Page 38200
1 Tuesday, 14 May 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
7 When one is logged on at the courtroom it cannot log in in your
8 chambers, so I was not able to check the transcript of yesterday. But
9 there seems to have been a misunderstanding on my part when, Mr. Karadzic
10 and Mr. Robinson, you raised the issue of G17 issue. What was the --
11 what was the point of the request for reconsideration?
12 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. As Dr. Subotic was explaining
13 yesterday during her testimony, in incident G13, it's her position that
14 the damage that was done to the television building in G17 was actually
15 part of a ricochet that was fired on the occasion of the incident of G13.
16 And therefore, the information about that incident is directly relevant
17 to the G13 incident.
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes. My misunderstanding was that I thought
19 mistakenly that while the Chamber allowed a part of G17 to remain in a
20 report it inadvertently ordered redaction of 15 pages. It was not the
21 case. In order to lead evidence in such a way, I think the Defence
22 should have objected to the redaction when the Prosecution proposed the
23 redaction. We didn't disallow the Prosecution to lead evidence on that
24 issue and so it would be simply inconsistent and unfair to allow the
25 Prosecution -- the Defence to lead evidence in such a detail. I remember
Page 38201
1 we heard some evidence in a general -- in general terms and that's more
2 than sufficient. So we'll not allow the accused to lead that part of
3 evidence with Dr. Subotic.
4 Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Excellencies. Good
6 morning to everyone.
7 WITNESS: ZORICA SUBOTIC [Resumed]
8 [Witness answered through interpreter]
9 Examination by Mr. Karadzic: [Continued]
10 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Dr. Subotic.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Excellencies, I'd like to clarify
12 one issue from yesterday. What was discussed was the possibility of
13 uploading only two pages connected to incident 17 which relate to
14 incident 13. We did so. Can we perhaps have a look at it and then you
15 can make a ruling as to whether you want to admit it. So not the entire
16 incident 17, only those images that are related to incident 13 .
17 JUDGE KWON: I think the Chamber has given its ruling. We'll not
18 allow it. Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Dr. Subotic, yesterday you said that it didn't have a foundation
22 or that's to say that the physical traces did not allow for a conclusion
23 that the incident involved fuel bomb. What else can you tell us about
24 this incident, G13?
25 A. As for incident G13, the issue that we did not touch upon
Page 38202
1 yesterday was that one needs to emphasise that the destructive effect of
2 the bomb FAB-100 involving a solid explosive could not have been the
3 result of a fuel air bomb. What happened in this instant was that the
4 projectile hit a vehicle, penetrated the roof of the vehicle, or rather,
5 of the building, it broke through the roof slab of the building, and it
6 also broke through the slab between the fifth and the fourth floors and
7 inflicted injuries to the people who were on the fourth floor. Now, why
8 do I say that it didn't involve a fuel bomb --
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I ask you to call up 1D7900,
10 image 22. This was part of paragraph 47.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. I apologise for interrupting you, but I believe this will be of
13 use to you to refer to the image.
14 A. I can continue in the meantime because I do see the image before
15 me. The image does indicate or show the slab on the fifth floor that was
16 torn through. Now, on the fifth floor where the bomb was, in fact,
17 activated as it came into contact with the floor, we do have a survivor,
18 an eye-witness. So you would perhaps wonder how a person managed to
19 survive the impact of a 40-kilogramme bomb. It is possible because in
20 the event that the person is behind a shelter, that would be the result
21 of this blast effect bomb. The second survivor eye-witness sustained
22 serious injuries as a result of him finding himself under the rubble in
23 between the two floors. The important issue is that in this instant
24 there would not have been any survivors had the impact involved a bomb
25 with fuel air filling.
Page 38203
1 Q. Thank you. You said as a wall, as a pillar, and this isn't
2 reflected in the transcript. That's in reference to line 21.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we only have the English
4 version, please.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Can you tell us what sort of force is required to break through
7 the armature and can this be done by fuel air explosive?
8 A. No, definitely not, not a fuel air bomb. This also indicates the
9 fact that this wasn't a large bomb. There are no thick walls and this is
10 an indication of the fact that what was used here was a bomb of inferior
11 power, a FAB-100. We can also see the incoming trajectory here, but
12 without going into details because I do believe that they could only
13 confuse us.
14 Q. Thank you. Can I now ask you to look at incident G14 and tell us
15 what it is that the physical traces indicate in this particular instance.
16 A. This is the incident at Dositejeva Street 4A. It's presented in
17 figure 45. This is a park skirted by a number of buildings, and the
18 building that was hit housed some sort of a representation office.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see image 45. This is part
20 of paragraph 64 of the document.
21 JUDGE KWON: 66.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, it's not -- it wasn't a
23 representation office, rather it was the building of the Presidency in
24 line 20.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
Page 38204
1 Q. Can you tell us now by reference to the figure what it is that
2 you were saying?
3 A. I said that the location was restricted within the red lines that
4 we showed here. It's a park area in the centre of town where the command
5 of the 1st Corps of the BH is housed, the CSB, the Presidency of the BH,
6 the command of the 105th Brigade. At any rate, the area outside of these
7 dotted lines indicates the residential area.
8 Q. What do the physical traces tell us about the device that
9 exploded and where it had come from?
10 A. We agreed that there are two directions or trajectories that were
11 at play before we got involved in the analysis to see if we could
12 facilitate the process. These two directions were distributed by the CSB
13 and they were 348 plus/minus 10 --
14 THE INTERPRETER: And can Dr. Subotic repeat Dr. Zecevic's
15 figure.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 315 plus/minus 10. We agreed that
17 in our view the direction or the trajectory that was more likely was the
18 one that was established by the CSB on the basis of the rocket engines
19 that we -- that were uncovered the trajectory defined by the CSB was more
20 likely. This was the effect of FAB-100 with a solid explosive filling.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Thank you.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at image or figure 50.
24 This is part of paragraph 75.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
Page 38205
1 Q. You were speaking of the trajectories. Can you tell us which is
2 more likely and why?
3 A. One of the trajectories was established by the CSB and it fits
4 with the physical traces that can be seen based on the traces of the
5 rocket engines. The other trajectory was established by Mr. Zecevic
6 without providing any explanation. I don't think his reconstruction of
7 the launching of the projectile fits really with the possibilities of the
8 system. He believed that the launcher was placed within the Pretis
9 compound. This is not to be expected in view of the distances involved
10 and I don't think that anybody can support that.
11 Q. According to Zecevic, it would have had to fly over Brdo -- the
12 Hum hill?
13 A. Yes, that's trajectory 2 and that's pretty distant. Now, the CSB
14 defined trajectory which we believe fits with the physical traces is
15 trajectory 1, that's 315 plus/minus 10.
16 Q. Perhaps we should make pauses and speak slowly --
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Doctor, did you have something to say?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted to say that I apologise.
19 I may have rushed when speaking. That's the only thing I wanted to say.
20 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
21 JUDGE KWON: Please continue.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Can you tell us this: As for these trajectories, 1 and 2, what
24 is the --
25 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
Page 38206
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. -- geography down on the ground and what is the density of the
3 population?
4 JUDGE KWON: I think everybody seems to have a problem with
5 personal LiveNote. I tried to fix it myself but it doesn't seem to work.
6 It's better to have a short break for five minutes. We'll rise for five
7 minutes.
8 --- Break taken at 9.20 a.m.
9 --- On resuming at 9.29 a.m.
10 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Dr. Subotic, could you please focus on what we have on the screen
14 right now. Taking into account the infrastructure, the mortars, the
15 command posts, and in image 45 we can see that the Presidency building is
16 80 metres away from the impact site. Taking into account both distances,
17 how would you assess the precision of this hit?
18 A. Taking into account everything that you just mentioned, the
19 precision from the ballistics point of view is practically directly at
20 the target which is part of the VVEP as I said yesterday, this meant
21 50 per cent of hits. So it is quite close and that is expected, taking
22 into account the dispersion. Because for such a distance we were working
23 with average distance, the VD for this projectile is 102 metres.
24 Q. You said 102 metres for 1?
25 A. According to the calculations and the tables for one projectile
Page 38207
1 propelled by rockets FAB-100, 1VD, so one probable table deviation is
2 102 metres, and we are within a smaller deviation of 1VD which is very
3 precise.
4 Q. Thank you. Did you come across a piece of information that in
5 Dositejeva Street itself at that number or neighbouring number there was
6 some military --
7 A. I think that we noted here everything that we established;
8 namely, that the Presidency of the BiH, the Sarajevo CSB, and the command
9 of the 1st Corps of the BH army, the command of the 105th Brigade were
10 all located there. The brigade was the mountain brigade. We note all
11 that in our report, everything that we found in documents.
12 Q. Thank you. I started before the break, I was about to ask you
13 about the geography and the population along the one and the other
14 possible trajectories.
15 A. Well, the population along the trajectory that we agree with
16 according to the findings of the CSB is practically the sparsest in the
17 area covered by the triangle created by the directions that we depict
18 here, whereas the other trajectory which is not well argumented and which
19 is noted by my colleague Mr. Zecevic without explanation in his report, I
20 think that he said that he would avoid areas populated by the Serbs. But
21 I would not claim that before having another look at the document.
22 Q. Thank you. Can you please tell us if you know when the CSB
23 conducted the on-site investigation and when did Berko Zecevic do so?
24 A. As far as I know, Berko Zecevic conducted his on-site
25 investigation later and the CSB conducted it - let me just look here
Page 38208
1 because I don't remember any longer - I think on the same day or was this
2 the instance when it occurred later?
3 Q. Thank you. Could I ask you to tell us what the material evidence
4 represents, paragraph 56, image 33, that's the previous incident
5 Safeta Hadzica Street number 102.
6 A. Just a second. Let me find the image.
7 Q. G13, paragraph 56.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And for others I'm looking for G13,
9 paragraph 56, image 33 is what I would like us to see on the screen.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Can you tell us what this image with fragments tells us about the
12 direction and the incoming trajectory and what hit here?
13 A. What obviously hit here --
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please zoom in to the image
15 so that we see the image only on the screen.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As can be seen from this
17 photograph, the building was hit with a projectile of a smaller calibre,
18 that's a mortar projectile, and the incoming trajectory was upwards.
19 There is a slight deviation from the normal line if we take that the
20 building is against a horizontal direction. So this is a hit with a
21 mortar shell or projectile of a smaller calibre, and the shell came
22 upwards from a lower position.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Thank you. What tells us that it's directed upwards?
25 A. Well, from quite close because, as we know, mortar projectiles
Page 38209
1 have a high trajectory and this came from quite close. It could have
2 been done by mistake, but certainly from quite close. When I say that
3 the velocity's also high, we talk about -- we talk about particular
4 trajectories, and it's quite obvious from this image that it was fired
5 from quite close, from a small distance.
6 Q. It was not recorded it was done either deliberately or by
7 mistake.
8 Can you tell us what tells you in this image how you decide that
9 it came from down and that the trajectory was an upward trajectory?
10 A. This is a typical image of the effect of a mortar projectile,
11 where the central crater is marked by the first row of traces and the
12 other one which is created by shrapnel tells us from which direction the
13 shell arrived. If you were to depict it as a horizontal level, you would
14 see that it had come upwards from a position down from here and directed
15 upwards.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, when you tried to correct the
18 transcript, it is important to get the confirmation of the witness;
19 otherwise, there would be no way for us to check it later. So I take it
20 that it is true you said, Doctor, that it was not recorded that it was
21 done either deliberately or by mistake? Do you confirm having said that?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I just wanted to say that such
23 a hit could be created in these two ways.
24 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
Page 38210
1 Q. Doctor, do you think it would be useful if you were to draw a
2 letter T across this image so as to show us how this proves that it had
3 arrived from the said direction? I mean, if you made a drawing around
4 the crater with an electronic pen.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can Dr. Subotic please receive some
6 help with the electronic pen.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. The first and second rows of traces and the incoming trajectory.
9 A. [Marks]
10 Q. What is that?
11 A. That's the central crater, how it is oriented.
12 Q. Can you please mark it with number 1.
13 A. [Marks]
14 This is the second one.
15 Q. And now the direction, please, if you can.
16 A. This would be the approximate direction. All is put in a certain
17 perspective.
18 Q. Can you put number 3 next to the direction.
19 A. [Marks]
20 Q. Which side was in a position to fire this shell?
21 A. Judging by the position that we analysed, this shell could have
22 arrived only from the side of the ABiH, from the separation line. And we
23 based that on the situation as it was at the moment.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted as a separate
25 document.
Page 38211
1 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness and the accused please be
2 asked not to overlap.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Could you please sign this document.
5 A. What date are we today?
6 Q. The 14th of May.
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll receive it.
8 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3539.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, can you please bear
10 with me for a moment. Maybe it would be appropriate to draw the
11 horizontal axis here in this image for a better understanding of the
12 image.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Can this be done? Can we plot the horizontal axis here?
15 A. Yes, we can, because it would be parallel with the top and bottom
16 edges of the window. If you think that this is necessary ...
17 Q. I don't think so. Now you have explained that that would be
18 parallel to the edges of the window. We can see that this is far below
19 the horizontal line.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And what number has been given to
21 this document.
22 JUDGE KWON: Shall we repeat it.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D3539.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
Page 38212
1 Q. Dr. Subotic, please pay attention to incident G15. Can you tell
2 us in a nutshell what did the physical evidence demonstrate in this case?
3 The square of international friendship on the 16th of June, 1995.
4 A. Yes, there was an explosion and based on the physical evidence
5 that we found on the site, the explosion was caused by an modified bomb
6 FAB-250. It was activated on a trail in front of the building number 10.
7 It created certain traces, a crater, the fragments on the nearby
8 high-rise building. There was a -- the building of local commune there
9 and the civilian protection and people were present there when that
10 happened. Based on the size of the crater, it was established what bomb
11 was in question, FAB-250 with classical explosives, since the bomb
12 exploded in the ground as you see on figure 54 --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Can the witness be asked to slow down, please.
14 JUDGE KWON: Doctor, could you speak a bit more slowly and then
15 could you --
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.
17 JUDGE KWON: Could you repeat your answer.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before that, I would like to call
19 up image 52, 53, and 54, all those are within paragraph 81.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll start to repeat my answer
21 slowly, if that is okay.
22 JUDGE KWON: Please try not to overlap with the interpretation.
23 So please wait before you start answering the question. Yes. Yes.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on physical evidence which
25 was found in the field and on the photographs, in this case on a
Page 38213
1 passenger footpath near building number 10, a modified air bomb FAB-250
2 was activated. Based on the size of the crater and the fragmentation
3 effect on the high-rise building which was caused by the particles of the
4 bomb which did not land in the ground, we were able to ascertain what
5 kind of a bomb that was. No other bomb could have created such a crater,
6 not the FAB-100 bomb or an area bomb for that matter.
7 And there is another piece of evidence corroborating the fact
8 that this was not an area bomb. The people who were there in front of
9 the building when the bomb was activated were not harmed, they remained
10 alive. When we investigated this incident a very good sketch of the site
11 was drafted. However, a mistake was made in marking the north.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Before that, Doctor, can I ask you, first of all, when you say an
14 "air bomb," can you replace that word with "fuel air bomb"? And now I
15 would like to zoom in on the facade of the building and I would like you
16 to explain what you found on the facade. You mentioned some
17 fragmentation effects.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the photos at the bottom be
19 zoomed in on.
20 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, I didn't follow when you said
21 replacing the word "air bomb" with "fuel air bomb." Could you clarify
22 with the Doctor.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Doctor, you use a technical term "area bomb." Do you have in
25 mind fuel air bombs when you say that?
Page 38214
1 A. Yes, it's one in the same. These two are synonyms.
2 Q. Thank you. This is what I wanted. Unlike TNT air bomb, when you
3 say an "area bomb" what you mean is a "fuel air bomb"; right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. [In English] "Area bomb," I think it is making some confusion.
6 It's not "area." "Spatial" would be -- rather, "spatial."
7 [Interpretation] Can you tell us what you concluded when looking
8 at the facade and then we will move on to the sketch that you mentioned.
9 A. I said that the high up on the high-rise building there are
10 traces of fragmentation effects and they can be seen very well in figure
11 54 and this was caused by the rear part of the projectile. I can mark
12 them but I'm sure that you can see them very well because they're very
13 well visible.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at figures 56 and
15 57 on the same page -- or rather, two pages further on.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. And while we're waiting, if this had been a fuel air bomb, would
18 we have ended up with such a crater and such a fragmentation effect on
19 the facade? I'm talking about the previous image.
20 A. The answer's no, of course not. I've already said that a crater
21 of that kind and such fragmentation effects could not have been caused
22 even by a FAB-100 which contains about 40 kilos of explosive.
23 Q. Thank you. And now can you please tell us what is depicted in
24 this map and then we will scroll down a little.
25 A. This is an excerpt from Google Earth which depicts the place of
Page 38215
1 the incident and the location of the Bitumenka factory.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we scroll up a little.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Could you please comment.
5 A. On the right-hand side is a sketch of the incident site which was
6 drafted by a forensic expert when he investigated the site of the
7 incident. And this sketch was used to determine the direction. I'm sure
8 that you have noticed the mistake in determining the due north. The
9 deviation was 57 degrees and this was confirmed with the forensic expert
10 and confirmed by him. We have used his sketch of the site to determine
11 the position of the launch place based on the position of the crater.
12 This is direction 2 in figure 57. When it is plotted parallelly to the
13 site of the incident, we can see that the trajectory is across the
14 Bitumenka factory, which points to the fact that it was the factory that
15 was the target of this shell.
16 Q. And now can we go to the following page, i.e., to the following
17 figure. Can you briefly explain this photo.
18 A. The figure depicts all the trajectories that were established
19 during the investigation of this incident. Number 1 depicts what we
20 determined based on the actual north and the sketch based on documents
21 and the aerial orientation in space. Number 2 was determined by
22 Berko Zecevic. This is interesting for the fact that he did not agree
23 with the forensic expert and he determined his trajectory together with
24 two other incidents, one which had happened 20 days before and the other
25 one that happened 12 days after this incident. He merged them together,
Page 38216
1 and based on that he determined trajectory 2, and trajectory 3 is the
2 trajectory that was determined by the CSB, whereas bullet point 4, or
3 rather, bullet point 5 is actually the position of the Bitumenka factory.
4 Number 4 is the trajectory that was determined by the police based on the
5 official note. The investigators themselves determined two trajectories.
6 One was determined by the forensic expert and the other was based on the
7 official note, and this was all shown in one figure.
8 Q. Thank you. And now can we pay attention to incident 10 which
9 happened in Hrasnica at the Alekse Santica school. We have finished with
10 that.
11 A. Incident 10 happened in Alekse Santica Street, not at the
12 Alekse Santica school.
13 Q. I apologise. Can we then look at paragraph 100 and I'm
14 interested in figure 73. Tell us what you concluded based on the
15 physical evidence of this incident.
16 A. The incident is very clear in terms of physical evidence. The
17 figure that you have called up shows everything as it was once the
18 building was repaired. This photo was taken by Mr. Zecevic in 2007. So
19 the physical evidence is not very visible here. The physical evidence is
20 better depicted in figure 74. The photo is part of the photo
21 documentation that was compiled by the investigative organs, and it
22 perfectly shows that --
23 Q. Can -- I apologise. Can the following page be shown for the
24 benefit of the witness. I'm interested in figure 74 and 75. Can you
25 please continue and tell us what the difference is between the two
Page 38217
1 photos. When did Zecevic take his photo and when did these two photos
2 originate?
3 A. The previous photo taken by Zecevic was taken in 2007, and it
4 shows that the building was repaired, that a new house was built in the
5 left part of the photo. When you look at the previous photo
6 documentation, you won't see here. It is not that the whole house was
7 built, it was just reconstructed and you won't see that in any of the
8 photos in the photo documentation. In our paper, this is figure 74. You
9 can see the traces on the building that was -- that were created by the
10 bomb. You can see that the bomb entered the bomb and exited after having
11 done a certain trajectory through the ground and continued, and this was
12 confirmed by the investigative organs. However, my colleague Mr. Zecevic
13 did not agree with that. He had his own explanations about the impact of
14 the fuel air bomb within the ground. In technical terms it was
15 absolutely unacceptable. Actually, what happened was that the bomb
16 landed on -- in the corner of the house. As you can see in figure 74 --
17 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slow down.
18 JUDGE KWON: Interpreters were not able to catch up with your
19 speed, Dr. Subotic.
20 Yes, could you repeat from the part where you start explaining
21 about figure 74.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. I will do my best. I
23 am under the impression that I'm speaking slowly. Based on the traces
24 visible in figure 74, this was how the bomb travelled, in fact. In the
25 spot marked with number 1 in the image, the bomb hit the house and tore
Page 38218
1 away a part of it. We can even see the direction of impact. Along the
2 direction shown by the arrow and at the tip of the arrow it penetrated
3 the ground next to the overturned fence. At that point when the engines
4 had already fallen off, it had deviated significantly from its initial
5 trajectory and continued to travel up until Bunicki Potok Street, I
6 believe the number was 73, and exploded there.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Can you tell us the physical evidence at the point of impact
9 indicate what exactly?
10 A. I think it's 233 or 133, the address on Bunicki Potok Street.
11 It's not 73. I think it's -- let me just check.
12 Q. Image 79, 233.
13 A. Yes, Bunicki Potok, 233. Let me just add that the technical
14 parameters and the capabilities of a fuel air bomb complete with the
15 physical traces on the site are simply insufficient. There isn't enough
16 oxygen in the soil to allow for the creation of a fuel air cloud and for
17 the bomb to be, in fact, activated.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we show figure 79, please. Can
19 it be enlarged further.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Can you tell us briefly what this figure illustrates?
22 A. The image was taken over from Mr. Zecevic's report. He
23 illustrated the impossibility of the incoming trajectory from the
24 ricochet point on Alekse Santica Street number 50, that it was impossible
25 for the bomb to ricochet over there and land on Bunicki Potok Street
Page 38219
1 number 233.
2 In his analysis there is one issue that I don't understand why my
3 colleague has overlooked. This isn't the classical ricochet. What was
4 at play here was that the projectile penetrated into the soil and
5 travelled a certain stretch within the soil. In the process, the engine
6 was detached, which meant that the projectile lost its stability of
7 flight. Secondly, as the environment changed, a deflection occurred
8 because the resistant coefficient of such a dense environment as soil is
9 is immeasurably higher than that of air.
10 Another noteworthy point is something that we, members of the
11 profession, are fully versed with because we've seen it numerous times
12 and we used it to test the resilience of a casing, we do cause the
13 projectile to penetrate the soil and then come out of it again. We want
14 to see the state the casing is in, and it is precisely this sort of
15 effect that we would observe, that's to say a very sharp deflection to
16 the left or to the right.
17 Q. Thank you. Can you now briefly present to us incident 928 of
18 July 1995 --
19 JUDGE KWON: While the picture is before us, could you read the
20 yellow letters which appears between Alekse Santica Street number 50 and
21 Bunicki Potok number 233. Because it was not translated. Could you read
22 it out for the benefit of us so that we can hear the interpretation. Do
23 you see the 140 metres --
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the bottom part of the figure --
25 JUDGE KWON: In the picture.
Page 38220
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, the bottom part of the
2 image; right?
3 JUDGE KWON: Which appears above Bunicki Potok number 233, which
4 start from "rikose ..."
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, I'll read it out for you.
6 It reads:
7 "The projectile cannot possibly ricochet in this direction!!!"
8 And this is in fact what I was saying a moment ago that the image
9 was taken over from where -- in fact, it is clearly seen that the
10 ricochet cannot possibly happen in this direction.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
12 Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Dr. Subotic, how many points do you have -- the transcript seems
16 to reflect that this is your view that the ricochet is impossible, or is
17 it your view or is it a view that you criticised a moment ago?
18 A. Yes, I will answer this. It wasn't my understanding, but let me
19 repeat, this isn't my view, this isn't my opinion, and I've explained the
20 reasons why I believe it to be inaccurate. I've merely read out what my
21 colleague wrote on an image that we've taken over in order to be able to
22 provide our comments of it, we've taken it over from his report.
23 JUDGE KWON: Rest assured, I think it's clear. Even
24 Ms. Gustafson would not challenge it, it's from Mr. Zecevic's report.
25 Please continue.
Page 38221
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Doctor, can you tell us from that corner of the house that was
4 torn away through to Bunicki Potok, how many points do you have to
5 establish the trajectory, the corner of the house? How many points in
6 the ground could this line therefore be established on the basis of how
7 many points?
8 A. Well, the first point is the damage to the house. The second
9 point is not -- but is only approximate, it is the point where the
10 projectile penetrates the ground. We have a clear point where the
11 projectile leaves the ground and we have the point of impact on
12 Bunicki Potok Street, if that's what you had in mind.
13 Q. Yes. This statement here that it was impossible prompted me to
14 ask you to tell us on the basis of how many points you can draw this
15 line?
16 A. Let me just make a few points. What colleague Zecevic said holds
17 true if what we have is a vertical surface, but we had the horizontal
18 surface and then the penetration of the ground wherein the physical
19 process is completely different.
20 Q. Doctor, does this look like the game of drakes and dragons when
21 you're skimming the earth with pebbles?
22 A. Well, it does a bit. In this, of course, event you would have a
23 pebble entering water and then leaving it again, which is not normally
24 the case.
25 Q. Let's look at incident 9, 28 July 1995, Cetinjska Street,
Page 38222
1 paragraph 108 and onwards. Can you briefly present this incident?
2 A. I'll try to make it brief. This is a FAB-250 modified aerial
3 bomb which impacted the ninth floor and you can see that clearly on
4 figure 82.
5 The assertions made in respect of this case were varied and all
6 of them were presented in detail in this report. Let us not dwell on
7 those. In short, based on the trace evidence found on this high-rise
8 building it was established that the incoming trajectory practically ran
9 north-south, that the bomb was activated on the ninth floor, what are the
10 traces that we're referring to? Well, the ones that are visible on the
11 high-rise building itself, first of all. We are looking at the traces of
12 soot on the slab on the ninth floor and the traces found around the
13 building and the effect that the bomb would produce does fit with those
14 and with the trajectory that I indicated.
15 Q. Can we look at figure 81. Can you tell us who took the
16 photographs and what do they illustrate? How did you interpret the
17 physical evidence they show?
18 A. These -- the trace evidence was obtained from the CSB photo
19 documentation. I think that the markings in yellow and red are by my
20 colleague Mr. Zecevic. On the first photo on the left side, the traces
21 that I referred to are clearly visible. On the right-hand side of the
22 high-rise building, two slabs were destroyed and you can see the intense
23 black of the soot on the ceiling of the ninth -- on the ninth floor. You
24 can see that the projectile basically flew more or less in parallel to
25 the disposition of the structure and this is clearly seen on figure 87
Page 38223
1 where we have indicated it as transposed upon a Google Earth image. On
2 the basis of the traces on the ground, that's also figure 87, you can see
3 the concrete beam that was knocked out and all the other traces. The
4 lateral part opposite the yellow arrow faces north. So this part of the
5 high-rise building was exposed to a lateral impact and it occurred on the
6 ninth floor. And such a highly destructive force could only have come
7 from a FAB-250 filled with a TNT explosive.
8 What we also see here on figure 85 is a trace from a smaller
9 projectile. This has nothing to do with the incoming trajectory of this
10 particular bomb. On this issue we have the testimony of a witness who
11 said that he first heard the impact and then went out to see what it was
12 all about. When he went back in, that was when this other impact was
13 heard, which means that the first impact was that of a mortar because its
14 incoming trajectory does not fit with the incoming trajectory that we
15 established based on the physical evidence and the destructive force that
16 was visible on this high-rise building.
17 Q. Thank you. And in the event that the high-rise building had not
18 been grazed but rather had the projectile flown in under a normal angle,
19 what sort of damage could be expected? What would have become of this
20 floor had it not grazed merely but had it been a direct hit, as it were?
21 A. I apologise, I don't understand the question.
22 Q. Perhaps I'm not versed enough. You said that the projectile had
23 flown in practically in parallel to the building?
24 A. Well, it was a right angle really, not in parallel to it --
25 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Now please continue. Please bear in
Page 38224
1 mind you should put a pause. Yes.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The Doctor said that the angle was
3 low or small, not a right angle.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. And had the angle -- had this been at a right angle --
6 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, please confirm with the Doctor or you
7 put the question again.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. In line 18 it says that you said that it was a right angle. Did
10 you say that this was an impact at a right angle?
11 A. No, I didn't say that it was at a right angle, that would be
12 90 degrees, and what we see here does not indicate something like that.
13 Q. And how do you know that it's not at a right angle? In other
14 words, where would the damage be expected to be seen had the impact been
15 at a right angle? At a right angle in respect of which particular
16 direction or line?
17 A. Well, in respect of the high-rise building. Had it been at a
18 right angle in respect of the surface of the high-rise building, the
19 entire destructive effect would be focused on the building itself. We
20 would not have such extensive physical evidence around the building. We
21 would have the sort of traces that would be expected upon such an impact.
22 Q. [In English] "In the building" instead of "on the building
23 itself."
24 [Interpretation] Did you say that the destructive
25 building [as interpreted] would have been within the high-rise?
Page 38225
1 A. Within the high-rise and to the left and to the right in respect
2 of the trajectory.
3 Q. Thank you. Can we show figures 84 and 85. You were talking
4 about the traces outside of the high-rise building and a hole in the
5 concrete which you established did not originate from the same
6 projectile. What does this figure show?
7 A. This picture shows the effects of the impact on the ground around
8 the high-rise that we talked about recently and the scattered fragments
9 of various materials that were caused after the explosion.
10 Q. Thank you. Could we please show image 85 now. Maybe we can just
11 scroll down if it's on the same page. In the English version it's on the
12 following page. What did you want to say about this hole in the plate?
13 It seems to be a vertical shot or something.
14 A. This is the plate between the floors, between the seventh and
15 eighth floors, and the investigating team said that it was caused by a
16 fragment of the projectile, which suggests that by its dimensions it does
17 not correspond to the dimensions of the FAB-250 projectile. And there is
18 also the testimony of witnesses residing in the high-rise, which is
19 included in the report, the resident who first heard the impact of this
20 projectile and then after a while FAB-250 hit the same high-rise. It can
21 be seen here that the trajectory does not correspond with incoming
22 trajectory of the FAB-250. For the reason that in the photograph itself
23 you can see the window in lower left-hand corner, the window is located
24 on the northern side of the high-rise. And if the shell had arrived from
25 there -- excuse me, not the shell but the FAB-250, then we would not have
Page 38226
1 such traces, either on the high-rise itself or in the surroundings of the
2 high-rise. So that leads us to conclude that this projectile arrived
3 independently immediately before the impact of the FAB-250. It's
4 elaborated in detail in the report. My colleague Mr. Zecevic was wrong
5 about this. He simply did not dwell on the details sufficiently because
6 if he had looked into the fact that we have undamaged windows, it would
7 be clear to him that the orientation of the defect on the plate between
8 the seventh and eighth floors is pointing to another direction.
9 Q. Thank you. Can we please now show figure 87 and if you can
10 please explain to us what, according to your report, was the probable
11 target here which was missed when the high-rise was grazed.
12 A. We can see here that we found the particular building in
13 Google Earth. We then inserted the trajectory which we established on
14 the basis of the material, traces of the impact on the high-rise itself.
15 And one can see here that the trajectory is almost north to south. One
16 can see that the particular trajectory leads across the part of the
17 high-rise which was damaged. The high-rise is situated on a hill and the
18 ordinate of the ninth floor is around 40 metres. And if there had been
19 no impact against the high-rise, the modified bomb would continue its
20 flight and end at the target which is marked by number 2 in the same
21 image. And that is the Zica, or wire, factory.
22 I have to note here that such an instance cannot be foreseen by
23 any artillery crew member; namely, that such a building would come up
24 along the trajectory and I think that this had to happen because if the
25 bomb had been just 1 metre to the left it would have flown by. It just
Page 38227
1 happened that the obstacle was at the height of the trajectory ordinate
2 as the projectile was flying towards the target. And I think it's
3 impossible to foresee such an incident unless you have a 3-D image of the
4 terrain and software which can foresee what might happen.
5 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us generally speaking what were your
6 conclusions in connection with the rocket propulsion of the bomb; namely,
7 whether the bomb itself had been modified, what was the modification
8 like, and what can you tell us about --
9 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Could you expand, Doctor, about your
10 basis upon which you could conclude that on the part of the -- those who
11 fired the shell could not have anticipated such an obstacle. What is
12 your basis?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm saying that because when the
14 information is provided, when the data is provided, whether it's a system
15 for directing fire or if the data is introduced manually from firing
16 tables on the basis of the information collected and the other ballistics
17 characteristics, such as the meteo-ballistics [Realtime transcript read
18 in error "metal ballistics"] data, the distance, and everything else that
19 is included in the parameters which are taken into account when the data
20 important for the target is considered, there is no way to introduce the
21 data which would say, for example, there is a high-rise obstacle at such
22 and such a distance along the Y axis. There is no way to take that into
23 account because whether it's the fire directing system or whether
24 manually the parameters which are important for the flight would be
25 introduced from firing tables, there is no possibility to take something
Page 38228
1 like that into account. So what I'm telling you now and what I decided
2 that -- on the basis of what I decided that is that such a facility
3 simply happened to be along the Y axis of the trajectory at the moment
4 when the projectile was launched. I hope that this explanation was
5 sufficient.
6 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
7 Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. While we still have this image on the screen, Doctor, can you
10 tell us what the sub-image A represents in this image. And in line 11
11 instead of "metal ballistics data," the doctor said "meteo-ballistic
12 data." Perhaps you can tell us whether it was meteorological ballistics
13 data or metal.
14 A. It had to do with meteorological ballistics data, or shortly,
15 meteo-ballistics data.
16 Q. And now if you can tell us what is in square A, number 1, in the
17 lower right-hand corner, what does the right line represent in relation
18 to the high-rise and how does that fit into what you just told us?
19 A. This is the incoming trajectory marked by line 1 and determined
20 on the basis of the traces found at site in the surroundings of the
21 high-rise and on the high-rise itself. It can be seen here precisely how
22 it actually hit the high-rise and it fits perfectly with the traces which
23 are evident on the high-rise itself and around it.
24 Q. Thank you. Before the break, just a few brief questions. Did
25 you analyse or conclude how many victims there were in the 16 or 17
Page 38229
1 incidents, the victims or casualties of aerial bombs in this part of the
2 city?
3 A. I think that we provide that in the A report and opinion and --
4 and that it's, I don't know, perhaps a dozen, 12, 13, 15, something like
5 that, I don't know, I could only try and find that analysis and then I
6 would be able to tell you. The targets ...
7 Q. All right. We can do that after the break as well. But could
8 you tell us --
9 A. Here, I've got it. According to available information in 16
10 incidences, according to one set of information there were ten and
11 according to another set of information, 11 persons who were killed;
12 seriously wounded, four; and slightly wounded or slightly injured, 38.
13 So in all 16 instances that we analysed, according to available
14 information that we had at our disposal, that was the figure.
15 Q. Could you then tell us on the basis of that something about the
16 precision and the justification of the use of such projectiles against
17 industrial zones judging by the number of casualties?
18 A. Well, as you can see from our report, we did analyse the
19 precision of all the firing in relation to the targets that were targeted
20 because this is the only way it can be done. We noted that of all the
21 instances that were analysed, 43, or rather, 44 per cent hit the target,
22 about 19 per cent, or rather, 18.7 per cent, was at a distance smaller
23 than 0.5 VD and around 31 per cent was between 0.5 and 1.5 of the table
24 deviations which in ballistics terms is completely correct and all right.
25 We have only one firing which is outside the scope of three table
Page 38230
1 deviation and this one instance could have been seen in a different
2 light. There were two possible targets in that particular instance and
3 we considered that instance of firing in relation to the greater
4 distance, and in my view the precision, professionally speaking, was
5 quite sufficient and fine. On the other hand, I think that the other
6 part of your question had to do with the justification, how justified was
7 it. Right. Considering the firing power, the number of projectiles that
8 were fired, and the use of destructive explosive that was used and the
9 number of casualties, it can be assessed that the bombs were primarily
10 used as for or for destruction of facilities, buildings, and targets
11 which were used in some other way rather than as buildings in which
12 civilians resided because if that had not been the case the number of
13 casualties would have been much greater. We have to take into account
14 that each of these bombs carries at least 39 kilos of TNT and the FAB-250
15 are loaded with as much as 100 kilos.
16 Q. And the last question before the break, Dr. Subotic: Was there
17 any material trace or evidence that fuel air bombs were used?
18 A. There are no material traces in all the evidence that a single
19 fuel air bomb was used in the Sarajevo area, and I think this is
20 presented in detail in the report. These were effects that were analysed
21 in detail, the principles of action and all the collected material
22 evidence.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, I am looking at
24 the clock. If it's the right time for the break, I think that this would
25 be an opportune moment.
Page 38231
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Gustafson.
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honours. I just would like to
3 make a very minor point. We've referred in the last half an hour to
4 incidents that the accused referred to as incidents 9 and 10. I just
5 want to make clear, those are the numberings that the witness gave to
6 some unscheduled incidents and they shouldn't be confused with G9 or G10.
7 Thank you.
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes, the Chamber is aware of that point. Thank you.
9 We will take a break for half an hour and resume at seven past 11.00.
10 --- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m.
11 --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Dr. Subotic, before I move on to your next report I have a couple
16 of brief questions for you. The precision that you just talked about,
17 would it have been possible without the firing tables being used for the
18 fuel that was used in this case?
19 A. Are you referring to the complete projectile equipped with rocket
20 engines?
21 Q. Yes. What is their significance? Would this kind of precision
22 be achieved without firing tables?
23 A. In my view, this is impossible, absolutely impossible.
24 Q. Did you know Pretis as a military factory? Did it have any
25 software capabilities to conduct ballistics calculations; and if it did,
Page 38232
1 how were these firing tables designed?
2 A. I co-operated with Pretis before the war. They did have
3 software. They had a development department. My colleague Zecevic was a
4 staff member there. According to my information, Professor Jankovic in
5 Zagreb sold them the ballistics software. I know that because I was
6 offered to co-operate on the software applications. They obviously had
7 very good software and I'm sure that they had professionals who could use
8 it, although I can't be sure of that.
9 Q. Did Pretis have its own firing ranges in Bosnia-Herzegovina or in
10 Republika Srpska during the war? Are you aware of some of them?
11 A. It had its factory firing range, but it was used for testing the
12 function and not the external ballistics conditions. There was also a
13 firing range in Kalinovik. I was there. I tested some of the assets to
14 design firing tables. I'm not personally aware of any other firing
15 ranges in that area.
16 Q. Thank you. Do you know if Pretis used certain other institutions
17 in Serbia to design new firing tables and to test assets, both old and
18 new?
19 A. I apologise. Are you referring to the same period of time or in
20 general terms?
21 Q. Before the war and during the war.
22 A. Yes. There were such institutions and there were -- there are
23 documents that we have had at our disposal to come up with our study. I
24 know that assets were tested in --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Can the witness repeat the name of the place,
Page 38233
1 the last word she said.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. You said Nikica?
4 A. Yes, Nikica is one of the firing ranges of the technical
5 institute in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. It was the only
6 institution that could check the quality of military products. One of
7 the firing ranges was in Prevlaka, the third one was in Kalinovik, the
8 fourth in Macedonia, and so on and so forth. There was a special
9 institution called VOC which was an institution to test aircraft and
10 air-borne assets.
11 Q. Thank you, Dr. Subotic.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could 1D7900 be admitted? This is
13 Dr. Subotic's report on modified air bombs.
14 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Gustafson.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: No objection. Thank you.
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll receive it.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3540, Your Honours.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 And now I would like to call up 1D7903 in e-court. This is an
20 expert report on the impact of mortar shells in the Sarajevo zone.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Dr. Subotic, is this the first page of your expert report on the
23 effects of mortar shells or projectiles in the area of Sarajevo?
24 A. I suppose so -- yes, yes. I have an electronic version which is
25 difficult to read. Before we start, I have a request, if I may.
Page 38234
1 Yesterday we agreed that I would dictate the corrections before we deal
2 with the document itself, so I think this would be an appropriate time to
3 deal with the areas in this document.
4 Q. Thank you very much. If there are such mistakes, this is a good
5 time to correct them.
6 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, I do not see the word "effect" on this
7 page.
8 What's the title of your expert report, Dr. Subotic?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Expert analysis for the Defence,
10 mortar operations in Sarajevo area in 1992 - 1995."
11 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
12 Please continue.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, this is our problem with the
14 interpretation and translation. I'm not even sure that "operations" is
15 the best word for something that I think would be "actions."
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. In any case, Doctor, could you please dictate the list of
18 mistakes, give us the pages, or perhaps paragraphs.
19 A. This is why I've opened the document, in order to be able to see
20 the paragraph numbers --
21 JUDGE KWON: Now please continue.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first correction would be in
23 paragraph 8, footnote 46. At the end of the footnote it said "drafted
24 by." This should be deleted.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
Page 38235
1 Q. 46, let's see if we have the same footnote in English.
2 A. It has to be the same.
3 Q. [In English] "... the person who made and the date when it was
4 made." In English there is no mistake, that is in Serbian, I suppose.
5 [Interpretation] We made this correction in the Serbian. Go on,
6 the next paragraph, please.
7 A. The next paragraph is on page -- please bear with me, it is
8 paragraph 10 where it says based on what we have shown previously it is
9 beyond any doubt. Now, this, "beyond any doubt" has to be deleted.
10 Q. I apologise, I don't have that, based on the evidence presented
11 above, it is beyond any doubt that the crater photographed ...
12 A. We need to delete "beyond any doubt." That's what I have in my
13 copy and this should be deleted. The next one is paragraph 15 and it is
14 a table --
15 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Do we have it on the same page --
16 I'm comparing the B/C/S page and the English page. Apparently they are
17 different.
18 Yes, Ms. Gustafson.
19 MS. GUSTAFSON: I think I found the language on page 13 of the
20 English, paragraph 10 goes on for a number of pages. I think it's at the
21 top of page 13, first full paragraph.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The last paragraph.
23 JUDGE KWON: Where do you have that language?
24 MS. GUSTAFSON: Well, it says -- in the English it has been
25 translated "... it is undoubted that ...," so it is the first full
Page 38236
1 paragraph on page 13. "Based on the evidence presented above, it is
2 undoubted that ..."
3 I think that is what the witness is referring to.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Could you please help us, what needs to be --
6 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. And the English translation does not
7 contain the figures; is it the case?
8 Mr. Karadzic?
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe that the only mistake
10 arises from Dr. Subotic's copy. I can't see that mistake in either
11 English or Serbian.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I be of assistance? I
13 apologise. It is quite possible that Dr. Karadzic is right. We're
14 talking about a line four above paragraph 10, the last four lines in
15 paragraph 10 -- I apologise. Paragraph 9. Paragraph 10 follows
16 paragraph 9 and we're talking about the last four lines of paragraph 9,
17 the fourth line from the bottom.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Yes, yes. It says here "beyond any doubt," and that, "beyond any
20 doubt," has to be deleted; right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Page 10, the last paragraph:
23 [In English] "The information presented above shows beyond any
24 doubt that the shape and dimensions of the marks left by the
25 explosion ..."
Page 38237
1 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Very well. Please continue.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Paragraph 15, table 4, line 2,
3 column 1, it says "82-millimetres, M72." It should be "82-millimetres,
4 M74."
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Thank you. So this is the second line in that table?
7 A. Yes, it is the second line, the first column.
8 Q. Thank you. Go on, please.
9 A. Yes, paragraph 16, the second passage, "according to my opinion"
10 remains ambiguous. It seems to me that it should be replaced by a
11 different wording to provide for clarity. The second passage in
12 paragraph 16 where it says:
13 "The shell must become embedded in the ground when it is
14 fired ... with either charge 4 or charge 5. In any case, shells fired
15 using charges 4 through 6 must become embedded in the ground and remain
16 at the point of impact.
17 Q. It says "or" here and you said "and."
18 A. It is "or," not "and."
19 Q. What would you change?
20 A. Instead of that wording, I would use the following wording:
21 "The stabiliser has to become embedded in the ground when a shell
22 is fired with either charge 4 or charge 5. In any case, if a shell was
23 fired using charges 4 through 6, its stabiliser must become embedded in
24 the ground or remain at the point of impact."
25 Q. Go on, please.
Page 38238
1 A. Paragraph 68, line 3 from the bottom of the first passage. In
2 front of footnote 257, I believe, it says "south-east" and it should read
3 "south-west."
4 Q. What is the footnote number?
5 A. I apologise --
6 JUDGE KWON: 257.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- it's the third line from the
8 bottom of that passage and the footnote number is 257, yes. In front of
9 it we can read "south-east" and it should read "south-west."
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. In my footnote there are no sides of the world in the footnote.
12 A. We are not talking about the footnote itself, but I am just
13 trying to point you to the -- point to the text where there is an error,
14 and that is in front of the footnote.
15 Q. The next correction, please.
16 A. The next correction, please bear with me, the paragraph started
17 on the previous page. It's paragraph 74 and subparagraph (b), the
18 incoming direction or trajectory.
19 Q. Page 56 in English.
20 A. Again, it says "south-east," but it should be "south-west."
21 Q. Next page in English. What line, Doctor, can you be of
22 assistance?
23 A. In the Serbian version it is the end of line 11 and the beginning
24 of line 12 where it says in Klare Cetkin Street from number 4 to the
25 Institute for the Blind corresponds to the direction "south-east,"
Page 38239
1 whereas it should be "south-west."
2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the accused please be asked not to
3 overlap. Thank you.
4 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, did you hear the request from the
5 interpreters.
6 THE ACCUSED: Yeah, okay, I will try to be more careful. In line
7 from the top "blind corresponds to the south-east" should be
8 "south-west."
9 JUDGE KWON: Did you find it, Ms. Gustafson? Where is it?
10 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, I agree with Dr. Karadzic, it appears to be
11 eight lines down from the top of page 57 in the English. The middle of
12 the line says "south-east."
13 JUDGE KWON: But it's -- the paragraph number is wrong, it's
14 paragraph 75.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: I think it's paragraph 75(b).
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Thank you.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 75(b), yes.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. The next correction, Doctor, please.
20 A. 162. Below paragraph 113 there remained a designation, 75, which
21 should be deleted. That's the beginning of the third passage of that
22 paragraph.
23 Q. I see the last passage in that number 75.
24 A. Yes, it's just there without any purpose, really, it's not a
25 paragraph.
Page 38240
1 Q. The error does not exist in English. It's just a typographical
2 error.
3 A. Right. Paragraph 105, the caption beneath figure 97, the second
4 line, at the end it says "in image 89," whereas it should read "in image
5 96."
6 Q. English page 81. I think we have it. It's the first paragraph,
7 penultimate line [In English] "Figure 89" should be "96," right.
8 [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 A. And the caption beneath the image, it says "image 97, the window
10 from figure 107," and it should read "96," in fact. It's in the same
11 place on the same page.
12 JUDGE KWON: Since the English page -- version does not contain
13 the actual figures, it's very difficult to follow.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see figure 97 in English and
15 Serbian. This was translated by the service and I wonder that they would
16 not have transcribed paragraph numbers.
17 Can we have the next page in Serbian and in English.
18 JUDGE KWON: In English we have "figure 97."
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But it's not been pasted. There's
20 just the headline.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This is the text or the
22 caption that is within the same frame as the image.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. But there is no image in the English version?
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we ask the service to correct
Page 38241
1 its errors, to mark the paragraphs properly and to paste the image where
2 it reads "image 97" or "figure 97"? At any rate, can this be revised?
3 JUDGE KWON: I think it is for you to send a request to the
4 proper unit, whatever.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. We will. But we have
6 no control over the services of the Registry and this is one of them.
7 JUDGE KWON: No, it is not correct. We'll come to that issue,
8 but please continue.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Sorry, can you tell us again what is supposed to be replaced
11 here, "the window from figure 7"?
12 A. A moment, please. The text which is part of figure 97 should
13 read, or rather, it read: "The window from figure 7 taken on the
14 18th of September, 2010." Or "photographed on the
15 18th of September, 2010." Now, this text should read as follows:
16 "The window from figure 97 photographed on 18th September 2010."
17 Q. Is there anything else?
18 A. Yes, above paragraph 108 there is figure 101. It reads "1001" in
19 the report, whereas --
20 JUDGE KWON: Let's go back to figure 97 which we have in front of
21 us now. We are talking about figure 97, but you are telling us that the
22 caption should read: "The window shown from figure 97 ...," are you
23 referring to the same number?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The window shown from figure 96,
25 photographed, et cetera. Because you have the same photograph from the
Page 38242
1 photo documentation in figure 96.
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes, probably --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was compared then and now.
4 JUDGE KWON: Probably there was a mistranslation, yes, 96. Thank
5 you. Please continue.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The next correction is a
7 typographical error, but nevertheless above paragraph 108 there is figure
8 101. It reads "figure 1001," whereas it should read "figure 101."
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Thank you. Still, no images in the English version. At any
11 rate, "1001" should be changed into "101." Anything else?
12 A. Let me just find the paragraph.
13 JUDGE KWON: Can we see paragraph 109 in both versions. Previous
14 page for the B/C/S. Oh, yes --
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The next in B/C/S.
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please continue. Fine.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my copy it's page 164, but I
18 will look at what the paragraph is. I think it's paragraph 113,
19 sub-item (b). "Incoming trajectory" is the title. It's the same
20 correction we had in that other section. In the conclusion it says, "In
21 the south-easterly direction," whereas it should read "in the
22 south-westerly direction," and it's the end of line 11 in Serbian.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Line 13 in English. Thank you. Anything else?
25 A. I think that I have made a note of one in the same correction
Page 38243
1 twice. My apologies. I think there is something else. Paragraph 68,
2 the third line from the bottom of the first paragraph, it reads:
3 "The Institute for the Blind corresponds to the south-easterly
4 direction," whereas again it should read "south-westerly."
5 Q. I think that we marked that. It was 257.
6 A. Really? Yes, indeed. I apologise. That would be all. I seem
7 to have duplicated some of the corrections.
8 Q. Thank you very much. Doctor, can you help us introduce this
9 report of yours as per various incidents. A courtesy of the
10 Trial Chamber, your opinion in respect of incident 11 was left in the
11 report even though the incident itself was taken out of the indictment --
12 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
13 Yes, Doctor, you raised your hand.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I -- my hand got -- touched the
15 microphone, so I was adjusting it merely. I apologise.
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Incident 1, not 11. Incident 1 was taken out of the indictment,
19 but the Chamber found that there were reasons for it to remain in the
20 report. Can you tell us, therefore, in the briefest of terms --
21 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
22 Yes, Ms. Gustafson.
23 MS. GUSTAFSON: Sorry. I'd just like to prevent this error about
24 G1 to get embedded in the record, as we've made clear on several
25 occasions. The incident that is described as G1 in this report, the
Page 38244
1 shelling on Vase Miskin Street, is not G1 as pleaded in the indictment.
2 We've made this clear in our filings, and I'd ask Dr. Karadzic not to
3 refer to it any longer as G1. Thank you.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes. I was looking at real G1 incident that took
5 place on the 28th of May, 1992, but this is totally different one.
6 Do you follow, Mr. Karadzic?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. The Vase Miskina happened on
8 the 27th of May, and I see that in the report it's marked as G1 and it
9 happened on the 27th of May. At any rate, we will be modifying it as we
10 go through it.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. The first incident that you addressed in your report is
13 incident 1, as marked in your report. Can you tell us what your
14 conclusions were on the basis of the physical evidence retrieved there
15 and what is the significance of the incident?
16 A. Based on the physical trace evidence retrieved at the site and
17 based on the position of the incident and in view of the capabilities of
18 the weapon itself, and the documentation drafted by the CSB in two sets,
19 one of which was shortly after the on-site investigation and the other
20 after the clearing up was conducted and as a result of a personal visit
21 to the incident site and the information we gathered, it was concluded
22 that at this incident site an 82-millimetre shell exploded fired from a
23 distance of between 100 and 120 metres from the incident site along the
24 trajectory that was determined by the CSB and that we agreed with. It
25 was a direction that was quite normal in relation to Vase Miskina Street.
Page 38245
1 We concluded that the sniper fire that was recorded in a TV footage
2 filmed during the evacuation of those injured had to have come from a
3 close proximity because the positions of the BH army were -- because the
4 positions were 1700 or 1800 metres away --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Can the witness repeat the positions of which
6 side.
7 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
8 Could you repeat which side it was?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't understand the question.
10 JUDGE KWON: The position -- you said positions were 1.700 or
11 1800 metres away and where?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A moment, please.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Serbian positions is what wasn't recorded.
15 A. The positions of the VRS were 1.700 or 1.800 metres away and it
16 can be seen in an image that it's a -- a road is there and the Serb
17 positions never changed. It's image 19 where this trajectory was
18 provided.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have image 19, please.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And this point was given, the
21 Lukavica road, where the positions were located, and it was the only
22 place from which this area could have been targeted and that place was
23 1700 or 1800 metres away because the Serb positions never came closer
24 from that place where the Lukavica-Pale road was.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
Page 38246
1 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us what was the angle, what the angle of
2 descent had to be and could it have been achieved from such a distance?
3 A. This is a distance from which one could not fire infantry weapons
4 and anticipate where it would hit. That would be high angles of descent.
5 So no one using infantry weapons would not use it outside its range of
6 efficiency.
7 Q. Thank you. Would you recommend any other image of the pavement
8 or something else that you included in the report? We will not dwell on
9 this incident much longer, but is there anything that you would
10 recommend, something that is striking when it comes to conclusions that
11 can be drawn?
12 A. Well, we dealed quite in detail with all of this here, everything
13 is noted in the report. What we used as the main reason for a detailed
14 analysis is that the photograph made by the CSB included in their photo
15 file is the photo file compiled by the investigating judge and the
16 situation that we found on the ground when we visited it fully
17 corresponds, the shape of the crater, its position, its dimensions,
18 everything is the same. Why did we wish to compare because of the video
19 shot by the reporter Roger Richards who filmed the same crater and it's
20 much smaller beyond comparison, if compared to the image that we found in
21 the documents. We then established that his crater corresponds with two
22 stills from a video filmed on the day of the incident before the clearing
23 up. The two craters correspond completely. And we also established on
24 the spot that that part of the pavement - it's not really a pavement but
25 it's a pedestrian zone - that is the location where the changed crater
Page 38247
1 is, the paving slabs around the crater in its vicinity have been changed.
2 And we've shown that -- we depict that in image number 14. We could
3 establish the angle of descent on the basis of these images, and on the
4 basis of that we then determined the distance. Perhaps it's something
5 that should be noted here and now, attention should be drawn to it. In
6 this image, number 14, it can be clearly seen.
7 Q. Could we please see image 14. Yes, we have it on the screen now.
8 A. No, we don't.
9 Q. It's on top of the page.
10 A. That's not image 14.
11 Q. It's 14a; correct?
12 A. Yes. We need one image earlier, one before that.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please show the previous
14 image, please.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Can you please briefly comment on the reeds and tell us what the
17 difference is. We can see that here the point of impact is in the middle
18 of one of the tiles and here it is moved?
19 A. Yes, when you compare this to images, we shifted it to an angle
20 deliberately the one from the photo file so that we could follow the
21 tiles. And you can see that the crater is firstly different in terms of
22 dimensions, the left one is practically all -- or rather, not
23 practically, but the crater remains within one tile or slab which is
24 40 by 40 centimetres. It's only the reed that insignificantly covers
25 another slab, whereas the other one covers one and a half tiles or slabs
Page 38248
1 by its dimensions. So the dimensions are quite different. And the other
2 reed, the second reed reaches up to the end of the next slab so that the
3 difference is really indicative from this.
4 Q. Thank you. Did you take into account the other data about the
5 presence of the media, the information and reports from the media, the
6 statements, and what can be concluded on that basis?
7 A. We took into account in our analysis everything that we had at
8 our disposal, whatever we could find that was linked with this incident.
9 So as you will see yourself in the analysis, let me not go into details
10 here. Whatever we had, we presented it and it is up to the Chamber's
11 discretion to add any value to any of that. We presented everything and
12 one can have a sort of general picture. One thing that is noticeable is
13 that the incident has some similarities with the incident which occurred
14 at Markale, which means that the media were immediately present at the
15 site and also that during the evacuation there was sniper fire and simply
16 one could not fail to observe this similarity.
17 Q. Thank you. I would now draw your attention to G4, and later on
18 with the Chamber I will request a clarification. How is the Defence to
19 deal with G1 which took place on the 28th and the incident did not happen
20 and is not sufficiently explained, and similarly G2 on the 6th of June.
21 This is something fluid and not sufficiently precise for the Defence to
22 deal with them.
23 And as for you, Doctor, I would draw your attention to the
24 1st of June, 1993. What did you establish about this incident?
25 A. This incident is elaborated in small detail in the report because
Page 38249
1 in my view it is, first of all, such that there is a deviation during the
2 technical on-site investigation, but let me not dwell on that. What is
3 characteristic about this incident is that the first investigation that
4 was conducted, if we do not take into account the fact that one UNPROFOR
5 member visited the site, was conducted two years after the incident.
6 During the first investigation which the CSB conducted two years
7 after the event at a location which was claimed to be the incident site,
8 at the football-pitch the traces of one shell were found, and that is
9 covered in the technical report produced by the CSB. We discussed that
10 with Mr. Sabljica who was in charge of the investigation and he did not
11 have any explanation about the lack of traces of the second shell. The
12 investigation took place in 1995 and in 2001 two traces were found in
13 this location. The two traces were examined by Mr. Higgs and by UNPROFOR
14 members and Mr. Barry Hogan also photographed it, so that the appearance
15 of the second crater at the football-pitch has not been explained to
16 date.
17 Another interesting aspect of this event is this: We established
18 that there was no football-match being played at the parking as was
19 claimed, but that they rather played it at the indoor football ground
20 which is located next to the football-pitch. Mr. Fazlic mentions these
21 details in Mr. Hogan's video in detail. We established, first of all,
22 that his testimony does not correspond; and next, that it was an indoor
23 football-match. And we concluded that it was the indoor football ground
24 right next to the parking where the incident took place.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have image 38,
Page 38250
1 that's the end of paragraph 47.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. And if you could explain what you had in mind there. 38. Next
4 image, please.
5 A. Perhaps I can comment on this image, too, so that we don't have
6 to return to it. This image depicted the measurements of the incoming
7 trajectory and we'll return to that because now that we have this image
8 it's precisely what I was telling you about. Up here is the small
9 plateau and down here is the parking-lot where it was claimed that the
10 football-match took place. And that was where the incident had occurred.
11 However, we have shown in our report and opinion that actually the
12 football-match was played up there right next to the parking-lot where
13 you can see the pitch for five-a-side football. You can see the goals
14 that was photographed first by Mr. Barry Hogan. You can see the
15 five-a-side football goals. Everything else indicates that that was
16 where the football-match took place, rather than down at the parking-lot
17 where the on-site investigation was conducted and where it was claimed
18 that the incident had happened. When I say "claimed," I refer to witness
19 statements.
20 Q. Can we see, please, image 29 and then we'll return to image 38.
21 So image 29 is the one we would need now. That's the end of
22 paragraph 36. What does this image depict? This is from the TV news of
23 the BH television?
24 A. It is here because it follows the testimony of Mr. Fazlic.
25 Because one can see here that actually there is a small goal here, a
Page 38251
1 five-a-side football goal, in front of the blue car so that's a football
2 played with small goals, which was not the game judging by what he said.
3 This is a different category, the five-a-side football. We can see only
4 one trace of blood here which was filmed by the TV crew and probably it
5 was caused by a shell, which according to witness testimonies landed on
6 the previous day and hit a boy -- I mean the trace of blood could not be
7 like this if it was produced by the two shells, and according to witness
8 testimonies and judging by the number of injured persons. That's all.
9 Because here you cannot really have a good impression. The following
10 moment shows, the following frame shows the entire area and one can see
11 that it is the only trace.
12 Q. What photograph would that be?
13 A. Excuse me?
14 Q. We do not have the photograph showing this next frame and showing
15 the entire parking-lot.
16 A. No, but the film, the video, is available so it can be extracted,
17 no problem at all.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please show the witness
19 image 37 now, please, so you can explain to us what the investigators are
20 doing.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Image 37 is something that took
22 place later. After we talked to Mr. Sabljica we received it from --
23 actually, the Prosecution received it from the CSB and thanks to their
24 courtesy we received it. It shows the measuring of the incoming
25 trajectory by using the central axis in 1995 and its trajectory that we
Page 38252
1 do not accept and do not agree with. Because judging by what we found on
2 the ground, the traces of the impact do not match the trajectory which
3 they establish. When we looked at this image a little bit more closely,
4 we could see that the compass here is at the right fork rather than the
5 central one when you look at this. And when we look at this -- when we
6 looked at this on the ground, then we decided that they registered the
7 incoming trajectory which is photographed here and they made a
8 corresponding error with the -- with regard to the incoming trajectory
9 because the compass is located on a wrong stick.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Thank you. I would draw the participants' attention to image 38
12 which depicts the whole parking-lot as mentioned recently by the witness.
13 A. No, it's the same as --
14 Q. 28, 28. Can you tell us what would be the reason for the
15 investigation to be conducted two years after the incident and how did
16 that affect the accuracy of the investigation findings?
17 A. Well, the investigation was obviously conducted at someone's
18 request because I don't understand how it could be conducted two years
19 after the event unless someone requested it. That's the first part of
20 the answer to the first part of your question. As for the second part of
21 your question, everyone present here knows that no investigation is
22 conducted before -- I mean, two years later because the situation on the
23 incident site had changed. It could happen accidentally or forensic
24 technicians like to say that the space becomes contaminated. The traces
25 are jeopardised, the ones that -- that exist at the site and which are
Page 38253
1 crucial if we are to establish the exact factual situation. So the data
2 showed later on that there were some strange results here starting from
3 another trace which appeared and which were nowhere to be found in 1995.
4 And as I say, there was just one investigation which was conducted by the
5 UNPROFOR but its results are not applicable because they are located
6 200 metres away. So they cannot apply them and see where the error is.
7 Q. Thank you. In your report you mention that that match that was
8 played was part of some religious festivities, al-Fitr festivities. Did
9 you have any documents to that effect?
10 A. Of course. The documents are all referred to. There is an order
11 to organise those festivities. There are persons who were in charge of
12 organising that football-match.
13 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Shall we move on? I'm not sure if
14 it comes from Doctor's expertise.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is a reference to that in the
16 Doctor's expertise, Your Excellency. I agree that this has nothing to do
17 with ballistics, but it is mentioned that the Doctor and her team did
18 come across documents covering the issue of festivities and
19 football-matches.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. May I say something
21 with this regard?
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First and foremost, we paid
24 attention to that because the main witness of this incident changed his
25 evidence over time. We concluded that by reading his statement he
Page 38254
1 provided in various cases and in various situations. It was Mr. Fazlic
2 who also participated in the recording of Mr. Barry Hogan's film and
3 nothing matches nothing else in that film.
4 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE KWON: Chamber is of the view that this kind of evidence is
7 outside of expertise. So please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is correct that it goes beyond
9 the ballistics expertise, which is why I will leave that topic aside.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Doctor, can we now look at incident G5?
12 A. Of course.
13 Q. It starts with paragraph 49. The incident happened on the
14 12th of July, 1993. It involved water queue in Spasenije Cane Babovic
15 Street. What did the physical evidence show in this case? I would also
16 like to call up figure 41. Let us move on along the text and let's show
17 figure 41, which is at the end of paragraph 55.
18 A. This incident occurred in Spasenije Cane Babovic Street. The
19 position of that street is depicted in figure 43 in Google Earth. We'll
20 come back to that later. A shell exploded, an 82-millimetre shell, I
21 believe. According to the investigators, it exploded on the body of a
22 victim. Figure 41 depicts that body. The body is covered and it is
23 right to the investigator and to the Skoda car depicted in the figure.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] For the benefit of the other
25 participants, can the photo be zoomed in across the whole screen.
Page 38255
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Go on, Doctor.
3 A. We all agree on that. We believe that the projectile was
4 activated on the victim's body and that body is on the right-hand side of
5 the image, to the right of the investigator and the damaged Skoda. The
6 investigator established that the shell had arrived over the house on the
7 right-hand side which you can't see very well in this image, the house
8 that is behind the fence. However, the physical evidence on the pavement
9 and the physical evidence on the car indicate that that was actually not
10 the case. We analysed all of the traces one by one and we established
11 what the trajectory of that shell was, the incoming trajectory, that is.
12 Q. Thank you. Could we now look at image 43 which is part of
13 paragraph 60.
14 A. Yes. This is the position of Spasenije Cane Babovic Street and
15 the physical evidence that can be seen and that are described in great
16 detail in this expert report show that the shell had come at an angle
17 of -- at of less than 90 degrees in the direction of that street depicted
18 in the photo. And you can see that also in another figure, figure 52.
19 When we were there, we marked the traces and we also used the measuring
20 tape to make things as clear as possible. Figure 52 shows what I have
21 just described. The trajectory, as you can see, is depicted in the image
22 on the right-hand side at an angle that is certainly less than 90 degrees
23 from the top of the image to the bottom.
24 Q. Can we now first look at figure 46 and invite your comment.
25 A. Figure 46 is one photo from the photo documentation. We used
Page 38256
1 white circles to mark the traces on the asphalt that had been created on
2 impact. They are typical of an explosion that happened mid-air and not
3 on the ground. Their form shows the incoming trajectory quite clearly
4 and this is marked by line 4. Another thing that confirms the trajectory
5 of the mine or the shell are the damages on the Skoda car that you can
6 see. And you can see that the blast -- and if we are talking about
7 Skoda, so the shock wave went from the left to the right, from the bottom
8 to the top, and the deformation on the Skoda show it clearly. On the
9 right flank you have the deformation of the metal that shows the height
10 at which the shell exploded. We took a photo of a similar Skoda and at
11 the height of 65 centimetres is where that shell exploded.
12 Q. You're talking about figure 47?
13 A. No, figure 46. It is on the screen -- I apologise. Figure 47
14 where you can see the 65 centimetres. Obviously we couldn't do it on
15 this photo, we could not measure things on this photo because the Skoda
16 was too damaged.
17 Q. It says a similar or the same Skoda?
18 A. It's the same model of a Skoda car. It's the same Skoda but not
19 the same car, actually.
20 Q. Thank you. Please continue and tell us what is the allegation
21 which would charge myself or us -- what is alleged as the trajectory of
22 the shell, what houses in question?
23 A. We can see the house ever so slightly behind the fence and behind
24 the gate. Maybe there is another photo that depicts this alleged house
25 better.
Page 38257
1 Q. Perhaps 48.
2 A. Yes, it is the same photo that could be seen in 47; however, what
3 we did here is a representation - and I'm pointing you to the red marks
4 and the direction marked by number 5 as well as the traces marked by
5 number 6 - this is the hypothetical trajectory determined by the
6 investigators and described in their documents. If that shell had
7 arrived across the house as they claim then the traces would have to be
8 found in the place of our red marks but they are not there. You can see
9 where they are. We encircled the real traces at the site of the
10 deformation, and we also showed what the deformation on the Skoda should
11 look like if the shell had arrived from the direction that they had
12 allegedly determined. This picture shows everything.
13 Q. Can we scroll up a little. Let's see how you obtained this
14 figure.
15 A. It is a mirror image because the angle is 90 per cent or less.
16 If the shell had landed from the side across the house and the fence,
17 then the biggest deformation would be at number 1. It would go from the
18 right to the left, from the top to the bottom, and this is what it would
19 look like. In order to make things clear, we showed what kind of
20 deformation this car would have had to suffer if the direction or the
21 incoming trajectory was as they claim it was.
22 Q. Can you please read the caption under 49.
23 A. Figure 49, it says, "fence in the lower right-hand side" and
24 the -- and arrow, the pointed arrow, points in the direction of fence and
25 the caption below the photo.
Page 38258
1 Q. Where would the fence be if it was there?
2 A. Yes, where the fence would be in that position. All this is a
3 hypothetical representation of the situation as it should have been in
4 case the shell had flown over that house and if that trajectory was as
5 the investigators claim it was.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 JUDGE KWON: So it's not a real picture, but rather produced by
8 you hypothetically using the existing photo?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct. The real photo is
10 at number 48 and it confirms the trajectory as marked by number 4. And
11 this photo, number 49, is just an illustration of the situation as it
12 should be as opposed to what was -- it was alleged as it had been.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. And the real fence, where would it be with regard to this mirror
15 image?
16 A. It should be in the direction of the pointed arrow on the
17 right-hand side. The car is positioned in that way that its position
18 could not be changed. Do you see what I mean? The car was where it was,
19 and around it there are real deformations and the real deformations
20 indicate that the trajectory is in the direction of number 4. The
21 deformations on the car and the traces on the ground confirm that. The
22 car has to be in its place so as to allow us to discuss what the
23 investigators claim. It is in the same place, but the deformations would
24 have to be totally different. The fence is in the same place as it is in
25 figure 48. Did I make myself clear at all? Do you understand what I'm
Page 38259
1 saying?
2 Q. Thank you. Can I now ask you to --
3 JUDGE KWON: Can we go back to figure or image 46. No, shall we
4 show the paragraph above the picture as well, let's zoom out a little bit
5 further. Here I rely on the English translation, I think you explained
6 what yellow line number 4 means. Collapse the English and leave it as it
7 is, but I can't find the explanation as to number 1, 2, and 3. Did you
8 touch -- did you mention -- did you touch upon it, meaning of number 1,
9 2, 3, and the meaning of arrows in your report? Otherwise, I'd like you
10 to explain it here.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it's a bit lower, where it
12 says figure 40 [as interpreted] shows that the left rear end of the car,
13 this is the text immediately after figure 46 under (e), we start with the
14 damage to the Skoda car after a detailed analysis --
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I found it.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And then you have the --
17 JUDGE KWON: I found it. Thank you.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- direction 1, and so on and so
19 forth.
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, shall we move to
22 the next incident or is this a good time for our next break?
23 JUDGE KWON: We'll have a break. We'll have a break for
24 45 minutes and resume at quarter past 1.00.
25 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.29 p.m.
Page 38260
1 --- On resuming at 1.19 p.m.
2 JUDGE KWON: Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Doctor, can we now focus our attention on the incident of the
6 22nd of January, 1994, at Alipasino Polje. Do you have it there within
7 reach? I think it's G6.
8 A. Yes, I have it.
9 Q. Can you tell us briefly what the most significant points are and
10 what does the physical evidence point to as the most telling in that
11 incident?
12 A. There were different findings produced by the security service
13 and the forensic examinators. They could not agree on the issue of which
14 shell impacted there. There was also the investigation conducted by
15 Mr. Verdy, a member of UNPROFOR, who also provided his findings. Based
16 on the evidence found at the impact site and based on the elements noted
17 in the documentation and the photo documentation we had to establish,
18 first of all, what the shells were which landed there and from which
19 direction. We established that three 120 shells exploded there and that
20 there were no technical elements that would warrant the conclusion that
21 82-millimetre shells exploded there. We were lucky enough in that as we
22 toured the scene we were able to establish at Klare Cetkina Street number
23 4 that there was a presence of trace evidence and through the central
24 axis method we were able to establish the incoming trajectory.
25 Q. Would that be image 54 that would depict that or at some other?
Page 38261
1 A. Well, yes, 54 is fine as well as 55. In image 54 you can see
2 elements of the central crater and you can see that fragmentation
3 shrapnel was present there. The CSB was also able to establish that, and
4 it was on this basis that we established that it was 120-millimetre shell
5 rather than 82-millimetre.
6 Q. The CSB thought that the traces would be scattered about a metre
7 from the centre of the crater and you established that it was --
8 A. We established that it was more than 3 metres, and it was on this
9 basis that we established that the crater must have been the result of
10 120-millimetre shell impacting rather than 82-millimetre.
11 Q. [In English] "That you were able to" [no interpretation] "that
12 the CSB was also able to establish that and it was on this basis, but the
13 CSB established 1 and a half metres."
14 [Interpretation] In line 13 this should be reflected and it's not
15 there. So do you confirm this?
16 A. Yes, yes. It can't be seen, or rather, it can be seen that the
17 traces reach as far as 3 metres from the centre of crater.
18 Q. Can you tell us if something was changed at the impact site?
19 A. Well, obviously flagstone was included in the curb there,
20 although the situation as it is now allowed us to measure what the radius
21 was, or rather, what the diameter was.
22 Q. And with regard to the trajectory, can we look at image 55 and
23 see what the conclusions there were?
24 A. Perhaps figure 56 would be more helpful in that respect.
25 Figure 55 shows only the method whereby the central crater was measured
Page 38262
1 and what the pattern was, whereas in figure 56 we can see the incoming
2 trajectory. It was established on our part that it was 237 degrees
3 through the application of the central axis method.
4 Q. Which figure is that?
5 A. Figure 56.
6 Q. So it's the next page. [In English] Yeah, that's right. Thank
7 you.
8 A. Our tape indicates the central axis and the angle of descent. We
9 established it by establishing the azimuth of the building which can be
10 seen in the background. It is along the same azimuth. It seems to me
11 that Mr. Sabljica during his testimony agreed that this was accurately
12 presented when looking at our work. On the point of impact of the second
13 shell which impacted on the carriageway, unfortunately we could not
14 retrieve any physical trace evidence because a new layer of asphalt was
15 laid.
16 Q. Sorry, is this image 58?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can it be shown, please. Carry on.
19 A. On the right-hand side the point of impact of the shell can be
20 seen. This is a photograph taken from the photo file and it can be found
21 in the documentation given by the forensic examiner, the one above. It
22 has a scale as well. It is pretty unclear, but one can conclude that
23 it's a crater of the size of between 70 and 90 centimetres. We checked
24 it by comparing it against the manhole that can be seen in the
25 background. This also casts suspicion on the fact that it was a
Page 38263
1 82-millimetre shell and that was the reason why we checked it further.
2 We were lucky enough that Mr. Barry Hogan photographed the area before a
3 new layer of asphalt was placed, and this can be seen on figures 59 and
4 onwards.
5 Q. While we're still with this figure, can you tell us where the
6 pattern -- the spray pattern can be seen in respect of the centre of the
7 crater, to the left or to the right?
8 A. It's an unclear picture but it's definitely to the right, I would
9 say, based on the photograph. And I can confirm that it's scattered to
10 the right-hand side by reference to Barry Hogan's photographs.
11 Q. Can we have the next photograph.
12 A. Mr. Barry Hogan photographed the area of impact before it was
13 recoated with asphalt, and it can be compared against the manhole cover
14 which we know is about 70 centimetres. So it must have been the
15 122-millimetre shell [as interpreted], as confirmed by Mr. Barry Hogan in
16 his report. I think the CSB was confused by the damage to the asphalt
17 and they believed that it was the centre of crater, and as a result,
18 thought it was the result of an 82-millimetre shell. On the basis of
19 this photograph - and you know that the footage also has the time when it
20 was taken and the various co-ordinates - and by reference to the position
21 of the planets we explained the shadow which can be seen in figure 61
22 next to that post. We could establish a central crater and the
23 fragmentation effect. We marked the pattern and the crack which can be
24 seen in figure 59. Our central axis is slightly to the left of that
25 crack, and in figure 61 it can be seen that it is almost parallel to the
Page 38264
1 post there. It was on this basis that we established that the azimuth of
2 the sun, or rather, of this here is 240. And when we compared it to the
3 results obtained by Captain Verdy the difference in respect of both mines
4 was in several degrees only.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at figure 61. First
6 briefly figure 60 so we can see Mr. Hogan. And then figure 61. There we
7 have it, figure 61.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, this one.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In line 24 it's 120-millimetres,
10 that's what the mine was. I have an intervention for the transcript.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Carry on, Doctor.
13 A. When we compared the traces on the ground and the angles we
14 obtained with the angles obtained by Captain Verdy, the differences were
15 only 1 to 2 degrees and we decided to carry on with his measurements
16 because he had, after all, taken them on the ground. We found that
17 Captain Verdy had recorded the angles of azimuth and had rotated them
18 somewhat in relation to the site of the incident. Now, how did we
19 establish this ? Since the shells were obviously fired from the same
20 weapon and this was a conclusion that both Mr. Higgs and ourselves
21 arrived at based on the distance compared to where they landed and the
22 impact dispersion, we established that the two projectiles were fired
23 from the same weapon, these trajectories intersect in one point which is
24 the point where the projectiles were launched. If we look at the traces
25 on the asphalt and the angles, they would not be consistent and that's
Page 38265
1 why we agreed that because of the consistency of the angles that he
2 established and the traces produced by the projectiles, that he had in
3 fact mistaken the points from where the projectiles were launched when
4 measuring the angles.
5 Q. In line 25 did you say that he took them on the ground shortly
6 after the event, and I mean Verdy?
7 A. Yes. He investigated the scene shortly after the incident took
8 place.
9 Q. Tell us, is this image 62 that you wanted us to look at or 63?
10 A. No matter, both images illustrate the same -- well, perhaps we
11 should look at 62 first and then 63 to make this clear. Image 62
12 indicates the trajectories from the incident site of both shells under
13 the angle of azimuth as established by Mr. Verdy and thoroughly checked
14 by us and the two intersect at 2.237 metres where the IP institute is
15 located which was under the BH army control -- UP institute.
16 Q. And that is Sokolovic Kolonija; is that right?
17 A. So it would appear on this Google image.
18 Q. Thank you. Can we have image 63.
19 A. We have the war map of the 14th Division placed side by side with
20 the Google Earth image to indicate that it's the same.
21 Q. And who claimed that it had arrived from the Institute for the
22 Blind?
23 A. I think it was the CSB and even UNPROFOR who maintained that. We
24 were lucky enough to be there, to visit there, before the arrival of
25 certain investigators to testify here, and they confirmed that we had
Page 38266
1 established these trajectories correctly.
2 Q. Could this difference in the trajectory look at -- let's look at
3 table 5 when it comes to the filling, the charge, and the trajectory.
4 A. The differences listed were not coincidental. There must have
5 been the adjustment of fire, most certainly. The two impacts are within
6 range. 15 metres minus one range error probable and there must have been
7 an adjustment of fire.
8 Had the shell been defective in any way and that was the reason
9 why it deflected, it would most certainly not be able to reach that far.
10 It would have landed earlier. Technically speaking that would have been
11 impossible.
12 Q. Thank you. Under (b) -- it was under (b) that you made your
13 correction south-westerly direction and that's what this image shows;
14 right?
15 A. Yes.
16 JUDGE KWON: One moment. Is the UPI institute the Institute for
17 the Blind? What's the UPI institute then?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] United agriculture and industry.
19 It was an agricultural institute or a food industry -- institute.
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
21 Do you confirm that, Dr. Subotic ?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, of course.
23 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
24 Please continue.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is definitely not the Institute
Page 38267
1 for the Blind.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Thank you.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see image 51 for a brief
5 moment. It's the previous incident, 5.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Had the shell flown over the house from the direction suggested
8 by the security centre of Sarajevo, where would one expect to see the
9 stabiliser which is in this case to the right of the car?
10 A. If the incident was such as the investigators found and if the
11 shell has come from the direction across the house, the stabiliser would
12 have to be on the other side of the car where the shell was activated on
13 the body of the deceased woman. It could not have been on this side.
14 Because when the shell is activated, depending on the charge, the
15 stabiliser remains at the spot where the shell was activated. It is then
16 propelled backwards a little bit -- rather, it continues to fly on in --
17 along the incoming trajectory a little bit, and then it gets stuck in the
18 ground depending on the charge. So this stabiliser could never be found
19 on this side of the car if the activation of the shell had occurred on
20 the other side of the car. So the position of the stabiliser which
21 landed in the vicinity nearby tells us that the shell had arrived from
22 this direction.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 JUDGE KWON: Could you read out the word that appears at the
25 bottom right of this picture out loud.
Page 38268
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Below the image next to number 51,
2 is that what you mean? Oh, that's a marking -- that's the TV agency
3 which filmed the video because this is a still extracted from a video.
4 It's one of the TV stations and it says "FIVA."
5 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Could we now deal with the incident G7 which is the
9 Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street in Dobrinja. And the beginning is in
10 paragraph 76, so if we could please now move on to that paragraph in this
11 document. 76. Actually, we can immediately move one or two pages on to
12 the image or figure 64, and if you can explain to us briefly on this map
13 what is depicted here and then we'll move on to a photograph.
14 A. This is a section of the map of the city of Sarajevo showing the
15 streets mentioned in the report about this incident, particularly what I
16 have in mind is Hamdija Kapidzica or Dzavarharl Nehrua Street. Excuse
17 me, it's difficult to pronounce.
18 Q. It is --
19 A. It is particularly mentioned here for the reason that -- and that
20 was why we included it here because nothing happened in this street and
21 it's mentioned in documents. Therefore, we wanted to show it. You
22 couldn't say it's not far. But nothing happened there.
23 Q. And what is the point at which indicating the site of the
24 incident, is it one of the red dots? Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street?
25 A. No, the dots are already in the map. The
Page 38269
1 Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street is -- the incident site is marked with
2 number 353 in this, and it's the street going upwards and intersecting
3 the Mimar Sinana Boulevard.
4 Q. Thank you. Can we now please look at figure 65, please. What
5 does this photograph depict?
6 A. It is a photograph from the photo file where the red arrow around
7 the middle of the photograph in the left-hand corner shows the impact of
8 the mine --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- the impact of the shell on the
11 curb, but this was not investigated by the CSB. They just marked it and
12 then did not investigate it.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Thank you. Can anything else be seen in this photograph and
15 what?
16 A. The trace of earth which helps to determine the direction from
17 which the shell landed. If you zoom in, you can also see that the CSB
18 officials in the far right-hand corner also marked the incident site in
19 Mihajla Pupina Street.
20 Q. Could we now please see photograph 69 as it can facilitate things
21 for us so that we can see this. It is shown the same area from a
22 different angle. Could you tell us what we can see here.
23 A. Aha. Excuse me, I opened the document where the next photograph
24 is. That's actually the site, the location where the impact of the shell
25 is marked on the previous photograph which has been repaved in the
Page 38270
1 meantime with a new layer of asphalt. This is what we photographed in
2 September 2010, but on the upper photograph you can see what it looked
3 like when Mr. Barry Hogan made a photograph.
4 Q. You mean figure 68?
5 A. Yes, yes, yes, yes.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please scroll up on the same
7 page so that we can see the other photo.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a still from
9 Mr. Barry Hogan's video. It's obviously immediately before the corner
10 where the shell landed was repaved. It's the shell that we discussed in
11 relation to the previous image where it's marked with a red arrow.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Thank you. What does the CSB conclude, or rather, all the
14 investigations, what conclusions did they yield and on what basis?
15 A. Well, according to their findings which are included in their
16 reports, they analysed the material physical traces, and on the basis of
17 such traces they concluded that -- rather, concluded where the
18 projectiles had arrived from. However ...
19 Q. Could we now please look at paragraph 69(b) because perhaps you
20 could help us there. What was the basis on which, or rather, was their
21 conclusion correct?
22 A. Considering the traces that we found in the photo files, we
23 concluded that they did not determine the directions well which can be
24 seen nicely in the photograph which is, or rather, the image which is on
25 the screen now. This is the sketch of the site and we superimposed onto
Page 38271
1 it the impact sites of these projectiles which are drawn onto
2 Google Earth.
3 Q. Could we zoom in onto the sketch even more. And please tell us,
4 where is the north on the sketch?
5 A. You can see it in the left corner of the image; however, north as
6 marked on the image is turned for 60 degrees which can be seen when we
7 look at the actual situation and straighten out the street. Then you can
8 see how much the image from Google Earth had to be rotated properly
9 because the actual figure north is marked by the figure N. So due to
10 this error of 60 degrees they drew erroneous conclusions about the
11 direction from which the shells had arrived. I think that KDZ166, the
12 witness, agreed with this when we presented to him the situation as
13 depicted here.
14 Q. Thank you. This rotation of the azimuth, the north in the
15 sketch, is that sufficient for a wrong conclusion to be drawn?
16 A. Well, you see, of course it is. If you make such a conclusion on
17 the basis of the sketch of the incident site. I cannot image that
18 someone marked the sketch of the incident site wrongly and then on the
19 basis of that considered all other physical traces in relation to some
20 other north because their conclusions correspond with the situation. Of
21 course the reports note that they used other traces as well, and those
22 other traces as we noted were not properly interpreted.
23 Q. This is why I would like us to have a look at figures 74 and then
24 75 so that you can explain to us what they depict and then we shall move
25 on to figures -- the two following figures. So figure 74 first, please,
Page 38272
1 that's a sketch. Can you just briefly explain to us what this incoming
2 trajectory means and where would the dispersion pattern be found?
3 A. Well, this image depicts, first of all, the principle of the
4 dispersion and fragmentation of the shell and the dispersion pattern at
5 the moment of explosion. This image shows how the impact would have
6 looked if the shell had arrived from the direction of Energoinvest as
7 claimed in the findings. In that case, we would have fragment dispersion
8 on the left wall and not on the right. Judging by what we photographed,
9 the situation is quite the contrary. The fragment effect is to be found
10 on the right lateral wall.
11 Q. Thank you. Can we now please show image 75.
12 A. This image also used -- is used for the analysis of fragmentation
13 effect in case that the shell had arrived from the positions of the BH
14 army, its fragmentation effect fully fits in with the fragmentation
15 effect which we can see in image 76 or figure 76. This is a photograph
16 that we made while we were still there -- while we were there, and it is
17 still to be found there now.
18 Q. Can we please show figure 76 now. Is that the right wall that
19 you talked about?
20 A. Yes, that's the right wall that I talked about.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now please show image 79.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Could you explain what this figure shows?
25 A. On the basis of the traces in the snow in this figure we marked
Page 38273
1 the incoming trajectory where the site of the impact is marked by the
2 head of the arrow or the tip of the arrow.
3 Q. And how does that reflect to the right and the left areas from
4 the point of impact?
5 A. As I said previously, the trace can be found below the explosion
6 along the incoming trajectory and to the right and the left according to
7 the diagram which we saw earlier as depicted in figure 75 -- actually,
8 the fragmentation effect is as mentioned just now on the lateral wall,
9 the right one, and forwards. The remaining part stays where it is and
10 therefore there is no effect on the front left wall.
11 Q. The left wall?
12 A. Yes, it's the front wall if we go from left to the right.
13 Q. Thank you. Can we now please look at figure 80 which is signed
14 by Mr. Sabljica, unless I'm mistaken. If this incoming trajectory were
15 correct, where would the traces of fragments and shrapnel and blackness
16 be found?
17 A. Well, Mr. Sabljica did not agree with us and he marked the
18 incoming trajectory which he had primarily established. But we can all
19 see that the point of impact was moved to the right for at least 2 metres
20 so that he could justify his claim that the projectile had arrived from
21 that direction. However, for Mr. Sabljica to move the arrow to the point
22 of impact, if he had done that, once again there would be no effect on
23 the left wall. There would be no pattern of fragments there.
24 Q. Thank you. Could we now please look at figure 81 so that you can
25 briefly explain to us what is depicted thereon.
Page 38274
1 A. Yes, figure 81 represents the site of impact of the shell which
2 hit a footpath, and at this site of impact we can also see the pattern
3 and the stabiliser and the stabiliser is embedded there and the site of
4 impact was established on the basis of some knowledge of geometry and
5 this is the approximate direction which was determined here and the
6 following was established: Namely, that the shell which we discussed
7 just now and which landed on the curb of the concrete plateau and which
8 was not established destroyed the earth between the concrete footpath and
9 the point of impact. And the shell which landed here and hit the curb
10 scattered the earth along its own incoming trajectory and then it was
11 established on the basis of analysis that the direction was the same, the
12 incoming trajectory was the same as with the shell which exploded in
13 Mihajla Pupina Street.
14 Q. Thank you. Do we need to see figure 83? Would you recommend
15 that we should see it?
16 A. Well, yes, yes, why not.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to call up figure 83.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You can see clearly that the
19 direction of earth in the direction of the old crater, according to
20 Mr. Barry Hogan, he was the one who established that that was an old
21 crater, that trajectory differs quite clearly from the direction of
22 Lukavica for which it was claimed that that was the incoming trajectory
23 of the shell. The traces that we discussed a while ago that you see up
24 here determined the incoming trajectory of the two shells, the second
25 that landed here, and the last at the same time.
Page 38275
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Very well. Let's look at 84 and then 85 and 86. I'm inviting
3 your comments and I also would like to ask you to call for a new image
4 once you're done with the previous one.
5 A. This is the shell that landed on the footpath and its stabiliser
6 remained embedded in the footpath. This is a classical appearance of a
7 stabiliser embedded in a gravel surface covered with a layer of asphalt.
8 You can see that the stabiliser has some numerical markings on its
9 charge. We studied the markings and actually we realised that it was a
10 Latinic letter N.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at figures 85 and
12 86. I'm sorry, I did not ask for 85. I would like to see 86. When this
13 is blown up you can see the Roman letter N on the primary charge of the
14 stabiliser.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. What does this indicate?
17 A. As far as I know, in the armament of the former Yugoslavia and
18 the Army of Republika Srpska there were no shells with Roman numerals or
19 letters; they were all in the Cyrillic script.
20 Q. The appearance of the crater and the appearance of the stabiliser
21 in it, are they typical or uncharacteristic?
22 A. They are typical of a shell whose stabiliser becomes embedded in
23 the surface, which means that a bigger charge was used in shelling this
24 location.
25 Q. Were there any traces of manipulation in this crater?
Page 38276
1 A. No, I didn't see any traces or manipulation in this crater, but
2 it has just occurred to me that during the investigations, the
3 investigators were determining the trajectory and they referred to the
4 position of the stabiliser which is depicted in figure 87. Perhaps you
5 would like to see that. Mr. Sabljica said that the trajectory that he
6 determined is confirmed by the position of the stabiliser and that can
7 also be seen in a photo that was taken by the police. But this is
8 certainly incorrect because the stabiliser itself shows deformities which
9 were not in contact with the surface.
10 Q. I would like to go back to figure 78. This is some ten pages
11 before the page that we're currently on. Figure 78, 7-8.
12 A. Yes. You can see on the stabiliser itself that the wings on the
13 top part are damaged, which means that fins were not in contact with the
14 surface but are still damaged, which leads us to conclude that that
15 stabiliser had already hit the surface, ricochetted, and found itself in
16 this place. However, this cannot be used as a parameter to determine the
17 trajectory of this shell.
18 Q. Thank you. And now I would like to draw your attention to
19 incident G9 which happened on the 2nd of December, 1994, I believe. G9,
20 please, paragraph 93 where you also find a photo. This stabiliser is not
21 where it originally landed?
22 A. No, because its upper surface shows damaged fins which were never
23 in contact with the surface.
24 Q. Thank you. Could you please comment upon this incident and what
25 would the physical evidence indicate?
Page 38277
1 A. During this incident there were allegedly two explosions. In
2 practical terms they were simultaneous or followed each other within a
3 few seconds or within a minute. The two explosions, according to the
4 investigators, were caused by 76-millimetre projectiles. Let me just
5 look for the model and the year of production. The 76-millimetre
6 projectile, M70. However, the physical evidence on the ground which can
7 be found in the photo file deny that or refuted that.
8 Q. Can we please look at figures 92 and 93. Do we know if we look
9 at that aerial photo where those impacts happened?
10 A. One impact was in Danila Ilic street, the one in photo 92, and
11 that was in the vicinity of the aerial photo that we have just seen in
12 e-court. The crater that is here does not look like the explosion of a
13 shell that landed at number 2, which means there is a series of
14 ambiguities about this place and a lot of evidence. There are some
15 objects which are scattered in the top part of the photo but they are
16 scattered just opposite to the centre of explosion and that pattern could
17 have occurred only if there was something that exploded under the stool
18 but it didn't because that was never registered.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the Doctor be provided with a
20 pen to mark the convexity of the objects that she just described as being
21 scattered all over the snowy surface.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Could you please draw a line or an arrow to indicate where the
24 centre of explosion would be in this particular case?
25 A. This would be the line and this could have happened only if the
Page 38278
1 explosion happened here and in this direction. If it exploded in a
2 different direction this convexity could not have existed.
3 Q. Thank you. Can we now look at figure 93 --
4 JUDGE KWON: If you would like to move from here, we need to keep
5 this first.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, please.
7 JUDGE KWON: Could you date and initial this picture.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And the date.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Today we are at the 14th?
10 JUDGE KWON: 14th.
11 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
12 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Shall we assign a number for this?
13 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D3541, Your Honours.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let's look at figure 93 together.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. What is depicted in this figure? Which explosion? What does the
17 physical evidence tell you?
18 A. This photo is just an illustration in order to demonstrate the
19 range of traces from a shell with a similar charge as the projectile that
20 contained about 650 grams of TNT as far as I can remember.
21 Q. Thank you. And now can we look at the following photo which is
22 96. I apologise. Let's first look at photos 94 and 95 to see if we
23 could draw any conclusion from them, 94 and 95 are on the same page.
24 A. Figures 94 and 95 show the results of an analysis of what we have
25 just discussed. I don't know how much detail do you want to hear. I can
Page 38279
1 tell you that we concluded that some things could not be as they are
2 represented. We analysed the centre of explosion, and if it had been on
3 the pipes that could -- they would not be covered with snow. The darker
4 traces of the explosion could not be here where they are and they are
5 marked by number 1. And the earth which was the consequence of a shock
6 wave or an explosive process was -- is fragmented as shown in 94 on the
7 right-hand side. We also stated that there was some tampering with the
8 traces, that the crater was manipulated, that the earth was moved from
9 the crater. In any case, the conclusion which is corroborated by these
10 two photos is that what happened here was an explosion of Trotyl round
11 which was not even in a metal casing at all and, as such, weird traces on
12 the ground are actually the consequence of an opening which directed the
13 combustion process as I indicated a little while ago.
14 One more factor indicates that is true, there was a witness who
15 thought he had heard the -- first the firing of the round and that there
16 was a subsequent explosion. Those two explosions he perceived them
17 differently in [indiscernible] terms, and he never moved from his vantage
18 point. That would not have been the case if the two were really
19 identical. This is also corroborated by the fact that there is no
20 fragmentation pattern on the window that is nearby.
21 Q. Figure 96, please. Zoom-in.
22 Doctor, could you please explain what the figures depict?
23 A. Both photos depict - and I apologise - they're both from the
24 photo file. On the left-hand side are the shutters closed and there's
25 some piercings, some damage from the fragmentation. According to the
Page 38280
1 investigators, on the right-hand side when the shuttered are open and you
2 can see fragmentation pattern on the inside of the shutters. However,
3 interestingly enough, neither the concrete surround of the window nor the
4 wall around the window show any traces of fragmentation. We established
5 that when we visited the site and this can be seen in somewhat greater
6 detail in photo 97. You can see that there are no fragmentation traces
7 in any place there.
8 Q. Figure 97, please.
9 A. I hope I don't have to explain that fragmentation effects or
10 pattern does not follow a said direction and it would be impossible for
11 the fragmentation pattern to exist on the shutters and not to exist
12 around the window itself.
13 Q. Thank you. What is your conclusion about this incident and what
14 were the conclusions that were drawn by the CSB, i.e., in investigation
15 group?
16 A. The investigators concluded that two shells exploded in this
17 place -- I apologise, two artillery projectiles, 76-millimetres.
18 However, the traces and evidence at the site show that that was
19 impossible. What we have just stated is not corroborated by the size of
20 the crater. It is too large for it to be the effect of the 76-millimetre
21 artillery shell. The crater that was shown in a different place close to
22 the site of the incident is shallow but it is huge, as you can see in
23 photo 98. And it is also impossible for two artillery projectiles which
24 were fired from the same position which means that the starting positions
25 were the same including the angle of launch, which means that the angle
Page 38281
1 of descent had to be the same for the both projectiles. So it would be
2 impossible for such two projectiles to result in such different craters.
3 Q. Can we now look at figure 98 to show what the Doctor is just
4 talking about.
5 A. As I've already stated this would be impossible which is
6 corroborated by a photo from the photo file and that photo was singled
7 out by us. These are -- this was shrapnel and you can see it in figure
8 100 that with the result of the 76-millimetre projectile explosion, we
9 took out the fuse. So it is absolutely impossible for a fuse that
10 activates the projectile to remain intact and to be found about 30 metres
11 away from the point of impact, the point of explosion.
12 Q. Can we now look at figure 100, please. This is the fuse you were
13 discussing; right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And what is the appearance of the pattern? Would that tally with
16 76-millimetre projectile?
17 A. Yes, it would. But I would nevertheless have see it personally
18 live, as it were, to see what the casing is like. At any rate, this
19 could not have been fired regularly. And as I said, it is impossible for
20 a projectile to be fired and the fuse remain intact and be found
21 30 metres away from the point of impact. Well, there is one explanation
22 of how it could have happened. It could have happened in the case the
23 projectile was lying down along its length and activated with Trotyl
24 because that's what the crater would then look like as it is now.
25 Q. Thank you.
Page 38282
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted into evidence?
2 JUDGE KWON: Any objection, Ms. Gustafson?
3 MS. GUSTAFSON: No objection. Thank you.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll admit this second report.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3542, Your Honours.
6 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we call up 1D7901.
8 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Were you in charge of this expert report related to the
12 incidents --
13 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Before we move away from this
14 report, having reviewed the English translation, the Chamber is of the
15 view that it would be more benefitted to have the images to appear in the
16 translation as well. So I would ask CLSS to provide us with a revised
17 translation. Would there be any problem, Mr. Robinson? I'm not sure how
18 that logistics is arranged.
19 MR. ROBINSON: Yeah, I was actually going to volunteer that maybe
20 our Defence team can insert the images in the documents. Maybe that
21 would be the easiest. But if that's -- would somehow offend CLSS then
22 perhaps we can ...
23 JUDGE KWON: If the Defence is able to do that, I take it that
24 CLSS is able to do that without any much difficulty.
25 You agree with this suggestion, Ms. Gustafson?
Page 38283
1 MS. GUSTAFSON: That's fine. I agree, it would make it easier.
2 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
3 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. That will help to
5 relieve our resources somewhat because we are at the end of our tethers
6 in terms of our resources. I thought they would do it because it is part
7 and parcel of their work.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Doctor, were you in charge of examining the incidents known as
10 Markale I.
11 JUDGE KWON: Can I intervene at this moment because I wanted to
12 raise this issue at some point in time because this has been causing the
13 Chamber some concern lately. It's related to the translation issues so
14 that's why I'm intervening now. The Chamber has noticed that at the
15 moment quite a large number of written statements of witnesses called by
16 the Defence are just draft translations and, thus, unrevised. In the
17 process of reviewing these statements, the Chamber has also noticed that
18 some of them contain mistakes which are of some concern. By way of
19 example, the Chamber refers to statements of witnesses Savo Bojanovic,
20 the exhibit number of whose statement is D3076; Mile Ujic, D2909; and
21 Tomislav Batinic, D2930. In particular, paragraphs 19, 3, and 4 of those
22 statements respectively.
23 In addition, extremely problematic is the statement of
24 Nevenko Samoukovic, D3062, where there is not only a discrepancy in
25 paragraph numbering between the English and B/C/S versions, but where
Page 38284
1 paragraph 8 of the English translation is not present in the B/C/S
2 version while paragraph 7 of the B/C/S version is missing from the
3 English version. The Chamber, therefore, orders the Defence to obtain
4 revised translations of these four statements as soon as possible and
5 upload them into e-court, notifying the Chamber and the other parties in
6 this case.
7 The Chamber finds this extensive reliance on draft translation to
8 be highly unsatisfactory and is under the impression that it is the
9 Defence that controls whether a translation prepared by the CSB is a
10 draft translation or a revised one.
11 So I'm asking you, Mr. Robinson, does it mean that the Defence
12 request to the CLSS are for draft translations alone? And if so, why is
13 that so?
14 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, when we submit a statement to CLSS,
15 we ask for a regular translation. However, then when the witness comes
16 here and we make changes to the statement, then members of our team
17 revise the translation usually by adding some paragraphs. I'm not sure
18 if the mistakes are made at that stage or if they exist from CLSS when we
19 receive the translation. But we ask for regular translations of the
20 first statements we get from our investigators before the witnesses
21 arrive here.
22 JUDGE KWON: So we are talking about statements which have
23 already been admitted? So there is no problem on the part of the Defence
24 to ask for a revised translation of witness statements and documents?
25 MR. ROBINSON: There's no problem.
Page 38285
1 JUDGE KWON: As regards the logistics of that exercise, the
2 Chamber is of the view that the accused should make a serious effort at
3 rectifying draft translations of witness statements and should do so as
4 soon as possible and in co-operation with the CLSS. So this would not
5 mean that it is enough for the Defence to make a general request for
6 revision of all the draft translations of statements in evidence in this
7 case. Instead, the Chamber prefers that the Defence -- the Defence team
8 staggers the request to the CLSS in a way that would suit CLSS and result
9 in the most efficient revision process.
10 Once the Defence has liaised with the CLSS, the Chamber would
11 like to be informed about the arrangement made and then updated
12 periodically as to how the revision exercise is progressing. The Chamber
13 also instructs the Defence team that from now it should request revised
14 translation of witness statements from the CLSS as a matter of principle.
15 Yes, let's continue, Mr. Karadzic.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Allow me, Excellencies, to say,
17 that my concern over the accuracy of translations is even higher, not
18 just in terms of statements, but in terms of testimonies and the
19 transcript where a great deal of mistranslations are overlooked and I
20 would like to ask your help in asking the Registry to obtain the revision
21 of these 30- or 40.000 pages of transcript, although this is premature at
22 this stage.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Doctor, I suppose you heard what I asked you?
25 A. I'm sorry, can you repeat what you said.
Page 38286
1 Q. Did you head, were you in charge, of this expert examination of
2 all the various incidents that are known as Markale I and Markale II?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Let's start from Markale I?
5 A. I'm sorry, I do have some corrections to make in this report as
6 well.
7 Q. Please go ahead.
8 MR. GAYNOR: I'm sorry, Mr. President. Sorry to interrupt.
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Gaynor.
10 MR. GAYNOR: There is, in fact, a discrepancy in the paragraph
11 numbering of the English and the B/C/S versions of the report that
12 Dr. Subotic is about to launch into the corrections of, just so we're
13 aware of that before she begins.
14 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Let's see whether Doctor is aware of
15 this. Let's continue.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my version it's paragraph 69,
17 footnote 266 or 267, I don't know, because there were modifications made.
18 At any rate, the text ends --
19 JUDGE KWON: I already noticed the discrepancy of the para
20 number. Those footnotes appear in paragraph 68 in English version. Let
21 us upload the -- both versions.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. In Serbian, is this the page that you would like to make
24 corrections to?
25 A. Beneath the figure 79, the footnote, yes, that's it. And that's
Page 38287
1 the footnote which ends with paragraph 1, whereas it should read "last
2 paragraph, third line."
3 Q. There's a difference in my copy. In my copy it's footnote 267,
4 whereas we see 265 on the screen.
5 A. In my copy it's 267 as well.
6 JUDGE KWON: How does the footnote read?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The footnote reads:
8 "Republic of BH, Ministry of the Interior,
9 Sarajevo Security Services Centre, report on forensic investigation of
10 site ..."
11 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. And the number of the footnote is
12 268?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 267.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And a moment ago we saw it in
15 e-court bearing number 265. Yes, here it is. It's the footnote that we
16 can see on the screen.
17 JUDGE KWON: So number 265?
18 THE WITNESS: 5, yes.
19 JUDGE KWON: What number do we have in English?
20 THE ACCUSED: The same, I suppose, because --
21 JUDGE KWON: No. I think we have 268 in English.
22 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, Your Honour. There's obviously an added
23 complication that the B/C/S version that Dr. Subotic has and Dr. Karadzic
24 has is different to the B/C/S version that's been uploaded to e-court and
25 that I have.
Page 38288
1 JUDGE KWON: I don't think we can continue --
2 MR. GAYNOR: Certainly it will take an awful long time.
3 JUDGE KWON: -- in this way.
4 Given the time shall we adjourn for the day and in the meantime
5 the Defence could fix the problem? And then upload the correct version
6 so we can print another one, the correct document?
7 THE ACCUSED: I agree.
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Doctor.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I can make one point. The
10 correct version is uploaded in e-court. I have an older version because
11 I did not have the version printed out after I had made my corrections in
12 it.
13 JUDGE KWON: The more serious problem is that the English version
14 does not match the B/C/S version, which makes for the Judges and the
15 Prosecution impossible to follow. So shall --
16 THE ACCUSED: May I just -- I downloaded this version of mine
17 from the e-court and it's still not same as it is now in the e-court.
18 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
19 So the Chamber wishes to be informed from the Defence informally
20 the moment it has been corrected so that we can print that report at that
21 time.
22 Well, we'll continue tomorrow at 9.00. The hearing is now
23 adjourned.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.38 p.m.,
25 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 15th day of
Page 38289
1 May, 2013, at 9.00 a.m.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25