110224ED

Page 12303

1 WITNESS: BERKO ZECEVIC [Resumed]

2 [Witness answered through interpreter]

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

4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Zecevic.

6 A. Good afternoon, Mr. Karadzic.

7 Q. Yesterday we started a conversation about the Markale case.

8 After the investigation carried out by your commission, you compiled your

9 report in which, under item 9 of the conclusions, the following is said.

10 Do you need the document in front of you now? Can we have 65 ter 10676,

11 page 13 in the Serbian version? So 65 ter 10676, please.

12 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P2317, Your Honours.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The entire conclusion is important

14 but you said here explicitly everything that you said. Item 9 reads as

15 follows:

16 "In the territory under the control of the BH Army, is one area

17 of the possible origin of fire, and there are five such areas of possible

18 fire on the aggressor's side."

19 A. That's what it's written here.

20 Q. Thank you. That means what your commission reached an identical

21 conclusion as that reached by UNPROFOR, which is to say that it was not

22 possible to determine exactly where the shell had come from; is that

23 correct?

24 A. No. It is said here that there are six potential locations from

25 which this projectile could have been fired, and at that moment, and in

Page 12304

1 the role -- the report that I wrote, I listed these six locations. As a

2 result of later analysis, at the request of the OTP, I identified three

3 locations as potential places from which the projectile was fired.

4 However, in those times, when I and my colleagues conducted our work,

5 this was the best conclusion that we could have come up with. So

6 I explained explicitly in my testimony here that the presence of the

7 stabiliser embedded in the ground clearly indicates that the locations of

8 the potential fire are 4.950 to 6400 metres from the point of impact.

9 Q. Mr. Zecevic, in your conclusion, you said the "possible" origin

10 of fire. You didn't say you explicitly which location you had in mind;

11 is that correct?

12 A. The six probable locations from which theoretically the fire

13 could have come. However, the subsequent analysis of the stabiliser

14 reduced this to three possible locations of fire.

15 Q. Thank you. When did you carry out this additional analysis?

16 A. In 2003.

17 Q. Why did you do it?

18 A. I believe that that was for the General Galic trial and the

19 immediate cause was when a group of experts from the Military Technical

20 Institute, made up of the late Dr. Stamatovic, Dr. Ranko Vilicic and

21 Milorad Vukasinovic, they were the ones who analysed the shelling of

22 Sarajevo and the incidents relating to that, while I was asked by the OTP

23 to provide a counter-analysis to the one that they made, and this is the

24 first time that I identified these three locations in that analysis.

25 Q. Thank you. At the time when you made this, you allowed for a

Page 12305

1 possibility that the probability rate of around 16 -- 17 per cent

2 indicates that the shell could have come from the Bosnian side. So you

3 said one-third, and one-third is approximately 17 per cent; is that

4 right?

5 A. I don't understand your question. Are you talking about point of

6 impact?

7 Q. Mr. Zecevic, you made a contemporaneous conclusion that there

8 were six possible locations of which 17 per cent could have been from the

9 BH Army-controlled area and the rest were from the Serb-controlled areas?

10 A. No, Mr. Karadzic. That's not the way to apply statistics.

11 Statistical methods can be used in a uniform and contained systems. Each

12 of these locations were different systems.

13 Q. So for the purpose of the Galic case, you carried out an

14 additional analysis, taking into account the penetration, and drew a

15 conclusion that certain distance that you mentioned today was involved?

16 A. The gentleman from the Military Technical Institute and I reached

17 similar conclusions with regard to the penetration, and the velocity of

18 ejection. We differed on some other aspects that I enumerated in my

19 analysis, but it is beyond dispute that what I said clearly indicates the

20 possible zones of launching at 4.950 to 6400 metres from the place of

21 explosion.

22 Q. Why didn't you do that in your first report, Mr. Zecevic? You

23 rather did it 8 or 9 years later. Why this is not contained in this

24 particular report but it rather allows for the possibility of the ratio

25 of one to five?

Page 12306

1 A. Can I answer that?

2 Q. Well, that's what I'm asking you. Why are you -- why didn't do

3 you it immediately?

4 A. Mr. Karadzic, I'm waiting for the interpretation to be finished.

5 I'm not hesitating because I can't give you an answer. We all agreed to

6 be fair to our interpreters and I'm looking at the screen here to see

7 when I can start my answer. I told you that I had limited time at my

8 disposal, along with my associate, for the preparation of this analysis.

9 That's one thing. Secondly, for such a complex analysis, one needs time

10 and wisdom, because the situation in Sarajevo was so dramatic at the time

11 that, quite simply, nothing was possible to be done within 36 hours.

12 Given that after I had finished my analysis, I wasn't, so to speak, in a

13 position to be within the circles in Sarajevo who would make it

14 capable -- who make it possible for me to do something but I rather had

15 to fight for survival with my family, it was only after the war that

16 I continued working on these investigations and researches.

17 As soon as I would gather any new information, I would provide it

18 to the OTP. If you are accusing me of endeavouring to conceal what I

19 knew, I think you're not right. At that time, this analysis is a

20 reflection of my findings and my capabilities available to me at the

21 time. As soon as I had different circumstances of living in peace, I did

22 what I did. Of course, my analysis can be the subject of criticism by

23 anyone who wishes to do so. So there is no ill intention on my part.

24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Zecevic. This is exactly what I'm doing. I'm

25 trying to test your findings. So several years later, you are trying to

Page 12307

1 rectify certain things that the OTP is not satisfied with, that is the

2 Hrasnica case, the Markale case, that's the Tuzla case, et cetera. Is

3 that correct? So years later, you amended the evidence because they were

4 not satisfied with the previous evidence?

5 MR. GAYNOR: Objection to the characterisation that he's trying

6 to rectify certain things that the OTP is not satisfied with. I believe

7 that's an improper suggestion to make and it's not founded. He hasn't

8 made any prima facie case that the OTP is dissatisfied with any of the

9 findings made by Dr. Zecevic.

10 JUDGE KWON: Is he not entitled to put his case?

11 Mr. Gaynor: Yes, he is entitled to put his case, but he cannot

12 assume a matter that is not in evidence in any question, in my

13 submission. Specifically it hasn't emerged that the OTP has been

14 dissatisfied in any way with the analyses provided by Dr. Zecevic.

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 JUDGE KWON: If this is indeed part of Defence case, we will

17 allow the question to be put, but before that, I have to confirm that

18 whether it is your part of the case, Mr. Karadzic.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In relation to this expertise, yes,

20 it is. I did not say OTP. I said Prosecutor's offices or Prosecutor's

21 office, referring to the office in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and I will prove

22 my point. You will -- you give me more time, I will be able to show you

23 what I am going for. So you will see as I continue that it is correct.

24 May I continue?

25 JUDGE KWON: Do you remember the question, Dr. Zecevic?

Page 12308

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I do remember the

2 question. Will you permit me to answer it?

3 JUDGE KWON: By all means, Dr. Zecevic.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I conducted this analysis in 1994

5 and I handed it over not to the Prosecutor's office but to the

6 investigating judge. I don't know what happened with the analysis after

7 that. I made the analysis for the action of the projectile on the

8 television building. I handed it over to the investigating judge and

9 later I found out that the analysis was not sent to the OTP in The Hague

10 but that it was put to one side somewhere. I worked on the analysis for

11 the Kapija case at the request of the state prosecutor's office of

12 Bosnia-Herzegovina. I don't know what the Prosecution did in terms of

13 that, who worked on that, I got material and on the basis of that

14 material I carried out my work. I did not make any corrections of the

15 reports or studies, any other ones, so I completely reject the idea that

16 I could have falsified anything or could have tried to use any kind of

17 impermissible means. This is not something that is inherent in the way

18 I work.

19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Mr. Zecevic, is it correct that for all of those cases, the

21 Bosnia-Herzegovina Prosecutor's office had the investigation material,

22 tempore criminis, made at the time of the incident. For Hrasnica, the

23 direction that was established was north; is that correct, but then 13

24 years later, you came and you said, no, it's not the north; is that

25 correct?

Page 12309

1 A. Sir --

2 Q. Just say "yes" or "no", there is no need to go into anything

3 else.

4 A. I never submit to any kind of pressure, in any case, and to

5 anyone. If we are here at a court that I am exceptionally respectful of,

6 then I seek the right to express my opinion. If I'm not given that right

7 from this point on, I will stop speaking.

8 Q. Sir, I have the right to put questions to you. Was there any

9 material that was created at the point in time of the incident indicating

10 that the incoming direction of the projectile was the north?

11 A. Mr. Karadzic, I received the material from The Hague Prosecutor's

12 office. They asked for my opinion; they wanted to see what my position

13 on that was. I gave them my position. I don't work according to the

14 copy-paste system. I'm not interested in what the investigating organs

15 did. I went to the scene of the incident myself. I established every

16 element for myself. I spoke to everyone. I carried out the analysis.

17 I assessed what was all right and what was not all right, and pursuant to

18 that, I wrote my opinion. As to whether that opinion is correct or not,

19 it is subject to criticism, but that is how I work. I am responsible for

20 my work. I'm not responsible for the work of others.

21 Q. All right, Mr. Zecevic. Let us move our doubt to the

22 Prosecutor's office. The Prosecutor's office in Sarajevo had findings

23 about Hrasnica. You didn't ask for anything else. You actually asked

24 for Tuzla. Did the Bosnia OTP have findings for Tuzla which were created

25 at the time of the incident in Tuzla, when it occurred?

Page 12310

1 A. Well, let's wait a little bit first. When they called me, they

2 gave me the complete documentation, which contained their investigative

3 organ's report and the UNPROFOR report. At the time it also included the

4 photo file and that was the basis that I used in order to carry out my

5 own analysis.

6 Q. Thank you. After Galic or before Galic, did you testify in

7 President Milosevic's case?

8 A. I testified in President Milosevic's case after testifying in the

9 Galic case.

10 Q. Thank you. On 16 January, 1994, you said this in the President

11 Milosevic case. I will provide the reference in the e-court.

12 "We established only six locations, the conclusion is only six

13 locations, one of the B and H army and five of the VRS, nothing more."

14 So in January 2004, you did not have anything more than these six

15 possibilities, is that what you said at the time?

16 A. Mr. Karadzic, I said that correctly, because that refers to the

17 analysis that was conducted in 1994. And in the analysis that I did in

18 January 2003, for the Prosecutor's office, I acquired some new insight.

19 Q. And why didn't you say that in January 2004 in the case against

20 President Milosevic?

21 A. Mr. Karadzic --

22 JUDGE KWON: Before you answer, Mr. Gaynor?

23 MR. GAYNOR: It's just a minor mistake by the accused where he

24 said 16 January 1994a few lines ago. He meant 16 January 2004. I think

25 that's clear. Just to make sure the transcript is easy to follow.

Page 12311

1 JUDGE KWON: Yes.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 2004, yes, thank you.

3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Zecevic, can you continue?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was just answering the questions

5 that were put to me.

6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. All right. So the new analysis was carried out for the Galic

8 case in 2003. In the case against Milosevic in January 2004, you still

9 said, "We established six possible locations." Nothing else, not a word

10 more that was yours. Is that correct?

11 A. Yes, that reflects in its entirety what was the conclusion from

12 the report of 1994.

13 Q. Thank you. In your conclusion, paragraph 10, you also said,

14 let's look at the documents, potentially destructive power of the

15 projectile at the target corresponds to the number of victims and type of

16 injuries they suffered in the massacre; is that right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Thank you. You said, in the case against President Milosevic,

19 and this is page -- actually, it's 1D3316, this has been admitted now, we

20 can remove it, 1D3316, page 63 in the e-court. If necessary, perhaps it

21 won't be necessary for us to call it up. You responded like this,

22 "Mr. Milosevic, I -- Mr. Milosevic, I applied or reported in because so

23 many of my citizens were killed and so many were wounded --

24 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not catch the number.

25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 12312

1 Q. Is it true Mr. Zecevic that a total of 332 people were killed on

2 that occasion?

3 A. Mr. Karadzic --

4 Q. The numbers are 68 were killed, 260 were wounded. So this shell,

5 is it possible that this shell, fatally or non-fatally, struck a total of

6 332 persons?

7 A. Mr. Karadzic, 68 killed and 200 something wounded, I think it was

8 150 people that were wounded. That is more realistic. I beg your

9 pardon, no, actually I couldn't give you a precise answer. I don't have

10 the material in order to be able to answer this. There was a large

11 number of dead and there was a large number of wounded. What's the

12 problem?

13 Q. The problem is that you said --

14 JUDGE KWON: It's time to take a five-minutes break. We are

15 taking a five-minutes break every 25 minutes to accommodate the situation

16 of the witness. Five minutes.

17 --- Break taken at 2.10 p.m.

18 --- On resuming at 2.16 p.m.

19 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. On this page, at line 18, you say that you volunteered because 68

23 of your fellow citizens were killed and 274 were wounded. This is more

24 than 342 citizens were, fatally, and the others non-fatally, hurt by this

25 shell; is that right?

Page 12313

1 A. Yes. That's what it says here.

2 Q. Did you say it?

3 A. Mr. Karadzic, I probably said it. I mean, if it's in the

4 transcript. But that doesn't mean anything. The city knows exactly how

5 many people were killed, how many people were wounded. That would be the

6 definite figure. It doesn't matter what I said because later I found out

7 that this number included persons who were wounded by other firing.

8 Q. Thank you. But it's important to us what you say. We know what

9 happened but it's important what you say to us as well. You said that

10 342 people were killed, we are going to come back to that, because you

11 are an expert on the effects at the place of impact. Is it correct that

12 you did not say whether the number of victims corresponds to the possible

13 number of people who were in the market?

14 A. I don't understand the question.

15 Q. In your opinion, is it correct that every person who happened to

16 be at the market was hit? Is that your opinion?

17 A. No.

18 Q. So there were more than 342 people at the market at that time, is

19 that possible?

20 A. Of course it's possible. Why wouldn't there be more than that?

21 Q. Thank you. Did you establish what the space was between the

22 stalls and could you estimate on the basis of that what the possible

23 number of people in the market was?

24 A. Mr. Karadzic, a person takes up half a square metre when they are

25 standing up, the surface of the market is about 25 by 34, 40, 45 metres.

Page 12314

1 Maybe more. Maybe less. I really am not quite sure. I can't give you

2 an exact picture. Maybe you will allow me to make that calculation. At

3 the time when they asked me, there was no need for me to make that

4 calculation.

5 Q. Thank you. Can we look at 1D3293, please? This is the sketch.

6 And then it will make it easier for you to tell us what you are trying to

7 say. 1D3293 in the e-court, please. Can we zoom up on the top part? Is

8 that your sketch or is that a diagram that you are familiar with?

9 A. 11.1 metres by 4.16 ... Yes, this is my diagram.

10 Q. Can we zoom in a little tighter, please? This is called, "The

11 radial distribution of fragments for the 120-millimetre mine." This is

12 the title of the diagram; is that correct? Can we scroll up a little

13 bit? Because Mr. Zecevic then can see what the title is of the diagram.

14 A. The sketch is called the area of the Markale Market, and it shows

15 the radius, which is about -- which is 17 metres, I think this is the

16 effective action radius of a 120-millimetre mortar, which is in the

17 firing tables of the JNA, according to which each person that finds

18 themselves in this zone statistically speaking would at least be hit by

19 one fragment of a 100-joule energy unit. This is the standard. Later

20 this standard was reduced to 80. This area R equals 24 metres is the

21 area in which the probability of a person getting -- or in which the

22 probability is 2 persons would be hit by one fragment.

23 Q. Let me just ask you this. The northern building and the eastern

24 building that are in this radius, is it correct that they absorbed over

25 50 per cent of the blast and that the market is affected by only

Page 12315

1 one-quarter of this energy as indicated by this cut in the -- in the

2 square?

3 A. Actually, it's a little bit more than a quarter. It's a third.

4 Perhaps slightly more. Because what you need to take into account is

5 also this area here towards the south.

6 Q. So over one-third of the blast was directed at the people in the

7 market, and the neighbouring buildings absorbed slightly less than

8 two-thirds of this blast energy; is that correct?

9 A. No. That's not how it is. You need to be clear about one thing.

10 The radius of the kill power is worked out on the basis of the --

11 THE INTERPRETER: The witness is kindly asked to repeat his

12 answer.

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

14 last answer, the last bit of it. Could you complete that answer?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The lethal power radius is a

16 statistical value, which is worked out according to standards of the

17 Yugoslav People's Army, and it's a value that is used in the serial

18 production in order to show whether the efficacy of the projectile

19 corresponds to the requirements in the manufacture of that projectile.

20 So the comparison is made on the basis of similar projectiles, and this

21 is tested in the following way: The projectile is placed in a vertical

22 position with the fuse at the bottom, with the assumption that the

23 fragments will disperse equally on all sides. In a real situation, the

24 projectile will strike the surface at some kind of angle, and then we

25 will get a completely different picture. And at the same time, in

Page 12316

1 real -- in a real situation, a ricochet will occur, which, in the testing

2 conditions of the effective range radius, is strictly forbidden. So in

3 the case that we have as in the Markale case, an asphalt surface, and a

4 lot of metal surfaces, stone surfaces, what will happen is that the

5 fragments will ricochet and they will be redirected to completely

6 different areas in relation to the results that were recorded during

7 testing of the lethal action radius.

8 Q. There is no doubt that this northern area marked with 195 and

9 167, that these are buildings on the diagram?

10 A. No doubt about that. Fragments will enter the area or the

11 vertical plane and will not cause a ricochet.

12 Q. Thank you. According to your findings, did this mine explode on

13 the ground or on a stall?

14 A. According to my findings, the projectile impacted on the ground.

15 Q. Thank you. The stalls, did they absorb a certain number of

16 fragments and were they a barrier on the path of these fragments?

17 A. The stalls were made of pipes, metal pipes, right? With wood

18 panelling, and they are not very thick, if I can put it that way. It is

19 only logical that if a fragment encounters any obstacle or a barrier, it

20 will decrease its velocity and change the direction in which it is

21 moving. That is to say, if it can ricochet in the first place.

22 Q. Thank you. Since you are an expert for what happens at the point

23 of impact, are you trying to say that at this 24-metre segment, 115

24 degrees, that 342 persons were grazed or hit?

25 A. No. Fragments have a velocity of 1200 metres per second. I have

Page 12317

1 already said to you that as for people who are not in this line of work,

2 this figure doesn't mean anything. But if you say that it is 30 metres

3 per second, is 108 kilometres per hour, then you can imagine that that is

4 40 times this velocity at which the fragments leave the point of

5 explosion. If you take into account the fact that it is the square of

6 the velocity that is this energy, then you come to the conclusion that

7 these fragments can either kill a person or cut this person's veins or

8 legs or whatever. So an analysis that would lead to minimising the

9 effects of the action of a mortar projectile that hit a marketplace smack

10 in the middle of it, that is a disgrace.

11 Q. Thank you. Did you document the condition in which these stalls

12 were, whether there were any fragments left in the wood panelling and in

13 the stalls as such?

14 A. Mr. Karadzic, I -- I have already said to you that I came a day

15 later, and that on the scene did I not find the situation as it had been

16 originally. What I saw was that at certain metal -- on certain metal

17 pipes, fragments had penetrated through them. They did not just hit them

18 and stick inside. From the investigation team I got some photographs of

19 what they had found on the scene. And that is what I included in my

20 documentation of 2003 that I handed over to the OTP. I don't know

21 whether they used it or not.

22 Q. Just one more thing. Did you draw this diagram?

23 A. I didn't draw it, but I did the measurements.

24 Q. Did you set the cardinal points here?

25 A. I didn't. It was the investigator who did, not me, but I was

Page 12318

1 present when he did it.

2 Q. Thank you.

3 A. Because I didn't have a compass.

4 Q. Thank you. We'd like to show you some footage, that is 1451.

5 It's a Prosecution exhibit from 017 to 019.

6 MR. GAYNOR: Before we get there, Mr. President I just want to

7 check if the accused intends to tender the map that we've just looked at.

8 If he doesn't, I can raise it in redirect.

9 JUDGE KWON: Is it part of his report? I couldn't find it in his

10 report.

11 MR. GAYNOR: No, it's not part of his report.

12 JUDGE KWON: Shall we -- are you tendering it? Yes.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If it hasn't been admitted, if it's

14 not part of the report, then I would like to tender it.

15 JUDGE KWON: Yes, it will be admitted as Defence Exhibit.

16 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit D1095, Your Honours.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, let us have a look -- is

18 this the 5th of February 1994? Can we see that on the screen, the 5th of

19 February 1994 so then can we just play these few seconds?

20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. I'd like to ask you kindly to observe the red box and the entire

22 scene.

23 [Video-clip played]

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we get 1D3294? It's a still

25 from this footage. It's the first image that we saw.

Page 12319

1 1D3294.

2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Can you please mark the place where the explosion took place

4 here?

5 A. [Indicates]

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could Mr. Zecevic's pen please be

7 activated?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I can say with any reliability

9 on the basis of this footage --

10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Could you please place number 1 there?

12 A. [Marks]

13 Q. Can you now mark the damage on this red box, the damage caused by

14 the fragments?

15 A. [Marks]

16 Q. And number 2, please.

17 A. [Marks]

18 Q. How do you explain this, that fragments caused damage there and

19 the point of explosion was over there?

20 A. I don't see what the problem is.

21 Q. These fragments would have to behave like a boomerang. They

22 would have to go around the corner.

23 A. Only if they hit metal or stone but this is ten-millimetre thick

24 wood. May I please continue? A fragment that is at a distance of, say,

25 three metres, went through this wood just like a knife goes through

Page 12320

1 butter, no problem. You see, when we are investigating the fragmentation

2 of this projectile, we place the projectile this way and we tie it to a

3 wooden pole so that it's a vector. Ten metres away we place a sector.

4 That is semi-circular panelling, 25 millimetres thick, made of pine wood,

5 and then at a distance of 20 metres and then 30 metres and then 40

6 metres. When an explosion takes place, at 30 metres and at 40 metres,

7 you are going to see that fragments passed through this pine wood plank,

8 25 millimetres thick. So what I see here is simply a -- the last part of

9 the fragments that passed through this wooden plank. No problem

10 whatsoever. It is going to ricochet if it hits concrete and then again

11 it depends under which angle or if it hits steel plate, but a wooden

12 panel is no problem whatsoever. I mean that question is really --

13 Q. Thank you, thank you. So you claim that it passed on the front

14 through this box and then went out through the other side?

15 A. Well, I can assume that, Mr. Karadzic, because this is a

16 photograph. I cannot enter a photograph. I don't have a 3-D photograph,

17 therefore I cannot see. At that time there were no 3-D photographs yet.

18 Q. Thank you. Could you please sign this and put the date.

19 A. Yes, I can. What's the date today?

20 Q. The 24th.

21 A. [Marks]

22 JUDGE KWON: That will be Exhibit D1096.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we now have P1452

24 from 7.11 to 7.14?

25 [Video-clip played]

Page 12321

2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. 1D3295. Can we have that photograph now? It's a photograph of

4 the first image we saw. 1D3295, can we have that, please?

5 Mr. Zecevic, is this the point of impact of that projectile?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Where is the tail-fin at this point, Mr. Zecevic?

8 A. Probably at the intersection point of these two elements.

9 Q. Thank you. How do you explain that this point of impact has been

10 filled with this rubble and this material?

11 A. Very simply. Now I'm going to explain.

12 Mr. President, Mr. President, may I show a photograph that was

13 taken by the Americans and Germans about the fragmentation of a

14 projectile? So that my explanation would be more illustrative. This is

15 exceptionally important in view of this question of yours and it's very

16 important for the Judges to understand on that basis what I'm saying. So

17 it's not my photographs. This is an ultra-fast camera of 1 million

18 images per second. They are not my photographs. And they fully explain

19 what I'm about to describe.

20 Q. If there is enough time.

21 A. No, no, this is important.

22 JUDGE KWON: But, please proceed. Shall we put it on the ELMO?

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope that my time stops right

24 now.

25 JUDGE KWON: In any event, Dr. Zecevic, we'll see it after the

Page 12322

1 break. We'll have another five-minutes break.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Agreed.

3 --- Break taken at 2.40 p.m.

4 --- On resuming at 2.45 p.m.

5 JUDGE KWON: I take it, Mr. Robinson and Mr. Karadzic, that in

6 answer to the question put by Mr. Karadzic, the witness is trying to

7 explain some theory in technical terms, and in the course of explanation,

8 that explanation, it is my understanding that the witness wishes to use a

9 picture from a book. So do you have any observation, Mr. Robinson?

10 MR. ROBINSON: I don't see any problem with that, Mr. President.

11 If it's of value to the Chamber, it can also be admitted as a Chamber

12 exhibit.

13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Mr. Gaynor?

14 MR. GAYNOR: No objection to its use, Mr. President.

15 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Please proceed, doctor.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. On this

17 photograph here, we can see six sequences of the phase of fragmentation

18 of a high-explosion projectile. The beginning and then already after

19 22.5 millionths of a second, the expansion of the casing starts and the

20 procedure of fragmentation and the fuse is separated. The process of

21 fragmentation continues and you see that certain parts of the body of the

22 projectile do not move at the same speed. They have different speeds.

23 The highest speed of the fragments is in the central part of this group.

24 You can see that in all of these photographs. And the rear parts have a

25 very small velocity. That is in accordance with what I tried to say,

Page 12323

1 that the speed of ejecting the tail-fin is about 170 millimetres per

2 second, is about 200 metres per second. If we look at the other

3 photograph, we can see it in more specific terms. This is MK 42 which is

4 very similar to FAP 250. We see the moment when the fragmentation takes

5 place. However, you will note that this bomb expanded its diameter two

6 or three times before a fragmentation occurred and that is exceptionally

7 important. At the very beginning, you see that the products of

8 detonation started to move at a very high velocity. That is the answer

9 to Mr. Karadzic's question, why, in the zone of the point of impact,

10 there is a certain amount of rubble, as Mr. Karadzic called it, or,

11 rather, these are pieces of asphalt, sand, soil and so on, because the

12 products of detonation, as they flow out of the place where the fuse was,

13 they move 2, 3, 4, sometimes even 10 kilometres per second depending on

14 the technical performance of the projectile. That would be my brief

15 attempt to explain what it was that was happening.

16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. But, Mr. Zecevic, none of these are -- is 120-millimetre shell.

18 A. It is completely irrelevant. The analysis of high-explosive

19 warhead is uniform. Actually, it depends on the type of the warhead, of

20 whether it be a cruise missile or an artillery missile or any other type

21 of missile.

22 Q. Did you show us here an aerosol bomb with solid fuel or air fuel?

23 A. This is a warhead with solid fuel, and I can show you the

24 original photograph of a rocket-assisted aerosol bomb that is kept within

25 the armed forces depot. I have very good photographs.

Page 12324

1 Q. Thank you. I'm no longer interested in this subject.

2 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Robinson suggested this to be admitted as

3 Chamber exhibit.

4 MR. ROBINSON: I think that it would be appropriate given that

5 he's referred to them and otherwise the record wouldn't totally

6 understand what he had referred to.

7 JUDGE KWON: I take it the Prosecution is minded to tender it as

8 a Prosecution exhibit.

9 MR. GAYNOR: That's right as well, Mr. President.

10 JUDGE KWON: We will admit it as a Prosecution exhibit. We will

11 give the number.

12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P2323.

13 JUDGE KWON: 2323. Very well. Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Mr. Zecevic, can you please pay attention now to e-court? The

17 position of the Defence is that during first measurements and filming or

18 photographing of the scene, the material did not flew away from the point

19 of impact but that rather this place had been filled; is that correct?

20 A. May I answer? How can you ask me to give you an answer to that?

21 Because I wasn't at the scene immediately after the explosion.

22 Q. So at this stage of investigation, and photographing, you say

23 that the stabiliser is inside the crater; is that correct?

24 A. Mr. Karadzic, I said that only after, when I was viewing the

25 footage of the extraction of the stabiliser by UNPROFOR soldiers and

Page 12325

1 I stand by it. What happened before or after, I don't know. All I saw

2 was this footage and it is clearly stated in my analysis.

3 Q. Now, Mr. Zecevic, I'm kindly asking you and the interpreters to

4 see or listen to what the investigations are saying. There is only one

5 sentence involved and the interpreters have it. It's P7111, from 6.46.

6 Let us please listen carefully to what this young investigator, he seems

7 young, is saying.

8 [Video-clip played]

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We could only hear it from the

10 computer. Can we hear this voice in the system and I'm kindly asking the

11 interpreters to interpret this one sentence. Could the technical staff

12 please establish the connection again?

13 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

14 JUDGE KWON: We will revert to the original way of translation.

15 The translator will be coming into the courtroom.

16 I was mistaken. A technician is coming inside to give

17 assistance. Do you have any other objects to deal with in the meantime?

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. We can look at a photograph

19 taken from a videoclip, 1D3301. It's from a videoclip 3822-1-A.

20 D0003822-1-A. It's again a Prosecution piece of material. That refers

21 to what happened on the previous day, i.e. on the 4th of February 1992,

22 in Dobrinja.

23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Mr. Zecevic, is this the usual appearance of a crater with the

25 embedded stabiliser?

Page 12326

1 A. Mr. Karadzic, I cannot identify this, because the resolution of

2 the picture is very bad. I can only slightly discern that there is

3 something in the ground, but I can't see the stabiliser. I can't

4 confirm.

5 Q. Well, then, let's play the film, if necessary. Are you saying

6 that this is not a stabiliser? Do you see all its elements?

7 A. Mr. Karadzic, I have my own eyes, you have your own eyes. I'm

8 telling you what I can see, which means that I cannot give you a precise

9 identification because the photograph is not clear.

10 Q. Does this material, asphalt, and everything else resemble

11 Markale?

12 A. Mr. Karadzic, first of all, I cannot give you any statement about

13 that, because I don't know whether there is a stabiliser inside the hole.

14 Q. Can we please tender this photograph into evidence? We have the

15 date, the 4th of February 1992, and the film is 0003822-1-A.

16 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Gaynor?

17 MR. GAYNOR: Two observations, first of all, I think Dr. Karadzic

18 means the 4th of February 1994. Ironically enough, the same date I was

19 having trouble with yesterday. Second point is I don't believe that the

20 witness has given any evidence to confirm the photograph that we've seen

21 on the screen so far. So on that basis, it does not appear to be

22 admissible.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am tendering it with respect to

24 the credibility of this witness. If the witness is unable to confirm

25 whether this is a stabiliser or not, that speaks about his credibility.

Page 12327

1 JUDGE KWON: Given that this is part of the video, and in

2 considering the witness's answer, that he can only slightly discern that

3 there is something in the ground, but he can't see the stabiliser,

4 I think there is a basis to admit this.

5 MR. GAYNOR: Very well, Mr. President.

6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we will give it the next Defence Exhibit

7 number.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number D1097.

9 JUDGE KWON: Shall we take a break now? It's time to take the

10 half hour break.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's all right.

12 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Then we will take a half an hour break.

13 --- Recess taken at 3.00 p.m.

14 --- On resuming at 3.30 p.m.

15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Mr. Zecevic, this is the place at the point in time when the

17 investigation was carried out. Can we ask all participants to pay

18 attention to the words of the investigator that accompany this video

19 footage?

20 [Video-clip played]

21 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] Can you look on the roof, please, to

22 see if the tail-fin is not there, maybe?

23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Is it correct that the investigator is saying, Go to the roof to

25 check if the tail-fin is perhaps there?

Page 12328

1 A. Yes, and there is nothing strange about that. This is the proper

2 procedure when an investigator is investigating the scene of the crime,

3 compiling the documentation, doing all the proper investigative

4 procedures and we'll see later that the UNPROFOR soldier will come and

5 take a look and see where the stabiliser is.

6 Q. [No interpretation]

7 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Karadzic please repeat his question?

8 JUDGE KWON: Please wait, put a pause. The interpreter couldn't

9 hear you. Could you repeat your question?

10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Yes, thank you. We've seen the photograph from Dobrinja from the

12 day before on the same surface, what the crater looks like. Let me ask

13 you this now. A little bit earlier you showed us the process of

14 fragmentation. Would you agree that fragmentation precedes the

15 penetration of the stabiliser into the surface?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And that penetration takes place at a velocity of some 200 metres

18 per second? Is that correct?

19 A. May I remark on the interpretation? Actually, it does not occur

20 at 200 metres per second if we are talking about the stabiliser fin.

21 What do you mean when you say penetration of the stabiliser?

22 Q. I'm talking about the sequence of physical actions. We have

23 contact with the fuse, we have the explosion, and then the fragmentation.

24 After that, the stabiliser fin continues to delve into the earth or it's

25 ejected; is that correct?

Page 12329

1 A. Well what you said is not quite precise, but let's say it is that

2 way. Because at the point in time when the projectile strikes the

3 obstacle, the explosive chain is initiated which lasts for a millionth

4 part of a second, the explosive is activated, the process is not

5 instantaneous. The body of the mine expands. The fuse is pushed towards

6 the ground. The products of the detonation are released and the body

7 continues to expand. There are cracks and then the fragmentation, the

8 fragments disperse on all sides, to some 1.000 to 1200 metres per second,

9 and then the stabiliser is embedded into the surface if the speed of the

10 projectile at the point of impact is greater than 170 plus/minus 20

11 metres per second. If not, it will be ejected or it will drop somewhere

12 in the vicinity. There are some variations, but we don't need to lose

13 any more time.

14 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Gaynor?

15 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, can I just ask the interpreter possibly

16 to check the use of the word "mine"? The word in the original does

17 resemble the English word "mine," but it's usually translated as mortar

18 and I do believe that Dr. Karadzic would accept that, that the word we

19 are looking for is mortar rather than mine. Thank you.

20 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mortar projectile.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The mortar is the device and the

23 projectile is the mortar mine or shell. In our language, the mortar is

24 the barrel and the mine or the shell is the projectile.

25 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. I think that clarifies the matter.

Page 12330

1 Let's proceed.

2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. You ruled out the possibility in your report that the shell was

4 thrown from the neighbouring roof or that it was activated in some other

5 way; is that right?

6 A. Can you please -- well, I said that that was not rational. It's

7 not possible to throw a projectile with a fuse that is prepared for

8 action for the projectile to fall on the tip or the head of the fuse, and

9 for the fin then to embed itself into the ground.

10 Q. Thank you. All right. In the report you said, I'm going to read

11 it to you, that means that the velocity must act upon the shell in order

12 for it to be armed. Is that correct?

13 A. In order for the fuse to be armed.

14 Q. Without them, without these forces, it is just an inert object

15 that is not going to explode. Thus this rules out the possibility of

16 using a mortar shell in any other way than the one that it is meant for.

17 Illustration. For example, if a shell were to be dropped from a

18 building, the fuse would not be armed because the forces that would

19 develop while it was falling would not activate the fuse arming

20 mechanism; is this correct from your report?

21 A. Can you please tell me which report you're talking about?

22 Q. This was an interview with you, and then you said, "Then we asked

23 Professor Zecevic." We will find it in just a minute, please. The ERN

24 number is 03051467, 03051467. And it's paragraph 4, actually paragraph 5

25 on that page. Does this text sound familiar to you?

Page 12331

1 A. To tell you the truth, I gave hundreds of interviews, and

2 I really couldn't tell you when I gave the interview.

3 Q. We will get the reference now. Perhaps the ERN number will help

4 to find the correct text. During the examination-in-chief, you changed

5 slightly what you said, and you said it would be possible to arm the fuse

6 by hand in such a way that even a small impact can activate it; is that

7 correct?

8 A. No. Not in that way. Simply, while -- for military purposes, it

9 is forbidden to make any kind of interventions on the fuse. But if you

10 want to be a terrorist, this is something else. And you want to be a

11 suicide bomber, and you want to kill your fellow citizens, then you are

12 going to make interventions on the fuse or make a new fuse which will

13 have no protective mechanisms and then you will stand on top of a

14 building, you will take a mortar and throw the shell and watch as your

15 fellow citizens are getting killed by you. You could do it like that.

16 Q. Well, thank you very much. I wouldn't have described it better

17 myself.

18 A. Well, yes, I mean, this is what terrorists do.

19 Q. Other than this modification that would be done on the fuse,

20 could such a shell be activated in some other way? For example, by an

21 explosive, like dynamite or some kind of electronic fuse or something?

22 A. You are talking about a terrorist act again. Perhaps you can put

23 your hypothesis of what a terrorist is supposed to do and then I could

24 give you my expert opinion.

25 Q. Well, can this mine be activated by a dynamite stick or some

Page 12332

1 other way?

2 A. If I understood you correctly, what you are assuming is that a

3 terrorist would take a mortar projectile, place it on the market. In

4 this case it would be the market, wouldn't it? Okay. Or perhaps a

5 department store, would place it there, would place the detonator and the

6 plastic explosive in order to create the initiation of the first charge,

7 the primary charge, the activation could be carried out electronically,

8 it would be by a slow-burning fuse, it could be by a detonating fuse, it

9 could be by a radio-directed device. It's a question of choice. This is

10 why you have terrorism all over the world.

11 Q. Thank you. It's probably known to you that on the day of the

12 incident, investigation teams of the UNPROFOR came to the scene of the

13 crime and the French captain made a report which was later excluded from

14 the analysis, because of some assessments of the direction that did not

15 fit into the results of the other investigators. Regardless of the

16 shortcomings, this captain's report is quite significant for another

17 reason. He wrote in the report that the shell exploded on the market

18 stall. Are you aware of that?

19 A. No. I'm not aware of that, because nobody gave me such a report

20 to read, and to tell you the truth, I'm not interested in reading other

21 people's reports. For one reason only, and that is if I get a project of

22 what I'm supposed to do, then I strictly stick to what is given to me to

23 analyse. I always indicate that at the start of my analysis. And in

24 that way, I can be quite certain that I did not have any outside

25 influences during the forming of my opinion.

Page 12333

1 Q. [No interpretation]

2 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Karadzic please repeat the number?

3 Thank you.

4 JUDGE KWON: Could you repeat the number.

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] P1441. P1441, page 1, please, and

6 then can we look at page 5? Thank you. Can we see this document in the

7 e-court? All right. Here it is.

8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Can you look at page 1, please? And now can we look at page 5?

10 Item G. Can we look at paragraph marked G, where it says, "Description

11 of damage":

12 [In English] "The mortar shell impacted on the wood of a stall,

13 90 millimetres from the ground so that the analysis was very difficult."

14 [Interpretation] They didn't show you this, did they?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Thank you. This is a P document, so we won't tender it.

17 How would the explosion manifest itself if the explosion occurred

18 on the stall?

19 A. I didn't quite understand what you said.

20 Q. Could you tell us: Had the explosion happened on the stall, on

21 the top of the stall, what would it have looked like?

22 A. Before I answer I want to give you a technical description of the

23 stall. The stall has a plastic roof. Right? Do we agree? Underneath

24 the stall, underneath the roof, about 1.20 metres lower there is a

25 paper -- a wooden surface, and that surface is installed on a metal

Page 12334

1 frame. Have I described a stall correctly?

2 Q. Yes. The structure, but the dimensions are not quite accurate.

3 But we will do that later.

4 A. The projectile would not be able to pass through the plastic roof

5 without exploding, before hitting the wooden surface of the stall plate.

6 And you can look at that. I gave the results of the French technical

7 experts and this is the report with their findings, and it says that the

8 mortar fuse can act on a cardboard surface that is 3 millimetres thick.

9 So in any case, the mortar projectile could not explode on the table of

10 the stall but it would be activated as soon as it hit the roof. So this

11 finding actually is contrary even to the findings of the French experts.

12 Q. Thank you. I think then that you assume that if the projectile

13 was at an angle of 90 degrees, it would have to explode as soon as it hit

14 the roof but if it came at an angle of 60 degrees or lower could it miss

15 the roof and hit the stall directly?

16 A. Well, if you want me to answer that, Mr. Karadzic, I would like

17 you to give me a diagram of that assumption because you are not -- you

18 are not being precise.

19 Q. But you were indicating what the normal situation would be

20 because you did mention the angle of 90 degrees.

21 A. If the angle is less than 90 degrees.

22 Your Honour, may I just show you a photograph that shows such a

23 stall since we are talking about it?

24 Q. All right. We are going to come to that. I'm going to show it.

25 Well, actually I am giving up on this particular matter.

Page 12335

1 The next day, when you came, did you notice a stall whose

2 surface, the top surface, was damaged as if something had exploded there?

3 Did you notice that when you came the following day?

4 A. Mr. Karadzic, when something explodes on a wooden surface, when

5 2.3 kilograms of TNT blows up on a wooden surface, there would be nothing

6 left of that surface. This is my experience, experience on the basis of

7 my practice and of the colleagues from the VTI who worked with me on

8 these experiments and the testing there.

9 Q. Can we look at 1D3296, 1D3296, please. First question,

10 Mr. Zecevic: Is any of these stalls turned on its roof?

11 A. I really couldn't tell you. Can you point out which one you're

12 thinking of?

13 Q. If you don't see it, all right. Never mind. Can you see that

14 this man is pointing to the wooden board and there is a defective part on

15 it?

16 A. Can you tell me which part you're pointing to?

17 Q. It's marked C2, the board is marked as C2.

18 A. On C2, I don't see any defects.

19 Q. Where this red bag is standing, that's where it is.

20 A. I'm not seeing it. What is a defect in your eyes? You're not

21 being precise.

22 Q. Can you look at D1? Are there any defects there? I mean, you

23 know what a defect is, that a part of the board would be missing.

24 A. Yes, yes. A small part on the left-hand side.

25 Q. And here on C2, where you see some sort of red bag there, do you

Page 12336

1 see a part of the board missing there?

2 A. I really couldn't make any kind of conclusion because, first of

3 all, I don't know what that stall originally looked like.

4 Q. What about this stall? Do you know that there are two double

5 lines on the roof so this stall is turned over and it's burned? There

6 are burn marks on it. And a part of the panel is missing. This is the

7 one that's marked D1.

8 A. What do you mean, the effect of burning on the wood? What does

9 that mean to you?

10 Q. Please, can you look at the bottom where it says, D1, or O1, at

11 the bottom where we have two parallel pipes? Is that the roof

12 construction of the stall?

13 A. Really, I couldn't say. I cannot conclude that on the basis of

14 this. You cannot make me make a conclusion on the basis of something

15 that I'm not seeing very well. What is the point of this whole story?

16 Q. Is the base of the roof broader than the bottom of the board --

17 of the stall?

18 A. Mr. Karadzic, I'm going to show you some stalls as well. Here

19 they are. These are the stalls from Markale that I photographed. Here

20 they are. If we want to discuss that particular matter.

21 Q. But I'm asking you to look at this particular stall. This was

22 published in the special review of Sandzak, and an eyewitness there is

23 pointing out certain objects. I assert that this particular stall, with

24 two parallel pipes at the bottom, I'm saying that that is the roof and

25 that the bottom is facing up. It's turned upside down. Is that correct

Page 12337

1 or not?

2 A. Mr. Karadzic, you're asking me -- well, first of all, I would

3 like to know who is it from Sandzak that photographed this? I can show

4 you what I saw and photographed and I can discuss the photographs that

5 I looked at. I can proffer that photograph and we can discuss that

6 hypothesis of yours that the projectile hit the wood panel of the stall

7 at a height of 90 degrees -- 90 -- 0.90 metres from the ground.

8 Q. Can we now look at 1D3297? This is the section of the footage

9 marked V 000350-1-A, and the photograph is 1D3297.

10 Thank you. Can you see this stall construction and can you see

11 the results of the damage caused by the explosion? On the actual wooden

12 panel, below this letter A, can you see that?

13 A. Yes, I can see the effects of fragmentation. Do you know what

14 happens when a fragment of five grams hits a surface at 1200 metres per

15 second? So 100 metres velocity. Newton metres velocity is sometimes

16 taken into account for artillery that is supposed to incapacitate a horse

17 that is dragging artillery. That is one value. But here, the value of

18 the metre-Newtons is much, much higher.

19 JUDGE KWON: I'm only amazed by the ability of our interpreters,

20 if you could slow down, doctor, when you are speaking some technical

21 issues.

22 Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please continue.

23 Okay. It's time to take another five-minute break. Five

24 minutes.

25 --- Break taken at 3.56 p.m.

Page 12338

1 --- On resuming at 4.01 p.m.

2 JUDGE KWON: Yes.

3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Mr. Zecevic, let's finish this issue about the stalls. If an

5 explosive device would explode or, rather, in order to have the stall

6 turned upside down on the spot, does that mean that the explosion had to

7 happen underneath? If it happened next to it, it would eject it to the

8 side; is that correct?

9 A. Mr. Karadzic, whether something is going to turn upside down or

10 not depends on the pressure and the surface to which -- that is exposed

11 to this pressure. Therefore, I cannot give you an answer unless you give

12 me a precise definition and tell me where the explosive device was, what

13 was the volume of the explosive, what was below the explosive device,

14 what kind of material, et cetera, because, Mr. Karadzic, after an

15 explosion occurred, a rescue operation was mounted to save the wounded

16 and to take away the dead and during that operation the stalls could have

17 been turned upside down. So there is a human factor involved there, not

18 only explosion. So you're asking me to comment something, these people

19 are just standing there and looking at something and I don't know what

20 had happened before that, therefore I don't think it's technically

21 appropriate for me to comment on that.

22 Q. Thank you. Let's go back to what you were doing. You decided on

23 the angle of impact by the stabiliser, is that a modified method and what

24 is the degree of its accuracy?

25 A. Mr. Karadzic, since World War II --

Page 12339

1 Q. Please don't give us a lecture. My question was not properly

2 recorded. You determined the descent angle of the shell; is that

3 correct?

4 A. Mr. Karadzic, I determined that angle in a very simple fashion.

5 I put the support of the stabiliser inside the hole that was caused by

6 the penetration of the stabiliser through the ground, I put the military

7 quadrant and I determined that the angle was 60 degrees, and I allowed

8 for a margin of error of plus/minus 5 degrees. So that's a standard

9 method that is applied. If you claim that I made a mistake, the error

10 could have been only expressed in minutes, that's why I allowed for this

11 margin of error of plus/minus 5 degrees.

12 Q. Thank you. Has this method been verified and does it have a

13 reputation of being accurate? Is it recognised?

14 A. For a method to be recognised --

15 Q. I'm asking you about this particular one. Don't give us lecture.

16 I'm asking you: Is this a standard and verified and recognised method

17 and is it accurate?

18 A. Mr. Karadzic, it was not normal practice to kill people at

19 marketplace. I haven't finished, Mr. Karadzic, please. I have never

20 interrupted you.

21 Q. Please answer my question.

22 A. I'm going to give you an answer, Mr. Karadzic.

23 JUDGE KWON: Let's hear the answer out. Dr. Zecevic, could

24 you --

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Give me more time, Excellency, and

Page 12340

1 then I will be prepared to listen to him. Give me 25 hours.

2 JUDGE KWON: Once asked, he should answer your question.

3 Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

5 This was not a standard method. It became a standard after the

6 capture of Baghdad by the USA, and one can deem this method to be already

7 adopted in assessing the operations carried out by terrorists in urban

8 zones.

9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Can you tell us the source of the verification of this method

11 from an expert and scientific point of view?

12 A. Mr. Karadzic, I can give you that, and I can show you in what way

13 according to the US regulations, and based on the canal created by the

14 projectile fuse at the time of explosion, a direction can be established.

15 However, there is no need to determine the descent angle of the

16 stabiliser for a very simple reason. In military methodology, we can

17 determine where artillery fire is coming from, and in this particular

18 instance, it was completely irrelevant for the army to determine the

19 location of the origin of fire. So what we have here is military

20 forensic methodology and it's going to be introduced and applied in the

21 cases when we want to investigate whether civilian targets were targeted

22 intentionally.

23 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that it is said in the manuals that the

24 stabiliser serves only to identify the projectile that came in and

25 exploded?

Page 12341

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Thank you. You said just now that the stabiliser serves for

3 determining the direction from which a shell comes, but not the -- it is

4 used for the descent angle, because that's not necessary.

5 A. Well, that's not what I said, or maybe I got confused. I can

6 repeat what I really think. I need the permission by the President.

7 JUDGE KWON: By all means, yes. Proceed, Mr. Zecevic.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The direction of the projectile,

9 from which it came, after the explosion takes place is determined based

10 on the effects of the fragments on the ground, and based on the canal

11 made by the fuse which is in the top section of the projectile and which

12 is embedded into the ground at the point of impact. This is what is said

13 in military manuals. In this particular case, it was extremely important

14 for us to determine at which angle the projectile fell, and for that

15 purpose, I put the support of the stabiliser that it made and by using a

16 military instrument to determine the angle at which it fell. So this is

17 nothing technically complicated or unrealistic. However, the very

18 presence of the stabiliser in the ground, and the -- its angle can

19 clearly indicate the zones from which the projectile was fired.

20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Now I'm going to read you your previous answer. It starts from

22 line 8 on page 44 and then line 11:

23 [In English] "However, there is no need to determine the descent

24 angle of the stabiliser for a very simple reason: In military

25 methodology, we can determine where artillery fire is coming from and in

Page 12342

1 this particular -- it was completely irrelevant for the army to determine

2 the location of the original fire."

3 [Interpretation] That was your answer. Now I'm asking you. You

4 got engaged in determining the angle in order to determine that it had

5 come from the Serb-held territory rather than from the Muslim-held

6 territory.

7 A. Mr. Karadzic, may I answer this question in the manner I think

8 would be appropriate?

9 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please proceed, doctor.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't do that in order to rule

11 out a position that was in the BH Army-controlled territory. Now, with

12 full responsibility, I can tell you that because I put this in my report,

13 an order was issued for me to be assassinated in 1994, and the person who

14 was to kill me is known. His name is known. Because I specified that

15 there was a location in the BH Army-controlled territory as a possible

16 origin of fire. So my life was at stake in Sarajevo all the time.

17 I could have been killed. Now, after this kind of discussions and

18 conversations and certain propaganda programmes broadcast by VRS, I'm not

19 sure whether I would again be the target of assassination when I go back

20 to Sarajevo.

21 Q. Did this threat lead you to deal with distances of 3 or 4.000

22 metres and that on the basis of the angle that you determined, you

23 concluded that it had come from the Serbian side? And can you tell us

24 who is it that is threatening you?

25 A. Mr. Karadzic, I'm not afraid to put in writing what I wanted to

Page 12343

1 put in writing, and that's what I did. Everything that I wrote in my

2 report is identical to what experts of the Military Technical Institute

3 in 2003 did. They only said in their analysis that the ground on Markale

4 was made of concrete in order to demonstrate that the descent angle was

5 not within the realistic sphere. I can provide this report, this

6 fabricated report, made by the three doctors from the technical

7 institute. I don't know who gave the order for me to be assassinated but

8 I know who was supposed to do that, and unfortunately, that person died

9 two years ago and the reason for that was what I wrote about the Markale.

10 Q. And that was definitely not from the Serbian side.

11 A. No, it wasn't.

12 Q. Thank you. Let us now determine the following: You measured the

13 angle of descent in this fashion, "yes" or "no"?

14 A. I explained to you how I measured this angle. I placed the

15 stabiliser support inside the hole created by the stabiliser during

16 penetration. After that, I did the measurement by using a quadrant and

17 I determined that the angle was approximately 60 degrees. Actually and

18 nominally, I put it to 60 degrees plus/minus 5 degrees.

19 Q. Thank you. Now all we need from you is to provide us with a

20 scientific basis for this method, which would say clearly that it was

21 verified. Can we now look at 65 ter 09620? Page 13.

22 By a scaler and based on your experience, can you tell us how

23 long this stabiliser is?

24 A. Approximately 150 millimetres.

25 Q. Thank you. How do you explain that the edges of the fins are

Page 12344

1 only slightly deformed given the fact that it was completely embedded in

2 the ground?

3 A. Because they are made of steel, and steel is much harder than the

4 soil, sand or other such surface.

5 Q. Can we now look at another photograph? Is this photograph part

6 of an exhibit?

7 JUDGE KWON: Yes. It's Exhibit P1709. You noted it. I haven't

8 confirmed it.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have -- I said 65 ter.

10 Can we now please have 1D3298, photograph number 2?

11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. This is a stabiliser that also was embedded partially into a

13 solid surface. Can you see that this is greater degree of deformity?

14 A. Yes, but I don't know where it was embedded, whether it was

15 embedded, in fact, or whether it was ejected.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at the previous

17 photograph, which shows that at least two pairs of fins are not deformed

18 at all? We can have the object itself. Can it be given to the witness?

19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].

20 Q. Can you see that there are fin tail pairs that are totally

21 undamaged and that there are some fins that remained in their place?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Can we now have 1D3300? Mr. Witness, are you aware of the fact

24 that one investigator from UNPROFOR did not want to state any opinion,

25 because there had been some digging inside the crater?

Page 12345

1 A. No, I'm not.

2 Q. Are we talking about this same stabiliser, Mr. Zecevic?

3 A. I couldn't tell. I can only look in my documents and verify

4 whether the markings on the front end of the stabiliser are the same as

5 when I had an opportunity to see it some 16 or 17 years ago. As it is --

6 Q. Yes. Feel free to take a look, if you're not going to take too

7 much time.

8 A. Mr. Karadzic, I can't see anything in the photograph. It could

9 be any stabiliser.

10 Q. Very well.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this photograph be tendered

12 into evidence, the one that is in e-court?

13 JUDGE KWON: Where is it from, Mr. Karadzic?

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] From the investigation material

15 provided by the Bosnian police. It's taken from a videoclip. It's a

16 frame from a videoclip.

17 MR. GAYNOR: I don't think it is a frame from a videoclip, but

18 I think it has been admitted already. I don't think it need be

19 readmitted; I'm almost certain it's been admitted already.

20 JUDGE KWON: You do not challenge it is the photo of the

21 incident?

22 MR. GAYNOR: We do not.

23 JUDGE KWON: Just in case, we'll admit it, then. And withdraw it

24 when we will have found that it has been already admitted.

25 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, that will be Exhibit 1098,

Page 12346

1 D1098.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we now have 65 ter

3 10676?

4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. This is your report and I believe it's already in evidence under

6 a different number, so 65 ter 10676. Page 5, please. It starts with

7 5231 and so on and so forth. So page 5, please.

8 Is this the sketch that is in your report?

9 A. Give me just a minute to look at it. I believe so.

10 Q. Did you make this drawing and did you make the markings?

11 A. I made the markings, but I didn't make the drawing.

12 Q. Is the north correctly entered in both diagrams, the one that we

13 previously saw and this one?

14 A. What do you mean by "correctly"?

15 Q. Accurately.

16 A. Probably. I can't tell you that. The only key element here is

17 18 degrees and the point where the explosion took place in relation to

18 the neighbouring object, and that the direction of incoming fire encloses

19 18 degrees angle. It contains all the perimeters that can be reproduced,

20 and this drawing is correct from the technical point of view.

21 Q. Can we have another sketch in the other half of the screen, which

22 is 3293? Mr. Zecevic, I thought that the cardinal points and the

23 geographical constants are beyond any discussion. However, it seems that

24 we indeed might discuss that, after all.

25 JUDGE KWON: Before you do, do we not have an English translation

Page 12347

1 of this page?

2 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, I believe there is. It should have been

3 admitted. I can find the English translation.

4 JUDGE KWON: I think pagination is totally different and

5 I couldn't find that. But we take another five-minutes break.

6 --- Break taken at 4.25 p.m.

7 --- On resuming at 4.33 p.m.

8 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President, I haven't been able to locate an

9 English translation of that specific diagram. We will have one done if

10 one doesn't exist and we will tender it for admission under the same

11 exhibit number as the Dr. Zecevic's Markale I report.

12 JUDGE KWON: Could you take a look globally, whether the English

13 translation matches with the B/C/S version?

14 MR. GAYNOR: We will do that, Mr. President.

15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

16 Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please continue.

17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Mr. Zecevic, on one of these diagrams, the north is not marked

19 correctly. On which one?

20 A. North is marked correctly on both diagrams. The problem that you

21 have is that you would like to have a floor plan of the position and the

22 location. These are diagrams with key dimensions of key objects, and

23 this is what is creating the confusion. Technically, it's perfectly

24 correct with clear dimensions and I don't see any problems there at all.

25 You just need to look at it more carefully.

Page 12348

1 Q. And what is the purpose of these diagrams, what are they for,

2 Mr. Zecevic?

3 A. In order to identify positions, where the event took place in

4 relation to the buildings that are located nearby. So if you would like

5 us to look at the sketch which is -- or the diagram which is to the left,

6 it's clearly defined where the centre of the explosion is in relation to

7 the supermarket, and in relation to the edge of the street, and also

8 north is specified and the angle of descent of the projectile, which is

9 18 degrees. The other diagram which provides a broader area, you can

10 clearly see the position of the market itself, and there is also 11.1

11 metres, this is the position from the vertical wall, which is to the

12 right from the centre of the explosion, and the dimension 4.16 metres

13 from the supermarket where, on the left sketch, it is indicated that this

14 is a part of the building that is 3.65 metres high and the bottom

15 building is 5.5 metres high. So this is not a diagram that is drawn to

16 scale, but all the characteristic points are clearly defined, all the

17 dimensions are provided and, tomorrow, somebody can reproduce that and if

18 you wish you can also have a look at the correctly-drawn diagram, but

19 technicians can also make use of diagrams such as this one. It's

20 sufficient.

21 Q. All right. If these have been individually tendered, all right,

22 but I would also like to tender the two of them side by side as we are

23 looking at them now.

24 JUDGE KWON: I'm not sure whether we can do that, but for record

25 we can note that we are seeing at the same time the Exhibit D1095 and

Page 12349

1 page 5, B/C/S version page 5 of his witness expert report, am I correct?

2 MR. GAYNOR: That's correct, Mr. President.

3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And the second page as well. I

5 don't know what page it is. This is 1D3293.

6 JUDGE KWON: Which was admitted as Exhibit D1095. Let's move on.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Now I'm going to show you, Mr. Zecevic, our city of Sarajevo, and

10 the location of Markale as shown on Google Earth. Can we look at that?

11 Here where this square is do you recognise where the Titova and

12 Vase Miskina street diverge? The point where the cursor is?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And this point where the cursor is right now, is that where the

15 Markale Market is?

16 A. Probably. This is a Google map. It's a free map. I think we

17 should have used the professional's Google software in order to have the

18 image we want because this is not such a clear image.

19 Q. Here, where it says, 2.9 kilometres, do you see that place where

20 it says 18.70 degrees?

21 A. Mr. Karadzic, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

22 Q. Will you just answer that? Do you see this little window where

23 it says, length, 2.9 kilometres, and the heading is 18.70 degrees?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. So this tool has identified this yellow line here. Does this

Page 12350

1 yellow line now start at Markale and does it not end at the top of the

2 Grdonj hill?

3 A. Well, you cannot ask me to confirm that when I'm unable to

4 confirm that, the resolution is not good. There is no identification.

5 Actually, perhaps you should have provided me with a military map

6 containing this information.

7 JUDGE KWON: But whether you can confirm the other end of this

8 yellow line is Grdonj hill?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I couldn't confirm that because I

10 don't know the position of Grdonj hill either.

11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Mr. Zecevic, this is our town. We know every hill around it.

13 How come you don't know the hill?

14 A. Mr. Karadzic, I was in the city. The others were in the hills

15 around.

16 Q. Who held Grdonj hill, Mr. Zecevic?

17 A. Mr. Karadzic, it was probably where the line of separation was

18 between the B and H army and the Army of Republika Srpska. And also,

19 it's a question at what point in the war we are dealing with.

20 Q. If you look at the south slope of Grdonj and if we assume that it

21 was held by the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, would that sound familiar and

22 acceptable to you?

23 A. Mr. Karadzic, the positions of the forces in conflict during the

24 war were a military secret for all of us who were in the town itself.

25 You were a commander and you probably had better information than I did.

Page 12351

1 Q. I'm going to show you the area of responsibility and the makeup

2 of the 105th Brigade that was there. So the shell had to have come from

3 the 105th Brigade area or had to have flown over that area. Let me show

4 that to you. Here is the zone, and here is the composition. This is the

5 line of separation and these are the units making up the 105th Brigade,

6 the command, the mortars and so on and so forth. All of this is based on

7 Muslim documents. Would you like to know which documents? For example,

8 let's place the cursor on any mortar here.

9 A. Mr. Karadzic, I don't understand what you expect from me.

10 Q. Mr. Zecevic, you said that there is just one location in the area

11 of responsibility of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina from where the

12 fire -- shot could have been fired and you said that that was based on

13 the angle of descent; is that correct?

14 A. On the basis of the angle of descent and the incoming angle.

15 Q. All right. We are going to give you 13 degrees, so this is 18

16 plus/minus 5 so this is 13 degrees now. Can we have 23 degrees now?

17 Okay, we have 23 degrees now. From this -- it could have come from this

18 area or not, why couldn't it have come from this particular section, from

19 this particular section of Muslim territory?

20 A. Mr. Karadzic, the distance is 2.1 kilometres; is that correct?

21 Q. Yes.

22 A. At a distance of 2.1 kilometres, you could have launched a

23 projectile only with the primary charge, first charge.

24 Q. That's not correct.

25 A. Yes, this is correct. From a distance of 1840 to -- from 1640 to

Page 12352

1 1840, so that's the distance where the line of separation was.

2 Q. Yes.

3 A. Only a crazy man would place a mortar at a distance of 2 to 300

4 metres from the line of separation. A mortar is a very important weapon

5 during war and it's always placed in a position from where the enemy

6 forces cannot eliminate it easily.

7 Q. All right. You can see where the mortars were and we have Muslim

8 documents indicating that that is where they were placed.

9 A. Immaterial, Mr. Karadzic. Had it been the first or the second

10 charge, the stabiliser would not have been found at Markale. It would

11 have been immediately in the vicinity of the place of the explosion and

12 it would not have penetrated the ground. And this is why you are so much

13 fighting the idea of the penetration, because any expert that comes here

14 will inevitably say that the area from where the shell came was some 5 to

15 6.4 kilometres away from there. Nobody can dispute that, there are no

16 arguments that can be used to dispute that. The only thing that you can

17 say is that had the stabiliser not have been in the ground, and had the

18 UNPROFOR soldier not taken it out, then you could have used any other

19 hypothesis.

20 Q. The first proper footage indicates that the stabiliser was not

21 there and we hear a voice saying that they should look for the stabiliser

22 possibly on the roof. Is that possible?

23 A. It's not possible. Let me tell you why. Can I please have the

24 stabiliser? You are trying to say that a person could have taken a

25 stabiliser like this, placed it on the ground and hit it with a hammer in

Page 12353

1 order to push it in; is that correct?

2 Q. Through a wooden board, why not?

3 A. Because there is no person that would be strong enough to embed

4 the stabiliser into the asphalt and through the earth without anybody at

5 the market seeing that this was being done. Before that, they had to

6 have killed the people, frozen in time and space all the people that they

7 had killed, and then to push the stabiliser in.

8 Q. Thank you. Do you remember what you were dressed like?

9 I apologise. How were you dressed when you were at the market?

10 A. Mr. Karadzic, I don't remember that, but I'm sure you will show

11 it on the video footage.

12 Q. Were you at the market on the 5th of March -- no, February, on

13 the day of the incident?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Can we look at some footage, please, a segment of the footage?

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is 1D3303 from 6.37 to 6.42.

17 [Video-clip played]

18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Is this you, Mr. Zecevic?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Let's have a look at photograph 1D3304. Is this you,

22 Mr. Zecevic?

23 A. I really couldn't say. All I can say is that on the 5th, I was

24 not there, and on the 6th and the 7th, I was. This is what I am

25 confirming. There are people who were with me on the 5th, who worked at

Page 12354

1 the UNIS institute together with me. No problem there. You don't have a

2 date here anywhere, do you?

3 Q. This is during the evacuation, Mr. Zecevic.

4 A. No, Mr. Karadzic. I would not be a serious person were I to come

5 here and lie.

6 Q. Can we admit that piece of film and this photograph, please?

7 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President, I don't see any basis for its

8 admission, the witness has not confirmed his presence in this photograph,

9 nor in the film previously shown.

10 JUDGE KWON: But in order to understand the evidence, we need

11 this -- what question was asked, what --

12 MR. GAYNOR: For that reason, I have no objection at all.

13 JUDGE KWON: For that reason, we'll admit that.

14 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibits D1099 and 1100 respectively.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the footage on the

16 8th, there is a photograph -- the footage of the 7th, there is a

17 photograph showing me. The experts of The Hague Tribunal can compare

18 this footage. There, you can see my silhouette, the clothes that I was

19 wearing, with this. No problem at all. I'm not afraid of anything.

20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Thank you. Can we now look at 1D03306, 1D03306. Are you visible

22 on this photograph?

23 A. I really cannot recognise myself. I cannot tell. Any person

24 with a beard and with black hair could be me.

25 Q. This is an excerpt from P1711, I think. P1711, at 5 minutes 42

Page 12355

1 seconds, to five minutes 53 seconds. We cannot show that now. We have

2 the photograph so it's not you. This is the footage from the first day,

3 when the first investigators began to arrive. And so at that time you're

4 not in this shot, are you? Is that correct?

5 A. Mr. Karadzic, I explained how I got to the Markale Market. After

6 the explosion, when the investigators came, when the wounded and the dead

7 were removed, nobody could have access there on the day of the explosion.

8 I had access on the following day and for that I was -- I had the

9 authorisation of the investigating judge.

10 Q. Thank you. Can we tender this photograph, please? This is part

11 of the footage marked P1711 as we mentioned before.

12 JUDGE KWON: Actually, it's difficult to see the point of

13 tendering this.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. We can identify later

15 who was in which shot.

16 Can we now have photograph 1D30 -- 3302, actually? No, actually.

17 65 ter 10676. We had this a little bit earlier.

18 JUDGE KWON: His report?

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 5, please. 5, please.

20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Could you please look at the lower right-hand corner where the

22 stall is sketched? Why is this type of stall on the diagram when that

23 type of stall was not in Markale at the time? Lower right-hand corner,

24 it says, "Side profile of the stall."

25 A. The diagram of the stall, the diagram, is something that I drew

Page 12356

1 in order to eliminate the possibility of someone saying that the

2 projectile struck the stall, passed through and exploded on the ground.

3 If you notice, I drew the stalls here. It's 0.76 metres broad, and then

4 we have the place of the explosion, and what I wanted to show was that it

5 was not possible for the projectile to strike or hit the stall and then

6 explode on the ground. This is the reason why I sketched it. What was

7 important to me was this stall here that is close to the place of the

8 explosion.

9 Q. Why didn't you draw the stalls that were there, with the X type

10 of construction?

11 A. Mr. Karadzic, for me, this is a diagram that I needed in order to

12 present my theory of the event, which boils down to the height, 2.1

13 metres, and width, 0.76 metres. The dimensions of the stall, in order to

14 calculate that the projectile could not have struck the top of the stall

15 and that was enough for me to do my analysis. It was not my task to film

16 or represent the stalls. All I was asked to do was to who show that the

17 projectile could not have struck the top of the stall and this is the

18 reason why I got there on the second day, when I got to the market, when

19 I was filmed by the TV crews and when Mr. Orucevic began to behave like a

20 smart-aleck.

21 JUDGE KWON: It's time to take a half an hour break.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just wanted to put the last

23 question about this.

24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Witness, sir, the Defence believes that -- the Defence believes

Page 12357

1 that the map should correspond to the terrain that it is illustrating, so

2 the stall here shown is a different one from the one that was there. We

3 believe that this is important in order to draw conclusions about the

4 incident at Markale. Different stall, different trajectory of the shell.

5 So why did you not make your calculations on the basis of the stall as it

6 actually was? Did you change the actual dimensions and the appearance of

7 the stall in order to show that the shell could not have hit the ground

8 without previously hitting the roof of the stall? Is that correct?

9 A. Mr. Karadzic, the stall did not influence the trajectory of the

10 projectile. The stall did not interfere with the penetration of the

11 stabiliser into the ground. And it absolutely is of no importance. It's

12 important to you because you're trying to prove that I am unfit, that I

13 don't know, that I was fiddling and meddling with the results, that I was

14 doctoring the results but actually, the key thing is that the stabiliser

15 penetrated the ground to the depth of 250 millimetres, that on the basis

16 of that penetration, I established the angle. And you cannot dispute

17 that. That's it. Finished.

18 Q. Sir, I am asserting that you did that in order to rule out the

19 possibility that it was a static explosion, that it occurred on the

20 ground. I am not dealing with you. I'm dealing with the event. And you

21 did not present the stall as it actually was there at the time. Thank

22 you. Let's take the break.

23 JUDGE KWON: Half an hour.

24 --- Recess taken at 4.59 p.m.

Page 12358

1 --- On resuming at 5.31 p.m.

2 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, I was told that you have ten minutes

3 left, but the Chamber will give you this session to conclude your

4 cross-examination.

5 MR. ROBINSON: This session meaning 25 minutes before the

6 five-minute break or the whole session?

7 JUDGE KWON: No, 25 to 30 minutes.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you for that. It would have

9 been better if it were until the end, but all right.

10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].

11 Q. Mr. Zecevic, do you know how many investigations were carried out

12 in -- of the incident of Markale I with the sole task of establishing who

13 it was that fired the shell? If I say that there were at least ten

14 investigations that were carried out, what would you say to that?

15 A. I wouldn't say anything, Mr. Karadzic. Then I can just say that

16 I stand by what I said and what others did is their own affair.

17 Q. All right. P1441, can we have that, please, the first page, and

18 then we are going to move on to page 9.

19 Mr. Zecevic, these people, tens of teams, carried out an

20 investigation. Experienced people. This was not their first

21 investigation. They investigated with the objective of carrying out a

22 simple task: Establishing who it was that fired the shell. And let us

23 see what these people concluded. Let us have page 9 of this document,

24 please. The 15th of February. Mr. Zecevic, this is what it says:

25 [In English] "By the terms of reference issued on 11 February

Page 12359

1 1994, deputy force commander UNPROFOR ordered a follow-on investigation

2 into the explosion that occurred in Sarajevo and so on market."

3 [Interpretation] The -- they worked on the 11th and on the 15th

4 they are reporting to the UN.

5 Can we now have the next page, please?

6 Page 11, please. We can have a look at all of it. This is the

7 last sentence down here. Culpability means guilt or responsibility.

8 [In English] "There is insufficient physical evidence to prove

9 that one party or the other fired the mortar bomb. The mortar bomb in

10 question could have been fired by either side."

11 [Interpretation] And then page 17.

12 [In English] "The French battalion 4 crater analysis team" --

13 [Interpretation] Actually can we first look at the table up there? The

14 table. So the French battalion 4 on the 5th of February. Captain Verdy

15 on the 5th of February, Major Russell on the 5th of February, Khan on the

16 5th of February, Hamill on the 11th of February, Grande on the 11th of

17 February, Khan on the 12th, Hamill on the 12th, Grande on the 12th of

18 February, and Dubant on the 13th of February. So ten to one. Do you

19 remember that poem by Branko Copic that says that, ten to one?

20 Mr. Zecevic, this was not the first investigation that was carried out as

21 it was for you. So with full responsibility, they are reporting to the

22 UN that it is impossible to draw a conclusion. What do you say to that

23 now?

24 A. Mr. Karadzic, they are soldiers. They are not technical people.

25 They are not engineers who work on the design of ammunition and its

Page 12360

1 effects and analysis; they are soldiers. They use ammunition for killing

2 other soldiers. The task they were given was, carry out an analysis, and

3 that's what they did. And if they did this analysis, why are you

4 bothered by that? If these ten teams say that they carried out a good

5 analysis, and if there is just me on the other hand, why are you upset?

6 Because if we are just looking at sheer magnitude then there is ten to

7 one and my analysis is different from the ones that they carried out.

8 I really don't understand.

9 Q. Thank you. I'm not getting worked up at all. What I'm puzzled

10 by is how come you are the favourite witness and expert of the Court in

11 Bosnia and of this Court as well, the Tribunal, whereas these people are

12 not in that position? I'm puzzled by that. I'm not concerned about

13 that. However, these are not people who do the firing, these are

14 ballistics experts who worked on reliable methods. You are not a

15 ballistics expert and you applied a method that has not been approved

16 professionally or scientifically. This just shows that the Prosecution

17 was desperate, tried to get your hands on whatever you can get, so they

18 could not accuse someone on the basis of these ten reports, now, let's

19 get Mr. Zecevic to do something.

20 A. I'm too small a player for that kind of thing.

21 MR. GAYNOR: Objection. That was practically a speech delivered

22 by Mr. Karadzic there. He should put each question one at a time.

23 JUDGE KWON: Have you concluded your cross-examination,

24 Mr. Karadzic?

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, no. There is credibility too.

Page 12361

1 There are things that the witness gave us. He actually gave us a cue to

2 examine on that score. I'm done with Markale, though.

3 JUDGE KWON: Making statements is not helping us at all. Bear

4 that in mind, Mr. Karadzic.

5 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President, I do have a brief application to make

6 at this stage - the witness can stay here - and it's pursuant to Rule

7 90(H)(ii). Mr. Karadzic has just stated that he's done with Markale I

8 now. Throughout his questioning of Markale I in my submission he has not

9 complied with his duty under Rule 90(H)(ii) to put his case to the

10 witness. Embedded in his questions have been three positions, the first

11 is that the incident is a staged incident and never took place at all;

12 the second is that it was a static explosion which was -- a bomb was

13 delivered to and exploded at the marketplace; and the third position is

14 that it was a mortar projectile fired from Bosnian government-held

15 territory. In my submission, those three positions, they are mutually

16 contradictory which is not necessarily unacceptable as a Defence

17 strategy, but within the context of Rule 90(H)(ii), I request that the

18 accused put his case in respect of Markale I to the witness in one or two

19 sentences and give the witness an opportunity to respond to that.

20 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, if I could just respond to that

21 briefly. Our case is that the Serbs aren't responsible for that shell,

22 and we don't know how they did it, and we don't have to know how they did

23 it. And it's for the Prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

24 that, not only that the shell was fired by the Serb side, but that

25 Dr. Karadzic is responsible. So we don't have to commit ourselves to one

Page 12362

1 theory or another. We can raise multiple theories to raise a reasonable

2 doubt as to whether or not Dr. Karadzic is guilty of this offence.

3 Therefore, we don't have any obligation to make one -- select one item to

4 put to this witness. I think we've put our case fairly to this witness

5 to the extent that the witness can comment on it, and I don't think we

6 have to go any further than that.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE KWON: We agree with Mr. Robinson's observation. We'll

9 leave it in the hands of the Defence whether or not to put his case.

10 Let's go on. Let's continue.

11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Mr. Zecevic, is it correct that in a TV show called "60 Minutes,"

13 you stated that you believe that I am going to use your work in Tuzla in

14 relation to Kapija to discredit your method?

15 A. Could you just tell me when it was that I stated that?

16 Q. Did you state that or was it your lawyer on your behalf? I don't

17 know, but now we are going to see.

18 Can we have this played, a short videoclip, 3.27 to 5.01. It is

19 1D3276.

20 [Video-clip played]

21 JUDGE KWON: Have you prepared a transcript of this clip?

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We received this only recently.

23 Just recently. I would like to ask the interpreters to make an effort to

24 interpret that and we are going to provide a transcript.

25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We have to have a

Page 12363

1 transcript.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the interpreters please focus

3 on the words used?

4 JUDGE KWON: I was told that it would not be possible without

5 having that transcript.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Did your lawyer say that you were worried that Tuzla would be

9 used to discredit your method?

10 A. Sorry, which lawyer?

11 Q. Who was your lawyer?

12 A. I have two lawyers, one here and one in Sarajevo, for two

13 arrests.

14 Q. Tomic, the lawyer Tomic in Sarajevo who represented you after

15 your arrest?

16 A. Mr. Karadzic, how can I know what the lawyer said when I was in

17 prison without any information?

18 Q. Mr. Zecevic, are you cooperating with your lawyer and do you give

19 him power of attorney? Are you authorising him to say whatever he says

20 on your behalf?

21 A. Mr. Karadzic, on the basis of what I heard here, what is conveyed

22 is basically excerpts from my testimony in The Hague and also my

23 testimony before the state court in Sarajevo. I didn't hear any of what

24 you had said.

25 Q. Because we interrupted it, Mr. Zecevic, because we do not have a

Page 12364

1 translation. Do you want to hear it to the end?

2 A. Mr. Karadzic, I don't want to say anything about that, because I

3 cannot. I cannot interpret the statements made by someone in Sarajevo if

4 I was in The Hague in the meantime.

5 Q. All right. Do you know that there was an investigation regarding

6 this incident and that it was carried out by the official organs of the

7 security centre in Tuzla and that Turkusic, a witness, confirmed that

8 1500 photographs were taken and also that an extensive investigation had

9 been carried out?

10 A. Mr. Karadzic, I can just confirm that, as for the analysis of the

11 Kapija incident, I carried it out on the basis of the material, the

12 documents I got from the Office of the Prosecutor of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

13 which contained documents about an investigation that was carried out by

14 the then-municipal Prosecutor's office, I think, or the MUP of Tuzla, and

15 the report that was carried out by the UNPROFOR unit there. I think it

16 was a colonel who signed that document. And I had photographs of the

17 location of the incident. That is what I can confirm.

18 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that the then-investigation established

19 that the shell had come from a minimum of 20 to 21 kilometres and that it

20 is in line with the exclusion zone of heavy weaponry of 20 kilometres and

21 the separation line that is at 18 kilometres?

22 A. Mr. Karadzic, it says there minimum 20 kilometres. From minimum

23 to maximum, there can be all sorts of things.

24 Q. All right. Now, Mr. Zecevic, why did they not find these

25 findings sufficient in order to declare General Djukic guilty? Why did

Page 12365

1 you have to jump in to change things?

2 A. Mr. Karadzic, the findings of the international -- or no, no,

3 organisation, this commission of the UNPROFOR, and what I did with my own

4 team, I mean, there is -- there is no contradiction involved between the

5 two.

6 Q. Why were you engaged, then, Mr. Zecevic? Why? If they had a

7 thorough investigation that was supported by lots of photographs, why was

8 it necessary for you to come into the picture and to prove that it wasn't

9 fired from a minimum of 20 kilometres but from 27 kilometres? Tell me,

10 why could they not try General Djukic on the basis of what they already

11 had?

12 A. Mr. Karadzic, I was duty-bound to respond to the request made by

13 the Office of the Prosecutor. That is number 1. That is in accordance

14 with our law. Number 2, I am not a person who is in charge of working

15 against any person in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Now, why was I engaged? I

16 cannot give you an answer to that. I can just say that whenever I tried

17 to refuse to do something for the Office of the Prosecutor, I was

18 threatened by imprisonment and ultimately I did end up in prison.

19 Q. Thank you. Now I'm going to put the position of the Defence to

20 you to say why this was necessary, because it had become clear that Serb

21 artillery had been placed not 20 kilometres from the exclusion zone but

22 27 kilometres from the exclusion zone, so General Djukic could not have

23 been sentenced on the basis of existing investigations and that is why

24 you were called, as this omnipresent person, to change something that had

25 been done 13 years before.

Page 12366

1 A. Mr. Karadzic, if it is as clear as you say, then how do I put it,

2 it is quite ridiculous for me to respond to all of this. It's very easy

3 to prove things if I falsified things, forged things, if I'm not an

4 expert, if I have no idea on how to write up a paper, whatever. So my

5 paper was presented before the state authorities and a colleague from the

6 Military Technical Institute made his own analysis, he appeared in court

7 as an expert of the Defence. We were there, we both appeared in court as

8 experts, and it was up to the Judges to decide whose arguments were more

9 convincing, if I can put it that way. They made their ruling. It has

10 nothing to do with me. It's like in this case here, I'm speaking, you're

11 speaking, the Prosecutor is speaking. It is for the Honourable Trial

12 Chamber to pass judgement, to make a decision on the basis of what they

13 find convincing, so do not accuse me of somebody's convictions. Ask

14 somebody else about that.

15 Q. Thank you. Now, we are going to prove this, especially if the

16 Trial Chamber gives us a few extra minutes, we are going to prove why you

17 did this wrong. Can we have 1D3277? Can we have that in e-court?

18 JUDGE KWON: You'll have exactly nine minutes to conclude,

19 Mr. Karadzic.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that's a great pity, Your

21 Honour. I think that it is a great pity not to take full advantage of

22 the presence of this witness here to have him fully examined.

23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Tuzla was mentioned by other witnesses, although it's not in the

25 indictment, it is a corroboration in the view of the Prosecution. This

Page 12367

1 is not what we want. We want page 45 of this document in Serbian. Page

2 45. 3277. 1D3277.

3 JUDGE KWON: Can you switch to e-court?

4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Does this show that the shell fell in front of the Golf car

6 because the crater is in front of the car as you had marked it, right?

7 You did mark this, right? It's you who marked this?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. On the window of the shop over there you can see that the

10 mannequins have practically not been moved, that they are more or less

11 intact?

12 A. I cannot confirm that. I cannot confirm things as you see them.

13 Q. Let's have page 10 of this document, page 10 of the same

14 document. Is this the shop window where you can see the mannequins, that

15 are just standing there?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Are you trying to say that 3.7 kilograms of TNT that exploded in

18 front of this building, in your opinion a 133-millimetre shell, did not

19 manage to topple and deform these mannequins?

20 A. Mr. Karadzic, the car is moved to the left in this photograph.

21 The car should be in front of this arrow. According to witness

22 statements, young men and women were sitting on this car and other young

23 men and women were leaning against the wall. In other photographs we can

24 see parts of legs, arms, the result of the explosion. So the entire

25 blast effect, the entire effect of fragmentation, was suffered by these

Page 12368

1 young men and women who were there. The mannequins were behind them.

2 Those who were in front of the mannequins were dead.

3 Q. Thank you. This car, was it moved by the explosion or something

4 else?

5 A. It was the police that moved it the next day, the next morning,

6 according to statements made.

7 Q. Thank you. You were determining the angle of descent here,

8 right?

9 A. Mr. Karadzic, my task was to assess the zone of the area from

10 which the artillery projectile 130 millimetres was launched, the one that

11 hit Kapija. In accordance with that, I was supposed to determine the

12 direction, the angle of descent, so that on that basis, I could assess

13 the possible zones of the position of the weapon from which that

14 projectile had been fired, and I think that I did that successfully.

15 Q. Thank you. Did you investigate the incident or did you

16 investigate the investigation material? What were you assessing here?

17 You got the investigation material when? Ten years after the incident?

18 And you were looking for mistakes in that investigation material, right?

19 A. Mr. Karadzic, did I not find a single mistake in the

20 investigation material, no mistake made by the international military

21 forces. On the basis of photographs and on the basis of, if I can put it

22 that way, the reconstruction of the site itself, I determined the minimum

23 angle of descent at which the projectile was fired, and by way of an

24 external ballistic analysis I determined the zones from which it was

25 possible to launch the projectile of 130 millimetres, the one that was

Page 12369

1 operating in that place.

2 Q. Thank you. You did that on the basis of documentation, right, 13

3 years later, 12 years after the actual incident?

4 A. 1995, and I think that I did that in 2008. Is that right? I can

5 no longer remember, so, yes, 13 years.

6 Q. Thank you. So, in accordance with your findings the angle of

7 descent is between 62 and 68. --

8 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not catch the number.

9 Q. -- which is the maximum range of a 130 millimetre gun.

10 The question was not recorded in the transcript. So what you

11 determined was that the angle as between 62 and 67 degrees and 41

12 minutes, which corresponds to the zone of the maximum range of

13 130-millimetre gun, is that right?

14 A. I prefer the word "assess" or "estimate," rather than determine.

15 Q. Thank you. Is there a difference between "assess" and

16 "determine"?

17 A. Yes, there is.

18 Q. Thank you. So you confirm that because -- actually, how did you

19 confirm that? You confirmed that through the angle and how -- what else

20 did you do? Did you go to the zone?

21 A. Which zone, Mr. Karadzic?

22 Q. The zone from which you assessed that the projectile might have

23 been fired from?

24 A. Mr. Karadzic, when I placed the car, the automobile, into that

25 position that roughly corresponded to its position on the basis of

Page 12370

1 photographs of the incident when it actually took place, and these

2 photographs were submitted to me by the Office of the Prosecutor,

3 I determined the zone from which the shell could have been fired. As

4 I took into account the temperature on that day, and the pressure, the

5 air pressure on that day, because I asked the weather forecast institute

6 for all of this information, and then we assessed the possible area where

7 the weapon could have been. Then, together with an investigator who was

8 appointed by the Office of the Prosecutor, I went with my colleagues to

9 the place where, if I can put it that way, the zone could have been, the

10 zone from which it could have been launched. We went to these areas and

11 we found the remains, if I can put it that way, of these two firing

12 positions for artillery systems of 130 millimetres, M-46, right?

13 Q. You found what, traces of tires?

14 A. No, no. Traces of digging.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D3317. Can we have that, please?

16 JUDGE KWON: It's time to come to your last questions. One

17 minute.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I cannot believe it, Excellency,

19 that the Trial Chamber is not interested in this incident and that I'm

20 not going to get at least half an hour to present all of this. Please

21 reconsider. Because this is a striking example of the kind of

22 manipulations that were carried out and the kind of approximate

23 investigations that were carried out when facts were not being determined

24 but rather assessments were being made, estimates as the witness himself

25 said.

Page 12371

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sorry, that is not what I said,

2 what you quoted just now.

3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Sir, you said that you estimated, assessed, and that that is

5 different from establishing or determining things. Could I have --

6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not catch the number.

7 JUDGE KWON: 1D3317?

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. We have it in Serbian. Can we have page 94, item 304? I'm going

11 to read it in the Serbian. "While considering the possible zone --

12 JUDGE KWON: Do we not have English translation?

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is the judgement rendered by

14 the Bosnian court and it is based on this witness's evidence. At the

15 moment, we don't have it but we can procure one. However, I would kindly

16 ask the interpreters to interpret what I'm reading.

17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. "While considering the possible zones, Zecevic took into account

19 the weight of the guns towed by trucks and therefore concluded that the

20 firing position must have been very close to the road. The expert

21 witness then went to the village of Panjik and noticed that the zone on

22 the left-hand side of the road fulfils all the conditions. It is several

23 hundred metres next to the school at Panjik. Zecevic noticed tire traces

24 and visible traces of the digging of an artillery piece, which --

25 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters haven't finished the

Page 12372

1 translation of the reading. Could the accused please slow down?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The location was not determined

3 based on the tire traces but rather on the basis of an external ballistic

4 analysis, more specifically the place was determined in that way and it

5 doesn't play any role.

6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. My question was not recorded, the whole of Bosnia was ploughed by

8 trucks and then 13 years later, you went to the area to find tire traces

9 that were exposed to the elements.

10 So an investigation was carried out before you did anything.

11 Don't you realise that you were abused in order to convict someone who

12 was not possible to be convicted based on the existing material?

13 A. Mr. Karadzic, are you telling me that I deceived three judges,

14 one of them was an American?

15 Q. I can tell you that all of the conclusions were wrong, there is a

16 difference in the distance from the wall, there is a difference relating

17 to the crater?

18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the accused please

19 slow down?

20 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, put your last question to the witness.

21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].

22 Q. There is no last question. Actually my last question,

23 Mr. Zecevic, was whether you were a person always available when it was

24 required to alter anything in what had been done before that.

25 A. Mr. Karadzic, I was threatened by being imprisoned or by paying a