1 Thursday, 16 May 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone. Before we continue shall we
7 have a word about the scheduling issue. Where are we?
8 Mr. Robinson.
9 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. We are asking to be able to
10 call some of the regularly scheduled witnesses for next week before we
11 have the next expert on this Mile Poparic. And as I understand it, the
12 problem from the Prosecution's point of view is that Mr. Gaynor is here
13 specially for those two witnesses and it would delay his return. We
14 tried -- we contacted the witnesses for next week who had previously been
15 scheduled on other occasions and they were really unable to change their
16 plans and told us -- two of them told us that they would not be willing
17 to testify if we once again had to reschedule them. So we feel that on
18 balance the risk of losing the witnesses is too great to overcome our
19 desire to try to help the Prosecution.
20 JUDGE KWON: How about the third one?
21 MR. ROBINSON: The third one has -- this is his second time
22 scheduled but we haven't been able to reach him to determine what his
23 reaction would be if we have to postpone his testimony.
24 JUDGE KWON: What's the total amount of time for his -- for their
25 evidence in chief and cross-examination?
1 MR. ROBINSON: Well, you haven't given us the cross-examination
2 times, but the chief for each of them is half an hour or less.
3 JUDGE KWON: I think parties have been informed about the amount
4 of time for the cross-examinations. Could you give the names?
5 MR. ROBINSON: Yes --
6 JUDGE KWON: We can discuss it in public session?
7 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, we can. It's Vladimir Lukic and Dane Katanic
8 and Svetozar Kosoric.
9 JUDGE KWON: Lukic who used to be an interpreter?
10 MR. ROBINSON: No, he was the prime minister.
11 JUDGE KWON: I'm sorry.
12 MR. ROBINSON: The interpreter, Petar Uscumlic, has also been
13 fixed to testify Tuesday morning but his testimony is one-quarter hour on
14 direct and one-quarter hour on cross, and I don't think the Prosecution
15 has any problem with us proceeding with him.
16 JUDGE KWON: If Chambers staff could approach the bench.
17 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes, do you have anything to add, Mr. Tieger.
19 MR. TIEGER: I don't know if it assists the Court in the
20 cross-examination time issue, but it may refresh the Court's
21 recollection, if I'm accurate, that this was an unusually long statement,
22 nearly -- I think nearly a hundred pages and -- hundred paragraphs,
23 excuse me. And relatively equal number of documents if I recall so it
24 was pretty voluminous, and I don't know if that refreshes the Court's
25 recollection. The only thing that I would --
1 JUDGE KWON: What do you mean by this. Ms. Subotic's evidence?
2 MR. TIEGER: No, Mr. Lukic. You were asking about him.
3 JUDGE KWON: Lukic, oh, yes.
4 MR. TIEGER: And I -- the only thing I would add is that I
5 understand that the -- I understand the discussion we've been having with
6 respect at least to Mr. Lukic and Mr. Katanic, but I understand that
7 both -- there wasn't any concerted effort to get ahold of Mr. Kosoric and
8 what's more I understand he's a retiree in not far distant from here. So
9 I think the likelihood of that being a particular inconvenience for him
10 is pretty remote. So I don't think he falls at least in the same
11 category for purposes of Mr. Robinson's argument as the other witnesses.
12 The Court is aware of our argument -- of our position, and basically I'd
13 simply say that we -- that this is not -- although we acknowledge, by the
14 way, the accommodations that the Defence in the past and I trust that
15 they acknowledge the many accommodations and acts of co-operation and
16 indeed direct assistance from the Prosecution which has overall been I
17 think an excellent working relationship, that this is not that kind of
18 situation. As I noted in my e-mail to the Court, this is a situation
19 where there was an agreement where -- where arrangements were made, built
20 around that agreement, and it -- the problems arise from the decision by
21 the Defence to use their time in a particular way without notifying
22 anyone in advance that that was going to be done. So that's the simplest
23 version or recap of the position we find ourselves in.
24 JUDGE KWON: But the Chamber's at a loss when there's
25 disagreement between the parties, in particular as far as it's related to
1 the order of witnesses. The Chamber cannot leave it to the presenting
2 party. But I wonder whether having some extended hours would resolve the
4 MR. TIEGER: Well, that's one thing about which there appears to
5 be a consensus at the moment and that is I noted in Mr. Robinson's e-mail
6 that he didn't feel that it would successfully resolve the impasse and
7 having looked at the schedule and consulted with the attorneys involved I
8 agree. I -- we considered before that that might be a way of sort of
9 avoiding or getting around the impasse, but it doesn't seem to be. So I
10 wouldn't prevail upon the Court for extended hours, given the -- what
11 appears to be the negligible impact on this particular scheduling issue.
12 JUDGE KWON: And next week we are sitting only for three days?
13 MR. TIEGER: That's correct, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE KWON: So if you could, both of you, have a word during the
15 break and come back to the Chamber as to what extent we need to extend
16 the sitting hours, in what terms. And in the meantime I'll ask around
17 the staff and interpreters, court reporters, et cetera, as to its
18 feasibility and its extent.
19 Shall we continue then?
20 Yes, Ms. Gustafson.
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honours.
22 And if we could have on the screen D3542, page 91 in the B/C/S.
23 WITNESS: ZORICA SUBOTIC [Resumed]
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 Cross-examination by Ms. Gustafson: [Continued]
1 Q. Good morning, Ms. Subotic.
2 A. [In English] Good morning.
3 Q. I'm going to ask you now about -- we're still on scheduled
4 incident G5. I have a couple more questions about that incident. And
5 I'd like to ask you about paragraph 60(f), which is on page 91 in the
6 B/C/S and page 43 in the English. Now, the figure you've included - if
7 we could make the photo in the middle of the screen a bit bigger - this
8 is a still from a video taken at the scene of the incident shortly after
9 it occurred. And at paragraph 60(f) you note that Mr. Cavcic the
10 ballistics investigator examined and took into account damage caused by
11 shell fragments to the rear of this Skoda vehicle. And you assert that
12 an extract from the film that was recorded after the explosion, and that
13 is V0002479 at two hours and 17 seconds to two hours and 23 seconds.
14 It's footnoted at number -- footnote number 216. You state that:
15 "This video extract clearly shows the areas penetrated by the
16 shell fragments on the bumper of the Skoda car."
17 And you claim that you have been able to determine the direction
18 from which the fragments entered the car and you have marked that
19 direction with the yellow arrows on this video still.
20 Now, what I'd like to do now is play the portion of the video
21 that you've relied on here that's referenced in footnote 216. If you
22 could just watch that video, it's just a few seconds. And this is,
23 sorry, 65 ter 40621A.
24 [Video-clip played]
25 MS. GUSTAFSON:
1 Q. And if -- since it's very short, if we could just watch it one
2 more time.
3 [Video-clip played]
4 MS. GUSTAFSON:
5 Q. Now, Ms. Subotic, if you could just confirm that this is indeed
6 the video footage that in your opinion allows you to establish the
7 direction from which the shell fragments penetrated the car, and I'm
8 quoting from your report now:
9 "Corroborate with greatest clarity and unambiguity the previous
10 findings that the shell had come in from the north, or rather, the
12 This is the portion of the video you rely on for those
13 assertions; right?
14 A. Yes, you're right.
15 Q. Ms. Subotic, I'm going to suggest to you that your conclusions
16 are absolutely impossible to draw on the basis of what we just saw. You
17 can barely see any shrapnel damage at all, let alone determine the
18 direction those fragments entered the car. Would you like to respond to
20 A. You're obviously looking at -- I can't see the transcript, so I
21 don't know if I'm fast. You're obviously looking at this footage
22 partially. The footage was viewed in the context of the overall evidence
23 retrieved on the site, the ones that we looked at yesterday, and based on
24 the descriptions provided by the Bosnian investigators in their findings.
25 Therefore, this image clearly indicates that following the explosion of
1 the shell, the shrapnel came in from top to the bottom, from the left to
2 the right, as we look at the image, which is consistent with the
3 explosion site which we determined and is consistent with the incoming
4 trajectory. If you recall I did describe the process of fragmentation
5 the other day. Therefore, the shape of the damage inflicted on the
6 bumper clearly determined the direction of fire which in turn determines
7 the incoming trajectory of the shell. This is perhaps how it should have
8 been formulated in order to make it completely clear. In other words,
9 this photograph wasn't or this still wasn't viewed in isolation without
10 regard of all the other -- without regard to all the other evidence,
11 quite the inverse, it was regarded in the context.
12 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Please when you'd like to intervene,
13 please wait, do not overlap. Yes.
14 THE ACCUSED: Sorry. I don't think it's identical. I think few
15 frames earlier -- should be stopped few frames earlier.
16 JUDGE KWON: We know that but --
17 MS. GUSTAFSON: But if this extract is slightly longer than the
18 one the witness referred to, I don't see a problem, if I understand what
19 the accused is saying correctly.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yeah, if we compare the figure 50 with this still,
21 we can notice that there's no difficulty with proceeding at the moment.
22 MS. GUSTAFSON: And just to be clear, what I was playing was the
23 portion of the video footnoted in the report.
24 JUDGE KWON: In their entirety.
25 MS. GUSTAFSON: And I tender that.
1 JUDGE KWON: So it's not in evidence?
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: No.
3 JUDGE KWON: Could you give us the time-frame or you're going to
4 tender excerpt of this part only?
5 MS. GUSTAFSON: That's right.
6 JUDGE KWON: Very well. We'll admit it.
7 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6320, Your Honours.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. To avoid any
9 confusion, the frame which was shown in the report is the one immediately
10 preceding the one we have on our screens. Just to make sure that there
11 is no confusion about that.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes. I confirmed that.
13 MS. GUSTAFSON:
14 Q. Now, if we could go to paragraph 60(g) of your report which is at
15 page 43 of the English and page 91 of the B/C/S. Again that's D3542.
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we are on that page.
17 MS. GUSTAFSON:
18 Q. And this is where you discuss the position that --
19 JUDGE KWON: Could we switch to e-court.
20 MS. GUSTAFSON:
21 Q. Sorry, and if we could go to page 92 of the B/C/S where we see
22 the picture -- photograph in question. And this, Ms. Subotic, is where
23 you discuss the position that the stabiliser was found in after this
24 incident. And you claim at paragraph 60(g) that the stabiliser could not
25 have ended up there if the shell had come in from the west or the
1 north-west. And I note you make a similar type of claim with respect to
2 the Markale 2 incident, where the stabiliser was kicked back - and that
3 was at pages 44 and 45 of yesterday's transcript - where you say that the
4 stabiliser couldn't have ended up in the position lateral to the
5 explosion site that it was found in. Now, for this incident, for G5,
6 it's common ground that the shell exploded somewhere above the surface,
7 and therefore the stabiliser was freed from the shell casing somewhere
8 above the surface. But you don't know, do you, whether the stabiliser
9 continued to move forward or whether it was kicked back because you don't
10 know the velocity of the shell or the charge that it was fired from;
12 A. Your question is rather complex so I have to provide you with a
13 more comprehensive answer. It is true that we don't know either the
14 velocity at which the shell flew in nor do we know which charge was used
15 to launch the projectile. However, had the shell been fired with the
16 fourth charge and above, the stabiliser would definitely continue flying
17 along its incoming trajectory or let's maybe be quite precise, along the
18 trajectory approximate to the incoming trajectory of the shell and would
19 then have become embedded in the ground. Now, since it was not embedded
20 in the ground, it either had to fall into a spot that would be close to
21 the site of explosion or it would have had to be propelled back along its
22 incoming trajectory. But obviously it did not end up embedded in the
23 ground, rather, it fell.
24 Q. But, Ms. Subotic, that rule that you say about when a stabiliser
25 would become embedded in the ground only applies when the shell hits the
1 surface. In this case the shell hit a person. So even if it had a
2 charge sufficient to let it continue to travel, it would be travelling
3 through a person and wouldn't necessarily get embedded in the ground
4 because there would be a obstacle, namely, the person that the shell
5 impacted. So you can't draw any conclusions about the fact that the
6 stabiliser was not embedded in this instance because the shell didn't
7 strike the surface of the ground; right?
8 A. No. Obviously you misunderstood what I was saying the other day.
9 The process of separation of the stabiliser ensues after the explosion.
10 So the explosion occurs first. The activation occurred on the body of
11 the person. The person was struck and suffered its destruction as a
12 result of the fragmentation effect and blast effect or the shock wave
13 effect. All of this happened practically at the same time as the
14 stabiliser was propelled back from the body. So that is a rule that is
15 in force or is valid whenever an explosion occurs, regardless of what
16 the -- of what surface is involved. It is part and parcel of the process
17 of the activation of the shell itself. Either you misunderstood me
18 yesterday or I wasn't precise enough. Therefore, this rule is valid in
19 every case, regardless of the reason why the shell is activated. This is
20 the physicality that accompanies the process of the activation of the
21 shell and its destruction. At any rate, it should not penetrate the
22 person because the person would be struck and knocked down by the shock
23 wave effect. This is a process that isn't simultaneous, you know, it's
24 sequential. What occurs on the body of a person as injury happens
25 independently. The stabiliser has its own velocity and we have its
1 action against a person that is static or stationary at that point and we
2 have of course also the velocity that would occur after it is being
3 propelled back. I don't know if I understand clearly what you were
4 saying or if you've understood me clearly.
5 Q. Well, I think I understand --
6 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
7 This is the pace we should proceed in. French translation has
8 just been completed. Please continue.
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. I think I understand it's your position here that the stabiliser
11 was kicked back, and in such a circumstance the -- do I misunderstood
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. So the stabiliser was kicked back and ultimately --
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes to what?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Had -- that I answered that at the
17 point of destruction the stabiliser was kicked back along its incoming
18 trajectory, of course in the opposite direction --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Can the witness repeat what she just said.
20 JUDGE KWON: Could you --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me add one other thing. None
22 of us present here, including the investigators, can claim that the
23 stabiliser dropped exactly in this spot. When the stabiliser falls, it
24 can have a ricochet and then fall elsewhere. Of course it wouldn't be
25 too far from its first point of contact with the ground. We had that at
1 Dobrinja when we were looking at that stabiliser which had some sort of
2 deformation on the fins of the stabiliser and it was not in contact with
3 the surface. And of course we knew that it had to have been in contact
4 with the surface since it had those deformations. At any rate, this
5 stabiliser did not become embedded and cannot serve as the incoming
6 trajectory. Had the shell really flown in along the trajectory
7 determined by the investigators, it would not -- one would not be able to
8 find it there at all.
9 MS. GUSTAFSON:
10 Q. Okay. Ms. Subotic, I'm going to ask you to try to keep your
11 answers as concise as possible because my time is very limited. So you
12 agree that the stabiliser was -- or it's your position the stabiliser was
13 kicked back. In such a circumstance, the stabiliser, as you point out,
14 could have ricochetted off something and then bounced back in an
15 unknown -- bounced off an object in an unknown direction. Similarly, in
16 the immediate aftermath of the incident --
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Firstly, due to something missing
18 in the transcript, Ms. Gustafson may be misguided. Dr. Subotic said "a
19 bit to the left at a specific point" --
20 THE INTERPRETER: Can the accused please repeat the reference.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And then what is noted in the
22 question --
23 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. If you could repeat, Mr. Karadzic.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Firstly, on page 11 in line 12,
25 what is missing is that Dr. Subotic said "and somewhat to the left that
1 it bounced off to the opposite direction from the incoming trajectory and
2 somewhat to the left." And in line 9 in the question that she said
3 "unknown direction," she did not say "unknown direction," but she said
4 that it was along the incoming trajectory but in the opposite direction
5 and somewhat to the left. So if we can clarify this, please, because if
6 the question is wrong then everything goes astray.
7 JUDGE KWON: Do you confirm having said so?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
10 MS. GUSTAFSON:
11 Q. Ms. Subotic, not only could the stabiliser easily have
12 ricochetted off an object and then been deflected in an unknown
13 direction, but in the immediate aftermath of this incident as well as the
14 Markale incident, as people are rushing around in total chaos and terror
15 trying to help horribly injured people, it's quite probable that someone
16 would have accidentally moved the stabiliser by kicking it or dragging a
17 body over it or any number of possible scenarios. You simply can't draw
18 any conclusions from the ultimate position that the stabiliser was found
19 in after the incident, can you?
20 A. Generally speaking, you are right. However, the stabiliser is
21 located immediately next to the wheel, and if it landed there and had not
22 been kicked there, then the likelihood that someone moved it from there
23 in some sort of manipulation is very small. That's one detail. Another
24 detail is the following: The paragraph just like the previous is not
25 something where this is observed separately apart from other markings on
1 the ground. So when we say this, it means just the following: Judging
2 by the position of the body, the traces on the bumper, the traces on the
3 asphalt, and the entire appearance of the crime scene and the direction
4 of the stabiliser itself, that was all used to determine the incoming
5 trajectory. And everything fits in. The markings on the bumper, the
6 position of the body, the position of the stabiliser, and the entire
7 appearance seems to confirm the incoming trajectory which we established.
8 I mean, we did not consider any of these elements separately as
9 conclusive evidence.
10 Q. Thank you. I'd like to now move on to G4, which is the shelling
11 in Dobrinja of the football-match.
12 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
13 Could you read out the last sentence on this page which appears
14 after (h). Could you read aloud.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "During the visit of the crime
16 scene, the Defence team in September 2010 found markings on the asphalt
17 made by fragments of the shell, figure 52.
18 "These markings show unequivocally that the shell" --
19 JUDGE KWON: The next sentence.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The one that begins with the words
21 "these marks"?
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "These marks show unequivocally
24 that the shell had come in from the north and that the claim that the
25 shell had come in from the west or north-west is completely unfounded."
1 What is meant here, the reference is to the claim made by the
3 JUDGE KWON: So the proposition for this statement is that the --
4 if the stabiliser landed on that exactly the same place as was marked and
5 not moved from the original place? Am I correct in so understanding?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have not understood what you just
7 said. Are you correct in concluding ...
8 JUDGE KWON: Because you said in -- previously, previously --
9 generally speaking Ms. Gustafson "was right. However, the stabiliser is
10 located immediately next to the wheel and if it landed there and had not
11 been kicked there, then the likelihood that someone moved it from there
12 in some sort of manipulation is very small."
13 So your conclusion in this sentence is predicated that it was not
14 moved at all. Am I correct in so understanding?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It can be concluded from this that
16 it was not moved for the reason that it fits into the whole appearance
17 provided by the physical traces found on the site and not because we
18 disregarded such a possibility. But you drew an appropriate conclusion.
19 JUDGE KWON: Please continue, Ms. Gustafson.
20 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. I'd like to ask you now about incident G4. If we could go to
22 page 73 in the B/C/S, where there's a figure I'd like you to look at
23 first. And the reference in the English is page 29. And if we could
24 zoom in a bit on the map on the left-hand side. And if we could make it
25 a bit bigger, maybe collapse the English. Now, Ms. Subotic, you'll
1 recognise this. This is where you've identified the location of the
2 incident and the front lines and done some measurements and you conclude
3 that the front line in generally the east or south-easterly direction is
4 about 270 metres from the incident. And you would agree -- would you
5 agree on the basis of this map and your calculations that if it had been
6 the ABiH or if this shell had been fired from ABiH territory to the
7 south-east of this incident location, that it would have to have been
8 fired from a very close distance, from approximately 200 metres away.
9 Would you agree with that?
10 A. We -- aha. Just a second.
11 Q. If I can help you a bit. You can see the front line follows the
12 road that is just to the south-east of some apartment blocks. So the
13 only place the shell could have been fired from is the -- to the -- on
14 the other side of those apartment blocks in ABiH territory which would be
15 roughly 200 metres from the incident site. Do you agree with that?
16 A. I can agree with that, but then it did not have to be launched
17 from there. I mean, we investigated where it was launched from on the
18 basis of physical traces. We determined the trajectory and everything
20 Q. Well, and the trajectory you concluded was this south-easterly
21 trajectory. So I'm saying that if it was fired from that trajectory,
22 from ABiH territory, the furthest distance it could have been fired from
23 is 200 metres from the incident. Are we agreed on that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. And if we could go to 65 ter 25057 now, please. And what
1 is about to come up on the screen, Ms. Subotic, is a Google Earth image
2 of the same general location, but instead of coming from straight above,
3 down, it's taken at a slight angle so you can see a little bit of the
4 scene. It's also oriented so that it's basically the shot from more or
5 less the north or north-east looking towards the south or south-west.
6 Do you recognise this photo as depicting the same area that
7 you've included in the map in figure 35, this area of Dobrinja relevant
8 to this incident? And if you use the circular road or the oval-shaped
9 road roughly in the middle of the page, that should help to orient you.
10 Maybe I can help you a bit more. I'm going to suggest to you that the
11 parking-lot where the football-match was played or at least in the area
12 where it was played is the -- in the courtyard that's on the bottom
13 right-hand corner of that oval-shaped road. And then the front line is
14 the -- runs along the road that goes up and down the -- relatively wide
15 road that goes up and down the photo on the left-hand side of the photo.
16 Does that make sense to you now?
17 A. No, it's easier for me to be sincere to use my own image and to
18 use what I already studied and the information included in the report
19 because this is somewhat differently oriented than what I took from the
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I ask something. If it's from
22 Google why isn't the north marked here? Where is the north here?
23 MS. GUSTAFSON: Given the witness's answer, I'll just move on. I
24 won't use this.
25 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
1 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could now go to page 65 in the B/C/S and
2 page 25 in the English.
3 Q. And this is relating to paragraph 37 of your report, Ms. Subotic,
4 where you take issue with Mr. Houdet's, or Captain Houdet's crater
5 analysis that he carried out shortly after this incident. And at
6 paragraph 37 you allege that there are some imprecisions in his report
7 that cast doubt on the accuracy of that report which is in evidence as
8 P1053, page 11.
9 And one of those doubts you have is relating to the location that
10 he plotted for this incident, and in figure 30 you claim to have plotted
11 his grid references that he recorded for the impact locations and
12 concluded that this was over 200 metres away from the parking-lot.
13 You're aware, right, that different maps use different grid systems and
14 there are different grid systems out there from which you can use to plot
15 locations on maps; right?
16 A. That's right. We took that into account and when we did we found
17 ourselves at a position which is around 200 metres away from the incident
18 site. We took everything into account. During our analysis we reached
19 this place. This is a matter of the imprecision of the system, the maps
20 and the co-ordinates and the grid. So regardless of our good will to
21 take everything into account, considering everything that you just
22 mentioned, we determined the location which is 200 metres away from the
23 place that was claimed to have been the place where the football-match
24 took place.
25 Q. Thank you. And again, if you could try to keep your answers as
1 concise as possible, that would be helpful.
2 Well, the UN investigation report to which Mr. Houdet's analysis
3 was attached states with respect to his analysis:
4 "No maps to interpret the grid references mentioned were
6 And that's P1053, page 8, paragraph 16. Now, you don't have
7 information about which specific grid system Mr. Houdet used either, do
9 A. As far as I know, there are two systems. We checked both and we
10 could not find the grid reference that would correspond with the location
11 of the parking-lot.
12 Q. And what's the basis for your conclusion that there are only two
13 grid systems in the world?
14 A. I'm aware of two grid systems which depend on the number of
15 figures which you read when you do the analysis.
16 Q. Okay. Now, you also noted that Mr. Houdet described a macadam
17 surface in his crater analysis report, and you assert that, in fact,
18 there was no macadam surface anywhere in or around the parking-lot - and
19 that's paragraph 37 - and this is based on your understanding of the term
20 "macadam" as being "a road laid with crushed stones," and that's
21 footnote 134.
22 Now, this stems, this conclusion of yours stems from a confusion
23 about the term "macadam," and that's a confusion that you actually know
24 was resolved because you were in the courtroom when it was resolved
25 during Mr. Higgs' testimony at transcript page 6013 when Dr. Karadzic was
1 putting to Mr. Higgs the exact same alleged discrepancy between
2 Mr. Houdet's report and the tarmac surface of the parking-lot. Judge
3 Morrison explained to the accused that in English "macadam" is the same
4 as "tarmac" and that's at transcript page 6013.
5 So in spite of the fact that you were in court when this
6 linguistic confusion was resolved, you're continuing to persist in your
7 belief that what Captain Houdet was referring to when he referred to a
8 macadam surface in the English language is something other than "tarmac."
9 And you know that's incorrect; right?
10 A. No. Firstly, I was present in the courtroom and I did hear the
11 explanation. The word "macadam" means precisely in all languages what I
12 stated down there and the word got its meaning after its inventor
13 Mr. Macadam, who is a Scotsman, and it means in all languages what I
14 noted there. It's a different issue whether there's a secondary or a
15 third meaning in a specific language. What I said is correct. You can
16 find it in any encyclopedia, and it's called after Mr. Macadam who is a
17 Scotsman and it means precisely what I noted there.
18 Q. So you dispute Judge Morrison's definition of the term "macadam,"
19 a native English-speaking Judge in this Trial Chamber?
20 A. I'm not disputing his definition. I'm just saying that in any
21 encyclopedia it is very clearly defined what the word "macadam" means,
22 and it is called so after the man who introduced that or invented it in
23 that particular profession and whose last name was Macadam. And I really
24 do not want to meddle with professions and languages that I'm not
25 sufficient and familiar with and that are not my primary profession. I
1 just said that macadam means that in every language, but I do not dispute
2 that there might be a second or a third meaning of the same word as noted
3 by Judge Morrison.
4 Q. Okay. I'd like to move on now to paragraph 42 and this is at
5 page 29 of the English and page 71 of the B/C/S. And this is where you
6 discuss Captain Houdet's conclusions about the -- about the distance from
7 which the shell was fired based on the minimum angle of descent, and you
8 point out that this is a mistake because it is, in fact, the maximum
9 angle of descent that determines the minimum distance from which the
10 shell is fired. So that -- on that point I agree with you, that's common
11 ground. Captain Houdet made a mistake because he looked at the minimum
12 angle of descent and determined the minimum distance of firing on that
13 basis, and that's wrong. He should have looked at the maximum angle of
14 descent and determined the minimum firing distance on that basis. We
16 But then you go on to take issue with Mr. Higgs' conclusion in
17 his report at P1437, page 8, where he says:
18 "Using the distance to the confrontation lines and the standard
19 pattern of the mortar crater in addition to the reference (c)," which is
20 a reference in his report, "I agree with Houdet's conclusion number 3 and
21 that I agree that the mortar rounds must have been fired from the Serb
22 side of the confrontation lines."
23 And you state that this conclusion by Mr. Higgs is a sign of bias
24 because Mr. Higgs must have been aware of the error in Captain Houdet's
25 report. Now, in his testimony in the Galic case Mr. Higgs expanded on
1 the basis for his agreement with Captain Houdet that the rounds must have
2 been fired from the Serb side. And he explained that Captain Houdet did
3 fail to determine the range from the possible angle of descent of the
4 shell and he noted that you would obviously get a shorter range if the
5 angle of descent was larger. And that's at transcript page 12469. And
6 at transcript page 12467 in Galic, Mr. Higgs testified that from his
7 analysis of the overall shape of the crater, he determined that the round
8 must have been -- come in at a -- what he called a normal angle of
9 between 50 and 70 degrees.
10 Now, it's true, is it not, that if the maximum angle -- if
11 Mr. Higgs is correct about the maximum angle being 70 degrees, then even
12 if the mortar was fired at the lowest charge, it would have to have been
13 fired from SRK-held territory. In other words, at least more than the
14 200 metres away which you claimed was the -- which you agreed was the
15 maximum distance that the shell could have been fired from ABiH
16 territory. Do you agree with that?
17 A. Excuse me, this was quite long. I tried to follow what you said
18 as closely as I could. You mentioned that Mr. Higgs changed his
19 position; with reference to what I quoted; and you also said that he
20 assessed the angle of descent and also that he provided some distances.
21 Is that correct? Have I followed that appropriately? What you said was
22 too long for me to be able to take everything into account and provide a
23 concise answer. Somewhere along the way I had a problem continuing to
24 follow what you said, I lost you. So I would ask you to ask me questions
25 that I could immediately answer, please, because it's really complicated
1 to follow such a long introductory presentation and then having me answer
2 you shortly.
3 Q. Certainly. I can do that. Let me ask it this way. Mr. Higgs in
4 his Galic testimony concluded when he looked at the crater that it must
5 have come in at an angle of between -- an angle of descent of between 50
6 and 70 degrees. So my question for you is: If he was correct and, in
7 fact, the maximum angle of descent was 70 degrees, it's true, is it not,
8 that the mortar would have to have been fired from the SRK side of the
9 confrontation line? Do you agree with that?
10 A. I will agree with you if I look at the tables because I really
11 don't know this by heart, the angles of descent, and whether we provided
12 them in this document or not. I have to have a look at the angles. I
13 really don't know the tables off the top of my head.
14 Q. Well, I'll bring up then the 65 ter 24216A. This is the firing
15 table for the 82-millimetre mortar that you rely on in your analysis for
16 this incident. And that's referenced at footnote 16 --
17 A. I believe that they will be in here as well.
18 Q. 164. We have the relevant pages of the firing table. I'll bring
19 them up on the screen and you can look at them. Ms. Subotic, if you
20 could look at the screen you'll see the firing table for the M69 and M69A
21 mortar and this is the one that you reference for this incident. If we
22 could go to page 7 of the English and page 4 of the B/C/S. Sorry, I had
23 it backwards. Page 7 in the B/C/S, page 4 in the English. And on the
24 B/C/S if we could enlarge the table slightly.
25 Now, you see column 4, Ms. Subotic, is the angles -- the angle of
1 descent in degrees. And you can see that at an angle of 69.54 degrees --
2 A. No, no, no, column 4 -- column 4 is not the angle of descent but
3 the angle of launch. The angle of descent can be found in column 9.
4 JUDGE KWON: Are we looking at the correct English page?
5 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes. The -- only the column headings have been
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Why are you showing me this table,
9 MS. GUSTAFSON:
10 Q. I apologise. It should be page 8 in the English. The English
11 translation is correct except we don't have a page for the primary charge
12 but the table headings match.
13 You're right, Ms. Subotic, it was my mistake. It should be
14 column 9, where the angle is referenced in mils rather than degrees.
15 And --
16 A. I have an objection. I don't know why are you showing me this
17 table. As far as I can understand, was that a round 82? Was that what
18 the table was for? Very well then, go on, what would you like to ask me?
19 Q. Well, unfortunately, I can't read the relevant numbers because
20 the 0 is planted right over top of it so I'm going to have to move on.
21 JUDGE BAIRD: Ms. Gustafson, was it page 88 or page 8?
22 MS. GUSTAFSON: In the B/C/S it's page 7.
23 JUDGE BAIRD: In English.
24 MS. GUSTAFSON: In English it should be -- this page shows the
25 column headings. We don't have a page translated with the primary
1 charge, but it's the same column headings. So this page -- the English
2 that appears here depicts the correct column
3 headings [overlapping speakers].
4 JUDGE BAIRD: Okay.
5 JUDGE KWON: Yes, it's e-court page 8 but it says page 88 in --
6 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, because this is a partial -- this is an
7 extract from the table which is very lengthy.
8 JUDGE KWON: But the B/C/S page says it's page 85.
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: That's right, Your Honour, because it's an
10 extract because the firing table is a several-hundred-page document.
11 JUDGE KWON: But where does that page 88 come from?
12 MS. GUSTAFSON: I'm sorry, I'm lost.
13 JUDGE KWON: No, you see the bottom of English page, left -- top
14 left -- bottom left says page 88 --
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes --
16 JUDGE KWON: -- where does it come from?
17 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes. It comes from the B/C/S because this is the
18 translation of the first charge which is why it has a 1 on it instead of
19 a 0, so it's not the --
20 JUDGE KWON: Shall we see the lower part.
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: So the column headings are the same.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, but my question is simply: Where does this
23 page 88 come from?
24 MS. GUSTAFSON: It comes from page 88 in the B/C/S which is
25 page 8 of this document.
1 JUDGE KWON: We do not have page 88.
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: We do have page 88 in the B/C/S --
3 JUDGE KWON: Okay.
4 MS. GUSTAFSON: -- it's page 8 of this document.
5 JUDGE KWON: But B/C/S says it has 34 pages.
6 MS. GUSTAFSON: Right, because this is just an extract from the
7 larger document.
8 JUDGE KWON: Very well. I'll leave it at that. Let's continue.
9 MS. GUSTAFSON:
10 Q. Now, Ms. Subotic, just one more topic I'd like to cover on this
11 incident and this is at page 75 of the B/C/S of your report, D3542, if we
12 could go back to that, and this is paragraph 46 and the English page is
13 page 31.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I may --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Paragraph 46, right?
16 MS. GUSTAFSON:
17 Q. That's right.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The annotations on these two pages
19 are different in reference to 70 and 101 at the top. These two pages
20 cannot be compared, they are incomparable.
21 JUDGE KWON: She's not dwelling on that anymore. Let's continue.
22 MS. GUSTAFSON:
23 Q. Now, Ms. Subotic, here you challenge the determination that the
24 azimuth of the crater measured during the 1995 investigation was
25 110 degrees on the basis that in your view the investigators placed the
1 compass on the wrong slat and that is based on your analysis of this
2 photograph. Now, just preliminarily, do you agree that the red stick in
3 the middle of this photograph does depict the central axis of the crater
4 and the trajectory of the shell in this case, putting aside what was
5 measured at the time. Just, in your view do you agree that the stick
6 marked with red accurately depicts the central axis?
7 A. According to how the traces are marked in this photo with the
8 white chalk and what can be gleaned from the photo, I would say yes.
9 Q. Okay. And just to be clear, it's your position that the
10 investigators mistakenly measured what is in this photo from our
11 perspective the slat on the right-hand side, which would have been for
12 them the slat on the left-hand side. That's right, isn't it?
13 A. The conclusion was not based on that. The conclusion was
14 corroborated and it was from the mismatch between the traces that we
15 found on the site when we visited it and when we measured the axis as
16 well as the size of the crater and the trajectory based on the azimuth in
17 that parking and this is just the corroboration for the difference. That
18 difference of some 30 or so degrees arose from the fact that they noted
19 as their findings what we can see in the photo, irrespective of the fact
20 that they determined the position of the central axis correctly.
21 However, they noted the position of the compass that you can see in the
22 photo, and based on the difference between the traces on the site and
23 what they provided in their findings, we concluded that they made a
24 mistake, that their measurements are wrong.
25 Q. Okay. Now, in your report you state:
1 "The photograph clearly shows that the magnetic compass was set
2 on the right-hand slat marking the border of the fragment marked instead
3 of being set on the central slat."
4 Now you're referring to the right-hand slat. Based on what we
5 can see as we're looking at the photo it's your position that --
6 A. It would be my right as I'm sitting and looking at the photo.
7 Q. Okay. Can we go to P1699, page 7 of the B/C/S, please. And if
8 we could zoom in on the top photograph. This is a photograph from the
9 photo file that was taken at the time these measurements were made. It's
10 taken looking down on the crater, obviously, and you can see the reddish
11 stick depicting the central axis. The stick on the left is the one that
12 was previously on our right because we're now looking at it from the
13 other direction. So the stick on the left is the one that you claim the
14 investigators wrongly measured and that's how they came up with an
15 azimuth of 110 degrees. Now, you can also see the line marked north
16 which is drawn here with an arrow and an N, and I take it you would agree
17 that the left-hand stick makes an angle of less than 90 degrees with the
18 direction north; right?
19 A. Yes, on a condition that what they marked as north is correct.
20 Q. Okay. So if the investigators had measured this left-hand slat
21 as you claim, they would not have come up with a direction of fire that
22 was 110 degrees from north, would they? They would have come up with a
23 direction of less than 90 degrees; right?
24 A. I said that I agree with this photo on a condition that they
25 determined the north correctly. This north, I can't be sure that it is
1 marked correctly. There is nothing to corroborate the correctness of
3 Q. Okay. Well, I'd like you to assume for the purposes of my
4 questions now that the investigators did -- were able to correctly
5 identify the direction north. And you would also agree that the central
6 axis, the stick marked with some red markings, the one that you agreed
7 based on the previous photo accurately depicted the central axis, makes
8 an angle a bit more than 90 degrees from north and would be consistent
9 with the investigator's finding of 110 degrees; right?
10 A. This is all correct on a condition that north is marked
12 Q. Thank you. I'd like to move on now to incident G6 which is the
13 22nd of January, 1994, incident in Alipasino Polje where three mortar
14 shells landed killing six children who had been playing in the snow and
15 wounding another five persons. And this starts at paragraph 63 --
16 A. Please, yes.
17 Q. This is at page 45 in the English and 95 in the B/C/S. Now, what
18 you were able to examine at the scene yourself was the remains of one of
19 the three impacts because one of them at the time landed in soil and the
20 other one landed on a surface that has since been repaved. And the
21 remains of the crater that you were able to examine, apart from the
22 deterioration of 17 years of wear and tear, it actually has been
23 physically altered by repairs to the curb where the shell impacted;
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. Okay. If we could go to page 100 in the B/C/S where we can see
2 figure 55 and this is at page 48 in the English and this relates to
3 paragraph 67 of your report. And if we can zoom in on the photograph,
4 please. Now, at paragraph 67 you claim that even though the curb has
5 been repaired with concrete, when you went to the site in 2010 in your
6 report you state:
7 "It was quite obvious that the central crater is about
8 60 centimetres in diameter."
9 And then you conclude that this is too large for an 82-millimetre
10 shell. Now, I'm going to suggest to you that there are several factors
11 that impact the reliability of your measurements. The first and most
12 obvious is the repairs to the curb, which means you can really only see
13 with any clarity one part of what remains of the crater. Secondly, the
14 crater has obviously eroded over time which would be likely to make the
15 crater larger as the erosion takes place. And since there have been
16 repairs to the curb, it's quite likely that the crater itself was
17 enlarged or manipulated by the people repairing it so that they could
18 fill it in with concrete. Now, I'm going to suggest to you that those
19 three factors render your measurement of at least 60 centimetres in 2010
20 totally unreliable and meaningless.
21 A. I can absolutely not agree with you for the following reasons:
22 First of all, it was not that the crater was repaired. An asphalt cube
23 was placed on that or a concrete tube. The borders of the crater were
24 not tampered with. Irrespective of the fact whether that crater was 60
25 or 55 and it was not smaller than that, if you look at its shape and if
1 you look at figure 54, you can see that the fragmentation pattern was
2 over 3 metres wide because that street was 6 metres wide. So this
3 absolutely could not be the result of an 82-millimetre round. I suppose
4 that we all know that. And another thing that I would like to indicate
5 at this point is that Captain Verdy investigated on that day and he
6 concluded that it was a detonation -- the detonation of a 120-millimetre
7 round. I'm afraid that we were not the only ones who claimed that and
8 also Captain Verdy was a very experienced investigator who --
9 Q. I'm going to interrupt you because this is not what I asked you
10 about. I asked you about the reliability of your measurement. We'll get
11 into Mr. Verdy's calculations in a moment. Now, you just said that --
12 you made some assertions about the repairs to the curb. And you said:
13 "The borders of the crater were not tampered with."
14 But you didn't conduct any investigation into how this --
15 A. You can see this in the image.
16 Q. Wait for my question, please. You didn't conduct any
17 investigation into how these repairs were conducted. You have no idea
18 whether the people who repaired with this curb tampered with the crater
19 or not. For example, you have no idea whether they cleaned out the
20 crater in order to have a smoother surface in order to refill it. You
21 can't draw any conclusions about what happened during the repairs because
22 you weren't there and you didn't look into how the repairs were
23 conducted; right?
24 A. That is correct. However, there is another figure of that same
25 crater on a different side of the street, and it is visible in the
1 previous photo and it tallies with what we say about the crater. I'm
2 saying that the measurements are reliable based on the traces that are
3 still visible because there are additional traces arising from
4 fragmentation and they are visible halfway through the street and it is
5 impossible that they were created by an 82-millimetre round. This part
6 of the crater in my view is very well preserved and despite all of your
7 remarks it can well be used for the assessment of the type of mine that
8 detonated in that street.
9 Q. Again, Ms. Subotic, I'd like you to try to keep your answers
10 concise and specifically directed to the question that I'm asking.
11 Now --
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I, please. The questions are
13 regularly longer than the answers. The questions are longer than the
14 answers. With all due respect, Ms. Gustafson, it is not fair on the
15 witness to ask her to just answer by yes or no after questions that run
16 over two pages of transcript.
17 JUDGE KWON: Let's continue.
18 MS. GUSTAFSON:
19 Q. Ms. Subotic, at paragraph 68 - I'd like to move on to paragraph
20 68 now, which is at page 49 of the English and page 102 of the B/C/S -
21 you -- if we could zoom in on this photo. In paragraph 68 you claim that
22 Mr. Sabljica contradicted himself in his testimony. You state that
23 although Mr. Sabljica initially stated that this -- the shell that made
24 this impact came in from a direction slightly north of west, you say that
25 he later agreed that the direction shown by the measuring tape on this
1 photograph was properly established. And you repeated this in your
2 testimony at transcript page 38262. Now, you were present when
3 Mr. Sabljica testified so you must know that Mr. Sabljica, in fact, made
4 it very clear that it was improper to establish direction of fire from a
5 photograph and that this is not what they did at the time, and that's at
6 transcript page 7829-7830 and when he was asked to draw the traces on
7 this photo, he said:
8 "Well, that's what we can see in the photo, at least."
9 And that's T.7847 and D755. And when he was asked to mark
10 fragments on another photo of this crater he said:
11 "Yes, I will, but I have to stress again that a photo is not
12 really the appropriate way to determine these things but here it is."
13 That's T.7849 and D756.
14 So when you claim in your report that Mr. Sabljica agreed that
15 the direction shown by this measuring tape was properly established
16 you're essentially misrepresenting his evidence because he made it quite
17 clear that you could not properly establish anything on the basis of a
18 photograph; right?
19 A. Mr. Sabljica in my view agreed with us and said that this is the
20 fact that traces are well determined on the asphalt and that he
21 established the trajectory of the shell correctly.
22 Q. Okay. So you're aware, obviously, of the caveats he placed on
23 the ability of -- to do these determinations through photographs, but you
24 didn't consider that it was necessary to mention any of those caveats in
25 your report when you said he agreed with what you've -- where you've
1 placed the measuring tape here; correct?
2 A. This is not correct, please. These measurements were not based
3 on the photo. The measurements were taken on site and then photos were
4 taken. What you see here is not based on photos. This was done on site,
5 but we then put it in a document in order to be able to include it in our
6 findings. Measurements are not based on photos. Photos were taken of
7 what it did, and Mr. Sabljica said as follows: He said that based on a
8 photo he cannot agree to any degree of reliability. He didn't say that
9 the measurements were wrongly taken because they were taken from a photo.
10 Did you understand me now?
11 Q. I understand you, but what Mr. Sabljica was shown in court was a
12 photograph and as you state he said that based on a photo he cannot agree
13 to any degree of reliability. So in your report you said that he agreed
14 with your measurement and you didn't think you needed to mention that he
15 caveated that by saying that photos -- that these things can't be done on
16 photos with any degree of reliability which is what he was being asked to
17 do at the time; right?
18 A. It seems that the two of us are talking at cross-purposes. We
19 don't understand each other. He said that his view, his assessment,
20 cannot be exact because he is looking at a photo. Measurements were
21 taken and depicted in a photo, so he is not questioning the way
22 measurements were taken. He only said that he cannot state his opinion
23 with any degree of reliability based on the photo alone, if this is --
24 you're correct that you're quoting him in this way. He said, As much as
25 I can glean from a photo, that would be that. He's not questioning the
1 way the original measurements were taken. Any one of us would react in
2 the same way.
3 Q. Okay. Let's go to page 109 of the B/C/S and figure 63, and this
4 is paragraph 71 of your report and in English it's at page 53. And this
5 is where you discuss Mr. -- the azimuths that Mr. Verdy measured and the
6 conclusions that you draw from that. And your conclusion is that
7 Mr. Verdy recorded the measurements backwards; in other words, he
8 assigned -- he did the measurements but then assigned the measurements to
9 the wrong shells -- wrong crater, sorry. And then when -- and then
10 you've switched the measurements and then you conclude the azimuths meet
11 at the UPI institute and the shells must have been fired from ABiH-held
12 territory. And you -- the basis for this claim is, first, you claim that
13 all three shells must have been fired from the same mortar; and then the
14 shells must therefore have been fired from the point where the azimuths
15 of the two impacts meet; and then you note that the azimuths recorded by
16 Verdy do not meet, they actually diverge, because he recorded a slightly
17 more northerly direction for the northern -- the impact that was more
18 northerly and a bit more southerly direction for the southerly impact, so
19 they don't meet in a point, they diverge. And so you've concluded that
20 he made a mistake and you switched his calculations around to the
21 opposite craters. Is that a correct summary of your position here?
22 A. I would like to say something else, but the only thing I can say
23 is that this is taken out of the context. First and foremost, we are not
24 talking just about the co-ordinates that were determined by
25 Captain Verdy. We're actually talking about azimuth angles. In our
1 previous part of the text and in our previous discussion, we measured
2 them on the materials that we had and our azimuths differ by only a few
3 degrees in both places, and Mr. Verdy actually measured on the day when
4 it happened, and to show respect for that we continued to use his
5 measurements. Second of all, we noticed that Mr. Verdy switched the
6 azimuths on the site but it was not us who then switched them back
7 without checking first. The way he wrote down the physical evidence on
8 the ground do not correspond to the trajectories. If they are noted in
9 the way that Captain Verdy recorded them, then the physical evidence of
10 the projectile impact on the ground do not tally with the trajectories
11 that are marked. That was the reason why we noticed his mistake and
12 corrected it accordingly. According to the range and the dissipation of
13 fragments, we determined that they were fired from the same barrel and
14 this was corroborated by Mr. Higgs and the investigators before us. It
15 is not a novelty that we introduced to the table. And from those
16 conclusions which were as follows, the measured and double-checked
17 azimuths matched with the traces on the ground and the conclusion that
18 they were fired from the same barrel based on the deviation - and that
19 was established even before us - and based on all that, those two
20 azimuths have to meet because the projectiles were fired from the same
21 barrel and that is how we ended with the range that is stated in
22 figure 62. So this is a fact, that's how things were. It is not us who
23 concluded that without any foundation and without any checks of the kind
24 that I have just explained to you.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MS. GUSTAFSON: Does the Chamber wish to take a break now?
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We'll resume at 11.00.
3 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
5 JUDGE KWON: Before we continue -- yes.
6 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Harvey.
8 MR. HARVEY: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours. Thank
9 you. If I may just take this opportunity to introduce
10 Mr. Aleksejs Babics, who has been working on my team for many months now
11 and is from New York, or originally from Latvia, is qualified in the
12 New York bar and is doing a masters degree at the University of Utrecht.
13 Thank you.
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Subotic, do you have any problem with your
15 headphones? Do you hear me?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My headphones don't seem to be
18 JUDGE KWON: Check the connection. That has been always my
19 problem. Now do you hear me, Ms. Subotic? Otherwise we can replace your
20 headphones with a proper one. So do you hear me now?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's very soft.
22 JUDGE KWON: I take it it now has been resolved?
23 THE WITNESS: Okay.
24 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
25 Is there any further update as to the hearing next week or today?
1 I've been told by the interpreters that they are having a workshop at
2 3.00, so we cannot go further than 3.00 today. So probably we can reduce
3 the lunch break to half an hour and thereby having a half an hour
4 extension for today. But for next week, is there any update?
5 MR. TIEGER: Well, we discussed it at the break, trying to reach
6 a mutual accommodation that involves the least disruption to the court
7 schedule. I would say we made progress, but because we were unable to
8 communicate until shortly before the session began I -- we weren't able
9 to complete it. We'll keep working on it at the lunch break, however
10 long that is, and see if we can't present to the Court a final schedule
11 that everyone agrees with and that, as I say, hopefully involves the
12 least disruption to the court personnel and the least burden.
13 JUDGE KWON: Although it has not been finalised, it seems
14 possible with the kind understanding and co-operation from the
15 interpreters and other technical personnel that we sit an additional
16 session for three days next week, i.e., for example, from 9.00 to 5.00,
17 meaning for six hours a day. But I'm not sure it would be able to solve
18 the -- all the problems in terms of scheduling. And the Chamber has in
19 mind allowing the Prosecution around three and a half hours for the
20 cross-examination of Mr. Lukic. So I'd like to hear more in detail after
21 the lunch break.
22 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President. We'll keep those -- that
23 information in mind. Very helpful.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please continue, Ms. Gustafson.
25 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. Ms. Subotic, just before the break we were discussing your
2 conclusions that Captain Verdy made a mistake --
3 JUDGE KWON: I'm sorry to interrupt you. I have problem. I
4 forgot to mention for record that we are sitting today pursuant to
5 Rule 15 bis, with Judge Morrison being away due to his urgent matters.
7 MS. GUSTAFSON:
8 Q. And you stated that your conclusion about Captain Verdy's mistake
9 was based on the physical evidence. You said that the physical evidence
10 on the ground did not correspond to the trajectories. Now, yesterday
11 when I asked you about the central axis method you made clear that the
12 margin of error for the central axis method is at least plus/minus 5
13 degrees, you said plus/minus 5 to 10 degrees depending on the traces on
14 the ground, and that's at transcript page 38359 and 38360. Now, the two
15 azimuths that Mr. Verdy recorded, and this is at P1439, page 7, for the
16 two craters were 4200 mils and 4.250 mils. And in the NATO system that
17 corresponds to 236 degrees and 239 degrees. And the azimuths you
18 measured based on the evidence available to you were 238 degrees and
19 240 degrees. And that's at paragraphs 68 and 70 in your report. So all
20 of these measurements of the two craters are within 4 degrees of each
21 other, between 236 and 240 degrees. So given that these four numbers are
22 all within the minimum margin of error, well within the minimum margin of
23 error, that you stated applied to the central axis method, you're not
24 able to conclude that Mr. Verdy made a make because the measurements
25 you've taken all fall well within the range of error of his measurements
1 for either impact location; right?
2 THE ACCUSED: Translation, please.
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It was translated in Serbian
5 whether that it cannot conclude that -- so what was translated into
6 Serbian was that it cannot be concluded whether he did something, whereas
7 it should have been that he did something. So -- of course the English
8 is all right, but the interpretation reaching Ms. Subotic was wrong.
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honours, some of these corrections are
10 becoming so minor that --
11 JUDGE KWON: Shall we put the question again, just the -- having
12 heard all the -- all of your question, just simply put your question
13 again then.
14 MS. GUSTAFSON:
15 Q. Ms. Subotic, you can't conclude that Mr. Verdy made any mistake
16 in his calculations because -- for either of the two craters because your
17 calculations fall well within the margin of error for either impact;
19 A. You would be right had the two projectiles landed on the same
20 spot; however, they landed on two different spots which have different
21 orientation relative to the north. And that's what causes the phenomenon
22 that I refer to. If you invert the angles and place them the way he said
23 on the spots that he marked, you will get the traces that are inverse not
24 because of the deviation from the azimuth but because of the deviation in
25 the positioning of the site relative to the north. Do you understand?
1 The picture that will be shown on the point of impact, regardless of the
2 fact that the trajectory has such a marginal difference, you would be
3 right in what you are saying had they landed right next to each other,
4 but they landed at two different positions in -- relative to the north.
5 And because of the orientation of their impact and the place of impact,
6 the traces indicate a different picture of the event than had been
7 indicated in this finding.
8 THE ACCUSED: Transcript. [Interpretation] Line 17, what is
9 missing in the transcript that one landed 200 metres away from the other.
10 MS. GUSTAFSON:
11 Q. But, Ms. Subotic, the measurements you took are angle
12 measurements, trajectory measurements, and both of your measurements fall
13 well within the plus/minus 5-degree margin of error for both of his
14 measurements. So wherever the impacts were in relation to each other
15 doesn't detract from the fact that your -- either of your measurements
16 have confirmed either of his measurements and you can't conclude that he
17 got them backwards; right?
18 A. Have you completed your question? I'm sorry.
19 Q. Yes.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Again, not the entire question was
21 interpreted, and this is a problem.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you check the angles determined
23 by Captain Verdy in the locations as marked by him, regardless of the
24 difference that exists between the two and whether it is within the
25 margin of error, if they are taken and the fact of the matter is that the
1 projectiles were fired from the same weapon, then their trajectories when
2 plotted this way will intersect at a site that is completely different to
3 the one indicated by the physical trace retrieved in the field, in the
4 area where they were active. The intersection would, in fact, be at a
5 side that is completely opposite to this one.
6 MS. GUSTAFSON:
7 Q. Okay --
8 A. [No interpretation]
9 Q. Ms. Subotic, the last part of -- the very last thing you said was
10 not interpreted. Could you just repeat the last few words that you
12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that if the lines of azimuth
14 are drawn from the firing points of both of these projectiles, these
15 lines will intersect at a side that is quite the opposite to the lines as
16 indicated by the physical evidence on the asphalt. It has to be
17 compatible. Do you understand? And it was on this basis that it was
18 determined and not on the basis of the accuracy of the measurements.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The Prosecutor is kindly
20 asked to allow some time for the interpretation. That has been the
21 reason for interventions with regard to the interpretation. Thank you.
22 MS. GUSTAFSON: I apologise. I will speak more slowly.
23 Q. Ms. Subotic, we're now back at your assertion that the two
24 azimuths must meet at a single point, so I'd like to show you
25 65 ter 24520. And while that's coming up, again I'm going to suggest to
1 you that your assertion that the two azimuths recorded by Mr. Verdy must
2 meet at a single point is a flawed one because it doesn't take into
3 account the margin of error of at least plus/minus 5 degrees. And the
4 map that should be coming up on your screen in a moment is a map that
5 depicts the two azimuths recorded by Mr. Verdy with a plus/minus 5-degree
6 margin of error. And the map shows that when you take into account an
7 appropriate margin of error, there is a large area of territory that's
8 depicted in the -- with the darker yellow on this map from which the
9 shells could be fired. Now, you agree that when you take into account an
10 appropriate margin of error, it's clear that you cannot assert that the
11 azimuths of the two impacts must meet at a single point; right?
12 A. We could make an analysis which would provide these intersections
13 or convergence points. At any rate, the azimuth from two angles standing
14 for the firing points from the same barrel must converge in a single
15 point, regardless of what we have to say about the accuracy of the method
16 of measurement. If the projectiles are fired from a single weapon, then
17 the azimuths for each of the rounds fired must converge in a single
18 point. Regardless of how many projectiles are fired from a single barrel
19 and regardless of how different the azimuths are, they must converge in a
20 single point. It's one of the characteristics of the weapon, regardless
21 of the method of measurement applied.
22 Q. Okay, Ms. Subotic, even assuming you're correct in this case that
23 these shells were fired from a single barrel, the point is that the
24 barrel could have been anywhere in the dark yellow cone you see here, and
25 that would be consistent with what Captain Verdy measured when you take
1 into account the appropriate margin of error for those measurements;
3 A. No. Allow me, please. What we're talking about here is the
4 determination of the distance, not of the azimuth. What is marked in
5 yellow and darker yellow, you can see that it is all converging in one
6 point. All these angles are converging in this point. Can you see that?
7 We're talking about the distance, not about the angle. Both the lighter
8 and the darker yellow and the lighter yellow above is the range of the
9 accuracy of measurement. But if you have a look at it, you will see that
10 they all converge in one point up there. And that's what I'm telling
11 you, they have to intersect in a single point. As I told you a moment
12 ago, all the projectiles, regardless of the azimuth, if fired from the
13 same weapon, from the same barrel must converge and intersect in a single
14 point. This has nothing to do with the measurement. Do you see? The
15 area that you marked covers the accuracy of measurement of the azimuths
16 that we have covered here. And I do agree with you that this is the
17 accuracy of the measurement of the azimuth. However, what we're talking
18 about is the distance that is determined. You see that both the
19 left-most and the right-most and the central lines are all converging in
20 one point up there because that is one of the characteristics of the
21 weapon, of the system, regardless of the method of measurement. You see,
22 we're talking about a specific distance as determined by the trajectories
23 ending in a certain point. I don't know how clear I was.
24 Q. It's, frankly, not clear to me. Are you saying that because it's
25 your position that these shells were fired from the same barrel that
1 Captain Verdy must have made a mistake? Does this depend on your
2 assertion that the shells were fired from the same mortar barrel?
3 A. No, no. Please. Captain Verdy measured certain azimuths and
4 defined them or tied them in with certain points -- firing points. We
5 checked his measurement and we obtained a result that was a match but an
6 inverse one. This was the first parameter on the basis of which we were
7 able to see that there was an error there. Thirdly, the investigators
8 before us as well as we on the basis of the characteristics of the
9 systems -- of the system established that it was the same barrel. This
10 was a finding by Mr. Higgs as well. So this is not just an assumption.
11 On the basis of the evidence found on the asphalt and on the basis of the
12 checks we did, we concluded, above all, that Captain Verdy must have
13 confused numerical values, must have mistaken them. But they were so
14 marginal that we didn't want to pay much attention to them. But on the
15 basis of the overall evidence on the asphalt and the result of this
16 explosion that we were able to see from the documentation and on the site
17 itself, we concluded that there was an error. And as we know, even
18 before we analysed this, it was established that they were fired from the
19 same barrel and it was on this basis that we produced the picture that we
20 did, and on the basis of that picture we were able to gauge the distance.
21 The way he wrote it, these lines would intersect at a side that will be
22 quite a different one and that would not be consistent with the physical
24 Q. I'm going to -- thank you. I'm going to move on to G7. This is
25 the 4th of February, 1993, incident, where three 120-millimetre mortar
1 shells landed in an area of Dobrinja.
2 MR. ROBINSON: 1994.
3 MS. GUSTAFSON: Sorry.
4 Q. And the discussion of this begins at page 59 of the English and
5 page 114 of the B/C/S. Now, just as a preliminary matter, there are no
6 remains left of any of these craters, so in your own analysis you were
7 not able to examine in person any of the craters themselves; right?
8 A. We attended the scene and what we found there was that the
9 surface on which the shell on Mihajla Pupina Street impacted was changed
10 as was the case on the playground. We based our findings on the
11 documents produced by the CSB and the remaining physical evidence of
12 fragmentation that remained intact as compared to the situation that
13 prevailed at the time. And we documented this by photographing the scene
14 when we visited it.
15 Q. Okay. If we could go to page 120 in the B/C/S, and this is
16 paragraph 80 of your report and the English page reference is page 62.
17 And if we could zoom in on the photograph and maybe collapse the English.
18 Now, you have a theory about how there were actually four shells fired in
19 this incident rather than three, and one of the reasons you reached that
20 conclusion is that in your view this photograph depicts in the yellow
21 circle damage that could not have been caused by the shell exploding on
22 the footpath marked with the number 1 here but only from the shrapnel of
23 a shell that exploded on the playground. And if we could just zoom in on
24 what's in the yellow circle.
25 Now, Ms. Subotic - that's fine, this is perfect - if you could
1 just with a pen trace precisely what you consider to be the shrapnel
2 damage that could not have been caused by the shell that hit the
4 A. [Marks]
5 Q. Okay. Thank you. If you could just --
6 MS. GUSTAFSON: I'd just like to tender that.
7 JUDGE KWON: Could you put the date and your initial on the upper
8 part. For record, you put number 1 for the marking.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have already made the marking,
10 number 1.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I noted for record.
12 Yes. We'll admit it as Prosecution Exhibit.
13 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6321, Your Honours.
14 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could go back now to page 118 in the
15 B/C/S and figure 65 that's on that page.
16 Q. And this relates to paragraph 81 of your report. Now, at
17 paragraph 81 in about the third paragraph, and this is the bottom of
18 page 63 in the English, you state that there was a shell that you claim
19 exploded at the edge of the playground and this disturbed the soil
20 between the playground and the footpath. And then you state:
21 "The blast from the shell that exploded subsequently on the
22 footpath threw the loose soil for the most part in the direction of its
23 approach, hence the substantial soil traces on the playground."
24 And if we could just zoom in on figure 65, please. This is the
25 figure where you say there is a substantial soil trace on the playground.
1 And you say figure 65 shows the soil traces which are almost at the
2 square angle in relation to the edge of the playground and this shows
3 that the shell had come in at an azimuth of 220 to 230 degrees. So if I
4 understand you correctly, the shell that landed on the footpath, the one
5 that was examined by the investigators, it's your view that that shell
6 flew in essentially over the playground from roughly the south-west and
7 then hit the footpath and that caused the soil to be strewn onto the
8 playground. Do I understand you correctly?
9 A. Yes, you have understood me correctly. The traces of soil on the
10 footpath represent the incoming trajectory of the shell. This is not on
11 the footpath, I apologise, on the playground. The traces of soil that we
12 can see on the playground, this is the playground, and on it we can see
13 that there are traces of soil. That is the consequence of the landing of
14 the shell which we saw previously which fell at the edge of the concrete
15 footpath. And the soil which was disturbed by the blast by the previous
16 shell was thrown along its incoming trajectory by the next shell. This
17 shell has not been examined in the documents at all, but it is marked as
18 you can see both with a red arrow and a number.
19 Q. Okay. So it's on this basis you conclude that the shell that
20 landed on the footpath, it had a trajectory of 220 to 230 degrees roughly
21 south-west; correct?
22 A. Let me just check if I mention that direction and if you now read
23 out the direction that I marked, but that is certainly the direction
24 along which the disturbed soil stretches.
25 Q. Okay. I'm looking at page --
1 A. Yes. Yes. I agree, 220 to 230, yes.
2 Q. Okay. If we could now go to page 134 of the B/C/S and figure 81.
3 And this relates to paragraph 87 of your report and the English page
4 reference is page 70. And if we could zoom in on the photograph here.
5 Now, this is again the photograph taken at the time of the shell that hit
6 the edge of the footpath which you just confirmed that you had concluded
7 that it flew in over the playground from a south-westerly direction.
8 Now, here you have examined the shrapnel pattern on the photograph and
9 you conclude that the shell -- the trajectory of the shell is reflected
10 in the line number 1, which you stated the incoming direction of the
11 shell determined on the basis of the shrapnel pattern on the asphalt
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, if we go to page -- sorry, the next page in the B/C/S, you
15 have depicted that direction in figure 82 and it is -- you say that the
16 incoming angle is about 240 degrees, but we can see that what you say the
17 incoming angle is based on your crater analysis it's a direction coming
18 in from roughly the north-east. And the reason you get the measurement
19 of 239 degrees is because you've measured from north all the way around
20 to essentially the opposite direction from where you allege the shell was
21 fired from. So I'm going to put it to you that what you -- the
22 calculation -- the determination you made on the basis of the crater
23 analysis you did on the photograph in figure 81, if we could just go back
24 to page 134, that's line 1, that is essentially a north-easterly
25 direction coming in across the footpath. Whereas previously you had said
1 because of the soil pattern on the playground, the shell flew in over the
2 playground from a south-westerly direction and hit the footpath. So
3 you've come up with two totally different trajectories for the same shell
4 in these two different parts of your report; right?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we ask Ms. Gustafson to tell
6 us where the north is here. How do we determine the position of the
7 north in photographs?
8 MS. GUSTAFSON: I think the question is clear.
9 JUDGE KWON: For me I don't follow, but I'm confident that
10 Ms. Subotic is capable of answering the question.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, let me start from some place
12 so that we can try to unravel this. In image 82, figure 82, shows two
13 trajectories. One trajectory is the incoming trajectory of the shell as
14 determined by the investigation organs and that is practically the east.
15 And it is marked by number 1 in relation to the incident.
16 The other trajectory represents the boundary azimuth between the
17 BH army positions and the VRS positions. To the left is the BH army and
18 to the right is the VRS. So 239, the azimuth which is here, was not the
19 result of any calculations but is a possible tangential line of the
20 separation line. I mean, that is the most approximate tangential line in
21 relation to the separation line. And next, in figure 81 it was assessed
22 that the angle of descent is about 60 degrees in relation to the curb in
23 this photograph, and the curb was determined as it can be seen before
24 that on Google Earth with the azimuth of 300 degrees. What follows from
25 that is that the azimuth of the incoming trajectory is around, it does
1 not say exactly, but approximately around 240. And the trajectory that
2 we mentioned earlier on was between 220 and 230. So I don't see any
3 inconsistencies here.
4 MS. GUSTAFSON:
5 Q. Let me put it in another way. You agree that the -- when you
6 look at figure 81, look at the photo in figure 81, the playground is on
7 the side where the photograph is being taken from; right? Yes. It's
8 parallel to the footpath and in the direction from where the
9 photograph -- photographer appears to be standing when taking this
10 picture; right? I see you nodding. Can you just agree verbally.
11 A. The playground theoretically speaking is at an angle and this --
12 the photograph was made from the direction of the playground, that is to
13 say behind the back of the person who made a photograph is the position
14 where the playground is located. This is what you're asking me; right?
15 Q. Yes, thank you. Now, a few moments ago when we looked at the
16 photo that had the soil on it, you agreed that the shell flew in over the
17 playground and hit the footpath and that caused the soil to be expelled
18 onto the playground, whereas here with your line number 1, you're stating
19 that the shell in fact flew in from a different direction, essentially
20 across the footpath from the other side and hit the footpath. And those
21 two are inconsistent. That's what I'm putting to you.
22 A. I would like to read that where I wrote the one and the other
23 because I think some sort of confusion follows from that.
24 Q. Well, you make the first conclusion in paragraph 81 in about the
25 third paragraph -- or sorry, paragraph 81 in about the third paragraph of
1 that numbered paragraph. And perhaps we could go back to figure 65 which
2 shows the soil.
3 A. In this third paragraph it reads that soil traces which are
4 almost at a square angle in relation to the edge of the playground or the
5 curb that can be seen on the photograph shows that the shell had come in
6 at an azimuth of 220 or 230 degrees and perhaps even smaller which is
7 contrary to the azimuth determined by the investigators.
8 Q. Yes, and you confirmed that based on this figure 65 that that
9 implied that the shell flew in essentially over the playground from a
10 south-westerly direction, namely 220 to 230 degrees. But when you did
11 your crater analysis --
12 A. Flew in with an azimuth -- at an azimuth of 220 or 230 degrees or
13 even smaller.
14 Q. Right. And then when you did your crater analysis you reached a
15 very different conclusion, namely, that the shell flew in over the
16 footpath, although at an angle, and hit the footpath.
17 A. Look. I wrote in one place and in the other that the angles are
18 between 220 and 240. What you are saying now is not mentioned anywhere
19 or I cannot find it that I wrote that. In both sections, we are talking
20 about this range of azimuths. I don't know where you found that I said
21 across the playground. I have read now what you told me and it says
22 there precisely that the trajectory was 220 to 230, and by the analysis
23 of the photograph we determined that it was around 240. So you will
24 allow that with the precision of all the methods this is just a general
25 conclusion. This is why we said around 240, but these are the
2 Q. Okay --
3 JUDGE KWON: To be clear, shall we ask Ms. Subotic to mark the
4 direction of projectile on figure 65, if that helps you?
5 MS. GUSTAFSON: That may. If we could --
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
7 MS. GUSTAFSON: -- blow up figure 65.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Oh.
9 For example -- but no, let's erase this. So we wouldn't have ...
10 As this was fire at an area, do not take it literally but that is
11 an approximation. The trajectory in relation to the playground as far as
12 we can see it now. However, the analysis of the traces on the footpath
13 which we saw in figure 67 or 8, I think, we could see there that it was
14 at an angle of around 240, the azimuth of around 240. So this is the
15 incoming trajectory of the shell which landed on the footpath. And these
16 are the traces of the soil spreading in this direction -- no.
17 JUDGE KWON: Date and signature, please.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. I think I entered
19 yesterday's date. Today's the 16th; correct?
20 JUDGE KWON: Exhibit P6322.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me, I think that on the
22 previous image I wrote yesterday's date.
23 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. No problem.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just realised.
25 MS. GUSTAFSON:
1 Q. Ms. Subotic, what you just marked is, in fact, roughly consistent
2 with what you marked in the other photograph, but what you said when I
3 initially asked you about this photograph is you agreed with me that the
4 shell flew in essentially over the playground from the south-west and hit
5 the footpath and that caused the soil to be strewn onto the playground.
6 And you said -- you agreed with that. You said:
7 "Yes, you have understood me correctly. The traces of the soil
8 on the footpath" and then you corrected yourself and said "the playground
9 represent the incoming trajectory of the shell." And that was at
10 page 47. And now what you've drawn is something completely different;
12 A. Please excuse me, but your questions are extremely long and I
13 cannot follow the parameters that you mention. I stand by -- completely
14 by what is included in the report, and I haven't managed to find in it
15 what you claim we wrote. So I apologise, it's probably my mistake, but I
16 cannot follow. The questions are so long. I cannot keep all the
17 parameters in my head up until the moment when I'm supposed to answer. I
18 probably answered having in mind the sequence of the shells and the
19 effects created by the first shell that hit the curb at the edge of the
20 playground. So I probably focused on explaining the effect and where did
21 the soil come from and it actually is linked with the next shell that
22 landed. I stand by fully to what I wrote here and what is included in my
23 report. Perhaps I was inattentive and I may have said that by mistake.
24 But I think that considering all your questions I would probably agree
25 with the last thing that you said. I'm not blaming you. It's simply
1 that I am unable to follow.
2 Q. Okay. Could we go to page 124 of the B/C/S. And this is where
3 you claim that the error in the crime scene sketch resulted in an
4 erroneous determination of the incoming trajectory. And this is
5 paragraph 83. Now, at paragraph 83, and this is at pages 64 and 65 in
6 the English, you note that the crime scene sketch -- the direction north
7 was marked erroneously in the crime scene sketch. And you conclude from
8 that that the incoming direction was determined erroneously. Now, you
9 don't explain in your report based on the evidence how the error in the
10 sketch resulted in an error in the determination of trajectory. And the
11 reason for that failure is because if you actually look at the evidence,
12 the evidence clearly shows that the error in the crime scene sketch had
13 no impact on the determination of the trajectory. So in your testimony
14 in your examination the other day at page 38271 you said about this
16 "Due to this error of 60 degrees, they drew erroneous conclusions
17 about the direction from which the shells had arrived. I think that
18 KDZ166, the witness, agreed with this when we presented to him the
19 situation as depicted here."
20 But, in fact, Witness KDZ166 said that the error in his sketch
21 had no impact on the determination of the direction of fire. At
22 page 8297 he was asked:
23 "Now we have a new northerly direction, so if you change it from
24 90 degrees to some 30 or 40 degrees, does that affect the direction from
25 which the shell came?"
1 And he answered:
2 "No, it doesn't. I did not plot the direction onto my sketch
3 from which the shell came because that part of the work, that is, to
4 establish the direction, was done by ballistics experts."
5 And he went on to explain how the ballistics experts determined
6 the direction by examining the traces of the impact on the ground. And
7 Mr. Sabljica who testified in your presence and who was one of the
8 ballistics experts at this incident also said that the sketch was
9 irrelevant to determining the direction of fire:
10 "Because what we did in our investigations had to do with the
11 actual situation and the actual trace evidence found on site."
12 And that's at transcript page 7800. And you also failed to
13 mention that the investigation file states explicitly that the direction
14 from which the shells came was established by a compass, and that's
15 P1710, page 7. Not to mention the fact that the photographs in the
16 investigation file show the investigators determining the direction of
17 fire with a compass, and that's P1707. Now, Ms. Subotic, you don't
18 mention any of this evidence, and that's a pretty misleading thing to do,
19 to assert that the crime scene sketch error resulted in an error in
20 determining the direction of fire without mentioning any of the evidence
21 that demonstrates overwhelming that that is not the case; right?
22 MR. ROBINSON: Excuse me, Mr. President, I think that we have to
23 change our method of work here in order to really be successful at this
24 because this is an impossible question to answer if it's not broken up.
25 There are so many elements that have been placed in this question that
1 it's really impossible. And if she gives an answer, it could very well
2 be incomplete or partial. So I object. I think that Ms. Gustafson --
3 first of all, I see what she's trying to do, she is trying to consolidate
4 so she saves time, which I understand, but let her have as much time as
5 she needs to test this evidence completely. But let's do it right.
6 Let's break it up one by one and then you can get accurate answers that
8 Thank you.
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, I think in this case -- this is not
10 a fact witness. This is an expert witness who has purported to actually
11 have evaluated all this evidence already --
12 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. I think your question is rather
13 lengthy. I agree with that. And then whether Ms. Subotic is able to
14 answer those lengthy questions, I'm not sure about it.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: Well, as I said, Your Honour, she has purported
16 to have examined the record. She was present when some of these
17 witnesses testified --
18 JUDGE KWON: But could you break it down. But let's see
19 whether --
20 MS. GUSTAFSON:
21 Q. Let me put it this way, Ms. Subotic. There is a great deal of
22 evidence in this case that the crime scene sketch error had no impact on
23 the determination of direction of fire. You don't mention any of that
24 evidence in your report and that's a misleading thing to do; right?
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, that's a fair question.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm afraid that I will have to
2 start with last things first and that I will have to say the following:
3 I say with full responsibility that in the hundreds of pages that I have
4 authored there's no single line that would mislead any reader, including
5 the Trial Chamber, to an erroneous conclusion. First of all, whoever
6 looked at the crime reports cannot -- can only say [as interpreted] that
7 a sketch is not a document based on which the technicians made their
8 conclusion. That is not the case. In that case, the sketch is an
9 unnecessary [Realtime transcript read in error "necessary"] document in a
10 crime file. That would be number one.
11 Number two, the manner in which the investigators determined the
12 direction north and the direction of the incoming shell is unacceptable
13 in any document, let alone the document of that kind. We saw many times
14 that this was done by taking a map, but we can't see how the map was
15 termed because that's the kind the photo is, and the measuring tape was
16 placed on that and we can't see in the photo when it was that.
17 Irrespective of the intention, all photo documents in crime files have to
18 be clear and they can -- they have to be tested. So much about the
19 reserve thing at the end.
20 Second of all, we have analysed these traces in great detail here
21 and we conclude -- we reached conclusions that are based on technical and
22 physical evidence based on the photo documentation that was made and they
23 were not interpreted properly. Incorrect things were noted. So let us
24 not say that I'm trying to deceive any reader, including the
25 Trial Chamber, because I'm insulted by that as a person and as an expert.
1 THE ACCUSED: Transcript. [Interpretation] May I make
2 corrections in the transcript?
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On line 18 on page 57, it was
5 incorrectly noted that "the sketch is a necessary...," the witness said
7 [In English] Number two, this line 20, is completely wrongly
8 translated and written down, recorded. No compass mentioned and so on.
9 JUDGE KWON: I think Ms. Subotic would agree that it should read
10 "unnecessary" instead of "necessary"?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. I was having a sip of
12 water. I was not paying attention. Could you repeat that, please.
13 JUDGE KWON: So I will read out the transcript as it reads.
14 "First of all, whoever looked at the crime report can only say
15 that sketch is not a document based on which the technicians made their
16 conclusion. That is not the case. In that case, the sketch is a
17 necessary document in a crime file."
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No.
19 JUDGE KWON: So that should read as "the sketch is an unnecessary
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No -- of course, of course. In
22 that case it would be completely unnecessary.
23 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] However, that document is one of
25 the most elementary --
1 JUDGE KWON: Then you made a point, number two. Could you repeat
2 it, if you remember.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The investigators in the field
4 determined the trajectory of the shell or its incoming direction in the
5 following way: They placed a map on the site, on the place of the
6 incident, and the scale of that map was 1:20.000. And then they put a
7 compass on that map and that was their method to determine the incoming
8 direction. This method is absolutely unacceptable. First and foremost,
9 due to the scale of the map and also due to the incorrect method of
10 drafting criminal and technical documentation, because neither us nor
11 anybody else for that matter could reconstruct what they noted that they
12 had determined based on the photos that they took. You can see a very
13 unclear photo without any bench-marks. Those of us who are in the
14 business, who are in the field, are aware of the basic rule. When you do
15 an on-site investigation, you fix a point and you determine all the
16 measures in respect of that fixed point so that you can repeat everything
17 and you can control everything that was done because it can happen that
18 crime technicians fails to take a measurement which needs to be taken.
19 So whoever analyses that can go to the site and check the measurements
20 that he wants to check. So no sketch has a fixed point in the space or
21 on the ground. And such a sketch without a fixed point on the ground
22 cannot be used to reconstruct the event without leading to ambiguities as
23 to whether that had really happened. In other words, the measurement
24 methods that were applied are unacceptable because we only see a map
25 without any orientation with regard to a fixed point. We see a compass
1 in the photo, but we can't see what that compass points to. Therefore,
2 what is alleged as having been done, I don't have any doubts that it was
3 done, but it cannot be tested. So that if something was not taken into
4 account, it was because it could not be tested and it was not worth
5 taking it into account.
6 Second of all, all the physical evidence that remained on the
7 spot - and we found them there when we got there - we tested them and
8 they do not correspond with what the investigators claimed in their
9 findings. I apologise, that would be that about this question that Madam
10 Prosecutor put to me.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On page 57, line 16, it says [In
14 English] "Can only." [Interpretation] I believe that "can only" should
15 be deleted and the only thing that should remain is "cannot say." 57,
16 16, it's contradictory and it leads to an erroneous conclusion.
17 JUDGE KWON: Given the context, that seems to be the case. But
18 in the course of reviewing the transcript I think that will be checked
20 Let's continue.
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.
22 Q. If we could go to page 128 in the B/C/S and look at figure 74.
23 Ms. Subotic, this is part of your conclusions. In paragraph 68, the
24 English page reference is page 67. Now, in this diagram you have
25 depicted the trajectory of the shell, if the shell had flown in from the
1 direction that the investigators established at the time, which was
2 basically east. And you conclude that the damage on the right-hand side
3 wall of the alcove of the building -- you note that it's significantly
4 damaged and you conclude that the direction east is -- was erroneously
5 determined because based on this schematic diagram this indicates that
6 that right wall wouldn't have been so significantly damaged; is that
8 A. Just a moment. If you look at the place where this shell landed
9 and you can see it in the previous photo and then if you look at the
10 distribution, the fan-like or the funnel-like distribution of fragments,
11 it is absolutely clear that the primary blast was not on the wall which
12 was so significantly damaged. So it could not come from that direction.
13 It's absolutely clear.
14 Q. And just for clarity, could you mark that right-hand side wall of
15 the alcove that was -- where you noted the significant damage. For the
16 parties' reference that damage is depicted in figure 76 on page 130 of
17 the B/C/S.
18 A. I apologise, where would you like me to mark? Should I mark on
19 this figure or somewhere else? This figure?
20 Q. Yeah --
21 A. Or some other figure? I did not understand.
22 Q. Yes. I was referring to the -- to figure 76 in your report where
23 you've photographed the damage, but I'd like you to mark on this figure
24 where that wall is that is significantly damaged. If you want to refer
25 to the photograph, that may assist.
1 A. I still don't understand which photo you wanted me to mark.
2 Where do you want me to mark the wall which was significantly damaged?
3 Do you want me to use this schematic diagram or perhaps the photo that we
4 took? I don't understand.
5 JUDGE KWON: Probably there seems to have been a translation
6 issue. Ms. Gustafson asked you to mark on this figure, on this image.
7 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
8 MS. GUSTAFSON:
9 Q. Thank you.
10 JUDGE KWON: Date and signature.
11 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
12 JUDGE KWON: Exhibit P6323.
13 Please continue.
14 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.
15 Q. Now, Ms. Subotic, the depiction of the shell or the shrapnel
16 fragmentation in that schematic, just to be clear, the fragments don't
17 just go out to the left and to the right. There is a two-dimensional
18 schematic, but the shrapnel flies out in all directions, 360 degrees
19 around the shell in that pattern that you've depicted in the figure in
20 front of you; right?
21 A. Of course, yes. Of course.
22 Q. Okay. Now, I'm again going to suggest to you that this schematic
23 is misleading and the reason it's misleading is because you've depicted
24 the shell as if it's flying in straight into the wall horizontally, but
25 we all know that mortars don't fly like that. They fly at a trajectory
1 and they land at an angle downwards. And when this shell landed at a
2 downwards angle of 45 degrees or greater, shrapnel, as depicted in your
3 schematic, would have flown out of the -- what would have been the top of
4 the shell and would have hit that wall that you've circled; right?
5 A. Of course not. First of all, I'm sorry that this image is not
6 clear. Had we known that such a confusion would arise, we would have a
7 3-D depiction. Of course it's a schematic diagram and it must not be
8 taken laterally. The way things are depicted, they're not depicted this
9 way in order to confuse somebody. Let's understand one thing. This
10 shell as described by the Prosecutor fell on the left-hand side in the
11 angle that is depicted here and when we have such a shrapnel dispersion
12 as described by the Prosecutor, it would be possible to end up with such
13 significant damage on this wall. It would be impossible because most of
14 the shrapnel would damage the left-hand side and the other side would be
15 outside of the range of this wall. I'm not saying that it would not be
16 damaged, but it would not be damaged to such an extent.
17 What you're saying -- possibly the damage would be somewhere up
18 there on the upper part of the wall and there wouldn't be so much damage.
19 If we look at the left-hand side wall and the right-hand side wall, the
20 damage is drastically different between the two.
21 Q. Now, you stated in your report on the -- I'm going to move on to
22 something else now. In your report on the Markale incidents you stated
24 "It is well-known that the stabiliser penetrates the ground when
25 it is fired with charge 3 or higher charge. When a mortar shell is fired
1 with charge 1 or with charge 2, the stabiliser falls in the immediate
2 vicinity of the crater or is propelled back along the approximate
3 trajectory of the mortar shell."
4 That's at paragraph 93 of your report. Now, it's clear in this
5 incident that we had two embedded stabilisers, so I take it that you
6 would agree that these shells would have to have been fired at a minimum
7 of charge 3. Are we agreed on that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. There are in evidence already in this case three JNA
10 120-millimetre --
11 A. I apologise. I apologise. Let me just add something to what I
12 said. It seems to me that in this incident there was just one shell that
13 got embedded in the footpath, whereas the second stabiliser was not
14 embedded in the footpath. It was found on the ground, and I believe that
15 we concluded - because we discussed that yesterday - that that stabiliser
16 could not be used to determine the direction, as Mr. Sabljica stated,
17 because it is visible from the fin deformations that it was not the first
18 place where it landed. And I have to say something else. During the
19 investigation that you said that I did not mention, Mr. Sabljica said
20 that he also determined directions based on the positions of the
21 stabiliser. For the reasons aforementioned, he couldn't do it based on
22 the position of the first stabiliser because it is obvious that that was
23 not the first place where that stabiliser landed. And as for the second
24 stabiliser, I discussed that at great length when I spoke about
25 Markale 1. I explained for what reason it could not be said that the
1 incoming direction was the same as the direction of the stabiliser that
2 was embedded in the ground because that method is absolutely unacceptable
3 because of the stochasticity of the air phenomenon itself.
4 Q. I don't want to get into your conclusions of any of the Markale
5 incidents, that's not what I'm getting at here. We're at least agreed
6 that there was one embedded stabiliser in the footpath. I'll leave it to
7 the Chamber to evaluate the evidence on the other one. And you're agreed
8 that if we accept your position on the charges, that that stabiliser --
9 sorry, that that shell would have had to have been fired at charge 3 or
10 higher. Now, the -- there are three 120-millimetre mortar firing tables
11 already in evidence in this case for the M74, M75, and M52, and that's
12 P5921, 5922, and 5923. Those firing tables indicate that the minimum
13 firing distance for any of those mortars at charge 3 is 600 metres. And
14 that's for the M74, and that's P5921 at page 12. So would you agree that
15 roughly 600 metres would be the minimum firing distance for the shell for
16 which the stabiliser ended up embedded?
17 A. If I were to consult firing tables - and I don't have any reason
18 not to believe you, I'll check later - that minimum firing distance was
19 probably interpreted properly for charge 3. So neither you nor I
20 analysed the descent angle because we did not have the basis for that
21 analysis. So we cannot talk about a range without taking everything into
22 account. I believe that you read the tables well, but before I check
23 myself I really can't answer your question because I don't know all those
24 charges by heart.
25 Q. Okay. Let's go to page 138 in the B/C/S, and in particular
1 figure 85. Now, this relates to your claim that there is a large N on
2 the back of the stabiliser that landed in the footpath. And what I'd
3 like to do, if possible, is bring up on the other half of the screen
4 P1707 at page 5, and if that's not possible, we'll just bring it up on
5 its own. Just to orient you, Ms. Subotic, the photo that is about to
6 come up on the other side of the screen is a photograph taken from the
7 photo file of this incident of the same stabiliser. And if possible, I'd
8 like to rotate the photo on the right-hand side 90 degrees clockwise so
9 it's oriented the same. And if we could zoom in on the stabiliser both
10 on the right-hand side photo and on the top left photo. Now, you can see
11 the stabiliser's oriented roughly the same way in each of these photos.
12 Your figure 85 is based on a still from a video and, as I said, the photo
13 on the right-hand side is a photo from the photo file. That's perfect
14 right there. Thank you.
15 Now, first of all, do you agree that the photograph from the
16 photo file on the right-hand side is a clear and better quality image of
17 the stabiliser?
18 A. You know what? It has been blown up to such an extent just like
19 the other one on the other side, that I am not able to say why one or the
20 other would be clearer. But I can confirm that the two images depict the
21 same stabiliser.
22 Q. And you agree that there is no large letter N in the upper
23 left-hand side of the stabiliser in the photograph on the right-hand
24 side; right?
25 A. I will agree that the photo is not clear and that we can't see
1 that letter. I can't say that it's not there. I cannot claim explicitly
2 that it is not there based on this photo, first and foremost, because
3 it's the same video-clip, part of that same investigation and I don't see
4 why they should be different. On the other hand, those markings are
5 standard markings on the primary charge. I'm sure they are there but
6 they can't be seen. That's what I'm sure of.
7 Q. You said you cannot -- you say, "I don't see why they should be
8 different." Well, I have a suggestion for you which is that the video
9 still on the left-hand side is of such poor quality that whatever you
10 think you can make out in terms of a large letter N is simply a
11 distortion resulting from the poor quality of the video still. Would you
12 accept that?
13 A. We took this frame from the video file. We noticed the letter N.
14 It is discernible on the upper and the lower photo that we selected. We
15 double-checked. I am not claiming anything. I'm just saying that it was
16 noticed and that it was given as an observation that we arrived at. None
17 of us claims anything, but the letter N is well visible. I don't believe
18 it's a distortion. The stabiliser is the same, indeed. But on the
19 right-hand side we cannot see it, but I would say that this is due to the
20 quality of the photo. I cannot say that it doesn't exist. I can say
21 that these are the markings on the standard shell charge and those
22 markings denote the series, the manufacturer, and so on and so forth.
23 THE ACCUSED: May I?
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What I see on my screen is a
1 different angle than we can see up there. I can see something in the
2 left-hand side corner, something crossed, and I can't see it on the other
3 side. How come on the screen we can see one angle and on the display we
4 can see a totally different angle --
5 MS. GUSTAFSON: Sorry, sorry, this is just commentary.
6 JUDGE KWON: I agree.
7 Please continue, Ms. Gustafson.
8 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.
9 I have no further questions on these photos. I wonder if it
10 would be helpful, even though these photos are both in evidence, to
11 tender this side-by-side comparison. I think it would be.
12 JUDGE KWON: Can we capture this?
13 MS. GUSTAFSON: I was assuming we could, but that's a good
14 question. I'm not sure.
15 JUDGE KWON: We can compare it at any time.
16 MS. GUSTAFSON: That's fine.
17 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
18 MS. GUSTAFSON: I have about ten minutes left, Your Honours, but
19 perhaps we better take a break.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we -- given the reduced lunch time we are
21 minded to break at quarter to 1.00 and have a half an hour break.
22 MS. GUSTAFSON: Okay. Perfect.
23 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
24 Yes, Mr. Robinson.
25 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President, we seem to be in agreement
1 with Mr. Tieger that these extra sessions and reduced lunch would not
2 really change the situation. So we propose to just stay with our same
3 schedule for now and we'll let you know next week -- we'll let you know
4 how exactly we've worked it out, but with a few small variables we do
5 both agree that extra sessions would not solve the problem.
6 MR. TIEGER: That's -- basically it's -- I'm not sure that an
7 extra session or two won't assist in the final resolution, but it
8 certainly is accurate to say that even the Court's very generous offer
9 and the very generous accommodation of the personnel would not entirely
10 solve the problem of allowing every witness to be heard, and certainly
11 reducing the lunch break today is much more symbolic than practically
12 helpful. So we agree with Mr. Robinson in those respects.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. I also join the parties thanking the
14 interpreters and staff for their indulgence.
15 Let's continue.
16 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
17 JUDGE KWON: I was told that we can save this image and admit it
18 as a separate Prosecution exhibit.
19 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P6324, Your Honours.
22 MS. GUSTAFSON:
23 Q. Now, Ms. Subotic, I'd like to move on to your discussion of
24 incident G9 which begins at page 75 of the English and page 142 of the
25 B/C/S. And if we could go to page 148 of the B/C/S. You've made some
1 assertions about the size of the craters of the 76-millimetre artillery
2 shell craters or at least what were determined to be such at the time.
3 And one of the things you do is you compare the crater in figure 92 which
4 we can see on the top of the page with the crater in figure 93, the
5 crater from the 82-millimetre mortar shell. Now, it's clear that you've
6 made your determinations about the dimensions of these craters purely
7 from photographs. It's common ground that these craters are no longer
8 present on the ground. And you have -- you've made a comparison of the
9 size -- this is at paragraph 102. You've made a comparison of the size
10 of the 76-millimetre crater with a 82-millimetre mortar crater and you
11 base that on the relative amounts of TNT in the two shells. And that's
12 at footnote 397 and paragraph 102.1.
13 Now, you would agree that a mortar is essentially an
14 anti-personnel weapon. It's designed to fragment into small pieces and
15 essentially kill people, whereas artillery shells are used for destroying
16 structures and have a larger blast effect for that reason; right? And I
17 would refer to -- sorry.
18 A. That's not correct. Both the artillery projectiles that are
19 produced as contact fuse variants and mortar projectiles have the same
20 purpose. I say "contact fuse" which means that it's a projectile
21 intended for destroying personnel with fragmentation effect. Now we have
22 of course shaped charge, penetration, et cetera, et cetera. We're
23 talking about the contact fuse projectile here, the TF projectile, which
24 has the same purpose as the projectile which is produced for the
25 82-millimetre mortar as well as other mortars. It has a casing which
1 through its fragmentation is intended for live personnel. This is an
2 artillery projectile of a small calibre and small explosive charge and
3 can in no way be used for blast effect. As I said, its main purpose is
4 to be used for people and unprotected features.
5 Q. Okay. But you don't deny that the shells themselves have quite
6 different properties. So, for example, I looked up the specks of the M70
7 shell, which the investigators determined was the shell fired in this
8 case, and the entire round weighs 8.2 kilos, of which 5.2 kilos is the
9 steel jacket. Whereas an 82-millimetre shell, the entire round weighs
10 about 3 kilos and that includes the 680 grams of TNT. So the steel
11 jacket is significantly or somewhat less than that. So do you agree that
12 the steel jacket of the M70 would be significantly heavier and thicker
13 than that of an 82-millimetre shell?
14 A. I'm sorry. I have to ask you something. What you've just read
15 out as the features of the projectile, are you sure about the weight of
16 the jacket or is that the entire projectile? Because it is a one-piece
17 projectile. So probably the weight of the casing itself was factored in.
18 It would be -- it would not to be expected that what you've read out is
19 correct I'm sorry to say that.
20 Q. You think what I've read out is -- sorry. You think what I've
21 read out for the M70 artillery shell is incorrect?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. Could we have 65 ter --
24 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Just wait for the translation. I'm
25 afraid we are missing something. Did you want to answer, Ms. Subotic?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted to say that this is a
2 relatively small projectile and it is a one-piece projectile. What does
3 it mean? It means that the charge or the filling is not separate.
4 Rather, it is a one-piece, the casing and the filling form one piece. So
5 the mass of the jacket indicated by the Prosecutor, she -- what she read
6 out was the entire steel jacket comprising the casing and the jacket, you
7 said that it was 7 to 8 kilos -- at any rate, I think it should be
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: Could we have 65 ter 25059A [Realtime transcript
10 read in error "250598"], please. That should be 65 ter "25059A" rather
11 than "8."
12 Q. Ms. Subotic, this is an extract from a JNA ammunition manual. If
13 we could go to the next page in both languages. It has the technical
14 data for the M70 shell which is the ammunition for the M48 B1 cannon,
15 which again was the weapon determined to be the weapon in this case. And
16 you can see it has the weight and length dimensions and it says the
17 bullet jacket weighs 5.2 kilos and the entire round weighs 8.2 kilos;
19 A. Yes, that's all right. I understood you to say that the jacket
20 weighed 8 kilos. That's why I intervened.
21 Q. Maybe there was a --
22 A. You have to understand that through interpretation I hear steel
23 parts being mentioned -- it's very difficult for me to grasp which of the
24 figures that you mentioned relates to which feature. Can you please
25 repeat your question so that I can give you an answer.
1 MS. GUSTAFSON: I tender this document.
2 Q. I did repeat my question and you did give me an answer, so I
3 don't think I need to repeat it a third time.
4 JUDGE KWON: We'll receive the cover page and this page.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6325.
6 MS. GUSTAFSON:
7 Q. Now, just in terms of the dimensions and weight of this round
8 it's, as I said, 8.2 kilos and is a little over 64 centimetres long.
9 Now, this is the shell that you assert was --
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, an intervention. It cannot
11 be repeated that what comes to the point of impact is 8.2 kilos when it
12 was already cleared up that this was not the case because the cartridge
13 case will remain in the cannon --
14 MS. GUSTAFSON: Sorry, sorry, this is the accused giving
16 JUDGE KWON: I don't follow his point.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The point of the matter is that
18 Ms. Gustafson is repeating again that what is part of the impact is
19 something that weighs 8.2 kilos. A moment ago we cleared up that the
20 entire shell weighs 8.2 kilos and what impacts the site is something that
21 weighs 5.8 kilos.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it's 5.2 kilos.
23 MS. GUSTAFSON: I made no assertion of what impacted the site.
24 That's totally inappropriate. This is -- these enumerable interventions
25 make it virtually impossible.
1 Q. Ms. Subotic, the dimensions of this round is 8.2 kilos and is a
2 little over 64 centimetres long. This is the round that you claim on
3 your theory was placed on the sidewalk in front of the shop and across
4 from the flea market about 9.00 in the morning and then was detonated
5 with a TNT charge. So I take it that you also take the position that
6 this round would have had to have been detonated remotely and could you
7 explain how that occurred on your theory?
8 A. I have to start from the beginning of your question again because
9 I have to correct it. You said that it was my position that the
10 projectile of a specific length and weighing 8.2 kilos was placed there,
11 but no, that's not correct. Please. My position is that the projectile
12 which was detached from its charge, so there is no case cartridge case,
13 there is no charge, no filling, it was placed horizontally on the site of
14 the explosion and activated with a Trotyl round. There is more than one
15 piece of physical evidence that supports it --
16 JUDGE KWON: There is no French translation.
17 Shall we have a break. We'll resume at 1.17.
18 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.47 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 1.18 p.m.
20 JUDGE KWON: Please continue.
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honours. I just have one final
22 question and then I'll hand the floor over to Mr. Gaynor --
23 MR. ROBINSON: Excuse me, Mr. President. I just noticed that the
24 witness never really got to complete her answer to the last question.
25 She -- it was put to her that can you explain how the round could have
1 been detonated remotely. She started to answer and then we took the
2 lunch break. So I think it's only fair to give her a chance, if she
3 wants to, to answer that question.
4 JUDGE KWON: Was it not a problem of translation? I think she
5 completed her answer. I don't think -- no, no, no -- yes. Because --
6 ah, yes. We stopped because there was no French translation at the time.
7 So probably she has to repeat her answer. Yes, thank you for the
8 reminder. Probably you may need to put your question again,
9 Ms. Gustafson.
10 MS. GUSTAFSON: Certainly, Your Honour.
11 Q. My previous question before the break, Ms. Subotic, was that I
12 take it that this M70 artillery shell on your theory was detonated
13 remotely and can you explain how that remote detonation took place? In
14 other words, the person who detonated the shell was at some distance from
15 the projectile. Can you explain how on your theory the shell was
17 A. I have to say that at the beginning of your question you said
18 shells 8.70 [as interpreted], I don't know what this relates to. That
19 was what I received through interpretation. You probably wanted to say
20 M70, 76-millimetres. When you first put that question, you said that it
21 was a projectile weighing 8.2 kilogrammes. We have to clarify one thing
22 on that score. This isn't the projectile that was activated; rather, the
23 projectile that was activated on the site was detached from the cartridge
24 case and its propellant -- its propelling charge, which is its component
25 part. So it's a projectile without its charge which was most probably
1 remotely activated with a TNT round. It was placed horizontally because
2 that is what the physical evidence on the site indicates.
3 There is one other piece of physical evidence that we registered,
4 or rather, not we but the investigators did, which is that the fuse was
5 retrieved outside of the crater far from the incident site some
6 20 metres, I believe, away from the centre. It was of course found lying
7 laterally, and the interesting point is that it was found intact which
8 means that it did not take part in the activation of the projectile.
9 Q. Now we're getting into something else. My question was about how
10 this round was detonated --
11 A. I apologise.
12 Q. It's -- I understand your position that it was detonated with a
13 TNT charge, but how was that TNT charge activated in order to explode the
14 shell? Was it done with a timer? With a fuse? With a wire? How did
15 that take place on your theory?
16 A. In my view, it most probably happened with the use of a Trotyl
17 bullet. What is it? It's a cube weighing 200 grams, I believe, in which
18 a detonating primer is placed and that primer can be activated remotely.
19 Q. And how does that remote activation take place? Is it with a
20 wire? How do you explain that?
21 A. It can take place in various ways. At this time I cannot go into
22 a discussion around these technical details with you. As an expert in
23 this field, I would have to have something that has been uncovered or
24 retrieved in order for me to be able to give a proper answer to your
1 Q. Thank you, Ms. Subotic. That concludes my examination. I'll
2 hand the floor over to Mr. Gaynor now.
3 Cross-examination by Mr. Gaynor:
4 Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Subotic. I'm going to --
5 A. Good afternoon, Mr. Gaynor.
6 Q. I'm going to be asking you first about your modified air bombs
7 report and then we're going to be discussing the Markale 1 incident and
8 then we'll discuss Markale 2. For this first part I'd like you to keep
9 your answers as short and concise as possible. It concerns fairly
10 uncontroversial matters. Is that okay?
11 A. That's all very well. I am just kindly asking you to wait for me
12 to get the report that I need. I didn't know in which order you would
13 take them.
14 Q. Now, Ms. Subotic, first of all, could you identify the ballistic
15 parameters which affect the trajectory of any object flying through the
16 atmosphere, whether it's a soccer ball or an American football or an
17 air bomb or a rocket. Could you just give us a quick list of what those
18 factors are.
19 A. This is a good question for me. Above all, the flight of any
20 object, let's call it projectile shall we, will be affected primarily by
21 the velocity with which the projectile will be launched into its flight.
22 It will be affected by its shape in such a way that there are resistance
23 coefficients, coefficients of thrust upwards, all those coefficients that
24 will be the result of the resistance of the surroundings in which the
25 projectile will fly. Of course the environment itself through which it
1 will be flying will have an impact as well, through the density, its own
2 density, the coefficients that we just mentioned, and the forces, the
3 mass of the object that is flying. It will also be affected by of course
4 the meteorological conditions that can be changeable. And if you want me
5 to go into detail, there is a huge amount of factors that will have an
6 impact on this, but they will not equally affect a football or a rocket.
7 We didn't speak of the rocket at all here. It's a separate issue because
8 it entails a huge number of parameters that will not be the ones that
9 would apply to what you've mentioned.
10 Q. Now, in respect of the meteorological conditions, you accept that
11 air temperature, air pressure, air humidity are relevant? You can just
12 say yes or no.
13 A. Yes. We provide various columns in the firing tables that you've
14 probably seen which relate to the adjustments made on launching,
15 adjustments in relation to the basic tables.
16 Q. And one must also take into account cross wind, head wind, and a
17 tail wind?
18 A. Of course there are adjustments as per firing tables which have
19 to do with wind. There are standards according to which these
20 adjustments are made. They're given in the firing tables.
21 Q. I want you to address now a projectile which is launched from the
22 ground with the aim of hitting a target also on the ground, essentially a
23 surface-to-surface situation. Now, the factors which will affect where
24 the projectile will land will include not just the factors you've already
25 identified but possibly contained within your explanation we have to
1 consider in particular the total force imparted on the projectile and the
2 direction, both vertically and horizontally, that the force is imparted
3 on the projectile.
4 A. I'm afraid I have not understood what you meant to say. Maybe
5 it's a matter of interpretation, but this is how it was interpreted to me
6 just so you know. Whether you should be clearer in your question. You
7 said that the total force which acts on the direction both vertically and
8 horizontally should be taken into account. I'm not sure what you implied
9 by this; I don't understand it. So if you can please rephrase it or if
10 the interpretation can be corrected. I cannot answer because I cannot
11 locate it professionally within my area of expertise.
12 Q. Now, when a projectile is fired from the ground, the end point of
13 that projectile will depend on, among other things, the total force
14 imparted on the projectile?
15 A. First of all, I have to distinguish whether we're talking about
16 active/reactive projectile or a classic artillery projectile.
17 Q. Any --
18 A. But never mind. If we view them both from same position, as far
19 as I have understood, you wanted to say that the place where it would
20 land would begin on the initial velocity of the projectile. Was that
21 what you meant?
22 Q. Yes --
23 A. And yes, the range also depends on the initial velocity.
24 Q. Yes. And also the direction, both vertically and horizontally,
25 in which the projectile is launched; correct? Those factors will affect
1 where the projectile lands. It's essentially common sense.
2 A. Yes, now I understand what you meant with this question. You
3 mean that depending on the launching parameters which are determined at
4 the launching, it depends where the projectile will land. Yes, if the
5 parameters are taken according to the tables properly, then it's -- there
6 is a high likelihood that it would fall at the intended position rather
7 than it would not. Was that the thrust of your question?
8 Q. Yes, this is a really uncontroversial point I think at this point
9 in my examination. The --
10 A. [No interpretation]
11 Q. The difference in altitude between the firing point and the
12 target point is also relevant; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, for an unguided projectile, that is to say a projectile
15 without a guidance system based on laser or GPS technology, even minor
16 differences in the direction in which it is pointed or in the force
17 imparted on the projectile will have a quite significant difference in
18 where it lands. Do you agree with that?
19 A. No, that depends on the projectile. The artillery projectiles
20 are much less sensitive to all the parameters that you just listed,
21 whereas the rocket-assisted projectiles are more sensitive simply because
22 of the nature and characteristics of their flight. The deviations are
23 never great if the errors are not great. If the errors are minor then
24 the deviation is also minor. If the error is great, then the deviation
25 is greater which is only logical.
1 Q. Certainly if you're firing a rocket-assisted projectile, based on
2 what you said, you would need to have precise firing tables in order to
3 fire it with any degree of accuracy. Do you agree with that?
4 A. Yes, and it is true for any projectile which is used in
5 artillery, whether it's rocket artillery or classic artillery. Without
6 firing tables, it's impossible to hit a target.
7 Q. Now, if we could just turn to your report which is D3540,
8 page 198 in your version and page 215 in the English version, we see a
9 FAB-100 free-fall air bomb. Now, just two simple points here. Obviously
10 an air bomb is designed to be dropped from the air and tested to be
11 dropped from the air and to fall on its target at a near-vertical angle.
12 Do you agree with that?
13 A. It is launched from aircraft from the air, and you can see if you
14 look at the second image to the right it has a parachute which opens
15 after launching which slows down its flight and so that the aircraft
16 could drop it from lower altitudes. And they land at a high angle
17 because that's what they're like.
18 Q. Right. And now what I'd like to show is page 199 -- it's
19 numbered page 199 in the B/C/S version and it is page 216 in the English
20 version. And that shows the kind of bomb that you've just been talking
21 about which is a retarded FAB-100. Can we see the picture of that?
22 JUDGE KWON: English page?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes. I mentioned the
24 parachute that -- as an element which is used for retarding during
1 MR. GAYNOR:
2 Q. Sorry, we can just deal with the English version. The image we
3 had was just fine. But basically we agree that the FAB-100 comes in both
4 retarded and unretarded varieties. One is a free-fall and one is a --
5 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. I'm sorry to interrupt.
6 MR. GAYNOR: Yes.
7 JUDGE KWON: Let's confirm that we have the same and correct
8 document. For me, I can't find page 216. And the English -- I think the
9 document in the e-court doesn't have it either.
10 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
11 JUDGE KWON: We don't have figure. What we have is correct, what
12 we have on the --
13 MR. GAYNOR: The photograph on the left is, in fact, the
14 free-fall air bomb that I was discussing.
15 JUDGE KWON: The right --
16 MR. GAYNOR: The photograph of the bomb is the bomb that we have
17 been discussing.
18 JUDGE KWON: That's in B/C/S page.
19 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, this appears on page -- paginated as page 215
20 in the English version that I'm -- that I have and this is the modified
21 air bombs report of the witness --
22 JUDGE KWON: I beg your pardon. Could you direct the Registry to
23 upload that page.
24 [Prosecution counsel confer]
25 MR. GAYNOR: Apologies, it's page 210 in the e-court version.
1 I've been working off the paper version. Apologies. Now --
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
3 MR. GAYNOR:
4 Q. The -- well, what we see on the right of the screen in front of
5 you is a FAB-250 retarded -- if you look at the television screen in
6 front of you is a FAB-250 retarded system.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. The purpose of this discussion is simply to clarify both the --
9 JUDGE KWON: I'm sorry.
10 MR. GAYNOR: Yes.
11 JUDGE KWON: Left is about FAB-100 and right is FAB-250.
12 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. Left is the FAB-100 free-fall version and
13 right is the FAB-250 retarded bomb version.
14 JUDGE KWON: So left page appears on what page?
15 MR. GAYNOR: Well, in the English version, the page in the actual
16 hard copy is page 215.
17 JUDGE KWON: Let's upload English 215 in English version. I
18 don't think we have that. This is page 215 what we have.
19 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honours, it's paginated as page 215 the hard
20 copy version that I have, which I believe I brought from e-court.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I have 215 which is consistent with this.
22 MR. GAYNOR: Right.
23 JUDGE KWON: But Judge Baird's version is -- seems to be
24 identical to yours. So there's confusion.
25 JUDGE BAIRD: What I have at page 216, the heading is FAB-100,
1 not 250, FAB-100, M80, HE, and it begins like this:
2 "FAB-250 M79 HE bomb is designed for safe and effective
3 bombing ..."
4 So the heading is misleading.
5 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, absolutely, Your Honours. And I hadn't noticed
6 that particular point. The other point is whether we have, in fact, the
7 correct -- whether the hard version that His Honour Judge Baird and I are
8 using is the same as the e-court version. So I'll look into that. This
9 is certainly what we have been working off based on what the Defence has
10 provided us.
11 Q. But we can continue our discussion, I think, Ms. Subotic. We
12 agree at the very least that both the FAB-100 and the FAB-250 come in
13 free-fall version on the one hand and in a retarded version on the other;
14 is that right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, the purpose of the retarded version, as you've described, is
17 for the safety of the crew in the aircraft so that the aircraft is out of
18 the danger zone before the detonation takes place?
19 A. Yes, the safety of the aircraft crew, yes, correct. In order to
20 give the pilot enough time to fly away from -- or rather, it's the
21 security of the crew when it's launched from a low altitude so that they
22 could get away from the area that is affected by the blast.
23 Q. Elsewhere in your reports you've referred to the existence of a
24 FAB-275 modified aircraft system; correct?
25 A. No. FAB-275 was a development stage of the air bombs with liquid
1 charge and in that stage there was a number of models --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the number of
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the ground we did not find any
5 traces of such explosions and they were destroyed at the end of the war,
6 not even then but quite recently, 58 of the models which, as far as I
7 know, were produced. I did not have the opportunity to see the results
8 and I did not write in my report that there were such modified air
9 bombs -- modified if we are talking about the rocket-assisted bombs. I
10 suppose that that's what you meant in your question?
11 MR. GAYNOR:
12 Q. No, we'll get to those in a minute. For the moment with the air
13 bombs we've been discussing, clarify with a very brief answer, we agree
14 they were unguided; correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. We agree that the free-fall and retarded varieties had different
17 mass; correct?
18 A. 117 -- I don't have the data about the retardation bombs,
19 considering its mass, but I don't think that there needs to be some
20 special difference in mass. The additional mass is just in the
21 retardation mechanism, and apart from that it's an identical bomb. And
22 in these 100-odd kilogrammes, the difference would be rather negligible.
23 I mean, the manufacturer did not provide the data about the difference in
25 Q. Perhaps you can look at this over the weekend, but in the
1 appendix of your report it's quite clear that for the FAB-250 retarded
2 bomb its weight without the parachute system and fuses is
3 259.5 kilogrammes, and in the FAB-250 free-fall variety its weight
4 without the fuses, because obviously there's no parachute system, is 240
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, we can also agree that both the retarded and free-fall
8 versions came in different lengths; correct?
9 A. Correct, yes, you're right.
10 Q. Now, are you agreeing with my assertion about the lengths? They
11 came in different lengths, right, free-fall and retarded?
12 A. Yes, certainly. They may vary in length.
13 Q. Now, we agree that the retarder system would have been designed
14 and tested, we can agree probably extremely well tested, for an
15 air-to-surface delivery only; correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. My point being --
18 A. If you mean the product we are looking at now, I mean these bombs
19 which are meant to be launched from aircraft which we're looking at now
20 in this appendix, they were tested in view of the conditions under which
21 they would be used.
22 Q. That is to say they were designed and tested for air-to-surface
23 delivery, not for surface-to-surface delivery; correct?
24 A. That's correct. However, their design, if you look at them, does
25 not deviate much from the design of a mortar shell because the design of
1 a projectile is dictated primarily by the aerodynamic conditions under
2 which such a projectile is to be used, that is to say the velocities with
3 which it is moving so that this would be adapted to the conditions of
4 minimum resistance during flight. This is the typical appearance of a
5 subsonic projectile.
6 Q. Well, just taking one -- only one factor of difference between an
7 air bomb and a mortar is that the propelling force for an air bomb is
8 gravity and the propelling force for a mortar are the charges on the
9 mortar. Do you agree with that?
10 A. The difference is certainly evident, but the force of launching
11 is not just -- the propelling force is not just gravity because the
12 velocity is increased because of the flight of the aircraft. That's one
13 thing. And also the propelling force does not affect the factors of
14 flight, but rather the velocity. And the design is produced precisely by
15 taking into account the speed of flight or the velocity of flight and
16 it's obvious here that it is a subsonic projectile. For the conditions
17 of the flight it does not matter what -- the propelling force is
18 communicated, but what it -- its exact value is.
19 Q. We'll move now to the characteristics of rockets. Now, I believe
20 it's common ground that the air bombs were attached to different numbers
21 of rockets depending on the configurations, and you have accepted that
22 the air bombs were attached to rockets in configurations of one rocket,
23 three rockets, and four rockets; is that right?
24 A. Yes, I analysed those types.
25 Q. And you've accepted that at least the Grad 120-millimetre rocket
1 was used with these air bombs; correct?
2 A. Yes, the rocket engines which were used for the rocket artillery
3 of the Grad systems were most often and almost always used in the
4 incidents which we analysed.
5 Q. Now, I should correct my question. What we're actually talking
6 about is the Grad 122-millimetre rocket; correct? I erroneously said
8 A. Correct, 122.
9 Q. Now, I'm going to go through a couple of uncontroversial
10 assertions. Again, if you can keep your answers brief, please. The
11 Grad 122-millimetre rocket has no guidance system; correct?
12 A. Yes, that is correct.
13 Q. It is designed to be fired from a tube or a barrel; correct?
14 A. It's designed to be launched from a barrel, the multi-barrel
15 rocket-launcher. It can be fired as one or as a salvo.
16 Q. Now --
17 A. When I say it's designed as such I mean that the entire rocket is
18 designed as such, not just the rocket engine.
19 Q. The -- when you say it's designed to be fired singly or in a
20 salvo you accept that it's certainly not designed to be fired in a
21 simultaneous fashion; correct?
22 A. It has this possibility if it's needed, but it's not -- look, let
23 me repeat again. The design depends on the conditions of the flight and
24 not on the manner of launching.
25 Q. I'd like to --
1 A. If you imply under the design the appearance of the rocket
2 because aerodynamically we would imply that under design the appearance
3 and its aerodynamic and dynamic configuration in relation with the
4 tactical technical requirements.
5 Q. Could I ask the Registrar, please, for 65 ter 25082, please.
6 What's coming up on the screen in a moment is an extract from the
7 report that you co-authored with Mr. Poparic which concerns
8 inconsistencies which you believe to exist in the evidence of Mr. Zecevic
9 and Mr. Higgs. And when it comes up, we could look at the third page,
10 please. One language is all that's necessary. We could use the English.
11 A. [In English] I'm sorry.
12 Q. It will be on the screen in front of you in a minute.
13 A. [Interpretation] Excuse me, but I find it easier to look at my
14 own document. Please tell me -- aha.
15 Q. It's page 64 in your version, Ms. Subotic. What we have on the
16 screen in front of us, I think, is the top a Croatian multiple-barrel
17 rocket-launcher and at the bottom a Czech multiple-barrel
18 rocket-launcher. Both are designed and tested to fire 122-millimetre
19 rockets; is that right?
20 A. Yes, that's right.
21 Q. Now, this system if you were to fire off ten rockets
22 simultaneously, there is an extremely high danger that two or more of the
23 rockets might collide in mid-flight; correct?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Do you accept that these multiple-barrel rocket-launchers
1 typically fire rockets in a salvo where there is a very short duration of
2 time between the exit of each of the rockets from the rocket-launcher?
3 Do you accept that?
4 A. You see, when we're talking about a salvo, it is fired
5 simultaneously, and what you asked me previously is simply impossible.
6 Because each rocket that is launched after the first one cannot catch up
7 with it, aerodynamically there is no such possibility. That's why they
8 cannot collide in mid-flight.
9 Q. The very reason why these rocket-launchers are designed to fire
10 in a salvo is to ensure that there is a distance between each rocket in
11 the air. Do you accept that?
12 A. No. The reason for launching salvos is actually to secure
13 simultaneous covering of a much wider area which is targeted, because
14 this is a fire support weapon. Like a howitzer, it's a weapon with which
15 you fire over the heads of your troops during a war and you target a wide
16 area at which the enemy is situated with his equipment or troops. And
17 actually, the goal of launching a salvo is to cover a wide expanse of
18 space which cannot be secured by single projectiles fired by the
20 Q. Okay. Let's start with some basics here. My idea of a salvo is
21 not a simultaneous exit of rockets, but a consecutive exit of rockets
22 from a multiple-barrel launcher system. When I say "consecutive," I mean
23 you may fire off a relatively large number within two or three seconds.
24 Do you accept that?
25 A. It's practically simultaneous launching.
1 Q. That's exactly the point, it's not exactly simultaneous, but it
2 takes place within a very short period of time. Isn't that right?
3 A. Well, it's the tolerant field of this piece of equipment so no
4 one hits one after another, but it is set --
5 Q. Is it your evidence --
6 A. -- on construction because the piece of equipment is constructed
7 for this sort of action.
8 Q. Now, is it your expert evidence that multiple-barrel
9 rocket-launchers are designed to fire all of the rockets in the system at
10 exactly the same moment, that is to say with complete synchronicity; is
11 that your evidence?
12 A. If the salvo consists of -- but look, the salvo can launch one
13 row after another or everything simultaneously. That's a matter of
14 choice. So they do not have to be launched at one single moment to a
15 second, but it can be one row after another.
16 Q. Let me put it this way: Are you -- have you ever seen or have --
17 physically or have you ever seen test data for any kind of device
18 designed to ensure the precisely synchronous firing of rockets.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Could the Prosecutor please come closer to the
20 microphone when speaking. Thank you.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean the launching system, the
22 ignition system? I've seen the entire system and I produced tables for
23 the entire system for both Orkan and Organ as I've already stated.
24 However, that special ignition device or launch device, I did not have to
25 test it because that was not within the scope of my professional
2 MR. GAYNOR:
3 Q. Right. Well, I'm going to put this to you that rockets are not
4 designed to be fired simultaneously. They're designed to be fired in a
5 salvo, which is to say consecutively, albeit with extremely short
6 durations of time between the exit of each rocket from the MBRL?
7 A. Well, we're discussing this all this time. This is what I told
8 you to start with, didn't I?
9 Q. So you'll agree with that assertion?
10 A. That's what I already said at the beginning.
11 Q. Thank you. Now if we can move on, please, to the first page of
12 the document which is on the screen in front of us, this is a page taken
13 from the same report and it appears for your benefit, Ms. Subotic -- it
14 appears just a few pages beforehand, it's page 62 in your version,
15 Ms. Subotic. Now, if we just look at table 1 - we can focus in on
16 table 1, please - you have set forth there the characteristics of four
17 kinds of modified air bomb systems that you concede did exist. And I
18 would like to draw your attention to a couple of aspects of it. First of
19 all, in the extreme left column under the title rocket specifications at
20 the fourth entry it says "warhead mass." Now, it's quite clear, isn't
21 it, that by "warhead," you mean the actual air bomb itself; isn't that
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. Now, if we move down to propulsion number of motors, it's only
25 fair to say that there is, in fact, a typo there. If we go across to the
1 fourth entry where it says 4 GRAD under the column which is headed
2 RFAB-250-3, what you probably meant there was 3 GRAD. Isn't that right?
3 A. Can you repeat the column number? Is it column 3, please?
4 Q. [Overlapping speakers] ... go to the column on the extreme right
5 which is the column for the FAB-250 with three rockets --
6 A. Yes, I'm with you.
7 Q. Now, under the propulsion number of motors you have 4 GRAD.
8 Obviously what you meant was 3, wasn't it? I think it's just a typo.
9 A. Third column from left to right, is that what you mean?
10 JUDGE KWON: I'm not sure if you are looking at the same
11 document. Could you look at the monitor.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, I am actually looking at
13 the same document.
14 JUDGE KWON: If you -- if we could put the cursor on the 4 GRAD
15 Mr. Gaynor is referring to. Do you recognise the cursor on the monitor,
16 Ms. Subotic?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 JUDGE KWON: Whether that 4 GRAD should read "3 GRAD."
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see, yes, yes, of course. You
20 are right. I was looking at a wrong line indicating the mass. So yes,
21 the number is wrong. It should be 3 GRAD, yes.
22 MR. GAYNOR:
23 Q. Can I --
24 A. And I thank you for the correction. It is, indeed, a typo. I
25 was looking at the mass. There was no inconsistency there so I didn't
1 really follow you.
2 Q. Now if you --
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript. On line 1 it doesn't
4 say that it is a typo.
5 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Let's continue.
6 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Q. Now, just look at the line which has the total impulsive force --
8 or total impulse in Newtons, I believe. Do you see it?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And do you accept that the total impulsive force is obviously
11 different if it's propelled by one rocket, three rockets, or four
13 A. Of course, yes. That's why the number of rockets is increased.
14 Q. And you accept that given that we're dealing with rockets of
15 different numbers and air bombs of different weights, that the total mass
16 of each modified air bomb in each of these four varieties is different.
17 Do you accept that? You can do the addition if you want.
18 A. Yes, of course. Neither you nor I know whether we were dealing
19 with bombs of different masses or whether they were all the same. So
20 that part is something that we cannot take into account as something
21 exact. That's our entry assumption or starting assumption. When it
22 comes to different total masses, as a result of changes in the number of
23 rockets, of course that's correct because each rocket has its own mass.
24 Q. Now, given that we agree that there was a different combination
25 of mass and propulsive force for each of these four varieties of modified
1 air bombs, can we also agree that the ballistic properties for each of
2 these four varieties is different?
3 A. For all these four varieties, three engines, one engine, four
4 engines or FAB with three or four engines, yes, the ballistic
5 characteristics of those projectiles, i.e., these rockets are different
6 which means that each of the projectiles in different columns equipped
7 with the number of rockets that is stated in the table results in the
8 different ballistic characteristics of each and every such projectile. I
9 agree with you on that, and that's what I've already stated.
10 Q. And can we agree that your table does not, in fact, get into the
11 difference between free-fall FAB-100 and retarded FAB-100, nor does it
12 address the difference between free-fall FAB-250 and retarded FAB-250.
13 Do you agree with that?
14 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel kindly get closer to the
16 MR. GAYNOR: My apologies.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Will you allow me to consult my
18 previous expertise? --
19 MR. GAYNOR:
20 Q. I --
21 A. Before I answer -- before I answer your question, do you know
22 what this is all about? This is the stabilisation of a projectile.
23 We're talking about intervention on a projectile when it was modified,
24 i.e., the fuse was taken out from the back and rocket engines were
25 mounted instead with their own stabilisers. Therefore, we don't have any
1 proof that that was indeed done. That's why I wanted to see what we
2 found in the incidents and what those stabilisers and remains looked
4 Q. Ms. Subotic, we'll get to the process of attaching the rockets to
5 the bombs in a few minutes. Right now I think we can agree that this
6 table here makes no mention of retarder systems; correct? There's no
7 mention of a parachute, any effect of a parachute on the ballistic
8 characteristics of the projectile; correct?
9 A. The parachute system is not mentioned for a simple reason, that
10 system would have to be eliminated for such a table. That's why it is
11 not mentioned. It is not that the system exists or doesn't exist. It
12 doesn't exist, that's why it's not mentioned.
13 Q. No problem, but we do agree that the presence or absence of a
14 parachute on a modified air bomb or on an unmodified air bomb certainly
15 has an enormous effect on where that bomb is going to land; correct?
16 A. You know, in technical sciences, we insist on figures. So when
17 you say "enormous," I don't know what that implies, what size or
18 dimension or length. So could you please be more specific and can we
19 please use understandable dimensions. Only in that case will I be able
20 to agree with you or not. Normal [as interpreted] is when the projectile
21 falls in the centre of its expected trajectory. We consider that as
22 being normal.
23 Q. Let me just put one example to you and we'll move on because
24 we're pressed for time. In your report you have taken a base-line figure
25 of 6.000 metres for the distance of the trajectory travelled by modified
1 air bombs; correct?
2 A. We --
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript, please. This may have
4 an impact on the further course of discussion. On line 25 the doctor
5 didn't say "normal" but "enormous." When it falls at half the
6 trajectory. So she didn't use the word "normal" but "enormous," and she
7 said what would be an "enormous" size or parameter.
8 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, I think the accused is aware that the
9 transcript does undergo revision each and every day of trial. I think we
10 can afford to continue. Yes. By "revision," I mean revision after the
11 court day is over.
12 Q. Ms. Subotic --
13 A. I just wanted to answer your question with regard to the
14 6.000 metres. You wanted to ask me something with this regard and then
15 we were interrupted. You said that in my report I took 6.000 metres as
16 the distance travelled by a projectile before reaching the place of an
17 incident. I have to say the following: Yes, we did, and that refers to
18 the assessment of precision and the assessment of the deviation from the
19 possible target place. Why is that? There was no situation in which we
20 had an opportunity, technical opportunity, to exactly determine the place
21 of launch. That's why we took into account an average range or distance
22 as our bench-mark for analysis. That's what we did and I hope that this
23 is how you understood it.
24 Q. Yes, indeed. And for the benefit of the record that appears at
25 paragraph 151 of your report. Now, just very quickly on the parachute
1 issue. If this chute --
2 A. My report.
3 Q. No need to look at it right now. If the chute were to deploy at
4 3.000 metres in one instance and if it were to deploy at 5.000 metres in
5 a second instance, do you accept that the landing point in the first
6 instance would be quite considerable distance away from the landing point
7 in the second example?
8 A. I'm afraid I did not understand the interpretation. Did you ask
9 me the following, please, bear with me. If the target or the targeted
10 distance was 6.000 metres, then you believe that there would be one
11 deviation from the landing point, probable deviation. And when it is
12 3.000 metres, the deviation point is different and that those deviations
13 would differ. Is that what you asked me?
14 Q. No, we'll get to your calculation of deviations later. I'm
15 simply saying that if the retarder system were to deploy in one example
16 after 3.000 metres and in the second example at 5.000 metres, obviously,
17 I suggest, the landing location in each of those two examples of the
18 projectile would be entirely different?
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I ask, I really don't
20 understand. Are we talking about bombs launched from surface with
21 retarding -- retarder mechanisms? Because this --
22 JUDGE KWON: Why don't you leave it to Ms. Subotic. If she
23 doesn't understand, she will ask for clarification.
24 Let's continue.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is exactly what I wanted to
1 ask you. Are we talking about air bombs launched from aircraft and the
2 deployment of retarder systems or something else? I didn't understand.
3 You are -- you have mentioned retarder systems; right?
4 MR. GAYNOR:
5 Q. I'll put this to you one final time because I'm pressed for time.
6 If you were to deploy, fire, launch modified air bomb with a retarder
7 system in it and if the retarder system, which is to say a small
8 parachute, were to open after 3.000 metres, that projectile would land
9 somewhere. In the second example you take a similar model, the parachute
10 opens not after 3.000 metres but after 5.000 metres, it would land in
11 location B. Surely you accept that the distance between location A and
12 location B would be quite different?
13 A. You know what? This is such a hypothetical situation. I don't
14 see any technical justification for it. On the one side we have
15 equipment that should carry it as far as possible and then we deploy
16 retarder systems at our own discretion. This is such a hypothetical
17 question that it's impossible to answer. It's an impossible situation.
18 I don't see the purpose of somebody attaching three rockets to a bomb in
19 order to propel it as far as possible following the norms of dynamics,
20 and then they will deploy a parachute that will retard it, that will make
21 it deviate in an unknown direction. This is not the kind of research
22 that we do. We do the research that we discussed when we started talking
23 and that's for air-to-surface delivery. That's when we use those
24 retarder systems. In any case, in none of the incidents did we find
25 anything like that.
1 Q. Now, I'd like to turn to an appendix to your report and it
2 appears on what is on the hard copy version page 221 in English, and on
3 the hard copy version in B/C/S it is page 205. And it shows a thrust
4 diagram for the Grad 122-millimetre rocket motor.
5 A. I apologise. Paragraph number?
6 Q. In your version, Ms. Subotic, it's page 205.
7 A. All right, yes.
8 Q. Now -- we have it now. If we could turn it on its side. I
9 think -- that's excellent. If we could get the English up as well. This
10 shows the consumption, really, of the propellant within the rocket;
12 A. Yes --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to speak
15 JUDGE KWON: Doctor, Ms. Subotic, could you repeat and speak
16 slowly. And I have to note this is English page 212.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In attachment to my expertise there
18 is a thrust diagram for the Grad 122-millimetre rocket engine and it was
19 obtained on the testing table. This was a result of static research, not
20 dynamic research. There is a certain difference in the function of this
21 thrust in dynamic conditions as opposed to static research. But this is
22 correct enough for our purpose for designing firing tables, which is why
23 we do not test such assets under dynamic conditions.
24 MR. GAYNOR:
25 Q. And it's right, isn't it, the propulsive force in a Grad rocket
1 is provided by propellant in that rocket and the propellant is used up in
2 about 1.8 seconds; correct? That's what this graph tells us.
3 A. Yes, 1.8, yes, that's correct, that's correct.
4 Q. Now, I'm going to move in a moment - and we can keep this on the
5 screen for a moment - to the process of attaching rockets to the air
6 bomb. Now, in a minute we're going to see a diagram of an air bomb to
7 which are attached four rockets. Now, would you agree with the
8 proposition that it is absolutely vitally important to ensure the
9 accuracy of that system that each of the four rockets should be ignited
10 at exactly the same moment?
11 A. Yes, of course.
12 Q. Because let's say one of the rockets were to ignite 0.4 of a
13 second after the other three, it would still be burning 0.4 of a second
14 after the other three had stopped burning; isn't that right?
15 A. Yes, that's right.
16 Q. That would obviously have a huge effect on the stability of the
17 projectile, sending it off in an unknown -- possibly a huge squiggly
18 trajectory through the sky?
19 A. Of course not. First of all, it wouldn't be unstable. It would
20 just receive another additional impulse that would increase dispersion.
21 Stability is not determined by the rocket thrust because that would be
22 disturbance. Lunas rocket were distinguished. So it is not provided by
23 the work of the rocket engines. The stability of the engines of this
24 kind slightly rotating projectiles is determined based, or rather, as the
25 type of statically stable projectiles, we have statically stable
1 projectiles and dynamically stable projectiles. This is a statically
2 stable projectile which by the position of the resulting thrust force
3 with regard to the centre of mass is what determines its stability. The
4 stability is not jeopardised with this. There is just one thing that
5 remains and that is an impulse that impacts dispersion but not in the
6 sky, that's for sure, if that is what you said. I don't -- the
7 interpreter translated your words as a projectile swaying through the sky
8 and I'm just returning your words back to you. I suppose that this is
9 what you said.
10 Q. I want to put it to you that after -- with 0.4 seconds left in
11 the fuel tank, if you like, the impulsive force being driven on the
12 modified air bomb system by that one rocket that is still going is by
13 your own graph 25.000 Newtons decreasing down to 0. Do you accept that?
14 A. Yes, that is indeed the case.
15 Q. And you're suggesting that with one engine firing on 25.000
16 Newtons and the other three engines silent and quiet, that that would not
17 have much of an effect on the trajectory of that projectile?
18 A. As I have already told you, it would have an impact on the
19 increase in dispersion, but you omitted a fact that you have already
20 repeated several times. That projectile is easily managed with just one
21 rocket engine because we're talking about a projectile with four rocket
22 engines and it weighs about 250 kilogrammes. Just one -- if only one
23 rocket engine could guide it to go where we want, we would not fix four
24 to it. First and foremost, it's impulse that has its impact on the
25 dispersion, but it cannot do what you mentioned in your question. It
1 cannot have exceptionally unexpected effects or deviations or -- I don't
2 know how else to put it. In any case, it does have an effect, but not as
3 significant as it seems to you.
4 Let me assure you, if one rocket engine sufficed, we would not
5 attach four to it. I mean us -- I don't mean that I ever attached a
6 rocket engine to a projectile. I mean us as a profession. We wouldn't
7 advise that to be done.
8 Q. Right. Well, let's go on to the attachment of one rocket to an
9 air bomb system. Could I call up, please, video P5982. And if we could
10 play the video from the beginning until 35 seconds, please.
11 [Video-clip played]
12 MR. GAYNOR: We can stop, please.
13 Q. Now, first of all, let me just note for the record that
14 Your Honours have already seen this video and you did ask for some
15 information as to where the Prosecution got it from. I have that
16 information for you now. The video was provided to the ICTY
17 Berko Zecevic when he was an expert witness in the case against
18 Dragomir Milosevic. And according to Mr. Zecevic at this part of the
19 video there is a 1 minute, 30 second clip showing the 21st sabotage unit
20 of the VRS using a modified air bomb launcher during the military
21 operation Grude 77, date unknown.
22 Now, Ms. Subotic, can we agree that this appears to show the
23 attachment of a single rocket to an air bomb?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And what we're looking at on the frame which is visible in front
1 of you at the moment is a launch system which was used to launch the
2 modified air bomb using a rail delivery system as opposed to, for
3 example, a barrel delivery system. Do you agree with that?
4 A. Do you mean the rails from which the rockets are launched?
5 Q. Yes. You accept that what's in front of us is --
6 A. Yes, that's the three-rail construction, and it's rail launch.
7 The rockets have their own tails that dovetail the rails as you see them,
8 and in this position they are in a stable orientation in the direction of
9 their launch. So this isn't something that would be in a free fall.
10 Q. You saw in your -- in that video soldiers who appeared to be
11 screwing the rocket from which the warhead had presumably been removed
12 into the base of the air bomb; correct?
13 A. These are rocket engines and they are produced the way they are.
14 The warheads have not been taken off them. The rocket engines are
15 manufactured especially in the way they appear here. It's a specific --
16 it's a separate product, you see, there's no need to take it off.
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What has been left out is that the
19 witness said that they are perfectly centred in -- as they are positioned
20 on these rails and what is meant is the tails of the rockets.
21 MR. GAYNOR:
22 Q. Yes. That brings us to a very important point. It's extremely
23 important not only that the screw thread at the top of the rocket should
24 match the screw thread at the bottom of the air bomb but also that it
25 should be precisely in the centre of the air bomb. Do you agree with
2 A. I do agree with you that it is necessarily so that they have to
3 be at the centre. We saw it on the case involving three engines that
4 there was a band which was there to make sure that it is at the centre,
5 and here yes there is some sort of a screw-on system. And the coaxiality
6 between the rocket force and the projectile itself is very important.
7 Q. And can we agree that the ultimate location of the rocket after
8 it is fired and it has struck the ground at the other end will depend of
9 course on the angle of elevation of the rails and the direction in which
10 the rails are pointing?
11 A. Yes. The position of the rails must be set according to the
12 parameters of the flight that are necessary for the desired range and
13 direction. This is the artillery system, you know. This is what is
14 inherent to artillery systems, of course.
15 Q. You will agree that the longer the rails, the further the bomb
16 will travel as a general proposition?
17 A. No. The bomb will fly further depending on the rocket propulsion
18 it has within. That's the range, and of course --
19 Q. [Overlapping speakers]
20 A. -- it is from the conditions of -- it is the stable launching
21 that will determine it and not the range.
22 Q. All other things being equal, do you agree that the length of the
23 rails has an effect on the distance travelled by the projectile which is
24 launched from those rails?
25 A. No, it has nothing to do with it. Absolutely nothing, believe
2 Q. So your evidence is that if I were to launch a modified air bomb
3 from a launch system with a rail of 4 metres long, it would land at
4 precisely the same point as if I were to launch the modified air bomb
5 from a rail system which was 25 metres long? Is that your evidence?
6 A. Yes, that is my evidence. However, there is a small departure
7 from it. When we -- there would be a deviation in terms of what is the
8 classic dispersion, and I did say a moment ago that the length of the
9 rails will have an impact on the precision because the launch will be
10 stable, as I said. So, for instance, you could have 25 metres-long rails
11 and this would have no bearing on the range if on that bomb you had the
12 same rocket engine. So in other words, the length of the rails does not
13 have an influence on the range.
14 Q. But --
15 A. Except on the dispersion of the initial impulses.
16 Q. Well, it looks like we've reached agreement that the length of
17 the rails will have an impact on the precision?
18 A. Yes, on the precision, but this has no bearing on the range
19 whatsoever. It is on this basis that the length of the -- length and
20 width of the rail is defined, on the basis that it has no bearing on the
22 Q. Well, if your position is that the range -- the distance
23 travelled by the projectile and the precision of the projectile are
24 totally separate concepts - I'll let you stay with that position?
25 MR. GAYNOR: Perhaps I can ask the Registrar to bring up
1 65 ter 24355, please. We're going to be looking at a couple of
2 photographs here. For the record, these are photographs taken by ICTY
3 investigator Todd Cleaver on the 19th of April, 1996, in Vogosca in
4 Bosnia and Herzegovina.
5 JUDGE KWON: As to your explanation about the previous video, I
6 didn't follow your explanation, in that Mr. Zecevic provided this to the
7 ICTY. Does it mean he filmed this?
8 MR. GAYNOR: No. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. I
9 believe this video is independently available on the internet. The
10 original part of this is from a documentary entitled "Komsije 2,"
11 produced by Pavle Vranjican and Ivica Pandza, Orkan, in Zagreb on a date
12 unknown. It contains footage of many different events, including events
13 relating to the Krajina Serbs, Serb forces in Croatia, actions by what
14 are described as the Mujahedin in Bosnia, and events relating to
15 Operation Storm.
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
17 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Q. Now, the picture in front --
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I have the floor for a brief
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My apologies.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Subotic.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My apologies. I don't know how
24 much time we have left, if we have a lot of time left can I have just a
25 five-minute break. How long will the session last? I don't mind, it's
1 just that I need a five-minute break.
2 JUDGE KWON: We're going to adjourn very soon but --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In that case, it's all right.
4 JUDGE KWON: I have one thing to raise in private session in your
5 absence. Probably you could be excused for five minutes.
6 Just a second.
7 [The witness stands down]
8 JUDGE KWON: Could the Chamber move into private session.
9 [Private session]
11 Page 38501 redacted. Private session.
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours.
4 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. Am I to understand that this
5 is part of the documents that have been redacted from the report?
6 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. Mr. Robinson's absolutely right about that.
7 These couple of pages did fall within a part of a report that
8 Your Honours have ordered the redaction of. Now, I would submit that
9 they do identify some areas where the Prosecution and Defence do have
10 common grounds, that these four different kinds of modified air bombs at
11 the very least did exist and also has a couple of helpful pictures about
12 multiple-barrel rocket-launchers. So we're quite happy to submit -- I
13 think it's just four pages for Your Honours for that reason.
14 JUDGE KWON: Witness can be brought in.
15 MR. ROBINSON: Yes --
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Robinson.
17 MR. ROBINSON: We don't mind admitting the document, but we want
18 to keep open the option of tendering additional pages from the redacted
19 material during Mr. Poparic's testimony because whether or not there is
20 other material that would be relevant to these pages that have now been
21 referred to, we can look at that when we -- if and when it's necessary.
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 JUDGE KWON: Shall we leave it for the moment.
24 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you.
25 Mr. President, as you've helpfully reminded me, I did mean to
1 tender -- yes, that -- excuse me. I'll move on.
2 Q. The photograph --
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I?
4 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, I was going to ask you about --
5 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
6 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In line 1, page 107, what is
8 recorded is quite the opposite. The witness said that the rails are
9 designed in such a way so as not to have impact on precision and not
10 range, and I would really object to the playing of a video which has
11 nothing to do with my army.
12 MR. GAYNOR: If I may respond. Purpose of the video was to raise
13 a discussion about the importance of attaching a rocket to an air bomb
14 and the effect of various characteristics of the launch system and the
15 importance of precision in all those aspects. So I would suggest even if
16 other armies around the world had been using modified air bombs, it
17 wouldn't make a great deal of difference.
18 JUDGE KWON: The video was already in evidence. But for the
19 transcript, do you confirm what Mr. Karadzic pointed out?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what I said. It does
21 not have any effect on range, but rather on precision.
22 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. By now, albeit symbolically, as you
23 have put it, extended our sitting by 15 minutes. But I'm now wondering
24 whether there's a point of further extension and whether there's -- we
25 should extend next week's sitting at all. Where are we and where do we
2 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President, I don't think it's necessary
3 to extend the sittings. We're still taking steps to see if one witness
4 from next week might be rescheduled, but in any event I think we can
5 proceed with the normal schedule.
6 JUDGE KWON: Who will be the first witness next week Tuesday.
7 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. Uscumlic.
8 JUDGE KWON: So Ms. Subotic's evidence will be interposed by him?
9 MR. ROBINSON: That's correct.
10 JUDGE KWON: Given the circumstances, do you have more questions
11 or should we adjourn for the week?
12 MR. GAYNOR: I'm quite happy to break at this stage, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE KWON: Very well. We'll do that.
14 Next week we'll resume on Tuesday at 9.00. The hearing is
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.50 p.m.,
17 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 21st day of
18 May, 2013, at 9.00 a.m.