory. We would have been

13 able to assess where the shot was fired from. In that case, we had the

14 data.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But also the -- did you also have the exact

16 data of the -- I would say the propulsing power of the -- of the shell

17 used, the -- how do you call it? The cartridge? Would you need that

18 or -- to come to final conclusions?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, I would -- in order to

20 identify the projectile, you'd need to establish the calibre and the mass,

21 the volume of the projectile.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

24 Q. I'm sorry. I'd like now to go to the incidents that we spoke

25 about. That's on page 18. And you were asked a question about the

1 impossibility to conduct an investigation through a reconstruction in a

2 surroundings where there is exchange of fire taking place. Now, if these

3 investigations had been redone hypothetically through a reconstruction, a

4 fortnight, a month, two months later, while the traces were still visible,

5 that would have been useful in order to ascertain scientifically the

6 origin of fire, the type of injury, et cetera, et cetera.

7 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

9 MR. IERACE: I object to leading.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would you please refrain from leading,

11 Mr. Piletta-Zanin. But the question may be answered because the --

12 So the question was, Dr. Kunjadic: If after a certain period of

13 time and if some traces were still there, what -- in what way could an

14 investigating -- an investigation at such a later date, what could it

15 result in? What would you have been able to do? Including a

16 reconstruction -- no, you said it was impossible. But what could be

17 achieved after the time mentioned by Mr. Piletta-Zanin by a further

18 investigation, traces still being there?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It would be possible to fix these

20 traces as if an investigation had been carried out, particularly for

21 enclosed spaces where you have damage done by projectiles. You can make a

22 sketch and take all the measurements that are needed for ascertaining the

23 part of trajectory which had -- which was in that, say, apartment, for

24 instance.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well.

2 Q. You spoke about incident 2, 3, 4. And at some point you spoke

3 about incident number 1. But can you tell us about number 1. Did you

4 examine it?

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's a question far too vague,

6 Mr. Piletta-Zanin. If you want to know whether the witness has

7 been -- what could you tell us about incident number 1 -- yes.

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I will go to another question,

9 Mr. President.

10 Q. Incident number 4, witness. You mentioned following a Prosecution

11 question, you mentioned some people and some statements. In relation to

12 this incident, have you examined or looked at other statements apart from

13 those that you have mentioned?

14 A. I had the entirety of the material, and I mentioned this in the

15 working version, whose statements I had taken into consideration. Of

16 course, in the working version.

17 Q. Witness, my question is the following: You mentioned some

18 statements, some official statements. In relation to this incident, did

19 you examine other statements apart from those that you mentioned?

20 A. I don't know which ones you mean.

21 Q. Very well. As I do not wish to lead, I will not ask this question

22 because I can see what's going to happen. I'm going to pass on to other

23 questions.

24 You were asked a question of a bullet marked as "S," S-bullet.

25 Can you tell us, as an expert, are there any S-bullets that would be

1 different through their -- in terms of their quality if we are looking at

2 the bullets of the same calibre but if they do not have this marking "S,"

3 S-marking?

4 A. The marking "S" is engraved on the cartridge of a 7.62 bullet

5 times 54. Such ammunition is used by snipers. When the bullet is fired,

6 that is, towards the place that is going to -- is hit, the projectile

7 arrives at that place. When you look at this projectile, 7.62 times 54,

8 you cannot establish which one it is because the same type of projectile

9 is used by machine-gun M-84, except that its ammunition does not have this

10 S-engraving, which is on the cartridge of the S-bullet.

11 Q. Very well. Thank you. Witness, what about the charges, the

12 gunpowder that's in the charge?

13 A. Characteristics of this bullet is that the range is 3.800 metres.

14 It can hit -- it's -- it is effective at about one-third of that range.

15 It can hit and kill almost at any point in the trajectory. This bullet is

16 stronger than 7.62 times 39, which is used by automatic and semi-automatic

17 rifles.

18 Q. Thank you. You have spoken about incident number 6. Do you

19 recall that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And you told us that you had filmed a video at that location.

22 A. Yes.

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please.

24 [Defence counsel confer]

25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

1 Q. And this is the same as for incident number 5.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. You were also asked about this incident. Why did you shoot that

4 video when we speak about incident number 5?

5 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I object.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

7 MR. IERACE: The relevant evidence by the witness is on page 13 at

8 around line 18. The information as to why he filmed it is contained there

9 and was not responsive to the question asked of him. If one looks at the

10 question preceding the answer and the question immediately after, I think

11 that is clear. And, therefore, there is no proper basis to go further

12 into that issue arising from cross-examination. This was a video which

13 the Defence had during examination-in-chief. They disclosed a copy to us

14 last week. If they wanted to get into that, then examination-in-chief was

15 the time to do it. And if you're against me, Mr. President, I'd seek

16 leave to cross-examine the witness about it.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if there was any -- we haven't

18 seen that video. The Prosecution has not asked about the reasons,

19 although some information might have been given. What would be the need

20 at this moment to enter that area in response to what happened in

21 cross-examination?

22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I cannot say

23 this in front of the witness, and looking at the time perhaps -- but

24 perhaps I can do it at a later stage. But if we have to do it.

25 Q. Witness, you said asked by the Prosecution and you were

1 interrupted about an intentional nature of a shot, you said that you could

2 not rule that out. Now, my question is the following: In relation to a

3 shot, would it be possible, when we don't know who fired the shot, would

4 it be possible to rule anything out? That is, would it be possible that

5 this was intentionally done or that this is an accident?

6 A. As far as intentions are concerned, I never stated anything about

7 in any of the cases. I -- only about technical possibilities.

8 Q. Very well. Witness, it seem that is you were reproached on

9 several occasions you went past the site of incident number 11 and that

10 you did not try to find out about such-and-such a house. But in any case,

11 did you find in the file a smallest element which would allow you to

12 ascertain exactly which -- exactly at which location the victim was

13 at -- situated when she was hit?

14 MR. IERACE: I object.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

16 MR. IERACE: Firstly, I don't know the evidence is that he drove

17 past on several occasions.

18 Secondly --

19 JUDGE ORIE: I think his clear testimony was that he did once.

20 MR. IERACE: And secondly, the witness has been asked

21 comprehensively about what he had available to him on that one occasion in

22 order to locate the position. So again, I respectfully submit there's no

23 basis for this question.

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I would like to respond.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.

3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] The witness stated that he

4 went on several occasions -- went past this area on several occasions.

5 And now the Prosecution reproached him that he didn't look at the location

6 properly and precisely. But what I want to know --

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin --

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Well, in that case, I won't do

9 anything. Next question.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the Prosecutor did not reproach

11 him, but what the Prosecutor did is ask him whether he went there. Please

12 mind your words. It's not a matter of - and I think the Chamber is in

13 full control that no one here blames witnesses or experts for anything.

14 It has not been done and it will not be allowed to be done. Similarly,

15 the parties should refrain from blaming each other from things that did

16 not happen.

17 Please proceed.

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. President. May

19 I just say that when you intervene and when I have my headphones, I

20 cannot -- I cannot immediately react because I still have two

21 interpretations in my ears. Thank you.

22 Q. Witness, in this incident and in relation to this, would it have

23 made a difference to know where exactly the location of the incident was?

24 What can you tell us about this?

25 A. No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. So it was absolutely necessary to know?

2 A. Yes. Like for the other incidents.

3 Q. Thank you. So since you received no indication, you couldn't

4 really come to any serious conclusion; is that correct?

5 A. That's correct. But I came to a conclusion on the basis of what I

6 had at my disposal. I simply stated that it wasn't possible to determine

7 the direction from which the projectile came and what kind of projectile

8 inflicted the wound.

9 Q. Thank you, witness. I would like to now turn to incident number

10 13. You were asked whether you were provided with the information

11 regarding the fact that some buildings no longer had walls or windows and

12 it was possible to see through them. Do you remember this? I'm talking

13 about the students' hostel in particular.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Thank you. Witness, my question is as follows, and could you

16 please focus on it: If, as has been affirmed, one can see through a

17 building and as a result see the target on the other side, why in your

18 opinion doesn't one attack the target if one can see it and why would one

19 attack behind the barricades if one can't see it, if there are any reasons

20 for this? Have you understood the question?

21 JUDGE ORIE: May I remind you, any reasons known to you within

22 your expertise. If there would be any reasons out of that, please

23 say -- tell us what expertise you would then rely upon. Please answer the

24 question.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the particular case, I don't know

1 what could have been seen through a building or what could not have been

2 seen. In relation to that incident, I provided an example. If it

3 couldn't be seen --

4 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Facts. But

5 the question was: If you could see through a building and you could see

6 the target on the other side - the other side of the building, I take

7 it - why one does not attack that target. That was the question. Whether

8 there would be any reasons not to attack the target. And I added that I

9 would like to know your answer in view of your expertise.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I must say that the question is not

11 quite clear to me and I can't answer just like that.

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I'll rephrase it.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please keep in mind that I would --

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Microphone not activated]

15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, counsel, please.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Would you first please put your microphone on. And

17 then -- you took your earphones all. I hope that doesn't prevent you from

18 hearing me.

19 The last question, please reformulate it in such a way that you

20 bring it within the scope of the expertise. We are not talking to a

21 psychologist but we are talking to a ballistic expert. Please proceed.

22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well.

23 Q. I would like you to focus on the question as a ballistics expert.

24 If I can see a target that I am going to aim at, even if this is through a

25 building, can you think of a reason for which I'd not be able to attack,

1 that is to say, hit this target, in ballistics terms? Technically

2 speaking, can you imagine such a reason?

3 A. If you can see the target, if it's a vehicle -- if you can see

4 this through the building, the reason for which you would not fire at it

5 is that it is mobile, the target is mobile. When you see it and you try

6 to fire at it, by that time the vehicle has already moved. And so in

7 order to hit the vehicle, it is necessary to see it, in inverted commas,

8 in time; that is to say, you have to take into consideration the movement

9 of the vehicle and you have to ensure that the bullet and the vehicle

10 coincide. If you don't see the vehicle, if you only see it for a short

11 period of time, you can't fire.

12 Q. Very well. Witness, I'll ask you another question: When you went

13 to Sarajevo, did you go to the area that one calls the hospital for blind

14 children? I think that's what we call it.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Did you investigate whether there were lines of fire, theoretical

17 lines of fire, from this area --

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. I'll move on to

19 another question, Mr. President.

20 Q. Witness, could you tell us, to the extent that you know something

21 about this, are there any tables for night vision -- no, whether there are

22 any tables, for the translation.

23 A. Yes, there are tables for a passive sight for firing at night, and

24 these are used for firing at distances of up to 500 metres.

25 Q. I'll stop you there. I would like to know --

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.

2 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I object. It doesn't arise from

3 cross-examination whether there are tables for a passive sight for firing

4 at night. Thank you.

5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It exists. I'll say this. If

6 the witness would leave the courtroom, I would say why. Thank you.

7 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is that it does not derive from the

8 cross-examination. Could you, to start with, indicate where tables for

9 optical sight to be used at night are -- yes.

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, if I say that I

11 never spoke about optical sights for night, that's a translation error. I

12 only spoke about tables. And if I express myself, I am reproached for

13 having expressed myself in front of the witness.

14 JUDGE ORIE: If your question has been wrongly translated and

15 you're the only one who could check that, I take it -- I didn't listen to

16 your question in French. Please then put it in such a way that it

17 becomes --

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I immediately said -- I drew

19 the attention of the Serb booth that we weren't speaking about sights. I

20 said we were speaking about table, not about sights.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then indicate where tables of this kind were

22 used in the examination-in-chief. Is it about tables of weapons or

23 tables -- if it's not tables of sight, what are you referring to exactly?

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I did not say

25 that the Prosecution had spoken about tables. What I said is that the

1 Prosecution spoke about the light of candles. We think that there are

2 tables which allow one to know at what distance in night the human eye can

3 perceive the light of a candle, and this is the type of question I wanted

4 to put to the witness.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin would like to know whether you are

6 aware of the existence of tables that establish what you -- the human eye

7 could see at night.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is information as to what can

9 be seen and heard at night, but I misunderstood Mr. Piletta-Zanin. I

10 thought he was talking about the existence of special tables of some kind.

11 But in the literature you can read -- it say that is the light of a candle

12 can be seen at a distance of 300 metres. And for example, that a man can

13 be distinguished from a vehicle at a distance of 1.000 metres. I have

14 this information somewhere here. I think I have a sheet of paper that

15 says what can be seen and what can be heard at certain distances.

16 JUDGE ORIE: You say there is scientific information as to

17 possibility for the human eye to discern at a certain distance certain

18 objects.

19 Mr. Ierace.

20 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I object to this. It's interesting

21 that the witness happens to have this with him.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

23 MR. IERACE: And he's asked about it for the first time in

24 re-examination. The witness was not asked in cross-examination about

25 distances in order to view candlelight. There is no mention of it in his

1 report. This is the new element. And if, in my respectful submission,

2 the Defence is permitted to adduce this - and I note it's already

3 adduced - then I seek sufficient time to prepare further cross-examination

4 with the assistance of a Prosecution expert to properly ventilate this

5 issue. Mr. President, that's the only way in which the Prosecution cannot

6 be caught by surprise.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, please.

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] This arises directly from the

11 questions put by the Prosecution. The Prosecution asked whether a certain

12 shot could be intentional. We're trying to answer this question. The

13 first thing that comes to mind is to know at what distance one can see or

14 not see something. And if it's no longer possible to see at distances

15 over 300 metres, then the matter of intentionality has been solved. And

16 if this witness can answer this question immediately and say that he knows

17 of the existence of tables, he should tell us about it and then we will

18 have finished with this matter.

19 May I continue, Mr. President?

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, this witness is a ballistic

22 expert, and he showed that he knows of the existence of, as you said,

23 tables and as his answer was, that there is information from literature

24 that the limits of what a human eye or a human ear can perceive is -- has

25 at least been the subject of research. If it's at this global level, you

1 may ask one or more questions to this witness. But the Chamber, having

2 looked at the curriculum vitae of this witness, cannot expect this witness

3 to say anything about, for example, what someone of 18 years could see

4 compared to someone who is 60 years, that -- what -- well, there are a lot

5 of questions -- we're now dealing, as a matter of fact, with the

6 capability of the human body, which is as far as the Chamber understands -

7 but please correct me, Mr. Kunjadic, if I am wrong - is not the expertise

8 of this witness. So asking him whether he heard about the existence,

9 fine. Then we know that this is a field that could be -- could have been

10 explored by the parties, but not in further detail and not asking him to

11 draw conclusions on the basis of expertise which is not his.

12 Please proceed.

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. I'll go to the

14 crux of the matter immediately.

15 Q. Sir, for the eye that sees most accurately, would it be correct to

16 consider that the light of a candle can't be distinguished at a distance

17 of about -- can't be made out --

18 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I asked you to remain within the -- within the

20 expertise of the witness, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. And one of the things I

21 referred to as an example was that the variety, for example, might not be

22 in the expertise of this witness. You already answered the question

23 that -- you talked about 300 metres. Do you have any specific knowledge

24 as to what range is reflected by this average? Would you know what young

25 strong eye would see still at five, six hundred metres and an old eye that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 is fatigued would see? Do you have any specific knowledge on that issue,

2 apart from the average you just gave?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't have any particular

4 information. Obviously a young person has sharper vision than an old

5 person.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Is this what you assume just as I would assume it, or

7 is it based on specific knowledge? Is it the general knowledge that

8 younger people perform in many respects physically better than older

9 people, or is there any specific information available to you that would

10 allow you to support this conclusion? Because I would incline to say the

11 same, as a matter of fact.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, this is general knowledge.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There's nothing particular I'm

15 referring to. It's on the basis of my personal experience.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please --

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] My last question,

18 Mr. President.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Witness, you were asked a series of questions about impacts and

22 the simultaneous nature of these impacts in relation to the window that

23 we're discussing now, and you said there were two possibilities. My

24 question is as follows, and there are two parts to my question: Is it

25 possible that a bullet could theoretically speaking split into two parts,

1 as a matter of principle?

2 A. Yes, it's possible.

3 Q. Thank you. And as a result, is it possible for a bullet after

4 having hit a first obstacle, is it possible for it to split into two parts

5 and to simultaneously hit an object? Not as a bullet. Is it possible for

6 these two fragments to hit separately the same object but at the same

7 time?

8 A. That's possible.

9 Q. Thank you very much.

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No further questions.

11 [Trial Chamber confers]

12 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just looking at the interpreters and the

13 technicians. I think the Judges would not need much time. If -- I think

14 seven to ten minutes would be sufficient. Would it be possible to

15 continue for another 10 to 12 minutes?

16 THE INTERPRETER: That's no problem, Mr. President.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much for your cooperation.

18 Dr. Kunjadic, we'll try to finish today.

19 Judge Nieto-Navia has one or more questions for you.

20 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you, Mr. President.

21 Questioned by the Court:

22 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: On Friday we saw a videotape on incident

23 number 2, and in that videotape the OTP investigator point to four or five

24 places where traces left by the bullet in the wall can be seen, even after

25 the repair of the -- of the wall. My question is: Is it possible to draw

1 conclusions from that fact, the fact that there were four or five

2 different places in the same wall with traces of the -- of the bullet?

3 A. If an on-site investigation had been carried out, then I would

4 have known about that for sure. But if - and I'm speaking in purely

5 theoretical terms - if four or five impact points have been identified,

6 this could mean that this was caused by fragments of a projectile, if what

7 the investigator pointed to when testimony was being given and if it

8 concerns what he marked at the bottom of the wall.

9 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Do you recall whether in that incident -- I

10 think it was a wound in the leg of the -- of the girl. The bullet

11 went -- entered and went out without hitting the bone? Do you know that?

12 Or the bullet hit the wound -- the bone?

13 A. It didn't hit the bone. But when I explained the incident, I said

14 that I didn't know the point of entry. I didn't know at which point the

15 bullet entered the leg, whether it was from the external side or whether

16 it was perhaps from right to left or -- or whether it was lengthwise. The

17 precise location wasn't known. Although, this was possible. It could

18 have been determined because there are scars on the leg for sure.

19 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: After watching the videotape, you don't know

20 and you cannot draw conclusions about the type of wound. I mean if it was

21 caused by the bullet or by a fragment of a bullet.

22 A. I can't say whether it was a bullet or the fragment of a bullet.

23 I've also spoken about this. But the information is simply insufficient.

24 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you. No further questions.

25 JUDGE ORIE: I have a few questions for you. The first one is:

1 In the report I repeatedly see that you take it that a fact results from

2 what you read or what you have seen on videos. For example, sometimes you

3 say we don't know where the bullet came from but from what direction it

4 came -- well, you -- at least you seem to accept that. And then in your

5 conclusions, you do not repeat that it can be concluded that the bullet

6 came from that direction but you would in your conclusion then write, for

7 example, "I cannot draw any conclusions as to the origin, the position

8 from where the fire came." Do I have to understand your report in such a

9 way that if, for example, you say -- let me just try to find an example.

10 In, for example, incident number 13, you say, "Only the side from which

11 the projectile flew in can be determined." Then in your conclusion I do

12 not find that repeated. Do I have to understand that where you say "only

13 the side from which the projectile flew in can be determined" and if you

14 do not come back to that in your conclusion, that your expertise would

15 neither give support nor would it exclude the correctness of what earlier

16 has been described as a possibility or what was the case? Is that a

17 correct understanding of your report?

18 A. I have to clarify this. What could be determined and what I

19 accepted was the side from which the projectile was fired. But in my

20 conclusion, I'm talking about the precise location from which the

21 projectile was fired. So I confirm that it was from that side, but the

22 precise location can't be determined. And that is the case for all the

23 incidents. I don't deny that it came from a certain direction, but if I

24 had several points I could determine the exact direction. But if I only

25 have one point, as in this case, in the case of the vehicle, then you can

1 only speak about this in rough terms.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand. But even these rough

3 conclusions are not contained in the part of the report where you say

4 "Conclusions." You also could have written, for example, that it could

5 not be established where the bullet came from apart from that it must have

6 come from, well, let's say -- north -- northern direction or from south to

7 south-west. I mean, you do not repeat these -- these facts which you seem

8 to accept as being true or probably be true. You do not repeat them, and

9 you now tell me that you nevertheless would accept them, although they do

10 not appear in your conclusions.

11 A. That's a manner of writing. I think that's what it has to do

12 with. When I talk about identifying a location, I'm thinking about a

13 precise location, which is why I didn't mention the side from which the

14 shot was fired in my conclusion. That is the only reason.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you would have found specific reasons why it

16 could not have been true that it came from a certain direction, would you

17 have mentioned that?

18 A. Yes.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. Then I have one other question for

20 you: There has been a lot said about curtains, blinds which would cover a

21 window. And when confronted with the testimony of not having put the

22 blanket in place, you said that it would be possible that logically one

23 could have concluded from the incident that had happened that it had not

24 been enough and that, therefore, blankets should have been in place. If I

25 would confront you with evidence which says that the blanket in that month

1 would be as a general rule -- be put in that place and not just after the

2 incident, would you agree with me that this assumption that someone might

3 have said something about a blanket after the incident had happened as a

4 logical conclusion of the event would be beyond your expertise?

5 A. Yes.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then my last question is: You told us that a

7 bullet could split in, for example, two parts. What would be needed to

8 have a bullet split in two parts? Would it need to impact on something,

9 or could it just during its flight split into two parts?

10 A. It has to hit something.

11 JUDGE ORIE: It has to hit something. Thank you very much for

12 your answers.

13 Yes, Mr. Ierace.

14 MR. IERACE: Very quickly, some questions arising out of that.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that you're also going to ask the

16 interpreters for their cooperation. Let's try to keep it as brief as

17 possible.

18 Further cross-examination by Mr. Ierace:

19 Q. You were asked some questions about incident number 2. When a

20 bullet impacts on brick or even plaster, in your experience does it

21 sometimes not leave a neat hole the size of a bullet but crack off an area

22 of brick or plaster? Does that sometimes happen?

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I apologise but

24 how does that stem from your Chamber's questions regarding incident number

25 2? Or perhaps I don't understand anything any more, which is possible.

1 JUDGE ORIE: You are referring to one of the questions of

2 Judge Nieto-Navia?

3 MR. IERACE: I am.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.

5 Could you answer the question. So the question was whether impact

6 on plaster or brick would create not a bullet-size impact but a wider area

7 cracked.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It depends on the energy of the

9 projectile itself, whether -- if it goes into plaster, that's softer, and

10 obviously there will be damage, if it has strong energy.

11 MR. IERACE:

12 Q. And in relation to the question asked of you by the

13 Presiding Judge. When a bullet splits into two, having hit something, is

14 there a loss of energy? And if so, is it substantial?

15 A. Well, it's difficult to assume how much will be lost, but

16 certainly some of the energy is used for the fragmentation of the

17 projectile, if it divides into two, fragments into two. It's hard to

18 say. It depends from which distance the projectile is fired. But

19 certainly it loses some of its energy.

20 Q. And are you aware from the material you read that the

21 bullet -- one of the bullets that entered the room travelled through not

22 only the glass but also an internal wall and ended up in the hallway

23 outside the apartment? Do you recall that?

24 A. Yes, I do know that.

25 Q. All right. Would that indicate the bullet still had considerable

1 energy after it had entered the apartment?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Would that in turn mitigate against the possibility of it in fact

4 being a matter of one bullet which had split into component parts?

5 A. Most probably, yes. But --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may just add, in this incident

8 we had the jacket and parts of the projectile that were what the

9 technicians found. And on the basis of that, we could have established

10 whether it was one or more projectiles. But because perhaps -- because of

11 the damage, the projectiles may not have been -- the calibre may not have

12 been clear. But if they were picked up, then that would have added to the

13 theoretical explanation.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you very much for your answers.

15 Dr. Kunjadic, this --

16 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I think

18 you didn't ask us whether your questions also raised questions for us.

19 JUDGE ORIE: I addressed the parties in -- but perhaps not. If

20 not, please then proceed. Could you do this as quickly as possible

21 though.

22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I have no questions as such,

23 but I have an observation to make, in the sense that this witness told us

24 that there were tables and that he -- he looked at those tables -- he

25 testified about the tables at length. And perhaps we could have a look at

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 the tables and copies of tables so that they can be tendered and added to

2 the file. That will certainly be important evidence --

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.

4 MR. IERACE: I object, Mr. President.

5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Exculpatory evidence.

6 MR. IERACE: Unless the witness is reproduced for further

7 cross-examination.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think as a matter of fact that --

9 Dr. Kunjadic, these tables of ammunition, they're generally

10 publicised, aren't they, available by books and -- well, I see that you're

11 referring to books, so it's not something that -- these tables are

12 commonly available for --

13 Let's -- we haven't got the tables. We can't put any specific

14 questions at this moment, I would say, on this subject. I think comments

15 on whether the parties would try to seek these tables and what they could

16 conclude from that in the specific incidents, that's not something, I

17 think, that should be raised at five minutes past 2.00 for the first time.

18 Yes.

19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President. Mr. President,

20 again I was misunderstood. I never spoke about ammunition tables but

21 optical tables.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Optical tables? You mean again -- you're referring

23 to tables -- the reason why I was then misinterpreting you: At an earlier

24 occasion, when you said "tables," I corrected you to the sense that I said

25 that the witness said that there was literature available which would give

1 us information about what the human eye could see. I didn't hear him talk

2 about tables, as a matter of fact, though your questions was about tables

3 and the witness used totally different words.

4 We also established, I think, that this is not the expertise of

5 this witness. And of course, if it would be of any specific help in the

6 presentation of the case or in rebuttal evidence to look at these tables,

7 then --

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well.

9 JUDGE ORIE: -- We could deal with that at a later stage. But we

10 don't have to do it, I would say, in the presence of this witness.

11 Then Mr. -- I take it then that you have no further questions,

12 Mr. Piletta-Zanin -- or at least no questions, I should say.

13 Dr. Kunjadic, this concludes your testimony in this court. It was

14 a long way to come here. The Chamber noticed that you have been very

15 cooperative in providing even information you used by -- when preparing

16 your own report and made it available to both parties. I thank you very

17 much for having answered all the questions, both of the parties and of the

18 Bench, and I wish you a safe trip home again.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher.

21 We'll deal with the documents, if any, especially the MFI

22 documents at a later stage.

23 We'll adjourn until Wednesday morning at 9.00 presumably in this

24 courtroom. Because of the schedule still to be made, I would like the

25 parties to make themselves available so that we know about translation,

1 expert witnesses, and long-distance witnesses, that there -- that there

2 will be no confusion about what will be the order. If there would be any

3 need to verify this, please get in touch with Ms. Tournaye. Yes, we'll

4 adjourn.

5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

6 at 2.05 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday,

7 the 12th day of February, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25