Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 12215

 1                           Wednesday, 23 February 2011

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

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

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Good morning, everyone.

 6             Yes, Mr. Gaynor.

 7             MR. GAYNOR:  Good morning, Mr. President.  I wanted to address

 8     one or two points arising out of the Defence motion concerning

 9     Mr. Zecevic's qualifications as an expert.  The Defence after,

10     Your Honours had ruled, put on record their reasons for their challenge,

11     and in his submissions, Mr. Robinson referred to a couple of cases.  He

12     said there are a few cases at the Sierra Leone Tribunal and the ICTR

13     where they have disqualified persons who may otherwise be considered to

14     be expert because of their lack of impartiality.  Now, these cases were

15     not in fact referred to in the e-mail sent to us by Mr. Robinson on

16     Sunday.  And just to make sure that the record is absolutely clear,

17     the -- neither of the two cases supports the contention made by the

18     Defence.

19             The first case is a decision of the 19th of June, 2008, which --

20     I'll read out the first part of the name of it to help identify what it

21     is.  The decision on the Defence application to exclude the evidence of

22     proposed Prosecution expert witness, Corinne Dufka.  Now, in that

23     decision, which does not concern a scientific expert but, rather, a

24     member of the Prosecutor in that Tribunal testifying about political and

25     background matters, in that decision at paragraph 17, the Trial Chamber

Page 12216

 1     found that the person was not impartial but went on to say:

 2             "However, in the opinion of the Trial Chamber, this finding would

 3     not disqualify Ms. Dufka from testifying as an expert witness since

 4     concerns relating to the independence and impartiality of an expert

 5     witness are matters of weight, not admissibility."

 6             The Trial Chamber goes on at paragraph 26 to say that

 7     grounds 2 to 5 of the application are of academic interest only; and

 8     ground 2, to which it refers, is the impartiality question.  The second

 9     decision cited by Mr. Robinson is, I believe, decision on a Defence

10     motion for the appearance of an accused as an expert witness, filed in

11     the Akayesu case on the 9th of March, 1998.  Now, as the title of that

12     decision suggests, one accused at the ICTR was hoping to call another

13     accused at the ICTR as an expert witness in that case, and the Trial

14     Chamber found that as the other accused, Nahimana, had been accused by

15     the Tribunal for crimes related to those with which John Paul Akayesu is

16     charged, and under similar counts, and for that reason they excluded the

17     appearance of Nahimana as an expert in the trial of Akayesu.  So neither

18     of those decisions are remotely relevant to the position of Dr. Zecevic

19     in this trial.

20             Now, the final point I'd like to put on the record is that the

21     proper vehicle, in our submission, for challenging the expertise of an

22     expert or the relevance of his report is Rule 94 bis.  And in

23     Mr. Karadzic's Rule 94 bis filing of the 11th of May, 2009, he states

24     that he does not challenge the fact that the witness is an expert and

25     that his report is relevant.  The singular word "report" in that filing

Page 12217

 1     appears to apply to all four reports listed in the Prosecution's 94 bis

 2     notification of the 26th of March, 2009, and there's no indication in

 3     that 94 bis filing of any challenge to the two reports challenged by

 4     Mr. Robinson in his e-mail which he sent on Sunday, on the very eve of

 5     the appearance of Dr. Zecevic, an expert witness whose appearance has

 6     been notified to the Defence many, many months ago.

 7             Now Mr. Tieger has some additional submissions to make with your

 8     leave, Mr. President.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, the submission is well-noted.

10             Mr. Tieger.

11             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I just wanted to raise a

12     related systemic matter in connection with such notification that an

13     issue will be raised.  Incidentally by way of clarification, Mr. Gaynor

14     noted that the cases to which Mr. Robinson referred had not been noted in

15     the e-mail he sent, but it's also correct to say that the entire issue of

16     partiality or impartiality had not been noted.  But getting back to the

17     systemic issue generally, it has been our understanding that the purpose

18     of such e-mails was to advise the Trial Chamber and the Prosecution that

19     an issue would be raised, and not an invitation, which we understood the

20     Court would not welcome, for pleadings or submissions by e-mail.

21             That understanding was shaken a bit when the Court effectively

22     ruled on the e-mail objection without soliciting submissions.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Tieger, let's stop here.

24             MR. TIEGER:  Okay.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Our decision was not triggered by that e-mail at

Page 12218

 1     all.

 2             MR. TIEGER:  I -- and I was going to make that.  I understood

 3     that, Your Honour, in that particular case.  I just wanted to take the

 4     opportunity to mention that it continues to be our position that it's

 5     preferable for submissions to be made either in writing or orally in

 6     court and that the parties should be -- should take care to ensure that

 7     notification to the Chamber as an issue will be raised.  Do not invite

 8     exchanges that are better held in formal pleadings or orally in court.

 9     Thank you.

10             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Your points must have been taken.

11             MR. ROBINSON:  Excuse me, Mr. President.  I don't want to

12     belabour this much and we're open to whatever guidance the Chamber wants

13     to give us on how to make our submissions.  In general, if it's an issue

14     of evidentiary matter or exclusions of evidence or objections to

15     evidence, we try to do them orally, and otherwise we do them in writing.

16     But if you have any other guidance you want to give us, we're ready to

17     follow that.

18             With respect to the points that Mr. Gaynor made, if I could just

19     point out that in our notice, at paragraph 3, we said Dr. Karadzic

20     respectfully provides notice that he does not accept the expert witness

21     statements and/or reports and that he wishes to cross-examine the expert.

22     And he doesn't challenge the fact that the witness is an expert but

23     reserves the right to object at trial to opinions offered outside the

24     expertise of the witness.

25             Second --

Page 12219

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Let's leave the matter there.  We have admitted that

 2     report already.  So it's all -- leave the matter as it is.  And let's

 3     deal with it when it arises again.

 4             Let's bring in the witness.

 5                           [The witness entered court]

 6                           WITNESS:  BERKO ZECEVIC [Resumed]

 7                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Good morning, Doctor.  Please make yourself

 9     comfortable.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please continue.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Excellency.

13             Good morning to everyone.

14                           Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic: [Continued]

15        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Zecevic.

16        A.   Good morning, Mr. Karadzic.

17        Q.   We will have to be making pauses between questions and answers,

18     then, because many things are not recorded in the transcript.

19             Is it correct that in chapter 8 of your report from 2007 you

20     looked at the probable dispersion of modified air bombs and cited as the

21     reason the simple sum of some effects on the bomb, for example such as

22     mass, the change of impulse, and other things?  Would you like me to call

23     up that part of your report?

24        A.   I remember that.

25        Q.   All right.  And these elements, are they usually not taken into

Page 12220

 1     account when you calculate the firing elements?

 2        A.   Yes.  If you take into account the firing tables, and in

 3     accordance with military firing standards, they are taken into account.

 4        Q.   Could you please pause between question and answer.

 5        A.   Yes, I'm sorry.  I'm going to repeat my answer.

 6             All these elements are taken into account while firing when using

 7     military systems that are used according to military standards and for

 8     which there are firing tables.  But I would like to emphasise:  No

 9     unguided rocket, artillery, or mortar system can hit a pinpoint target.

10     It can only fire at an area of a certain dimension or certain size that

11     is measured in scores of metres or kilometres.

12        Q.   In paragraph 13 of the same report, I will call it up if

13     necessary, you said:

14             "The military technical institute probably drafted the basic

15     firing tables thanks to which it was possible to calculate the range at a

16     certain angle of elevation and make possible corrections of the range due

17     to certain changes of the air temperature.  It's possible that

18     corrections were made in change of target due to wind, but there were no

19     conditions in order to be able to ascertain the actual vector of the wind

20     speed."

21             Is that correct?

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We did not have the

23     original or the translation.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I could not comment on this last

25     sentence of yours, but it's a fact that the basic firing tables do not

Page 12221

 1     provide for the military use of that system.  They are only used in the

 2     testing stages in order to be able to use it in wartime by soldiers for

 3     military purposes, and not by qualified personnel, for example, personnel

 4     of the military technical institute or the military training institute.

 5     It is necessary to draft the complete firing tables in order to draft

 6     these firing tables, before that you would need to carry out a series of

 7     experimental testing, a lot of testing, in order to be able to carry out

 8     gradual defining of the firing tables.  Once -- the drafting of the

 9     firing tables is a very complex task.  It requires expert, professional

10     staff, material resources, if you want to use that particular ammunition

11     for military uses.

12        Q.   Do you know what --

13             JUDGE KWON:  Put a pause.  Slow down.  These are very technical

14     issues and it's very difficult for us to follow.  So we have to come back

15     to the transcript later on at a later stage, particularly so that for

16     that reason the transcript should reflect the real conversation as much

17     as possible.  Please slow down.

18             Please continue.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  We do need to call up

20     the 65 ter 08347, please.  08347.  And the first -- can we look at page 1

21     so that Mr. Zecevic can identify the document.  And then can we look

22     at 77 in the Serbian and 84 in the English.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   And while we are waiting, Mr. Zecevic, let me ask you this:  Do

25     you know what testing was actually carried out?

Page 12222

 1        A.   Mr. Karadzic, if on the basis of remnants of rocket projectiles

 2     that were found in Sarajevo you establish that there are different series

 3     of rocket engines and if on the basis of available information you

 4     established that rocket engines of 127 millimetres were used,

 5     122 millimetres were used, and if you establish that 128-millimetre

 6     K13 rocket engines were used, if we know that Yugoslavia, the Socialist

 7     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, did not manufacture the grad rocket

 8     engines and the Pretis factory was developing that rocket system and did

 9     not complete it, that means that in no case could anyone have completed

10     that system because the fuel -- rocket fuel manufacture was done in

11     Slobodan Princip Seljo factory in Vitez, which is the main criteria in

12     order to define the energetic parameters of such a system, meaning that

13     it was not possible for any person involved in ammunition or weapons

14     design.  It's clear that in 1994, in January, and in 1995, this usual

15     procedure of testing could not have been completed, procedure of

16     development and introduction into the regular weapons system of a new

17     rocket -assisted system.  And then you could not really predict not the

18     area but the zone where these rocket systems could be active.

19        Q.   [No interpretation]

20        A.   [No interpretation]

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Could Mr. Karadzic please repeat his question.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  The interpreters couldn't hear your

23     question.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   You mentioned Vitez.  Was this rocket fuel from Vitez?

Page 12223

 1        A.   Mr. Karadzic, which rockets?  Three types of rocket engines were

 2     used.  Which ones?

 3        Q.   Was the fuel in any of the three rockets that you mention, as

 4     being in possession of the Army of Republika Srpska, come from Vitez?

 5        A.   The Organj 128-millimetre rocket fuel was from there.

 6        Q.   And how did we obtain that, Mr. Zecevic, when Vitez was under the

 7     control of the Army of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

 8        A.   Very simply, Mr. Karadzic, because these were rocket engines that

 9     were manufactured before the war, because the Army of Republika Srpska

10     and the Army of Yugoslavia had rocket systems of the Organj type.

11        Q.   Thank you.  So you don't know what was produced but you just, by

12     analogy, conclude that they already had them; is that correct?

13        A.   Mr. Karadzic, there is the UPR 2 rule books.  This is the

14     administration for production and development and procurement of

15     ammunition of the General Staff of the Yugoslav People's Army, where it

16     is clearly defined which procedure is used in order to decide if a system

17     would be developed, when this decision is adopted, that some weapon

18     system would be developed.  Then there is a clearly defined procedure

19     whereby the development is carried out.  It sets who will manufacture and

20     who will control the production process, how the testing will be carried

21     out, how will somebody decide whether this system will be introduced into

22     the weapons system or not.  So this book of rules is used by the armed

23     forces of Bosnia-Herzegovina as well.  It was also used by the

24     Yugoslav People's Army and probably by the Army of Republika Srpska,

25     because this was a main basic system of an ordered military formation and

Page 12224

 1     an ordered state at that point in time.  Without it, it was not possible

 2     to introduce any armed system and it was not possible to allow to

 3     introduce any armed system into the military which was not developed

 4     according to that rule book.  In the event of the import of any kind of

 5     new weapons system, the rule book specifically stated what the procedure

 6     was.  So there were all procedures clearly laid down about what had to be

 7     done.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  But you still don't know what was actually done, but

 9     you are making a conclusion on the basis of familiarity with this

10     particular rule book; is that correct or not?  We don't need to lecture

11     any more.  Is it correct that you don't know but you just conclude what

12     was done and what was tested on the basis of analogies that you draw from

13     being familiar with the book of rules?  Is that correct?

14        A.   No, Mr. Karadzic.  The rule books.

15        Q.   Let's leave the rule book aside, please, do you know what was

16     carried out, out of the technical testing?  Do you know or not?

17        A.   Mr. Karadzic, you put a general question to me.

18        Q.   It's not a global question.  For these rockets, 128, grad 13,

19     122 rockets, and for this new use, do you know what was done and what was

20     actually not done?  Without any analogies.  Do you know what was actually

21     done?

22        A.   Mr. Karadzic, based on the documents left behind by

23     Mr. Radomir Ecimovic in the Pretis factory, I could read what was

24     supposed to have been done.  I had some of his telegrams and I was able

25     to read them.

Page 12225

 1        Q.   And what about Radomir Ecimovic, did he leave all of his papers

 2     in Pretis?

 3        A.   Well, I really am not authorised to give you such an answer.

 4     I did not have access to all the documents.

 5        Q.   Did the Serbs take all the machines, the presses, when they left

 6     and handed over Vogosca to the federation?

 7        A.   I cannot give you a precise answer, but they took most of the

 8     machines, yes.

 9        Q.   And of course they then could have taken away the papers too;

10     they were lighter than the machinery, weren't they?

11        A.   Mr. Karadzic, what do you mean when you say "papers"?

12        Q.   The same thing that you mean when you say "papers."  You

13     mentioned the papers.  But let's leave that aside.  How do you know that

14     these engines, grad -- Organj 128 and grad 13, were not -- that special

15     firing tables were not developed for these particular systems?

16        A.   You don't make firing tables for these particular weapons but you

17     make them for the systems.

18        Q.   How do you know that then the tables were not made for the

19     systems?

20        A.   Well, there must be a standard, Mr. Karadzic, for the fuel that

21     is used in a specific rocket engine.  And the fuel standard for the grad

22     rocket was not developed at that time.  The K13 rocket was imported from

23     the Soviet Union; it was some 30 years old or more.  The standard for the

24     rocket fuel for the Organj system as applied in the Organj rocket system

25     did exist, but if that rocket system and the rocket engines of the Organj

Page 12226

 1     type were supposed to be used in a system with three or four rocket

 2     engines, it would need to be tested as a whole using the three or four

 3     rocket engines and then only on the basis of that could you make the

 4     firing tables, not individually looking at the performance of a single

 5     rocket engine but looking at the ballistics performance of three or four

 6     rocket engines taking into account of this rocket-assisted system that

 7     would be used.  It's a clear procedure.  Every armed system must have its

 8     own characteristics, its performance, its description.  Somebody has to

 9     stand by that, they have to sign that and guarantee that the system would

10     not kill its own soldiers.

11        Q.   Thank you.

12             JUDGE KWON:  We'll have a five-minute break.

13                           --- Break taken at 9.27 a.m.

14                           --- On resuming at 9.32 a.m.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Mr. Zecevic, do we agree that while products were being imported,

19     each of the products were tested and were given some sort of an ID card?

20        A.   In terms of the clear procedures, within the PRF, each product

21     had to meet the criteria set out in UPRF 2.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Did you ever come across anything like that or did

23     you find any documents that during one and the same incident, different

24     series of rocket engines were as a matter of fact used?

25        A.   I couldn't confirm that.

Page 12227

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Why did you refuse to comment on the following

 2     sentence?  It is possible that corrections were made to the range because

 3     of the wind, but there were no conditions to determine the real wind

 4     velocity vector.

 5             MR. GAYNOR:  Excuse me.  Could I ask Dr. Karadzic to clarify

 6     where or when the witness refused to comment on that.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  I was about to ask him that question.

 8             Could you clarify, Mr. Karadzic?

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe that was at page 10.

10     That was when I read back everything.  When I quoted, Mr. Zecevic said

11     the last sentence:  "I will not comment or I cannot comment."  It's

12     probably at page 10.  Today.

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Why did you refuse to comment?

15        A.   May I just ask you where I said that in my analysis, phrased like

16     that?

17        Q.   Page 91 of your report.

18        A.   May I have a look, please?

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] English 99, Serbian 91, those are

20     the references.  Can we please have that.

21             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] The last paragraph.  The last

22     sentence.  It is possible that changes were made to the range because of

23     the wind, but there were no conditions to establish the real wind

24     velocity factor.

25        A.   May I explain that?

Page 12228

 1        Q.   Why will you not comment on that last sentence?  That's what

 2     I want to know, the reason.

 3        A.   No, I'm asking you again, may I explain what I mean by that?

 4             Mr. President, may I?

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  For the record, it's on pages 6, lines 12.

 6     Mr. Karadzic's question appears from the previous page and then the

 7     witness said I could not comment on this last sentence of yours.

 8             So if you could proceed to answer, Dr. Zecevic.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The matter is actually really

10     simple.  When you produce firing tables, you make assumptions about the

11     influence of the wind, how it may affect the range or the direction of a

12     projectile.  In a real time, real weather conditions, whenever there is

13     firing, if you're a serious unit you need to have meteorological

14     parameters; you need to measure the temperature, the air pressure, the

15     wind velocity; you need to examine the atmosphere, so to speak, in order

16     to have accurate firing.  So my sentence, the one that we are talking

17     about, refers to my own estimate for the following:  At that point in

18     time, within the VRS, there was no system in place to measure these

19     atmospheric parameters and there was no capability of assessing

20     objectively the wind velocity in a certain layer of the atmosphere in

21     order to be able to adjust their firing accordingly.

22             So that is what I when I wrote that sentence.

23        Q.   Thank you.  So you don't know.  You simply assume that the VRS

24     didn't have that; right?

25        A.   I know what the JNA had before the war.

Page 12229

 1        Q.   Another question.  One last question about this.  Do you have any

 2     proof indicating that no testings were carried out?  Or, rather, which

 3     testings -- which tests were carried out and which weren't of these

 4     performances?

 5        A.   Mr. Karadzic, the whole world is trying to get the so-called

 6     standardisation system to work.

 7        Q.   Let's leave the world alone for the time being and any other

 8     system.  What about the system we're talking about?  Do you have any

 9     proof that these systems weren't tested and that the performance tests

10     were not run in relation to these?

11        A.   I could not offer any material proof.  All I can give you is my

12     analysis as an expert.

13        Q.   Thank you.

14        A.   May I add something?

15        Q.   If you wish to do so, please, but do corroborate by all means.

16        A.   It was possible to run tests only in the Federal Republic of

17     Yugoslavia but not in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  There were no conditions there

18     for that.

19        Q.   Thank you very much.  You say in your report you're trying to

20     prove that in most of the incidents in Sarajevo aerosol bombs were used;

21     is that right, sir?

22        A.   No.  Just the incidents that I looked into.

23        Q.   Thank you very much.  Can you enumerate those, please?

24        A.   A total of 15 such incidents that I looked into, that I studied.

25     One, Sarajevo TV, the Sarajevo TV building.

Page 12230

 1        Q.   An aerosol bomb; right?

 2        A.   Yes.  Number 2, Zajko Street.  Number 3 -- well, actually - one,

 3     two, three, four - about five incidents altogether, I believe, or six, in

 4     the Hrasnica area.  Another incident near the Elektroprivreda building in

 5     Sarajevo, an incident when a projectile landed on top of a building.  And

 6     this was the lung disease institute or something like that.

 7        Q.   All right.  We'll go back to that later on.

 8             Why does no one else apart from you make any mention of aerosol

 9     bombs?  No one apart from you.  The UN don't mention that in any of their

10     reports.

11        A.   Mr. Karadzic, perhaps you should address the question to the

12     UN directly.

13        Q.   Thank you very much.  Perhaps we should try and simplify the

14     technological aspects of this situation.  You say that the casings for

15     these air bombs had aerosol fillings, aerosol charges; right?  That's

16     what you're suggesting?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Are you claiming that 90 kilograms of explosive was taken out,

19     and then how many litres exactly of aerosol were poured into its place?

20        A.   I never said that hard, solid explosive was taken out.

21        Q.   We have an aircraft bomb.  In order for it to be shattered into

22     fragments of a certain number of kilograms, 7.000, 5 grams, what would be

23     the weight of that projectile?

24             Where it is splintered into 7.000 fragments, each 5 grams each,

25     what would be the weight of that projectile?

Page 12231

 1        A.   I said the bodies of these air bombs were used.

 2        Q.   You mean the casings?

 3        A.   Yes.  Were they eventually emptied at some point by anyone,

 4     emptied of that their original charge?  That I don't know.

 5        Q.   Thank you very much.  Instead of these 90 kilograms of TNT, what

 6     was within the warhead?

 7        A.   There is a hollow within the warhead and what we find there is a

 8     primary explosive charge, and that's what needs to be there.

 9        Q.   How much does it weigh?

10        A.   In case of a -- in case of an FAP air bomb 275, it's based on

11     aerosol, I would say between 5 and 10 kilos of solid explosive.  The rest

12     is filled with liquid gas, propylene oxide, ethylene oxide, pyropylene,

13     and other types of liquid gas, in addition to the primary explosive

14     charge which is triggered by a fuse, the objective being to destroy the

15     metal structure and create the conditions for the liquid gas to start

16     evaporating, which it starts doing as soon as 37 degrees Celsius

17     temperature has been reached.

18             And then we have a secondary charge.  And the purpose of that is

19     to activate the secondary mixture of aerosol.  That is the concept on

20     which the aerosol system, as we call it, is based.

21        Q.   Thank you very much.  Are you trying to tell us the following:

22     We have these ten kilos of explosive, it produces a total of

23     7.000 fragments or shrapnel, 5 grams each, or more?

24        A.   That's what you're suggesting, Mr. Karadzic.  I didn't say that.

25        Q.   All right.  Well, then you go ahead and tell us.  You have

Page 12232

 1     10 kilograms of explosive within that casing.  And then this is shattered

 2     into a total of 7.000 splinters or fragments.  What about a

 3     10-kilogram charge, how many splinters would that produce?

 4        A.   Mr. Karadzic, that is entirely irrelevant.

 5        Q.   There is something wrong with the transcript.  Just a minute,

 6     please.

 7             My question:  We have 90 kilograms of explosive.  This produces

 8     7.000 pieces of shrapnel or fragments.  What about 10 kilograms of

 9     explosives?  How many pieces of shrapnel would 10 kilograms produce, and

10     how much would each of these fragments weigh?

11        A.   Mr. Karadzic, if you look at an air bomb with a solid explosive

12     charge, it has two functions.

13        Q.   This -- you're lecturing us.

14        A.   No, I'm not lecturing you.  You're asking me a question which is

15     unclear.  An air-fuel bomb has the following primary task: It needs to

16     produce a blast effect.  The fragmentation effect is a secondary one;

17     it's unimportant.  The only objective being to destroy a certain

18     structure and to get the aerosol or air fuel to start blending with the

19     surrounding air.

20        Q.   Thank you very much.  Air fuel or aerosol doesn't actually

21     explode before it leaves the casing, does it?  As soon as it starts

22     blending with the surrounding air, that's when it explodes; right?

23        A.   Yes, that correction would seem to be a posit.

24        Q.   Thank you very much.  What about the explosion of the hard

25     casing?  The effect needs to be produced by a solid explosive, say up to

Page 12233

 1     10 kilograms, within the air fuel.  So what effect is wrought on the

 2     casing by the 10-kilogram explosive and how many fragments would that

 3     produce and how much would with each of those fragments weigh, if we had

 4     10 kilograms of this solid explosive?

 5        A.   I couldn't say.

 6        Q.   Would it be more or less than 7.000?

 7        A.   It would be less.

 8        Q.   Because the fragments are bigger?

 9        A.   Yes, that's right.

10        Q.   Did you locate those fragments?

11        A.   Mr. Karadzic, I did not study these cases myself.  I drew up an

12     analysis based on a photo file and based on reports carried out by the

13     relevant bodies, relevant investigative bodies.  With the exception of

14     the TV building incident.

15        Q.   Let's hold on to that example the TV building and then we will go

16     back to how many fragments are produced by a 10-kilogram explosive mass

17     as opposed to the 90 kilogram one.  But let's go back to the TV building.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 65 ter 08347, please.

19     65 ter 08347.  This is the same document.  1D3282.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   You say that an air-fuel bomb exploded on top of the TV building

22     and there were some scattering or fragmentation, some shrapnel flying

23     around; right?

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 003 -- that's page 4 in e-court.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 12234

 1        Q.   Is this an image from your report?  The shape and appearance of

 2     shrapnel found in Studio C of the TV building?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   You did this for the investigating magistrate, you and two other

 5     colleagues of yours; right?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   What about these pieces of shrapnel?  Do they look typical of an

 8     explosion created by an explosive of the classical type?

 9        A.   Yes.  The shape is sabre like and they're actually quite large.

10     The bits of shrapnel are quite large, which shows you that the effect of

11     the detonation was not primarily the fragmentation of the projectile

12     itself.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 65 ter 08347, next one up, please.

14     The page is 103 in the Serbian and 114 in the English.

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   If you look at these rocket launcher barrels and you see the

17     damage, would that appear to have been caused by shrapnel, by bomb

18     fragmentation?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   A classic explosive being used; right?

21        A.   Yes, that's right.

22        Q.   Thank you.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D3283 is the next document.

24     Thank you.  1D3283, a single one will do.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 12235

 1        Q.   What about the shapes of these bits of shrapnel?  And then if you

 2     look at the damage caused on the left-hand side --

 3        A.   I'm sorry I interrupted you.  You keep forgetting one thing.  It

 4     was 300 by 100 millimetres.  That would have been the dimensions.  And

 5     it's roughly this size that I'm showing to you.  And the calibre here is

 6     122 millimetres, which means that the gash, the slash caused by the bits

 7     of shrapnel, should be about 90 millimetres.  Bearing that in mind, this

 8     wasn't a full-on penetration but, rather, this was caused by the kinetic

 9     energy produced by the penetration of the bits of shrapnel.  And

10     therefore we can't effectively compare the photograph on the right and

11     the effects of the explosion, the damage, on the left-hand side.

12        Q.   Mr. Zecevic, we see pictures of these bits of shrapnel here on

13     the left-hand side.  We see the traces of the damage, a classic bomb with

14     a classic charge, and the type of damage that it caused to the barrels of

15     this multiple rocket launcher.  How do you explain what you just said a

16     minute ago, that there is no comparison that is possible?

17        A.   I'm talking about the effects in both cases.  If we are talking

18     about the air-fuel bomb or if we are talking about the fragmentation bomb

19     carrying a solid explosive charge, there will always be some splintering,

20     some fragmentation.  The effects of the splintering process are secondary

21     if we talk about an air-fuel bomb.  If we talk about a classic air bomb

22     with a solid explosive charge, that's a different thing altogether.  And

23     everybody knows that.  It's common knowledge.  It's easy enough to check.

24     You don't need to talk to me necessarily.  You can talk to anyone.  Take

25     any book on military ballistics and terminal ballistics and it's right

Page 12236

 1     there.  Easy for anyone to track down that type of information.

 2        Q.   Thank you very much.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  It's time to take five-minutes' break.

 4                           --- Break taken at 9.55 a.m.

 5                           --- On resuming at 10.02 a.m.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Do we agree, Mr. Zecevic, that the right-hand side of the

10     photograph depicts the fragments that were found in the TV building in

11     Studio C; right?

12        A.   If I cannot look at my own report, I cannot confirm that.  This

13     is a black and white photograph, and the quality is very poor.

14        Q.   A few moments ago we asked for that.  65 ter 1D3282 actually,

15     page 4.  Is this a page from your report?

16        A.   Yes.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the photograph back

18     again now, 1D3283.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Do you see that it's the same photograph from your report?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   If we agree that these are 128-millimetre barrels, how big are

23     these fragment traces?  5, 7, 220 centimetres; right?  Or 50, 70,

24     200 millimetres; right?

25        A.   These are barrels of 122 millimetres from a multiple rocket

Page 12237

 1     launcher.  Further on, the fragments were created when a laser-guided

 2     air bomb exploded, a GBU-39.  The effects of fragmentation are quite

 3     different from the effects when it hits the ground.

 4        Q.   How big are these fragments that they found for you at the TV

 5     centre?  Did you collect them or did they bring them to you?

 6        A.   No, I did not collect them.  It was a group of the

 7     Ministry of the Interior that did.  I did not have that kind of

 8     authority.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  What is the size of these fragments found at the

10     TV station?  What is the range?

11        A.   Could you have that other page recalled?  It happened

12     16 years ago and I didn't even have an opportunity to refresh my memory

13     because I was in prison.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this photograph please be

15     admitted so we don't have to call it back again.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D1091, Your Honours.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation]  1D3282, could we have that again,

19     page 4.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Page 5?  Four.

21             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Look at the subtitle here -- or, rather, the subheading.  It says

23     here that the biggest fragments found were 100 by 300 by 7 millimetres,

24     while the rest were considerably smaller.  What does this look like to

25     you?  Was this done by 10 or 90 kilograms of explosive?

Page 12238

 1        A.   Mr. Karadzic, I cannot give an answer to that question because it

 2     would be imprecise.  These dimensions are these dimensions that you see

 3     here now.  See?  These dimensions.  That's the shrapnel.  300 by 100, and

 4     the thickness is 7 millimetres.

 5        Q.   That's the biggest one and all the rest are smaller?

 6        A.   Yes, smaller.  It can be 150 by 100 or whatever.  No one actually

 7     measured them, so we can just speculate.  And I do not wish to speculate.

 8        Q.   You mentioned Hrasnica.  Let us look at the incident in

 9     Aleksa Santica Street, number 50, in Hrasnica.  The investigation

10     authorities determined that the shell came from the north and then the

11     bomb ricochetted into another street.  Is -- was that the finding of the

12     police of Sarajevo?

13             Can we have the document, to make it easier for you?

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 65 ter 08347.  Please identify the

15     first page first, and then page 161 in English, 139 in Serbian.  08347 is

16     the 65 ter number.  And now the Serbian page is fine.  The English should

17     be 161.  161.  You had 157 there.  In e-court.  In e-court, 161.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Are these the findings of the police?  Or, rather, can you

20     explain this photograph to us?  The two photographs, rather, on the

21     right-hand side.

22        A.   I can.  Very simply.  The projectile flew in, grazed the house.

23     You can see that on the first photograph, that part of the house was

24     destroyed.  The projectile went on because its mass was enormous, about

25     300 or 400 kilograms, so it went on and ultimately hit the water tap

Page 12239

 1     there; right?  And then in my view it hit the ground, destroyed the water

 2     pipes.  Water and fuel, aerosol, were mixed, and that can be seen very

 3     easily because the effects of aerosol are very poor in the rain and in

 4     humid conditions, generally speaking, so there was no explosion.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  You did not agree -- actually, look at the first

 6     photograph.  What we see in the forefront is a fence that was torn down,

 7     and we see soil, piles of soil.  The projectile flew in - that's what the

 8     police established - grazed the corner of the house, and then, on the

 9     left-hand side, we see the destroyed fence and it hit the ground and then

10     it ricochetted.

11             You did not accept that; right?

12        A.   I did not because it's impossible for a ricochet to take place at

13     a 90-degree angle.  Do you understand what I'm saying?

14        Q.   Where do you see 90 degrees here?

15        A.   Look at the position where they said that the projectile flew.

16     The subsequent report said that it was exactly 90 degrees in relation to

17     the house and in relation to the trajectory, the direction from where the

18     bomb arrived.

19        Q.   Did it ricochet off the house or the ground, Mr. Zecevic?

20        A.   Mr. Karadzic, the house has nothing to do with it whatsoever if

21     there is this pressure on the ground.  That is to say, the projectile hit

22     the ground.  And before that, it had grazed the house.  Once it had hit

23     the ground, there is no possibility, ever, theoretically, for a

24     projectile once it hits the grounds that it can turn at a

25     90-degree angle.  It can just go further up a bit to the left or right,

Page 12240

 1     but this is classical mechanics.

 2        Q.   Please look at the left-hand photograph.  The police established

 3     that where the defence [as interpreted] was torn down, that is where the

 4     projectile arrived and the engines were left, and then it ricochetted off

 5     the ground, not the house, so the angle of descent of this projectile was

 6     not 90 degrees.

 7        A.   Ahhh [phoen].

 8             MR. GAYNOR:  Could I ask that the accused could show the police

 9     report or show the source of all this information to the witness if he's

10     asking the witness to comment as to whether he agrees with the assertions

11     set out in the police report or not.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, let us do that, Mr. Karadzic.

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   You had a look at this police report, didn't you, Mr. Zecevic,

15     and you disagreed with it and you said that this ricochet was impossible;

16     right?

17        A.   Mr. Karadzic, on page 135 of this report of mine, it says,

18     investigators' opinion, and it reads as follows:

19             "The investigators state that this projectile first hit the house

20     at Aleksa Satica, number 50, went through the corner of the house, hit

21     the ground.  The rocket motors detached, the projectile ricochetted and

22     continued flying towards the street Bunicki Potok 233 and 231, remains of

23     122-millimetre grad rocket motors were found.  It was estimated that the

24     projectile came from the north on the basis of the damage on the house."

25             And I, when I marked the point of impact on the ground, on a map,

Page 12241

 1     and also the positions of the two houses for which the investigators say

 2     that are the result of one the same projectile, I determined that the

 3     positions of the houses were at an angle of 90 degrees in relation to the

 4     trajectory, the direction from which the projectile had come from.  That

 5     is impossible.  There is not a single guided projectile that can, over a

 6     short time span, in a small area, make a 90 per cent --

 7     90-degree manoeuvre, let alone an unguided projectile.

 8        Q.   So when we look at this picture, let us agree temporarily that a

 9     ricochet is impossible if you determined the angle of descent of the

10     projectile in the Aleksa Santica street on that condition.  So you

11     established that the bearing can be determined in relation to the house,

12     the accuracy is plus/minus 5 degrees; is that right?

13        A.   Yes, that is what my report says.

14        Q.   Is it correct that you determined the incoming azimuth only to be

15     able to increase the number of projectiles that had been fired and to

16     prove that this one had been impossible?

17        A.   Mr. Karadzic, that is so unprofessional, but you are entitled to

18     that.  The direction from which the projectile came and the angle of

19     impact are determined very easily in this case.  The point where the

20     house was damaged and the point of impact on the ground when the

21     projectile -- where the projectile was found, if you link the two up, it

22     is going to be so easy for you to determine the direction from which the

23     projectile came, as well as the angle of descent.  There is no dilemma

24     there whatsoever.

25             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter did not hear the last part of

Page 12242

 1     the sentence of the witness.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Could you both of you slow down.

 3     The interpreter couldn't hear your last sentence, Mr. Zecevic.  Did you

 4     say something after "There is no dilemma there whatsoever"?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Let's proceed.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] After that, I said thank you for

 8     that, and now we are going to go precisely along those lines.

 9             Can we now have 65 ter, the very same document, actually,

10     page 140.  And in English it is 163.

11             MR. GAYNOR:  I'd just like to note for the record that the

12     accused was quoting from a police report.  He was putting to the

13     accused -- he was putting to the witness certain assertions from the

14     police report.  The accused was then directed to show the police report

15     to the witness and he did not do so.  I just want to note that.

16             JUDGE KWON:  But he -- the witness himself referred to the

17     investigators' opinion that appears in his report.

18             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes, but -- very well, but if Dr. Karadzic is going

19     to expressly quote from a report that he appears to be holding, I think

20     in fairness that should be shown to the witness so the witness can agree

21     or disagree with the assertions that are made from a report that

22     Dr. Karadzic may be holding and that --

23             JUDGE KWON:  I think we can move on.  The witness was happy with

24     his reference, his citation he cited in his report.  Let's move on.

25             MR. GAYNOR:  Very well.

Page 12243

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Did you mark on this photograph the approximate direction and the

 4     approximate point of impact of the projectile?

 5        A.   No.  This photograph was dealt with by the investigators.  On

 6     this photograph and in this text, I only wished to demonstrate that the

 7     point of impact of the projectile at the corner of the house was about

 8     20 metres away from its point of impact on the ground, and that the

 9     system involved solid -- had there been solid explosive on this white

10     wall, there would have been hundreds of traces from the explosion of that

11     kind of air bomb; whereas on this wall we cannot see a single trace of

12     fragmentation.  That was the point of what I wrote there, which clearly

13     indicates that the basic type of projectile is something different.  It

14     is not a high-explosive warhead, that is to say, warhead with a

15     fragmentation effect.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Who drew these yellow arrows?

17        A.   Yellow arrows?  Sorry.  I drew the yellow arrows on the basis of

18     direct insight on the very spot.  Because as I looked at the

19     investigators' reports, I visited each and every location, I interviewed

20     all the persons who were there at the time, if they had survived or if

21     they hadn't moved out, and I tried to experience this in reality, what is

22     written in the investigators' report, that is.

23        Q.   When did you do that, Mr. Zecevic?

24        A.   You see, it says up here, January 2007, when I was entrusted with

25     this task of compiling this analysis.

Page 12244

 1        Q.   And what about the police investigators, when did they carry out

 2     their investigation?

 3        A.   Mr. Karadzic, it is all written there.  You can see it there.  I

 4     cannot tell you exactly now.

 5        Q.   Mr. Zecevic, there is no dispute there that it did not explode on

 6     this house.  In order for it to be able to explode, it had to hit the

 7     house with a fuse; right?

 8        A.   No.  If the diameter is 320 millimetres or 350 millimetres, it

 9     could have hit it with the lateral part of the projectile, because it has

10     an enormous mass of 350 to 400 kilograms.  I cannot say exactly, but it's

11     a ballpark figure.  Say it's -- it weighs 220 or 230 kilograms, the bomb

12     itself, and then there are four rocket motors, say each one of them is

13     about 25 kilometres -- kilograms, that would mean 75 kilograms, then that

14     300 kilograms, and then everything else that it has to be fitted with, we

15     can talk about 350 to 400 kilograms safely.  That kind of mass,

16     Mr. Karadzic, that is flying at the speed of 100 metres per second, and

17     100 metres per second is about 500 kilometres per hour, Mr. Karadzic,

18     that is a system that destroys everything.

19        Q.   So if it hit laterally, it could not have been activated; right?

20        A.   Mr. Karadzic, it all depends.  Had it involved a laser system,

21     then probably that would have been the case.  But in this case it was not

22     a laser system.  It was a forward fuse, and non-guided.  So it was not

23     activated when it hit the building, but when it hit the water tap, that

24     is when water surged out of the water pipe and that is what affected the

25     aerosol.

Page 12245

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Is your assertion that the projectile hit where the

 2     tip of the arrow is?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Is that where it exploded?

 5        A.   In the ground, yes.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  It's time to have a half an hour break now.

 7                           --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.

 8                           --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Mr. Zecevic, I'd like to -- please take a look at the screen, at

13     the bottom left photo.  12 or 13 years after the incident, you

14     established that a shell had grazed the house and then fell on the ground

15     and landed where the arrow is pointing on the ground; is that correct?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Would you please now take a look on the left-hand side of this

18     photo, at the edge.  Is that a fence?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Thank you.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have, again, page 140 of

22     this document, that's in B/C/S.  And 162 in English.  Page 139 in

23     Serbian, 161 in English.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Now, please take a look at this photograph on the left-hand side.

Page 12246

 1     Is this a photo that was made by the police at the time of the incident?

 2        A.   Well, probably, because that was the photo that I was given.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Now, can you see the fence there that is actually on

 4     the ground?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Do you believe that closer to the house, where you indicated that

 7     the bomb must have landed and where some people are standing, that the

 8     police had not seen that effect on the ground and fragments and so on of

 9     the shell but, rather, indicated the area around the fence where the

10     stabiliser or the rocket motors were found?

11             JUDGE KWON:  Just a -- let's collapse the English page and zoom

12     on the B/C/S version.  We can zoom in further on the left photo.  Yes.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   So here we see the fence that we had seen a moment ago, and this

16     is the house that was grazed by the shell.  Now, you indicated with an

17     arrow the point of impact where the shell landed, and that's

18     approximately where these two men are standing in the photo here?

19        A.   No.

20        Q.   Well, where, then?

21        A.   Well, that's simple.  Each photo is an intuitive sense or

22     impression of the individual who analyses it, and it also depends on the

23     lens that you use to make a photograph.

24        Q.   Would you please indicate on this photo here the yellow arrow

25     that you indicated on the other photo and tell us where it was that the

Page 12247

 1     shell landed.  Show us.

 2        A.   Well, I can't do it on this photo.  Can you please pull up my

 3     photograph?

 4        Q.   Well, let me help you.  You said --

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Let's up -- can we upload the next page as well?

 6     Let's zoom out first.  Collapse the English page.  No, no, no, we -- this

 7     is the right -- the right page is page what?

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Here.  Now, is it possible to keep

 9     this photo on the right-hand side of the screen?

10             JUDGE KWON:  And my question is whether we can upload the next

11     page of B/C/S on the left side.

12             THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation] --

13             JUDGE KWON:  No, no, previous - I'll answer - previous page.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And now can we have page 139 on the

15     left part of the screen, the split screen?

16             JUDGE KWON:  I was told it's possible.  Yes.  And we can zoom in

17     each page, the left photo on the left side and the -- yes.

18             We can proceed.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Very well.  Now, Mr. Zecevic, 12 or 13 years after the incident,

21     you established that the shell impacted the ground where you pointed it;

22     whereas the police, at the time of the incident, established that the

23     shell had ricochetted there, left or ejected its motors, rocket motors

24     there, and then continued on its path.  Now, how is it possible and what

25     do you base your assertion on that that -- that this is in fact the point

Page 12248

 1     of impact?

 2        A.   [Previous translation continued]

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Zecevic, your answer was not reflected in the

 4     transcript.  What did you say?

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the question is not fully

 6     reflected either.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was -- I was unable to actually

 8     answer the question because I realised that the interpreters were trying

 9     to catch up.

10             I would just like to read what it is that I stated there.  The

11     arrow that I put there was based on my conversation with the people who

12     lived in that house and who showed me the place or the point of impact.

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Thank you.  And the police showed you this photograph; correct?

15        A.   No.  I received this data from the Prosecutor's Office.

16        Q.   Mr. Zecevic, let us now see, if we were to put -- indicate the

17     point -- the point of impact, and we connected it to where it is claimed

18     that the house was hit or grazed, we would get the azimuth north;

19     correct?

20        A.   Sir, Mr. Karadzic, on the left-hand side of the photograph, the

21     point of impact is not indicated at all.  All I see here is a marking

22     saying "1" and the point where this projectile grazed or went through the

23     building.  And this photograph was made with a wide-angle lens, and it is

24     not quite precise.  The photo is a little bit skewed.  My photograph was

25     made from a different angle, so you can't really draw conclusions and

Page 12249

 1     parallels between the two.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Can you show the right photo on the left side.  We

 3     can scroll to the right.

 4             Who made that yellow line, Mr. Zecevic?  Was it you?  That yellow

 5     line.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Is that the same house, Mr. Zecevic?

10        A.   Yes.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now get the left-hand side

12     of the page again on the screen.  Yes.

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Did you notice the beans growing here?  And the roads?  Well,

15     first of all, this does not appear to be the same house.  But secondly,

16     is it uncontestable, because that's what it says here, that the number 1

17     indicates the place where the house was hit and also the defect on the

18     ground, the point where the rocket motors were recovered.

19        A.   Mr. Karadzic, would you let me read my report?  You have it

20     before you and I don't.  So we are not quite in the same position.

21        Q.   Rocket motor parts were found.  Can you see it?  It says so

22     above.  It says: "122-millimetre grad rocket landed from the

23     north and" --

24             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Let the witness read his report.

25             Let's zoom out, yes.

Page 12250

 1             Where is it, Mr. Karadzic?

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The investigators' opinion.  It

 3     says so in Serbian.  The investigators state that this projectile first

 4     hit the house at Aleksa Santica Street, number 50; went through the

 5     corner of the house; landed on the ground; the rocket motors separated;

 6     the projectile ricochetted and continued on its flight towards Bunicki

 7     Potok Street, number 233 and 231; rocket motor fragments of a

 8     122-millimetre grad rocket were found or recovered on the scene; and the

 9     direction from which the projectile came was north, and we established it

10     on the basis of the damage on the house.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Let's just let him read his report.

12             Would you like to continue to read your comment below?  Yes.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly, but I was not given the

14     opportunity to do so.  I will read it, if you allow me.

15             "According to available information, the projectile hit the

16     ground" --

17             JUDGE KWON:  You don't have to read out.  You just read.  We have

18     it before us.

19             THE WITNESS: [In English] Okay.  Okay.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Now, my question is this:  First of all you claim that where you

22     indicated, where you put the arrow, there was a crater, that's the point

23     where these two men are standing?

24        A.   [Interpretation] Well, what I said was that the point of impact

25     was some three metres from the front of the house, behind the opposite

Page 12251

 1     corner.  And according to what the witnesses state here, and that is

 2     consistent with what I found, is that there was a water fountain there.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  And are you trying to say that the witnesses' words,

 4     12 years later, are more reliable than an investigation, an on-site

 5     investigation, that was done at the time of the incident and that they

 6     actually failed to observe such a huge, such a big, defect on the ground

 7     in that yard?

 8        A.   I'm sorry, Mr. Karadzic, I -- they did not fail to observe

 9     anything.  They said that two rocket motors were found in a crater

10     6.1 metre by 2.4 metres wide and 1.1 metre deep and several metal

11     fragments in the crater, while the third motor was found in the yard

12     close to the point of -- where the shell had hit the house.

13        Q.   And based on those two points, the damage on the house and the

14     crater, they established where the north bearing is.

15        A.   Well, I don't know how they established that.

16        Q.   But you placed that point closer to the house and then you

17     arrived at a different cardinal point and not the north; correct?

18        A.   No, I did not make an error.  The error could be half a metre at

19     most, which does not affect the outcome.

20        Q.   Well, Mr. Zecevic, do you deny that what the police capture there

21     in the photo and indicated where the defect was on the ground, that

22     that's where the shell landed on the ground?

23        A.   No.  No.  If you look at this photograph on the left-hand side,

24     you can see those two people standing there in front of the house.  You

25     can also see, in front of them, some half -- some couple of metres from

Page 12252

 1     the corner of the house, you can see the crater.  On the left-hand side

 2     we see the fence, but that is not the same part that you are referring

 3     to.  In other words, my photograph and this photo that was taken by the

 4     investigator, who did not indicate the point of impact, they are very

 5     similar, in fact.

 6        Q.   Would you please, then, with the assistance of the usher, use the

 7     pen and try to indicate the crater and draw a line between the damage on

 8     the house and the crater.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Could we zoom in a bit further on the left photo.

10     Yes.

11             Now, could you wait until assisted by our usher.

12             THE WITNESS: [Marks]

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   And why didn't you indicate the point where this fence was

15     actually overturned?

16        A.   Well, that is a matter of choice or a decision, Mr. Karadzic.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Tell me, please, if the north -- if the bearing would

18     remain to the north, could you tell us whose forces were to the north of

19     Vogosca?  To the north of Hrasnica.  So if the police did establish where

20     the north was and if we kept that same bearing for north, could you tell

21     us whose forces were between that point and Vogosca?

22        A.   Mr. Karadzic, could you show me a military map and also the

23     separation line?  And then I could perhaps answer your question.

24        Q.   Well, it is the Defence case, Mr. Zecevic, that between Hrasnica

25     and Vogosca there were only BH army troops.  So if you draw a line to the

Page 12253

 1     north, between Hrasnica and Vogosca, there are no Serb forces along that

 2     line, in between there; "yes" or "no"?  So what we have in between is

 3     Sokolovic Kolonija, Butmir, Dobrinja, Mojmilo, Novi Grad,

 4     Alipasino Polje, Prijevce [phoen], Hum, in other words, along that axis,

 5     all the way there to Vogosca, there are no Serb forces; correct?

 6        A.   Well, I can't really answer that, Mr. Karadzic.  Please show me a

 7     military map, show me the line -- the separation line, and then I can

 8     indicate it.

 9        Q.   Well, we will do that time allowing, but what I'm trying to point

10     out, Mr. Zecevic, is that the north bearing, there was a need to actually

11     change that because there were no Serb forces in that direction; is that

12     correct?

13        A.   No.

14        Q.   Let's move on.  You said today that this shell and this

15     rocket-assisted projectile flew at the velocity of some 500 kilometres

16     per hour?

17        A.   The average velocity of such a projectile was some 150 to 170

18     metres per second.

19             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter correction: 150 to 180 metres per

20     second.

21             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Thank you.  Did you investigate -- did you take part in the

23     investigation of a shell landing -- this type of shell landing on the TV

24     building in Sarajevo?

25             JUDGE KWON:  Before we hear your evidence, answer, could you put

Page 12254

 1     your signature and the date of today on this picture.  Today is

 2     23rd of February.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Marks]

 4             JUDGE KWON:  We will admit this as next Defence Exhibit.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  That's Exhibit D1092, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  And what was your next question?  The shell landing

 7     on TV building in Sarajevo?  Did you investigate?  That was the question.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  Yes.

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Is it correct that it was concluded that the shell ricochetted

11     from the top, from the roof, of the building and then landed on a

12     multi-storey building, ricochetted from there, and then detonated outside

13     a wall in front of Studio C?

14             MR. GAYNOR:  Mr. President, just before we embark on what

15     I suspect will be a lengthy cross-examination of the TV building

16     incident, I'd like to note, as we previously noted, that the TV building

17     incident has been removed from the indictment against the accused.  We

18     have redacted part of Dr. Zecevic's report which relates to the

19     TV building incident.  We simply want to make those observations.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you for the reminder.  Think about your

21     strategy, but it's time to take a five-minutes' break now, for the

22     benefit of the --

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I might say right away,

24     Your Excellency, it's not just about credibility.  It's also about the

25     link between this incident and another incident mentioned in the

Page 12255

 1     indictment.  That is what we are talking about.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  We are taking a five-minute break every half an hour

 3     to accommodate the witness's condition.  Thank you.

 4                           --- Break taken at 11.20 a.m.

 5                           --- On resuming at 11.25 a.m.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Mr. Zecevic, did you study this incident?  Did you investigate

 9     this incident?

10        A.   Yes.  Me and two other colleagues.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Did you actually conduct an investigation at the time

12     of the incident?

13        A.   Yes.  After the incident, not during the incident, obviously.

14        Q.   But not 12 years after.  The same day or the next day, I suppose.

15        A.   The same day.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please describe or confirm the following.

17     The position taken by the investigative bodies was as follows:  A

18     projectile came in, ricochetted off the roof, and landed at the bottom of

19     Studio C where it eventually exploded; right?

20        A.   Yes.  There was a walkway along the wall facing the studio.

21        Q.   Thank you very much.  How far was the place where the projectile

22     ricochetted from the place of the actual explosion?  Can you remember

23     that, sir?

24        A.   Perhaps between 10 and 15 metres.

25        Q.   Thank you very much.  Our team was there, and they concluded that

Page 12256

 1     the distance was about 30 metres.  Between the place where it

 2     ricochetted, you're quite right the explosion was somewhat nearer, but we

 3     put the figure at 50.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we get 1D13 -- 3319 in e-court,

 5     please.  1D3319.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Let's forget about the length.  We wanted to make this slightly

 8     more feminine so we used the pink colour.  Would this be a diagram that

 9     shows the disposition of the buildings there?

10        A.   I'm sorry, but I wasn't the person who produced this, so if you

11     want me to address anything at all, you'll have to give me my findings to

12     look at because my findings reflect this as well.

13        Q.   Do you have a diagram or a sketch of the physical buildings in

14     your findings?

15        A.   Mr. Karadzic, you're asking me to do this.  This is something

16     that I did 16 years ago.  I'm telling you, give me the finding that

17     I established at the time, and then I can comment on it.  I came here

18     straight from the prison.  I have no documents on me.

19        Q.   Fair enough.

20             Can Mr. Gaynor please help us and then get that document for you.

21             But you tell us whether the disposition of the buildings in terms

22     of the diagram corresponds with your conclusions, generally speaking?

23             MR. GAYNOR:  If I can interrupt at this point.  I'm looking at

24     the hard copies of the witness's report.  But at page 129 in his language

25     and 144 in the English language, there is a diagram in the witness's

Page 12257

 1     expert report relating to this incident.  Now, that's been redacted from

 2     the version which has been uploaded to e-court, but I have a hard copy we

 3     can give to the witness now, if Your Honours wish.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please have a copy for the

 6     benefit of the Defence team too?  Thank you.

 7             MR. GAYNOR:  The Defence already has a copy of this unredacted

 8     report.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  But in the meantime, can we go into private session

10     briefly.

11                           [Private session]

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 12258

 1   (redacted)

 2                           [Open session]

 3             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Thank you.  At page 126 of the document --

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please -- is there a way we

 6     can get this in e-court, please?

 7             JUDGE KWON:  We can get it put -- we can put it on the ELMO, if

 8     necessary.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please have that on the

10     ELMO.  Thank you.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Shall we put it on the ELMO.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have that in e-court,

13     1D3284, please, in e-court.

14             As for this one, the page on which you showed a diagram of the

15     buildings, e-court 1D3284.  As for the ELMO, Mr. Zecevic, we can zoom in

16     on that one, just keep it like this on the ELMO, your own diagram,

17     please.  The ELMO.

18             [In English] May I ask the usher to --

19             JUDGE KWON:  If necessary, you can skim through your report.  In

20     the meantime, we will upload in e-court.

21             THE ACCUSED:  Have I understood correctly that they are uploading

22     the whole report, or what?

23             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we upload 1D3284.

24             In the meantime, Dr. Zecevic, you can take that report of yours,

25     which is on the ELMO, you can read through them, if necessary.

Page 12259

 1             THE WITNESS:  Mm-hm.  Okay.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  In the meantime, we upload 1D3319.

 3             THE ACCUSED:  The participants "mesdo," means "site," site of

 4     ricochet, site of second ricochet, and site of explosion.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  So having refreshed your memory, please tell us

 6     whether you are in the position to answer any question or make any

 7     comments.  This diagram is prepared by the Defence.  I take it

 8     Mr. Karadzic is going to put his case or put questions to you, so let us

 9     know whether you can make any comments.

10             What is your question, Mr. Karadzic?  Or explain to Dr. Zecevic

11     what this is about.  And put your question.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   I'll try to explain first.  This is a diagram of the buildings,

14     the walkway, Studio C, and the multi-storey building with the areas

15     between the buildings.  Let's forget about the 30- or 50- metre dilemma.

16     Do you agree that the projectile ricochetted off the roof of this

17     gangway, walkway building, it crossed this passage, it changed direction,

18     and exploded just in front of Studio C; right?

19        A.   But we can't forget about distance.  The distance is material.

20     My diagram and your diagram are very much alike but not identical.

21        Q.   Thank you very much.  What about this passerelle Building, the

22     walkway?

23        A.   I'm sorry, I'm not going to do this.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Let us see.  First of all, I'd like to know how

25     "mesdo" ricochet does --

Page 12260

 1             I ask the interpreter:  What does "mesdo rikoseta" mean?

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  The place where the projectile ricochetted.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do you want me to explain, sir?

 4             JUDGE KWON:  I heard the explanation, thank you.

 5             What is your question, Mr. Karadzic?  What do you want the

 6     witness to do?

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I want the witness to use this

 8     diagram, with these buildings, quite regardless of the distances,

 9     although he's free to draw the distances himself, to draw for us the

10     trajectory of this projectile which ricochetted off the walkway building.

11     And the second ricochet came from the multi-storeyed building until it

12     eventually landed right in front of the Studio C wall.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me, in my report, you have a

14     clear and accurate diagram of the trajectory of the projectile, how it

15     came in, how it ricochetted, and how it exploded on the ground right in

16     front of the Studio C wall.  I see no reason not to use my own diagram

17     for demonstration purposes.  Instead, I'm being given a diagram which

18     I do not believe is entirely accurate and which I therefore refuse to

19     sign at any cost.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Tell us what's inaccurate about this diagram, then.

22        A.   There are -- there is no open ground, open area, between the

23     Studio C building and the passerelle walkway building.

24        Q.   What do you mean it's not there?  It's actually there in the

25     diagram.

Page 12261

 1        A.   I didn't see one.  Maybe it's there now, for all I know.

 2        Q.   All right.  The walkway, the passerelle Building, and Studio C

 3     are not separated, two separate buildings; right?  Okay.  Give us your

 4     own diagram so that we can see your representation of the disposition of

 5     these buildings too.  We can have that on the ELMO and keep this in

 6     e-court to compare the two.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we have it on the ELMO.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I explain?

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   By all means.  It's your diagram, isn't it?

11        A.   The projectile came in under a small angle of descent.  Our

12     estimate at the time was about 25 degrees.  It ricochetted off the roof

13     here, it impacted on the vertical wall of the adjacent building, it again

14     ricochetted and finally exploded on the ground right in front of the

15     outside wall of the Studio C building.  From the time it ricochetted and

16     the time it impacted, several seconds went by.  There were several

17     witnesses who were standing relatively close to the scene of the

18     incident.  One person was killed on the spot.  This person was standing

19     in this area where the cars were parked.

20        Q.   Thank you very much.  Mr. Zecevic, what about the angle of

21     descent before the projectile ricochetted?  Your call was about 25

22     degrees.  And what about the angle when the projectile was on its way

23     out?

24        A.   Mr. Karadzic, I can't say that because no living person can

25     possibly make that call.

Page 12262

 1        Q.   Nevertheless, once it had ricochetted, the projectile went back

 2     up; right?  That's what I mean.

 3        A.   If we talk about rocket-assisted systems of this type, if there

 4     are three rocket engines involved, that is not necessarily the case.

 5     When we talk about artillery systems, yes, that would be the answer.  As

 6     for rocket-assisted systems of this type, which I assumed had been used,

 7     the links between the warhead and the rocket engines are quite weak, so

 8     that is not necessarily the case.  It all depends on the condition of the

 9     projectile as it came in and impacted.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please have 1D3284 in

11     e-court.  Thank you.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Mr. Zecevic, say you're playing with pebbles on a beach.  You

14     throw it, it ricochets, it hits the ground and goes back up.  Otherwise

15     you just dropped it into the water; right?  That was the only way for it

16     not to ricochet and go back up.

17        A.   This projectile ricochetted at a very small angle and immediately

18     hit the external wall of the building right opposite.  We don't know the

19     exact angle of impact.  Was it lateral, was it frontal?  We do know that

20     it ended up towards the very bottom of that open ground between the two

21     buildings.

22        Q.   Can we please look at page 126 of your own document, sir.  Look

23     at the left-hand side marked by the yellow arrow.  This is the spot that

24     you believe the projectile to have landed on its bottom side, not its

25     front side, so to speak, and it continued to -- on a horizontal

Page 12263

 1     trajectory.  Or do you suppose that it would have bounced back up?

 2        A.   An air bomb, Mr. Karadzic, has a not-so-thin front end.  What we

 3     see here, the red print on the ground, is the spot where the ogival part

 4     of the projectile impacted, not the fuse.  The projectile simply slid

 5     along this small surface and then --

 6        Q.   Slid along the surface.  Just a minute, please.  Did it bounce

 7     back up?

 8        A.   It slid along the surface.  And then if you look closely at this,

 9     you can see there is a small wall there, like a curb, so it bounced back

10     up ever so site slightly, impacted on the vertical wall right opposite,

11     bounced off the vertical wall which you can see in the following

12     photograph, and then hit or landed at the far end of this open ground

13     between the two buildings.

14        Q.   Which part of the projectile hit the building opposite from

15     there?

16        A.   What exactly do you mean?

17        Q.   The flat bottom of the projectile make the impact or the fuse?

18        A.   I don't know that.  I know that the explosion occurred at the far

19     end of this open ground between the two buildings, right in front of the

20     Studio C building wall.

21        Q.   Thank you very much.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Continue, Mr. Karadzic.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   What about the photograph on the right-hand side, the middle

25     one - you have the two arrows there - do those two arrows mark the place

Page 12264

 1     of the second ricochet for this projectile?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Is it possible that the projectile -- that the front end of the

 4     projectile, the fuse, impacted in that spot without the fuse igniting?

 5        A.   Given the type of system that was used, there was probably some

 6     sort of delay.  When you have an air bomb, each and every fuse can have a

 7     delayed-action effect which can be adjusted, and this was probably used

 8     here.  So this system can pierce through a building and then eventually

 9     explode inside a building.

10        Q.   What would the damage be, considering the fact that the velocity

11     was over a 500 kilometres per hour?

12        A.   Mr. Karadzic, at the time of impact against the roof, the system

13     had already spent the best part of its force.  The second time it

14     impacted against the vertical wall, again it lost some of its force and

15     energy.

16        Q.   How much exactly?  How would you estimate the loss?

17        A.   This is a calculation which no man alive can make, Mr. Karadzic.

18        Q.   Let's look at what we have on the ELMO now.  That's your own

19     diagram, sir.  You claim this projectile came in, but the diagram shows

20     no angle of ascent, and you claim it bounced back up at a sharp angle,

21     subsequently hitting the Studio C building wall; right?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Yes.

24        A.   The projectile came in, slid along with a very slight ricochet.

25     We no longer know whether the trajectory was a regular one.  At this

Page 12265

 1     point in time, the rocket engines must have broken off.  We know that it

 2     impacted against the wall of the building across the way from there and

 3     we know that it ricochetted off the walkway building roof.  That is a

 4     fact.  But the facts also show, as far as the vertical walls of these

 5     buildings are concerned, that there were no shrapnel marks, no

 6     fragmentation marks, which would have been the case if a warhead like

 7     that had been used.  All of the walls would have been pockmarked all

 8     over.  11.000 fragments or bits of shrapnel each way, 0.25 grams, or

 9     close to 7.000 bits of shrapnel, if you like, so these would be key data

10     for you to make an estimate whether a projectile came in bearing a

11     high-explosive warhead or a fuel-air warhead.  These two different types.

12     Nobody can deny that the projectile impacted against the TV building and

13     eventually exploded on the ground just outside the wall.

14        Q.   We'll be getting to that, which type of projectile, when, and

15     how.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now please have D527.  Thank

17     you.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Again it's time to take a five-minute break now.

19                           --- Break taken at 11.52 a.m.

20                           --- On resuming at 11.57 a.m.

21             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Mr. Zecevic, on page 46, lines 22, 23, 24, 25, you said -- it's

25     the transcript, today's transcript.  You said that this projectile

Page 12266

 1     arrived, flew to this roof at an angle - beforehand you said a

 2     25-degree angle - that it ricochetted, and that it had to bounce up and

 3     it did fly up and it impacted on that multi-storey building; right?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Can we now have -- actually, sorry, just one more

 6     clarification.  When it approaches that building, the projectile rises;

 7     right?

 8        A.   Can you define what you mean by "rises"?

 9        Q.   It ascends?

10        A.   Mildly.

11        Q.   So until the first ricochet, it descends.  After that, it ascends

12     towards the multi-storey building; right?

13        A.   Mr. Karadzic, it is very simple.  It is very simple to see where

14     the projectile impacted from the moment of ricochet to the moment when it

15     hit the vertical wall.  You can see where the projectile impacted, and

16     the angle can be determined.  That's no problem.  And that's not the

17     point of this case.

18        Q.   We'll get to the point.  Now, in order to impact this building,

19     the multi-storey building, does it start descending again or does it

20     continue to ascend?

21        A.   Mr. Karadzic, in order to answer that question for you, we have

22     to know whether the projectile maintained its structural integrity or

23     not.  If the projectile had not maintained its structural integrity or,

24     rather, if the rocket engines were broken off, then its trajectory and

25     its behaviour is unpredictable.

Page 12267

 1        Q.   Did the rocket engines break off?

 2        A.   I did not receive any information to the effect that rocket

 3     engines were found at the point of impact or explosion.

 4        Q.   What about the passerelle, the walkway building?  Were they found

 5     anywhere within the TV compound?

 6        A.   The service that was in charge of this investigation did not

 7     provide me with that information.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  We do agree that that is about 300 kilograms,

 9     including the explosive and the engines and everything, at a speed of

10     540 kilometres per hour.  Not more than 30 per cent can be lost at the

11     first point of ricochet, so it continues at a speed of 300 kilometres

12     per hour and it gets to the neighbouring building.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] D257 -- or actually 527, let's have

14     a look at that now.

15             MR. GAYNOR:  Sorry, could I request that if the accused puts a

16     series of assertions like that, including figures, to the witness, put

17     them one by one to the witness to be sure that it does, in fact, agree to

18     that, instead of moving straight on to his next exhibit.

19             JUDGE KWON:  It's even difficult for the Chamber to follow what

20     the question is about.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The witness said that this

22     projectile flew in at a speed of 150 metres per second, which --

23             JUDGE KWON:  You just put the question one by one to the witness.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Did you confirm today that this projectile, as it arrived, flew

Page 12268

 1     at a speed of 150 metres per second?

 2        A.   Not in that way.  I said that the average cruising speed of the

 3     projectile was 150 to 180 metres per second, and that is a completely

 4     different figure.

 5        Q.   Thank you.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have D527 in e-court.

 7     Maybe something has been recorded, yes.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Now, let us look at our diagram.  Why don't you take a look at

10     it.  The projectile, when it first ricochetted, did it start ascending?

11     That is what you confirmed then.  Then it hit this building.  Did it hit

12     it while it was ascending or did it have to start descending again?

13        A.   Mr. Karadzic, I told you, yet again, any hypothesis as to how the

14     projectile ricochetted, how it behaved, depends significantly on its

15     structural integrity, whether the rocket engines were on it or not.  If

16     the rocket engines are not there, there is not a single expert who is

17     going to say how that projectile is going to behave, or predict what the

18     trajectory will be.  Anything can happen.

19        Q.   Irrespective of physics?

20        A.   Physics is a law.  Otherwise, I should not be a professor at the

21     faculty of mechanical engineering.  My entire integrity is based on

22     natural laws that do not depend on man.

23        Q.   Well put.  Now tell us:  How did this projectile happen to be

24     here, as if it were a dry leaf at a speed of a minimum of 300 kilometres

25     per hour, provided that there were two ricochets at that?  So how did

Page 12269

 1     that mass happen to be there at this kind of speed?

 2        A.   Mr. Karadzic, if you look at my diagram, at the point of impact

 3     there is just one thing that I can establish.  There was a ricochet off

 4     the flat surface of this passageway, and then the neighbouring vertical

 5     plane was hit, and then it ricochetted and fell on the ground, until the

 6     explosion there.  And that is what I wrote in my study, and I provided my

 7     comment in relation to the effects of detonation; namely, that there were

 8     no fragments on vertical walls, that there is an intensive effect of the

 9     detonation waves on the vehicles that were in the immediate vicinity, and

10     that these effects are mostly due to the fragments of sand and tiny

11     particles -- well, I'm not an expert for this particular matter, but if

12     you were to analyse the report of the man who was nearby and who later

13     died in hospital, his blood vessels broke throughout his body due to the

14     pressure that occurred there.  And that is what I say in my statement,

15     and I stand by that.

16        Q.   Mr. Zecevic, you claim that all of that happened 10 metres,

17     15 metres, let it be 50 metres, as we had put it.  Describe the

18     trajectory of this projectile.  How did it go from here to there?  How

19     did that happen and how did it hit the multi-storey building?  Where are

20     the rocket engines?  What happened?  Tell us.  Was that established or do

21     you have certain assumptions?  Was it actually established what had

22     happened?

23        A.   Mr. Karadzic, everything I had to say about this incident I said

24     in my analysis.  I repeated that before this Court.  I said the same

25     thing before the Trial Chamber in the proceedings against

Page 12270

 1     General Milosevic.  And I have nothing to add to that.  I cannot add

 2     anything to that.  Everything else would be a hypothesis that is not

 3     scientifically supported.

 4        Q.   In this case, you claimed that a fuel-air bomb fell inter alia,

 5     because, as you said, the person who was a victim was practically without

 6     any clothing.  That is what your February 1996 statement says; right?

 7        A.   Mr. Karadzic, my technical report that I signed, together with

 8     two of my colleagues, in this case is my official report.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have 65 ter 09997.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Did you give a statement in February 1996?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Did you sign it?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Let's have a look at it now.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So the 65 ter number is 09997,

17     page 1.  And then we are going to move on to page 6 in English and

18     Serbian.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Is that the report -- or, rather, statement?

21        A.   Yes.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 6 in English and Serbian,

23     please.  Page 4 from the top.  I believe it's the same in English and

24     Serbian.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 12271

 1        Q.   The bottom part of page 4:

 2             "People from the TV building explained to me that the victim was

 3     naked after the explosion.  This is typical of a blast effect.  They

 4     could see blood flowing from his mouth, which indicated that he

 5     suffocated on his own blood, which is another typical sign.  The other

 6     two witnesses were only three metres away from the point of explosion and

 7     they were temporarily deafened.  They had shelter behind some pillar."

 8             Is that right?

 9        A.   That is what is written there.

10        Q.   Is that your conclusion?

11        A.   That is my statement, not my conclusion.  I can draw a conclusion

12     if I carry out an analysis.  I just conveyed what people had said and

13     I wrote that in my statement.  A conclusion is a different matter.  I

14     believe that from a legal point of view there is a difference as well.

15     From a technical point of view, there is.

16        Q.   So you accepted and included in your statement that you had been

17     told that people survived only three metres from the explosion and only

18     temporarily went deaf because they were sheltered by a pillar although it

19     was an air bomb?

20        A.   I just conveyed what people said here.  But my technical report

21     says whether I decided whether it was the effect of a fragmentation bomb

22     or a fuel-air bomb.

23        Q.   Fuel-air bomb; that is what my question should say.  So you claim

24     that it was a fuel-air bomb, although three metres away from the point of

25     explosion two persons survived because they were protected by a pillar;

Page 12272

 1     right?

 2        A.   Sorry, what is written here is the projectile exploded less than

 3     10 metres away from that man.

 4        Q.   The other two witnesses were only 3 metres away from the point of

 5     explosion and were temporarily deafened -- and temporarily went deaf;

 6     they had sheltered behind a pillar?

 7        A.   That's what they stated, Mr. Karadzic.  Not I.  I just wrote it

 8     down.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Can we now have a look at this.  Did you conclude --

10     or, rather, what was your conclusion what fell in Tuzla at the gate?

11     What kind of shell?

12        A.   Mr. President, does this have anything to do with my testimony

13     here?

14        Q.   It does.  You'll see.

15        A.   Sorry, Mr. Karadzic, but I was not addressing you.

16             JUDGE KWON:  I don't follow.  Mr. Karadzic, what do you mean by

17     the shell that fell in Tuzla?

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Zecevic investigated the fall

19     of a shell in Tuzla.  I am going to show the effects of that shell now.

20     Now I'm asking Mr. Zecevic what he concluded, what shell exploded in

21     Tuzla, a fuel-air bomb, an air bomb, or a 130-millimetre shell, on the

22     25th of May, 1995.

23             JUDGE KWON:  But could you let us know how that is related to

24     this case?

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The effect of this shell was that

Page 12273

 1     since it was a fuel-air bomb, the man lost his clothing.  I'm just asking

 2     you for a bit of patience, although I'm a lay person.

 3             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   What exploded in Tuzla?  Was it a 130-millimetre bomb, a fuel-air

 5     bomb, or an air bomb?

 6        A.   Mr. Karadzic, at the state court of Bosnia-Herzegovina in the

 7     case against General Djukic, I analysed the causes that led to the

 8     killing and wounding of many young people, and I assessed the zone from

 9     which it was possible for that projectile to arrive.  On the basis of my

10     analysis and the analysis of my colleagues who worked together with me,

11     we established that at the location called Kapija, the gate, in Tuzla,

12     there was an explosion of a 130-millimetre projectile that came from

13     mount Ozren.

14        Q.   Thank you.  We are going to get to that.  General Djukic, an

15     innocent man, was found guilty on account of that.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But now, let us have the --

17             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter did not hear the number.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So it was 130 millimetres.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Because of that unnecessary statement, the

20     interpreter was not able to hear what you said.  Let's move on.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Your Excellency, the

22     gentleman, the witness, mentioned General Djukic in order to amplify the

23     effect of his statement.  And I am saying that that general was found

24     guilty, although he is an innocent man.  And we can find that there.

25             JUDGE KWON:  That was unnecessary.  Move on.

Page 12274

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge --

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Let's move on.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge, may I make a

 4     statement?

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Oh, a statement in response to a statement?

 7             JUDGE KWON:  No, let's move on.  Move on to your next topic,

 8     Mr. Karadzic.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have this video from 1600.

10             What we are going to show now is a recording from the location of

11     that explosion of 130 millimetres at Kapija, the gate, in Tuzla.

12                           [Video-clip played]

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Do you agree that the victim remained without any clothing here?

15        A.   I cannot claim that.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see 1D38 -- 3286.  Can we

17     see that photograph in e-court.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Can you see now that this is a naked person?

20        A.   I cannot confirm that, Mr. Karadzic.  The resolution is

21     exceptionally poor.  It was on the 25th of May, warm weather.  There is

22     nothing I can say to you.

23        Q.   Thank you.  So it remains that you were informed there at the

24     TV station that 3 metres away from the explosion of the alleged

25     fuel-air bomb people survived, though going deaf, because they were

Page 12275

 1     protected by a pillar.  No other consequences; right?

 2        A.   Mr. Karadzic, I'm a very fair person.  Everything that I, as a

 3     technical person, saw and heard, I recorded.  As for my own thoughts,

 4     technically speaking, I conveyed that too.  You are asking me about this

 5     and I am fully aware of the consequences of your question, if I can put

 6     it that way.  But also, I was highly professional because I never wanted

 7     to embellish my reports or to shorten them in any way.  I conveyed what

 8     people had said to me, and I have said to you several times now, an

 9     explosion happened, a concrete wall was destroyed.  No one can say that

10     an explosion had not taken place.  No one can say that the destruction of

11     the wall never happened.  On the vertical walls, there are no fragments.

12     The probable estimate is that this effect was caused by a fuel-air bomb.

13     That is my statement and I stand by that statement.  I'm not

14     disassociating myself from it.

15        Q.   Thank you.  In your statement, why did you not disqualify this

16     piece of information, that people survived although they were only

17     3 metres away from the point of explosion of a fuel-air bomb?  And

18     yesterday you said to us that that was impossible.

19        A.   That's the way it is in normal circumstances.  However, in

20     Sarajevo, I have witnesses, my neighbours, who were 7 metres away from

21     the point of explosion of a 155-millimetre shell.  That is statistically

22     impossible but it is true.  A 12-year girl was standing 7 metres away

23     from the point of explosion and she survived.  That is something that

24     I as a professional also find totally amazing but it is true.

25        Q.   However, it wasn't a fuel-air bomb.

Page 12276

 1        A.   A weapon is a weapon, Mr. Karadzic.  And very often the effects

 2     of weapons are based on statistics and statistical analyses.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Let us leave theory aside.  Let us stick with the

 4     bombs that we had to deal with.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I briefly have, once again,

 6     1D3284.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   That is your statement or your report.  While we are waiting for

 9     that, your conclusion is that since there are no fragments, damage of

10     that kind, it had to be a fuel-air bomb rather than an air bomb; right?

11        A.   These are the only two possible answers.

12        Q.   If we take into account that there are no rocket engines there,

13     is there a third option that is possible, that it is a shell of a

14     different origin?

15        A.   Could I please ask you to define the calibre of the shell or

16     projectile?

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have 1D3284.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Zecevic, let us see what it is

19     that we can rule out.  So if there are no rocket engines there, if there

20     are no fragments there, if there is a great deal of destruction there, as

21     we will see right now, on this wall, and if we see concrete breaking, is

22     there any other possibility but a fuel-air bomb or an air bomb?  And

23     also, if victims survived although there were only -- they were only

24     3 metres away, is there a third, fourth, or fifth option that is also

25     there?

Page 12277

 1        A.   For your information, Mr. Karadzic, at the time when I was

 2     familiarising myself with the effects of this incident, I think it was

 3     two hours upon my arrival at the point of explosion, 100 metres away from

 4     the TV building, opposite the building of the geodesy institute, there

 5     was an explosion of yet another rocket-assisted projectile with an

 6     air bomb next to a container, a garbage container, and I think that the

 7     building is about 50 metres away from that point, and on that building,

 8     there were absolutely no fragments.  There was a big hole, if I can put

 9     it that way, where rocket engines were found.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Please take a look at this.  Can you see any

11     fragments there, any traces?

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we zoom in to these two bottom

13     photographs.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Are there any traces of fragments there?

16        A.   There are small fragments or, rather, effects of fragments.

17        Q.   What about the reinforced concrete here?  Was it broken?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Thank you.  You also dealt with the incident in the street --

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Oh, actually, is it time for a

21     break now, or should I go on?

22             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, you have spent half of the time

23     allotted to you, so think about how to efficiently use your precious

24     time.

25             We will have a break for half an hour and resume at 5 to 1.00.

Page 12278

 1                           --- Recess taken at 12.24 p.m.

 2                           --- On resuming at 12.58 p.m.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Mr. Zecevic, we have to leave this segment for the time being,

 7     with the air bombs, and we are going to finish that tomorrow if we get a

 8     little bit more time, and some other elements of credibility.

 9             Now, let us start dealing with Markale 1 now.  Is it correct that

10     you volunteered to investigate the Markale incident of the

11     5th of February, 1994?

12        A.   I did not volunteer to do the investigation.  I volunteered to

13     clarify and to give my opinion of what happened in Markale.

14        Q.   Thank you.  And you decided to do this when you heard the

15     UNPROFOR commander say that it was not possible to determine the origin

16     of the shell; is that correct?

17        A.   No.  He said that it was impossible to determine where the

18     projectile came from.

19        Q.   Where did you hear that in the media?

20        A.   In the evening, after the actual incident.  Because I didn't have

21     electricity at the time in order to be able to follow what was going on

22     in Sarajevo.

23        Q.   And this was announced or published when?

24        A.   Mr. Karadzic, I really don't know.

25        Q.   Are we going to then just leave this aside?

Page 12279

 1             MR. GAYNOR:  I think the court reporter's having difficulty, Mr.

 2     President.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Does that have to do with us or ...

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

 5                           [Technical difficulty]

 6             JUDGE KWON:  It seems that the LiveNote is working again.  We can

 7     start again.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at page 56, and can we

 9     actually add, I asked whether -- when we were defining the shell in

10     Tuzla, I had said that it's not an aerosol bomb nor an air bomb, and this

11     was not recorded in the transcript.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   So let us just not deal with who the commander was.  You said

14     that you had heard General Smith but actually it was General Rose; isn't

15     that right?

16        A.   [No interpretation]

17             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please repeat his answer.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [No interpretation]

19             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

20             How did you answer?  It was not noted.  The interpreters couldn't

21     hear your answer.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm going to be very precise in my

23     answer.  I heard the then-UNPROFOR commander saying that it was not

24     possible to determine where the projectile came from.  This is my answer.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I mentioned this because in earlier

Page 12280

 1     statements Mr. Zecevic said that he had heard General Smith.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   But I accept that as an error and say it was General Rose.  Isn't

 4     that so?

 5        A.   I was precise in my statement that the commander of the UNPROFOR

 6     stated.  I don't want to discuss the names now.

 7        Q.   Other than what you heard, did you have any other information

 8     from the local police or from other investigation teams at the time when

 9     you decided to get involved?

10        A.   Mr. Karadzic, I was not a favourite person of the local political

11     power in Sarajevo at the time and am not now.  I reported to my colleague

12     who was the head of the criminal investigations unit.  I knew him as my

13     friend, and I suggested that I could help him in identifying the

14     situation in Markale.  So he called me to come the following day to that

15     location.  Nobody summoned me, and my influence in Sarajevo at that time,

16     and even later, is insignificant.

17        Q.   Thank you.  You concluded from somewhere that you would be able

18     to correct this statement that was made, that it was not possible to

19     determine where the shell came from; isn't that right?

20        A.   I think that I was clear.  I felt that it was possible to assess

21     the direction from where the shell came from.  And this is a method that

22     has been in use in military technology for quite some years now, the

23     determination where -- from which direction the projectile comes from, if

24     there are clear indications at the scene of the explosion.  So it's not

25     something that is up to me.  It's not something that I made up or

Page 12281

 1     devised.  This is something that comports with the already existing

 2     rules.

 3        Q.   Mr. Zecevic, in your apartment you heard UNPROFOR saying that it

 4     was not possible to determine where the shell came from, but you said it

 5     can be determined.  So based on what did you make that statement?

 6             MR. GAYNOR:  Could I ask for a reference for these assertions,

 7     please, Mr. Karadzic.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Three or four lines on this page.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I don't have anything on

10     my monitors.

11             JUDGE KWON:  What page, Mr. Karadzic, you are referring to?

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On the previous page, if this is

13     page 2, Mr. Zecevic said this was possible to do, and this is why I'm

14     asking this.  [In English] "I felt that it was possible to assess the

15     direction from where the" --

16             JUDGE KWON:  No, let's upload that document.  What document are

17     you referring to?

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm talking about today's

19     transcript.  He said, on page 2, line 12 onwards, that he felt that it

20     was possible to determine this.  This was his reaction to the UNPROFOR

21     commander's statement that it was not possible to determine the direction

22     of the shell.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Page 2 covers Mr. Gaynor's submission.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My page 2 has my question:

25             [In English] "You concluded from somewhere that you would be able

Page 12282

 1     to correct this statement that was made, that it was not possible to

 2     determine where the shell came from; isn't that right?"

 3             [Interpretation] The answer is:

 4             [In English] "I think that I was clear.  I felt that it was

 5     possible to assess the direction from where the shell came from."

 6             [Interpretation] This is page 2, line 12 onwards.  Or we don't

 7     have the same transcript.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  You're correct.  When the LiveNote restarted, it

 9     started with page 1 again.

10             Do you understand the question?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I explained that there are clear

12     methods --

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Wait, please.  What made you think that you could do this better

15     than the police and better than the UNPROFOR?

16        A.   Mr. Karadzic, I had 17 years of experience of working in the

17     military industry behind me.  I was an extremely interested engineer in

18     fragmentation effects and the effect of warheads on targets.

19        Q.   What expertise is this?

20        A.   Mr. Karadzic, I haven't finished yet.

21        Q.   We don't need a lecture, Mr. Zecevic.  Please answer my question.

22     You concluded that you can do what they cannot do.  What expertise was

23     this that you did?

24             JUDGE KWON:  Please don't interrupt the witness in the middle of

25     his answer.  Please hear him out.

Page 12283

 1             Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I offered my assistance in order

 3     that the direction of the incoming projectile could be determined.

 4     I offered this help to my colleague who was head of the criminal

 5     investigations unit because I felt that based on 17 years of prior work

 6     and studies in ammunition design and terminal ballistics, I could be

 7     useful there.  This is quite a normal reaction of just an ordinary man in

 8     a town that was surrounded.  I don't know why I should be ashamed of what

 9     I did.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Mr. Zecevic, I'm not discussing any kind of shame here.  I just

12     want to establish what made you believe that you could determine this

13     better than the UNPROFOR or the local police could?

14        A.   Do you want a detailed answer?

15        Q.   I don't need a detailed answer.  Just tell me what led you to

16     believe that you could do this job better.

17        A.   The police is not qualified to analyse the effects of military

18     devices on targets.  This is number 1.  Number 2, UNPROFOR, these are the

19     soldiers who use those devices, whose task it is to kill, not to analyse

20     the effect and actions upon a target.  This is something that is done by

21     professionals, not soldiers.  Soldiers are qualified to use those devices

22     in order to kill the enemy.  Therefore, I was qualified at that point in

23     time to help the investigation organs of my country.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Zecevic, the effects and the action upon the

25     targets was not something that was in dispute.  What was in dispute was

Page 12284

 1     the incoming -- the direction of the incoming shell and the place that it

 2     was fired from.  Are you an expert in establishing the distance from

 3     the -- which the shell was fired and the direction of the incoming shell?

 4        A.   When?

 5        Q.   Well, up until that time, how many studies or analyses did you

 6     carry out in order to establish the place of firing and the distance from

 7     which the shell was fired?

 8        A.   At that point in time, that was my first attempt to work for a

 9     civilian institution.  Before that, I had thousands of fired rocket and

10     artillery projectiles and hundreds of fired warheads in testing ranges

11     behind me.  So up until that time, I was an exceptionally qualified

12     person to study the effects of fired projectiles upon targets.  I can

13     also say that in peacetime there is no need to analyse the effects of

14     weapons on civilian targets.  It was not necessary for me to do things

15     like that.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at 1D3114, please.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   So that we can see how many projectiles or shells you had

19     actually fired.  And while we are waiting, Mr. Zecevic, we are not

20     talking about the effects here.  What was disputed here was the origin of

21     the shell.  You did not agree with the conclusion of the UNPROFOR

22     commander and you believed that you could do this, and this is why you

23     volunteered.  That was your goal.  Not to evaluate the effects of the

24     actual projectile.

25        A.   Mr. Karadzic, it's impossible to establish the incoming

Page 12285

 1     characteristics without studying the effects on the target.  First of all

 2     you have to have the fragmentation effects on the target.  And once you

 3     determine that, then you can talk about deciphering the direction from

 4     where the shell came.

 5        Q.   Can you please pay attention to this document now.  Have you

 6     heard of this technical testing centre?

 7        A.   Yes, of course.

 8        Q.   And they answer here to our inquiry that:

 9             "Further to your request for the provision of information on the

10     engagement of Berko Zecevic at the technical training centre, from 1976

11     to 1992."

12             You can see that?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   In [indiscernible] the table below represents the details held in

15     the archives.  Can you please tell us how much of what did you fire?  And

16     we can see that on this table.

17        A.   In 1977, 18 rockets, then four rockets, on the 7th of January --

18     February, 1977.  Then in 1985.  Then in 1984, 199.  Then from the

19     2nd of October to the 23rd of October, 101.  Then on the 9th of November

20     to the 20th of November, 14.  On the 28th of January, 1986, three.  Then

21     on the 6th of February, 1986, 21.  Then on the 6th of May, 1986, 14.

22     Then on the 3rd of October to the 24th of October, 1986, 102.  Then on

23     the 28th of October 1986, 32.

24        Q.   All right, all right.  Well, that is sufficient.  We can see

25     that.  Mr. Zecevic, throughout your whole career you fired less than

Page 12286

 1     1.000 overall, and 120 mines, only five.  This is contained in line 2.

 2        A.   Yes.  That's what it says here.  Yes.

 3        Q.   And you did not provide any studies where you would be required

 4     to determine the direction and the distance that a mortar mine would

 5     cover.

 6        A.   Mr. Karadzic, this is never done in peacetime.  This is only done

 7     in wartime.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  I would like to tender this document, please.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D1093, Your Honours.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   At what time did you arrive at the place of the incident?  This

13     was on the 6th; is that right?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Were you at the scene on the 5th of February?

16        A.   I'm sorry, can you please remind me, the massacre occurred on the

17     5th.  I got there at 8.00 in the morning on the following day.

18        Q.   Thank you.  And who did you report to?

19             MR. GAYNOR:  Sorry, can I interrupt.  At the start of this

20     portion of the cross-examination, Dr. Karadzic referred to this incident

21     taking place on the 5th.  It took place on the 4th of February.  Now,

22     I don't want him to embed that misunderstanding into further questions.

23     The incident took place on the 4th of February.  If we can work from

24     there, please.  I don't think that's in dispute.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, this is quite a disputable

Page 12287

 1     thing.  What is not in dispute is that it occurred on the 5th.  Dobrinja

 2     occurred on the 4th.

 3             However, perhaps the witness needs a break.  We'll always agree.

 4     It's not necessary for anyone to jump in to save him.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Karadzic, I don't need anyone

 6     to jump in and save me.  I was crystal clear on this.  The day the

 7     massacre occurred, that evening I phone my colleague.  And the next day,

 8     at 8.00 in the morning I appeared at the scene.  We conducted an analysis

 9     and that took about 36 hours.

10        Q.   Thank you very much.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Gaynor, you agree that it took place on

12     5th of February?

13             MR. GAYNOR:  Your Honour, I'll have to come back to you.  Our

14     indictment has the 4th of February.  I'll have to come back to you on

15     that.

16             JUDGE KWON:  It's G 8, isn't it?

17             MR. GAYNOR:  Sorry.  Excuse me.  My apologies to the Court and to

18     Mr. Karadzic.  My mistake.  It was the 5th of February.  Excuse me.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No need to lose any sleep over this

21     because this is the smallest of your mistakes.  The other mistakes that

22     you have made are of much greater significance, I'm afraid.

23             JUDGE KWON:  I think it's time to have another break.  We will

24     break for five minutes.

25                           --- Break taken at 1.21 p.m.

Page 12288

 1                           --- On resuming at 1.26 p.m.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] A small intervention in the

 3     transcript, please.  I said this is the smallest mistake in the

 4     indictment, and not Mr. Gaynor's specifically.  I said all the other

 5     mistakes in the indictment are greater.  It wasn't a personal remark at

 6     the expense of Mr. Gaynor.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Move on, Mr. Karadzic.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   You phoned someone that evening, but who did you speak to when

11     you arrived at the scene?

12        A.   An acquaintance of mine who was the head of the technical

13     department of the crime squad at the time.  He introduced me to the

14     investigating magistrate who was there whose name now escapes me.

15     Another three of my colleagues arrived with me.  Two of them worked in

16     the Pretis factory and the third worked in the UNIS institute.  Before

17     that he used to work in the Slobodan Princip Seljo factory producing

18     plastic explosives.  The magistrate believed that he could use our help.

19     He appointed us as members of a committee charged with establishing what

20     exactly had occurred at Markale back in 1994.

21        Q.   When you appeared in the Milosevic trial --

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's 1D3316 for everyone's

23     reference, page 35 in e-court.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   -- you said you reported to this magistrate, you introduced

Page 12289

 1     yourself, and he appointed you as a member of that committee.  Did you

 2     receive your appointment in writing?

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The e-court reference is page 55.

 4     That's 1D3316, page 55.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  I received a decision in

 6     writing on that very day or the next day.  I'm unsure about which day.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Is that decision available for us to see?

 9        A.   You're asking me?  I -- it is certainly not my duty to carry it

10     on me or to bring it here.

11        Q.   If the Trial Chamber agrees then that's fine, but it certainly

12     might be helpful to us if we had that.

13        A.   We can suspend the trial and my appearance here.  I could travel

14     back to Sarajevo and bring a copy here or perhaps submit a copy

15     additionally.  Should the Chamber so require, you can have a copy ordered

16     from the original court that issued the decision.  That can be forward

17     directly to the OTP.

18        Q.   It reads:

19             The magistrate was there, I introduced myself, I had two of my

20     colleagues over there who were ballistic experts, and another colleague,

21     and the three of us were appointed by the magistrate as experts who were

22     supposed to provide an expert opinion.

23             The question is:  Who to?

24        A.   To the magistrate.  Because he was the person who appointed us.

25        Q.   You were there in what official capacity exactly?  Were you

Page 12290

 1     investigators or experts?

 2        A.   We were committee members, panel members.

 3        Q.   Who headed the panel or the committee?

 4        A.   I did.  I was the most senior person there.

 5        Q.   Did the magistrate proceed to suspend the previous investigation

 6     team then?

 7        A.   Don't ask me.  It's not part of my remit.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Could you kindly put a pause.  Just wait a bit and

 9     start answering.  Thank you.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Did the magistrate have an investigation team from the police and

12     another team, and that was your team?

13        A.   I'm not privy to the working procedures that they used at the

14     time.  All I know is the magistrate set up this panel and we were given

15     some work to do, which we did.  The police were there to make certain

16     photographs available to us, which they did.  And they also provided

17     any -- any spare parts that were found on the scene, following our

18     arrival at Markale.

19        Q.   Thank you very much.  Is it not true the magistrate asked you to

20     get everything done and dusted within a 36-hour deadline?

21        A.   He certainly asked us to get on with it and be as quick as we

22     could.  The general atmosphere that prevailed in Sarajevo at the time was

23     such that we were expected to deal with this in the shortest possible

24     order.

25        Q.   Thank you very much.  What about your findings, your conclusions?

Page 12291

 1     Did that become part of the investigative material collected by the

 2     magistrate?

 3        A.   I can't answer that question for you.  My colleagues and I put

 4     together a report, we signed it off, and we submitted it to the

 5     magistrate.  I don't know what became of it later on.

 6        Q.   You quoted two persons there, Ahmed Hadziomerovic and

 7     Amir Kurtovic.  Hadziomerovic is the officer and there was Kurtovic,

 8     Amir.  Who was the third person?

 9        A.   Zijo Pekic.  He was a ballistics expert.  He completed a

10     specialised course back in Belgrade.  Hadziomerovic was a professional

11     officer of the JNA, a Major by rank.  He completed his education at the

12     military technical school in Zagreb, and then he followed a specialised

13     course of study later on, also in Zagreb.  He was an exceptionally

14     competent professional and a distinguished expert.  Amir Kurtovic was a

15     professional officer dealing with explosives, specifically.

16        Q.   Thank you very much.  There's no need to have this page of the

17     transcript admitted.  It has been confirmed already.  Did you enlist the

18     assistance of any ethnic Serbs when you started work as a panel?

19        A.   Mr. Karadzic, that is not where I draw my distinction.  Not along

20     ethnic lines.  At the time, those persons were my closest associates and

21     they also happened to be the closest in terms of their geographical

22     location.  They were neighbours.  Do not insinuate that I displayed any

23     form of nationalism whatsoever in my behaviour.  I do not discriminate

24     along ethnic or religious lines.  I never have.  I never will.

25        Q.   What about Dobrljo [phoen] Stanic, who took a specialised study

Page 12292

 1     course in France, what about Radisav Markovic, your other colleagues from

 2     the Pretis factory?

 3        A.   Yes.  They were my friends, and, as a matter of fact, remain my

 4     friends.

 5        Q.   Was it a series of ethnic clashes that we were looking at, at the

 6     time, Mr. Zecevic?

 7        A.   Where do you mean, Sarajevo or Bosnia-Herzegovina?

 8        Q.   Both.

 9        A.   No.  I certainly do not believe that these were ethnic clashes or

10     an ethnic conflict.

11        Q.   Why was it not an ethnic conflict?  What was it then?  Was it a

12     class-based conflict?  Was it a religion-based conflict?

13        A.   What happened in Bosnia and Herzegovina, it has been 17 or

14     18 years since 1992 and I'm still wondering why it happened.  I still

15     can't explain this to myself.  Why did we start killing each other over

16     something that was not a spiritual matter but, rather, purely material?

17        Q.   Was it possible that Serbs were involved in the work of this

18     committee?

19        A.   That was certainly not communicated to me.

20        Q.   Your panel conducted this investigation on the 6th of February,

21     1994, the day after the incident --

22             JUDGE KWON:  Could you start again.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   What about the place of the incident?  On the 6th of February,

25     when you started your investigation, had it already been cleared and

Page 12293

 1     substantially altered, the scene?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Beforehand, members of the Security Services Centre from Sarajevo

 4     had carried out an on-site investigation and there was also a succession

 5     of UNPROFOR teams investigating the scene of the incident.  You did not

 6     gain access to any findings by the Security Services Centre before you

 7     started your own examination of the site?

 8        A.   Their findings had not been available to me -- had not been made

 9     available to me yet, but I did have access to the photographs that were

10     taken and to the tail fins that were found at the scene.

11        Q.   I would like to show you some footage, a recording, a video.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is 1D1031.  The range is

13     between 11.10 and 11.26.

14                           [Video-clip played]

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Do you recognise this man with the glasses?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Who is this?

19        A.   This was the manager of the UNIS institute, the director.

20        Q.   What's his profession?

21        A.   He has a Ph.D. in electronics, electrical engineering.

22        Q.   So in electrical engineering?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   What's his name?

25        A.   I don't know.  I can't say.  The memories I hold of that person

Page 12294

 1     are not particularly fond.  Quite the contrary, in fact.

 2        Q.   Faruk Orucevic; do you accept that?

 3        A.   Yes, I agree about the surname, Orucevic.

 4        Q.   Was Faruk Orucevic Ejup Ganic's successor as head of the

 5     institute?

 6        A.   I'm not sure he was Ejup Ganic's successor, but he became head of

 7     the institute right after Ganic left.  I do know that I received orders

 8     from the BH army to go and work at the UNIS institute.  Otherwise I would

 9     be tried.  I would be facing charges.  Orucevic was head of the

10     UNIS institute at the time I worked there.  That much I can say.

11        Q.   Thank you.  What about Mr. Orucevic now?  Is he not a professor

12     and associate at Ejup Ganic's private university?

13        A.   I don't know.  I do not privately socialise with either of these

14     two persons, Ejup Ganic or indeed Orucevic.

15        Q.   All right.  So Faruk Orucevic, a BA in electrical engineering,

16     what was his capacity as a member of this team that conducted an

17     on-site investigation?

18        A.   First of all, he did not take part in this investigation.  He was

19     present there, he was my boss.  I needed a computer and a printer to use

20     in my work, and he was the only one who actually had both pieces of

21     equipment back in his office.  When I headed out with my associates, we

22     were on our way to the scene of the incident and we wanted to check

23     something else and he asked to come along.  I said I had no authority to

24     take him there.  But he just turned up, he introduced himself, he was

25     just there.  He was a by-stander.  He was not part of the investigation.

Page 12295

 1     He did not sign the report.  But apparently he liked to show his face

 2     around and show himself off as an important person there.

 3        Q.   All right.  But he did make a statement to the media, did he not?

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, first of all, I'm sorry, can

 5     this be admitted, please?  We have another one with the same number, so

 6     perhaps we could ...

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we will --

 8                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We have another one.  So we can

10     have a single number for both or two different numbers.  And we can run

11     the other one now.  Thank you.  13.51 until 14.04.  That's the range.

12                           [Video-clip played]

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   We didn't hear the sound.  That's Mr. Orucevic; right?

15        A.   Yes.  When we headed out, then we left the Markale square.

16     I banned all members of my panel from making any public statements and

17     pronouncements.  I realised that there were TV crews standing around

18     recording.  Orucevic was there when I said that no one would be allowed

19     to make any statements to the press.  He realised, if he watched the

20     footage, that I simply walked past them with my colleague.  Nevertheless,

21     he likes to be very much in the public eye.  He made a colossal error

22     there.  He made an unauthorised statement to the press.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please run the tape again.

24     I hope that the sound is clear enough for our interpreters to try and see

25     if they can figure out what the people in the tape are saying.

Page 12296

 1                           [Video-clip played]

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Fine.  We'll need to move on.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  So we'll admit these two clips.  I was told that

 4     this is part -- another part of this clip has been marked for identification

 5     as D894.  But setting that aside, we will admit these two clips.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D1094, Your Honours.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Mr. Zecevic, following your investigation, the investigation

10     carried out by your panel, you drew up a report in which item 9 reads --

11     perhaps you'd like me to call the document up; right?

12        A.   If that's no problem.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 65 ter 106.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Today we don't have that luxury.  We have to get out

15     of this room as soon as possible.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, you should please

17     consider giving me more time tomorrow, because we have not even touched

18     upon a number of substantial incidents, and we have no other witnesses

19     coming whose presence we can use to shed light on these.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, sir --

21             JUDGE KWON:  I'm very sorry, we have to get out of this room.

22     Tomorrow, 1.30.

23                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,

24                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 24th day

25                           of February, 2011, at 1.30 p.m.