1 Tuesday, 21 May 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
7 Would the witness -- would the witness make the solemn
8 declaration, please.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
10 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Uscumlic. Please take a seat and
12 make yourself comfortable.
13 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
14 WITNESS: PETAR USCUMLIC
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Uscumlic, do you hear me in your language?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can hear interpretation.
18 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
19 Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please proceed.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Excellencies. Good
21 morning to everyone.
22 Examination by Mr. Karadzic:
23 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Uscumlic.
24 A. Good morning.
25 Q. I am waiting for the interpretation, and I do kindly ask you to
1 wait for the transcript to stop.
2 A. I understand.
3 Q. Did you give a statement to the Defence team?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we call up in e-court 1D07911.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Is this the statement you gave and signed?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you. Does the statement accurately reflect your words?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Thank you. If I were to put the same questions to you today,
13 would your answers essentially be the same?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the statement be admitted into
17 evidence, please?
18 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nicholls.
19 MR. NICHOLLS: Good morning, Your Honours. No objection.
20 JUDGE KWON: We'll receive it.
21 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3552, Your Honours.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Since the statement
23 itself is concise, I will not be reading the summary. Rather, I will be
24 reading the statement, and I will then put several additional questions
25 arising from the proofing that we had. I will read it out in English,
1 because that's the only version there is.
2 [In English] Witness Statement of Petar Uscumlic.
3 JUDGE KWON: I'm not sure whether there's a point of reading
4 entire statement instead of giving a summary. Why don't you then lead
5 the evidence?
6 Yes, Mr. Robinson.
7 MR. ROBINSON: The point is so that the public can be informed of
8 his -- of his evidence.
9 JUDGE KWON: But it should be given in the form of a summary on
10 the part of the accused. Reading out "I was born on the 18th," I don't
11 see the point.
12 Mr. Nicholls.
13 MR. NICHOLLS: Your Honours, if I just may say, I agree, and if
14 you look at the 92 per package which they filed, they do have a short
15 summary of the statement already written in that. It's only a couple
16 sentences and I don't know why that doesn't suffice.
17 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, with your permission, perhaps I can
18 make a short summary. Dr. Karadzic doesn't have that document in front
19 of him, but if it's okay with you, I could just make a short summary of
20 the witness's testimony.
21 JUDGE KWON: I have no difficulty with it, Mr. Robinson.
22 MR. ROBINSON: Petar Uscumlic was working in July of 1995 as an
23 external interpreter for the United Nations military observers stationed
24 in Srebrenica, and he attended the meetings at the Hotel Fontana among
25 General Mladic, the Dutch Battalion, and civilian representatives of the
1 Muslims from Srebrenica and interpreted for the Dutch Battalion.
2 Mr. Uscumlic was advised of testimony of Momir Nikolic concerning
3 a conversation that allegedly occurred outside of the Fontana Hotel prior
4 to the meeting on the morning of the 12th of July, 1995, and Mr. Uscumlic
5 has indicated that he never heard anyone indicate that the men from
6 Srebrenica were to be killed and had no knowledge that the prisoners
7 would be killed.
8 And that concludes the summary.
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Robinson.
10 Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Mr. Uscumlic, when was it that you were in Potocari in those
14 critical days?
15 A. I think that I was in Potocari since the 10th, and then the 11th,
16 the 12th, and the 13th as well. I think that I was in Potocari on all
17 these days, at least for a period of time.
18 Q. Thank you. In what occasions and with whom did you spend time?
19 In whose company were you?
20 A. There were several occasions there. There were several messages
21 that I had to take to the Yellow Bridge along the separation line in
22 Potocari. When meetings were scheduled, I think that I came to the
23 Yellow Bridge, the separation line, to receive the civilian
24 representatives, and I then went to the meeting in Bratunac together with
1 Q. Thank you.
2 A. I -- when the evacuation started, I was also there in front of
3 the gate of the DutchBat compound on the 12th and the 13th. So there
4 were several different situations.
5 Q. Thank you. In whose service for the most part? Pursuant to
6 whose task were you present there on those days?
7 A. I was there at the disposal of everyone who needed
8 interpretation. If the Serb side asked for a message to be taken across
9 or for a conversation to be interpreted, I did as much. If the Dutch,
10 and I mean the Dutch Battalion, wanted to divulge some information, at
11 any rate, I was there to take messages across, and I was there for anyone
12 who wanted to use my services. Formally speaking, I was employed by the
13 UNMO, the military observers team of the United Nations which was also
14 present there in the DutchBat Compound.
15 Q. Thank you. During these times that you spent in Potocari, did
16 you observe any sort of mistreatment meted out by anyone?
17 A. Do you mean during the evacuation of the civilian population?
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. I did not personally witness any major incident or any physical
20 tussle, any threats, any weapons being drawn or anything like that. The
21 situation was pretty chaotic, but the evacuation itself seemed to be
22 taking its course. There were representatives of different units of the
23 VRS present, and they directed the population toward the buses.
24 Everything seemed to be unfolding without any use of [Realtime transcript
25 read in error "usual"] violence or at least none that I would witness.
1 Q. Thank you. Did you observe the separation of the able-bodied
2 persons from the other civilians?
3 A. Yes. Yes, I did.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In line 21, it says any "usual
5 violence." I think the witness said "any use of violence."
6 MR. NICHOLLS: I'm going to object now and put Mr. Karadzic on
7 notice to leading. He said, "Did you observe the separation of
8 able-bodied persons from other civilians?" He can just ask what did he
9 observe, did he see any separations, and then who was separated.
10 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Yes, Mr. Uscumlic.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think I said "usual
12 violence" in Serbian. I don't know how it ended up in the
14 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. It's noted.
15 Before Mr. Karadzic continues, could you tell us from when you
16 worked as an interpreter?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From March 1994.
18 JUDGE KWON: Where?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was situated in the -- or
20 accommodated in the Hotel Fontana in Bratunac, and the representatives of
21 the DutchBat or UNMOs would normally come to the Yellow Bridge or to
22 Bratunac itself, and we would proceed from there. We would either do a
23 meeting or would travel to Belgrade, to the airport, depending on what
24 needed to be done.
25 As for the enclave, of course, I could not stay within the
1 enclave at the time. At -- however, there was this one occasion when I
2 was even driven through Srebrenica in 1994. It was right at the
3 beginning of my service there as an interpreter. On that occasion, I had
4 an opportunity to see what the enclave looked like within, although
5 normally I did not enter the enclave. I was an external interpreter for
6 the contacts with the Serbian side.
7 JUDGE KWON: External interpreter. By external interpreter, did
8 you mean that you were not hired or employed by either UNMO or DutchBat
9 on a permanent basis?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I mean physically external,
11 because I was outside of the enclave. [In English] So that makes me --
12 JUDGE KWON: So to speak --
13 THE WITNESS: That makes me external.
14 JUDGE KWON: You were a freelance interpreter.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My contract was no different from
16 that of other interpreters. I was employed under the same conditions as
17 they were, the only difference being that I wasn't able to be within the
18 enclave at the time. So I was outside. That was the difference.
19 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. And who -- thank you. And who interpreted for them within the
22 enclave? Were there any interpreters there?
23 A. Well, the UNMO team had two interpreters in the enclave, and the
24 Dutch men had their own interpreters. I don't know how many and how they
25 used them.
1 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us, based on what you were able to see
2 on the 12th and the 13th of July in Potocari, including the separation of
3 the able-bodied, did you observe any signs? Did anything alert you to
4 the fact that any of them would be killed? Were the actions taken there
5 at the time alarming, in your view?
6 A. The general situation was not your usual one, something that you
7 would witness or experience every day. The situation could have
8 developed into anything, really, but I didn't see at the time any signs
9 that this would have a fateful ending for the people who were being
10 separated. I could not have drawn such a pessimistic conclusion.
11 Q. Thank you, Mr. Uscumlic.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no further questions for
13 this witness at the time.
14 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Mr. Uscumlic, as you have noted, your
15 evidence in chief has been admitted in most part in written form, i.e.,
16 through your witness statement, and now you'll be cross-examined by the
17 representative of the Office of the Prosecutor.
18 Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
19 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you, Your Honours. I actually initially had
20 no questions for this witness, but based on the proofing note last
21 afternoon, I will have a few.
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Nicholls:
23 Q. Sir, you just answered some questions, and we'll get to it in a
24 minute, that you had no inkling that something bad would happen to these
25 men who were separated, but something bad happened, didn't it? They were
1 removed and murdered, and you know that; correct? As you sit here today,
2 you know that; right?
3 A. Yes. I realise that it happened at the end. I just said that on
4 that day, at that point in time, I could not make a conclusive inference
5 that this would happen. I didn't have the indications of that sort.
6 Today, at this time, of course, I'm aware that it happened.
7 Q. Thank you. I only have a few questions. First of all, do you
8 remember you were interviewed by the Office of the Prosecutor, by
9 Mr. Jean-Rene Ruez, in July 2000?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And he thanked you at the end of that interview for coming and
12 speaking with him?
13 A. Yes. I think that he did.
14 Q. And you told the truth during that interview, didn't you, to the
15 best of your ability?
16 A. Yes, to the best of my knowledge.
17 Q. Okay. And let me just say if you -- with the leave of the
18 Chamber, of course, but if you prefer to speak English, which may feel
19 more natural to you based on your current situation, I don't think that's
20 a problem.
21 Now, on the 12th of July, you've already said you were in
22 Potocari. That was after the third Hotel Fontana meeting; right?
23 A. Yes, that's right.
24 Q. And one thing you talk about in your interview, which is 65 ter
25 25074, and I'm now talking about pages 35 and 36 in e-court, is that when
1 you got to Potocari and you saw the people there -- excuse me, this is on
2 page 34, you said you were stunned by the number of civilians. It was a
3 lake of people. That's true, isn't it?
4 A. Yes. There were very many people, that's true.
5 Q. Now, at this time, General Mladic - you talk about this on
6 page 35 - addressed the crowd, the lake of people, and in your words he
7 said -- you said: "He promised them that they would be safe."
8 A. Generally. Yes. That was something along these lines that he
9 said in front of these people.
10 Q. Okay. And that's at e-court page 36, actually. And he said that
11 they would be transported on buses, and this is when you say -- you
12 described some of the people you saw. That's on e-court page 36. You
13 said the following describing the women you saw getting ready to go on
14 the buses --
15 JUDGE KWON: Could Mr. Nicholls speak closer to the microphone,
17 MR. NICHOLLS:
18 Q. "They all looked very miserable. They looked very poor, even the
19 young women. They were teethless. They probably gave birth and during
20 the pregnancy they didn't have enough vitamins and minerals. That was a
21 sad sight. They looked miserable. But when the chain would let them go,
22 a certain number that was -- that was sufficient for that convoy, that
23 was basically the process."
24 Were you telling the truth there when you talked about those
25 miserable, sad, young women getting on the buses?
1 A. Yes. I think that the description accurately reflects my words
2 to Mr. Ruez. As I said, in the course of 1994, I had the rare
3 opportunity of entering the enclave and passing through the town and see
4 the conditions people were living in, so that the 12th of July was not
5 the beginning of their suffering. They had gone through an ordeal and a
6 great deal of suffering through their very presence in the enclave. And
7 had they had an opportunity to leave the enclave and go elsewhere where
8 they would have better living conditions, they would have done so
9 earlier. So the 12th of July was basically the finale of a drama that
10 they had been experiencing over the course of several years, and the
11 several years an impact on these people.
12 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat the last sentence,
14 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Uscumlic, could you repeat the last sentence.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that the several years of
16 stay within the enclave had an impact on these people, the women there,
17 and it seems that the impact was a significant one.
18 MR. NICHOLLS:
19 Q. Thank you, sir.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I -- "visible" is not the same
21 as "significant."
22 THE WITNESS: I would rather say "obvious."
23 THE ACCUSED: Obvious or not subtle.
24 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you.
25 Q. Now -- and you also describe, this is again at page -- now at 37
1 of your statement, immediately following on, you said:
2 "On several occasions I saw that some men were preventing," I
3 think you meant prevented, "on boarding buses and they were directed to
4 some other directions in a couple of nearby houses and they were kept
6 And that's true as well. You said that on your direct. You saw
7 men being prevented from boarding the buses and being put in a couple of
9 A. Yes, that's correct. It happened -- or it was happening across
10 from the gate of the DutchBat compound. So I'm probably not the only the
11 witness who speak about it here. That's correct.
12 Q. And that's correct that you're not only witness, sir. Thank you.
13 Now, just moving on to the next day, the 13th of July, and you
14 talk about this on e-court page 45 of your statement, and I just want to
15 confirm this, you say:
16 "The next morning everything repeated. I also went to Potocari,
17 and they already had one convoy that was formed," et cetera. "So the
18 story repeated the next day with, of course, I have to notice that some
19 adult men were separated and kept in two neighbouring houses. Later on
20 that day, I saw a bus, I think parked there, and I think the bus picked
21 them up and took them away."
22 And when you describe there when you saw on the 13th to Mr. Ruez,
23 that's true as well, isn't it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Thank you. Now I just want to talk about these men a little bit.
1 Mr. Karadzic was very careful, even over my objection, to again describe
2 them as able-bodied, and certainly some of them likely were, but I want
3 to show you what you said about some of these men that you saw. This is
4 on page 46. You're talking about a row of houses near the power
5 substation, and you said:
6 "I remember one house. There were some old people there,"
7 talking about the men separated, "I really didn't know at that time why
8 anybody would bother with them there. They looked very old. They didn't
9 look dangerous at all."
10 That description that you gave is also truthful, isn't?
11 A. Yes. That description is a description of the people that I saw
12 in that house at that time. They were really elderly people, but there
13 would have been people of a different age too.
14 Q. And just to be clear, we're talking about people in this house.
15 These are men who were separated, not allowed to board buses; right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And let me just talk about how you describe the separations.
18 This is on your -- page 47, when you were asked about the situation and
19 how these were taking place. You said:
20 "A couple I noticed," and here you were talking about VRS
21 soldiers, "that they were rude, saying some bad words, but that was all
22 in front of the gate. We could have expected something like that, but
23 nobody harassed anybody physically. Nobody assaulted anybody in front of
24 my eyes except this separation. But this was also done in a quiet way
25 without raising too much noise."
1 So at that time, at least, when you had your interview in 2000,
2 five years after these events, you said you didn't see any assaults
3 except for the separations; right? You viewed those as a kind of
5 A. Well, I think that I repeated that statement when Mr. Karadzic
6 was examining me, so I don't see a difference really. There was no
7 physical violence. People were directed where they should go, to which
8 buses, and that was that.
9 Q. Now, I want to move on and talk about what happened after
10 General Mladic said to the lake of people that they would be safe. This
11 is at e-court pages 50 to 51. You knew members of the Nuhanovic family
12 and Hasan Nuhanovic; correct?
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. And you describe in your statement being in the compound after
15 the meetings and how the Nuhanovic family was, in your words, very
16 frightened because Hasan's brother wasn't going to be allowed out in a
17 convoy. Do you remember the family being frightened about their fate?
18 A. Yes, I remember. That's correct.
19 Q. And you said in your statement:
20 "I was trying to comfort them because I just couldn't imagine
21 that people who were registered on the lists of ICRC and UNHCR and
22 UNPROFOR, that something bad might happen to them."
23 Do you remember saying that in your interview? You thought
24 they'd be okay because they were on lists.
25 A. Yes, I remember.
1 Q. But it turned out that for Ibro Nuhanovic and his son, they
2 weren't okay, were they, once they left the compound and were separated?
3 You talk about that in your statement too. Let me remind you what you
5 A. [In English] Yes, please.
6 Q. You said -- you said at page 51, talking about Ibro Nuhanovic and
7 his son:
8 "Later it turned out that these people just disappeared. They
9 showed up nowhere for exchange, for anything. I kept -- later I kept
10 buying newspapers to see if any exchange was made for some Serbs who were
11 held. Nothing was going on."
12 And that's true, isn't it?
13 A. [Interpretation] Yes. Those are my words from my statement.
14 That's correct.
15 Q. The Nuhanovics disappeared. They were murdered.
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. NICHOLLS: No further questions at this time.
18 JUDGE KWON: Do you have any re-examination, Mr. Karadzic?
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very briefly.
20 Re-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Uscumlic, on page 13 you said that there
22 were also people of other ages. Did you mean the people in the -- in
23 nearby houses as well when Mr. Nicholls asked you?
24 A. I didn't go about these houses much. Basically I only saw the
25 one facing the main street. So I cannot say if there were any other
1 people. I think it was being said that there were a number of houses in
2 a row, but I only saw the one closest to the main street at that time.
3 When I say that there were other adults but of other ages, I meant -- I
4 was speaking generally, referring also to the civilians in the DutchBat
5 compound, but also the ones in the Srebrenica Prevoz compound. That was
6 immediately next to the DutchBat compound. I wasn't referring to houses
7 specifically, because I didn't go there much, and I wasn't paying much
9 Q. Thank you. And the last question of Mr. Nicholls, in line 9, he
10 said that the Nuhanovics disappeared, and then they were murdered, and
11 you answered yes. Do you have any direct knowledge about that or is that
12 your conclusion?
13 A. No, of course, I don't have direct knowledge about that, but
14 that's a logical conclusion.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Uscumlic. No more
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.
18 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nicholls, when this witness was interviewed by
19 Mr. Ruez, was he asked about the words that Popovic [Realtime transcript
20 read in error "Poparic"] allegedly had made?
21 MR. NICHOLLS: No, Your Honour, but we didn't have any of that
22 information, I believe, at the time in 2000. I don't believe we reached
23 the stage of the investigation where that could have been asked, if I put
24 it that way.
25 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
1 MR. NICHOLLS: And I'll just note for the record, since you bring
2 it up, that when Mr. Nikolic testified, he wasn't asked a single question
3 about that by the Defence which should have been done under 90(H).
4 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. That -- unless my colleagues have a
5 question for you, that concludes your evidence, Mr. Uscumlic. On behalf
6 of the Chamber, I'd like to thank you for your coming to The Hague to
7 give it. Now you are free to go.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 [The witness withdrew]
10 JUDGE KWON: We'll continue with Ms. Subotic's evidence.
11 At line 13 on previous page, "Poparic" should read "Popovic."
12 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President, while the witness comes in, could I
13 ask the Registrar to bring up photograph number 65 ter 24355, which I
14 believe was on the screen when we broke last week.
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 WITNESS: ZORICA SUBOTIC [Resumed]
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 JUDGE KWON: Good morning.
19 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
20 [Interpretation] Just a moment, please.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Please continue, Mr. Gaynor.
22 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Cross-examination by Mr. Gaynor: [Continued]
24 Q. Ms. Subotic, when we broke last week, we were in the process of
25 looking at the photograph on the screen in front of you. Would you agree
1 that this appears to show four rocket motors which appear to be attached
2 in a manner which suggests that it was supposed to be attached to an
3 air-bomb, and of course, there is a box of matches which has been put
4 there, presumably, to show the scale of the photograph.
5 A. Yes, I agree with you. This may have been attached to an
7 Q. Now, you said in your earlier evidence at page 38497 that the
8 coaxiality between the rocket force and the projectile itself is very
9 important. Moving on from that assertion, it's correct, isn't it, that
10 for this modified air-bomb to be accurate, it's vital that each rocket is
11 connected in a manner that it is exactly parallel to each other rocket
12 and also that it is exactly parallel to the air-bomb?
13 A. You mean the longitudinal axis of the air-bomb.
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. Yes, yes.
16 MR. GAYNOR: Could I tender that photograph, Mr. President?
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We'll receive it.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6326, Your Honours.
19 MR. GAYNOR:
20 Q. Now, would you agree that any of the modified air-bombs discussed
21 in your report, including the rocket-assisted portions of those modified
22 air-bombs, as well as the launch systems for the modified air-bombs, all
23 of those would have to be manufactured under tightly controlled factory
24 conditions and thoroughly tested before being approved for use?
25 A. Yes, I agree.
1 Q. Would you also agree that to fire any of those modified air-bombs
2 with accuracy you would need detailed firing tables? Those firing tables
3 would have to take into account factors such as the mass and propulsive
4 force used for each kind of modified air-bomb, as well as other effects
5 including crosswind, air temperature, air pressure, and other relevant
7 A. Yes. A few days ago I said in this courtroom that such results
8 couldn't have been obtained without firing tables, and any firing table
9 includes what you have listed.
10 Q. And did the Defence team provide to you any copies of
11 contemporaneous firing tables for any of the modified air-bombs' systems
12 that you discuss in your report?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did the Defence provide you with any test data for the modified
15 air-bombs themselves or for the launch systems for the modified
17 A. Yes, there were some documents about launchers or air-bombs to be
18 sent for testing.
19 Q. Well, I've read your report --
20 A. But it wasn't important to us.
21 Q. I've read your reports very carefully, and you haven't referred
22 to any contemporaneous test data for the modified air-bombs that you
24 You've worked at the Military Technical Institute in Belgrade for
25 35 years; correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And that is the preeminent testing ground, or it was in the
3 pre-war period, for the entire Yugoslav weapons industry. Isn't that
5 A. No. We were in research and development, and we also dealt with
6 auxiliary development until a device was licensed for use in the armed
7 forces. However, testing was done elsewhere.
8 Q. And indeed in your evidence in chief, you referred --
9 A. The technical operative centre, and it was -- and the persons
10 involved were Poparic and Andjelkovic.
11 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Line 24, "However, testing was done
13 elsewhere," but the witness stated very accurately where it was done, but
14 it was not recorded. Oh, I can see there is something on the following
15 page. I'd kindly like Mr. Gaynor to elicit a complete answer from the
16 witness about the place where testing was done, both the name of the
17 institution and the place.
18 MR. GAYNOR: Well, yes, I can approach it from a different route.
19 Q. Mrs. Subotic, you said in your evidence in chief that you tested
20 some of the assets to design firing tables. That was at page 38232, and
21 you know that assets were tested in Nikinci. Did you participate in the
22 testing of modified air-bombs, or have you seen any test data for the
23 testing of modified air-bombs anywhere, whether in Serbia or Bosnia?
24 A. Now, first of all, in the examination-in-chief I said I took part
25 in the testing of many assets, which is true, but the main purpose of my
1 institution, that is where I worked, was not really testing. We tested
2 in order to verify our project or designs, but the technical testing
3 centre was the main institution in charge of that. But I personally
4 never tested a modified air-bomb. I saw documents, though, stating -- I
5 mean documents from this trial, but these documents were not interesting
6 to me for my report, and according to these documents, launchers were
7 sent to be tested. Of course, I cannot quote from these documents, but
8 the Defence team may be able to provide them. I think they were sent to
9 the overhaul centre of Kragujevac, to the repair centre of Kragujevac,
10 and it follows that a launcher and the bombs themselves were tested. I
11 only saw documents to that effect, but I personally didn't test them.
12 Q. Mrs. Subotic, given the importance of test data in the context of
13 your report where you are asserting that these modified air-bombs were
14 accurate weapons, it is extremely surprising, is it not, that you did not
15 refer to that test data in your report?
16 A. Well, you see, in this report it was not necessary to cite that
17 data, because it was not required for this purpose. We did some tests on
18 the ground, and these can be considered experiments. And from that
19 aspect, an analysis was carried out about accuracy. And one product,
20 specifically a modified air-bomb, met the technical conditions for rocket
21 artillery. If you look at the firing tables of Orkan or Oganj and so on,
22 they all match what we established on the ground. So it was -- the
23 analysis was carried out from this point of view and not as you described
25 Q. Could I ask --
1 A. That is from the point of view of the impact at target.
2 MR. GAYNOR: Could I ask the Registrar, please, for D3540,
3 page 66 in English and page 64 in B/C/S.
4 Q. What's coming up now is your air-bombs report. You turn to
5 page 64 in your version, Ms. Subotic, to footnote 118. I'll just read it
6 out. That footnote reads in part:
7 "Aerodynamic coefficients were calculated and confirmed by
8 experiment when firing tables were being made for the aircraft bomb, and
9 thrust parameters of the rocket motor were taken from the test station
10 during testing."
11 That is the end of that quote.
12 Now, it's correct, isn't it, Ms. Subotic, that what you did is
13 that you took test results for an air-bomb when it is used as an
14 air-bomb, and you combined those with test results for a rocket when it
15 is used as a rocket, and you attempted to fuse those results together to
16 try to figure out how a modified air-bomb, which is aerodynamically
17 totally different to an air-bomb or a rocket, you attempted to fuse those
18 results together to provide results which you are presenting as reliable
19 results. Isn't that what you did?
20 A. No. You must understand, first of all, that an aerodynamic
21 definition of any projectile, including the ball of yours, is obtained by
22 testing in an aerodynamic tunnel. That is, we design it, make a model,
23 and put it into an aerodynamic tunnel and test it in a -- under certain
24 wind speeds. And the way a projectile flies is defined by the shape,
25 which does not change, and by the -- by the wind speed, which also is not
1 changed. A launching of a projectile from the ground is -- does not
2 differ in that sense, so there are no aerodynamic differences. When I
3 say experimentally, I mean that. When I speak about the motor, then the
4 motor is tested the way it's always tested, that is, at the testing
6 Q. Mrs. Subotic -- Mrs. Subotic --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the last part
8 of her answer.
9 MR. GAYNOR:
10 Q. Could you --
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I kindly ask for something to be
12 done about the transcript. Could Mrs. Subotic please speak more slowly,
13 and the transcript should also be reviewed and amended, because it is a
15 JUDGE KWON: Could you speak more slowly. Yes. Let's continue.
16 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Q. Finally on this point, it's correct, isn't it, Mrs. Subotic, that
18 nowhere in the many hundreds of footnotes your report and in the report
19 that you coauthored with Mr. Poparic do you refer to the existence of
20 contemporaneous, that is to say, from 1994, 1995, firing tables for the
21 modified air-bomb system, nor do you rely on the test data for the
22 modified air-bomb system when used as a modified air-bomb, nor do you
23 rely on contemporaneous test data for any launch system for the modified
24 air-bomb systems that you describe in your report?
25 A. That's correct. However, I did tell you during that first week
1 when we met at the Tribunal that the method which was used for these
2 analyses was accurate within the margin of up to 3 per cent, and this has
3 been verified. We always produced -- produce firing tables in advance,
4 before any testing takes place, and the differences that emerge during
5 these tests do not exceed several percentage units. This could not have
6 been done better, because simply we did not have the firing tables that
7 must have existed. They must have existed clearly based on the situation
8 on the ground. This was worked out in detail. The mathematical model
9 that was used was one that was used for decades with various
10 modifications and changes, and its range of accuracy or margin of error
11 again is 3 per cent. And I did say that we fitted all the aerodynamic
12 characteristics that came out as a result of the tunnel testing and the
13 gaseous effects of the engine as a result of the testing which is
14 normally done when one produces the firing table. So the experiments
15 that were done served to confirm our own calculations.
16 Q. Mrs. --
17 A. Even though we found the documents that the air-bombs and the
18 launch system were sent out for testing, we did not find among the
19 material provided to us from the court any documents that would show the
20 test -- test results, the results of these very tests. And of course you
21 will understand that we cannot use something that we do not have.
22 Q. Mrs. Subotic, in your evidence in chief at page 38206, you
24 "According to the calculations and the tables for one projectile
25 propelled by rockets FAB-100, 1VD, so one probable table deviation is
1 102 metres ..."
2 You're claiming that a FAB-100 modified air-bomb has a deviation
3 of 102 metres. Now, is that its deviation laterally or longitudinally?
4 This was in your oral evidence, not in your report. It doesn't appear in
5 your report.
6 A. No. This is radial deviation. We worked with radial deviation
7 in this instance precisely so as not to end up in a situation where we
8 would not accurately determine the direction or the trajectory. So we
9 would be proceeding on an erroneous basis. That's why we used the
10 so-called radial deviation. And in the table, which deals with this
11 dispersion, the FAB-100 has 43 metres in length, 98 in longitudinal
12 direction, and the 100 that you quote is in fact radial deviation. So
13 this would be the trigonometric mean. The Pythagorus theorem would
14 actually -- this would actually relate --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Can the witness please repeat slowly what she
16 just said about the Pythagorus theorem.
17 MR. GAYNOR:
18 Q. Could you repeat from after the Pythagorus theorem, please,
19 Mrs. Subotic.
20 A. The radial deviation that we used in your analysis in order to
21 increase the accuracy of what we are dealing with since we don't know
22 exactly the trajectory, we applied radial deviations, and this is done in
23 such a way that you would have a square root of the deviations and the
24 square root of such a diagram would actually yield 50 per cent --
25 per cent probability of -- of those kits.
1 Q. Mrs. Subotic --
2 A. And this is what we call probable radial deviation.
3 Q. Mrs. Subotic, I put it to you that you really didn't have any
4 idea whatsoever how accurate the modified air-bomb system, any of the
5 four that you described in your report, was, because you had no access to
6 reliable test data, possibly because that test data didn't exist, and you
7 did not have any access whatsoever to firing tables, possibly because
8 proper firing tables didn't exist either, and you are not in a position
9 to give this Court the assertion that some kind of radial deviation of
10 102 metres existed.
11 JUDGE BAIRD: Mr. Gaynor, I apprehend that you're putting your
12 case to the witness, are you?
13 MR. GAYNOR: That's correct, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE BAIRD: Now, is it possible that you could dismantle it
15 just a bit --
16 MR. GAYNOR: Yes.
17 JUDGE BAIRD: -- so that we can have it in bits that she could
18 answer as we go along.
19 MR. GAYNOR: Right. Very well.
20 JUDGE BAIRD: Thank you very much.
21 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. I will cut my question down, Mrs. Subotic. I'm putting it to you
23 that you did not have access to contemporaneous test data or
24 contemporaneous firing tables. Isn't that right?
25 A. In order to make such an analysis, I do not need the tables.
1 That's under one. If you allow me to say this, I have been producing the
2 tables for the past 35 years, and I'm not in a position where I need to
3 read other people's firing tables in order to analyse it, something that
4 happened in reality and where I have information from the ground. That's
5 under number one.
6 Number two, you are making assertions that fall into my
7 profession, and you will concede that I do know a bit more about it, a
8 bit more, so I can assess the accuracy of my findings, and I can stand by
9 them. If you or the Trial Chamber were in agreement, I would indeed be
10 happy to make such an experiment. We -- this is something that could be
11 done. We can organise testing, and then we can test both your assertion
12 and mine.
13 In this same expert report that you have in front of you, among
14 those listed there is a product that my country offered for sale, which
15 is very similar to the asset that we are talking about here. There are
16 firing tables for that particular product of ours which do not differ at
17 all from what I calculated. What is offered as a warhead element with
18 it, is somewhat different from what was used during the war, but I can
19 match these firing tables, and we can double-check them and put this
20 discussion to an end at last.
21 So you'll allow that if I say that something was done as per an
22 experiment that has been done in the same way for the past 50 years, and
23 when I say that the measurements were taken in an aero tunnel, and when I
24 say that these forces were measured on the table, then you can conclude
25 that they are completely valid and accurate as measurements. What we are
1 discussing in terms of accuracy, and of course it was necessary to test
2 the asset in summertime conditions, we are talking about the technical
3 details of the launching process itself of possibly some other specific
5 Q. Mrs. Subotic, could I ask you to keep your, subject to the
6 direction of the Trial Chamber, answers concise and to the point. I'm
7 going to put to you a couple of questions. I'd be grateful if you could
8 answer with a yes or no. Have you received any formal military training
9 in target selection?
10 A. I don't understand the question.
11 Q. The question --
12 A. In target selection? Military training?
13 Q. Yes. I'll repeat my question. Have you received, from the JNA
14 or any other army, any formal training in the art or science of target
16 A. I have not had any such training. In the institution where I
17 worked, the person responsible for all the sort of training and who has
18 undergone all these trainings will be the one who will issue me with
19 requests for testing or anything else that needs to be done which I will
20 then do.
21 Q. Did the Defence provide to you any target lists created by the
23 A. I don't understand the question. When you talk of targets, my
24 understanding of it is that it is some sort of an aim, an objective.
25 Q. Mrs. -- Mrs. Subotic?
1 A. I don't understand.
2 Q. I'll explain. In your report, for example at paragraph 158, you
3 say that the Aleksa Santic primary school was the most likely target for
4 the G10 incident. At paragraph 159, you say that the Zica factory was
5 the most likely target for the G11 incident. In paragraph 161 you say
6 that the BH TV building was the most likely target for the G13 incident.
7 At paragraph 163 you say that the Bitumenka factory was the most likely
8 target for the G15 incident.
9 My question is: Did the Defence provide you with any VRS
10 documents suggesting that those were the targets intended in each of
11 those incidents?
12 A. Now I understand your question. No. The Defence did not provide
13 me anything of the sort. But you have to understand that each one of
14 these targets was defined on the basis of the external ballistic
15 parameters and the parameters of my professions. Each and every of these
16 targets was along the line of fire in the area which was ballistically
17 defined, and it was on this basis that they were determined, on the basis
18 of the flight trajectory which always went across such target or was near
19 such a target. And it was based on the dispersion pattern of the
20 projectile and based on the parameters of my profession of ballistics
21 that this was defined. It had nothing to do with the military doctrine
22 or anything like that. In a word, what was said in the paragraphs that
23 you cited was defined on the basis of my training and on the basis of the
24 parameters of the projectile, the launching system, the point of launch,
25 and the point of impact.
1 MR. GAYNOR: Could I ask the Registrar to bring up page 188 of
2 this document in English. It's page 181 in B/C/S.
3 Q. That's the version you have in front of you, of course,
4 Mrs. Subotic. This is a table. In the second column from the left,
5 column number 2, you state: "Most probable target," and you've just
6 given us a helpful indication of how you found out what that target was.
7 Now, I am going to put an assertion to you, Mrs. Subotic, and
8 that is that you have, in fact, engaged in a process of seeing where the
9 projectile landed and trying to figure out what kind of military target
10 was in the vicinity of the impact point. Isn't that right? Or along the
11 trajectory of the projectile.
12 A. You see, in order to make an analysis of precision to begin with,
13 in my line of work one has to know where this is located in relation to
14 the target. In each and every one of these cases involving projectiles,
15 I didn't look for particular features, but all of them were either on the
16 incoming trajectory or close to the incoming trajectory of the
17 projectile. I didn't go looking for them. They were there in the
18 vicinity, and it -- it was in all of these 15 or 16 cases. It wasn't an
19 isolated case, and it wasn't the case of me finding a building that was
20 conveniently close. In order to make an analysis or precision, we cannot
21 look at the image of Sarajevo and say, well, there were some 15 or 16 or
22 how many projectiles that landed, and let's see what the dispersion
23 pattern was, without knowing what the target was. This is impossible in
24 my line of work, and it would mean nothing to me, to you, or to this
1 Q. I'd like --
2 A. So every time in the immediate vicinity along the incoming
3 trajectory of these projectiles there was a target which, as you noted,
4 we, or I, if you will, designated as the most likely.
5 Q. Thank you, Mrs. Subotic. We've going to move now to your report
6 about the Markale I incident and the Markale II incident. You can pull
7 that out if you wish, subject to the direction of the Trial Chamber.
8 Your report is D3551.
9 Now, in your report, in respect of the Markale I incident, you
10 state that you believe that this was "a well-planned, organised and
11 implemented act of sabotage." And I want to go through the stages of
12 that well-planned, organised and implemented act of sabotage.
13 MR. GAYNOR: Could I ask the Registrar, please, to bring up
14 page 80 in English and page 122 in B/C/S.
15 Q. Now, at the bottom of that page we see your statement which is in
16 bold. You state that:
17 "It is certain that on 5th of February, 1994, a mortar shell did
18 not land at the Markale market, but, rather, a mortar shell," and if we
19 can turn to the next page, please, "activated in static conditions
21 Elsewhere in your report you say, in the next paragraph, in fact,
22 that there was, in fact, another explosion at the moment when the
23 120-millimetre mortar shell exploded at the market.
24 A. I apologise. 120.
25 Q. Thank you. I believe that's what I said. Now, if we go to the
1 section marked "Static Explosion," it is headed with (d), I'd like to
2 take the Trial Chamber through three stages, which, if your theory is to
3 be accepted, must have taken place. The first is the placement of the
4 two mortars on a stand. If we see the first paragraph of the subsection
5 headed "Static Explosion," you say that mortar shells without stabilisers
6 were most likely placed on a stand support which ensured that the mortar
7 shell would have an angle of around 60 degrees relative to the horizon
8 angle of descent and an angle of around 57 degrees relative to a
9 direction, azimuth, ensuring an azimuth angle of 18 degrees.
10 Mrs. Subotic, could you clarify whether both of the mortars or
11 just one was set up on a stand in this way? Just clarify, two or one?
12 A. A mortar -- or, rather, the mortar projectile which was analysed
13 which had an azimuth of 18 degrees was placed at an angle of 60 degrees.
14 We don't know about the other one, though. Colleague Zecevic marked the
15 point of impact. We have splinter grooves in the area between
16 Marsala Tita and Dzenetica Cikma Street as indicated in the report, in
18 Q. Thank you. Now could you confirm for my understanding that for
19 your theory to be correct, the sabotage team would have had to carry out
20 measurements in advance of placing that mortar on the stand, those
21 measurements clearly calculated to make it look as if the mortar had come
22 from Bosnian Serb territory? Is that right?
23 A. I'm afraid the interpretation doesn't go the same way as your
24 words, because the mortar projectile is being confused with the mortars.
25 I'm not sure if you said that. Let me repeat what you said. You asked
1 me if I was of the view that a mortar projectile, according to my
2 analysis, was placed at an angle of 60 degrees on some sort of a stand in
3 order to leave such a pattern on the ground which would normally be there
4 had the projectile flown in under those conditions. Is that what you
5 wanted to ask me?
6 Q. No. We'll get to that point later. At the moment, is it right
7 that under your --
8 A. That was the interpretation of your question that I received, you
10 Q. I'll repeat my question. Under your theory, this highly
11 organised sabotage team must have carried out measurements prior to
12 placing the mortar on the stand, those measurements carefully calculated
13 to be consistent with the mortar having come from Bosnian Serb-held
14 territory; correct?
15 A. At any rate, there is mention again of a mortar, which I don't
16 see how it can be there in your question. At any rate, I will answer the
17 question. The person who was in charge of this incident must have done
18 good preparation, and I did say in my report that these preparations were
19 well organised. However, there were certain flaws in that preparation
20 which allowed us to come to the conclusion that this was not the way
21 things happened. Quite a few parameters were taken care of, and what was
22 done was a good attempt to leave an impression, but none of us really
23 addressed the issue of whether this could have happened in view of the
24 place where the projectile really landed and what it had to steer clear
25 of in its trajectory in order to land there. But, yes, the answer to
1 your question is that what was done there was done very well and even
2 very professionally.
3 Q. I'd like to move now to the detonation question. It's your
4 position, isn't it, that the two mortar bombs were detonated either using
5 a timer or a remote control device; correct?
6 A. [No interpretation]
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In the transcript what is missing
8 throughout is a highly professional person rather than very
9 professionally. [In English] Not very professionally, but person, highly
11 JUDGE KWON: I don't see much difference. Let's continue. I
12 think the witness answered yes to your question.
13 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Subotic, do you confirm that?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. It was certainly a
16 professional who did that.
17 MR. GAYNOR:
18 Q. Mrs. Subotic, you agreed earlier in your oral evidence to a
19 question -- in response to a question from Judge Morrison --
20 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. It's not reflected. Could you
21 repeat your previous question.
22 MR. GAYNOR:
23 Q. Do you mean the question that I've just asked, Mr. President?
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes. The witness answered to the different -- when
25 asked whether it's your position that the two mortar bombs were detonated
1 either using a timer or a remote control device, your answer was yes;
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please continue.
5 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Q. In response to a question from Judge Morrison - this appears at
7 page 38389 - you agreed that unless the secondary device which must have
8 been attached to each of the mortar bombs was vapourized in the
9 explosion, you would expect to find physical evidence of that secondary
10 device at the scene; correct?
11 A. That's correct. In principle, it should have been found.
12 However, you are the witness, we're all witnesses that not even the
13 entire pieces of rocket engines were found. A point of explosion is not
14 where you can find every single fragment. In the document that we just
15 saw, we saw that in every other incident there was the number of engines
16 that is in dispute, and those would have been huge pieces that should
17 have been found on the spot. So the answer is yes. However, it is also
18 logical that they wouldn't be found because they would be very tiny. And
19 as we all know, a point of explosion is a place where pieces fly all over
20 the place.
21 Q. Now, you accept, just say yes or no to this, that there is no
22 evidence in what you've inspected to suggest that physical remains of a
23 timer or a remote control secondary device was found at the scene;
25 A. Yes, but I was not the one who examined the points of explosion.
1 It was the CSB who did that. I was not the one. It was the CSB. What
2 they found was the only piece of information that I had.
3 Q. Mrs. --
4 A. And if they didn't find things, I can't tell you that those
5 things never existed.
6 Q. I'd now like to move to the second stage, which is on the next
7 page in B/C/S, and this page in English. This is the post-detonation
8 stage, and it says there that:
9 "After the explosions of the mortar shells, organised activities
10 started to create an impression of the horrible disaster. A BH TV crew
11 is very quickly at this scene and at the Kosevo Hospital."
12 You go on to say that:
13 "Horrible scenes of casualties are recorded, but the point of the
14 impact of the projectile is not shown until UNPROFOR representatives show
15 up at the scene one hour after the explosion. On that occasion, already
16 dead persons are brought to the market, and they are dragged through the
17 market leaving a strong impression on everyone who watches these scenes.
18 Certain persons are assigned to bring body parts in front of the
19 cameras," and so on.
20 Now, I'd like to ask you a few questions which flow from this
21 stage of your theory. First of all, after the two bombs exploded in the
22 market-place, that twin detonation must have killed a lot of people;
24 A. Of course. That must have been the case.
25 Q. So it's your evidence that there must have been bodies in the
1 market-place of those who were killed in that twin detonation, and then
2 very quickly more bodies were brought into the market-place and scattered
3 or placed around the bodies of those who had just been killed; is that
5 A. Well, you see, those who had just been killed were removed within
6 five -- 15 minutes, in a rapid action that ensued and that was described
7 in detail in the findings. I don't want to repeat it. Those who were
8 injured were taken away. I'm talking about a different thing here. I'm
9 talking about certain things that in my view -- in my view were used to
10 increase the horrendity of the scene, because when we watch the films
11 carefully we saw that some scenes were repeated, that some people were
12 moved, that there was no blood under them, that one and the same person
13 checked in all places whether somebody was injured or not, and then in
14 the later course of the film you could see that that person was not alive
15 at all, and he was carried along the market. If you watch those films in
16 detail, you will see all that, but that's what you will see, and that was
17 what was blown up for the media. Having said that, I'm not claiming that
18 there were no casualties. There must have been. All the individuals --
19 individual observations are provided. I don't see what else I could add
20 to that.
21 Q. Now, I want to ask you about the bodies which under your theory
22 were brought into the market-place. It follows, does it not, that there
23 must have been a pile of bodies dressed in civilian clothing stored very
24 close to the market place prior to the incident.
25 A. Well, there is a military lorry depicted in the film next to the
1 market-place, and that was moments after the explosion which you can
2 glean from other elements that were provided by the witnesses. People
3 were still running out of the market-place.
4 Second of all, it is stated that there were a series of illogical
5 things there that indicated that those activities did happen. There is a
6 lorry coming together with an ambulance. The door is open, and it comes
7 from the direction of Marsala Tita Street, and in there you can already
8 see a body. You can see that depicted in the film. We just pointed to
9 some of the facts, that everything depicted very well in the video-clip.
10 There is also a situation in which vehicles are moving in the direction
11 opposite to the direction of the traffic at the beginning of the
12 evacuation. The police themselves arrived at the very end of the
13 evacuation, and in the meantime there were a lot of people with badges
14 who were in charge of the evacuation, who organised the evacuation. That
15 evacuation was carried out through an adjacent street, and the only thing
16 that qualifies it is the vicinity of the place of the explosion.
17 Dzenetica Cikma is very close to the place of incident at the exit of the
18 market. There is a series of parameters indicating that the organisation
19 was what it was and what is given in the report.
20 Q. Now, in your report you --
21 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Gaynor --
22 MR. GAYNOR: Yes.
23 JUDGE KWON: -- I see the time.
24 MR. GAYNOR: Certainly, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Very well. We'll have a break for half
1 an hour and resume at 10 past 11.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 10.40 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 11.15 a.m.
4 JUDGE KWON: Please continue, Mr. Gaynor.
5 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Q. Mrs. Subotic, in a moment we will see the video in question, and
7 in that video there is a great deal of what appears to be blood. Is it
8 your position that that is real blood or fake blood? Is the blood in the
9 video real blood or fake blood?
10 A. I thought that you were going to show me the clip. That's why I
11 paused. Of course, everything, all the blood that you see in the
12 video-clip, in my view, is real blood.
13 Q. But several of the bodies were dragged and placed at the site
14 after the detonation; correct?
15 A. We stated in our report all of those places that we had observed
16 and that indicated that fact. We did not count those bodies. We just
17 mentioned the fact. We pointed to the phenomenon.
18 Q. Please identify the number of minutes which elapsed between
19 bringing the bodies from wherever they were stored prior to the incident
20 to Markale Market and then bringing those same bodies to Kosevo Hospital.
21 A. I do not understand your question. In any case, the whole
22 evacuation lasted not more than 20 minutes, between 15 and 20 minutes at
23 the most judging by the documents.
24 Q. It follows, does it not, that the bodies must have been taken
25 from wherever they were stored prior to the detonation, placed in the
1 market-place by what you've described as a well-organised sabotage team,
2 and then those same bodies were brought to Kosevo Hospital within those
3 20 minutes.
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Perhaps now we can go to the video. And I believe under your
6 theory, the BiH -- the television crew was part of the conspiracy; is
7 that right?
8 A. According to what is depicted in the video-clip, the TV crew was
9 already there on the spot.
10 MR. GAYNOR: I'd like now for the video to be played. This is
11 65 ter number 40622A. This is the version of the video which is, in
12 fact, cited by Mrs. Subotic in her report.
13 [Video-clip played]
14 MR. GAYNOR: Sorry, could I ask the technical booth to turn the
15 sound on to the maximum volume, please. If we could start the video
16 again, please.
17 [Video-clip played]
18 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
19 JUDGE KWON: The technical booth will take a look at it. We need
20 to wait.
21 MR. GAYNOR: Very well, Mr. President.
22 Q. Perhaps I just can take advantage of the pause to ask you one or
23 two questions about modified air-bombs, Mrs. Subotic. We're just going
24 to wait for the technical problems to be sorted out. Very often in your
25 oral evidence you referred to ricochets of modified air-bombs; correct?
1 A. Well, I don't know how often, but in any case, modified air-bombs
2 and their ricochets were mentioned at Aleksa Santic number 53 and on the
3 studio C roof the BiH Radio and Television building. In those two
4 incidents that indeed happened. I don't know if I mentioned that with
5 regard to Zecevic's findings. I suppose I did, yes.
6 Q. Now, is it correct that modified air-bombs tend to ricochet
7 because the fuse on the nose of the air-bomb is designed and tested for a
8 near vertical impact?
9 A. First and foremost, ricochet is a consequence of the shape of the
10 warhead and its front part. A fuse is an auxiliary part, because if it
11 is affected during any kind of fall, the bomb will be activated. We're
12 talking about the oval front part of the warhead, and this is something
13 that has an effect on ricochet. And the bombs that were launched here
14 were very close to horizontal trajectory, which means that the elevation
15 angle on launching was very small, and as a result we have ricochet as a
16 direct consequence together with the outer shape of the warhead.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 JUDGE KWON: I'm told that it should be okay by now.
19 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President. Perhaps we can start the
20 video from the beginning, please.
21 [Video-clip played]
22 MR. GAYNOR: [Microphone not activated] Stop, please.
23 Q. Now, in -- first of all, can you confirm that this is the
24 video --
25 JUDGE KWON: Microphone, please.
1 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President. We've stopped at 22:43.8.
2 Q. First of all, confirm that this is, in fact, a video that you
3 relied upon in your report?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Second, at page 63 in the B/C/S, you have photograph numbered 38
6 is the image which is on the television screen right now, and you state
7 that this man "was probably brought to that place after the explosion."
8 That's at page 43 in the English.
9 Could you clarify for the Trial Chamber how exactly that body was
10 brought and placed in that place after the explosion?
11 JUDGE KWON: Shall we zoom in on image 38?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all -- first of all, the
13 text describes figure 37, not figure 38. Figure 38 shows a man in white
14 trousers and a padded jacket. Throughout the entire clip he walks around
15 and checks whether people are alive or dead. I assume that that's what
16 he does. And the text that refers to figures 38 and 39 is about the
17 figures, and it reads: "The same man in white pants and in a padded
18 jacket checks whether people are alive or dead," which points to the fact
19 that this is not just done by chance.
20 Figure 38 is a man on the asphalt without any traces of blood
21 around him.
22 Q. Just answer very briefly. We've got your report. How under your
23 theory did this body end up in that location --
24 A. You can't see any traces of blood in the spot where this person
25 is lying. There's no traces of blood whatsoever.
1 Q. Mrs. Subotic, my question is not whether there are traces of
2 blood. My question is how did that body end up in the middle of the
3 market-place after the detonation?
4 A. I believe that his body was brought there. There are parts of
5 this video-clip that have not been shown where you can see that nylon
6 foils are pulled out from beneath the bodies, and the bodies are then
7 left lying in those places.
8 Q. If I could --
9 A. That is also part of this video-clip. There are images of that.
10 At the very beginning of the film, maybe you noticed it, while people are
11 running around because of the detonation, at the very entrance of
12 Marsala Tita Street there was a military lorry parked right before the
13 evacuation started. I'm sure that you must have seen it.
14 MR. GAYNOR: We're going to play the video from exactly where we
15 left off now, please.
16 [Video-clip played]
17 MR. GAYNOR: Stop, please. We stopped at the mark 23:01.4.
18 Q. Now, on page 64 of your report, picture number 40, you identify
19 this figure which appears to be a woman in a black and white chequered
20 coat as another body which has been deliberately placed in the
21 market-place, presumably by the very well-organised sabotage crew; is
22 that right?
23 A. In any case, what is in the report is the fact that traces of
24 blood do not match the type of injuries, which is illustrated by
25 photo 41. Her foot is completely severed, her injuries are tremendous.
1 However, there are not as many traces of blood in the place where she was
2 injured. That's why we concluded that the injuries do not match the
3 traces of blood in the video-clip, which also indicates that that woman
4 was also not injured in that place. However, her injuries are quite
6 Q. Now, it follows from your theory that the sabotage crew must have
7 had access to a great number of human beings who were dead and who were
8 in civilian clothing and who bore signs of injuries consistent with the
9 detonation of a mortar projectile; correct?
10 A. We're not talking about numbers here. We're talking about
11 certain things that are registered in the video-clip which do not tally
12 with the general picture of the injuries which can occur and which can
13 result in the appearance of a detonation spot after detonation. We did
14 not count the bodies. We did not mention any figures. In the findings
15 and in the report, we provide all the analysis of all the figures of the
16 injured and the dead who were registered during the investigations, and
17 there are most incredible differences between those figures, really
18 incredible differences.
19 MR. GAYNOR: Now, I'd like us to play on from precisely the
20 moment where we stopped.
21 [Video-clip played]
22 MR. GAYNOR: Stop there, please. We've stopped at 24:16.6.
23 Q. Now, is it your evidence that this body was placed at the
24 market-place after the detonation, or is it your evidence that this
25 person was killed in the detonation?
1 A. This person was most probably killed in the detonation.
2 Q. Now, of the bodies that we've seen so far, could you give the
3 Trial Chamber an indication of what proportion were placed at the
4 incident site after the detonation and what proportion were genuinely
5 killed in what you've described as a double detonation?
6 A. At the very beginning of this report an analysis was made of
7 all -- or perhaps a bit further back, it doesn't matter, of the number of
8 those killed and injured in this incident. The table is on page 82.
9 It's table 1. And this is a summary of -- based on all the documents,
10 about the number of injured and killed persons. We read the lists of
11 injured persons taken to hospitals. We were very meticulous about it,
12 but it is impossible to give a share as you try to elicit with your
13 question. It -- it has been seen that the number of those killed varies
14 from 51 to 69 and that those injured from 119 to 264 and so on.
15 If I -- if I'm speaking from the point of view of my profession,
16 then these numbers are highly questionable taking into account what can
17 be done with a 120-millimetre mortar shell. So we conducted an analysis
18 and concluded that the real number is much below those stated.
19 Q. Mrs. Subotic --
20 A. Our analysis was made from the aspect of the average number of
21 persons present in that market and so on, and I cannot give you any
22 estimate aspiring to be accurate because it is simply impossible.
23 MR. GAYNOR: We're going to play on from the precise moment we
25 [Video-clip played]
1 MR. GAYNOR: Stop, please. We stopped at 26:47.4.
2 Q. Several times, I think, in the video we've seen what is clearly a
3 prosthetic lower leg, and in many of the shots it is clear that it is a
4 hollow prosthetic lower leg. And in your report at paragraph 32, you
5 argue that this prosthetic leg is very similar to the prosthetic leg of
6 Camil Begic who was killed at Markale on this day but it is slightly
7 different to his prosthetic leg, and you also assert that this particular
8 prosthetic leg was planted at the market-place; is that correct?
9 A. That prosthetic leg certainly changed positions during the
10 video-clip, and that was documented in the report. This was done a
11 number of times. Nobody's denying that the -- the owner of that
12 prosthetic leg was killed at Markale on that day. However, this
13 prosthetic leg differs from the one shown in the courtroom. This has
14 been observed, and we made a note of it.
15 Q. Now, my question to you is we've all seen some very graphic
16 scenes of this market-place. Please help me understand why this highly
17 sophisticated sabotage team would want to place a prosthetic human leg at
18 the scene if they had ready access to a great number of dead human bodies
19 in civilian clothing with injuries consistent with the detonation of a
20 mortar round?
21 A. That's what I've been asking myself, too, and I have no other
22 answer but that it contributed to creating an even more gruesome picture.
23 It was -- and it is true that it is different from the one that has been
24 brought to the courtroom and that its -- it was shown a number of times
25 in this video-clip.
1 MR. GAYNOR: Could we play on from exactly where we stopped,
3 [Video-clip played]
4 MR. GAYNOR: Stop, please. Thank you very much. That's at
6 Q. At page 65 in the B/C/S version of your report, you have a
7 photograph which appears to be from approximately this part of the video
8 this man appears to be holding the very lower legs of what appear to be
9 either one or two human beings who have been killed in the explosion.
10 Your evidence on this point is unclear. Could you clarify
11 whether it is your evidence that these two legs were planted at the
12 market-place after the detonation?
13 A. Of course not, and I don't know how you arrived at that
14 conclusion. The comment is about these parts of the body being carried
15 around the market-place and not that they were brought there.
16 Q. Very well.
17 A. And -- and they were videotaped a number of times, because in
18 figure 45, they're carried by someone else.
19 Q. Yes. I'll read out the English version of what you said. You
21 "Someone is putting these boots here in a bag carried by a
22 military policeman in such a way that they fully stick out of the bag --"
23 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Paragraph number?
24 MR. GAYNOR: Sorry, this is on page 44 of the English version,
25 paragraph --
1 JUDGE KWON: Para number.
2 MR. GAYNOR: Paragraph 28. And she goes on to say:
3 "... and are visible in entirety. This military policeman then
4 takes these boots to Marsala Tita Street where there are many reporters.
5 Everything indicates that this scene was also planned in advance."
6 Q. Very briefly, just clarify for us what you meant that this scene
7 was planned in advance. Did this soldier happen to have access to the
8 mutilated lower legs of one or two human beings in order to show to the
9 world's press?
10 A. The purpose of this text is to point out that these parts of a
11 human body that can be seen in figure 42 were taken from one place in the
12 market to Marsala Tita Street to another place in the market so as to be
13 shown to the media and no more than that. This is a great human tragedy
14 which was used for giving the event more media significance.
15 Q. This --
16 A. And there are other details in this video-tape that also show how
17 tragic this was. I mean, if these two body parts had to be removed, then
18 I don't understand why they were put in a bag and taken to
19 Marsala Tita Street instead of being removed with all other body parts
20 that were taken away on those roof parts except if the intention was to
21 give the incident more significance. This was -- or, rather, this is the
22 meaning of this text.
23 MR. GAYNOR: I'd like to tender the video at this stage,
24 Mr. President.
25 JUDGE KWON: From -- could you give us the time-frame? In its
2 MR. GAYNOR: In its entirety until the point that we've stopped
3 at, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll receive it.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6327, Your Honours.
6 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you.
7 Q. I'd now like to turn to your report, Mrs. Subotic, page 123 in
8 the B/C/S and page 82 in the English, and this is the third of the three
9 stages of this enormously sophisticated act of sabotage that I would like
10 to address. I'd like to -- this -- this stage concerns the stabiliser.
11 Now, you've already explained in your report that of the two rounds which
12 detonated, the stabilisers were removed from both rounds, and then the
13 next stage is that a stabiliser was buried underground. So let's look at
14 what you had to say. You say:
15 "We do not rule out the possibility that it was put there even
16 before the explosion, and this is indicated by the hard-packed material
17 in the layer above it. The stabiliser was not painted and came out of
18 the wartime production of the Bosnian Serbs. This points even more to
19 the Serbs as perpetrators of the crime. After the removal of the
20 stabiliser by UNPROFOR, the crater was probably prepared in such a way
21 that the axis of the crater had an angle of 60 degrees relative to the
22 vertical angle of descent. Probably due to haste the hole was not
23 prepared for the arrival of the next UNPROFOR team so they did not even
24 measure the angle, judging that that was not possible. After their
25 departure, the hole was obviously prepared so that the next UNPROFOR team
1 measured an angle of around 70 degrees. Since this angle was greater
2 than the needed angle, the angle was corrected again so that all
3 following investigating teams registered an angle of around 60 degrees."
4 Now, in footnote 2 -- 288, you say that:
5 "Static activation cannot ensure in any way that the stabiliser's
6 in the crater so it was necessary to put it there subsequently."
7 My first question is for you to clarify, was the stabiliser
8 buried underground before the detonation or after the detonation?
9 A. Well, you see, both options are equally possible. To my mind, it
10 was probably buried before the explosion. But the second option, of
11 which I say that it's equally possible, follows from the fact that
12 investigative teams came there one after the other and drew different
13 conclusions as to the depth of the crater. One said that it couldn't be
14 established. There -- the removal was taped, and the difference between
15 the depth of the crater as measured and the real length of the fin that
16 do not match the video footage, which clearly shows that the fin is
17 deeply buried in the crater. So if we disregard UNPROFOR's findings
18 which day after day state different depths, it is probable that the angle
19 was not as it should be and that's why it was corrected. And different
20 investigating teams measured different crater depths. The first one was
21 9 centimetres, and then we end up with a video-tape showing that the fin
22 is deeply buried. We know exactly how large such a fin is. We all saw
23 it here at this Tribunal, and we can all also take a look at firing
25 So to sum up, due to different manipulation of this crater, this
1 material was subsequently buried there. This -- we can consider their
2 findings as partly accurate.
3 Q. There is Subotic, could I ask you to keep your answers briefer
4 and more concise.
5 MR. GAYNOR: Could we please play P1711, please, from 26 minutes
6 and 10 seconds to 27 minutes and 28 seconds.
7 [Video-clip played]
8 MR. GAYNOR:
9 Q. Could you -- you will agree that that was footage taken from a
10 building next to Markale Market showing what others believed to be the
11 impact site for 120-millimetre mortar projectile fired from Bosnian Serb
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you clarify whether under your theory this crater is the
15 crater for one of the two detonations or for both detonations?
16 A. This crater -- I apologise, but I cannot see the transcript, so I
17 don't know if I'm speaking too fast.
18 This crater is a consequence of a shell that was investigated.
19 The other explosion wasn't investigated at all. We only established that
20 there was a second explosion, and that was corroborated by a witness here
21 in this courtroom, Mr. Berko Zecevic. And this crater is supposed to be
22 the impact site of a shell that came from the Bosnian Serb position.
23 Q. For the record, I don't think Mr. Berko Zecevic has ever claimed
24 that there were two detonations at Markale Market on this day, but for
25 the moment, can I just ask you to clarify for us the shrapnel pattern
1 which is not addressed in your theory. Is it your evidence that the
2 shrapnel pattern was carefully created by the sabotage team so as to be
3 consistent with the shrapnel pattern which would have appeared if the
4 projectile had been fired from Bosnian Serb positions?
5 A. Yes. And that was described in detail, and it was achieved by
6 removing the primer --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slow down and repeat
8 these technical details.
9 JUDGE KWON: Since we are talking about technical details, I
10 would ask you to speak more slowly. Could you repeat your answer.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. These traces simulate a full
12 explosion that would have occurred if the shell had fallen under an angle
13 of about 60 degrees. Actually, it doesn't really match it fully.
14 We analysed this angle, although Mr. Gaynor claims the opposite,
15 and we -- the result of our calculation was a different angle and not 60
16 degrees. Anyway, these traces on the ground simulate an explosion that
17 occurred by a shell that flew in under an angle more or less like the one
18 established by the CSB investigators. That's 60-odd degrees, and we have
19 it -- we established it precisely on the basis of these traces. However,
20 we were limited by the accuracy of the measurement conducted by the CSB
21 investigators. We were in no position to measure ourselves. The angle
22 they measured is somewhat larger than the one measured by
23 Mr. Berko Zecevic in accordance with his method but which we have
24 stated -- we have said several times that it is incorrect.
25 MR. GAYNOR:
1 Q. Now, I'd like to turn -- we can turn to the photograph you use in
2 your report at page 92 in the B/C/S which shows a photograph of the
3 stabiliser after some of the material which had covered it had been
5 Now, my question for you, Mrs. Subotic, is to explain to the
6 Trial Chamber your theory regarding the burial of the stabiliser. First
7 of all, those who buried the stabiliser obviously knew the exact depth to
8 which they needed to bury it. Page 92 in your version. The sabotage
9 crew --
10 THE ACCUSED: Not -- no interpretation for a long -- for the
11 entire question.
12 MR. GAYNOR: I'll begin again.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've not been receiving
14 interpretation at all.
15 MR. GAYNOR:
16 Q. I'll start again, Mrs. Subotic.
17 A. [In English] Okay. Okay, okay.
18 Q. I wish to address your theory about the burial of the stabiliser
19 prior to the event. First of all, is it correct that the person who
20 buried the stabiliser must have had access to very precise ballistic data
21 to figure out the exact depth to which the stabiliser should be buried so
22 as to be consistent with it having been fired from Bosnian Serb
24 A. [Interpretation] Unfortunately, I don't see when the transcript
25 is finished, so I hope I can start answering.
1 No, he did not need any exceptionally ballistic data. The
2 ballistic data is contained in firing table belonging to every mortar,
3 and those firing tables were in possession of everybody, hopefully, at
4 the time. It is well known that one would have to see a shell landing
5 with a charge 3 or higher, and then the stabiliser can be buried in its
6 totality. We were not in a position to test whether the stabiliser
7 should have been completely embedded or not. It depends very much on the
8 surface. The surface also played a role, not just the velocity. So it
9 was sufficient for the person to have a 120-millimetre mortar firing
10 table and to be aware of the facts that I've just mentioned, and that is
11 that the charge should have been charge 3 or higher.
12 Q. Second, is it your evidence that the person who buried the
13 stabiliser had access to a jackhammer or some kind of heavy instrument to
14 drill through the hard asphalt surface of Markale Market in order to bury
15 the stabiliser to the correct depth?
16 A. Well, you see, he must have used a tool. Perhaps not as heavy a
17 building tool as that. A spade would have sufficed, because the UNPROFOR
18 investigator didn't use much more than that to -- to dig it out. So any
19 basic tools that can be found in basements and tool sheds could have been
20 used. I'm sure that he did not have to have a jackhammer or any such
22 Q. Mrs. Subotic, have you ever tried to dig through a tarmac surface
23 with a spade?
24 A. No, of course not. However, I had my heel, a complete heel, get
25 into the asphalt. Honestly, I don't want to interfere with other
1 people's areas of expertise. I'm sure that he needed a tool of some
2 sort, but whether that should have been a jackhammer, I'm really
3 convinced that it didn't.
4 Q. Now, finally, I'd like to move to page 82 in the English,
5 page 123 in the B/C/S, just to the four visits by the highly professional
6 sabotage team to the impact point.
7 The first visit was when they embedded the stabiliser. The
8 second visit was after the stabiliser was removed in order to create a
9 angle of descent of 60 degrees in the hole. The third visit was after
10 Verdy was at the scene but before Russell got there, an hour after Verdy
11 had left, to adjust the angle from 60 to 70 degrees. And the fourth
12 visit was after Russell had left to adjust the angle back from 70 degrees
13 to 60 degrees. Is my understanding of the sequence of events correct?
14 A. Yes. You understood the sequence really well, and now I'll try
15 to explain things.
16 Q. I'm very pressed for time, Mrs. Subotic --
17 MR. ROBINSON: Excuse me.
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Robinson.
19 MR. ROBINSON: She has to be able to explain and he shouldn't be
20 pressed for time. We don't object. He can take as much as he wants. We
21 think this evidence should be completely and fully tested, but she should
22 have the right to explain.
23 JUDGE KWON: Fair enough. Please continue, Ms. Subotic.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've just tried to explain things,
25 but then I was interrupted. I don't know why. And this is what I wanted
1 to say: Whether that happened in the way explained by Mr. Gaynor or
2 whether the situation was prepared before the incident, whether the
3 stabiliser was embedded and not tampered with subsequently is very
4 difficult to say today, because there is a series of measures which do
5 not tally, although they followed each other, and they don't even tally
6 with the video-clip that we saw or the results that were obtained from
7 the evidence. In other words, either corrections were made to the
8 craters or the measurements were taken wrongly. In other words, we have
9 to agree that we had to explain how those incongruent results could have
10 happened, because they -- they could not have been caused by the incoming
11 trajectory of the shell if the expert teams had taken the measurements
12 correctly. This is how things could happen and no other way. If the
13 measurements were correct.
14 My view would be that the measurements were not taken correctly.
15 The first measurement of the crater was 9 centimetres, and the stabiliser
16 itself is longer than 9 centimetres, which means that between the moment
17 the stabiliser was taken out and the subsequent measurement, the crater
18 must have been filled in somehow.
19 MR. GAYNOR:
20 Q. Mrs. Subotic, could I please move to the question of the lethal
21 radius of this event.
22 MR. GAYNOR: Could we move to page 85 in B/C/S. The relevant
23 picture only exists in the B/C/S version, so we can look at it. If we
24 could zoom in on the circle which is marked with a radius of
25 1056 centimetres.
1 Q. Now, that is, if I may suggest it to you, Mrs. Subotic, an
2 astonishingly precise figure, and in your report I understand that you
3 reached that figure from your observation of the video that we all saw
4 earlier; is that correct?
5 A. When we were watching the video, we actually established the
6 perimeter around the market where we could see the traces of blood, and
7 the figure was produced by AutoCAD and it was printed in the photo.
8 Obviously there's no way to be so precise when taking measurements. It
9 is just a factor of our analysis. This depicts a radius which is 105.6
10 [as interpreted] centimetres. It is certainly not the precise figure.
11 When you do it in AutoCAD, the AutoCAD is responsible for the precise
12 figure that it comes up with, but we as a team, we do not stand by it.
13 We did not correct it because we don't see the reason why we should
14 correct it after all.
15 Q. I want to note for the transcript that the picture depicts a
16 radius of 1056 centimetres.
17 Clarify for us, is that the lethal radius for one detonation or
18 for what you believe to have been two detonations?
19 A. This is the coverage area where you see traces of blood, and that
20 was taken from the video-clip. I believe that the second detonation
21 should have happened somewhere around here, but based on the sketch I
22 can't tell you exactly where that red stall was. It should be somewhere
23 here on the right-hand side of the sketch, in this passage, but I don't
24 know exactly where. We did not analyse the distance.
25 In general terms, we did not deal with two shells. We, rather,
1 tried to establish the number of people who can fit in this area, and the
2 rough estimate, and I repeat it was just a rough estimate, not the
3 precise figure, and I'm sure that you realise that this was just one of
4 the estimates that we analysed in order to come up with a ballpark figure
5 of those who were dead and injured and that would have matched the
6 assumed situation in which the explosion happened, and on the other hand,
7 we tried to establish the lethal power of the asset itself.
8 You probably know based on the analysis provided by the experts
9 in the courtroom that the lethal power of an asset is tested in an area.
10 One hit in one square metre [Realtime transcript read in error
11 "centimetre"] is the ballpark at which we stop considering that --
12 that --
13 Q. Mrs. Subotic --
14 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. We lost the last part of that
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The end of my answer referred to
17 the criterion according to which the distance is established at which an
18 asset has lethal power, and it is believed that it is a distance where
19 there is one piece of shrapnel in one square metre of obstacle when
20 tested in testing conditions. I suppose that you will know what a test
21 area is.
22 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now it is okay. However, in
24 line 22, it says "centimetres," whereas the OBOR should be explained,
25 because the interpreter doesn't seem to know what -- what that is.
1 JUDGE KWON: I will leave it to you.
2 MR. GAYNOR: Very well.
3 Q. Mrs. Subotic, you're aware that in the firing table for the
4 120-millimetre mortar projectile it is suggested that the lethal radius
5 is 17 metres.
6 A. Yes, sure, of course, I know that.
7 Q. I'll move on. Now, the -- you were present in this courtroom or
8 one of the courtrooms in this building when Ekrem Suljevic and
9 Mirza Sabljica testified, is that not correct?
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. You know from their written evidence that both were present on
12 the crime scene on the day of this incident?
13 A. Mr. Sabljica, yeah. I don't remember that it would be the case
14 with Ekrem Suljevic, but if you say so, then I'll believe you.
15 Q. And you knew that both were employed by the RBiH MUP.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So surely both of those men must have been involved in the
18 conspiracy which you have suggested existed?
19 A. I'm afraid that you misunderstood my evidence. I did not name
20 the investigators in my findings and in my report as participants in any
21 conspiracy. To the contrary, we had several occasions to convince
22 ourselves that the investigators could hardly recognise the point of
23 impact, that they were looking for the stabiliser on the roof. You can
24 see that as noise in the background at the beginning of the video-clip
25 that we saw or some other video-clip. And it was only after they were --
1 it was suggested where they should look and dig they started looking at
2 the point of impact, because that point of impact was completely atypical
3 and not very discernible.
4 So I didn't name any of the investigators as members in the
5 conspiracy. It would never have occurred to me to say that or think
7 Q. Nevertheless, the details of this vast conspiracy were not put to
8 those two witnesses, were they?
9 MR. ROBINSON: Objection, Mr. President. She's not in a position
10 to be putting questions to witnesses even if she's present in a
12 MR. GAYNOR: Very well. I'll move on from this.
13 Q. If I can just summarise your position on this issue and put
14 something to you, Mrs. Subotic, you are asking this Court to believe that
15 an extremely elaborate plot was planned and put in place involving two
16 static explosions but one crater visible, a stabiliser deliberately
17 buried underground, the transport of the bodies of many dead persons in
18 civilian clothing to the market-place followed by their rapid transfer
19 from the market-place to the Kosevo Hospital in an effort to make this
20 look as if a mortar projectile had been fired by the VRS from Serb-held
21 territory into the crowded market-place, killing many people there.
22 Isn't that correct?
23 A. First of all, we have to call a spade a spade. I have made a
24 very serious analysis, and I presented in very uncertain technical terms
25 that it was not possible for that projectile to come from and explode in
1 the place where it exploded without having hit the roof above the stall.
2 I used all the measurements that the investigators took during their
3 investigation of the incident. Every single claim was tested, double
4 tested, and treble tested, taking into account all the available
5 evidence. The angles were determined with precision, because there was
6 quite a range in the documents as well as the azimuth and the angle of
7 descent. That may have satisfied the criteria of the impact position
8 where the investigators investigated, and it was explicitly proven based
9 on physical evidence that it was simply not possible.
10 On the other hand, it was established that whatever may be seen
11 in the video-clip points to the fact that it was a media event more than
12 anything else, that there was a lot of media coverage. I'm not asking
13 for anything from anybody. I just want you to understand that this is a
14 very critical analysis which is based on physical evidence.
15 What nobody has mentioned during the cross-examination is the
16 fact that there is a lot more inconsistencies here. One of them is the
17 shape of the stall. It was designed by Mr. Zecevic, and I believe that
18 Mr. Sabljica told us that the sketch had originally been drafted by him.
19 So the stall as it was sketched is not the real shape of the stall, and
20 with its dimension it helped for the projectile to be found in the place
21 where it could not have been found in real conditions when the stall was
22 reconstructed based on the video-clip and based on what it really looked
24 So what I expect from everybody is to take my detailed report
25 seriously, because it is based on very serious analysis of physical
1 evidence, to study my report and to make their own very serious
2 conclusions based on that very thorough report.
3 Q. Well, just before we break for lunch, I'll just put it you to
4 that I suggest that an infinitely more likely scenario and explanation of
5 what happened on the 5th of February, 1994, was that a mortar projectile
6 was, in fact, fired by the VRS from Serb-held territory into the crowded
7 market-place, killing many people there.
8 JUDGE BAIRD: Yes. Do you agree with that or do you not? Do you
9 agree with that suggestion, or do you not?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't agree with that suggestion
11 because all the physical evidence points to the contrary.
12 JUDGE BAIRD: Thank you.
13 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm happy to break now
14 for lunch before we move to Markale II.
15 MR. ROBINSON: Excuse me, Mr. President. I don't want to delay
16 our lunch but I'm wondering if the Prosecution is putting its case to
17 Dr. Subotic, shouldn't they also be required to put to her how they
18 believe that this projectile was able to land in the place where it did
19 without hitting the stall, which is the basis of her conclusions?
20 JUDGE KWON: I'm not sure.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE KWON: It's -- it's for the Prosecution how he puts the
23 case to the witness.
24 We'll have a break for 45 minutes. --
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just a moment, transcript.
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Line 21, page 59, it was
3 interpreted as "a lot of media coverage," but her idea was that it was
4 well planned by the media. So the interpretation should have been
5 different to reflect that.
6 JUDGE KWON: Do you agree with that?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, of course.
8 JUDGE KWON: We'll resume at 17 past 1.00.
9 --- Recess taken at 12.33 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 1.20 p.m.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please continue.
12 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President. Before I do so, I'd just
13 like to request some further time from the Court. I note that this
14 witness was originally scheduled to give her evidence in chief in
15 two hours. She in fact took eight hours. I've had a word with
16 Mr. Robinson, and he has indicated that the Defence has no objection to
17 some extension of the cross-examination time.
18 JUDGE KWON: Fair enough, Mr. Gaynor.
19 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you very much.
20 Q. We're going to turn now to the Markale II incident, and on the
21 final page of your report, which is page 126 in English, you essentially
22 summarise two possibilities. One is that it was statically activated and
23 the other is that there was a roof-top delivery. Isn't that correct?
24 A. Yes, it is.
25 Q. Furthermore, you also claim that bodies of a number of dead
1 persons dressed in civilian clothing were planted at the scene of the
2 crime. Isn't that correct?
3 A. No. Where? Where do I claim that?
4 Q. Well, we'll get to the specifics of that. If you're denying it
5 at this point, that's fine. We'll go through the video to the precise
6 references. Before we do so, I'd like to address the Cymbeline radar
8 MR. GAYNOR: If we could go to page 158 in B/C/S and page 103 in
10 Now, if we could focus in on the diagram alone. It's not
11 necessary, in fact, to see the English for this.
12 Q. I'd like you to clarify the source for some of this information.
13 First of all, what does 548 metres represent?
14 A. 548 metres, that's the ordinate of the trajectory. We can see in
15 the documents that a projectile flying at the altitude of 548 metres
16 cannot be see on radar.
17 Q. Very well. Now, you have placed a representation of the centre
18 point and the diameter, maximum diameter, of the radar's beam. The
19 centre point appears to be of the order of 1.300 metres above
20 Markale Market. What is your source for that?
21 A. According to the documents available to me, the radar was
22 positioned at a distance of about 1.000 metres, and it could catch all
23 mortar shells with a trajectory above the ordinate I mentioned, and this
24 follows from the radar position and the parameters found in the documents
25 regarding the radar.
1 According to my estimate, the radar was about a thousand-odd
2 metres away, although the information can be found that the separation
3 line was right there, but according to my information, it was at a
4 distance of 2.000 metres.
5 The position of the radar was excellently chosen, very
6 professionally chosen, because it is at a place where all the
7 trajectories meet, and only in this way was it possible to catch or cover
8 every trajectory.
9 Q. I want to return to the centre point of the radar beam. I don't
10 believe you answered the question as to the source of your information
11 for the radar beam having its centre point at an altitude of 1.300 metres
12 above Markale Market. What is your source for that?
13 A. No, no, no. I never stated that information. I only stated the
14 information found in the documents, namely, that it was placed at a
15 distance of about 1.000 metres so as to be able to record every
16 trajectory which is further away from 900 or 1.000 metres, and that is a
17 quote. This -- the centre of the radar is not at an altitude, but it is
18 so positioned that it can cover all trajectories, and that's what the
19 documents clearly say. They also say that it was switched on 24 hours a
20 day and that it could observe any trajectory of shells fired from VRS
21 positions. I found that in UNPROFOR documents, and I give references for
23 Q. Mrs. Subotic, in the UNPROFOR documents that you cite in your
24 report, which are P1445 and specifically the memorandum from
25 Colonel Brian E. Powers of G2 UNPROFOR to the UNPROFOR commander of
1 29 August 1995, do not contain any indication of the altitude of the
2 centre point of the radar beam above Markale Market on the
3 28th of August, 1995. You have no source for the information in this
4 graph regarding the centre point of the radar beam, do you?
5 A. Are we discussing this sketch, and have you read all these
6 sketches and found that it says 1.300, because I never stated that. The
7 position of the beam is immaterial. This sketch shows why the radar was
8 unable to catch trajectories of shells coming from VRS positions, and
9 I -- I really don't know where you found the value of 1.300 for the
10 centre-piece of the radar.
11 This sketch is meant to be an illustration. It does, however,
12 include accurate data. The ordinate of the peak of the trajectory that
13 goes right below the radar beam, and I don't know how -- how you came up
14 with the value you stated for the radar centre-piece. And anyway, it is
15 immaterial for the radar's ability to register trajectories.
16 Q. Mrs. Subotic, for clarification, 1.300 metres is a figure that I
17 determined based on analysis of your sketch. Now, I put it to you that
18 you have no way of knowing three things: Number one, the centre point of
19 the radar beam; number two, the radius of the radar beam which is in
20 operation at the time; and number three, the location of the centre point
21 of the radar beam in relation to Markale Market.
22 A. Now you enumerated some things, and I'll answer in the same way.
23 You -- there is an X axis here without dimensions, and on the basis of
24 that you inferred an ordinate value.
25 Secondly, you mistook a schematic representation for an accurate
1 depiction, because in the latter case I would have given the ordinate
2 values, and then you could have read them and interpreted the value that
3 you say -- you stated.
4 And I forget what it is that you mentioned third.
5 This diagram does not have a scale, and it is merely an
6 illustration to help the reader understand what is being discussed, and
7 it is meant for you to read values from an ordinate which doesn't have a
9 Q. I'm going to move on to another issue, and that is the location
10 in which the Markale II stabiliser was found on the road. You have made
11 it clear in your report, I think, that you consider a lateral movement of
12 the stabiliser to be inconsistent with an impact arising due to the
13 incoming stabiliser arriving from Bosnian Serb territory, roughly
14 speaking, to the south of the market-place.
15 Now, in your -- in your evidence in chief, you accepted the basic
16 theory that where the kickback or the ejection force exceeds the inward
17 force, that a stabiliser will be kicked back instead of being embedded in
18 the ground. Isn't that right?
19 A. I think that you're speaking about velocity rather than power.
20 So the velocity at which the projectile flew in and the stabiliser was
21 ejected from the body of the shell.
22 In the case you described, it is most probable that the
23 stabiliser is ejected during the -- during the flight to the place from
24 which the shell originated.
25 Q. Yes. It looks like we're in agreement. So during that rearward
1 trajectory approximately heading back to where the projectile originated
2 from, is it not right that in this case it would very likely have hit the
3 building over which it had travelled prior to impact?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have a remark about the
5 transcript. At the end of the answer, there is or -- there is something
6 missing. The witness said "in the direction where it came from or
7 nearby." This "nearby" is missing. Lines 1 and 2 on page 66.
8 MR. GAYNOR: Very well.
9 Q. Now, Mrs. Subotic, I'm asking you to consider that instead of the
10 stabiliser going back along its trajectory right back to where it had
11 been fired from, what actually happened was it was kicked back and hit a
12 building, which resulted in it being pushed in the lateral direction
13 along the road.
14 A. How do I put this. We know from physics that there's a law of
15 action and reaction as a very common occurrence. If the stabiliser had
16 hit a wall, as you said, when it was ejected, it would most probably have
17 been launched in the direction from which it had come. That's the most
18 probable outcome. Even if I accept your thesis, which is a little likely
19 and would depend on many factors for which I have no parameters, we're
20 speaking about 29 metres from -- sideways from the site of impact by a
21 wall. According to your theory, what should have happened is what
22 Mr. Zecevic called an impossible ricochet. The stabiliser was found
23 right next to a wall according to the sketch that I saw, and that is at
24 an angle -- at a right angle from its trajectory.
25 Q. I'll move to another issue now, and that is the batch numbers
1 which appear on what you claim are three stabilisers and what the
2 Prosecution believes is one stabiliser.
3 MR. GAYNOR: If we could turn now to page 153 in B/C/S, page 100
4 in English. If we could focus in on the three photographs on the top of
5 the page.
6 Q. I believe it's your evidence, Mrs. Subotic, that we are looking
7 at here are three very similar but, in fact, different stabilisers;
9 A. I said that in this photograph we see three stabilisers of which
10 one is in the photo documentation, another was from the video-tape,
11 probably the same, and the exhibit in this courtroom is different. Based
12 on the positions marked here, and these are the positions for the tools
13 used to charge it initially. This was taken by the French team, and you
14 see clear signs of erosion, and it cannot be seen anywhere afterwards
15 except in the video footage.
16 Q. I'd like the Registrar to show you, please, Exhibit P1454, and
17 perhaps we could get a photograph of that exhibit onto the screen. This
18 is an object which has been tendered to the Court as the stabiliser from
19 the Markale II incident.
20 Let's deal first with the question of the location of the two
21 holes which are visible to all of us.
22 MR. GAYNOR: Perhaps the Registrar could hand that object to the
24 Q. I think there's common ground that there is a photograph of this
25 stabiliser which shows the holes in a slightly different position to how
1 they appear in this photograph. Mrs. Subotic, I'm inviting you to
2 consider the possibility that those who investigated this incident might
3 have removed this cap as part of this investigation and then screwed it
4 on again, resulting in a slightly different alignment of the holes. Do
5 you accept that that is a possibility?
6 A. You see, that is totally unreal, because this is closed using a
7 tool, and it is next to impossible to remove. The manufacturing process
8 of this piece that I have in front of me is such that this is fixed with
9 special tools, and it is also impossible to open. Now it's a bit shaky,
10 but ...
11 Q. What do you mean by, "Now, it's a bit shaky"?
12 A. Normally this is fixed. I can tell now that it has been
13 unscrewed and screwed back on but I can't tell why.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: When.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was constructed in such a way
16 as to be locked once it's screwed on. I don't see why anybody would want
17 to open it except -- well, I really don't want to speculate.
18 MR. GAYNOR:
19 Q. I think we can agree for the purpose of the transcript,
20 Mrs. Subotic, that you have with your fingers been able to move the
21 positions of the holes at the top of this stabiliser right now in the
22 courtroom. Isn't that correct?
23 A. Yes, we can agree on that for the transcript, but I must add that
24 I absolutely cannot determine why, when, and how it was done. It's a
25 fact that this is closed with tools, very strong tools, because they need
1 great force to do so. When and why this was done, I really don't want to
2 speculate about, and I would like to state this for the transcript as
4 Q. I'd like to move to the markings on the stabiliser. Is it
5 correct that the stabiliser, which is physically next to you at this
6 moment, as well as that photographed on the screen in front of you, bear
7 the -- bear the characters MKM74 KB9307?
8 A. What I'm holding in my hands is KB9307.
9 Q. Correct. And I'm -- and on the other side of the stabiliser it
10 says MKM74; correct?
11 A. Yes, yes.
12 MR. GAYNOR: Could I ask the Registrar, please, to bring up
13 P1971, photograph 23. If we could please zoom in as close as possible to
15 Q. And I believe we can see the same characters appear on this
16 photograph of what you consider to be a different projectile; is that --
17 a different stabiliser, correction.
18 A. Well, you see, since you demonstrated to me that this was moving
19 when I touched it, there is no reason for me to assume that it came here
20 in any specific manner. So this could have been placed here from another
21 stabiliser if it is not closed -- if it was -- if it isn't closed in the
22 factory. So if it's not in the original state.
23 Q. Do you accept that the expression KB are the Cyrillic -- are
24 Cyrillic letters KV in Latin for Krusik Valjevo, and 9307 would suggest
25 that this was manufactured at Krusik in Valjevo in July of 1993?
1 A. It is Krusik Valjevo. I heard something else in my headphones.
2 Yes, of course. It's a marking -- it's a mark indicating the factory
3 where it was manufactured.
4 Q. Very well.
5 MR. GAYNOR: Could I call up, please, 65 ter 2 --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you kindly, since we're
7 looking at this and this, if we put one next to the other, then we see
8 that the marking on the primer is different from what I'm holding in my
9 hand. I would like you to take a look at it too, because that indicates
11 MR. GAYNOR:
12 Q. Mrs. --
13 A. The object I'm holding in my hand has a different mark on the
14 primer than what we see in this photograph. This here is right of the
15 centre, whereas this is centre left. The mark is downward under an angle
16 of 45 degrees in the lower left quadrant of the coordinate system.
17 Q. Mrs. --
18 A. This should also be mentioned if we discuss differences and
19 matches. This is a very good forensic example.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please --
21 JUDGE KWON: Please do not overlap with the English translation.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think it will be good if you
24 asked the parallel -- that we see in parallel, P1454 and P1971.
25 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President --
1 JUDGE KWON: Back to you, Mr. Gaynor.
2 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you. These are all matters which Mr. Karadzic
3 can take up in re-examination. It's quite clear from the witness's
4 report that she considers -- she's put forth a theory to Your Honours
5 that there are three stabilisers extremely similarly shaped but with
6 slight differences to them, and I will leave that assessment to
7 Your Honours in due course.
8 JUDGE KWON: But your case is that what she holds at the moment
9 is the identical one --
10 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, that's right --
11 JUDGE KWON: -- with what we are seeing now.
12 MR. GAYNOR: The Prosecution's case is that there is one
13 Markale II stabiliser. It's photographed at the time, which is what
14 we're looking at right now. It's sitting right now on the desk in front
15 of Mrs. Subotic, and it's the same stabiliser that appears in all three
16 photographs in her report. So I want to move to --
17 JUDGE KWON: But what she said right now -- I'm waiting. What
18 she's said right now is that's different from what appears from the
20 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. And in her report she goes through the reasons
21 why she thinks there are three different stabilisers.
22 JUDGE KWON: But are you not minded to see how it looks like,
23 whether there's a way or not? So why don't -- why don't you ask her to
24 expand a bit more --
25 MR. GAYNOR: Yes.
1 JUDGE KWON: -- how its different.
2 MR. GAYNOR: Very well.
3 Q. Mrs. Subotic, could you expand on why you think the object on the
4 monitor in front of you is different to -- is different to the object in
5 your hand?
6 JUDGE KWON: Or can we put it on the ELMO so that we can see it?
7 MR. ROBINSON: Also, Mr. President, I noticed I didn't understand
8 the word "primer" that was being interpreted, so if somebody could think
9 about trying to explain that to us.
10 THE ACCUSED: I think it would be better to put two parallel
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Please could you explain how they are
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We saw a while ago that the thing
15 moved under my fingers. I don't want to speculate as to how that
16 happens. However, if you look, the left stabiliser which is in the
17 courtroom and the right-hand side one which is depicted in the photo,
18 they're now placed in similar positions. Both are in similar positions.
19 The markings are more or less in the same place, and now we are looking
20 at the central point where the primer hit and activated, which is
21 depicted by the central circle or the orange circle. That may be seen.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can you slow down?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a forensic piece of
24 evidence that when the primer was initiated, we can use it to identify
25 the type of weapon. You can see that on the right-hand side that we see
1 in e-court, that mark is moved from the centre to the right. That
2 impression is moved rightward. In the original part, that impression is
3 moved from the centre to the left -- left from the primer from the moment
4 that there was an impact in the primer, and if you see harder, you cannot
5 see it until the example that we have in the courtroom, there is a mark,
6 a very fine mark in the lower left quadrant from the full circle which is
7 about 90 -- or, rather, 180, around 200-odd degrees from the centre. Now
8 you can see that mark. I'm pointing to it. I don't know whether you can
9 see it. It is shiny, and it's very easy for me to see under light.
10 However, what is important here that you can see that here on the
11 right-hand side there is a shift to the right, and on the left there is a
12 shift to the left. The impression of the primer. So this is the
13 evidence of the weapon being fired in -- irrespective of what we are
14 talking about, whether it was tampered with with somebody's finger like I
15 could. I could move it with my own fingers.
16 JUDGE KWON: Very well. You were strong enough to move around
17 the cap. Could you do this again, do that again while our usher holds it
18 on the ELMO? If you could move around the ...
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It seems that I've locked it now --
20 no. No, I can move it, yes.
21 To be honest, I really don't want to volunteer any more comments,
22 absolutely not, no. I did not see this when I held this piece of
23 evidence in my hands for the first time. Maybe it was there. I just
24 failed to notice it.
25 JUDGE KWON: Well, I'll leave it to you, but while you continue,
1 the Chamber wants to take a look at the stabiliser.
2 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, the usher can
3 provide it to the Chamber now.
4 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, would it be possible for her to
5 mark on the screen the mark that she's described on the photo so that at
6 least we can have that recorded.
7 JUDGE KWON: I think at certain point of time our video captured
8 both images. I'm confident. I will confirm with my Registrar, because
9 we were able to see the ELMO, and this is in our e-court. At some point
10 in time we can compare if necessary.
11 Yes, please continue.
12 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President. Could I call up, please,
13 65 ter 25089.
14 Q. A word of warning, Mrs. Subotic, this is rather hard to read in
15 the original, but it appears to be a test data from Nikinci, Serbia, in
16 March 1994, and you can just see it in the fax header. That it is from
17 Nikinci, Serbia, 1994. And if we look at the top right-hand version of
18 this, we can see a reference to -- if you look under "ammunition," and
19 you look on the fourth entry it says "Cap MKM74 series KV9307."
20 Now, first of all, can you confirm that this document suggests
21 that a batch of MKM74 KV9307 shells was tested at Nikinci in Serbia on
22 the 28th of March, 1994, and that that is in fact a 120-millimetre mortar
24 A. It's very difficult to read indeed.
25 Q. Perhaps --
1 A. Please bear with me for a moment.
2 MR. GAYNOR: Perhaps the Registrar could zoom in on the area
3 under the word "municija" in the top right-hand corner.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Super, actually, indeed. This is a
5 detonation cap, MKM74 of a particular series, primer is MKM74. There is
6 gunpowder and so on and so forth. This is the testing of M6253 mine
7 testing with MK detonation cap, M74, and the basic charge M74, a certain
8 gun power, additional charge, M74 under conditions of normal temperature
9 in terms of ballistics conditions. Where it says MKM74 refers to the
10 detonation cap. That's what I read here. Or primer. And, of course, it
11 was tested in Nikinci.
12 Q. And do you accept that --
13 A. As far as I can see, this was TV9401 series.
14 Q. Well, I'm going to have to ask you about that. Just look closely
15 at the MKM74 line, and I suggest to you that it actually reads KV9307.
16 MR. ROBINSON: Can we blow that one up a little more?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is MK --
18 THE INTERPRETER: The witness is reading too fast.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the cap series, MKM74. And
20 what we see in front of that is the mark for the detonation cap and the
22 MR. GAYNOR: I'd like to tender that document, Mr. President.
23 MR. ROBINSON: No objection.
24 JUDGE KWON: We'll receive it.
25 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6328, Your Honours.
1 MR. GAYNOR:
2 Q. I'm going to work -- move now to a separate issue which is the
3 territory to the south of Sarajevo which you inspected.
4 MR. GAYNOR: This is at page 161 in B/C/S, page 105 in English.
5 This is on her modified -- sorry, this is the Markale report, which is
7 Q. Now, if we could focus in on that image, please, and specifically
8 on what I'm going to describe as a pie slice. It is a slice of
9 5.000 metres in length, extending from 175 degrees to 150 degrees. I'd
10 like you to give the Trial Chamber your best estimate as to what
11 proportion of that pie slice you visually inspected in order to determine
12 whether it would have been suitable for the firing of a 120-millimetre
13 mortar projectile.
14 A. We visited the area together with our escorts in order to
15 establish what the conditions were for placing a mortar. I believe that
16 I mentioned the place where it was possible to place a mortar. It was
17 just one place, and its azimuth marking is 176 degrees. I probably
18 mentioned the name of the location and the distance at which it was --
19 Q. Mrs. Subotic --
20 A. -- and that was --
21 Q. Mrs. Subotic, please look at the pie slice and tell the
22 Trial Chamber whether you inspected half of that territory, a quarter of
23 that territory, 100th of that territory. Please give your best estimate
24 to the Trial Chamber.
25 A. Well, you know what, we inspected practically the entire
1 territory, but we didn't go step-by-step. I suppose this is
2 understandable. We only had two days to inspect the area. We had to
3 investigate all the incidents in -- including sniping, air-bomb, and
4 Markale incidents.
5 Q. Mrs. Subotic, you accept that the footprint for a 120-millimetre
6 mortar unit is about 2 square metres?
7 A. Are you saying that the traces originating from placing a
8 120-millimetre mortar? You were not referring to shells but to the
9 asset. What I heard in the interpretation was a footprint -- the
10 footprint of a 120-millimetre mortar shell but I suppose you meant mortar
11 asset; is that right?
12 Q. Yes, correct.
13 A. You have to understand that this is a heavy weaponry. Heavy
14 weaponry, for it to be positioned in a location, it has to be pulled by a
15 vehicle, and if we have the footprint of 2 square metres, that mortar has
16 to be hauled to that area. If the area through which it has to be
17 dragged is wooded, uneven, inaccessible, then it is not to be expected
18 for those 2 square metres to be lowered from a helicopter into the future
19 position of our mortar; right?
20 This is the biggest mortar that an infantry unit has. It is not
21 a held -- hand-held mortar like a 60- or 82-millimetre weapons which you
22 can carry on your shoulder and you can place it wherever you want before
23 you fire from it. It's a different type of asset.
24 Q. Mrs. Subotic, the pie slice that we're looking at which has a
25 side of 5.000 metres and an arc of 125 degrees has an area of 4.5
1 million square metres. Do you agree with that assertion?
2 A. No. I would need to do my maths. 4.5 million square metres is
3 a -- kilometres is a lot. Sounds like a lot of territory, but you may be
4 right. I would need to check. I would need to use my calculator in
5 order to check that.
6 Q. 4.5 million square metres. Do you agree?
7 A. No. I need to check. Let's say you're right pending my own
8 calculation. I need to calculate.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Can the witness repeat?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You will allow me to control your
11 maths. I noted your figure down. I cannot either agree or disagree
12 before making my own calculation. I suppose you don't need to wait for
13 me to get hold of a calculator and then to check your figures, so we can
14 perhaps move on and I will check your figure.
15 Q. Mrs. Subotic, I'm putting it to you that you could not possibly
16 have inspected every location within the pie slice which appears on your
17 own report to determine whether a 120-millimetre mortar projectile could
18 have been fired from that location in August 1995, especially given that
19 you carried out your inspection in, I believe, 2010 or 2011. Do you
20 accept that?
21 A. I inspected the area in 2011. I agree that the plant life has
22 changed from the moment of the incident. Obviously, as I have just told
23 you, we did not comb every step of the area. There was no time for that.
24 However, the technical parameters and the physical evidence that we found
25 proved that to be unnecessary because the shell could not have arrived
1 from any of these directions, and this was based on the technical
2 parameters on the spot such as traces on the asphalt, that it was not
3 caught by radar. I'm talking about the shell. There was no sound of a
4 shell being launched. It was not as the experts of the international
5 community claimed, and that was that the prior five shells and that one
6 shell were all fired simultaneously or in a short sequence. In any case,
7 there is a lot of physical evidence on the spot that indicate -- why
8 would we have inspected -- or, rather, determined this to be 5.000 metres
9 if the stabiliser did not end up imbedded in the surface as we know? We
10 can talk about charge 1 and charge 2 only, and not the distances and your
11 4.5 million square metres as the area from which the shell was fired. If
12 it had been fired from anywhere in that area, the stabiliser would have
13 ended up embedded in the surface.
14 MR. GAYNOR: I'd like to move now to page 97 in the English and
15 page --
16 JUDGE KWON: While we -- you do so, I instructed the Registrar to
17 capture the image that appeared on our monitor when the stabiliser was
18 put on the ELMO, but while the Chamber was moving the cap part on, i.e.,
19 while screwing it and unscrewing it, the position of the markings in the
20 inner circle seems to have been moved again. So in order to be clear, I
21 will ask the Registrar to put this stabiliser on the ELMO and to capture
22 the image again to compare with the previous image.
23 MR. GAYNOR: Very well, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE KWON: Put it on the ELMO, and we'll show it on our
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My proposal would be for the
2 Trial Chamber to look at P1415 and P1471 in parallel on the screen.
3 JUDGE KWON: You can do that in your re-examination.
4 Yes, Ms. Subotic.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In order to understand me, you have
6 to first look at the image that Mr. Gaynor showed in e-court. I would
7 then have to put this in the same position, and then we could compare the
8 two. Otherwise, we won't end up with much --
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We'll have later on the three images to
10 compare. Let's put it on the ELMO and capture the image. I'm asking the
11 Registrar -- the usher to put it on the ELMO. Then we'll ...
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.
13 JUDGE KWON: Could you put it the other way around. Yes.
14 No, I'm not asking you, Mrs. Subotic. I just wanted to capture
15 the image as it is now, because I moved it around. Please hand it back
16 to Mr. Usher.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in that case it will be of no
19 JUDGE KWON: Could we zoom in a bit further. Too bright. Yes.
20 Capture this image. Yes.
21 Yes. Do you have anything to say?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I don't know how much you
23 will be able to see from this position and whether you will understand
24 the two things that I tried to compare, because now the markings denoting
25 the series are not in the same position. It would be much clearer if we
1 could place this thing so as to be easier for comparison with the photo.
2 Now it looks completely different than it looked when it was placed in
3 the previous position.
4 I can put it in that same position.
5 JUDGE MORRISON: I think Judge Kwon's observation, and it's
6 certainly mine, is that when you unscrew the outer ring, the position of
7 the inner ring also changes as a function of that unscrewing. So it's
8 not the two circles, being made of obviously different material, are not
9 restricted in their movement.
10 The second point I'd like you to deal with it while I think about
11 it is this: That you can at the moment unscrew it easily by hand. The
12 two major indentations one can see either side of the central indentation
13 appears -- appear to be the holes for the tool that is used to screw or
14 unscrew it, which is much like the mechanism you see on the back of some,
15 for instance, diving watches so that they can be made watertight or
16 airtight, and you would require that tool to screw it up tightly or,
17 indeed, to unscrew it once it had been screwed up tightly. But other
18 than that, to my eye, there is no locking mechanism, and you've suggested
19 in your evidence that it was locked in place rather than screwed in
20 place, and perhaps you'd like to deal with that.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes. I would request the Registry to offer the
22 printout of two captured images to the parties after the hearing today.
23 Yes. Let's continue.
24 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you.
25 JUDGE KWON: We're done with that stabiliser.
1 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you. Should we assign an exhibit number to
2 the captured image at this stage?
3 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Shall we give the two exhibit numbers to
4 the captured images.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibits P6329 and Exhibit P6330, Your Honours.
6 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you.
7 Q. Mrs. Subotic, I'd like now to move to your theory of a roof-top
8 delivery, and I'd like to use as an aid page 147 in B/C/S, page 97 in
10 You accept, I believe, that a mortar fuse - this is of your
11 Markale report, which is D3551 - accept that a mortar fuse is armed only
12 from the extreme acceleration which accompanies the firing of the mortar
14 A. This is the basic construction of this fuse. I already testified
15 to that. However, that part or the function of the fuse can be
16 completely switched off. It's not a problem at all.
17 Q. Very well. And you see in front of you the diagram taken by the
18 RBiH MUP of the Markale II incident which appears to suggest that the
19 building was 11.45 metres in height and the impact point was, I think,
20 4.8 metres from the base of the building.
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. You're aware that a 120-millimetre mortar projectile weighs in or
23 around 11 kilogrammes?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. And do you accept that if you were to drop an object from the top
1 of a building of approximately 11.45 metres, it would take about
2 1.6 metres -- correction, 1.6 seconds to fall to the ground?
3 A. I can do the necessary maths. I cannot answer off-the-cuff. You
4 know, I'm a professional. I like to do my calculation first before I
5 answer. I do not expect that you have done your maths. I suppose that
6 this is just your estimate. In any case, the calculation of the free
7 fall is pretty simple. I can do it during the break. I simply don't
8 like to use or speak of any technical parameters without having checked
9 them first.
10 Q. Okay. Well, if you could come back to us if you have a different
11 figure to work with, but I'm asking you to consider that the duration of
12 fall was about --
13 A. You said 1.6; right?
14 Q. Approximately 1.6, I think. Now, in order for your theory of a
15 roof-top delivery to be correct, the sabotage crew would first have had
16 to change the fuse on the mortar radically to ensure that it would be
17 armed for a roof-top delivery system, for a roof-top delivery. Then one
18 or two men would have to throw an 11-kilogramme object such that it
19 landed 4.8 metres away from the base of the building, and they would have
20 to take cover instantly to avoid being killed by the resulting
21 detonation. Do you accept that?
22 A. That is one of the descriptions of this incident, which is
23 possible. I say one of the descriptions. I was very much on my guard
24 lest I speculate. I provided all the options here and indicated
25 everything that is technically not accountable. The only option that is
1 technically possible is that, in that case, it was fired from a very
2 short distance from the positions of the BH Army. I suppose that if
3 nobody heard that, then the only thing we are left with is something akin
4 to what you said. Not to say that it could have been thrown off a lower
5 positioned window. It did not necessarily have to be the roof-top.
6 We did not go into speculations, "What if"? We wanted to find an
7 option that would fit with the physical evidence at the site. There is a
8 great deal of physical evidence on the ground that cannot be explained
9 with the -- with a shell flying in from the VRS positions, because
10 nothing similar happened. Had the shell flown in from the VRS positions,
11 it would have to be at least 2 kilometres away in order to use charge 3.
12 You know, this was the basis of our calculations. That co-ordinate would
13 have been registered by radar, probably some of the systems would have
14 registered the launch. We would not have as much shattered glass outside
15 as we can see in the footage had the explosion happened that way,
16 et cetera, et cetera.
17 Q. I further put it to you that for your theory of a roof-top
18 delivery to be correct, the shrapnel pattern on the ground would have had
19 to be arranged very carefully so as to be consistent with the firing of a
20 mortar projectile from Bosnian Serb-held territory.
21 A. I have to respond to that. The pattern of dispersion on the
22 ground indicates precisely the fact that it was not fired from the VRS
23 territory because it is a shallow groove, barely visible, and indicative
24 of the fact that the projectile had flown in from a relatively short
25 distance away and that it was fired possibly with charge 1. That's what
1 the pattern on the ground shows, nothing else. You have shallow grooves.
2 If we look at the footage, we will see that they were so shallow as to
3 have been covered in by dust.
4 Q. Well, Mrs. Subotic, the explanation you've offered just now is
5 entirely inconsistent with the only two explanations which you offer in
6 your report, one of which is roof-top delivery and the other of which is
7 static explosion by a projectile presumably placed in the middle of a
8 busy road.
9 A. I don't know why you see it that way. It fully fits with it all.
10 It is completely consistent with it. A static explosion would indeed
11 have been possible as such. On the other hand, we have, as I said, the
12 possibility that it had fallen at a low speed. We cannot look at each
13 one of these traces in isolation. We have to look at them as a whole,
14 and if we look at them as a whole, there is no other conclusion that we
15 can draw but this one.
16 Q. Now, Mrs. Subotic, in your report you've made a number of
17 assertions about a video. Again, you've asserted that at least three of
18 the figures in the video bear injuries inconsistent with a 120-millimetre
19 mortar projectile. You appear to suggest that those bodies were moved to
20 the incident site after detonation.
21 MR. GAYNOR: I'd like to play the video for the Trial Chamber.
22 It's P1450, and we'll play from 00:20 to 4:05. We'll stop once or twice
23 during the video.
24 JUDGE KWON: Shall we switch to Sanction.
25 MR. GAYNOR: I'd request the technical booth to play this with
1 the sound on to the maximum. Thank you.
2 JUDGE KWON: We seem to have a problem switching into e-court.
3 Shall we have a break for five minutes?
4 --- Break taken at 2.28 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 2.35 p.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Gaynor, I'm told that due to a technical
7 difficulty, we cannot see the video at the moment. So unless you have
8 any other things --
9 MR. GAYNOR: I can just put one question to her on one point and
10 use up some time.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
12 MR. GAYNOR:
13 Q. Judge Morrison asked you a question, Mrs. Subotic about the base
14 of the stabiliser which you held in your hand. He said, "But to my eye,
15 there is no locking mechanism, and you suggested in your evidence that it
16 was locked in place rather than screwed in place, and perhaps you'd like
17 to deal with that."
18 I don't believe you did, in fact, deal with that. Would you like
19 to do so now?
20 A. I didn't have an opportunity to answer, because other questions
21 were then put to me. So I will answer now. There is no locking-in
22 mechanism. When I said that it was locked, I meant that it was tightened
23 with a tool and that the force was strong enough with which it was done
24 that nothing would be shifted or changed at impact. So when we saw it
25 rotate, it was not -- it is not a usual thing to happen. Somebody
1 deliberately screwed and unscrewed the ring, and that is certain. And a
2 great deal of force had to be applied to it, because if you'd brought in
3 another one, you'd see how hard it is to have it rotate.
4 Q. Very well. And before we break, if you do have an opportunity
5 during the break to check any of those calculations, and you will have an
6 opportunity to make any corrections to my calculations after the break
7 that you wish to make.
8 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We'll adjourn for today and resume tomorrow at
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.38 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 22nd day
13 of May, 2013, at 9.00 a.m.