Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 38864

 1                           Wednesday, 29 May 2013

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 1.06 p.m.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Good afternoon, everyone.

 6             Today for the first session we'll be sitting pursuant to Rule 15

 7     bis, with Judge Lattanzi being away due to her urgent personal matters.

 8             Yes, Ms. Edgerton.

 9             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you, Your Honours.  Good afternoon.

10             I wanted to raise in the absence of Mr. Poparic a couple of

11     issues that arose yesterday as a result of the 19 items that we were

12     notified of after the witness began his evidence in chief.  We've had now

13     an opportunity to review those items that were -- that we're able to read

14     and the material includes four videos, two transcripts, some documents,

15     some tables, and some photos.

16             A review of that material, Your Honours, has given rise to some

17     concerns on my part with respect to both the scope of what this witness's

18     evidence is intended to be and with regard to the late notification of

19     these documents.  The late notification in these circumstances -- in

20     fact, the late notification of these documents is so blatant,

21     Your Honour, I think it affects seriously some of the basic principles of

22     fairness, particularly when we're dealing with an expert witness.

23             I'd just like to recall a little bit of what happened yesterday.

24     The first -- when the first of these late documents was dealt with with

25     Mr. Poparic, I let the matter go by, thinking that this was inadvertence,


Page 38865

 1     but then we saw the second document come up which was a video,

 2     65 ter number 1D07465, and that led to a discussion of an unscheduled

 3     incident which was -- which turned out to be an attempt to refer back to

 4     a scheduled incident, G6, which was not discussed in this witness's

 5     report.  Effectively, in my submission, an attempt to re-open the

 6     testimony of Mrs. Subotic, an expert who's already testified and to

 7     re-open that in an inappropriate means.

 8             So now just putting that in context, I'd like to turn to the

 9     documents.  First of all, two of them are already exhibits.  That's

10     1D07469 is D2431, and 1D07470 is D2430.  Now, another two of these

11     documents deal with unscheduled shelling incidents that are also not

12     within the scope of either of Mr. Poparic's two reports, the

13     inconsistencies report and the small arms report.  One of them, 1D07847,

14     appears to be an untranslated copy of an investigative file regarding

15     shelling incident in Gradacacka Street in Sarajevo on 3 July 1995.

16     1D07473, which is also untranslated and largely illegible, appears to

17     deal with another shelling incident on 21 November 1994.  Neither of

18     these two documents have anything to do with Mr. Poparic's two reports on

19     their face.

20             So in my submission if this witness is going to offer expert

21     evidence on these or other such unscheduled incidents, that is tantamount

22     to his effectively preparing or creating a new report without complying

23     with any of the applicable notice provisions in the rules.  And

24     furthermore, Your Honours have already in your decision of 12 March 2013

25     excluded a supplementary report prepared by this witness dealing with


Page 38866

 1     unscheduled incidents on the basis that detailed evidence going to those

 2     unscheduled incidents is unhelpful.  So with respect to these two

 3     documents, that looks, Your Honours, to the Prosecution like an effort to

 4     circumvent Your Honours' ruling.  So, in my submission, those two

 5     documents, the use of those two documents should not be permitted.

 6             Now, two of the other documents, 1D07464 and 1D02358, are charts,

 7     untranslated, commenting on documents prepared by organs of the Ministry

 8     of the Interior.  They each relate to what appears to be 41 unscheduled

 9     incidents.  It's unclear whether these tables contain information

10     provided by the witness or the witness's comments, and in fact

11     Dr. Karadzic attempted to tender one of these tables, that would be

12     1D02358, through the witness Ekrem Suljevic more than two years ago.  And

13     that can be found, or the discussion of that can be found at transcript

14     pages 6152 to 6157.

15             Now, Your Honours, if you look at that testimony, as we've done,

16     and the surrounding discussion, it appears that at least 1D02358 could be

17     a document purporting to analyse some aspect - I don't know what that

18     might be - but the regularity of these records prepared by these organs.

19     They are, in my submission, Your Honour, totally inappropriate for use

20     with this witness, first, because if that's what they are - and we don't

21     know - they're not within the demonstrated or the notified scope of this

22     witness's expertise at all.  He's a ballistics expert.  His CV does not

23     show he was ever a member of the security services, any arm of the

24     justice ministry in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  His CV does not show that he

25     has any specialised knowledge or expertise in the work methods of those


Page 38867

 1     organs, in record-keeping practices, or document authentication.

 2             Also, these documents aren't mentioned in his reports, either of

 3     them.  And frankly, if this evidence had formed part of the report that

 4     we received notification of, the Prosecution would have applied for its

 5     exclusion when we filed our motion in regard to those reports in February

 6     of this year.  And again, referring to Your Honours' decision on that

 7     motion of March 2013, Your Honours noted that the witness in these

 8     reports commented on numerous matters -- pardon me, in relation to the

 9     small arms report, commented on numerous matters unrelated to his small

10     arms expertise, including the authenticity of medical and police records.

11     So, in my submission, use of these tables and the underlying documents

12     should in these circumstances also not be permitted.

13             Two other documents --

14             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  How many documents are we dealing

15     with?

16             MS. EDGERTON:  Each table has --

17             JUDGE KWON:  No, no, you said two documents -- you dealt with two

18     documents already admitted and then two documents you're objecting to and

19     then another two.  And then -- because we haven't received the entire

20     document -- number of documents.  How many documents were disclosed to

21     you?

22             MS. EDGERTON:  19 all together.  Two were dealt with in court

23     yesterday.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

25             MS. EDGERTON:  I have specific issues with respect to a number of


Page 38868

 1     them, and I'll be asking for Your Honours' accommodation with respect to

 2     photographs and videos.  And my colleague will be able to give me the

 3     numbers in a few moments because I don't have those for you as I speak.

 4             MR. ROBINSON:  Excuse me, Mr. President, maybe this could be a

 5     helpful intervention.  So actually the use of those documents yesterday

 6     was as much of a surprise to me as they were to the Prosecution, and I

 7     think our game plan with this witness was to go through the sniping

 8     incidents one by one.  And I spoke to Dr. Karadzic this afternoon and

 9     he's prepared to do that with the commencement of the testimony.  And

10     whether or not any of those other documents are used with this witness is

11     up in -- is still being debated.

12             So I suggest that we --

13             JUDGE KWON:  I'm sorry, why could not that have been communicated

14     to the Prosecution first without having to lose some time?

15             MR. ROBINSON:  Well, we just received their e-mail before court

16     and I just discussed this with Dr. Karadzic five minutes before court

17     started when I first had contact with him after receiving notice that

18     they were going to object.  So this is -- I could have interrupted her a

19     little earlier, I realise that, but I wanted to be somehow polite.

20             JUDGE KWON:  But off the top of my head, I have general sympathy

21     with what -- about the concern Ms. Edgerton expressed.  I just looked at

22     the wording of Rule 94 bis.

23             MR. ROBINSON:  No, I understand completely.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

25             MR. ROBINSON:  And I think it's better if we focus on the report,


Page 38869

 1     the sniping, and I hope that it won't be necessary to use those

 2     documents.  But if Dr. Karadzic at the end of that feels it's necessary

 3     to insist, we could advise everyone and we could proceed at that time.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.

 5             Ms. Edgerton.

 6             MS. EDGERTON:  In the interests of efficiency then, I think we

 7     should proceed.  But, Your Honours, with respect to the photos that we

 8     were notified of - and I'll be able to have the numbers for you in a

 9     moment but I'm sure Dr. Karadzic knows which ones we're speaking of -

10     they relate to sniping incidents F4, as we can see, and F10.

11             With respect to the videos, one of those videos relates to

12     sniping incident F12.

13             In light of -- and I can give you the 65 ter numbers of the

14     videos now:  1D7457, 1D7460, 1D7458, and 1D7459.  My colleague will

15     provide me with the 65 numbers for the photographs.

16             But anyway, to get back to this.  Because of the late -- the

17     belated notice of these documents, we would ask that Your Honours

18     consider recommending to Dr. Karadzic that he deal with F4, F10, F12 at

19     the outset so that would allow us extra time to prepare for the

20     cross-examination in relation to that material.  So if he could deal with

21     those first, that would be helpful.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Or he may not deal with those photos or videos.

23             MS. EDGERTON:  Yes.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Did you follow, Mr. Karadzic?

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I'm confused.  I don't know


Page 38870

 1     whether I'm to deal with that first or whether not to deal with that

 2     first.  I don't know.  F4, F10, F12, and F17, all these are video-clips,

 3     so I would like to seek your guidance as to how to proceed.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  The Chamber has general concerns that you are using

 5     with this expert that is included in the witness report -- expert report.

 6     Our Rule says:

 7             "The full statement and/or report of any expert witness to be

 8     called by a party shall be disclosed within the time-limit prescribed by

 9     the Trial Chamber or by the Pre-Trial Judge."

10             In the circumstances there may be cases you can supplement the

11     witness's report by a small number of exhibits, but by extensively

12     relying on undisclosed documents you are circumventing the Rules.  So the

13     rule is that -- the rule is clear.  If you are planning to tender or

14     show -- use those documents, I'm sorry, video or photos, with

15     Mr. Poparic, you should do that at the outset so that the Prosecution

16     have time for preparation; otherwise, that means if you are not going to

17     use those photos or videos, you may proceed as you like.

18                           [Defence counsel confer]

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Excellencies.  I just

20     want to tell you what governed me in taking the opportunity or having

21     this witness before us, he was affiliated with the military industry in

22     Sarajevo and he is familiar with Sarajevo.  What concerns me is whether

23     in the adjudicated facts there are the consequences of the excluded

24     incidents or the testimonies and materials of the witnesses whose

25     materials have not been admitted according to 92 quater.  I'm simply not


Page 38871

 1     sure that I shouldn't touch upon the incidents which are not in the

 2     indictment because they may have been included in the indictment albeit

 3     in a different form or way.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  This is a totally different area raised by

 5     Ms. Edgerton.

 6             Please proceed.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I will start with the

 8     incidents and when we have exhausted that I will seek your leave to

 9     present other things, if the need for that arises by then.

10             JUDGE KWON:  Let us bring in the witness.

11                           [The witness takes the stand]

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

13                           WITNESS:  MILE POPARIC [Resumed]

14                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

15                           Examination by Mr. Karadzic: [Continued]

16        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Poparic.

17        A.   Good afternoon.

18        Q.   The same rule applies today.  Let's make breaks between questions

19     and answers and let's both of us speak slowly.

20             I would like to start by referring to incident 4 described in

21     your report.  Do you have the report in front of you?

22        A.   Yes, I do.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] For the benefit of e-court, 7902 is

24     the 1D number of this report.  Can it be called up in e-court because we

25     will need it.


Page 38872

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Mr. Poparic, could you please tell us the essence of what the

 3     physical evidence on the ground and the truth of the incident, what

 4     happened?

 5        A.   This happened on the 3rd of September, 1993, in Ivana Krndelja

 6     Street, currently it is Aziza Sacirbegovic Street.  On that occasion a

 7     mother and a daughter were wounded.  There was just one hit.  Based on

 8     the testimony of the wounded person, several other hits were made which

 9     means that there was a burst of fire, there were short bursts of fire.

10     The same round hit both a mother and a daughter.  There is no medical

11     evidence to that effect.  There was no forensic investigation.

12             Based on the statement of the wounded person, it was established

13     that she had been crossing the street together with her daughter.  There

14     was a barrier composed of containers on that road, and that protected

15     them from a view from Ozrenska Street.  When she had made one and a half

16     steps onto the street, she was hit, but that was one and a half steps

17     after the containers.  That's when she was hit.

18             Based on that we carried out an analysis of the distance between

19     the positions of the VRS in Ozrenska Street and we established that the

20     smallest distance to that place was about 680 metres.  Based on the

21     video-clip that was recorded by the Prosecutor's office, we measured the

22     time that was required for that person to cross the distance between the

23     shelter and the place where she was hit.  We did not reduce that time

24     because she started walking from a certain place and in the real

25     situation that time was somewhat shorter, but we simply ignored that.


Page 38873

 1             Based on the characteristics of the ammunition that may have been

 2     used, we established that the time that she needed to cross the distance

 3     between the containers and the place of the incident was less than --

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

 5             Could the parties help me locate the relevant pages in the

 6     report?

 7             MS. EDGERTON:  Page 52 in the English version of the report,

 8     Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  By the way, I again note that images and figures

10     were omitted from the English translation.  I would like the -- those

11     images and figures to be inserted in the English translation as well.

12             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.  Last time you ordered the

13     language section to do that, so if you could make that same order I'm

14     sure they'll comply.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, I confirm that.

16             Please continue.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In the Serbian version this starts

18     on page 71.  Can we call up 1D07463 in e-court.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   And could you refer to that document when you're providing your

21     answer.  Can you please finish while we're waiting.

22        A.   The time needed by the round that was fired from the position of

23     the VRS in Ozrenska Street to the place of the incident was more than the

24     time needed by the person to cross from the container to the place where

25     it was hit.  In other words, the fire had to be opened before she became


Page 38874

 1     visible to the shooter in order for that bullet to hit her in that place,

 2     which means that she was not intentionally targeted either by the VRS or

 3     whoever from another place.  I am talking about the shortest distance

 4     from the place of the incident to the position of the VRS.  In that area

 5     there is no optical visibility; in other words, the place of the incident

 6     could not be seen from those positions.

 7             I knew from the materials that we were provided with that there

 8     was a photo.  It was claimed that that photo was taken from the place

 9     from which fire was opened; however, it was an enlarged photo and I

10     couldn't establish exactly where that photo was taken from.  However, I

11     did recognise some of the facilities there and I realised that the photo

12     was taken a bit further to the east at the positions where the Serbian

13     positions were even further away from that place.  That's why I excluded

14     that place from my investigation because I didn't have the complete

15     information.

16             When Slobodan, whose family name I can't remember --

17        Q.   Tusevljak?

18        A.   Yes, Slobodan Tusevljak testified, the Prosecution showed that

19     photo as well as the photo of the place from which the photo was taken.

20        Q.   We'll come to that.  Could you please mark Ozrenska Street in

21     this photograph.

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness and the accused please be

23     asked not to overlap.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the witness be helped with the

25     electronic pen.


Page 38875

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Could you please mark that place.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Could you please not overlap each other.

 4             THE WITNESS:  [Marks].

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   I asked the witness to mark.

 7        A.   This is the place of the incidents.  Am I to mark it with number

 8     1?  Is that what you wanted me to do?

 9        Q.   Yes.  And now could you please mark Ozrenska Street, and in this

10     regard I would like you to mark both the Serbian and the Muslim

11     positions.

12        A.   This would be Ozrenska Street approximately.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

14             To be clear, is this one of the photos that was added later on?

15             MS. EDGERTON:  Yes.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Shall I write Ozrenska?

17             THE INTERPRETER:  The question was inaudible by the interpreter.

18             THE WITNESS:  [Marks].

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   And now take the red pen and mark the Serbian positions.

21        A.   They could have been here approximately.  Those were the most

22     forward positions more or less, and based on the map that we had at our

23     disposal they should have been somewhere around here.  There was a

24     forward position here, and that's the shortest distance from the place of

25     the incident to the Serbian positions.


Page 38876

 1        Q.   For the transcript I have to say that the pen is blue because it

 2     says in the transcript that the pen is red.

 3             Can you put number 3 next to the line, please.

 4        A.   [Marks].

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Where are the Muslim positions?

 6        A.   The Muslim positions were somewhere below approximately here

 7     based on the maps, somewhere around here they were.

 8        Q.   Thank you.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  For the record, did you put number 2 for Ozrenska

10     Street?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.

13             Yes, please continue.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   And now number 4 for the Muslim positions in the area.

16        A.   Yes, number 4.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please tell us, in the closest of the

18     scenarios what is the distance between the Serbian positions and the

19     place of the incident?

20        A.   I can draw a line to mark that distance, and that would be about

21     680 metres.  Maybe the best thing for me to do would be to write "600

22     metres" next to the line.

23        Q.   Thank you.

24        A.   So this is where the most forward positions were.

25        Q.   What was the visibility?  But you can't see it here.  Can you see


Page 38877

 1     a facility on this Google Earth map that you can recognise, one that we

 2     can also recognise in the photo?

 3        A.   What photo do you have in mind?  There are a lot of facilities

 4     that I might be able to mark for you.  For example, this facility here or

 5     this one.

 6        Q.   Can you put numbers 5 and 6 to those -- next to those circles and

 7     tell us what they are.

 8        A.   Number 5 is a damaged house in Triglavska Street, and I'm going

 9     to mark another building and I'll put a number 7 next to it.  That's a

10     building that we can also see on the photo.  Number 6 is a private house

11     that we can see in one -- in some of the photos.  And based on that --

12     the position of that house, we can establish where those positions were.

13        Q.   Could I please ask you to sign this and put a date on this

14     document.

15        A.   So today we are 29 May; right?  I apologise, can I mark another

16     place?  I don't want to have to come back to this document.  I would like

17     to mark it by number 8.  This is the place from which the photo that I've

18     mentioned was taken.  Obviously that was according to my estimate.

19        Q.   Thank you.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted as a document?

21             MS. EDGERTON:  We haven't heard Dr. Karadzic put one single

22     question to the witness about the basis for his knowledge in the markings

23     that he's made on this map, so I would object until some foundation is

24     established.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic, or could you answer the question,


Page 38878

 1     Mr. Poparic?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can answer.  Mr. Karadzic

 3     started by saying something and then obviously interrupted me -- I

 4     interrupted him.  I mentioned a few photographs that were shown to the

 5     witness Slobodan Tusevljak which are directly connected to this incident,

 6     and in those photos we recognise some of the facilities and we can

 7     establish the place from which those photos were taken.  And in this

 8     document this is marked by number 8.  That was the whole point of this

 9     exercise.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Did you inspect those places?

12        A.   Yes, I did.  I know this place from before, and when I saw those

13     photos I asked the Defence to send me those photos which they did.  And

14     then on the 12th of December, last year, which was 2012, I went to the

15     site.  I walked along Varazdinska Street in order to personally see what

16     kind of an area or a ground it was and whether those facilities were

17     there.

18             My main objective was to see where the photos were taken from in

19     order to be able to establish whether the distance was bigger or smaller

20     than the distance that I was able to establish based on the time of the

21     flight of the round, whether that distance was more than 680 metres, and

22     that was the main objective of my visit.

23        Q.   Thank you.  How many times did you inspect the place?

24        A.   I inspected the place several times, many times, as a matter of

25     fact, because my wife lived very close to number 6.  So I'm very familiar


Page 38879

 1     with the area.  I knew it from before the war.  I know the neighbourhood

 2     and the people living there.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Was this ever admitted?  Has it got

 4     a number?  Because I would like to call up photo 44.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 6             MS. EDGERTON:  Dr. Karadzic had this witness mark confrontation

 7     lines and military positions.  So absent evidence that the witness was

 8     there at the time, I think it would be useful for us to hear the basis or

 9     the foundation for those markings.

10             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  It's not for you, Mr. Poparic.

11             Mr. Robinson.

12             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.  This information is in the

13     report of the witness, so I don't think that it's necessary for him to

14     orally give the basis of everything that he's illustrating.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Where do we have it?

16             MR. ROBINSON:  Well, Mr. President, I believe in his report he

17     indicated that -- he could point to the exact page but he indicated where

18     the confrontation lines were, what the distance was between the place,

19     and where it would have had to have been fired from if it was in the Serb

20     positions --

21             JUDGE KWON:  What's that para number?

22             MR. ROBINSON:  Perhaps Mr. Poparic can give that.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's photo 49, paragraph 59, if

24     that may be of any assistance.  I believe it's 59.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Photo 48 is very similar in terms


Page 38880

 1     of its Google presentation.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, I'm fine with using the images contained in his

 3     report.  But while I'm hearing his evidence, his evidence looks like that

 4     of an investigator, not of an expert.  I will consult my colleagues.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE BAIRD:  Mr. Robinson, we're not seeing those lines at all

 7     that you referred to.  Can you help us, please.

 8             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Judge Baird.  On page 55 of the English, on

 9     the top paragraph, number -- paragraph 59, he says:

10             "According to the operations map, the separation line ..."

11             And then he describes where the separation line existed at the

12     time.

13             JUDGE BAIRD:  Thank you very much.

14                           [Trial Chamber confers]

15             JUDGE KWON:  We'll receive this map, but bear in mind that -- how

16     much probative value it will have, Mr. Karadzic, given that he's not a

17     fact witness.

18             Please proceed.  Shall we assign the number for this?

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Number would be D3616, Your Honours.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Can we please take a look at the image that was shown to

22     Mr. Tusevljak.  I have it as 1D1746.  It is already in evidence.

23     1D07468.  Thank you.

24             Mr. Poparic, can you tell us what this picture represents and

25     where was it taken from?


Page 38881

 1        A.   This is a photograph I mentioned as having in my files and

 2     originally I couldn't tell where it had been taken from, but now based on

 3     other photographs I can tell that this picture was taken from Ozrenska

 4     Street.  The building to the right is the one I marked as number 6 on

 5     that map.

 6        Q.   Then please mark it here as well.

 7        A.   Yes, I'll mark it with a number 6.

 8        Q.   Can you switch on the pen yourself?

 9        A.   This is building number 6.

10        Q.   Can you please mark the incident site with number 1.

11        A.   It's hereabouts.

12        Q.   Tell us how did you conclude that this photograph was taken east

13     of the axis of the street?

14        A.   I can tell based on that map and another photograph that was

15     shown to that witness, but it's hard to tell based on this photograph.

16     That's why I didn't consider it.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Given that this is on the right, what is the distance

18     between the Serbian positions and the incident site?  Is it over or under

19     680 metres?

20        A.   I measured some 730, 740 metres, I mean the place from where this

21     picture was taken.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Please sign and initial.

23        A.   [Marks].

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted so we can move

25     on to the next?


Page 38882

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Ms. Edgerton.

 2             MS. EDGERTON:  No problem with that.  And just for the record

 3     this was not shown to Mr. Tusevljak.  This is 65 ter 23966 and he was

 4     shown 23967 and 23968, which are similar.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we'll receive it.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Document receives number D3617, Your Honours.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 8             Could we now see 1D07469.

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Please mark the house you recognise with number 6 and mark the

11     incident site with number 1?

12        A.   This is a very similar photograph; right?  But the zoom is

13     different.

14        Q.   Yes, it is.

15             MS. EDGERTON:  I'm sorry, this is D2431 also for the record.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

17             Could you give the number, Ms. Edgerton, again.

18             MS. EDGERTON:  2431.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Was this photograph taken from the Serbian positions or is it

21     zoomed in?

22        A.   It is zoomed in, less so than the previous one, though.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Please date it.

24        A.   [Marks].

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted?


Page 38883

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Document receives number D3618, Your Honours.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 4             1D07470, please.  I believe that this one was shown to Tusevljak.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Ms. Edgerton, you told us this was also admitted.

 6     Do you have the exhibit number?

 7             MS. EDGERTON:  If I can just see it on the screen, then I would

 8     probably be able to help.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D07470.

10             MS. EDGERTON:  I found my own handwritten notes and I think it's

11     D2430.

12             THE ACCUSED:  Upside down, please.  Back one.  [Interpretation]

13     Thank you.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Now, please also switch on the pen and mark the house with number

16     6 and this incident site with number 1, and tell us where this was taken

17     from.

18        A.   This is a photograph that was shown to Mr. Tusevljak, and that is

19     when I first saw from where that zoomed-in photograph was taken.  I'll

20     mark that visible building with number 6 and I'll mark the incident site

21     with 1.

22        Q.   Can this damaged house be seen elsewhere in some other

23     photograph, I mean on the Google picture?

24        A.   You mean the brick house?  I marked it with a number 7.  This one

25     with the foundation and the one next to it, they are finished now and


Page 38884

 1     people live in them.  I marked them before.  I believe it was marked

 2     number 7.

 3        Q.   Can you mark it number 8.  On the previous page you said "7."  We

 4     should have clarified that, 7 and 8.

 5        A.   Maybe 7 after all.

 6        Q.   Okay.  Put a 7 next to it or cross out the number 8.  Considering

 7     the position of the photographer, where were the Serbian positions, in

 8     front of him or behind him?

 9        A.   I didn't find that anywhere because I wasn't there.  I can only

10     say that in front of this building there is a slope and it's logical for

11     the positions to be either here or a bit further back.  This place is

12     some 730 to 740 metres away from the incident site, and the positions are

13     down there.  But I don't know what the situation was like during the war

14     because there was a wood here, which was cut down during the war.

15     Whether it was here exactly, I don't know.  But there is no reliable

16     information as to whether there was a line of sight as we see it now back

17     then.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted?  And we'll

19     see on D3676 whether it's 7 or 8.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Please date it and initial.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted?

23             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, this will be received as Exhibit D3619.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, I apologise.  There was just a gap

25     that we were filling in, so the next exhibit number will be D3623,


Page 38885

 1     Your Honours.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.

 3             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Let's look at D3616 now so we can see whether that has number 7

 5     or number 8.  Perhaps we can have a split image so as to see both.  Is

 6     this house number 8?

 7        A.   Yes, it's 8.  I made a mistake.  I marked house number 6 -- it

 8     should have been 7.  That's the mistake.  I was marking on those

 9     zoomed-in photographs.  I was putting there -- I was putting 6 there and

10     it should have been 7.

11        Q.   In other words, where there's a 6 in those photographs, it should

12     be a 7?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And you have also now said wherever there's a 7 in those

15     photographs, it should be 8 here?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now get D107472 on one half

19     of the screen --

20             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

21             Could you tell us the basis upon which you concluded number 8 is

22     the very house we saw in the previous picture?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can tell based on the previously

24     shown photographs and on the position of the buildings that can be seen

25     there and based on an inspection of the site.  Only these two buildings


Page 38886

 1     can be the places where the photograph was taken.  In front of that

 2     building there's a strong slope and it isn't logical for a firing

 3     position to be on that slope.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Shall we zoom in on number 8.

 5             Does it look like that house?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is enough.  The one I'm

 7     pointing at now, I don't know if you can see it, is the house where --

 8     that only had a foundation.  The one on the left is a mere foundation,

 9     whereas the one next to it is half finished.  And around them there are

10     some orchards or something.  We could see them in those photographs.

11     There is also a flat surface there.  That's the site where other houses

12     were built subsequently.  One of them was under construction at the time.

13     We can see the roofs of the houses downhill and based on that we can

14     determine the exact position.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  Do you know when this Google image was

16     taken?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Google image in 2011, I

18     believe, that's the most recent version.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

20             Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22             Can we zoom out and see the whole photograph.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   And you, sir, would you please draw this 700-odd-metre-long line.

25        A.   Up to the point where the photograph was taken from?


Page 38887

 1        Q.   Yes.  From there to the incident site.

 2        A.   [Marks].

 3        Q.   Mark it with number 9, please.

 4        A.   That's an angle.  I measured it on Google and it's between 10 and

 5     15 degrees.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  On that BH army map, can this bend at number 3 be

 7     seen?  Shall we show it?

 8        A.   But it can be seen more or less.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted with the same

10     exhibit number?  Just so that the red line is kept.

11             JUDGE KWON:  This will be saved as it is now.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have image 49, please,

13     from the document.  1D7902, that's the document.  That's the report.

14     Serbian page 78.

15             [Microphone not activated].

16             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you please zoom in.  We need

18     to have the map enlarged.  We no longer need the photograph.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, let's leave the photograph,

20     please.

21             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   All right.  Let's leave the photograph.

23        A.   We may need it.

24        Q.   Number 3 that you marked there, as the line moves, yes.  Can you

25     mark number 3?  Just a moment.  Perhaps you can activate the pen


Page 38888

 1     yourself.

 2        A.   That would be the bend roughly.  And how can we recognise this?

 3     Well, you see, I'm going to mark this with a number 4, that's fine, or

 4     maybe a bigger number.

 5        Q.   11 -- 10, 10.

 6        A.   10.  The road here, there's this very small road here on the

 7     side, and that's why I thought that we should leave that photograph with

 8     the beginning of the road so it's easy to recognise on that basis where

 9     this is, this area that is protruding.

10        Q.   I beg your pardon.  Could you please use a red line to mark the

11     line of taking the photograph.  D1, could you use that to mark the site

12     of this incident.

13        A.   It should be here roughly.  It's very small, isn't it, number 1.

14        Q.   And now can you show us the direction from which the picture was

15     taken, 700-something metres?

16        A.   Perhaps a bit more to the right but it would be here roughly.

17        Q.   Could you please put the date and your initials there.

18        A.   [Marks].

19        Q.   Thank you.  What is your conclusion briefly, and why?

20        A.   After these additional checks, the conclusion is that the lady

21     who was wounded could not have been hit -- could not have been targeted

22     intentionally because the bullet had to be fired before she appeared from

23     behind the shelter.  That is to say the person who was firing had to fire

24     the bullet before he saw that person.

25             Let me just say one more thing.  When analysing the time, we did


Page 38889

 1     not take into account the time that was needed for the person who was

 2     firing to prepare for firing, and may I remind you that as far as sniper

 3     rifles are concerned it is 30 bullets per minute that is the maximum

 4     velocity.  So at least a second and a bit more is needed to prepare for

 5     firing.  So this is just the time that it takes the bullet to get there.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  We'll receive this marked image.

 7             MS. EDGERTON:  Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 9             MS. EDGERTON:  Of course no objection to Your Honours receiving

10     the marked image, but not as a map from the 14th Division Chief of Staff

11     of the Bosnian Army land forces, because this is a map that's taken from

12     65 ter number 07048 which is a working map of the Main Staff of the

13     command of the 12th Division.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

15             This will be the next Defence exhibit.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D3624, Your Honours.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Can you just tell us another thing as a ballistics expert.  What

20     is the precision of a sniper rifle at this distance of 680 and 740

21     metres?

22        A.   Well, a sniper rifle at these distances, it is precise enough to

23     be able to hit a person.  Not the rifle, it's the marksman who can do

24     that.  This had to be a burst of gun-fire.  That's what the witness said.

25     According to the testimony of the injured party, it was not a sniper


Page 38890

 1     rifle.

 2        Q.   Thank you.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now show 1D7472 on part of

 4     the screen, and on the other half of the screen image 44 from the

 5     document.  First image 44 from the document.

 6             MS. EDGERTON:  Oh, and, Your Honours, just with regard to the map

 7     we just spoke about and I took to my feet on, I'm advised by one of my

 8     colleagues it's -- I misinformed you.  It's the Chief of Staff's map, not

 9     the Main Staff.  And we'll check with Mr. Reid, but I think that map may

10     be P1764.  So I told Your Honours it was a map of the Main Staff of the

11     command of the 12th Division, but I'm told it's the Chief of Staff's map

12     of the command of the 12th Division.

13             JUDGE KWON:  So what is wrong with the report is that -- is the

14     mistake of that number of the division?

15             MS. EDGERTON:  Yes.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Okay.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  On the left-hand side

18     of image 44, could we just zoom in on that, please.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Can you tell us what we see on this right-hand photograph,

21     Mr. Poparic?

22        A.   This is a picture from the scene itself.  We had to move a bit to

23     the other side because of these trees, otherwise we couldn't see it.  So

24     you see along this line, the front part of a car, that was the place of

25     the incident as was marked by this witness.  And this is a view of Hrasno


Page 38891

 1     Brdo.  Ozrenska Ulica is behind it and you cannot see it from this

 2     position.  It's only from a photograph that was taken a lot further away

 3     from Omera Maslica Street.  You can see another part where you can see

 4     Ozrenska Street.  So this is proof -- I mean we dealt with that in

 5     detail, that this place was not visible from this forward position of the

 6     Army of Republika Srpska that we saw on the map.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  This zoom is even more than five times because in the

 8     document it was zoomed in five times.  So can we remove the right-hand

 9     picture now.  It's the same thing but less of a zoom; right?

10        A.   No, the right-hand side has more of a zoom and the left-hand side

11     has less.  In image 45 you can see the difference better in terms of the

12     visibility of Ozrenska Street.

13        Q.   45, please, which is on the next page.

14             THE ACCUSED:  Next page.  75 in Serbian.

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Could you explain this to us?

17        A.   The left-hand photograph is zoomed in five times as explained in

18     image 44, and the right-hand photograph was taken at a distance that is

19     far greater.  Omera Maslica Street, I don't know what its name is now,

20     and then there's street of Zmaja od Bosne.  And these red lines mark the

21     level that can be seen on the left-hand side and on the right, I mean the

22     red line is the upper line of the photograph on the other side.  So all

23     of this, what you can see on the right-hand side, is not visible from the

24     place where the incident occurred.  And then up there there's Ozrenska

25     Street and --


Page 38892

 1        Q.   Thank you.

 2        A.   -- we established that this line corresponds to a distance of 580

 3     metres.  So the Serb positions were a further 100 metres away.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  However, at 740 metres there is visibility and at 680

 5     there is not; is that correct?

 6             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We did not follow the

 7     witness.  He started speaking too fast and too soon.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Poparic, the interpreters were not able to catch

 9     up with your speed.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise.  I do apologise.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Could you repeat your answer, Mr. Poparic.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So from 680 metres the place of the

13     incident is not visible.  From 740 or 730 metres, it doesn't matter, it

14     is visible.  However, this is a photograph that was taken in 2000 or in

15     2001.  During the war we don't know what the situation was because I know

16     that that area was covered with a forest that was pretty big.  The trees

17     were 15 or 20 metres away, so I don't know whether this area was covered

18     by that, I cannot confirm.  But nearby there used to be a big forest that

19     was cut down during the war.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Thank you.  Can you just tell the Trial Chamber how come you know

22     that that area is -- well, actually you mentioned it but I'm not sure it

23     was recorded.

24        A.   I've already said that my wife's parents lived in this street and

25     I came there for many years and I met all of these people who lived


Page 38893

 1     there.  And I knew the forest.  And there used to be a motel there that

 2     was built during the Olympic games.  It never worked, it was never

 3     opened, and so it remained in some photographs.  And you can see the

 4     remains of this motel in some of the photographs, and I know that there

 5     used to be a forest there.  And now we see that there is a road leading

 6     to Ozrenska.  At that time there wasn't a road.  There weren't quite a

 7     few roads there before the war.  A lot of this was built after the war,

 8     roads, houses.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Could we now focus on incident 10.  What did you

10     conclude as you studied the evidence related to number 10?  It's page 123

11     in Serbian and I don't know which number it is in English.  I know that

12     the paragraph number is 134.

13             JUDGE KWON:  84.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can somebody help me with this?

15     Why did Madam Edgerton want 10?  Do we have some new photograph there?  I

16     don't seem to be able to recall that.  Which number of document would be

17     a new one as regards this incident?

18             MS. EDGERTON:  One of the photographs that Dr. Karadzic just used

19     with the witness.  1D07472.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  As regards this

21     incident we haven't got anything new.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.    But now that we've had this called up, can you tell us what you

24     concluded?

25        A.   It's the 22nd of July, 1994.  The incident is interesting because


Page 38894

 1     in the indictment it says, and in all the other documents related to this

 2     incident, that it occurred in Miljenka Cvitkovica Street and all the

 3     evidence was adduced in Dzemela Bijedica Street.  That is something that

 4     is highly illogical.

 5             Secondly, disregarding all of that, the fact that the locations

 6     do not tally, we looked at the police documents, primarily photo

 7     documents, and on the basis of that they concluded that the bullet was

 8     fired from Zagorska Street, which is now called --

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreters did not hear the name of the

10     street.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In photo documentation --

12             JUDGE KWON:  The interpreters did not hear the name of the

13     street.  The bullet was fired from where?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to police assertions,

15     Zagorska Street, now it's called Posavska Street.  That's where the shot

16     came.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have image 87 now from the

18     document on page 127 in the Serbian version.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Can you tell us what this shows.

21        A.   Well, this shows the distance actually from this location in

22     Dzemela Bijedica where this evidence was presented in terms of the

23     incident having occurred there and the site in Posavska Street from where

24     this shot could have come from.  1.245 metres is the distance and that

25     exceeds the abilities even of a sniper rifle.  So if the shot came from


Page 38895

 1     that location, it must have been a machine-gun because that would be the

 2     only weapon that would have that kind of range.

 3        Q.   [No interpretation].

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Mr. Karadzic spoke so we

 5     didn't understand either him or the witness.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   And you said --

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

 9             Your previous question was not translated.  Could you repeat it

10     all over.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I asked what this image

12     represented.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This image represented the distance

14     from Posavska Street to the site where the evidence was presented

15     concerning this incident in Dzemela Bijedica Street.  1.245 metres is the

16     distance involved which shows the following:  If the targeting was

17     intentional, if this boy was targeted intentionally, it couldn't have

18     been a sniper rifle.  It might have been a machine-gun.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Thank you.  Can you please draw a line along Dzemela Bijedica

21     Street and then two parallel ones, Miljenka Cvitkovica, perhaps you can

22     use blue and red, where according to the findings of the police the

23     incident occurred.  Use the pen.

24             Can we have that image back, please.

25        A.   This is Dzemela Bijedica Street, one of the longest in Sarajevo.


Page 38896

 1     Maybe I extended the line too much, but it goes downwards in any case.

 2     It's a bit short -- actually, the right-hand side line should be shorter

 3     but it's neither near nor there.  And Miljenka Cvitkovica is behind this

 4     building here.  There is a huge and long building, the longest in

 5     Sarajevo probably, and behind it is Miljenka Cvitkovica Street.  Miljenka

 6     Cvitkovica Street was certainly not visible from those positions.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please put the number 1 on Dzemala Bijedica

 8     Street and number 2 on Miljenka Cvitkovica Street.

 9        A.   [Marks].

10        Q.   Thank you.  In terms of the traces on the tarpaulin cover, what

11     did you conclude?

12        A.   This is how it was:  The police concluded that the bullet first

13     fired from that street because they found a trace on the tarpaulin cover

14     through which the bullet passed and then it shattered the glass on a cafe

15     bar.  And they say that by a projection they could establish that that's

16     where the bullet was fired from.  And I claim with full responsibility

17     that that was not the case as I'm looking at these photos.

18        Q.   And now can we look at image 89.  Does this mean that the boy was

19     not visible if the bullet had to pierce the tarpaulin cover first?

20        A.   It's very difficult to say.  They arrived at the conclusion that

21     another bullet was fired which basically pierced the stall cover, but

22     this is not proof enough to show that the boy was not visible.  However,

23     based on the traces on the tarpaulin cover and the glass on the coffee

24     bar, they managed to establish the trajectory.  As I'm looking at this

25     photo, I don't know how they could see through the hole in the tarpaulin


Page 38897

 1     cover.

 2        Q.   Please, could you put the date and sign the photo.

 3        A.   [Marks].

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] To be admitted and then briefly

 5     before the break I would like to look at image 89.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we'll receive it.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Document receives number D3625, Your Honours.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Image 89.

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Can you please tell us what this image depicts.

11        A.   It completely refutes the police claims.  They drew their

12     conclusions based on the traces on the awning on the right-hand side

13     where you see the arrow.  According to them this is the place where the

14     bullet entered the awning and then continued its trajectory and shattered

15     the glass on the coffee bar.  However, this is not a bullet trace.  This

16     is damage which was caused by another object.

17             I'm sure that all of us have torn our trousers and we know what

18     that would look like.  The trace of the bullet can be seen on the

19     previous photo.  That's where you can see something that looks like a

20     bullet trace.  When you look at that trace and the place where that

21     bullet pierced the coffee bar window-pane, one arrives at the conclusion

22     that that bullet had arrived from south-west, which is much further from

23     the trajectory than the investigators established as the trajectory of

24     that bullet.

25             In addition to that, the incoming angle of that bullet when we


Page 38898

 1     look at the height of the tarpaulin and the place where the window-pane

 2     of coffee bar was pierced is about 40 to 45 degrees which could not have

 3     been the case.  If the bullet had been fired from 1.200 metres from an

 4     infantry rifle, the angle would have been a couple of degrees.  This

 5     trace could have been caused by a bullet in free fall, or somebody in the

 6     coffee bar actually fired a shot and that bullet came out through the

 7     window and hit the awning.

 8             In any case, the place that was traced by the police is not a

 9     bullet trace and it misled the police to arrive at an erroneous

10     conclusion.

11        Q.   Thank you.  So the trajectory -- or before that, who is it who

12     drew the arrow?

13        A.   It was drawn by the police and it's based on their claim that

14     this is a bullet trace.  But this doesn't look like a bullet trace at

15     all.

16        Q.   And now would you please tell us, what would be the azimuth if

17     the bullet had arrived from the direction which they claim it did, which

18     would be less than 180, and what would be the others?

19        A.   Off the cuff it's very difficult for me to say, but approximately

20     it would be 40 degrees or perhaps even more and it would be more to the

21     west.

22        Q.   I'm afraid that we are not making enough pauses and maybe our

23     interpreters are -- maybe we have tired out our interpreters.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So perhaps this would be a good

25     time for a break.


Page 38899

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we'll have a break for half an hour and resume

 2     at three minutes after 3.00.

 3                           --- Recess taken at 2.33 p.m.

 4                           --- On resuming at 3.04 p.m.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Ms. Edgerton.

 6             MS. EDGERTON:  Yes, thank you.  Just a small thing, Your Honour,

 7     for some cross-referencing.  D3624 is an excerpt from P01764.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  D3624 --

 9             MS. EDGERTON:  Being --

10             JUDGE KWON:  -- was an exhibit marked by the witness?

11             MS. EDGERTON:  Yes, being a map excerpt.

12             JUDGE KWON:  All right.

13             MS. EDGERTON:  It is an excerpt.

14             JUDGE KWON:  The original map -- yes.

15             MS. EDGERTON:  Correct.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Ms. Edgerton.

17             Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please continue.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   And now let's focus on incident number 12 which is described in

21     paragraph 162.  I don't know on which page in English; however, the

22     paragraph is 162.  The Serbian page is 141.  Could you please tell us --

23             MS. EDGERTON:  Page 96 in English.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  We were not getting the translation.

25     Could you repeat?


Page 38900

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes --

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Probably it was only my headphones.  Please

 3     continue.

 4             THE ACCUSED:  [Microphone not activated].

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  No microphone.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Could you please tell us based on the materials that were

 8     accessible to you and the physical evidence that you could study, what

 9     could you conclude about that incident?

10        A.   That incident happened on the 18th of November, 1994.  Dzenana

11     Sokolovic and her son Nermin Divovic were hit.  On that occasion she was

12     wounded and her son was killed.

13             Based on all the available facts, it was very difficult to

14     establish as to what had indeed happened there.  I believe that in that

15     case we were missing a very important thing and that was a detailed

16     forensic finding.  The key to the solution of this case lies in the

17     forensic expertise.  That was one of those cases where it was practically

18     impossible to establish correctly what had happened without a detailed

19     forensic finding.

20             In the file there is an excerpt from the forensic finding;

21     however, we don't know what that is, whether that was just a post mortem

22     examination or a post mortem finding and there is a big difference

23     between the two because a finding will include the details of the

24     examination of the victim's body with all the necessary details, whereas

25     an examination is just as it says, an examination, and a statement as to


Page 38901

 1     how the person died.

 2             Here we have a lot of contradictory data and primarily this

 3     concerns the trajectory or the direction from which the bullet was fired.

 4     Whether it hit the mother and the son from the right to the left or from

 5     the left to the right and the latter we can find in the police report and

 6     the medical documents after Dzenana Sokolovic's surgery.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Can you please tell us what does the first medical

 8     report say, the most recent or the earliest one after the wounding?

 9     Where were the entry and exit wounds in those two people?

10        A.   In Dzenana Sokolovic's discharge letter it says that she was

11     wounded, or rather, that the entry wound is on the left and the exit

12     wound is on the right.  And in that the doctor also provided the

13     dimensions of the entry and exit wounds which correspond to the

14     phenomenon because an entry wound is always smaller and the exit wound is

15     always larger, and that was the case here as well.

16             In the case of her son Nermin Divovic, it says in the police

17     report that they had received information from the hospital that he was

18     hit from the left and that the exit wound was on the right-hand side.

19     These are the two official documents which testify to the fact that they

20     were both hit from the left.  In the post mortem findings it says that

21     Nermin Divovic was hit from the right-hand side and that the exit wound

22     was on the left-hand side.  One of the two is not correct.  We do not

23     have any indicators that would help us make personal opinions as to what

24     is correct and what is not.  In this case we can only rely on the law of

25     probabilities.  There are two documents which say that the bullet came


Page 38902

 1     from one side and the third document that says that the bullet came from

 2     a different side.

 3             If we look at the document where it says that Nermin Divovic was

 4     hit from the right-hand side, the probability that that may be correct is

 5     0.5 and the other option is also correct to the same extent.

 6             If we look at the two documents which state that the bullet came

 7     from the left-hand side and exited from the right-hand side, according to

 8     the law probabilities, the correctness of that is 0.75.  In mathematical

 9     terms and in terms of the law of probabilities, we should adopt the

10     assumption that it is much more probable that they were hit from the

11     left-hand side and that the exit wounds are on the right-hand side of

12     their bodies.  There are a number of other material facts that

13     corroborate that, but they should be additionally corroborated by the

14     forensic findings.

15             On a video-clip that has not been used so far as far as I know,

16     we can see Dzenana Sokolovic in the hospital and the video-clip also

17     depicts the dressings on her wounds, based on which one could gain an

18     impression that the right-hand side wound is lower on the body in respect

19     of the left-hand side of the body, which shows that she was probably hit

20     on the left-hand side of the body.

21        Q.   Thank you.  Can I now ask you to look at image 101, and before

22     that can you please tell us what is officially said in the documents?

23     What was the route that Dzenana Sokolovic and her son followed, and where

24     were they when they were hit?

25        A.   This is another very controversial situation.  There are various


Page 38903

 1     pieces of information as to where they were hit and when that happened.

 2             According to one of Dzenana Sokolovic's statements, she was on

 3     her way back from Hrasno Brdo.  She was carrying firewood.  She had

 4     collected the firewood in Hrasno Brdo.  And when they reached the

 5     building of Novo Sarajevo municipality, which is about 1.200 metres to

 6     the west, in the Street of Zmaja od Bosne they heard fire.  They all

 7     threw themselves on the floor, and then she felt that she had been

 8     wounded.

 9             Later on she pointed to the place where she was hit on a

10     video-clip that was recorded by the Prosecutor's office and she pointed

11     to the plateau in front of the museum in Zmaja od Bosne Street.  And then

12     when she testified she said that she had been wounded when she stepped

13     out on Franje Racog Street.  A film that was recorded on that occasion

14     shows the boy lying in the middle of the street, so she could not say

15     with full reliability that that was indeed the place where she was hit --

16             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

17             Yes, Ms. Edgerton.

18             MS. EDGERTON:  Your Honour, I don't know where this is going but

19     this is Mr. Poparic giving evidence as a fact witness completely

20     inappropriately.

21             MR. ROBINSON:  Actually, Mr. President, that raises an

22     interesting issue because this clearly is an expert witness who was

23     tasked with trying to establish how something occurred, and in the course

24     of establishing how something occurred he's looking at scientific

25     evidence but he's also looking, as he should, at other facts.  And the


Page 38904

 1     Prosecution was allowed to have Barry Hogan, for example, to come and

 2     testify as to these similar kinds of things that led them to believe that

 3     it happened in the way the Prosecution's theory was.

 4             So we don't have the kind of resources or the big team that the

 5     Prosecution has, but it seems to me that there's nothing wrong with our

 6     expert who went to Sarajevo, who studied this whole thing, giving the

 7     same kind of testimony as Barry Hogan did.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  How about the notification?  And could it not have

 9     been reflected in his report?

10             MR. ROBINSON:  I believe that many of these things are in his

11     report.  I'm not sure about this particular one but when you -- in fact,

12     this was one of the problems that you seemed to have with his report,

13     that it contained comments on things that were outside of his expertise.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Would you like to add anything?

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I be of assistance here?

16     Paragraph 64 [as interpreted], footnote 288 speaks about that statement

17     provided by Dzenana Sokolovic.  Paragraph 163.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Ms. Edgerton, would you like to add anything?

19             MS. EDGERTON:  Well, this -- his job in this analysis is not to

20     provide an analysis of the credibility of witnesses who have appeared

21     before other Trial Chambers.  And I maintain my objection.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The paragraph number is 163,

23     footnote 288 in the report.  Could that please be corrected in the

24     transcript.

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]


Page 38905

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, please bear in mind Mr. Poparic was

 2     called as an expert, in particular a weapon and military equipment

 3     expert.  Even if his report deals with some issues of credibility of

 4     other witnesses, the Chamber will not give much probative value to this,

 5     even if the Chamber did not order the redaction of that part.  Bear that

 6     in mind and I will let you continue.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I will try and stick to

 8     the ballistic theory as much as possible.

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Can you please tell us, what is claimed?  How many bullets

11     arrived and what kind of trajectory they followed?  What did you conclude

12     about the trajectory based on evidence?

13        A.   It is claimed that one bullet was fired from the direction of the

14     Metaljka building and that it hit Dzenana Sokolovic, that it pierced her

15     belly and went through it and then hit Nermin Divovic below his right eye

16     and then exited behind his left ear.  However --

17        Q.   I apologise.  Let's just see one thing.  Was it ever established

18     what the level of entry and exit wounds were on the body of Dzenana

19     Sokolovic on her belly?

20        A.   No, that was never established.  If that had been established, it

21     would be much easier to assess whether that claim is correct or not.

22     Without that it is practically impossible to establish with any

23     reliability where the bullet had been fired from.

24        Q.   Thank you.  How can one explain the entry wound and exit wound on

25     little -- on the little boy, whether it was behind the right ear and


Page 38906

 1     below the left eye or vice versa?  How could that oblique trajectory be

 2     caused by a bullet piercing the mother's body?

 3        A.   It's very hard to explain.  It's impossible to explain based on

 4     the assumption that a bullet had been fired from the direction of the

 5     Metaljka building.  The trajectory from there or the angle would be 5 to

 6     8 degrees, depending on the height from which the bullet was fired, and

 7     the trajectory would be from upwards to downwards.  In that case, the

 8     entry wound on Dzenana Sokolovic's body would be higher than the exit

 9     wound, and that same would be applicable in Nermin Divovic's case.  The

10     entry wound would be -- below the left eye should be above the exit wound

11     above the right ear.  Based on the photos, one can cast doubts on that,

12     which is why I repeat that the post mortem findings would be of some

13     essence here in order to establish what exactly happened there.

14        Q.   You mentioned the second option and that is that she was hit when

15     she was crossing the street.  According to one finding she was hit in

16     front of the municipality and according to another document she was hit

17     when she was stepping on the other side of the pavement.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at image 101.  101,

19     page 146 in Serbian.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Could you please tell us who does the photo depict, where they

22     are standing, and what are the buildings that surround them?

23        A.   The building in the background on the right-hand side is the land

24     museum in Sarajevo, and on the left-hand side the building is the school

25     of philosophy in Sarajevo as well.  And the persons we can see in the


Page 38907

 1     photo are Mr. Barry Hogan and Dzenana Sokolovic, and she is pointing to

 2     the place where she was wounded.

 3        Q.   Thank you.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be assisted

 5     with the electronic pen.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Can you please make a circle around her feet, i.e.,

 8     in the place which she claims is the place where she was hit, and can you

 9     put number 1 next to that circle.

10        A.   [Marks].

11        Q.   And now I would ask you to look at Franje Racog Street from which

12     you can see Metaljka, and can you please draw a line along that street?

13        A.   That photo doesn't depict it very well, but that would be here

14     more or less, behind the trees.  That's where the Metaljka building is

15     and I can draw an arrow pointing at it.

16        Q.   The date and the signature, please.

17        A.   [Marks].

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this as a separate

19     document.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Document receives number D3626, Your Honours.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Can you please tell us, estimating Mr. Hogan's height, how far

24     from that spot the pedestrian crossing is where the accident happened?

25        A.   [No interpretation].


Page 38908

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please repeat his answer.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Poparic, could you repeat your answer.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The pedestrian crossing is about 50

 4     metres away or to the left of Mr. Hogan.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Maybe you can indicate it with an arrow --

 7        A.   [Marks].

 8        Q.   -- showing the direction at which she was moving and --

 9        A.   This is the direction in which she was moving and in that

10     direction there is also the pedestrian crossing.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Relative to this photograph and under what conditions

12     was there a line of sight between this spot and the Metaljka building?

13        A.   It is very difficult to see a person standing here from the

14     Metaljka building because that grove is very thick.  Maybe you could see

15     someone in certain positions, but on the whole it is difficult.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Please mark the height of the late Nermin with an

17     upright line next to his mother, please.

18        A.   Well, I -- this line is a bit too low.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Please date and sign it.

20        A.   [Marks].

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted?

22             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Ms. Edgerton.

23             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.  Perhaps for the record it would be

24     useful for Mr. Poparic to indicate the basis for his estimate of the

25     height of the boy.


Page 38909

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The basis for an estimate of the

 3     boy's height is the photography taken at the pedestrian crossing where

 4     the boy was lying.  There are those black-and-white stripes in the

 5     pedestrian crossing and they are -- and their width is standard.  And so

 6     we established that the boy must have been 110 to 120 centimetres tall.

 7             We didn't know Mrs. Sokolovic's precise height either, so we had

 8     to estimate it.  We did it based on the height of Mr. Hogan.  We supposed

 9     his height to be 1 metre, 95, and the other day I had a conversation with

10     the OTP and Mr. Hogan was present.  I asked him his height and he said it

11     was 1 metre, 93.

12             Dzenana Sokolovic's height estimate relative to Mr. Hogan's

13     height is sufficiently accurate for this -- for our purpose.  Dzenana

14     Sokolovic is about 1 metre, 65, tall according to our estimate, and the

15     boy, between 110 and 120 centimetres, which is a point to -- with regard

16     to the fact where the boy was hit and where Mrs. Sokolovic was hit,

17     because there is incongruity there.  If she is 165 tall and he, 110 or

18     120, then the bullet may have come from the right side, but then the boy

19     should have been hit lower down his body.

20             For a person 1 metre, 80, tall, the distance between his navel

21     and the ground is 110 centimetres.  And considering the photograph

22     showing where Dzenana Sokolovic was wounded, it is very difficult to

23     explain how a bullet fired from the position from which the OTP claims it

24     was fired could have hit the boy.  But if the boy was at a short distance

25     from her, then it is possible for the bullet to have hit both her and


Page 38910

 1     him.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  You told us that the line was a bit too low.  Could

 3     you draw again at a proper height.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can draw it like this.  I

 5     was referring to the head, but I don't seem to be getting it right.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  I will leave it at that.

 7             Have we admitted this?

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] A moment, please.  Let's make this

 9     clear.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Did you say that it would have been possible for the bullet to

12     have come from the right or from the left?

13        A.   For the height so estimated, it is only possible for the bullet

14     to have come from the right and continue to the left because the boy may

15     have been at a certain distance from his mother and then the bullet's

16     trajectory would have been such as to hit both the mother and him.  And

17     in the opposite case it was -- it is not possible because he is too tall

18     for such a trajectory.

19        Q.   And whose positions were to the right from them and whose

20     positions were to the left if they were going toward the centre?

21        A.   The boy was to Dzenana's left.  It is asserted that Dzenana was

22     hit before the boy.  If it was fired from the Metaljka building then

23     he -- it was -- the bullet was in a downward trajectory.  And if the boy

24     was further away from his mother, he would have been hit even lower down

25     his body.


Page 38911

 1        Q.   Thank you.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted?  And then

 3     let's move on to see photograph 100.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Document receives number D3627, Your Honours.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see image 100 on the

 7     previous page, please.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Where is this photograph from and what does it represent?

10        A.   It is from a video-clip made by some firemen who worked as a

11     humanitarian organisation and who recorded some video footage.  We see

12     the boy, Nermin Divovic, lying on the pedestrian crossing.  On the left

13     there is a photograph seeing -- showing a stream of blood behind the left

14     ear, and in the right photograph we see a wound under the eye and the

15     fireman is pointing at that wound, which tallies with the official

16     information that the wound was under the eye.  We see here that the

17     stream of blood behind the ear is thin and further down there is more

18     bleeding and blood flowing.

19             According to my information this was supposed to show that the

20     wound of the left is the entry wound and the one on the right, the exit

21     wound.  I consulted a forensic medicine professor from the university,

22     Dr. Jovan Dunjic - I believe that he will be an expert witness here as

23     well - I wanted to check with him and he agreed with me.  But he said he

24     couldn't give a conclusive statement without more information.  But he

25     also agreed that the left-hand photograph shows the entry wound, whereas


Page 38912

 1     the other shows the exit wound.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Was that the conclusion of the police -- of the first

 3     police investigation report?

 4        A.   Yes -- actually, the police only related the information they got

 5     at the hospital.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  If they are walking toward town, what was the

 7     direction from which the bullet flew both vertically and horizontally?

 8        A.   Based on this photograph -- actually, if you watch the video-clip

 9     you can see it better and you will see that the wound is at the height of

10     the ear, the centre of the ear.  To me it seems that the left wound is

11     lower down than the one on the right, but a forensic report would make

12     things clear.

13        Q.   [No interpretation].

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the speakers please not overlap.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

16             Could you repeat your question, Mr. Karadzic.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I was asking if he had described if

18     the wound was from left down --

19             THE INTERPRETER:  Please repeat the question.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Now he's not only an investigator

21     but also a forensic expert, Mr. Karadzic?

22             Please repeat your question.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Excellencies, I'm asking from the

24     ballistic point of view.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]


Page 38913

 1        Q.   What is the direction of the bullet as described by the doctors

 2     on the day of the accident, and where must that bullet have come from and

 3     what was its trajectory?  That's ballistics.

 4        A.   Should I reply?

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to this photograph, or

 7     rather, these two photographs we see right now, the bullet went downward

 8     on the vertical plain, and in the horizontal plain it went from the boy's

 9     back to his front.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   And relative to the left and right sides of the body?

12        A.   From left to right.

13        Q.   Then that opinion was changed.  How many years later was it

14     changed?

15        A.   I don't know.  Nobody really changed their opinion.  Only at

16     General Galic's trial did Dr. Beslic say that he had examined Dzenana

17     Sokolovic and established that the entry wound was on the right and the

18     exit wound on the left.  But he didn't make any specific conclusions.  It

19     would have been very useful if he had measured the heights of the entry

20     and exit wounds respectively.  But since he is a general surgeon, it

21     probably didn't mean anything to him.

22             A forensic medicine specialist, I think his name was Dr. Milos

23     Savljevic, contested that after so much time it was impossible to

24     establish which wound was the entry wound and which was the exit wound.

25     That was the only new element in this evidence but that isn't very


Page 38914

 1     helpful because there are no exact indicators.

 2        Q.   Thank you.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D07459, please.  From the

 4     beginning to 12 seconds could we please play it.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Please explain to us what we're about to see.

 7        A.   It's a video-clip made at the site probably by these firemen and

 8     it was evidence in the -- in General Milosevic's trial.  You can see the

 9     site of the incident and the boy Nermin Divovic lying on the pedestrian

10     crossing.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Play it, please.

12                           [Video-clip played]

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   So this child was hit as this still shows on the pedestrian

15     crossing?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   And no aid was provided until this vehicle arrived?

18        A.   Yeah, it seems so.

19        Q.   What does this physical evidence tell you about the site of the

20     incident and the circumstances?

21        A.   Just one observation before I forget and it's important.  The boy

22     is lying on the side of the alleged entry wound.  As we see, it's a child

23     110 to 120 centimetres tall.  Based on our estimate his body weight is

24     not great, but he was hit with a high energy bullet.  It would have been

25     logical for him to lie on the other side.  That's one illogical element.


Page 38915

 1             The other is, still referring to this still, we cannot see the

 2     firewood anywhere that Dzenana Sokolovic was carrying.  She said that she

 3     had carried firewood, but we don't see any on this pedestrian crossing.

 4             And the third illogical element which is also important to my

 5     mind, the beginning of the clip shows that the camera is on a plateau in

 6     front of the museum.  These vehicles arrive and only then do we see the

 7     boy on the pedestrian crossing.

 8        Q.   Thank you.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Could this please be

11     admitted.

12             MS. EDGERTON:  Your Honours, this video has sound.  I don't see

13     why we, if we're going to be watching it, can't have the full picture, so

14     to speak, and to have the actual sound of the video played.

15             JUDGE KWON:  I have no difficulty with that.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Certainly, certainly.  But we

17     needed silence in order to hear the witness's comment.  We can re-play

18     it.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  We'll do that.

20                           [Video-clip played]

21             JUDGE KWON:  Shall we switch to the e-court and Sanction again.

22     Let's see whether it ...

23                           [Video-clip played]

24             JUDGE KWON:  We can see through Judge Baird's monitor but I can't

25     see it -- no.


Page 38916

 1                           [Video-clip played]

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Shall we try again?

 3                           [Video-clip played]

 4                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Let's leave it at that.  At least we heard some

 6     sounds.  And then I was told that the video itself has some problems.

 7             MS. EDGERTON:  The Prosecution can -- Mr. Reid can release the

 8     copy of the video that we have which doesn't have any problems, if it

 9     takes only a short period of time.

10             JUDGE KWON:  Let's continue.  We'll review it again later on if

11     necessary.

12             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

14             But you have no objection to the admission of this video?

15             MS. EDGERTON:  No.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  We'll receive it.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Video 1D7459 receives number D3628, Your Honours.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I haven't given notice,

19     but if I'm allowed I believe that if we could get from Photoview Sarajevo

20     something that would make it a lot clearer, map 7.  Yes, map number 7,

21     it's a photograph from the Holiday Inn.  That would be helpful.  We could

22     ask Mr. Poparic to help us.  Map 7 Karadzic.

23             JUDGE KWON:  92 ter 21216 -- 65 ter, I'm sorry.

24             Shall we switch to e-court?

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Could we zoom in just a


Page 38917

 1     bit, please, but we need to see both Metaljka and this other area,

 2     please, just a bit.  Thank you.

 3             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Mr. Poparic, could you please use different colours to mark where

 5     the child was, where one report says that they were hit, where another

 6     report says that they were hit, and where Dzenana Sokolovic herself says

 7     that she had been hit.  You can use the same pen but different colours.

 8        A.   On the film --

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

10             Yes, Ms. Edgerton.

11             MS. EDGERTON:  No, Your Honours, that's completely outside of

12     this witness's area of expertise.  That's not what he's here for.

13             JUDGE KWON:  I tend to agree with that.

14             Mr. Robinson.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, no.  No, no.  I can say this:

16     From a ballistics point of view I have to put the question whether there

17     is visibility in terms of Metaljka from which positions, because where

18     Dzenana Sokolovic is standing one cannot see Metaljka and that is

19     ballistics.

20             JUDGE KWON:  But how can this witness mark the position where the

21     boy was reported to be?

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We saw it on the film, the zebra

23     crossing.

24             JUDGE KWON:  But how can he identify the spot on this photo?

25             MS. EDGERTON:  And if I may, Dr. Karadzic didn't ask for him to


Page 38918

 1     mark just one spot; he asked for him to mark three spots.

 2             MR. ROBINSON:  Mr. President, the Prosecution's own witness Van

 3     der Weijden basically did the same exercise.  For example, where there's

 4     a 3-year-old girl that was shot through a balcony, he took reports as to

 5     the place where she was shot and then decided and told us how he thought

 6     there was a line of sight, and in other incidents as well.  I don't see

 7     why this witness can't do the same thing.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Without asking how he would be able to do that, he

 9     just asked to mark the places.  I will consult my colleagues.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE BAIRD:  Ms. Edgerton, Mr. Robinson in reply to you a while

12     ago, he referred us to evidence given by Mr. Van der Weijden.  Do you

13     recollect his evidence -- what your recollection is matching what

14     Mr. Robinson had said?

15             MS. EDGERTON:  What --

16             JUDGE BAIRD:  Have you any recollection at all of that?

17             MS. EDGERTON:  I have his testimony in front of me, but I do have

18     recollection.  And what Mr. Van der Weijden did was he received GPS

19     co-ordinates from the OTP as to identifying the specific incident

20     location.  He went to the incident location as identified in the GPS

21     co-ordinates and in the case of this 3-year-old girl he attended that

22     location in the presence of an eye-witness, who explained to him where

23     the victim was standing at that time, and at that location went down to

24     the level of the 3-year-old girl, observed the surroundings to see what

25     the technical and tactical possible lines of sight were to that incident


Page 38919

 1     location.  That's what Mr. Van der Weijden did.

 2             Here we have no indication that either this witness went to the

 3     scene of the incident to observe what was technical or tactically

 4     possible.  And frankly, we don't have any indication if he's going to be

 5     talking about line of sight that he actually even went to the Metaljka

 6     building to see what could be seen from there.  And in all cases Mr. Van

 7     der Weijden once he determined the tactical and technical possibilities

 8     went to those potential shooting positions, if I can call them that, or

 9     shooting areas to see if there was a line of sight from those areas.

10             JUDGE BAIRD:  Thank you.

11             Mr. Robinson, the Chamber is clearly concerned about this

12     situation.  Do you wish to reply at all?

13             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, thank you very much, Judge Baird.

14             Basically Mr. Poparic did the same thing.  He went to these

15     positions, he looked -- he looked at photographs, he looked at videos, he

16     took the totality of the information available to us and made the same

17     conclusions.  I don't think it's -- whether he went physically to one

18     site or another that goes to the weight.  But he's giving the same kind

19     of testimony, he's drawing conclusions based upon -- ballistic

20     conclusions, line of sight, capability of weapons, based upon information

21     that was collected and I think that that's the very same thing.

22             JUDGE BAIRD:  Thanks.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, you should have put to the witness as

25     to what Mr. Robinson submitted before you asked the witness to mark


Page 38920

 1     certain position, in particular as to his ability or on what basis he

 2     would or would not be able to mark the position.  And then you may do so,

 3     but it all -- but I have some doubt as to the weight of such evidence if

 4     he's not guided, for example, by some specific scientific data as to GPS

 5     numbers or something like that.

 6             Please continue.  I hope you understood my point.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Excellency.  I wanted to

 8     ask him to show where Metaljka is, and on the basis of the material he

 9     received, I wanted him to pin-point the places where it is claimed that

10     the victims were.  And there are at least three places.  Mr. Poparic did

11     study all of that.

12             JUDGE KWON:  When you answer the question, please explain to the

13     Chamber on what basis you reached the point you are going to indicate.

14     Do you understand, Mr. Poparic?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  First of all, may I say that

16     I toured these locations several times, so I was there on the spot and I

17     saw all the possibilities in terms of where this place can be seen from,

18     and I can confirm that this place is visible for -- from part of

19     Metaljka.

20             Secondly, the boy's position can be seen from this film and then

21     there's also this photograph.  I don't know whether we provided it.  It's

22     in the film.  And according to the number of black-and-white areas, one

23     can see that the boy is roughly in the middle of the street.  So you

24     cannot determine it exactly in terms of centimetres, but it's roughly

25     around the middle.


Page 38921

 1             I also saw Mrs. Sokolovic's testimony and she indicated that she

 2     was on this plateau in front of the museum, and I think that there is

 3     also a photograph where that was marked.  I don't know who marked it,

 4     whether it was the Prosecution or I don't know.  Also, there is this

 5     testimony that it was towards the end of the sidewalk, the other side of

 6     the sidewalk.

 7             Now, why is the place where they were so important?  It is

 8     important because of the angle of the trajectory in relation to the body.

 9     So what would be helpful here would be, for example, image 111.  It has

10     to do with another incident, but there is a picture of Metaljka and this

11     particular place.  Just to give you an idea of the angles, which is what

12     really matters, that is possible, that is.

13             MS. EDGERTON:  And just before we go too much further and we lose

14     this, page 56, line 24, the witness said he saw Mrs. Sokolovic's

15     testimony and she indicated she was on this plateau.  She did not

16     indicate that in her testimony.  I believe he's referring to a video he

17     looked at.  And at page 57 where he refers to testimony, and I think we

18     need to be completely accurate here, he's not referring to her testimony

19     in the Dragomir Milosevic case but to something else; I'm not completely

20     clear what.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Ms. Edgerton is quite right.  I

22     meant the video film taken by Mr. Barry Hogan.  That's the film where she

23     shows that she was on the plateau and describes all the circumstances

24     under which she was hit.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Please continue.


Page 38922

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Should we then ask for the points

 2     to be marked?  And he saw from the materials he saw that these are the

 3     places where it is claimed that the victims had been hit.  I believe that

 4     that would assist the Trial Chamber.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, let us see how it evolves.  Please continue.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Could you please activate the pen.

 8        A.   I believe it has been activated.  So in the video film the

 9     body --

10        Q.   No.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Shall we zoom in a bit further?  That's enough, yes.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here somewhere in the middle of the

13     pedestrian crossing where I put number 1, that's where Nermin Divovic's

14     body was lying on the floor.

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   And now can you put number 2 next to the crossing to the pavement

17     on the other side which is mentioned in the police reports?

18        A.   This would be here; right?  I can use the same colour; right?

19     Number 2.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Did you find it somewhere in the documents that she

21     was hit as she was stepping down from the pavement?

22        A.   It seems to me that she said it herself, that she stepped down on

23     the street and that she had just made one step and she was hit.  I can

24     mark that as well.

25        Q.   Yes, please go on and mark it.


Page 38923

 1        A.   Number 3.

 2        Q.   How wide is this street?

 3        A.   Approximately 8 metres.  You could even do the maths if you take

 4     into account white and black patches.

 5        Q.   Can you now show us where she was standing together with

 6     Mr. Hogan and where is it that she told Mr. Hogan that she was hit in

 7     front of the museum?

 8        A.   Based on the historical buildings in the background, I would say

 9     that that was somewhere around here.

10        Q.   And now can you please mark the Metaljka building.

11        A.   Number 5.

12        Q.   In accordance with your expert opinion, did that projectile

13     arrive from the Metaljka building?

14        A.   No.  I am basing that claim on all the available facts, on the

15     basis of the estimate of the boy's height, the height of Dzenana

16     Sokolovic, and the position of the wounds that can be seen in the video,

17     and all that gives us a realistic assumption that they were hit from the

18     left to the right as was written in the first couple of reports compiled

19     by the police.

20             I repeat once again that the final solution could be found only

21     in a forensic findings for Mr. -- for the boy, Nermin Divovic, if such a

22     report exists, and perhaps another overview of Mrs. Dzenana Sokolovic's

23     wounds, if that exists as well.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Please put the date on this photo and sign it.

25        A.   [Marks].


Page 38924

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted?

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Document receives number D3629, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Ms. Edgerton, was the video we saw a moment ago

 5     already admitted?

 6             MS. EDGERTON:  No, but the Prosecution has the original of this

 7     video, which was why I rose to offer up a better, clearer, audible copy.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  I was wondering whether it is identical with P2216.

 9     If you could come back later on.

10             MS. EDGERTON:  I could tell you right now.  One of them is a bit

11     longer than the other one, and P2216 is shorter.

12             JUDGE KWON:  We'll leave it at that.  Thank you.

13             Please continue.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, how much time do

15     we have before the break, if I may ask?

16             JUDGE KWON:  20 minutes.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Mr. Poparic, now can we focus on incident 17.  Can you tell us in

20     short what you could conclude based on the materials that were available

21     to you about this incident?

22        A.   On the 6th of March, 1995, in Sedrenik Street, the boy Tarik

23     Zunic was wounded in the arm.  He was on his way back from school.

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Could we please ask for the reference.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]


Page 38925

 1        Q.   How was this incident presented and what did you conclude?

 2        A.   It was said that the boy was hit from the direction of

 3     Spicaste Stijene where the positions of the VRS were.  However, in order

 4     to claim something of the sort, there should be some other evidence

 5     besides the fact that the boy was wounded.  In order to determine the

 6     direction from which the boy was hit, it would have been indispensable to

 7     determine where his entry and exit wounds were on his fist.  I was not

 8     aware of that, so it was not possible to determine the direction from

 9     which that round had arrived.

10             All the facts point to a conclusion that at the time when the boy

11     was passing along the street there was an exchange of fire.  UNPROFOR

12     reports and other documents testified to that.  The Egyptian Battalion of

13     UNPROFOR interfered in that exchange of fire.  However, what is important

14     for this case is that on that occasion, in the same street, another man

15     was wounded very nearby, and that incident was in the indictment of

16     General Milosevic.  Bahir Bakta [phoen] was wounded and then that

17     incident was omitted from the indictment.  I don't know why.

18             I believe that these two incidents were interconnected because

19     there must have been a rather substantial exchange of fire in the area

20     and the boy was probably hit as a result of that.  But it's very

21     difficult to say from whose side the bullet had arrived without a proper

22     forensic investigation and a police investigation into the matter.

23             The distance from which the boy was hit was over 700 metres,

24     about 750 metres.

25        Q.   Can we now look at figure 115 in the document.  In the Serbian


Page 38926

 1     version it's on page 165 in the document.  Could you please tell us what

 2     the photo depicts, when it was taken, and who took it?

 3        A.   This is a photo of the positions of the VRS at Spicaste Stijene.

 4     The trenches are still visible there and so on and so forth.  It was

 5     taken in the direction where the incident occurred in order to show

 6     approximately the visibility in that area.

 7             Once again when we're talking about the visibility, according to

 8     some testimonies there were some curtains along the street that protected

 9     the view of the street from Spicaste Stijene.  So we don't know whether

10     the boy was wounded behind those curtains or in front of them.  He said

11     that he had already passed the place where the curtains were; however,

12     according to photo 113 we can see that that place is marked.  I believe

13     that he himself marked that place.

14        Q.   I'd like to call up photo 113 then.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Previous page, page 164.

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   What do you see in this photo, and what do numbers 1 and 2 mark?

18        A.   Number 1 is the place of the incident as was marked by the person

19     who was wounded and number 2 is the direction from which the bullet had

20     arrived from Spicaste Stijene.

21             I must say that he himself stated that he had passed by those

22     curtains and then he was hit; however, when we inspected the area and

23     when we toured the site, obviously with the police, the man who lives in

24     the second house on the right-hand side with an identical roof told us

25     that he personally had helped Tarik Zunic and he also described the


Page 38927

 1     entire event in a very similar way, as was presented by the police

 2     report.  He described a massive shooting and he identified a place where

 3     Tarik Zunic was wounded as being very close to his house.

 4        Q.   Could you please activate the pen and mark the place where you

 5     were told the incident happened with number 3.

 6        A.   This would be the place on the street.  It's very difficult to

 7     mark precisely.  In any case, I'll put number 3 next to it.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Does this change anything in terms of the trajectory

 9     and the visibility?

10        A.   First of all, let me say that in terms of visibility it does

11     change the whole picture.  We took a photo from next to the lamppost.

12     It's very difficult to see in the background where Spicaste Stijene is.

13     In any case, the visibility here is somewhat worse than in the other

14     place.

15             Now, a question arises as to what was the situation with those

16     curtains, what about those curtains and where they were, but it's very

17     difficult to answer that question.  In any case, there was an exchange of

18     fire.  That was what was going on because another person was wounded, and

19     according to all the documents there was an exchange of fire.

20             As to who actually shot the boy, it is very difficult to

21     determine that without the results of a forensic and a police

22     investigation.

23        Q.   Could you please initial this photo and put today's date on it.

24        A.   [Marks].

25        Q.   This photo is not a part of the account of the incident, so I'll


Page 38928

 1     probably call it up later or I will just give up on it.  Forensic

 2     analysis, not forensic and police analysis, line 15.

 3        A.   Forensic analysis.

 4        Q.   Could you please tell us what you were able to conclude when you

 5     analysed the material available to you with regard to incident F16?

 6        A.   F16 --

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  We shall assign a number for this

 8     image.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Document receives number D3630, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Ms. Edgerton.

11             MS. EDGERTON:  And the original unmarked document has an exhibit

12     number in this case.  I'll just let Your Honours know as soon as I locate

13     it.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   On the 3rd of May, 1995, or rather, in March 1995 - it is on page

17     159 in the Serbian version, paragraph 191 in the English version - what

18     was said about this incident and what is it that you established?

19        A.   This is just one in a series of incidents where the main problem

20     was to establish the place where the incident actually occurred.  On the

21     3rd of March, 1995, a tram was shot.  Two persons were wounded in that

22     incident.  One had been sitting and the other had been standing next to

23     that person.

24             According to the initial statement of one of the wounded persons,

25     the tram was hit somewhere near a container which was part of a barricade


Page 38929

 1     near the Executive Council building or between the Executive Council

 2     building and the tobacco factory building.  Later on that witness changed

 3     his statement and he claimed that the tram was hit at the crossroads of

 4     Franje Racog and Zmaja od Bosne Streets, and that it was hit from the

 5     Metaljka building.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Can we now look at figure 111 and I will ask you to

 7     mark the places where the tram was according to the first statement and

 8     where it was according to the second statement.  Figure 111, page 161 in

 9     Serbian.  Thank you.

10             Please carefully activate the blue electronic pen.

11        A.   Let me just correct you.  Not according to the first report, as

12     you said it, but according to the first statement of the witness Alen

13     Gicevic.  According to his statement this is where the containers were

14     and we have a video-clip to prove that.  And the tram was hit somewhere

15     around here, approximately here.  And then it stopped at the place marked

16     by number 2 next to the tobacco factory building.

17        Q.   For the record, you have used the blue pen to show where Alen

18     Gicevic said that the tram was at the moment when the bullet hit it,

19     according to Alen Gicevic.  Number 2?

20        A.   Number 2 is where it stopped and number 3 is where the barricades

21     were.

22        Q.   Number 1 is the place where it was hit, number 2 is where it

23     stopped, and number 3 are barriers.

24        A.   And according to the official version, it would be here and that

25     would be number 4.


Page 38930

 1        Q.   I asked you about numbers 1, 2, and 3, and it wasn't recorded,

 2     what you said.

 3        A.   Number 1 is where the tram was hit according to Alan Gicevic's

 4     statement, when he provided his first statement.  Number 2 denotes the

 5     place where the tram stopped near the tobacco factory.  And number 3

 6     denotes the place where the containers were placed.  Number 4 is the

 7     place where the tram was hit, according to the official version of the

 8     event.

 9        Q.   Put today's date and sign the document, please.  And then could

10     you please tell us what do you agree with?  In other words, what do

11     documents and the physical evidence show?

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted?

13             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Document receives number D3631, Your Honours.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at the lower part of

16     the photo.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   And I would like to ask you what your opinion is about the

19     physical evidence?

20        A.   Based on the photo documentation, which is not very good but

21     still good enough for us to be able to spot the most important things,

22     one can observe that the seat where the wounded Azem Agovic had been

23     sitting was turned at the angle of 45 degrees in respect of the axis of

24     the tram, in the area where it was, so that that wounded person, Azem

25     Agovic, had been sitting at an angle of 45 degrees with regard to the


Page 38931

 1     wall of the tram.

 2             Based on that and based on the fact that his entry wound was on

 3     the left-hand side of the body and that the exit wound was on the

 4     right-hand side of the body, or at least that's what he said in his

 5     testimony, one could establish whether it was possible to hit the tram,

 6     or rather, for him to have been inflicted such a wound if the bullet had

 7     been fired from the Metaljka building and that was not possible.

 8             If the bullet had been fired from the Metaljka building he could

 9     not have sustained such injuries because he was sitting at an angle of 45

10     degrees in respect to the wall of the tram.  If the seat was placed

11     normally, then one could say that there may have been a possibility for

12     that bullet to have come from the Metaljka building.

13             Since there are certain ambiguous statements about the tram which

14     may have already come out from the curve, that possibility of the bullet

15     having been fired from the Metaljka building is completely excluded.  It

16     was absolutely impossible.  It was demonstrated that the tram could have

17     been hit only at a bigger angle if it was running parallel to the main

18     street Zmaja od Bosne, and that could have been -- that bullet could have

19     arrived from various directions, from the museum, from the

20     Executive Council building, and so on and so forth.

21             So this evidence demonstrates that the tram was not hit at the

22     crossroads of Franje Racog and Zmaja od Bosne and also that it is most

23     probably correct that it was at the place where that was mentioned by

24     Azem Agovic -- no, not Azem Agovic, but by Alen Gicevic in his first

25     statement.


Page 38932

 1        Q.   Thank you.  And can I now ask you to use the red pen to draw the

 2     possible trajectories of the bullet in the case that the tram had been

 3     near the containers and also in the case that the tram was as the

 4     official version has it.  We're talking about the horizontal plain, but

 5     also can you tell us whether there was also a vertical angle.  In case

 6     that the tram was near the containers, where would the bullet have come

 7     from?

 8        A.   It could have come from this direction at an angle of perhaps 45

 9     degrees or perhaps from this direction.  That means that there is a

10     cluster of directions or trajectories and those would be the outer limits

11     of that cluster.

12        Q.   Can you please put number 1 next to that.

13        A.   Okay, let that be the cluster number 1.

14        Q.   In case that the tram was where the official investigation put it

15     before the S-curve - if it had been in the S-curve, things would have

16     been different - but if it was in a straight line before the S-curve, can

17     you please tell us whether there is an angle along the vertical line?

18     Number 2 shows the direction from which the projectile had arrived if the

19     tram was in the position where the official investigation put it.

20        A.   It's very difficult to establish the vertical angle.  In any

21     case, according to the description of the wound, it was not very large.

22     It would have arrived from a lower height.  The bullet would have come

23     from a lower height, but it was impossible to establish that based on

24     such a poor photo.  It was impossible to establish the height.  However,

25     according to the description of the wound, the height was not


Page 38933

 1     substantial.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Date and initial.

 3             According to your opinion, could this projectile have arrived

 4     from the Metaljka building?

 5        A.   No, no, not at all.  It could not have arrived from the Metaljka

 6     building.

 7        Q.   Thank you.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted?

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   And can you just explain one diagram for us and then we will go

11     on a break.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we'll admit this.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Document receives number D3632, Your Honours.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the page be scrolled up a

15     little, please.  [In English] Could we lift the page to see.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, further.  Image 112.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Please explain to the Trial Chamber -- was this explained in the

19     text?

20        A.   It probably is but it may be better for me to explain once more.

21     This horizontal black line is the hull of the tram.

22        Q.   Please activate the pen.  Please mark, starting with number 1,

23     and explain to the Trial Chamber.

24        A.   1, hull of the tram.

25        Q.   That's what the bullet hit first; right?


Page 38934

 1        A.   Yes.  2 indicates the chair, the seat, but this drawing shows

 2     that it was 300 millimetres wide.  That is approximately the width of the

 3     body.  We don't know the person's build exactly so that's why we applied

 4     a value with more tolerance.  And the seat is positioned at an angle of

 5     45 degrees to the tram hull, marked 3; an angle of 10 degrees, marked 4.

 6     These are the angles from the extreme left end of Metaljka; that is, from

 7     the extreme point of Metaljka to the normal of the tram, the angle is 10

 8     per cent.  That can be seen on image 111.  That's that angle.  If it

 9     enters the centre of the seat --

10        Q.   Please mark it.

11        A.   Yes, I'll mark it 6.  If we imagine a person standing here and

12     being hit in the left hip as described, then he may have been -- then the

13     trajectory may have been the left or the right limit of this angle.  The

14     same would have happened if we were to move this this way because a tram

15     can move left or right.  And if we proceed this way, then the exit

16     wouldn't be on the right but in the front part, which shows that he

17     couldn't have been hit from there given the wounds that were described.

18             And 8, 8 degrees, this is an angle which shows the -- an extreme

19     case.  I'll mark it 7.

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please repeat this last

21     explanation.

22             JUDGE KWON:  The interpreters missed your last part, Mr. Poparic.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was explaining this 8-degree

24     [Realtime transcript read in error "80-degree"] angle.  This is a limit

25     value under which a person could be positioned and sustain injuries as


Page 38935

 1     described in the report.  That is from left to right.  That is a limit

 2     value which probably was much greater in reality.  This degree --

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  This angle.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- of 45 degrees is an average case

 5     where someone was hit in the left side and the exit wound was on the

 6     right-hand side.

 7             And now I can draw these -- the limits, the extreme values

 8     indicating a bundle of possible trajectories - I'll mark it 8 - but none

 9     matches this 10-degree angle, as you see.

10             And I'll draw the position of Metaljka here.  Metaljka is a bit

11     longer, but the angles here on the right, as you can see on image 111,

12     make this part here impossible.  I'll mark this 9.

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Line 12 I have a correction.  The value is 8 degrees, not 80.

15        A.   Yes, it's 8 degrees.  That's one possibility but obviously the

16     angle is much greater.

17        Q.   When you said "normal angle," if the bullet had been shot from

18     Metaljka, what -- under what angle would the bullet have hit the tram?

19        A.   Under an angle of 80 to 90 degrees.  It can be -- I can tell from

20     the sketch.

21        Q.   Was this what you meant when you said "normal angle"?

22        A.   Yes.  The normal angle is this left extremity of this 10-degree

23     angle.

24        Q.   Thank you.  The right extremity, not the left one.  Please date

25     and sign this.


Page 38936

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this and I

 2     believe that we all deserve a break now.

 3             THE WITNESS:  [Marks].

 4             JUDGE KWON:  We'll receive this.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Document receives number D3633, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  We'll have a break for half an hour and resume ten

 7     past 5.00.

 8                           --- Recess taken at 4.41 p.m.

 9                           --- On resuming at 5.15 p.m.

10             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Ms. Edgerton.

11             MS. EDGERTON:  Just another little -- for the record, another bit

12     of cross-referencing.  The photograph which the witness marked that was

13     admitted as D3630, that's a marked version of P450 in this case.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

15             That means that Mr. Poparic didn't indicate the exhibit number

16     when using the image.  It could have been more helpful, but let's

17     continue, Mr. Karadzic.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Mr. Poparic, I would like to go back to the beginning now.  What

21     can you tell us about incident F1, Anisa Pita?  What was said and what is

22     true?  What did the physical evidence enable you to conclude?

23        A.   This incident happened I believe on the 13th of December, 1992,

24     and according to the indictment one bullet was fired from the positions

25     of the VRS at the Baba rock and hit Anisa Pita, a young girl, in her leg,


Page 38937

 1     thus wounding her.

 2             This case was investigated in detail at the site and we wanted to

 3     find out whether there's a line of sight from the site of the accident to

 4     the Baba rock or Baba mountain.  And we found out that there was not.  We

 5     also checked the terrain profile based on topographic maps from three

 6     sources.  One is the Military Geographic Institute in Belgrade, another

 7     map was made by an American institution, and the third source was Google

 8     Earth.  In each case we came to the conclusion that the site was not

 9     visible, which means that the girl couldn't have been targeted

10     deliberately from the positions of the Serbian army at Baba rock.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Let us see figure 32 which is on page 59 in Serbian.

12     It's part of paragraph 28.  Please remind the Trial Chamber in which

13     position Anisa Pita was, how tall she was, and where she was hit.

14        A.   She was 3 years old.  We don't know how tall she was.  According

15     to her mother's evidence, she had taken her shoes off and the bullet hit

16     her heel.  There is no other evidence from this incident.  Allegedly the

17     bullet was found but later lost.  There is no medical documentation and

18     so on.  Only based on the statement of the parents, or rather, that's the

19     only thing that we had, there was no physical evidence.  But that was

20     sufficient to establish that there was no line of sight, which was

21     interesting to me.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Please explain what we can see on this map.

23        A.   Here we see part of the topographic map made by the military

24     geographic institute in Belgrade.  This orange line that there is -- one

25     end of it marks the position at the Baba rock and the other ending in


Page 38938

 1     this red dot -- or does it?  No, I apologise.  At the end of this orange

 2     line there is the spot where Anisa Pita was.

 3             Based on this map we were able to draw, if we apply these

 4     altitudes, we were able to draw a profile of the terrain and about 2

 5     metres of terrain block the line of sight between the two end points.

 6     And that matches the information obtained from other topographic sources.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  What does this purple arrow indicate?

 8        A.   Where do you see it?  Oh, the purple arrow.  This is the rough

 9     position of the hill or mound blocking the line of sight between the

10     positions and Anisa Pita's position.

11        Q.   Thank you.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please see the bottom of the

13     page.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  The purple arrow indicates

15     the terrain profile, this peak which is at this spot.  There is also an

16     enlarged portion because otherwise it would have been poorly visible

17     given the scale.  That's why it's enlarged.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Thank you.  What does this mean, 500-odd metres from Zagric to

20     the rock?

21        A.   [No interpretation].

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please repeat his answer?

23     And the speakers are kindly asked not to overlap.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

25             Could you repeat your previous answer?


Page 38939

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The distance of 403 metres is the

 2     distance between the site of the incident in Zagric Street, number 38 --

 3             JUDGE KWON:  No, the answer to the question what 500-odd metres

 4     from Zagric to the rock means.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It was a misinterpretation.  I was

 6     asking about 403 metres.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 403 metres, yes.  That's the value

 8     given in the sketch.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Then please continue.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   What's the distance between this peak and the Baba rock?

12        A.   About 500 metres.

13        Q.   Which makes the total half?

14        A.   Over 900 metres, which fact shows how difficult it was to observe

15     a small child at such a great distance.

16        Q.   Apart from the loss of the bullet and the absence of medical

17     documentation, what makes you think that the bullet was not fired from

18     Baba rock?  Not only the line of sight, but what was the visibility like

19     at the time?

20        A.   It was most probably foggy.  It was later said that the fog rose,

21     but he was speaking about the place where he was, that he had gone to

22     fetch water with Anisa.  She was there for a while and so returned home

23     with a friend.  The fog dispersed soon, but whoever knows Sarajevo knows

24     that Trebevic is a high mountain.  So the fog can disperse but 100 metres

25     above it can still be foggy.  We don't know to what extent the fog really


Page 38940

 1     dispersed.  Baba rock itself may still have been invisible.

 2        Q.   Was it possible for the child to be targeted deliberately and

 3     fired at from Serbian positions at Baba rock?

 4        A.   Absolutely not.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Let us now go to incident F2 of 17 April 1993.  Can

 6     you tell us what was said, what's being alleged, and what the physical

 7     evidence told you?

 8        A.   This is a very similar case as the previous one.  This is also

 9     about a little girl, albeit a bit older, who was playing in front of her

10     house and hit by a bullet in her back.  Fortunately she was only lightly

11     wounded.  According to the indictment the bullet was fired from the

12     positions of the VRS at Baba rock.

13        Q.   Can you take a look at your findings?

14        A.   No, I apologise.  I made a mistake.  It's not Baba rock.  It's

15     Spicaste Stijene.

16        Q.   Let's take a look at figure 34 which is at page 64 of the Serbian

17     version, and in English it's in paragraph 35.  No, it's paragraph 35,

18     whereas the image is 34.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And I'm losing e-court all the

20     time.

21             JUDGE KWON:  The system seems to have a problem.

22                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now can I please get image 64 [as

24     interpreted] which is on page 63 in Serbian.

25             JUDGE KWON:  No.  Image 34, page 63 in the B/C/S.  Yes.


Page 38941

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Can you explain what this photograph is showing?

 4        A.   It shows the place where the house is located in front of which

 5     the girl was playing.  It's the house in the background behind this red

 6     ellipses, behind the pink house.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Where was the girl then?  Can you activate the pen?

 8        A.   We can't see the exact spot here.  She was on the right behind

 9     the corner of the pink house in the --

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Could any microphones that are not used please

11     be switched off.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   We're now looking at the transcript.  We're looking at image 34

14     on page 63.  Can I get the next image, please, image 35 on the following

15     page.  Image 34, page 63.  We seem to be tired, all of us.

16             Page 64 in Serbian and image 35.  In relation to the position

17     that the child was in and in relation to visibility vis-ą-vis

18     Spicaste Stijene, what would be noteworthy?

19        A.   What is noteworthy is the great distance involved, over 1.100

20     metres.  It's very hard to see.  There was no zoom when this photograph

21     was taken and perhaps we might gain the impression of what it's like in

22     the field, that it's very hard to see a child here.  Regardless of all

23     kinds of optical equipment and whatever, it would be very hard to target

24     anyone intentionally under these circumstances.

25        Q.   Thank you.  You mentioned that trees had been cut down.  Can you


Page 38942

 1     tell us in which part of the photograph?

 2        A.   To the left.  It's like the letter S and to the left is the young

 3     forest.

 4        Q.   When the trees were cut, were there any casualties on the Muslim

 5     side?  In the evidence did you find anything?

 6        A.   I didn't find any casualties.  I found some statements by Nedzib

 7     Djogo, I think -- no, Djozo, who said that he came there during the night

 8     and that he cut trees down but that they did not shoot at them [as

 9     interpreted].

10        Q.   Thank you.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Once we see the image, could we

12     please have the lower part of this page.

13                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe that in line 11 it should

15     have been "they had not been shot at."

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Is that what you said?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   What is in image 36?

20        A.   Two photographs taken from two different places.  The left-hand

21     photograph was taken from Spicaste Stijene that was under the control of

22     the Army of Republika Srpska, and the one on the right was taken from

23     Grdonj which was under the control of the BH army.  As you can see, these

24     red circles mark the place where the house is, the house in front of

25     which this little girl was wounded.  Both from Spicaste Stijene and from


Page 38943

 1     Grdonj the place is visible.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Are the photographs the same from the point of view

 3     of zooming?

 4        A.   I took the photographs with the same camera and with the same

 5     zoom.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the lower part of the

 7     page now.  I beg your pardon, page 65.  Obviously something is not the

 8     same.  Page 65, image 38.  38, image 38 -- actually, we can keep this

 9     one.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Tell us what this depicts.

12        A.   This photograph shows the possible directions from which the

13     bullet was fired at this little girl.  In the upper square we have an

14     enlarged area around Spicaste Stijene where you can see the trenches of

15     the Army of Republika Srpska and the Army of BH.  They can even be seen

16     on Google Earth because there are lots of rocks there so you can see it

17     very nicely.

18             When we toured the area, we saw that the positions of the BH army

19     were not only at Grdonj but they also had communicating trenches and

20     dug-outs by Spicaste Stijene.  That is 20 to 30 metres away from these

21     positions of the Army of Republika Srpska.  We presented that in our

22     report.  I don't know to which extent you can see that.

23             They had these defence lines from the top of Grdonj downhill and

24     then up Spicaste Stijene, almost up to the top of Spicaste Stijene.  It's

25     marked here.  Those were the last positions of the BH army, so that's the


Page 38944

 1     last trench where the red line is, the last trench of the Army of

 2     Republika Srpska.  I think there were four rather large trenches in that

 3     area.

 4        Q.   Thank you.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can you please show the next image,

 6     39.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   And can you tell us about the small one -- actually, we're still

 9     waiting for 39.  First of all, this small image where we see 1 and 2,

10     what does that depict?

11        A.   1 is the direction from the last trench of the Army of

12     Republika Srpska marked on the previous image.  And if we look at this

13     enlarged area in the yellow square, we see that this direction crosses

14     the neighbouring house that is in the immediate vicinity of the house

15     where the wounded girl was.

16             And now 2, that's actually several directions.  These are

17     directions that are trajectories between the houses.  The first image

18     where we saw the red ellipses, so that's the area, that's the directions,

19     that's the view towards Grdonj that you can see through these houses,

20     between these houses.

21        Q.   And Grdonj is under the control of ...?

22        A.   The BH army.  So that is the photograph, the first one that we

23     saw, 34.  Through that area between the white and the pink houses, that's

24     the view of Grdonj when you are watching from the incident site.

25        Q.   Thank you.  From a ballistics point of view can one determine


Page 38945

 1     beyond any doubt that this bullet had come from the Serb side?

 2        A.   It can be absolutely determined that the bullet did not come from

 3     the Serb side, which is obvious in image 37, where you can see these

 4     places that are in the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska at

 5     Spicaste Stijene and the positions at Grdonj.  As we can see in this

 6     image, the site of the incident cannot be seen when viewed from

 7     Spicaste Stijene, but from Grdonj one can see it.

 8             In all fairness, there is a biggish tree there, but the OTP

 9     explained that this was a smaller tree at the time, so during the time of

10     the incident probably there was a clear view.  But I personally think

11     that no one intentionally targeted the little girl.  I think it was a

12     stray bullet.  But it certainly could not have come from

13     Spicaste Stijene, that's for sure.

14        Q.   Thank you.

15        A.   As a matter of fact, I think that we calculated this.  I cannot

16     find it now, but that this house was supposed to be 40 or 50 metres away

17     so that it could be seen, this area, because it is the house that

18     prevents the view.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Image 37, please.  Page 65 in

20     Serbian.  The upper half or the upper third.  Please zoom in so that we

21     can see the two top photographs.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Can you explain it now?

24        A.   Yes.  The left-hand photograph is the view from Spicaste Stijene

25     from the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska.  As you can see, you


Page 38946

 1     cannot see the ground floor of this building --

 2        Q.   Please carefully activate the pen and show us the site of the

 3     incident in both photographs.

 4        A.   The incident was somewhere down here and here.  So the ground

 5     floor, we cannot really see that.  There's this tree here so you cannot

 6     see it from the tree.  But the girl was down there.  She was playing

 7     where the ground floor is.

 8        Q.   Thank you.

 9        A.   As we can see in the left-hand photograph, you can barely see the

10     tree because it grew, and you cannot see the ground floor.  You can only

11     see part of the terrace.  That is 2 and a half metres above the site

12     where she was hit.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please put the date there and initial this.

14        A.   [Marks].

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could this please be admitted?

16             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Document receives number D3634, Your Honours.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now focus on incident 3,

19     the 11th of July, 1993.  Munira Zametica is the victim.  Paragraph 39 in

20     English and in Serbian of course, but in Serbian it's page 68 onwards --

21     no, 67 onwards.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Can you tell us what it says with regard to this incident, how it

24     is represented, and what you established on the basis of the material

25     that was accessible to you?


Page 38947

 1        A.   The 11th of July, 1993, is the date of the incident when Munira

 2     Zametica was shot when she was fetching water from the Dobrinja river

 3     near a bridge on the river.  According to the indictment, it is alleged

 4     that she was hit from the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska, from

 5     a church, as a matter of fact, the church in Veline.  However, in the

 6     police report there is no reference to that, that she was hit from the

 7     church, but it says from the area around the church.

 8             If she was hit from the area from around the church, as is

 9     alleged by the police, then she could not have been hit from that

10     position because the area around the church - I mean the ground

11     floor - cannot be seen from the site.  That can be seen in a photograph

12     that was taken by the OTP.  This bridge in Nikole Demonje Street makes it

13     impossible to see the plateau by the church.  It's impossible to check

14     this nowadays because a building was erected in the meantime so this

15     could not be checked.

16             So if positions were, indeed, on the church, then there was this

17     line of sight, but we do not know what the visibility was of the spot

18     where Munira Zametica was.  We don't know that for several reasons:

19     first of all, because we do not have any reliable information about the

20     time when this incident occurred; and secondly, the second reason is that

21     we do not know what the river-bed was like.

22             On the basis of the photograph that I mentioned a moment ago, it

23     is obvious that the river-bed of the Dobrinja river had not had grass cut

24     there.  So there was quite a bit of grass there, and in July there's lots

25     of vegetation there.  So we don't know whether this vegetation sheltered


Page 38948

 1     Munira Zametica in a way or not.

 2             The second thing I mentioned, the time of the incident, that is

 3     very important because according to some official information the police

 4     registered that the incident occurred in the early evening hours, I think

 5     between 7.00 and 7.30 p.m.  Then a witness, a woman, mentioned that the

 6     two of them had set out at the time when it was supposed to be

 7     night-time, so just before nightfall.

 8        Q.   Where was the late Munira when she was hit?

 9        A.   On the left bank, and this spot, the river-bank, cannot be seen

10     from the church.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  I just note there's no French

12     translation at the moment.

13             Just a second.

14                           [Trial Chamber confers]

15             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  We'll proceed.

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   You said that the bank could not be seen from --

18        A.   Yes, the bank could not be seen from the church.  When you start

19     walking towards the river, you can actually observe the church from

20     there.  There were other people who were involved in the incidents.  They

21     went to get water, but they were behind the bridge so they could not be

22     seen.

23        Q.   Did you establish based on the documents whether Munira was hit

24     as she was accessing the river or when she was returning from the river?

25        A.   According to the statement of the lady who was with her - I


Page 38949

 1     believe that her name was Sadija Sahinovic, yes, Sadija Sahinovic -

 2     Munira was hit as she leaned over to fill up her bucket with water.  At

 3     that moment she was hit.  She stood up and then the second bullet hit

 4     her.

 5        Q.   Did the investigation record on what side of the body was Munira

 6     hit?

 7        A.   There's no official medical documents showing on which side of

 8     the body she was hit.  There is no forensic investigation about that, or

 9     at least we were not shown any such results but that would be very

10     important.  I would like to say that the bed of the Dobrinja river is

11     covered with concrete.  It is a concrete bed and she could have easily

12     been hit by a bullet that ricochetted.  According to the witness

13     statements, on that day there were ongoing activities from infantry

14     weapons.

15        Q.   At that time were there any activities from infantry weapons when

16     she was hit?

17        A.   When she was hit --

18             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Just a second.

19             Yes.

20             MS. EDGERTON:  Your Honour, I've risen on this before but I'm

21     going to do it again because I think this has gone over the top and too

22     far.  The evidence that's being elicited now from this witness is

23     evidence on -- in fact, what you're being asked to do, Your Honours, is

24     to prefer the credibility of this witness in his comments on the

25     credibility of witnesses who have testified before your fellow Judges in


Page 38950

 1     previous trials before this Tribunal.  He's -- there hasn't been a shred

 2     of ballistics analysis in the last two pages of transcript, and I think

 3     this is completely inappropriate for an expert witness.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Or Mr. Karadzic is wasting his time.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, Excellencies.  I am interested

 6     to hear the witness say whether that was a sniper bullet which targeted

 7     Munira, whether there was visibility.  I want to hear him say on what

 8     bank is the church, on what bank was Munira.  If it was on the same bank,

 9     then the visibility was low.  All that leads to a certain conclusion.

10     The witness investigated everything.  The witness read everything.

11     That's exactly how the investigators --

12             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, Mr. Poparic was called as an expert

13     witness on weapons and military equipment.  I think Mr. Marko Sladojevic

14     can give evidence to that effect as well if -- anybody can summarise what

15     he studied and give evidence.  It's up to you how you spend your time,

16     but the Chamber is very much keen to hear some relevant and probative

17     evidence from the witness.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  And then I would like

19     to call up P1739.  P1739.  The transcript is correct.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   What did you say?  What is the distance between the place of the

22     incident and the alleged place from which the bullet was fired?

23        A.   [No interpretation].

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please repeat the number.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]


Page 38951

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Now we see here number 3.  The place of the incident

 2     number 3, is it upstream from the bridge or downstream from the bridge?

 3        A.   Downstream from the bridge.  We have to bear in mind that on the

 4     bridge there were some barricades made of sacks with sand some 2 metres

 5     high.  At that time, at 1500 hours or at 1900 hours - it's really not

 6     important - they cast a shade because the sun shone from the right-hand

 7     side and I'm sure that the visibility in that area was much poorer than

 8     in front of the bridge --

 9        Q.   Can you now please --

10        A.   -- which actually made it much more difficult to spot this

11     person.

12        Q.   And now could you please activate the blue pen and mark the place

13     downstream from the bridge because what we see here is upstream from the

14     bridge.

15        A.   It would be here.

16             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the accused and the witness please kindly

17     be asked not to overlap.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   And can you put number 1 next to it --

20             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, could you check what we are missing

21     from the transcript and repeat your question.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is nothing missing from my

23     last question and the gentleman's last answer.  Everything is complete.

24     I asked the gentleman to mark the spot downstream from the bridge and put

25     number 1 next to it.


Page 38952

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   And can you now put number 2 when you locate the church tower,

 3     and can you please mark that church tower.  And in terms of the scale

 4     that you see in the left-hand side corner, could you please give us the

 5     distance between the two points?

 6        A.   The church could be here, somewhere around here.

 7        Q.   I believe that you will find it where it says "towers".

 8     "Towers".

 9             MS. EDGERTON:  Not appropriate.  Coaching the witness,

10     Your Honour.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it is here.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But the map is in English.  We

13     should have it in Serbian, shouldn't we?

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Look at the scale and tell us how far is it.  Is it over ...

16        A.   Let me see.  It's about 1.100, as I've already told you.

17        Q.   Thank you.  What is the probability of an intentional targeting

18     of a woman on the left bank below the bridge at 1730 [as interpreted]

19     hours at such a distance?

20        A.   In view of the fact that the distance is 1.100 or even more

21     metres than that, the probability of targeting that person is very low,

22     even with a sniper rifle because its best results are at 800 metres.

23     Anything over 800 metres yields somewhat poorer results.  And now the

24     question is what the visibility was at that time.  That's a very

25     important question, whether that shooter had the time to spot that woman


Page 38953

 1     and to fire within the interval of time while she was approaching the

 2     river to get the water from it.

 3        Q.   You said even with a sniper rifle.  Do you have any doubts about

 4     the weapon being a sniper rifle?  In other words, what did you conclude?

 5     What kind of weapon did he use?

 6        A.   According to the witness statements, I believe that there was a

 7     burst of fire.  There are statements to the effect that bullets fell into

 8     the Dobrinja river.  I don't see a reason why somebody would shoot into

 9     the river just like that, which proves that there were activities related

10     either to that place or some other place and the bullets ended up in the

11     river.  I don't know what actually happened.

12             However, I was on the church tower, in the church tower.  I would

13     personally never put a sniper there for two reasons.  First of all, the

14     space is very little in that tower and it's insufficient to secure the

15     place with some sandbags or something else.  Second of all, the distance

16     from the position of the BiH army to the church is big enough to use the

17     Osa rocket-launcher whose range is about 400 metres and to destroy this

18     tower easily.  In other words, whoever were to put a sniper there would

19     be exposed to the danger of being destroyed very quickly.

20             I said that even in the police report it doesn't say that fire

21     was opened from the tower but from somewhere around the church so that

22     the fire was opened from the ground around the church.  And that place

23     around the church is not visible from the bed of the Dobrinja river which

24     you can see in the Prosecutor's photo which is not in my report although

25     I should have probably put it in the report.  I'm talking about the


Page 38954

 1     bridge in Nikole Demonje Street which covers the area in front of the

 2     church.  You can see the top part of the church but not the bottom part

 3     of the church.  In other words, if fire was opened from an area next to

 4     the church, there was no visibility there.

 5        Q.   Thank you.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In line 20 on page 87 could it say

 7     "1930" rather than "1730"; and in line 10, on page 88, the witness said

 8     that he did not believe that someone would shoot into the river using a

 9     sniper just like that, that somebody would use a sniper just like that

10     for shooting into the river.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Would you confirm that?

13        A.   Absolutely.  A sniper is always used for a particular objective.

14     A sharpshooter selects a target and that's the difference between a

15     regular soldier and a sniper shooter.  One would not just shoot into a

16     river with a sniper.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this map.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  We'll receive it.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Document receives number D3635, Your Honours.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Let us now please -- oh, sorry.  We've already dealt with that.

24             Incident number 5, could we please focus on that, the 2nd of

25     November, 1993.  It is Brijesce Brdo.  Serbian page 79 and the paragraph


Page 38955

 1     number is 62, so in English it also starts with paragraph 62.  What is

 2     being alleged in respect of this incident and what did you establish?

 3        A.   The 2nd of November, 1993, that's the date of the incident, and

 4     in my view this is an incident in the case of which no one can establish

 5     what actually happened on the basis of all the information available.

 6     Basically, all the information we had available was contradictory.

 7             There is no doubt that in this incident Ramiza Kundo was wounded.

 8     Now, where she was wounded we do not know.  We do not know whether she

 9     was going to fetch water, whether she was wounded on her way back,

10     whether a neighbour was with her and whether she was next to her.  We

11     don't know another important thing, namely, where the source was where

12     she was going to fetch water.  We don't have any medical confirmation in

13     terms of the exit and entry wounds on her leg.  As a matter of fact,

14     there were even some contradictory reports as to which leg had been hit.

15             According to the police report she was wounded in her right leg.

16     What we managed to establish was that if she had been hit, as is most

17     frequently claimed, from the area of Polje, where the positions of the

18     VRS were, there is a possibility, or rather, this place is just as

19     visible from the positions of the BH army that were in the immediate

20     vicinity of the positions of the VRS, because in that area there was some

21     separation line and that is confirmed by military maps and so on and so

22     forth.

23             So there is no information here on the basis of which one can

24     reach a reasonable conclusion as to what it was that actually happened.

25     We don't even know where she was wounded in the leg, how high up the


Page 38956

 1     wound was, because that is very important in this case because she claims

 2     that she was hit in a particular area.  And that is flat terrain for

 3     about 10 metres and then it abruptly goes downhill from there.

 4             We need to know how high up her wound is on her leg and then we

 5     could check whether that part of her leg is visible from where the bullet

 6     had been fired.  Because of this flat area, part of the leg maybe could

 7     not be seen and that could not be checked because there is no information

 8     as to how high up she was wounded.  So practically no conclusion can be

 9     drawn here except for the fact that the place is visible from the

10     positions of the Army of Republika Srpska and the positions of the BH

11     army.

12        Q.   Thank you.  Can we please take a look at photograph 50.  In the

13     Serbian version it is page 80.  That is paragraph 55.

14             Can you tell us on the basis of this photograph where these Serb

15     positions were from which the projectile allegedly came and what is the

16     difference in terms of altitude?

17        A.   I think it's about 100 metres, the difference in altitude, and

18     the positions from which they claim she had been hit are between

19     Mrs. Ramiz a Kundo and Mr. Barry Hogan.  That's where this should be.

20     However, on the left-hand side where Ramiza Kundo is standing, the

21     positions of the BH army are visible.  They're to the left.  So the

22     separation line was roughly where the front of where Mrs. Ramiza Kundo's

23     body is.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please activate the pen and mark this

25     in-depth where the Serb positions were, Polje as they call it.


Page 38957

 1        A.   Right here, that is what is visible; right?

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Number 1, what's the distance?  So you said that the

 3     altitude difference is 100 metres?

 4        A.   Approximately 100 metres.

 5        Q.   The distance?

 6        A.   About 600 metres.  But all of this information cannot really be

 7     of any assistance to us because we don't have any information as to how

 8     high up she was wounded.  You see this plateau where they're standing,

 9     it's practically flat.  And then further down there is a slope and it's

10     possible that the leg, or rather, the place where she was wounded was

11     shielded in a way that could not have been checked because we simply

12     don't have information about that.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Do we know at least whether she was hit above the

14     knee or below the knee?

15        A.   She indicated below the knee.  She roughly showed the middle of

16     her leg in the film that we see here -- actually, the middle of the lower

17     part of her leg to be precise.  So that is why there is this reservation

18     that it's possible that this was not visible from the positions of the

19     Army of Republika Srpska.

20        Q.   Thank you.  This trajectory, or rather, exit/entry wound going

21     through the leg, are they at the same level or is there a difference?

22        A.   The difference would be slight here because the leg is relatively

23     thin, say 10 centimetres, so a centimetre and a half or something like

24     that.

25        Q.   Was there a difference like that?


Page 38958

 1        A.   We don't know.  There is no information about the nature of her

 2     wound.  Actually, we don't even know where the exit wound is and where

 3     the entry wound is and that's very important in this case.  I beg your

 4     pardon.  Here she is indicating that she had set out from her house

 5     towards the source, and then afterwards she said that she was walking

 6     from the water source to her house.  So it's the exact opposite.  We

 7     don't know what it was that actually happened.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Can we just take a look at image 53 now so that you

 9     could give us a brief explanation about that.

10        A.   53?

11        Q.   Page 85 in Serbian within paragraph 52 -- no, 72.

12                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

13             JUDGE KWON:  Are you tendering this marked image, Mr. --

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I'm sorry.  Yes, please.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Should I sign this?

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Sign it and put the date.

18        A.   [Marks].

19             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Exhibit D3636.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21             Image 53, please.  Page 85 in Serbian.  Paragraph 52 for the

22     English version -- no, it is 72, sorry.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Can you tell us what this is on this map, Google?

25        A.   It's a Google map.  The red line shows roughly the positions of


Page 38959

 1     the Army of Republika Srpska and the blue -- oh, I'm sorry.  I've done

 2     something.  And the blue marks the positions of the BH army.  These lines

 3     were taken from that map of the Chief of Staff of the 12th Division.  If

 4     it says "14" somewhere, that's a mistake.  If it says the other number,

 5     that's wrong.  So it is Rizvo Pleh who signed this.  So this just follows

 6     approximately what is marked on that map so that we could have it on this

 7     map.

 8             F5 that is enlarged in this rectangle is the incident site as

 9     indicated by Ramiza Kundo in that film taken by the OTP.  And if we look

10     at these red shaded lines, those are the positions of the Army of

11     Republika Srpska from which that site is visible.

12        Q.   The red?

13        A.   Yes, it says "VRS."  So that site is visible from there.  As you

14     look to the left, there is this natural obstacle, if you will, if we look

15     at the enlarged detail by the house.  It's like a pile of dirt.  Whoever

16     was there could see that and that's why you cannot see the site.  That's

17     why it's visible from the VRS positions only to a very small extent,

18     whereas the blue lines, the shaded area, is BH army-controlled territory

19     from which this site is also visible, what we can see here.  So the area

20     that was under BH army control is bigger, the area from which this could

21     be seen, as compared to VRS-held territory.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Just one more question.  These two armies, do they

23     have their positions on the heights there, or rather, on Brijesce Brdo?

24        A.   The VRS certainly didn't have their positions there; however, the

25     BH army did have them.  They had a tank there.  Above from this place


Page 38960

 1     there's a church there and that's where a tank was.  I don't know how

 2     many troops were there.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  How do you know there was a tank, Mr. Poparic?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Ramiza Kundo confirmed, among

 5     others, that there was a tank behind their house and another witness.  I

 6     believe that it was a military observer whose name was Brennskag, he also

 7     said.  And since he was at Vitkovici, at OP4, he saw that tank and there

 8     are documents to that effect.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  So now he's a summarising witness again?

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, very well.  My intention,

11     however, was different.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   About the angle of shooting, were both militaries in the same

14     position to fire a horizontal bullet?

15        A.   I don't understand.  What do you mean by "a horizontal bullet"?

16        Q.   Were both armies in positions on elevated grounds in order to see

17     the lower leg?

18        A.   It all depends on where you're shooting from.

19        Q.   I apologise.  Whose positions are dominant in geographic terms?

20        A.   In geographic terms the BiH positions are dominant.  They are on

21     the right-hand side.

22        Q.   Thank you.  And now could I ask you to focus on incident F6.

23     Could you please tell us what was said about this incident and what were

24     you able to establish?

25        A.   The incident happened on the 6th of January, 1994.  Sanija


Page 38961

 1     Dzevlan was shot with a single bullet while riding a bicycle across the

 2     bridge on Nikole Demonje Street.  It is alleged that she was shot from

 3     the positions of the VRS from the direction of the church in Veline.

 4        Q.   Thank you.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'd like to call up image 55.  In

 6     Serbian it's on page 99 and the paragraphs in question are 77 and 78, and

 7     further on -- 89.  Page is 89 and the paragraphs are okay.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Could you please explain the Trial Chamber what the photo

10     depicts?

11        A.   This is a photo of the bridge.  I believe that the markings were

12     made by Sanija Dzevlan.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Ms. Edgerton.

14             MS. EDGERTON:  This is P2292, this photograph.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The blue circle marks the church in

17     Veline, the church for which it is alleged that it is the place where the

18     fire had come from.  The black crossed lines mark the metal boards that

19     covered the passers-by from anybody who would be able to see them from

20     the church.

21             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Thank you.  How tall were those metal boards in respect of the

23     bicycle seat?

24        A.   According to testimonies, they were at least 2 metres high, which

25     means that if a person is sitting on the bike they couldn't be seen from


Page 38962

 1     the church.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  And now I'd like to call up figure 59.

 3             What did you find out based on the physical evidence available to

 4     you?

 5        A.   Based on the physical evidence available to me, i.e., the

 6     testimony of this person about the bridge being sheltered, or rather, the

 7     street was sheltered by metal board and about the place where she,

 8     according to her, was hit, we were able to establish when that spot

 9     became visible for anybody who may have been on positions by the church

10     in Veline.  And based on the distance between -- the distance that she

11     was supposed to travel on bike from the moment when she became visible to

12     the place where she was hit, we were able to establish that the bullet

13     had to have been fired much earlier than she became visible to the

14     shooter.  That means that she could not have been targeted intentionally

15     from those positions if fire was indeed opened from those positions.

16        Q.   Can you remind the Trial Chamber what kind of wounds did the

17     woman sustain?  Do we have any information about the levels of entry and

18     exit wounds on her body?

19             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

20             Yes, Ms. Edgerton.

21             MS. EDGERTON:  Just a small thing, but again Mr. Poparic has said

22     he came to his conclusions on the basis of the testimony of this person

23     about the bridge and about the location where, according to her, she was

24     hit, and his report is quite specific that he comes to that conclusion on

25     the basis of a video, not on the basis of testimony.


Page 38963

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.  In my mind,

 2     everything is testimony, but I suppose you're right.  I apologise.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Who was it who established that the person was hit as depicted in

 6     this photo?

 7        A.   I will answer you shortly, but before that let me remind you that

 8     when I said that the time that was needed for the bullet to travel the

 9     distance from the church to the place where she was hit is longer than

10     the time that she needed to travel from the place where she was sheltered

11     to the place where she was hit.  I would also like to say that the

12     highest velocity of that bullet M84 is the highest velocity.  We don't

13     know what weapon was in question.  But I would also like to say that

14     according to her own words there was a burst of fire because she spotted

15     that there were ricochet traces on the asphalt.  In other words, it was

16     not a single bullet from a sniper rifle but a burst of fire.

17             The wound was very peculiar and I have no medical information

18     about that wound.  Moreover, it is not even certain whether she was shot

19     by one or two bullets.  She said that there were two.  Some medical

20     documents show that she was shot with just one bullet through two parts

21     of her back.  I don't have any information about the wounds.  We only

22     know that none of her bones were injured, which is very difficult to

23     achieve without hitting a bone.  It seems more like a ricochet than a

24     direct hit and that that only grazed her.  We don't even have information

25     as to whether the seat of the bicycle was damaged or not and it would be


Page 38964

 1     very important to know that.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  And now can we look at image 60 on page 93.

 3             Who took this photo and what it depicts, when it was taken?

 4        A.   The photo was taken on 6th January 2012.  It was taken by a

 5     friend of mine whom I asked to do that in order to save me the trip.  He

 6     was a little late.  He should have taken the photo some 15 or 20 minutes

 7     earlier.  Still, it does carry a certain weight because it shows the

 8     weather and the conditions in Sarajevo around that time.  It is dusk and

 9     all the astronomic data also corroborate that.

10             Why is this photo important?  It is important because in this

11     case we don't know the exact time when the incident occurred.  According

12     to Sanija Dzevlan's testimony, the incident happened around 1630 hours

13     and around another testimony it was between 1500 and 1600 hours.  She

14     claimed that she had set out to visit her mother in the hospital around

15     1500 hours and that hospital is some ten minutes away.  So it is much

16     more realistic to say the incident happened between 1600 hours and --

17     1600 and 1630 hours.  In my view that would be a more realistic time of

18     the incident.

19             However, we can see that at that time it is already twilight.  It

20     is possible to ride a bike.  We took some photos to show the visibility,

21     and it's about 400 metres, or rather, there is some visibility at a

22     distance of 400 metres.  But I don't think that anybody could have seen

23     her from the church at that time of day.

24        Q.   For the participants, figure 61 shows the exact time, 1630 hours.

25        A.   The two photos are the same but one has been cropped in order to


Page 38965

 1     show the distances between the facilities that are depicted on the

 2     photos.  The other one shows the exact time.  Figure 60 shows the time,

 3     1641.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Can it be claimed that that was an intentional

 5     targeting of the gluteal part of the victim's body?

 6        A.   Absolutely not.  As I've already told you, the ballistics

 7     indicators show that the shooter had to have fired the bullet before

 8     Mrs. Sanija Dzevlan became a visible target, if she had ever become a

 9     visible target at all in view of the weather conditions and the time of

10     day, which cannot be defined for that particular day.  But in any case,

11     it was twilight.

12        Q.   Is it claimed that it was just a single bullet?  And if that was

13     the case, were you shown the levels of the entry and exit wounds on the

14     person's body?

15        A.   According to all the available materials, I realised that there

16     are claims about just one bullet.  There are -- there is no information

17     about the wound at all.  We don't know where the entry wound was and

18     where the exit wound was.

19        Q.   What kind of medical documentation did you have at your disposal?

20        A.   There was just one report where it says that she was hit by a

21     bullet in the back part of her body and that's all.  And from that, one

22     cannot conclude anything about the nature of the wound or the number of

23     hits.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Now can I draw your attention to incident number 7.

25     Could you please tell us --


Page 38966

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, it is time to adjourn for the day.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I thought we were supposed to break

 3     off at 7.00.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  No, we had two half-hour breaks and we've been

 5     sitting already for 90 minutes.

 6             We'll continue tomorrow in the morning at 9.00.  The hearing is

 7     adjourned.

 8                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.31 p.m.,

 9                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 30th day of

10                           May, 2013, at 9.00 a.m.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25