130206ED

Page 8120

1 by the solemn declaration you've given yesterday at the beginning of your

2 testimony, that you will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing

3 but the truth.

4 WITNESS: MIRZA SABLJICA [Resumed]

5 [Witness answered through interpreter]

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic will, as soon as the curtains are entirely

7 up, will continue his cross-examination.

8 Mr. Lukic.

9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

10 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]

11 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Sabljica.

12 A. Good morning.

13 Q. I'd like to start with part of a map of Sarajevo. We need 1D692

14 in e-court.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: 1D ... ?

16 MR. LUKIC: Yes, it is 1D.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: 61?

18 MR. LUKIC: 1D692.

19 Q. [Interpretation] Yesterday we were discussing the incident at

20 Alipasino Polje, the 22nd of February, 1994, is the relevant date. We

21 had a look at a certain number of documents. And now we have in front of

22 us part of a map of Sarajevo. We have marked the map with these red and

23 blue lines. Would you agree that according to your findings the shell

24 was fired from the direction of the institute for the blind, or rather,

25 from territory that was under the control of the

Page 8121

1 Army of Republika Srpska?

2 A. That's what it says. That is how it appears according to the

3 plan, the map.

4 Q. Would you agree that according to UNPROFOR documents the shell

5 was fired from Butmir, the Upi [phoen] institute area, which is territory

6 under the control of the ABiH. And this has been marked on this map with

7 the red line.

8 A. Yes, the red line indicates direction from Butmir.

9 Q. Do you remember UNPROFOR's findings we had a look at yesterday?

10 Would they agree to correspond to what they were claiming?

11 A. When this was calculated yesterday, that would be the direction

12 concerned, the south-west direction.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Could you assist me, Mr. Lukic, what P exhibit it

14 was so that I can select that for myself to look at.

15 MR. LUKIC: P exhibit -- it wasn't P exhibit.

16 JUDGE ORIE: What D exhibit it was.

17 MR. LUKIC: It was 1D692.

18 JUDGE ORIE: 1D692. Has it not been admitted? No, I'm looking

19 at the report you're referring to, UNPROFOR documents.

20 MR. LUKIC: One second, please. It is 1D671.

21 JUDGE ORIE: And it has not been tendered yet?

22 MR. LUKIC: It hasn't. We used it and we would like to tender it

23 now.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, then do it right away.

25 1D671, no objections.

Page 8122

1 Madam Registrar.

2 THE REGISTRAR: Receive number D177, Your Honours.

3 JUDGE ORIE: D177 is admitted into evidence --

4 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, I think we have that number.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, would it not be -- Madam Registrar, I hardly

6 dare to say -- we thought we were at D178, but ...

7 MR. LUKIC: 1D670 was admitted as D177.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's correct.

9 JUDGE ORIE: That is supported by my colleagues.

10 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. I apologise. This is D178.

11 JUDGE ORIE: D178 is admitted into evidence.

12 MR. LUKIC: And we would like also to tender this, 1D692.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, wouldn't it be good to finish your line of

14 questioning, or is this your -- have you finished all your questions

15 about --

16 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, it was very short.

17 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, there's been no foundation established

18 through this witness that these markings are actually correct or

19 correspond actually to the degrees that were measured. If it's just

20 being offered for demonstrative purposes, and if fact that it's been

21 shown to the witness, we have no objection. However, as to the accuracy

22 of these markings there's been no foundation laid at this time.

23 JUDGE ORIE: The map only tells us that if they are fired from

24 those positions, that this would be in the line of fire. It doesn't say

25 anything about whether they were fired from there.

Page 8123

1 Mr. Lukic, you agree, it just visualises what it would look like

2 if it was fired either from the institute for the blind or from the

3 Butmir-Ilidza source.

4 MR. LUKIC: And if the data in UNPROFOR analysis is correct.

5 JUDGE ORIE: If, yes.

6 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then it visualises what it means.

8 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Nothing wrong with that.

10 Madam Registrar, that would be ... ?

11 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D692 receives number D179,

12 Your Honours.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. D179 is admitted into

14 evidence.

15 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Sabljica, I would now like to deal with the

18 incident in Markale dated the 5th of February, 1994. We refer to that

19 incident as Markale I here. You participated in the on-site

20 investigation after the explosion of the Markale Market. When you

21 arrived at the market -- when did you arrive there?

22 A. Well, perhaps an hour after the explosion, on the 13th or

23 14th [as interpreted].

24 Q. The wounded and those killed had already been evacuated by that

25 time; isn't that correct?

Page 8124

1 A. Yes, that's correct.

2 Q. Had the various items also been removed from the stands or the

3 stalls?

4 A. As far as I can remember, no. There were quite a few items

5 there.

6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see 10468, which is a

7 65 ter Prosecution document.

8 Q. Do you remember this sketch? Does this depict the site at which

9 there was an explosion in Markale?

10 A. Yes, I have seen this illustration, but I don't know who made the

11 sketch. Yes, that is the Markale market-place.

12 Q. You've already answered my question. I wanted to ask you whether

13 you knew who made this sketch; if you don't -- would you agree that the

14 site of the explosion in the sketch doesn't correspond to the site

15 referred to in official reports?

16 A. Yes, I do agree with this. Our measurements were different in

17 our report, in our sketch, completely different. All I can say is the

18 upper corner where the shell fell is more or less correct, but this

19 distance of 6 metres is not.

20 Q. On that day what sort of investigative measures did you take?

21 A. Our team headed by an investigation judge, Cano Carsic [phoen], I

22 believe, and my colleague, Cavcic, and myself and Sead Besic as a

23 forensic technician had the task to determine the direction of the shell

24 and the type of shell that fell on the Markale Market. So we followed

25 the standard procedure that I have already explained. This was the main

Page 8125

1 task we had to carry out there.

2 Q. You carried on with the investigation on the following day, on

3 the 6th of February, 1994. Why did that happen? Why wasn't everything

4 done on the 5th?

5 A. The investigation that was carried out on the following day was

6 launched again. I do not know for which reason because I did not

7 participate in that investigation. We completed our part of the

8 investigation on the 5th when UNPROFOR arrived. As you saw yesterday,

9 they took the stabiliser out, and so on and so forth. But as to why and

10 on whose orders a new investigation was launched, well, we could

11 assume that the investigations judge asked for that because certain other

12 judicial experts participated in the investigation. But I and my

13 department were not involved in the subsequent investigation that was

14 carried out on the 6th of February.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 Did you see those findings? Did you determine that the

17 co-ordinates for the explosion site were identical in your report and in

18 the report of the commission headed by Mr. Berko Zecevic?

19 A. Yes, in the part that corresponded to our reports, the position

20 of the quarter and the angle from the north of 18 degrees. That's where

21 we assumed the shell arrived from. I wouldn't comment on any other

22 elements. You would have to ask Zecevic about that.

23 Q. Would you agree that because of the shape of the site, of the

24 explosion, it's almost impossible to obtain the same results when

25 measurements are taken on different occasions, on two separate occasions?

Page 8126

1 So would you perhaps have accepted Zecevic's findings or would he have

2 accepted yours? That's the question I would like to put to you.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, are you seriously asking this witness

4 whether Mr. Zecevic would have accepted the findings of this witness?

5 MR. LUKIC: Yes, I am.

6 JUDGE ORIE: The only one who can answer that question is

7 Mr. Zecevic.

8 MR. LUKIC: Maybe this gentleman accepted Mr. Zecevic's --

9 JUDGE ORIE: But that was not --

10 MR. LUKIC: That was why I wanted to clarify.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you asked both.

12 MR. LUKIC: Well, I can limit myself to this gentleman then.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's one. And second, he said earlier that

14 he would not comment on it, but of course you could give it another try

15 but -- and acceptance or not, what we need is an analysis of the findings

16 and a basis on which they were made. That is what we need. And whether

17 then this witness would accept someone else's findings or someone

18 else's -- the important matter is whether the Chamber accepts any of

19 those findings on the basis of the information underlying those findings,

20 but this witness by accepting or not accepting might give us some

21 additional thoughts on the matter.

22 Witness Sabljica, could you tell us whether you have reasons to

23 accept or not to accept the findings? I do not know exactly which ones,

24 but in a report, which report, Mr. Lukic?

25 MR. LUKIC: We will -- Mr. Zecevic should come and testify here.

Page 8127

1 We will have his report as well, the report produced based on the

2 investigation carried on the 6th of February, 1994.

3 JUDGE ORIE: What we can do is to ask this witness whether he

4 accepts the findings in report X, Y, or Z; that is, a report clearly

5 identified so that the Chamber also is able to see what the witness

6 accepts or does not accept. There may be a consultation. Apparently

7 Mr. Mladic asked for it. If it can be very short, that is, at low voice,

8 30 seconds okay; not any more, otherwise it should be done during the

9 break.

10 Mr. Weber.

11 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, just to take care of a quick

12 housekeeping matter, I just wanted to put on the record that the document

13 that was called up 10468 which is now on the screens has already been

14 admitted as P538 on page 56 just so that we have that on the record.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

16 I said 30 seconds, low voice. They are over now. If there's

17 need for further consultations, the breaks will help you out.

18 Mr. Lukic, again I do not mind if you ask the witness whether he

19 accepts any findings, but then the Chamber should know exactly what you

20 are referring to and the witness should also know exactly what you are

21 referring to.

22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I think we

23 realise what the Chamber is interested in.

24 Q. The co-ordinates of the site of the explosion are identical in

25 your report and in Mr. Zecevic's report. My first question is of an

Page 8128

1 objective kind. Would you agree that it is almost impossible, especially

2 because of the shape of the site of the explosion, to obtain two

3 completely identical findings when measurements are taken on two separate

4 occasions, on two different days?

5 A. Well, let me tell you that it's not at all difficult to take

6 those measurements because you determine the length and the distance from

7 fixed objects, so you can always locate the centre of the explosion in

8 relation to these surrounding buildings. So those are the distances

9 concerned. So perhaps the margin of error that we are dealing with is a

10 centimetre or 2, but this doesn't really affect the findings.

11 Q. The points from which you took these measurements, were they the

12 same in your report and in Mr. Zecevic's report? Do you remember

13 anything about this?

14 JUDGE ORIE: Which report, Mr. Lukic? The Chamber wants to be

15 able to verify that, whatever the answer is and we would like to hear the

16 answer. But we want to be able to verify reports, compare reports,

17 verify answers. So could you please be more specific.

18 MR. LUKIC: I don't have that number here with me, but I'll try

19 to provide it during the break. Then the next question I can ask.

20 Q. [Interpretation] Did you take the measurements or did you accept

21 the measurements taken by Mr. Berko Zecevic?

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, again are you pointing at

23 measurements - which is well possible - the measurements from the centre

24 of the crater to the surrounding buildings?

25 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

Page 8129

1 JUDGE ORIE: Or the altitude of those buildings? Or what are we

2 talking about? The witness said that the measurements were the same and

3 that the margin of error from the centre of the crater to the surrounding

4 buildings would not be more than 2 centimetres, which is -- I do

5 understand. Is that the measurements you are talking about?

6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I keep asking about the co-ordinates

7 or the grid references of the point of impact. That was contained in my

8 earlier questions as in the latter ones. I'm referring to the

9 co-ordinates of the point of impact, of the point of the explosion, and

10 that they are the same in both reports.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then of course what I would like to do is to

12 see how these co-ordinates are described. You can do it in two ways:

13 Either you take a picture and you measure from a building what is the

14 distance to the core of the centre of the crater; or you look at really

15 grid co-ordinates. Grid co-ordinates are, by definition, not points but

16 areas. And the more detailed the grid reference is, the smaller the area

17 is. We would like to see what we are talking about because a grid

18 reference is, well let's say, 1 metre by 1 metre or 10 centimetres by

19 10 centimetres; whereas if you measure from the centre of a crater the

20 distance to a building, you can be as precise to 2, 3, or 4 centimetres,

21 that's the -- even the witness said the margin of error is 2 centimetres

22 approximately. That is the kind of things we would like to know in order

23 to be able to interpret the answers.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] But I'm not interested in figures at

25 all. We have the figures. I'm interested in what kind of methodology

Page 8130

1 was used by this gentleman. Did he measure the site himself or did he

2 take the measurements that Mr. Zecevic had? What was the methodology

3 used?

4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, that's a different question, which is fine.

5 It's a different question. If you say: Did you adopt measurements from

6 others in their reports, then the only thing I would like to know is:

7 Which report? So that I can see what measurements are in that report

8 which then apparently were or were not adopted by this witness.

9 Mr. Sabljica, meanwhile the question seems to be a different one.

10 When you did your investigation, did you adopt any measurements from any

11 report by Mr. Zecevic; and if so, which one?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let us clarify this issue at once.

13 The first time I saw Mr. Zecevic's findings was in 2001 as I was

14 preparing for the Galic case. This means that we did our part of the job

15 completely independently. I wasn't aware at the time that Mr. Zecevic

16 was part of that team on that other day, and that's all I can tell you.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

18 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20 Q. Thank you, Mr. Sabljica. That's all I wanted to know at present.

21 Let's go back to the day when you conducted your investigation. When you

22 arrived at the scene was the market-place cleared up, that part of the

23 market-place where you worked, where you did your work, was it cleared up

24 or not?

25 A. As far as I remember, it was only the dead bodies that were taken

Page 8131

1 away and the wounded that were evacuated, but there were a lot of items

2 strewn around. There was a lot of blood, tissue, and I suppose other

3 belongings of the victims.

4 Q. In the police footage number P864 in the time sequence from

5 6 minutes, 43 seconds to 6 minutes, 48 seconds, we heard a voice say,

6 Have a look up at the roof-top lest you should find the tail fin there.

7 Will you agree with me that at the point of your arrival you were not

8 aware that the tail fin was in the crater; am I right?

9 A. That's right.

10 Q. In your practical work you had come across cases previously where

11 the stabiliser had been embedded in the ground for its full length.

12 Let's look at P867 --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you just had 65 ter 10468 on the screen,

14 the sketch you referred to. That is the separately uploaded page 56 of

15 what is Exhibit P538, so as to be sure what we were looking at.

16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. And that's why -- yeah. But

17 it's also the Prosecutor's number so we used this one because it was

18 easier for us to --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but it was page 56 of Exhibit P538.

20 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

22 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

23 [Interpretation] We need the following pages from this document:

24 In B/C/S, 26; the English version doesn't have as many pages or it only

25 has text. That's not the page we need. Perhaps we should look at

Page 8132

1 page 27. Can we do that, please. No, then 25, please. The numeration

2 must be different in e-court. Yes, this is it.

3 Q. This is the tail which can be seen at --

4 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it possible for us to get a translation of

6 what's written at the bottom of this picture?

7 MR. LUKIC: Yes, then we have to have the same, 25th page, of

8 English --

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's go -- let's go for it, please.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so, Mr. Lukic, we'll have a look at the

11 text but you referred to words spoken on video P864.

12 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Now, P864 was tendered and admitted but without a

14 transcript. So I do understand that the Prosecution does not rely on any

15 text spoken.

16 Is that correct, Mr. Weber?

17 MR. WEBER: That's correct.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

19 So your quote from what was said at a certain moment in this

20 video needs a transcript, which we can read and which can be verified by

21 the Prosecution. Would you please keep this in mind because we are

22 unable to verify anything.

23 MR. LUKIC: I'll just do that.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then sort that out.

25 Then we now look at the text underneath. We have it. Yes, we

Page 8133

1 have it.

2 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I believe the corresponding English

3 translation is just one page further on page 26 of the English.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, this seems not to be the text related to this

5 one. I take it the text.

6 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Do you remember if this is the stabiliser that was embedded in

10 the ground at the Dobrinja incident site?

11 A. Yes, that is the mortar stabiliser, mortar shell stabiliser.

12 Q. We don't need the text. Can we have a look at P864 from

13 7 minutes, 29 seconds, to 7 minutes, 41 seconds.

14 MR. LUKIC: Of course I kindly ask Ms. Stewart for assistance.

15 Can we have 7 minutes 29 seconds to 7 minutes 41 seconds.

16 [Video-clip played]

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 8134

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 Q. You measured the hole and you established that it was

18 9 centimetres deep; right?

19 A. I did say that yesterday. When the UNPROFOR officer uncovered

20 the tail fin of the shell, we took the measurements at the time when it

21 was still embedded in the ground. So the 9 centimetres is the distance

22 between the surface of the ground and the surface of the tail fin.

23 That's the 9 centimetres. When we took the stabiliser out we did not

24 measure the depth of the hole.

25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In order for everyone to be able to

Page 8135

1 follow, this is P868. It is a record of the forensic examination of the

2 site. And at page 15 of the B/C/S version and page 16 of the English

3 version, the findings are related. Page 15 of the B/C/S version and

4 16 of the English. I'm stating this for the record only. We -- or at

5 least I don't need to have it on the screen.

6 Q. In the course of your work, what were your conclusions? For the

7 stabiliser to be embedded so deep in the ground, what sort of charge was

8 needed?

9 A. I could only have made an assumption, you know. We did not look

10 into what the exact source of fire was. We know that a 120-millimetre

11 mortar shell would have charge number 6 and we know that it was

12 18 degrees north/north-west, and I learned later on that there was six

13 batteries located down there, one of which was the BH army's and the rest

14 was the VRS's. I didn't make that analysis, and I think that question

15 would be better put to those who analysed this in more depth and that's

16 Zecevic and the team.

17 Q. Very well. Let us look briefly at P868. We need page 63.

18 JUDGE ORIE: In which language?

19 MR. LUKIC: In both languages. I think that we have picture only

20 in B/C/S.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

22 MR. LUKIC: There it is in English as well.

23 Q. [Interpretation] Could you please have a look at this and do you

24 understand what this black-and-white ribbon represents at the bottom of

25 the photograph, this black-and-white strip. Have you ever seen

Page 8136

1 measurements taken of a shell on the basis of such a strip or by using

2 such a strip?

3 A. This measuring strip is part of the equipment that a forensic

4 technician uses. It's usually placed by the physical evidence. One of

5 these rectangles or squares represents 1 centimetre. You probably know

6 that.

7 Q. Yes. We are now -- we are having a look at this photograph. We

8 claim that these rectangles aren't of the same size and that this was

9 done in order to conceal certain evidence. Given the depiction here,

10 what would the width be of this tail?

11 A. 120-millimetres would be the diameter, 12 centimetres, from one

12 end of the fin to the other. If you look at it length-wise you know what

13 a diameter is.

14 Q. Yes. We can see 13 fields here; isn't that correct? Well, it's

15 not important. We now need to have a look at page 62 in both versions.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you say it's not important. At the same

17 time you express a suggestion that is --

18 MR. LUKIC: But not on this.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Not on this.

20 MR. LUKIC: I was referring to the next [overlapping speakers]

21 not this one.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. You see in this photograph, this is, in fact, what I was talking

25 about. In this photograph the black-and-white rectangles don't have the

Page 8137

1 same size. So the intention was to claim that this was, in fact, bigger

2 than it actually is. According to this photograph what would the length

3 or height be of this item?

4 A. Well, it would be about 22 centimetres if you add up these

5 squares.

6 Q. Well, I'm not going to mistreat you now, but these

7 black-and-white squares should be of an identical size; isn't that

8 correct?

9 A. That's correct. Each one should be 1 centimetre.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, can I ask for clarification?

12 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: The picture on the right side generally looks

14 bigger than the picture on the left side. It looks like it's more of a

15 close-up than the other one. If you are saying the squares are not the

16 same size, I'll say to you the stabilisers are also not of the same size

17 looking at these pictures.

18 MR. LUKIC: Probably we got it through the e-court. It's

19 different --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I think what you are -- but let me just try

21 to understand Mr. Lukic. Is it your point that the black parts are not

22 exactly of the same size as the white parts, irrespective of it being

23 enlarged or not --

24 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE ORIE: -- that is what --

Page 8138

1 MR. LUKIC: That is exactly my point.

2 JUDGE ORIE: So not the left picture to the right picture --

3 MR. LUKIC: No, no.

4 JUDGE ORIE: -- but the black boxes against the white ones?

5 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then, if you say so, that's a different story.

7 That's not what I understood you to be saying.

8 MR. LUKIC: I'm sorry. I was unclear.

9 THE INTERPRETER: Would Mr. Lukic kindly wait for the

10 interpretation.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you're asked to wait for the

12 interpretation before you respond.

13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14 Q. Mr. Sabljica, on that occasion, given the number of victims, did

15 you deal with the issue of whether there had been a number of explosions

16 in Markale before the 4th of February, 1994?

17 A. Our team didn't do that. We just focused on this shell.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see P868, please.

20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before we do that --

21 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- I have another question in relation to this

23 photograph on the screen for the witness.

24 Can you help me with the following: Where was this strip on the

25 left side, black-and-white? Was that part of the photograph or is that

Page 8139

1 part of the page in which the photograph is included? I mean was that

2 near this object? How can I understand that? Because the left and the

3 left edge of this piece of paper of this photograph is not exactly clear.

4 Can you help me with that?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As a rule, the forensic technician

6 always makes the photographs. He makes such photographs in his office

7 after the on-site investigation, and this measuring strip is part of the

8 equipment he uses. It's a plastic strip with 1-centimetre

9 black-and-white boxes. And this photograph taken by my colleague,

10 Sead Besic, is a photograph that he wanted to use to show what the length

11 of this tail fin was. The difference in size of these boxes could be

12 because he took a photograph from a certain angle, and so on and so

13 forth. But this is a standard strip, but it would be better if you

14 obtained information from him as to how he took the photograph and then

15 Mr. Lukic will have a better idea of the procedure. I hope I have

16 assisted you with this explanation.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, we take a break in five minutes. If

18 there's a need for a longer consultation, we would even consider to take

19 it a bit earlier.

20 Please proceed.

21 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. I just want to tell Your Honours that the

22 report --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Low voice, please. Low voice.

24 MR. LUKIC: The report of Mr. Berko Zecevic we talked about

25 earlier and I didn't have the reference is 65 ter number 10637.

Page 8140

1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that information, Mr. Lukic.

2 MR. LUKIC: You're welcome.

3 [Interpretation] Now I'd like to see P868 on the screen. The

4 pagination is the same in the B/C/S and English version, and I'd like to

5 have a look at page 27. It's the same document. We only need to see the

6 sketch, and I'd like to have a look at the lower left-hand corner.

7 Q. You made this sketch of the site; isn't that correct?

8 A. That's correct. This is my sketch.

9 Q. And there's a sketch of a stall with the standard measurements

10 that you made here?

11 A. Yes, this is a side view of a stall.

12 Q. Very well. Could you please focus on the awning which is at the

13 top and to the right. It goes beyond the supporting pole.

14 MR. LUKIC: No, we were on the right spot. We can keep that

15 picture downward. Thanks.

16 Q. [Interpretation] Now we would need to have a look at the video

17 again, P864. The time is 1.15 to 1 minute and 19 seconds.

18 MR. LUKIC: 1 minute 15 to 1 minute 19.

19 [Video-clip played]

20 MR. LUKIC: I show something completely different, but anyways.

21 Q. [Interpretation] Would you agree - I'm not sure how clearly you

22 can see things in what we have just viewed - would you agree that these

23 awnings are a lot longer and that they screen the areas between them,

24 close off these areas between them? Can you see this?

25 A. Yes. They're quite densely positioned. All you have is an

Page 8143

1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

2 And until the curtains are up I use the time to say something

3 about P612 which is the criminal investigation filed pertaining to a

4 sniping incident. The Prosecution has provided a revised version of the

5 English translation of this document and the Registry may replace the old

6 English version with the new one. That's hereby on the record.

7 Mr. Lukic, if you're ready you may proceed.

8 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honours.

9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Sabljica, we've finished the issue of

10 Markale. Would you now please focus on Dobrinja. The date is the

11 4th of February, 1994. It's the incident that happened one day before

12 Markale. Let start with a couple of general questions before we move on

13 to the events themselves. Would you agree with me that the methods used

14 in your investigations could lead to only approximate findings.

15 A. I agree. Only the trajectory, direction of fire, and type of

16 projectile.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, again an unclear question. Not precise

18 in respect of something the witness investigated? Or not precise because

19 the witness did not investigate certain elements?

20 MR. LUKIC: Would you agree with me that the methods used in your

21 investigations could lead to only approximate findings?

22 JUDGE ORIE: The answer of the witness was:

23 "I agree. Only the trajectory, direction of fire, and type of

24 projectile."

25 The answer focuses on what could not be concluded because of the

Page 8144

1 limited scope of the investigation. I got the impression that your

2 question was about the methods used which might create a margin of error

3 of, well, let's say 2 or 3 degrees. That is not part of the answer and

4 it's unclear whether it is included in your question.

5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

6 Q. [Interpretation] You heard the Judge. Can you give an answer to

7 what the Chamber is interested in?

8 A. Yes, I can. The method used was one that was generally used,

9 universally used for the parameters that I was interested in. We could

10 never establish exactly where the fire was open from, and this is the

11 shortcoming of that method but it was due to the difficult times we were

12 in and the fact that there were things that simply we couldn't do.

13 That's why in our findings we always said "plus/minus 5 degrees" as the

14 margin of error with regard to the direction of fire. And that is the

15 only method used for mortar shells to establish the direction of fire.

16 Of course the source of fire is something that could never have been

17 established by using this method.

18 Q. You also told us that you never examined the angle of descent,

19 save for one incident, Livanjska Street at Kosevo hill, when the method

20 used was the one of the stake. Would you agree with me that this isn't

21 an official method for establishing the angle of descent? It isn't one

22 that would be found in the professional literature?

23 A. That's right. That's what we called it. But in principle it

24 gives you the findings of the angle of descent through certain very

25 precise method. The weight of the shell, the cosine of the angle, if you

Page 8145

1 had the protractor which we had. And of course this stake of the rod was

2 just there to facilitate our work. Of course we also used the margin of

3 error in that respect. We stated what the margin of error was.

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we call up 1D674 in e-court.

5 It's a map showing one area of the town. It's Dobrinja again. Can we

6 magnify the lower right-hand corner where it says "Dobrinja" just a bit.

7 Q. Could you mark Mihajla Pupina Street on this map for us, please.

8 Can you take the pen, please.

9 A. I'll do my best. To the best of my recollection it would be

10 roughly here. I'll put MP for Mihajlo Pupin.

11 Q. Thank you.

12 A. You're welcome.

13 Q. This is called Zlatnih Ljiljana Square and it's actually now the

14 combination of Mihajlo Pupina and Sose Street; right?

15 A. Yes, I suppose so. I know they've renamed many streets.

16 Q. Can you show us the direction where Lukavica lies and could you

17 mark it with L for Lukavica.

18 A. I'm approximising, but I think roughly there. The road that you

19 see up there is one that leads to Lukavica.

20 Q. Can you mark Hamdije Kapidzica Street, which is the former

21 Nehru Street that you must be familiar with. That was where the police

22 station was.

23 A. Let's assume it's this one, but I'm not 100 per cent sure and

24 I'll put an N for Nehru. It's a small-scale map so there's not much I

25 can do.

Page 8146

1 Q. Thank you for your effort. Can you mark for us on this same map

2 the place where the explosion took place on the 4th of February, 1994?

3 A. I think it's these buildings here. Let's put an EX for

4 "explosion." But that's all I can assume on the basis of this map.

5 Q. [Microphone not activated]

6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Your microphone is off.

8 MR. LUKIC: Sorry. Thank you, Your Honour.

9 [Interpretation] Can we save this map with the markings as the

10 next Defence exhibit?

11 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so could we ask the witness -- you

12 asked for the street with the police station. I take it you did not do

13 it without reason. If the police station is relevant, I'd like to know

14 where it is.

15 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

16 Q. [Interpretation] Would you be so kind as to mark for us on this

17 map the location where you believe the police station was situated?

18 A. As you asked me to, I marked the street, but I don't know exactly

19 where it was on that street.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any recollection? If you would see the

21 area, would you know where the police station was to be found.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I didn't know where the police

23 station was exactly on that street during the war either. I never went

24 there.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that.

Page 8147

1 Do you have a clear recollection of the incident you said where

2 you marked a building, do you have a recollection on where the explosive

3 landed? Was it in between of houses? Do you have a recollection of that

4 because then we could look in more detail from an aerial photograph to

5 know exactly where it was. But we don't have to do it if your

6 recollection would not serve you well enough.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I remember that it was a playground

8 of sorts, that it was surrounded by buildings, and that people were

9 lining up for humanitarian relief. That's all I remember. When looking

10 at the photo documentation during proofing I refreshed my memory

11 somewhat. But I don't know the exact positions. As Mr. Lukic and I

12 discussed yesterday Dobrinja was a precisely planned housing development,

13 so they had these playgrounds inserted in between. Perhaps we could try

14 and look at a better map but I can't say that with 100 per cent

15 certainty.

16 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest, Mr. Lukic, that we first have this one

17 admitted and then look in a bit more in detail at page 30 of P3.

18 Madam Registrar.

19 THE REGISTRAR: The number for the document 1D674 as marked by

20 the witness will be D180, Your Honours.

21 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

22 And could we have a look at P3 and then we'll move to page -- in

23 hard copy, it is page 30 but we'll see what it is in e-court.

24 MR. WEBER: I believe that's e-court page 35.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Thirty-five. Let's have a look at 35. And could

Page 8148

1 the witness be assisted in marking.

2 Could the usher assist the witness with a pen to mark. It is not

3 very clear, I must say. If I look at the hard copy it's by far clearer.

4 Is there any way we could -- could we make it brighter? Is there any way

5 of doing that? That's not exactly -- now, Witness, the area which is

6 approximately the same area as you marked -- but has someone -- I could

7 give my hard copy to the -- could you give your hard copy for a moment,

8 Mr. Weber, so that the witness is better able to orient himself?

9 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

11 Mr. Sabljica, you see a bad reproduction of what is now given to

12 you in hard copy as an aerial photograph of the Dobrinja area, where with

13 a yellow marking the area of the impact is approximately indicated.

14 Could you tell us a bit more about what you remember where that shell

15 fell. Was it in the playground in the left part of the oval yellow.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. One landed in the playground,

17 in the left corner of the yellow circle, and the other landed closer to

18 the building which is in parallel to the playground. And people who were

19 lining up for either water or humanitarian relief were injured. Two

20 shells landed.

21 JUDGE ORIE: To the extent possible, could you make one little

22 cross with a 1 for the first shell.

23 THE WITNESS: [Marks]

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that seems to be at that eastern edge of the

25 stretch of that building. Then a little X with a 2 for the second

Page 8149

1 shell -- oh, it's there already. Yes. And now for the place where

2 people were queuing for humanitarian aid, could you make there a little

3 cross with an H for humanitarian aid.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Roughly like this. As far as the

5 scale would allow me to. I tried to be as precise as possible.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you very much for that.

7 Mr. Lukic, we could make it a Chamber exhibit, but I'm happy to

8 have it a D exhibit as well that --

9 MR. LUKIC: I just want to inquire if the witness can recognise

10 the police station now.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's of course --

12 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] better.

13 JUDGE ORIE: That's what I had in mind earlier, but he said he

14 never visited it so he wouldn't know where it was. So whether an aerial

15 photograph could help him out.

16 On this photograph are you any better able to tell us where the

17 police station was or would you still not know?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said, I don't know,

19 unfortunately. I never went to that police station. I don't know where

20 it is in Dobrinja.

21 MR. LUKIC: And just before we admit it, just for -- if the

22 witness can recognise the street [overlapping speakers]

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but as a matter of fact, Mr. Lukic, the name of

24 the street is in our P3 binder map and that's exactly where the witness

25 indicated it to be. So the streets shouldn't be any problem.

Page 8150

1 MR. LUKIC: Then I'm not going to steal your evidence. It's

2 yours.

3 JUDGE ORIE: It's -- no, no, no, Mr. Lukic. Let's make it part

4 of the cross-examination. Let's give it a D number.

5 Madam Registrar.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Document as marked by the witness becomes

7 Exhibit D181, Your Honours.

8 JUDGE ORIE: D181 is admitted into evidence.

9 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

10 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

11 [Interpretation] I would now like to call up in e-court, once we

12 have this photograph saved, to look at P867. In this document we need

13 page 12 in both versions and that should be the page in e-court. I don't

14 know why we have this, but we need page 11 in the B/C/S version then.

15 Page 12 in the English version.

16 Q. Mr. Sabljica, we have a report of a forensic examination of the

17 site which concerns this incident of the 4th of February, 1994, the

18 police station. It says the police station and then Novi Grad. Did this

19 belong to Novi Grad?

20 A. Yes, it belonged to the municipality of Novi Grad.

21 Q. Under item 4, the forensic technician, Samir Selman, stated that

22 three shells had been fired, three 120-millimetre shells had been fired

23 on Dobrinja, on the Dobrinja settlement. He said that they fell in the

24 street of Oslobodilaca Sarajevo and Dz Nehru Street. In the course of

25 your work, did you know that these explosions related to the

Page 8151

1 Dzevaharlal Nehrua Street in any way?

2 A. I'm not familiar with this. In our findings which is in the

3 table part of the document you can see what we noted but this is

4 something you would have to ask Mr. Selman, Samir you said. You'd have

5 to ask him about what he wrote here. I can't assist you.

6 Q. On that day you didn't carry out any investigations in the

7 Nehru Street; isn't that correct?

8 A. We ballistics experts didn't do that.

9 Q. Very well. In this report at the bottom it says a forensic

10 examination of the site. In the B/C/S version, we have to move on to the

11 following page. It's the same page, however, in the English version. It

12 says that there were traces of a shell that were found under 6 that the

13 tail fin of a shell had been found and a photograph was taken of it. It

14 also says that traces of blood and tissue were also found. What it says

15 here wasn't obtained on the basis of your work; is that correct?

16 A. Yes, I'm not aware of this shell in Nehru Street. We didn't

17 investigate this matter. If that is what the forensic technician had in

18 mind.

19 Q. Thank you. Do you know Mr. Selmo? If so, did you see him at the

20 site on that day?

21 A. I know Mr. Selman. He was a member of the forensic technicians

22 team and I believe that he was at the site with us that Zdenko Eterovic

23 was the investigations judge. We can check this in the report. It says

24 who the forensic technician was, but I do know Samir.

25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] This is already an exhibit in

Page 8152

1 evidence. In this very same document we need to see page 20 in both

2 versions, the English version and the B/C/S version. I need to see a

3 previous page. We'll deal with this one too, but I need to see the

4 previous page or perhaps -- in fact, it's two pages back in the B/C/S,

5 one page back in the English version. The pagination I have in the

6 electronic version is a little confused. Can we go one page back in both

7 versions. I do apologise for this confusion. We finally have what we

8 need.

9 Q. Here we can see that it says that the sketch of the site -- it

10 says the sketch of the site, subject: Shelling, location Dobrinja,

11 Oslobodilaca Grada. You said that you weren't familiar with Dobrinja, so

12 I don't know where you could agree with me about the following, but

13 according to the information I have there is no street that goes by this

14 name in Sarajevo.

15 A. I agree, there's Oslobodilaca Sarajevo Street. Samir Selman

16 probably made a typo, a typing mistake, because he is the person who made

17 this sketch.

18 Q. Yes, very well. Thank you.

19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We'll stay with the same document,

20 but the e-court pagination isn't the same as the pagination I have. So

21 we need to go three pages forward in the B/C/S version and we could have

22 a look at the English version, too, for the sake of the text. Let's try

23 and see page 21 in the e-court system. And another page forward. The

24 next page, page 22. The page number I wrote down is page 23 but the

25 pagination has been mixed up. This is the page I need. I apologise.

Page 8153

1 Which page is this? I'm asking this just so I could follow, which page

2 is it in e-court. Twenty-two, one page less. Thanks.

3 Q. This is part of the photo documentation. Can you see this arrow?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. This is where one of the shells fell. Do you know which shell it

6 is, what order it fell in?

7 A. Well, I don't know anything about the order. All I know is when

8 it was fired.

9 Q. Here it also says, there is a mistake, that the plateau is

10 between Oslobodilaca Sarajevo Street and Nehru Street, the open area, in

11 fact, is between these two streets. Is it correct that apart from the

12 fact that it says Oslobodilaca Sarajevo Street, it says that Nehru Street

13 is in the vicinity. Is it true that Nehru Street is not in the vicinity

14 of this site, this location, that we can see in the photograph?

15 A. Yes. Bulevar Usoja [phoen] was there -- or rather, Mimara. I'm

16 not sure what the name of the street is now. That's the street that were

17 there, so -- Branjavaca Sarajeva [phoen] Street and Bulevar Usoja that

18 leads towards Lukavica.

19 Q. And how far is Nehru Street, roughly speaking? How far away is

20 that street?

21 A. Well, it's an entire block of buildings. Perhaps a thousand

22 metres away as the crow flies.

23 Q. Yes, very well. Thank you.

24 In this photograph, in this colour photograph on the screen, can

25 we see the trace of earth on the asphalt surface which is a result of the

Page 8154

1 impact of the shell? Can the traces of earth be clearly seen there?

2 A. Yes. You can see a trace of dust, of earth. It's more visible

3 now that you have enlarged the photograph.

4 Q. Could you mark it on the photograph?

5 A. With Z for earth?

6 Q. Mark it with a circle and Z.

7 A. [Marks]

8 Q. Very well. Thank you. You do remember the site and you found

9 traces of a shell here at this site; isn't that correct?

10 A. Yes. At the location marked with a red arrow. In the other

11 photographs you can probably see the site more clearly.

12 Q. Very well.

13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have this admitted

14 into evidence.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be ... ?

16 THE REGISTRAR: Document as marked by the witness receives number

17 D182, Your Honours.

18 JUDGE ORIE: D182 is admitted into evidence.

19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Now I'd like to have a

20 look at page 19 in this document in both versions.

21 Q. This is a sketch of the site where the shells struck - we'll deal

22 with other ones too. Could you show us the direction of Lukavica on this

23 sketch, in which direction is Lukavica located?

24 A. It would be difficult for me to do that on this sketch.

25 Q. If you can't do that, it doesn't matter.

Page 8155

1 A. It's to the north. Lukavica was north-east of this site, but I

2 can't really locate the direction.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could the parties agree on it? We have

5 clear maps and we know exactly what the spot is, so therefore it should

6 be a very simple thing to indicate on this map where Lukavica is.

7 MR. LUKIC: I know. It is not easy for me. I tried to use the

8 witness list from Sarajevo.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's the advantage of maps. We know where

10 it is. We know exactly where it is. We know where Lukavica is on a map.

11 You can draw a line, then you know where it is.

12 MR. LUKIC: We'll try to talk with the Prosecution about that,

13 Your Honour. Thank you.

14 [Interpretation] I'd like to go one page back in e-court.

15 Q. This is part of the documents. It's referred to in that sketch

16 of the site that we will get back to. It says there, in fact, that three

17 shells struck and here it says that three 120-millimetre mortar shells

18 fell on Dobrinja settlement and we'll return to the sketch to have

19 another look at it and to see how it was marked. On that occasion did

20 you launch an investigation into two shells or into three shells?

21 A. We were investigating two shells. As you can see on the sketch

22 we have marked the points of impact with the numbers 1 and 2. I assume

23 that Samir made this sketch. And the third shell -- can you see the

24 building across the road from the Oslobodilaca Grada, it should say

25 "Sarajevo." As far as I can remember -- well, why didn't we deal with

Page 8156

1 the third shell? Well, it hit a religious building that was used for

2 Muslim rites. There were no victims. And this is why the two of us

3 ballistics experts didn't investigate the matter after having consulted

4 the investigative judge. I think that that is clearly stated in our

5 findings.

6 Q. Very well. In that case I think that we will deal with the

7 issue. There were also victims there too, wounded individuals. I'm

8 still interested in the same exhibit. I would like to see page 26 now.

9 It might be page 27 in the English version. I can see that it's one page

10 back in the B/C/S version, although I have made a note of the fact that

11 it should be page 27 in both versions. Yes. We can see the translation

12 of the text beneath the photograph here, the English translation.

13 Would you be so kind as to take a marker and mark the longer axis

14 on this photograph, the site struck by the projectile at the point of

15 impact. So the lengthier axis is what I'm interested in.

16 A. You mean the longer axis of this irregular ellipse which is

17 formed around the crater?

18 Q. Yes, the axis of the descent of the shell.

19 A. C for centre and X1 is the longer axis, which corresponds with

20 the direction of fire and angle of descent. You can see that arrow

21 there. If you want me to, I can mark the traces of the fan as it

22 emanates outwards.

23 Q. In your view, what is the bearing of the north here?

24 A. In this direction here.

25 Q. Can we save this and mark it as the next Defence exhibit?

Page 8157

1 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

2 THE REGISTRAR: Document as marked by the witness receives number

3 D183, Your Honours.

4 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have this photograph with

6 the text in B/C/S and another copy which has the English text only.

7 Q. You see, Mr. Sabljica, it states here the site of impact of the

8 mortar shell with a map of Sarajevo and compass on top used to determine

9 the direction from which the shell came in. The arrow points to the east

10 on the map of Sarajevo and that is where Energoinvest Lukavica is

11 located, in that direction. Would you agree with me that you, in fact,

12 marked quite the opposite of what is marked in this photograph, that, in

13 fact, it's the arrow that points to the north and that's what the compass

14 shows?

15 A. How can that be? East is on your right if you face the north,

16 and the arrow actually comes from the east and it is pointing toward the

17 centre of the shell.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could you explain what is it, what makes

19 you believe that it would be opposite? I have difficulties in following

20 your questioning --

21 MR. LUKIC: I think --

22 JUDGE ORIE: -- and I'd like to understand.

23 MR. LUKIC: -- on the other photographs we had arrow pointing to

24 the direction of what is mentioned --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Well --

Page 8158

1 MR. LUKIC: It's east then --

2 JUDGE ORIE: -- let's then -- an arrow has a tail and has a

3 point. Do I understand that the question was about the white arrow on

4 the map?

5 Mr. Sabljica, could you confirm that the tail of the error is the

6 direction from where the projectile came? Is that how we have to

7 understand that?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the tail of the arrow shows

9 the direction of fire, and the tip of the arrow shows or points to the

10 crater. In this case, the arrow indicates that the shell had arrived

11 from the east.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And if I may try to understand you, you said

13 the tail of the arrows shows the direction of fire. What you, as I

14 understand, intended to say is that the tail of the arrow shows the

15 direction of the origin of fire. I mean ...

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The arrow points to the location

17 from which the shell was fired and the direction from which it flew into

18 the crater. In this case it's the east. That's what the arrow is there

19 to denote. It points to the point of impact whilst its tail indicates

20 the direction or the location from which it had been fired.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

22 Please proceed.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we proceed, Mr. Sabljica ...

24 [Trial Chamber confers]

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]

Page 8159

1 I'm sorry. Can you please indicate for us what is being said to

2 be the arrow on this picture and which way it's pointing?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll use the pen to draw it. This

4 is where the north is.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: That is not my question.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And this is the east.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's not my question, Mr. Sabljica. Please,

8 show me the arrow that is said to be on this picture. That's all I'm

9 asking for. And show me which way it is pointing.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've circled the arrow and it shows

11 the direction from which the shell came and landed. So it was fired from

12 the east --

13 JUDGE ORIE: From east.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- flying westward [In English] to

15 west.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You have showed me.

17 Thank you, Mr. Lukic.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, there may have been some confusion with the

19 letter 1 on the black shield whereas we were talking about the arrow, the

20 white arrow situated on the map. Please proceed.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which is very unclear.

22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Mr. Sabljica, we can see that the compass is quite close to the

24 point of impact of the shell. Is it true that the remains of the shell

25 present there may interfere with the way the compass works?

Page 8160

1 A. That's a good question. We did look into that issue and we

2 examined it even in our lab. How do the metal objects lying near the

3 metal needle affect it, but we concluded that there was no major

4 interference. That's why they placed the margin error as plus/minus 5

5 since our conclusion was that there was no major influence there.

6 Q. [No interpretation]

7 THE INTERPRETER: Can Mr. Lukic repeat his question, please.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, can you please repeat your question

9 because the interpreters didn't catch it.

10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] My apologies.

11 Q. You mentioned the declination. Can you explain what that means?

12 A. No, I used the wrong term, I meant departure or deviation.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one additional question. Mr. Lukic

14 assumed in his question that metal objects were lying near to the metal

15 needle of the compass. Now, if a mortar shell explodes, would you expect

16 a part, perhaps from a tail fin, but would you expect traces of pieces of

17 metal or pieces of metal itself in the vicinity of the centre of the

18 crater?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can answer your question. Before

20 applying this method --

21 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please. There seems to be a problem

22 with the audio for Mr. Mladic.

23 Has it been resolved, Mr. Mladic? Yes, I see that Mr. Mladic

24 affirms that it has been resolved.

25 You were to say that you could answer my question, "Before

Page 8161

1 applying this method ...," yes?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If there happened to be more

3 fragments [Realtime transcript read in error "paramilitaries"] of metal

4 at the scene, the forensic examiner has a duty to photograph these

5 artefacts and then we start our work. In the conditions within the

6 laboratory we -- we took measurements of how metal fragments may affect

7 the magnetic needle, and we concluded that the tail of the shell and its

8 scattered parts that were at the scene had no effect whatsoever on the

9 magnetic needle.

10 JUDGE ORIE: My question was a different one. After an explosion

11 do the pieces of shrapnel usually stay close to the centre of the impact

12 or would they usually fly away far from that point?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They will be scattered at greater

14 distances. It is only rarely that you would find them close to the

15 centre of impact.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

17 Mr. Lukic, I'm looking at the clock.

18 MR. LUKIC: If it is a convenient time for you, it is a

19 convenient time for me, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

21 We move into closed session.

22 Mr. Weber.

23 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I just -- I can clarify it later if

24 you'd like, but I just believe that there was an error in the transcript

25 on page 42, line 12 , the first word of the transcript.

Page 8163

1 proceed.

2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Mr. Sabljica, I would now like to go back to these questions we

4 were dealing with. Judge Orie asked you about these fragments of metal.

5 Is it true that after an explosion the detonator of a shell remains in

6 the crater and depending on the shell it can weigh up to 200 grams?

7 A. Yes, that's correct. The detonator can often be found beneath

8 the tail fin.

9 Q. And often the tail fin is found there; isn't that correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Did you have shell detectors?

12 A. Are you thinking of detectors? No, we didn't have such devices

13 amongst our equipment. Our colleagues from the civilian protection did,

14 but we didn't.

15 Q. We mentioned the margin of error very briefly. I'm not going to

16 maltreat you with this issue but is it true compasses had to be locked up

17 from time to time in order to check whether there were any deviations in

18 relation to the rules that were established? Did you have such

19 conditions in war time to do such things; and if so, where did you do

20 such things?

21 A. That is correct. They have to be locked up or sometimes they

22 have to be calibrated to see what the effect of metal fragments on them

23 is. We tried to keep them in a wooden box that didn't have any metal

24 parts and was, so to speak, quite well sealed. So on the assistance of

25 Zlatko Medilovic [phoen], the late, Zlatko Medilovic, who had a lot of

Page 8164

1 experience, we tried to do such things under such difficult conditions.

2 We tried to make sure that the compasses were, so to speak, taken care

3 of, or well calibrated.

4 Q. But you yourself didn't calibrate them. You didn't lock them up

5 anywhere?

6 A. No, we didn't.

7 Q. We need the same document now, P867, page 23.

8 Do you remember, is this the trace of the explosion of one of the

9 shells on the 4th of February, 1994?

10 A. Well, it seems to be the trace of the impact of a shell in the

11 photograph.

12 Q. Thank you. But do you or do you not remember whether this

13 photograph was, in fact, taken on that occasion?

14 A. I can't really remember, but if it's an integral part of the

15 documents I assume it has to do with the matter. You can see the entire

16 area here where the shell fell and various items were marked, et cetera.

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we see page 31 in the same

18 document now. Page 30, I apologise. We'll move on. As I can't find the

19 right page -- there it is. That's the page I was looking for.

20 Q. This is also part of the photographs that relate to the case.

21 Would it be possible for you to mark this photograph, to mark the

22 approximate direction from which the shell arrived in this photograph and

23 could you also mark the shrapnel on the wall?

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would suggest, yes, only to have that

25 photograph on the screen and to be enlarged.

Page 8165

1 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Q. [Interpretation] We now have a better view. Mr. Sabljica, would

3 this be possible for you?

4 A. It would be really difficult for me to do that in this

5 photograph. It's very dark. I can only see these numbers, 7 and 8, so I

6 would be doing no more than improvising and the results wouldn't be the

7 results that we are hoping for.

8 Q. I accept that. In that case -- we don't need the photograph but

9 it isn't bothering me.

10 In the documents that relate to this case there are no

11 photographs of the shell that hit the Oslobodilaca Sarajevo Street of the

12 site. But when you spoke to your colleagues did you find out why there

13 was not a single photograph of the shell that fell in the

14 Oslobodilaca Sarajevo Street?

15 A. As we have noted, the forensic technicians compiled the

16 documents. As I said, that third shell, according to the information we

17 had and the information that the investigative judge had, hit a religious

18 feature. There were no victims so we didn't launch an investigation.

19 The judge decided that it wasn't necessary. I assume that's why there

20 are no photographs of the event. But if the forensic technician appears,

21 you will have to ask him why he listed the third shell in the documents.

22 Q. Thank you. Now I would briefly like to move on to another

23 incident -- in fact, not briefly. The incident in Livanjska dated the

24 8th of November, 1994. With regard to this incident, there was a

25 conflict with UNPROFOR; isn't that correct?

Page 8166

1 A. Well, I wouldn't call it a conflict, but difference in opinions

2 or concerning the way the literature should be used.

3 Q. I apologise. I didn't mean you had a fight. You had different

4 opinions. There was a clash of opinions. Similarly -- if we could have

5 a look at your report very briefly. P855 is the number. And we need to

6 have a look at page 95 in the B/C/S version, page 59 in the English

7 version. Here you were shown the document which we will later deal

8 with --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Where are we exactly, Mr. Lukic.

10 MR. LUKIC: Yes, sorry. This English is line 41 on 59th page and

11 it goes up to 60, up to line 11. Let me check in English once again.

12 Q. [Interpretation] It says you were shown a report from the MUP RBH

13 and the SUP Sarajevo and it says that a shell was fired 20 degrees from

14 the east, from the wider area of Spicaste Stijene, or sharp stone. And

15 in your answer you say:

16 "I immediately noticed a mistake. It says '20 degrees from the

17 east.'"

18 It should say, according to you, 20 degrees from the north

19 towards the east. The report was compiled by Mr. Miokovic. And you also

20 stressed that you did not agree with his assessment. The report drafted

21 by the Sarajevo MUP isn't correct, at least as far as this part is

22 concerned.

23 A. That's correct. The Draganov's [as interpreted] report isn't

24 correct in relation to the direction from which the shell came. I stand

25 by that and you'll have to ask Dragan why he drew such a conclusion.

Page 8167

1 Q. How many shells were there on that occasion?

2 A. As far as I remember.

3 Q. Three; isn't that correct?

4 A. Yes, three.

5 Q. One at about 3.30 and the other two at about 5.30 in the

6 afternoon?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. Here you say that there was a clash concerning the method used.

9 On this occasion did UNPROFOR determine that the 3.30 shell, the shell

10 fired at 3.30, that's the one we'll deal with first, did they determine

11 that it arrived from the position under the control of the

12 Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

13 A. As far as I can remember with regard to the direction from which

14 the shell came we were in full agreement. However, UNPROFOR had

15 additional equipment which it used to determine the angle of descent and

16 it also calculated the origin of fire, the approximate origin of fire,

17 but they used firing tables for the artillery and they related to a

18 Finnish artillery piece, or rather, a Finnish mortar, not the mortars

19 used by the army. It was an 82- or 120-millimetre mortar from the JNA.

20 I can't remember which one exactly. And they didn't deal with such a

21 device. That was the reason for our disagreement. I remember that I

22 personally gave the captain of UNPROFOR a book on that mortar in the CSB

23 premises, and in that book he could find the firing tables, and so on and

24 so forth, and that was the reason for the clash. And it's true that they

25 determined one of the locations and said that one of the locations was

Page 8168

1 possibly in the hands of the ABiH.

2 Q. [Microphone not activated]

3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, for the Chamber to form an opinion about

5 these matters we have to know exactly what UNPROFOR report --

6 MR. LUKIC: I'm --

7 JUDGE ORIE: You're coming to that?

8 MR. LUKIC: Yes, yes.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

10 MR. LUKIC: And the report of MUP is P621.

11 JUDGE ORIE: And if you could already reveal what the number of

12 the UNPROFOR report would be if you come to it soon.

13 MR. LUKIC: Yes. I have several UNPROFOR documents so I don't

14 know which one exactly.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you first move on but at least if at a

16 certain moment we know.

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. The investigation was led by Dragan Miokovic. We've agreed on

19 that point already. Can we call up in e-court 65 ter 28592.

20 THE REGISTRAR: This is Exhibit P609, Your Honours.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] At page 3 we need P609 in e-court.

22 Thank you to the registrar. [In English] It's P609.

23 Q. [Interpretation] This is how Mr. Miokovic explains it at page 3

24 in both versions. The paragraphs are marked. We need paragraph 7.

25 We're waiting for the English version to appear. This is what

Page 8169

1 Mr. Miokovic had to say:

2 "As a result of the conclusions at that meeting, I called the

3 head of the local police station and asked him to order his policemen not

4 to let anyone and UNPROFOR in particular to enter the site."

5 Did you know that on that first day during the investigations

6 access was denied to UNPROFOR members to the site?

7 A. No, and this comes very much as a surprise to me. We always

8 wanted people to join and work on the analysis. And when I say "we," I

9 mean the forensics team.

10 Q. In paragraph 13 at the bottom of the page, can we have it on our

11 screens, please, it states:

12 "On that same day on a press conference held by UNPROFOR at

13 8.00 p.m. that evening, a spokesman said to the journalists that Bosnian

14 police had not allowed them to carry out ..."

15 And we need to move on to the next page.

16 "... to carry out on investigation."

17 The text goes on to say:

18 "On that same evening our Minister of Interior passed an order to

19 prepare the report because it was requested by the Presidency of the

20 State and I did."

21 So you were not aware of the fact that UNPROFOR representatives

22 did not attend this or were you?

23 A. No. I didn't know any of this, none of which you showed me was

24 familiar to me.

25 Q. Very well. Likewise, if you remember, the on-site investigation

Page 8170

1 was carried out outside of the presence of an investigating judge; is

2 that right? We can see that in P621.

3 A. Yes, that's right. Because apparently the judge authorised

4 Miokovic and that's his statement.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, we started looking at paragraph 7 which

6 starts with:

7 "As a result of the conclusions at that meeting ..."

8 The meeting is described in paragraph 6 and expresses concerns

9 that UNPROFOR would go to a site of an incident and then to remove

10 evidence. And the last portion of paragraph 6 reads that although the

11 police would not allow UNPROFOR to go there and remove anything, that we

12 also agreed to let UNPROFOR investigate at the same time if they wanted

13 to but without taking away the evidence, which sheds a totally different

14 light on all of your questions, that is, they shouldn't go there first

15 and take shrapnel and whatever there was. But they were welcome to

16 participate or to join in the investigation when the police was active.

17 So by reading paragraph 7 only and by referring to a press conference,

18 the situation is more completely described if we include paragraph 6,

19 isn't it?

20 MR. LUKIC: Yes, and I will follow-up on your questions then.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course but it would have been better for us

22 before reading paragraph 7 that --

23 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] -- read all the documents we

24 have but we don't have time.

25 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. Lukic, but the context of paragraph 6 is of

Page 8171

1 course of vital importance for the understanding of paragraph 7 and for

2 the press conference. I leave it to that.

3 Please proceed.

4 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Sabljica, is it true that it was customary

6 for UNPROFOR to take pieces of evidence, such as shrapnel, et cetera?

7 A. Yes, there were cases where they would take the tail fin of a

8 shell to carry out their analysis, leaving us with empty hands. But when

9 it comes to these statements you should ask Dragan about it. I can

10 confirm that there were cases such as the one you asked me about.

11 Q. In this instance it was decided, as we can tell, that contrary to

12 the customary practice of allowing UNPROFOR to take items away, they

13 should not be allowed to do so here?

14 A. Yes, we can see that that was the case, but let me tell you that

15 members of the forensic team that I was one of never took part in these

16 discussions nor were we ever consulted about whether they should be

17 allowed to attend or not. We were to do what our line of duty was.

18 Q. Thank you. Do you recall any other time when you could not agree

19 with UNPROFOR or you had a misunderstanding with UNPROFOR?

20 A. I recall a case which was not described anywhere. One shell

21 landed at the airport in Sarajevo which was under their control at the

22 time. They set up two teams, one of which consisted of members of the

23 MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina and another

24 consisting of members of the MUP and Army of Republika Srpska. We were

25 supposed to provide our expertise and findings as did UNPROFOR. I

Page 8172

1 believe there was again a difference of opinion when it came to the

2 origin of fire. I think the rest we could agree on. This is the only

3 case that I can recall at present.

4 Q. If I were to refresh your memory, there was another difference of

5 opinion on the 24th of October, 1994, when there was an incident at

6 Pofalici close to the Orthodox church when the Bosnian side claimed that

7 it -- fire had come from the VRS side, whereas UNPROFOR claimed that it

8 was the BH side.

9 A. I thought you were asking me about shelling incidents. There

10 were sniper incidents of that case. This was an incident involving a

11 tram, I believe. And I think that I explained this case in the case

12 against Mr. Karadzic.

13 Q. We should now see 1D685 which is one of UNPROFOR's documents.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.

15 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I just inquire with Mr. Lukic if this

16 is the same document as P869.

17 MR. LUKIC: True. I didn't include the numbers, all of the

18 numbers from yesterday. Some of them I do have, some I don't.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could you shed some light on

20 whether this is P869.

21 THE REGISTRAR: [Microphone not activated]

22 MR. WEBER: I believe -- I believe it's a different -- I believe

23 the -- it's a different uploaded copy of the same document.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

25 Mr. Lukic, in order to keep -- to keep track of everything, would

Page 8173

1 you be willing to work on the basis of P869?

2 MR. LUKIC: Of course, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then let's have P869 on our screens.

4 Yes, Mr. Weber.

5 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, and if I'm wrong -- I just -- it seemed

6 to be the same document so -- we're still confirming, but I was just

7 inquiring with Mr. Lukic.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if it is the same -- if you check that then

9 all the questions and answers relating to this document would apply

10 similarly to the P exhibit and would -- perhaps at the end you could

11 confirm whether this is the same or not. Please proceed.

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13 Q. We can tell that the document concerns Livanjska Street.

14 Can you tell what the problem was on the basis of the document?

15 A. The problem was the range of the mortar. That's it.

16 Q. The members of UNPROFOR involved are French; right?

17 A. Yes, most of them were French, and I think it was a colonel or

18 lieutenant-colonel that was in charge.

19 JUDGE ORIE: I hereby put on the record that the first page of

20 this document bears the same ERN number as P869.

21 Please proceed.

22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. What was your knowledge at the time based on the tables that they

24 used - and you say that they were Finnish, right? - what was the charge

25 contained, or rather, what was the charge of the shell in question? How

Page 8174

1 many charges did it have?

2 A. I think that they counted the basic charge and the six additional

3 charges. According to -- if we compare it with the 82-millimetre mortar

4 and the firing tables used by the JNA, theirs -- their range was

5 42 metres shorter. I believe that was the problem.

6 Q. I think that in the annex here we received information to the

7 effect that they had tables relating to the charges for the mortars

8 produced in the former Yugoslavia. Let's look at it briefly. 1D686 in

9 e-court, please.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Could we first establish on the basis of this report

11 which finding that exactly is that -- there was a discussion about. I

12 see it says here range between a hundred and 5.000 metres. Could we go

13 back to the previous one. Is that what the discussion was about? I want

14 to ...

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Mr. Sabljica, I believe that question is addressed to you.

17 A. Yes. Well, I knew never saw the findings when they were done.

18 We discussed the matter at the scene and I could tell that the

19 representative of UNPROFOR used the firing tables that did not apply to

20 the weapons used by any of the warring parties in Sarajevo. That was the

21 cause of our difference of opinion and I didn't even want to go into

22 establishing the source of fire because we had agreed on the direction of

23 fire, the direction from which the shells came.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Where do we find the direction of fire in this

25 report? Let me just have a look. The direction of the origin of fire.

Page 8175

1 MR. LUKIC: It's -- I don't know if we have it in this. We have

2 it in P860 that we -- are we using that one?

3 JUDGE ORIE: If there's disagreement about various aspects, I'd

4 like to know what is written in this report. The conclusion is that:

5 "It is possible to conclude that the most suspected area is on

6 Serbian side, between Brijeg and Izlaze."

7 But I was looking for the direction of the origin of fire. Is

8 that on page 2? Because I didn't find it on page 1.

9 Mr. Weber.

10 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, it is my sincere apology. I may have

11 added to the confusion. I did have a further study of Mr. Lukic's upload

12 under 1D number and it does contain some additional pages. And so

13 if [overlapping speakers]

14 JUDGE ORIE: So I was very wise when I only referred to the first

15 page having the same ERN number.

16 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, those even appear different in the 1D

17 number. I believe that he used some earlier-uploaded pages.

18 JUDGE ORIE: I'm surprised by that because I was looking at P869

19 which is a three-page document and this is ...

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE ORIE: What do we have on our screen at this moment, P869?

22 Yes, that's a three-page document. If the other document is a different

23 one, we should look at that one.

24 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I have an earlier ERN on the first page

25 of the Defence upload that ends in number 75.

Page 8176

1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And that was 1D685.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could we have a look at that document then

3 again. Yes, I see a different document. It consists of nine pages.

4 Mr. Lukic, I was -- where the witness said that the range of --

5 the direction of the origin of fire was agreed upon, do we know where is

6 that found in this document? I see angle of approach --

7 MR. LUKIC: Angle of descent --

8 JUDGE ORIE: -- according to the spread of the impacts, it's

9 between 1200 and 1600 mils. Suspected axis is 1400 miliems which is the

10 same of mils, and when we are working in NATO mils we are working in the

11 system of 6.400 mils in the 360-degrees of the compass.

12 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Which brings it to close to east, a little bit north

14 of east.

15 THE WITNESS: Exactly.

16 JUDGE ORIE: That's what we're talking about as far as the filing

17 of UNPROFOR is concerned. And you agreed on that, if I understand you

18 well.

19 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

20 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Now we would like to see the

21 next number in a row 1D686. I'm afraid it's in French.

22 JUDGE ORIE: In French.

23 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, but that's the same incident and in connection

24 with the same document -- range of documents.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Now, this is in French and it apparently gives

Page 8177

1 information --

2 MR. LUKIC: On charges.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but it says something about that it is --

4 MR. LUKIC: It's depending on an angle of approach probably.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but it compares it with a previous study, but

6 now with the tables apparently from the -- another source. So there must

7 be a similar study or document. But let's -- let's move on. It looks

8 but -- it looks as if this is a document which covers the area between

9 1200 and 1600 mils from the point of impact with an X on 1400 mils and

10 then gives distances related to an angle of impact and angle of descent.

11 That's what the document seems to be about.

12 MR. LUKIC: That's how we understand it as well. And I would

13 just like to ask Mr. Sabljica if he has ever seen this document and these

14 markings actually and whether this was the sort of misunderstanding in

15 between him and UNPROFOR members.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have never seen this document

17 before. We tried to reach a verbal agreement - I'd like to repeat that -

18 because I could also speak English, so it was possible for me to talk to

19 them. After we'd agreed on the direction, they said they would elaborate

20 on their report and then they said that the range determined was the one

21 determined for a Finnish mortar but I never saw this table here which

22 seems very accurate. I don't remember the numbers for an 82-millimetre

23 device. I dealt with such matters over 16 years ago.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. To the right, does that come from the tables you provided them

Page 8178

1 with or from tables of your own? I'm referring to the part where it says

2 charge 1, 2, 3, 6 -- charge 1, 2, 4, 6.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the witness tells us he has never seen

4 this before -- or had never seen this before. How could he possibly tell

5 us then on the basis of what data it is --

6 MR. LUKIC: I was only thinking about the charge since the

7 witness said that he gave one table to UNPROFOR.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and whether --

9 MR. LUKIC: I --

10 JUDGE ORIE: -- they used that one or different --

11 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Of course you couldn't know that by heart.

13 Now, what apparently this picture tells us - and it seems rather

14 common - that if you know the angle of descent, if you know the charge

15 used, and if you have the accurate firing tables, that you could tell for

16 what charge, for what angle of descent it may have been fired from,

17 approximately where, whereas this chart apparently does not take yet into

18 account any difference in elevation or altitude between the firing

19 position and the landing position. That's apparently what this document

20 can tell us.

21 Would you agree with that, Mr. Sabljica?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Fully.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Could we now

25 see P622 in e-court.

Page 8179

1 Q. When it comes up on the screen we'll see that it is an official

2 report from the MUP, the Sarajevo security services centre dated the

3 9th of November, 1994, and this document relates to the incident we are

4 discussing now. We can see that you are also listed as a member of the

5 team. You are the penultimate name that appears here; is that correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to have a look at page 2 in

8 both versions, but we're interested in paragraph 3 in the B/C/S version

9 and paragraph 4 in the English version. This is what I would like to

10 draw your attention to.

11 Q. In paragraph 3 of the B/C/S version it says -- it's towards the

12 bottom of the paragraph:

13 "The experts of the MUP and the RBH Sarajevo determined that the

14 shell had been fired 20 degrees to the east, probably from the wider area

15 of Spicaste Stijene that was under aggressor occupation."

16 Please remember that it says "20 degrees" here. We now need to

17 see something so that we can compare this with document 12942 which is

18 65 ter document. We can see that the date is the same. This is a bundle

19 of documents in fact that deal with the 8th of November, 1994. And we

20 need to see the following pages. Page 8 in the B/C/S version and page 3

21 in the English version. It's a report on the criminal forensic

22 investigation of the site under number 4. It says with regard to a

23 shell, this 82-millimetre shell -- it says that it was determined that

24 the shell came from a direction 15 degrees due north-east. So it was an

25 82-millimetre shell. We can see in these two documents from the

Page 8180

1 Bosnia-Herzegovina MUP that we have two different pieces of information.

2 According to one of the documents, the shell came from a direction

3 20 degrees from the east and the other one says that it came from a

4 direction 15 degrees due north-east. So the information is not the same;

5 isn't that correct?

6 A. Of course that's the case, but none of these reports is a

7 ballistics report.

8 Q. But is it a fact that they can't be relied on, at least not as

9 far as this part of the report is concerned?

10 A. That's true. They're not at all relevant. When it comes to what

11 needs to be determined, the trajectory and the direction of fire, you

12 would have to ask the authors of these documents why they provided such

13 information.

14 Q. What should be taken to be the source of their information?

15 A. Our ballistics report should be the source of their information.

16 Usually the boys didn't want to wait for 24 hours, and as a result this

17 sort of thing would happen.

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could this document please be

19 admitted into evidence now?

20 MR. WEBER: No objection.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

22 THE REGISTRAR: [Microphone not activated]

23 JUDGE ORIE: And is -- your microphone was not on.

24 THE REGISTRAR: Document receives number D184, Your Honours.

25 JUDGE ORIE: D184 is admitted into evidence.

Page 8181

1 Mr. Lukic, I'm trying to follow it all. It seems that the two

2 reports from the local police are at least close to each other,

3 20 degrees, 15 degrees. There is, however, a huge difference with the

4 UNPROFOR report.

5 MR. LUKIC: Yes, which is 70 degrees.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There seems to be the main difference of view.

7 And since the witness said that he had agreed, although orally, on the

8 origin of fire, the direction of the origin of fire, the report shows a

9 clear difference of view in that respect. Do you have any explanation

10 for that, Mr. Sabljica?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. As I have just said, I would

12 like to see the ballistics report which is an integral part of the

13 document. So usually the officials who work on violent crimes, such as

14 Miokovic and the other person - I don't know who it was - who drafted the

15 report, they should have waited for our official findings to be provided

16 within 24 hours and then they could have based their conclusions on the

17 actual findings and stated where this shell came from. And this is the

18 explanation of the reason for which this discrepancy occurred.

19 JUDGE ORIE: But I think you agreed with the UNPROFOR about the

20 origin of fire, the direction of the origin of fire. Now, do you have

21 any explanation as to why such discrepancy between the UNPROFOR -- the

22 UNPROFOR 70 degrees which was not established by your services?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that we agreed that the

24 direction was from the north-east, and in our ballistics report we said

25 that there was a margin of error of a certain number of degrees from the

Page 8182

1 north. It indicated the north-east and UNPROFOR called it the

2 Orah [phoen] exit, I think. And Miokovic and my colleague, these two

3 officials as I have already said, drafted a report sooner than they

4 should have. I really do not know how it is that they arrived at those

5 conclusions.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

7 Please proceed.

8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

9 Q. In this very same document we have findings obtained from

10 investigating the traces of the explosion. Let's see whether these

11 findings are yours.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, if you could assist me in one way or

13 another to find on one of the maps the Livanjska Street, that would

14 certainly assist me.

15 MR. LUKIC: It's on Kosevo hill. That's all I know.

16 JUDGE ORIE: It's on Kosevo hill.

17 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Let's have a look. Perhaps I can find it. Please

19 proceed.

20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we see page 10 in the B/C/S

21 version of this document. Page 11 in the B/C/S version, page 5 in the

22 English version. I do apologise.

23 Q. Do you recognise this document? It says an on-site investigation

24 and analysis of traces from the explosion. You didn't sign it.

25 A. I think this is the report of the counter-sabotage team, KDZ,

Page 8183

1 it's not our report.

2 Q. Very well. It's not yours. So we don't have your report in

3 these documents, only the report from the anti-sabotage team. But let's

4 have a look at page 12 in the B/C/S version. We'll -- it's still page 5

5 in the English version.

6 Is that page 3 or page 5 that we have in the English version? We

7 need page 5, at least the way I have my papers sorted. Oh, it's all

8 right. It's the right page. We can see here that this document states

9 that the angle of descent of the mortar projectile is also established,

10 and you did say that you would take these measurements. Is my

11 understanding correct, that the angle of descent was, in fact, measured

12 by UNPROFOR because they had additional equipment, the equipment that was

13 necessary for this?

14 A. Yes. Now, how Mr. Jamakovic and his team took these

15 measurements, I don't know. You would have to ask them.

16 Q. Your team did not measure the angle of descent, did it?

17 A. During one of the on-site investigations at Kosevo hill we used

18 this stake or rod method, and then I told you that it was the dimension

19 of the first crown from the centre, the dimensions between -- also in

20 relation to the detonator and the weight of the projectile. That was

21 something that we learnt later on that UNPROFOR had been using. Now, as

22 for this team here, how they made their measurements, that's not

23 something I know.

24 Q. We can see that for the first one the angle of descent is

25 62 degrees and the other two mortar projectiles, 67 degrees. Do you

Page 8184

1 remember now, since we don't have your document - at least I don't have

2 it here - what the values were that you obtained for the angle of descent

3 in this case?

4 A. I really don't remember. I'd like to look at my report. It's a

5 pity that I don't have it on the screen here. As for our findings and

6 those of UNPROFOR, we largely agreed. The only problem was that they

7 would then be using these firing tables and measuring the source of fire.

8 I didn't want to enter into any arguments with them. We never aimed to

9 establish the source of fire to begin with because we were simply not

10 equipped enough to do that.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I think it's time for a break.

12 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

13 JUDGE ORIE: When you asked whether they measured the angle of

14 descent themselves or whether they adopted them from --

15 MR. LUKIC: UNPROFOR.

16 JUDGE ORIE: -- UNPROFOR, I see that the -- UNPROFOR comes to an

17 estimate between 70 and 75 degrees, whereas this report is talking about

18 62 or 67. So they could not have taken them from UNPROFOR, I would

19 think.

20 MR. LUKIC: I was asking about Mr. Sabljica's team. This is a

21 different team, it's KDZ.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Yes, then that is clear to me and he doesn't

23 know.

24 Mr. Sabljica, we'll turn into closed session in order for you to

25 leave the courtroom.