Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 18957

 1                           Friday, 8 November 2013

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

 6             Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.

 8             This is the case IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

10             Mr. Weber, the Chamber was informed that you'd like to put

11     something on the record.

12             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honours and good morning.

13             There's just one brief matter I wanted to put on the record with

14     respect to Exhibit D399 currently marked for identification.  With

15     respect to this annotated photograph, the Prosecution asked the Defence

16     for the basis of its assertion made to the witness at transcript

17     page 18815, line 3, that the area marked as Colina Kapa in this photo is

18     the position at which OP-1 was situated.  The Defence has not provided us

19     with the source of this information.  The Prosecution notes at this time

20     that it also checked its evidence, in particular, P1751, and that it does

21     not agree that this annotated photograph accurately depicts the location

22     of OP-1.

23             Thank you, Your Honours for letting me put that on the record.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

25             Mr. Lukic, I take it that you will take care of it.

Page 18958

 1             Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.  But before --

 2     yes, please.

 3             Have the parties reached an agreement on how to divide the time

 4     this morning?

 5             MR. LUKIC:  I think Mr. Weber asked for one hour, so I will leave

 6     that last hour for him.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  If that's the agreement, then we'll stick to

 8     that.

 9             Meanwhile, I use the time to deal with a follow-up on

10     Witness RM038.

11             In court, on the 31st of October of this year, the Prosecution

12     indicated that it would inform the Chamber in the week of the

13     4th of November whether it would maintain its Rule 92 bis application for

14     Witness RM038 that is part of the 28th Rule 92 bis motion.  This can be

15     found on transcript pages 18539 and 40, and could the Prosecution advise

16     on its position.

17             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Your Honours, if you would allow us to just give

18     you an answer at the next break, we will be able to do that.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll wait for that.

20                           [The witness takes the stand]

21             Good morning, Mr. Higgs.

22             THE WITNESS:  Good morning.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps needless to say but I nevertheless remind

24     you that you're bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the

25     beginning of your testimony.


Page 18959

 1                           WITNESS:  RICHARD HIGGS [Resumed]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  And Mr. Lukic will now continue his

 3     cross-examination.

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

 5        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Higgs.

 6        A.   Good morning.

 7             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have P867 in e-court,

 8     please.  We need page 12 in English and 11 in B/C/S.

 9        Q.   Mr. Higgs, this morning, we are probably going to dwell upon --

10     on the issue of humanitarian aid of the 14th of -- 4th of February, 1994.

11             According to the police report, the explosions took place on a

12     Oslobodilaca Sarajevo Street and Mihajlo Pupin number 3, and on the

13     pavement between the playground and the garage.  In the report that we

14     see before us, the forensic and anti-sabotage department says that an

15     explosion took place on Dzavarahalal Nehura Street.  Did you make any

16     comparison of the data and how come that we have a different address now

17     in this police report?

18        A.   I'm not sure why there would be a different address.  I didn't

19     check the -- the specific numbers or the addresses while looking at

20     the -- the reports I was given.

21        Q.   Do you know that this location, the Dzavarahalal Nehura Street,

22     is 200 metres away from the location indicated as the point of impact in

23     other reports?

24        A.   No, I don't.

25        Q.   Thank you.  Let us now focus our attention to the incident of

Page 18960

 1     22nd January 1994 in Alipasino Polje.  During this incident, according to

 2     the reports, three shells fell.  The first one landed in the park on

 3     Rade Koncar Square; the second in Cetinjska Street 3; and the third one

 4     on Klara Cetkin number 4.  Is that correct?  Is that what the report

 5     says?

 6        A.   I can't see the report in front of me, and I can't remember if

 7     the -- that was mentioned in the reports that I looked at.

 8        Q.   We have this in document P865 --

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Could Mr. Lukic please slow down when reading

10     the numbers.  Thank you.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, you're invited to more slowly read the

12     numbers.

13             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] So Exhibit P865, we are not going to

14     call it up.  English page 4; B/C/S page 8.

15        Q.   Have you established the azimuth or the bearing angle from which

16     the shells arrived?

17        A.   In this case, when I was able to visit the scene, the

18     deterioration of the craters was such that it was impossible to use them

19     for any way of confirming a direction.

20        Q.   Due to that, you decided to give your confidence to the forensic

21     CSB Sarajevo team; is that correct?

22        A.   Yes.  All I had to go off was the -- the reports I had been

23     given, so I based my report on -- on those.

24        Q.   Did you take into consideration the fact that the CSB findings

25     concerning the shell calibre were contrary to the findings of the

Page 18961

 1     forensic technician who conducted the investigation alongside them?

 2        A.   I was aware of the conflict between the forensic investigation

 3     and that of, I believe it's a Captain Verdy but I wasn't aware of any

 4     other conflicts.

 5        Q.   [In English] Okay, well, I'll give the reference.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 7             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I just believe it's not an accurate

 8     statement in counsel's just -- previous question on page 4, lines 18 to

 9     20 that the investigation conducted alongside one another.

10             MR. LUKIC:  Let's see P865, English page 7 and B/C/S page 12.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Did I hear you say 865?

12             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Here, we see again a document produced by the forensic and

16     counter-terrorism department.  It says under item 4 that on the

17     22nd January 1994 at around 1320 hours, two mortar shell came from the

18     west, of calibre 120-millimetres, on a Klara Cetkin Street number 4 and

19     the second one hit Cetinjska Street at number 3.

20             So, in addition to Captain Verdy's findings, we have these

21     findings as well.  Did you take that into account?

22        A.   From looking at this report, I can't be certain that this is

23     actually relating to the same incident.

24        Q.   [In English] It's the same date; right?  It talks about

25     22nd January 1994.

Page 18962

 1        A.   It's the same date, correct.

 2        Q.   And it does come under the number we received from the

 3     Prosecution in relation of this incident.  But I will not dwell on it

 4     anymore, since we are a bit tight with the time.

 5             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, I can ask Ms. Stewart to possibly print

 6     out pages 7 to 9 which is the complete report --

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Mr. Weber has the time in his redirect.  I will move

 8     on.

 9             MR. WEBER:  If it will assist [Overlapping speakers] ...

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber -- Mr. Weber is offering assistance and

11     you say you don't need it.

12             MR. LUKIC:  I don't need it.  Thank you.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

14             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   You also compared the ballistics CSB Sarajevo report with the

16     findings of UNPROFOR team - is that correct? - and in the process you

17     mentioned Captain Verdy; is that correct?

18             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] So could we please have 65 ter 10570.

19        Q.   In this report, Captain Verdy, just like in the previous one we

20     saw, says that on that day three 120-millimetre shells also exploded; is

21     that correct?

22        A.   Yes, in this report he refers to three rounds exploding, correct.

23        Q.   Would you agree that an experienced ballistic expert could easily

24     distinguish between a 120-millimetre shell explosion and that of

25     82-millimetre explosion?

Page 18963

 1        A.   Depending on the ground and what it hits, yes, he should be able

 2     to tell the difference.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  We would offer this document into the evidence,

 4     Your Honour.  If it's not already.

 5             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, if I could check if it's already been

 6     admitted.  I think it might be actually under a Defence exhibit number

 7     but I can check and get back to you on the first break.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Please check and then we will deal with it.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

10             [Interpretation] Can we now have 1D672 in e-court, please.

11             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, Ms. Stewart very quickly checked and she

12     has it admitted as D178.  D178.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Therefore, no need to decide --

14             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  -- on the tendering.

16             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] So can we please have 1D672 in

17     e-court.

18        Q.   In this photograph, one can see the point of impact on

19     Klara Cetkin Street in front of number 4?

20             MR. WEBER:  I'm just going to -- just my concern with what

21     counsel is continuing with in this photograph is just the foundation:

22     Who took it, when it took, what it depicts.  And I'm concerned that

23     counsel is going to be testify as to what it represents, so --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, where does it come from, when was it

25     taken?

Page 18964

 1             MR. LUKIC:  I don't have this with me right now.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's just proceed on an assumption, and if the

 3     assumption turns out to be wrong - and Mr. Lukic you should inform us in

 4     more detail about where it is - and then you would have lost time.

 5     Please proceed.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  I will move on since I'm not sure about the source.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You always can revisit the matter after the

 8     break.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

10        Q.   [Interpretation] Do you agree to take a look at P865?  We need

11     page 8 in English and 15 in B/C/S.

12             You can see in the penultimate paragraph on the screen, this is a

13     record on the forensic investigation of the scene, the artillery

14     projectile that fell on Klara Cetkin and Cetinjska Streets and it says

15     that the star-shaped traces are around 120 centimetres in length.

16             You have visited the scene, haven't you?

17        A.   I have visited the scene, yes.

18        Q.   Would you agree that on the spot, the length of these star-shaped

19     traces is actually around 3 metres?

20        A.   I cannot obviously determine that from just this report and from

21     the previous picture.  I am a little confused because, in the same

22     paragraph, it says that the traces of the primary crater are barely

23     visible.  But in the previous picture, they were visible.  So I'm a bit

24     confused.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

Page 18965

 1             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the Prosecution is just seeking to avoid

 2     confusion.  We have printed a whole copy of this report, if it would

 3     assist.  It's a rather dense report.  If it would assist the witness in

 4     looking at it.  And I believe the picture was dropped by Mr. Lukic and

 5     wasn't proceeded with.  I don't know if that's the same picture that the

 6     witness is now thinking about.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I do not know.  If the witness needs to see more of

 8     the report, please do not hesitate to ask for it.

 9             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I'm going to continue.  I

10     have a lot to do today.

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the counsel kindly wait for the B/C/S

12     interpretation to finish before continuing to read in B/C/S.  Thank you.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, you're invited to wait for the B/C/S

14     translation to be finished before you go on reading.

15             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   In your report, you wrote that 82-millimetre shells had been

17     fired from the direction of Nedzarici, westerly direction.  On what basis

18     did you reach this conclusion?

19        A.   That was from the basis of the -- the -- the forensic report.

20     Because of the -- the poor quality of the craters, they could not

21     accurately identify a precise direction, only an approximate direction.

22     And they gave that as westerly in the direction, as you have just

23     mentioned, as indeed this report on the screen here says so.

24        Q.   In various documents produced by the CSB, there are different

25     values for this bearing.  In the document that you see in front of you on

Page 18966

 1     the screen, the CSB ballistic expert established, and you can see that

 2     beneath this figure of 120 centimetres that we mentioned, they claim that

 3     the shell fell on Klara Cetkin Street in front of number 4 came slightly

 4     to the north with respect to the west.

 5        A.   Yes, it does say that.

 6        Q.   This is in contravention of the finding that it had come from the

 7     westerly direction; is that correct?

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 9             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I just -- I don't know if I'm reading it

10     the same as him.  I see that the report says:  Most clearly visible in a

11     westerly direction, i.e., north in relation to the true west.  Is that

12     what Mr. Lukic is referring to?

13             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, that's right.

14             THE WITNESS:  That is what it says, yes.

15             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   I asked you whether this is not precisely the west; is that

17     correct?

18        A.   That -- that would be correct.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If I may just be enlightened, Mr. Lukic.  What

20     does northerly direction in relation to the west mean, and how does that

21     become west?

22             I'm asking Mr. Higgs.

23             THE WITNESS:  Could you repeat your question, sorry, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What I read on this report says that the fire came

25     from a slightly northerly direction in relation to the west.  I don't

Page 18967

 1     understand that phrase myself.  Now, Mr. Lukic says, suggests to you,

 2     that is that not west.  And you agree with him that it is west.  And I

 3     said:  What does this phrase mean and how does this phrase equal west?

 4             THE WITNESS:  I think in way this report has been written is what

 5     they mean is the general direction was to the west, but for this

 6     particular round it has come in a few degrees just to the north of west.

 7     And, again, they're approximating because obviously the poor quality of

 8     the craters in this case.  So I read it to read that probably just

 9     slightly north of where true west would be.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And slightly north of where west could be, then

11     that becomes west?

12             THE WITNESS:  I think it's in that general westerly direction,

13     but probably just a few degrees probably north of west is what they are

14     suggesting here.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, Mr. Lukic.

18             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   However, as for the firing position, the report indicates

20     Nedzarici or, rather, the institution for visually impaired persons.

21             Do you know what is the bearing between the institute and the

22     point of impact on Klara Cetkin Street number 4?

23        A.   No, I don't.

24        Q.   Can we -- or can we agree that 200 degrees equals west, with

25     regard to the north; is that correct?

Page 18968

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  270 degrees.

 2             MR. LUKIC:

 3        Q.   [In English] 180 plus 90.

 4        A.   Yes.  West would be 270 degrees.

 5        Q.   [Interpretation] Captain Verdy -- can we look at RN 10570, whilst

 6     in fact we have heard that it has already become an exhibit, D178.

 7             Captain Verdy found that the bearing of one shell was 4200 mills.

 8     Between 4200 and 4250 even.  This is actually 236 degrees.  We are

 9     talking about the southwesterly direction.

10             Did you manage to establish where this difference of over

11     30 degrees may have come from?

12        A.   No, that was not possible because I could not do a detailed

13     investigation, but from looking at the -- the forensic report, which is

14     far more detailed, then I am a little bit suspicious that Captain Verdy

15     has -- can be such a precise angle of approach when we know that the

16     craters were not of a good quality.  So I don't know how he has come to

17     these readings.

18        Q.   You will agree with me that the same quality of the crater was

19     found by the members of the CSB who carried out the investigation.  The

20     quality of the traces was the same for them, wasn't it?

21        A.   It -- it should have been.  If I remember correctly, the forensic

22     investigation was carried out on the day, and this one, I believe, was

23     the following day, so they should have had similar crater information to

24     work from.

25             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would like to call up 1D667.

Page 18969

 1        Q.   This is a photo which depicts a view from the institute for the

 2     blind to the place of the incident behind the buildings that we will see

 3     in the photo.

 4             Do you remember that if you were there, that the place of the

 5     incident was sheltered or obstructed from view by these buildings; i.e.,

 6     you didn't have a clear sight from the institute for the blind towards

 7     the place of the incident because of these buildings?

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 9             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, that is a compound question.  There's

10     many submissions in there too.  I believe it would be just prudent to go

11     step by step and just know whether or not the witness is, one, familiar

12     with this location.

13             MR. LUKIC:  The witness is free to answer whatever he wants.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  I think it's one question taken altogether; that is,

15     whether the view was obstructed.  That is what we are talking about.

16             Could the witness answer the question if he is able to do so.

17             THE WITNESS:  I cannot remember if this is the view of the area

18     that I would have seen at the time.  I can't remember if this is the same

19     place or not.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you remember whether there was a line of view

21     between the point of impact and the institute for the blind?  If you

22     don't remember, tell us.

23             THE WITNESS:  I can't remember, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

25             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

Page 18970

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   And now let's focus on the incident that happened in Dobrinja on

 3     the 1st of June, 1993.  We're talking about a football game, of course.

 4             Did I understand you properly when you said that you didn't take

 5     any measurements?  You did not measure the distance between the craters,

 6     you didn't take the bearings or any such thing?

 7        A.   I took approximate bearings of the craters that were there at the

 8     time, although they were not good quality, but did not take any of the

 9     measurements to the buildings, that's correct.

10        Q.   At the time when you were there, the area was still the same.

11     Nothing had been reconstructed; right?

12        A.   I'm not aware of whether anything had or had not.

13        Q.   Could you still see the traces of the explosions?

14        A.   Yes.  There was two craters in the ground which had been filled

15     with some form of red substance that I was taken to and shown.

16        Q.   Do you know where the shells had fallen in relation to the

17     football pitch; i.e., the place where the football game was taking place

18     at the time?  Did somebody show that place to you?

19        A.   Not where the football pitch was.  It was commented in -- in --

20     in the reports where they thought they had landed, but I wasn't shown it

21     physically on -- on the ground.

22        Q.   Would you agree with me that those people who manned the Serbian

23     position could not see the place where the football game was taking place

24     due to the fact that that place --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, the Serb position refers to what?  There

Page 18971

 1     are many areas where -- which were under Serb control.  So, therefore,

 2     it's difficult to understand your question.

 3             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let me rephrase the question.  Thank

 4     you.  I'll try and be more precise.

 5        Q.   Is it correct that the football pitch in question is surrounded

 6     by eight-storey buildings from three sides, and those buildings

 7     completely sheltered the football pitch from the positions of the

 8     Army of Republika Srpska.  The only open side faced the Mojmilo hilltop,

 9     which at the time was under the control of the BiH army?

10             JUDGE ORIE:  That's many questions in one.  Could we first ask

11     about the buildings.

12             THE WITNESS:  Yes, to my recollection there are buildings on

13     three sides.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  And not on the fourth side.  May I take it that

15     there's no dispute between the parties about which was the open side and

16     which were the built-up sides?  We've seen photographs many, many times.

17             MR. WEBER:  That's correct, Your Honours.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

19             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20        Q.   Will you please tell us how did you establish that you had

21     arrived at the place where UNPROFOR had been on the day of the incident?

22        A.   The investigators took me to the site, showed me the craters in

23     the ground, then showed me where that was in relation to the map.

24             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to call up 1D1398.

25        Q.   In this report drafted by UNPROFOR, which is actually a crater

Page 18972

 1     analysis, UNPROFOR also determined the co-ordinates.  And we can see what

 2     the co-ordinates are.

 3             On page 1, it says what the crater's position was for both crater

 4     1 and crater 2.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 6             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, just for the record, I have this exhibit

 7     admitted -- or this document admitted as part of P644, e-court page 9.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 9             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Did you check the co-ordinates in question?  Did you do it when

11     you were there at the scene?

12        A.   Yes, I checked the approximate co-ordinates.  It's one grid

13     reference given, so it won't be a grid reference of the precise craters

14     because there's only one grid reference.

15             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would like to call up 1D1399,

16     please.

17        Q.   We have plotted the co-ordinates on the map of Sarajevo and we

18     can see that this is actually outside of the neighbourhood in question.

19             Is this what you established?  And what you established, does it

20     correspond to our depiction on the map, or, alternatively, did you find

21     something else?

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

23             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I'm going to object to the use of this

24     diagram.  I see in the UNPROFOR report that -- that was just used that

25     the scale of map used to determine the grid reference was 1:50.000 and

Page 18973

 1     this looks like it comes from our map book which is a different scale.

 2     And based on that, the grid references might be in place in different

 3     locations.  I ask that [Overlapping speakers] ...

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... Mr. Weber, Mr. Weber, are

 5     you really telling us that grid references change with the scale of the

 6     map?  Is that seriously your position?

 7             MR. WEBER:  Based on the scale, and I see the one attached to it

 8     and I've compared these two, slight, yes.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Grid references are absolute.  They have got nothing

10     to do with a scale of a map, I would say, but if we would have a map with

11     a sufficient precise scale, we could check it easily.  I cannot

12     understand that the parties, if there's such an issue, Mr. Lukic, that

13     you have not discussed it with the Prosecution because if you're right,

14     the Prosecution would have to -- perhaps to reconsider its position.

15             Therefore, these are absolute numbers, apart from that it's

16     always an area, depending on the -- how many digits we have in the grid

17     references.  So, therefore, a small square indicating where it is, you

18     should be able to agree on that.  And another matter is, is this the only

19     grid references in any reports on the matter, or are there others?

20             The Chamber would be interested to know if all the grid

21     references mentioned in reports give a different location compared to

22     what we see in the photographs.

23             So, therefore, -- but, of course, the -- I take it that the

24     witness is unable to say anything about it until -- unless provided with

25     a clear map.

Page 18974

 1             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.  To have a more accurate estimate

 2     of these grid references, we really need to use ideally the map that was

 3     used by the investigators, the same type of map and also the map series

 4     number because they do sometimes slightly differ depending what map was

 5     used.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  That's not dependant on the scale, I take it.

 7             THE WITNESS:  That's correct, Your Honour.  As long as you are

 8     using the same map series, then the scale is immaterial.  Obviously the

 9     bigger the scale, the more accurate you can be.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, Mr. Lukic, this map on which you plotted

11     the grid reference, where do we find -- is -- is this the -- the lines on

12     it, are these the exact grid lines or -- because this seems to be --

13     not to be taken from a military map but, rather, from a civilian map.

14             MR. LUKIC:  I suppose it's civilian map, yes.  But --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  And have you checked whether there's any difference

16     between the maps, or military maps, which would ordinarily be used by

17     military people?

18             MR. LUKIC:  If I were here to testify maybe I would be obliged to

19     answer.  I asked this witness, has he checked.  If he hasn't, that's fine

20     with us.  We'll move on.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, the first question is:  Did you ever consult

22     this map?

23             THE WITNESS:  No, Your Honour.  I used the map that was in the --

24     in the report, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

Page 18975

 1             Please proceed.

 2             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Did you check the UNPROFOR's claims?  Did you try to establish

 4     whether the grid reference points that they had established were actually

 5     correct?

 6        A.   Using the map on the -- the report, which is a lot smaller scale,

 7     it indicated the -- the general area where these rounds are -- landed.

 8        Q.   Were you able to establish whether there is a correspondence, or

 9     could you not establish that, or did you establish that the two did not

10     correspond to each other?

11        A.   They don't correspond exactly, no.  It -- it -- it is in the same

12     general area, but I would not say the grid reference is pin-point

13     accurate.

14             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And let's just go back briefly to

15     1D1398.

16        Q.   Do you remember, or perhaps we should wait for the document to

17     appear, that, according to UNPROFOR, those rounds had landed on a macadam

18     surface?

19        A.   That is what was reported here, correct.

20        Q.   We can also see that they noted two directions:  One of 143

21     degrees, and the other of 138 degrees.  If this were correct, would that

22     mean that the rounds did not come from the same place, that they didn't

23     originate from the same -- same place?

24        A.   Not necessarily.  It would depend how far away the mortar could

25     be, 138 and 143, it's only a 5-degree difference, and the two rounds did

Page 18976

 1     not land in exactly the same place.  So depending how far away the mortar

 2     was, which we don't know, one bout could have fired these two.  But just

 3     as easily it could have been fired by two separate mortars as well.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you, Witness, on the basis of a pattern

 5     of impact or, as it said here, splinter pattern, what would be the margin

 6     of error in establishing the direction of the origin of fire?

 7             THE WITNESS:  With good craters, at least plus or minus

 8     5 degrees, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

10             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

11             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   You know, don't you, that the CSB Sarajevo carried out an

13     investigation on the 21st November 1995 at the request of the

14     Prosecutor's office of the ICTY; right?

15        A.   Not aware of an investigation in 1995.  It was not one I used as

16     part of my report.

17             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let's look at P872, page 3 in English

18     as well as in B/C/S.

19        Q.   What we have before us is a record of forensic investigation of

20     the scene of a shelling attack at a parking lot in 36 Dobrinja

21     neighbourhood where it says:

22             "On 20 November 1995 an investigator of the International

23     Criminal Tribunal in The Hague, Jan van Hecke, conducted an interview

24     with Zlatko Medjedovic in RBiH MUP offices.  On this occasion, Mr. Jan

25     van Hecke delivered Zlatko Medjedovic a request for a forensic

Page 18977

 1     investigation of the scene of a shelling attack and we can see that the

 2     incident happened on the 1st of June, 1993, because it is claimed that at

 3     the time of the incident a forensic investigation was not carried out due

 4     to incessant attack operations."

 5             And now I would like to look at page 5 in English and page 4 in

 6     B/C/S.  In the last paragraph on this page, it says:

 7             "The point of impact of the second shell was not forensically

 8     examined due to the changed appearance of the soil adjacent to the

 9     parking lot ..."

10             Would you be able to explain how you managed to find the traces

11     of the second shell a few years later when even those investigators

12     couldn't do it before you?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  What do you mean that reference to "those

14     investigators couldn't do it"?  Is that related to what is reported that

15     the ongoing operations would not allow to do that investigation?  Is that

16     a reference to that, Mr. -- yes.

17             MR. LUKIC:  In 1995, they found only one trace.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And where do we find that?  I'm just -- you

19     read --

20             MR. LUKIC:  Exactly in this paragraph.  It says:  Second one.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, please.

22             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] "The point of impact of the second

23     shell was not forensically examined due to the altered appearance of the

24     place of impact and the soil adjacent to the parking lot (various

25     agricultural plants have been planted there in the meantime).  A photo

Page 18978

 1     file was created during the making of this record."

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Not -- what confused me, as a matter of fact,

 3     is that you read that the investigation could not take place and the day

 4     [overlapping speakers] --

 5             MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  -- after that you have not read that.

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the speakers kindly not overlap.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  In 1993.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Whereas the report says that what was not possible

10     on the -- I think it was the 20th of November, that that investigation

11     took place on the 21st of November.

12             MR. LUKIC:  21st of November, 1995.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14             MR. LUKIC:  The investigation was not -- performed on

15     June 1st, 1993.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me have a look.

17             MR. LUKIC:  It's the first paragraph on -- if we can move back,

18     it's page 3 in this document.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  What I read is that - and that's what you read - is

20     that on the -- let me see.  Oh, that date is the 1st of June, yes.  And

21     then the investigation took place not on the 20th but on the

22     21st of November, 1995.  Yes.

23             Please proceed.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

25        Q.   [Interpretation] My question was this:  How do you account for

Page 18979

 1     the fact that when you inspected the place of the incident a few years

 2     after 1995, you found two craters there?

 3        A.   I'm not obviously aware that in this investigation if they were

 4     even looking at the same craters that I did, but when I was taken to the

 5     location, there were two craters clearly marked, both filled in with this

 6     red substance which I have mentioned before.

 7        Q.   Do you know, were you told when those craters that you found

 8     there were created?

 9        A.   Sorry, could you repeat the question?

10        Q.   Do you know where the craters were created; i.e., when the

11     explosions took place?  And I'm talking about the craters that you

12     inspected.  Did anybody expressly tell you the craters were created at

13     that specific point in time?

14        A.   The -- the investigator took me to the scene.  They directed me

15     to those two craters and informed me that these were the two craters used

16     in this incident.

17        Q.   I can't ask you whether you compared the craters because you have

18     just told us that you were not even aware of this report that we have

19     before us at the moment.

20        A.   That's correct.

21             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We can go back to 1D1398.

22        Q.   You know that UNPROFOR did not determine the angle of descent

23     because there was no fuse furrow.  We will see that when the document

24     appears and the -- both are valid for -- and -- and that -- that

25     information is valid for both crater 1 and crater 2.

Page 18980

 1        A.   Correct.  No -- no measurement of the angle of descent was taken.

 2        Q.   The angle of descent was determined based on the height of the

 3     buildings, as you can see in paragraph 1; right?

 4        A.   He based it on a minimum that would have been required to clear

 5     the buildings, and then from the -- the general pattern on the ground has

 6     come up with quite a -- a wide span of which the rounds could have come

 7     from.

 8        Q.   Precisely so.  Under item 2, there is nothing specific relating

 9     to the incident.  They just copied data from the firing table that the

10     smallest --

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Could Mr. Lukic please give us figures slowly.

12     Thank you.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic.  Mr. Lukic, you are again invited to give

14     numbers slowly.

15             But perhaps --

16             MR. LUKIC:  It's in point 2 in this document, what I'm reading.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But that doesn't change the request.

18             MR. LUKIC:  Okay.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps it's time for a break.

20             MR. LUKIC:  It's time for the break.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll take a break, and could the witness be

22     escorted out of the courtroom.

23                           [The witness stands down]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Meanwhile, I used the time for the following:

25             The Chamber will now turn to a matter related to its decision on


Page 18981

 1     the Prosecution's first intercept bar table motion.

 2             On the 2nd of May of this year, the Chamber issued its decision

 3     on the Prosecution's bar table motion for the admission of intercepts

 4     related to the Srebrenica segment of its case.

 5             On the 3rd of October, the Prosecution indicated by way of

 6     informal communication that it had complied with the Chamber's

 7     instructions concerning the uploading of particular documents related to

 8     this decision, with the exception of further identifying those that could

 9     be made public.  As of today, the Chamber has not received such

10     additional information and, therefore, the Chamber asks the Prosecution

11     when it intends to comply with this instruction.  Furthermore, the

12     Chamber additionally instructs the Prosecution to provide by way of a

13     filing the reasons that the remaining intercepts should retain their

14     confidential status.

15             And before we finally take the break, I would like to briefly

16     move into private session.

17                           [Private session]

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 18982

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9                           [Open session]

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.  Thank

11     you.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

13             We take a break, and we resume at five minutes to 11.00.

14                           --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.

15                           --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  While we are waiting for the witness to be escorted

17     in the courtroom, I would briefly address the following matter:

18             The Chamber turns to a matter related to -- let me see.  I am

19     afraid I have the wrong copy before me.

20             I refrain from doing it at this moment.

21                           [The witness takes the stand]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  You may proceed, Mr. Lukic.

23             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

24        Q.   [Interpretation] I'm going to read again from the document that

25     we have before us, 1D1398, where, under item 2, it says:


Page 18983

 1             "The minimum angle of descent for 81-millimetre and

 2     120-millimetre mortars is 45.71 degrees.  At that angle, the minimum

 3     range is 1120 metres for 81-millimetre mortar, and 1340 metres for

 4     120-millimetres mortar."

 5             Mr. Higgs, would you agree that this is a theory rather than the

 6     practice.  This information has nothing to do with what was actually

 7     measured on the ground; is that correct?

 8        A.   Correct.  This is just showing what sort of ranges could be

 9     achieved if the mortars fired on their lowest angle.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  May I take it, with the lowest charge?  Or is it on

11     any specific charge?

12             THE WITNESS:  With those ranges, Your Honour, it would be on

13     their lowest charge.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, please proceed.

15             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16        Q.   Once again, before we move to the next document, let's focus on

17     the degrees in this document:  143 degrees for crater 1; and 138 degrees

18     for crater 2.

19             Now, let us look at document P872, please.

20             As you can see, this is a file produced as a result of an on-site

21     investigation carried out on the 21st November, 1995, relating to the

22     Dobrinja incident which took place on the 1st of June, 1993.

23             We need 5 -- page 5 in English and page 4 in the B/C/S version.

24     Regarding this incident, the investigators of the Sarajevo police

25     department, whilst they were working together with the ICTY Prosecutor's

Page 18984

 1     office, established that, as it is written here:

 2             "With the use of the plan of the Dobrinja neighbourhood and a

 3     compass, we determined the angular span between the northerly directions

 4     and the direction of the incoming artillery shell in relation to the

 5     centre of the explosion, which equals 110 degrees from the north."

 6             This differs from what was established by UNPROFOR yet again.

 7     This is at variance with the allegations of UNPROFOR that the angle was

 8     140, actually 143 and 138 degrees respectively.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  What is the question, Mr. Lukic?

10             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Is it true that this is different for more than 35 degrees -- or,

12     I'm sorry, 25 degrees, in excess of 25 degrees if compared to the

13     UNPROFOR findings?

14        A.   Yes, this report does give a different bearing.  But it must be

15     remembered that this is taken possibly two years later, and with

16     degradation of the area not surprising it would come up with a slightly

17     different reading, if that is the case here.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  The point Mr. Lukic is making is it's not slightly,

19     but it's considerable.

20             THE WITNESS:  Correct, Your Honour, yeah.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

22             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Would you agree with me that UNPROFOR had determined the

24     direction from which the shell came in their report without determining

25     the type of the shell or the descent angle of the shell?

Page 18985

 1        A.   On the -- the type, they did remark that it was of medium

 2     calibre:  81 millimetre or 82 millimetre.  But they did not work out

 3     angle of descent or the range.  That is correct.

 4        Q.   Is it correct that this is not sufficient information in order to

 5     determine the position from which the shell was fired?

 6        A.   That would be correct, as you only have the bearings and nothing

 7     to give an indication of -- of the range in which the weapon was fired

 8     from.

 9             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have 9939, please.  It's a

10     document which was partially adopted as P644 but not in its entirety, and

11     we are going to use it as indicated.

12             Let's look at page 5 in English and page 4 in B/C/S.

13        Q.   Do you know that UNPROFOR investigators who investigated this

14     incident in June and July of 1993 never visited the scene, in actual

15     fact?  One can see that from item 7.

16        A.   Yes, you can see that from the item 7.

17        Q.   It says that UNPROFOR officials indicated that the area is

18     exposed to small-arms fire and therefore dangerous.

19             Would you agree with me that due to the position of buildings

20     or -- could we say that this area was secluded from three sides by

21     eight-storey buildings; therefore, there was no danger coming from

22     small-arms fire from the Serbian positions?

23        A.   It's impossible for me to give a detailed answer on that, because

24     they obviously believed from reading this report that it is coming under

25     fire.  I've got no evidence to contradict that, so I can't give an

Page 18986

 1     accurate response.

 2        Q.   [In English] Okay.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 4             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, just to put on the record I know counsel

 5     is directing him to page 7, but I believe counsel's representation was

 6     that UNPROFOR never visited the scene.  I don't read the report as a

 7     broad a scope as never.  I agree that paragraph 7 says what it says, on

 8     that occasion.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  If I remember correctly, this report has never been

10     finished because [Overlapping speakers] ...

11             JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... that's a -- that's a

12     different matter, Mr. -- you can still go to the scene and not finish the

13     report.

14             MR. LUKIC:  Okay.

15        Q.   [Interpretation] At this point, I'm more interested in the

16     relationship between the Sarajevo authorities and UNPROFOR and what kind

17     of assistance it was provided at the time.

18             It says here, under item 8, the author of the report says:

19             "I asked Mr. Kosavec if there were any documents or photographs,

20     relating to this incident that would be available to assist in our

21     enquires.  He stated that any documents of that nature would be held by

22     the chief of police of Dobrinja, and requested we attend the Dobrinja

23     police station on the morning of the 2nd July 1993."

24             Then it goes on.  Under item 9, it says:

25             "At approximately 0907 hours on the 2nd of July, 1993,

Page 18987

 1     accompanied by Sergeant Lamothe and other members of the war crimes

 2     investigation team, I attended the Dobrinja police station where we met

 3     with Mr. Kosavec and the chief of police.  We were advised that all

 4     investigative material relating to this incident had been forwarded to

 5     the main police station in Sarajevo.

 6             "When he went to the police station, Mr. Mochibob was informed

 7     that the materials relating to this shelling incident were currently not

 8     available but could be fetched on the 2nd of July at 1400 hours from the

 9     main police station."

10             So item 11, the 2nd of July, we need page --

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Slow down.  Slow down.  Slow down.

12             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need page 5 in B/C/S.

13             So item 11 - I'm not going to read the whole of it:

14             "They went where they had been told to go," and I'm not going to

15     read the whole paragraph, "and they were told that they had nothing and

16     that it might have been investigated by the Bosnian army.  He said that

17     UNPROFOR attributed this incident to the Serbian army and that as far as

18     that went, that was sufficient for him."

19             Then, again, in paragraph 14 -- so my question for you is this:

20     Is it true that UNPROFOR official never received the relevant documents

21     from the police relating to that particular investigation.

22        A.   I --

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. -- okay.

24             THE WITNESS:  I'm afraid I can't -- I don't know because I'm not

25     a member of the UNPROFOR so I don't know whether they did or did not.

Page 18988

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I was just going to invite Mr. Lukic to look at

 2     paragraph 12 which might just give a slightly different answer.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Then we have to go back to the previous page in

 4     English.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  It's only on weather condition, Your Honour, not on

 6     the investigation.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It says that, "He provided us with the records for

 8     the 1st of June, 1993."  Whatever those records might be, I don't know.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Says:

10             "He provided with us with the records for the 1st June, 1993,

11     which showed the visibility at the time of the incident was 10 kilometres

12     with calm winds."

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Does this report have Annex H to it and what does

14     Annex H --

15             MR. LUKIC:  This report has many annexes, I think.  It is divided

16     in several parts.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

18             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Now, Mr. Higgs, let us look at item 14:

20             "On 4th of July, 1993, at approximately 0945 I received a copy of

21     a map of Dobrinja from UNPROFOR officials, a copy of which is attached as

22     Annex I.  This map shows that the soccer game was held in a location

23     surrounded on three sides by buildings (west, east, and south).  In

24     addition, it was explained that there are Bosnian mortars located outside

25     the hospital approximately 500 metres from the soccer location.  However,

Page 18989

 1     these were not observed during our visit to the Dobrinja area."

 2             In your report, did you explore the possibility of a mortar

 3     belonging to the BH Army being deployed in the vicinity of the hospital?

 4        A.   I read this report.  I have not done any investigation to prove

 5     where these mortars actually were around the hospital, no.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  The hospital.  Which hospital did you have in mind?

 7             THE WITNESS:  When the investigators took me to this site, they

 8     showed me the area of -- where the hospital is.  I'm assuming this is the

 9     same one that is being related to here.  I have got no grid references or

10     facts.  So I was taken to a site, at least they told me it was a

11     hospital, but, of course, it was on that visit impossible to know where

12     the mortars may or may not have been.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Just to check whether you're talking about the

14     same hospital.

15             In your question, "the hospital," which hospital and where

16     located did you understand the reference relates to?  Mr. Lukic.

17             MR. LUKIC:  I understood that it was 500 metres from the --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

19             MR. LUKIC:  The place of impact.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that gives a circle with some thousand

21     positions for hospitals, doesn't it?

22             MR. LUKIC:  I don't think that in Dobrinja you have more than one

23     hospital.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Which one?  Where is that located because

25     that is my -- where did you understand it was located when you put the

Page 18990

 1     question to the witness and when you read the report?

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Can we have 65 ter -- it's on our screen.  We just

 3     need e-court page 56.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I see there an indication of hospital, "hopital," to

 5     the left.  Is that --

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  -- what you had in mind?

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  Yes.  Actually, it has to be, I

 9     think -- [Overlapping speakers] ...

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Where it has to be, that's where it --

11             MR. LUKIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ... counter-clockwise,

12     although it's written here in this way.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, at this moment --

14             MR. LUKIC:  It is hospital, yes.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  The map is --

16             MR. LUKIC:  But I was trying to avoid because gentleman told us

17     yesterday that he is not privy with the area so I was -- but if you want,

18     we can -- we can discuss it with him.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  The only thing is that if you put a question

20     about "the hospital," I'd like to know where it is.  Because if you

21     invite the witness to explore whether that was -- and I understood that

22     to be the gist of your question, whether he had considered the

23     possibility that it was fired from there, then for the Chamber it's

24     important to know where that would have been so that, at least the

25     Chamber, in the totality of the evidence, can consider whether that is an

Page 18991

 1     option, yes or no.  And for that reason, we have to know what hospital

 2     you referred to in the question.

 3             Please proceed.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 5        Q.   [Interpretation] Can you find your bearings in this map?  And

 6     with relation to the hospital, can you mark the place of the incident?

 7        A.   If I am looking at the diagram correctly, I believe the incident

 8     would be in this area.  Is that correct?

 9        Q.   [In English] One of the shell, yes, in that area.

10        A.   Mm-hm.

11        Q.   And [Interpretation] Here, you can see the words "police" in this

12     map.  Did you establish whether any shell fell in that area on that same

13     day?  And that the street that we mentioned earlier,

14     Dzavarahalal Nehura Street?

15        A.   No, I did not look into any other rounds fired on the same day.

16        Q.   Very well.  Thank you.  Perhaps -- but can you please just put

17     the number 1 where the hospital is, although there is some markings in

18     the map already.

19        A.   [Marks]

20        Q.   Thank you.  You put number 1, indicating where the hospital is.

21             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And after this, we would like to

22     tender this document into evidence.

23             MR. WEBER:  No objections, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  D408, Your Honours.  Thank you.

Page 18992

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Is admitted into evidence.

 2             Mr. Higgs, where you put the 1 on the map, was it on the basis of

 3     your recollection or was it because you saw the word "hospital"?

 4             THE WITNESS:  Because I saw the word "hospital," I couldn't

 5     definitely say that was the building or it wasn't I was seeing.  It does

 6     resemble, from recollection, the approximate distance from the parking

 7     lot area, but I couldn't be 100 per cent sure.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 9             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  And now I would like to

10     call up -- and let's first mentally return to the incident known as

11     Markale I.  We will discuss Markale I again.  I would like to call up

12     P868.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  While waiting for that, could I invite the parties

14     to seek agreement on the line from where it is said "hospital" or

15     "hopital" up till the marking given by the witness.  But also there was a

16     marking on the map close to a parking lot to be approximately a 50-degree

17     direction, origin of fire direction.

18             Yes, but you don't have to agree right away, but that's my

19     initial assessment of what I see on this map.  And if the parties would

20     more or less agree on that, then we have another --

21             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the one concern I would have for that is

22     because of the angle of Dobrinja whether or not true north would be as

23     depicted on this diagram, but we're, of course, welcome to discuss that.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I do agree with you that we have to -- we need

25     the north orientation to be sure about that.

Page 18993

 1             Please proceed.

 2             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  We have P868 before us.

 3     We're interested in page 61 in the English version; whereas, in B/C/S, we

 4     would like to see page 62.  Now, could Mr. Higgs be provided with the

 5     artefact that was brought to the courtroom by the Registry?  And also a

 6     ruler.  I would kindly ask Mr. Higgs to measure the artefact and tell us

 7     what result he has obtained.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 9             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, just to keep a clean record, in this

10     case, this artefact is 65 ter 10470.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

12             Has there been any way to reach an agreement between the parties

13     on what the length is?

14             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the length is the length, and I'm happy

15     to measure it with counsel and [Overlapping speakers] ...

16             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... yes.  Yes, that seems to

17     be the most appropriate way of establishing what the length is,

18     Mr. Lukic.

19             MR. LUKIC:  This will be very short exercise.  Since we cannot

20     testify, I would rather have Mr. Higgs measure.

21             THE WITNESS:  16.1 centimetres, Your Honour.

22             MR. LUKIC:

23        Q.   That's -- that's all we needed.  And I'll move on.  Because we

24     think that in those photos the measurement was wrongly presented, and we

25     thank Mr. Higgs for this.

Page 18994

 1                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, please.

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Would Mr. Higgs tell us what he actually measured.

 6     Where did you start your measurement and where -- what was the upper end

 7     and what was the lower end?  Where did you --

 8             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  I tried to hold the -- have the tail-fins as

 9     flat, horizontal as possible, first of all, from the tip of the debris

10     located in the end of the tail-fin to then the extremity of the longest

11     bent tail-fin as this protrudes further to the rear than it normally

12     would have done.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  So you didn't measure it from the bottom with the -

14     how do you call it? - the screwable part but you took as a start of your

15     measurement, you took the bended fins, rather than the --

16             THE WITNESS:  Correct, Your Honour, as the bended fin is slightly

17     longer than the area where the primary cartridge is located.

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19             JUDGE ORIE:  If I -- if I put it on my table in the upright

20     position, fins down, then the Chamber measures less than -- less than 14

21     or close to 14.

22             Mr. Higgs, would you please measure it again.

23             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

24             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, I can see from my perspective that the

25     witness was doing a number of things.  I don't know if it would be

Page 18995

 1     helpful to give him a blank sheet of paper and do it on the ELMO so that

 2     the Chamber can see how he is measuring the item as he is doing it.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  We just asked him to measure and he said he took it

 4     from the bended, the lowest part of the tail-fins, so if you put it

 5     upright, that would be the very basis of that or ...

 6             But if there's any camera which could catch the way in which

 7     Mr. Higgs is measuring.

 8             Mr. Higgs, you took into account, I take it, that the ruler

 9     starts with an empty approximately a half a centimetre.

10             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  I am afraid that the camera doesn't catch it.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We have one camera which would be in a

14     position which possibly could ...

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We now can see.

17             Could you please show to us by putting it on the table,

18     Mr. Higgs, how you are measuring it, and could we have the picture of the

19     previous camera again.

20             And let's forget for one second about the camera that has to be

21     oriented to me when I'm speaking, looking at Mr. Higgs now is more

22     important at this moment.

23             THE WITNESS:  First of all, just checking the longest tail-fin,

24     Your Honour.  Which is that one.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It would be better if you put in the upright

Page 18996

 1     position, then we have a clear end of it.  No, upright.  Yes.  In that

 2     way.  And now measure it with --

 3             THE WITNESS:  I can do that, Your Honour, but it doesn't sit

 4     square so it needs to be lifted up.  It is easier for me to measure it

 5     horizontally, if that is okay.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Measure it as you wish, as long as we do know what

 7     you are measuring.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Taking a reference point to the end of the -- the

 9     paper so I can measure it square on, keeping it parallel.

10             This time, Your Honour, it comes out at 15.6, Your Honour.  15.6.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let's proceed.

12             Mr. Weber.

13             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I believe we did this with another

14     stabiliser but now that we also have been handling this stabiliser and

15     the Registry may need to return it, is there any way we can assign an

16     exhibit number to the Markale I stabiliser at this time?

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Would we then have a kind of a surrogate sheet which

18     refers to the exhibit number in another case?

19             MR. WEBER:  Of course, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Registrar, could you please assign an

21     exhibit number to this artefact.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  D409, Your Honours.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Is admitted into evidence.

24             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, Ms. Stewart has informed me that we do

25     have a surrogate sheet already available in e-court under the

Page 18997

 1     65 ter 10470.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  And if I may, that's the Prosecutor's exhibit and

 3     it's their 65 ter number.  It should be assigned P number, I think, not D

 4     number.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Evidence is evidence, Mr. Lukic.  But I don't know

 6     whether there's any problem.  You tendered it.  You used it.  Whether a

 7     65 ter number can be used.  I think it often has been done so, therefore,

 8     I think there's no need to assign another number.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  I thought since Mr. Weber offered it into evidence,

10     that it should be under their number, but anyways ...

11             I will move on to Markale II now.  And if we can have P2055 in

12     the e-court, please.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Higgs, during your direct examination, my

14     learned friend, Mr. Weber, showed you this photo, and he asked you

15     whether the two stabilisers are different or whether this is one and the

16     same stabiliser, and you told us that this was one and the same

17     stabiliser in both photos.

18             Can you please tell us what method you used in order to identify

19     the two stabilisers to actually be one and the same.

20        A.   Well, from the -- the photograph, just looking at the damage

21     which exists on both the stabilisers in the picture, looking at the

22     individual tail-fins, how they have been flattened and distorted, they --

23     the two pictures seem to indicate that it is the same damage on both

24     stabilisers in these pictures.

25        Q.   Did you use a magnifying device?  Did you watch it on a computer

Page 18998

 1     screen?  Could you give us some more details on what you did?

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  The witness said that he looked at the photograph.

 3     If there was anything else, he would have told us, I take it?

 4             THE WITNESS:  Correct, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 6             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   So you had a physical photo, a hard copy photo, of the

 8     stabiliser.  You did not see it on a -- on a computer screen, or perhaps

 9     it was on a computer screen?

10        A.   The picture of the stabiliser you have seen on this screen as we

11     saw earlier in this case, and I've also seen it in the -- the video which

12     I believe these stills come from.

13        Q.   So you also saw the video.  During your work, did you establish

14     that the representatives of the police or somebody else, for that matter,

15     moved the hard evidence during the investigation?  For example, did they

16     move the stabiliser from one location to a different location?

17        A.   It does appear that -- that it was moved by somebody.  As -- you

18     can see that in the video.

19        Q.   We're going to see the video now.

20             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Although we have received it from the

21     Prosecutor's office, it bears the exhibit number of the Defence, D352.

22             And we will first need the clip which starts at 10 minutes,

23     54 seconds, and lasts until 11 minutes, 09 seconds.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I think the video should not be shown to

25     the public because there's a pending application for protective measures

Page 18999

 1     which has not been decided yet.

 2             MR. WEBER:  That's correct, Your Honour.  And thank you to your

 3     staff.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  We would rather have public seen this, but if it's --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Once we have decided on protective measures, it will

 6     be known whether the public can see it or not.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Okay.

 8                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  In order not to allow the public to see it through

10     the screen, we have to go into at least partially private session by some

11     of the curtains being down so as ... yes.  But we can't take them one by

12     one and then we have to -- we need to do the other ones as well.  But ...

13     no, to the left -- to the left.  The other side.  Yes.

14                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, perhaps we have a better solution.  Let's pull

16     the curtains up again.  And we would then ask the monitor of the witness

17     to be switched off and the witness to move to a place -- oh, no -- to --

18     to -- no.  To put the blinds behind him, that's ... yes.  Yes, perhaps

19     bend it slightly more so that there's no view.  Could it be bended a

20     little bit more and be turned a little bit to the left from my position,

21     which is the other -- that's why I said the left of my position, and not

22     to my right.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  If that is okay ... yes.

25                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

Page 19000

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Shall we -- could we switch off the sound so that

 2     is -- if it is played that the sound is inaudible.

 3                           [Defence counsel and Accused confer]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. -- Mr. Lukic.

 5             Mr. Lukic -- Mr. Mladic, you should speak at low volume.  If a

 6     decision will have been taken on protective measures, it will become

 7     clear whether it can be shown to the public, yes or no.

 8             Could it be played without sound, Mr. Lukic?  Is there any

 9     problem with that?

10             MR. LUKIC:  We don't need sound, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  You don't need sound, so it can be played without

12     sound.

13             Please proceed.

14             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Before we continue, you say that it seems that the stabiliser was

16     moved.  Was it customary for the investigations carried out by the

17     Bosnian police to involve moving objects and giving them different

18     exhibit numbers?  Was that common practice, according to what you saw and

19     found out?

20        A.   I don't believe so, no.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you have any knowledge about the common practice?

22             THE WITNESS:  Not for what the Bosnian authorities were doing,

23     no, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  So the answer is:  I don't know.

25             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

Page 19001

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, rather than I don't believe it.

 2             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 3             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   In this particular case you did not have any concrete proof that

 5     something was moved.  This is just your assumption; right?

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, we see different numbers next to it.  So

 7     whether this was moved -- something was changed.  That may be clear

 8     because 12 doesn't turn into 13 without any manipulation.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Nothing was changed.  There were two tail-fins.

10     Nothing was changed.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, unless -- you say these are two different

12     tail-fins --

13             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay, that's your position.  That's clear.

15             MR. LUKIC:  It's visible.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Let's have a look.

17             MR. LUKIC:  Okay.  Let's play the video from 10:54 to 11:09.

18                           [Video-clip played]

19             MR. LUKIC:  Can we go back one second, please, if possible.

20     Yeah.

21        Q.   [Interpretation] We can see here that at 1245 hours, as recorded

22     by the camera and that is consistent with the 11 minute, 7 seconds, of

23     this video, a member of the French UNPROFOR and the camera person are

24     seen here taking a photo or making a video of the stabiliser in the

25     middle of the street; right?

Page 19002

 1        A.   Correct.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Middle on the street.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  In the middle of the street.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, it's not the middle of the street, Mr. Lukic.

 5     At least it's unanimous position of this Chamber observing the picture

 6     that it is approximately one-fourth to one-fifth of the curb, not in the

 7     middle of the street.  Let's proceed.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  On the left-hand side, we

 9     have [Overlapping speakers] ...

10             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... no further -- if it's --

11             MR. LUKIC:  It's visible.  Let's play it again.  It's the tram

12     tracks.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Fine.  If you say it's the tram track, I made

14     a mistake in the first line to -- that it looked like the curb, but if

15     you correct me, and it seems quite plausible that you're right, then it

16     would be in the middle of the street.  I would agree with that --

17             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  -- and so do my colleagues.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I just want to ask the witness:  Are you able to

20     determine by looking at this video that those people are French UNPROFOR

21     members?

22             THE WITNESS:  Not from the current still picture, no,

23     Your Honour.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If it is moving, if is the video is not -- moving,

25     would you be able to make a determination?

Page 19003

 1             THE WITNESS:  If we get a better picture of them, I should be

 2     able to, yes or no.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, you wanted it to be played again, I

 5     think.

 6             Please indicate exactly what you would like us to look at again.

 7             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   The information that you have, can you rely on that information

 9     and tell us which members of the UNPROFOR troops were at the scene on

10     that day?

11        A.   Which information are you -- are you relating to?

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's ask the question in a different way.

13             Do you have --

14             MR. LUKIC:  Sorry.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  -- any personal knowledge of the identity of the --

16     it seems to be four persons dressed, from what we can see, in military

17     uniforms, who they are?

18             THE WITNESS:  No, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  And the cameraman, do you know who that is?

20             THE WITNESS:  No, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Now let's try to play this part again.  10:54 to

23     11:09.

24                           [Video-clip played]

25             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

Page 19004

 1        Q.   Would you agree with me that based on the blue helmets sported by

 2     the men in the photo, it can be concluded that they are UNPROFOR members.

 3     Please pay attention to their sleeves.  Can you see a French flag on one

 4     of their sleeves?

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, is there any dispute about this being

 6     French UNPROFOR members?

 7             MR. WEBER:  No.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 9             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Do you have any knowledge to the fact that UNPROFOR

11     representatives took part or allowed the moving around of material

12     evidence during investigation?

13        A.   I have no evidence of that.

14             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please have the same

15     video, starting from 12 minutes, 23 seconds, to 12 minutes, 43 seconds.

16                           [Video-clip played]

17             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Stop.

18        Q.   A while ago, we had the time 1245, and now the timeline is 1300

19     hours.

20                           [Video-clip played]

21             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Would you agree that this is again the same stabiliser, only with

23     the tag number 13 placed next to it?

24        A.   From the video, this does appear to be the same one with the

25     picture taken from the other side with -- in relation to the tram tracks

Page 19005

 1     there next to it.

 2        Q.   [In English] Yes.

 3             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let us now look at the video starting

 4     from 12 minutes, 03 seconds, to 12 minutes, 12 seconds.  So we need to

 5     re-wind.

 6                           [Video-clip played]

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Stop.

 8        Q.   [Interpretation] Here in the video, and we shall see it later

 9     again in sequence, the time is 1255.  So this frame was taken between the

10     previous one at 1245, where we saw one stabiliser without any number tag,

11     and 1300 hours, where we saw the stabiliser with the tag number 13.

12     Between the two times, between 1255, when we can see the stabiliser,

13     which is close to a door; is that correct?

14        A.   It looks to be next to a door, correct.

15        Q.   The distance from the wall here is not more than 1 metre.  Would

16     you agree?

17        A.   I don't know the distance from the wall accurately.

18        Q.   Roughly speaking, can you tell us?

19        A.   It appears to be close to the door.  Probably less than a metre.

20        Q.   You will agree that this is not the same position where the

21     stabiliser marked with number 13 was; is that correct?

22        A.   Correct.

23        Q.   Now we're going to play the video as it was shot from 12 minutes,

24     03, to 12 minutes 43.

25                           [Defence counsel confer]

Page 19006

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I've just been warned by my colleague

 2     that we had already discussed a portion of the video which can be marked

 3     as 12 minutes, 04 seconds, in video D352.

 4             Now, could Mr. Ivetic please play this video starting from 12:03

 5     until 12 minutes, 43, without interruptions.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 7             MR. WEBER:  My apologies for the interruptions.  I just see we're

 8     over the time for our scheduled break, and I don't know whether it would

 9     be better to play the video when --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  I leave it to Mr. Lukic, whether he would just play

11     it and then ask questions later; or whether he would prefer to take the

12     break now.

13             MR. LUKIC:  We can take the break now.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we'll take the break now.  And can the witness

15     be escorted out of the courtroom.

16                           [The witness stands down]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  We resume at 25 minutes past midday.

18                           --- Recess taken at 12.06 p.m.

19                           --- On resuming at 12.28 p.m.

20             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Your Honour --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Hochhauser, if can you report without moving

22     into private session so as to say not yet known a week, then we could

23     do -- otherwise we'd have to move into private session.

24             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Yes, yes.  I was going to suggest the same.  We

25     will have information for you in the beginning of next week, is my

Page 19007

 1     understanding.

 2             Also as to RM038, the question that you asked regarding RM038, we

 3     will be making an oral application to convert RM038 to a 92 ter witness

 4     on the basis of the recent exhumations.  We've determined it would be

 5     more appropriate to have the witness appear before the Chamber for

 6     cross-examination.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  That's clear.

 8                           [The witness takes the stand]

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I think we're about to see the video

10     again.  At least part of it.

11             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour, you are right.  We should start

12     from 10:54.  Again, it's on our screens.  We can see the ...

13             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  What we can see, we can see.

14                           [Defence counsel confer]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, whenever you think it would be good to

16     stop and have a further look, please --

17             MR. LUKIC:  Can we start, please.

18                           [Video-clip played]

19             MR. LUKIC:  From [Interpretation] From 10:54 to 11:09.

20                           [Video-clip played]

21             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   So at 1105 -- or, rather, from 1054 to 1109 we can see the time

23     recorded on the camera, which says 1245 hours.  And the stabiliser is in

24     the middle of the street close to the tram tracks.

25             We're now going to continue from --

Page 19008

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  One second --

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Go back a bit.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, please.  You said 1245.  That is how it

 4     started, I think.  Could we have a look again at 10:54.  There I have

 5     1245 as the time-frame on the video.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  And I think for the second part, where you stopped,

 8     we're now at 1108.  Now we move to 1109.  1109 gives a different

 9     time-frame.

10             MR. LUKIC:  Can we move a bit so we can see better.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It looks like 1250.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Move, move.  Okay.  [Overlapping speakers] ...

13             JUDGE ORIE:  That seems to be 1250.

14             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  So there's an interruption there.

16             MR. LUKIC:  There is an interruption there.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

18             MR. LUKIC:  So we had 1254, then we have this frame with

19     1250 [Overlapping speakers] ...

20             JUDGE ORIE:  1245 --

21             MR. LUKIC:  1245.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  -- when we started at 10.54 on the video, on the

23     timer on the video not on the screen.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  And then when we arrived at 11:09 as the timer, not

Page 19009

 1     to be seen on the screen itself, then we had moved to 1250.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.  At 11:10 of the video.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, 9 or 10, yes.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Then I'd like to move to a video time, not camera

 5     time.  Video time is 12.03.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we not play it in its entirety and then you

 7     stop it so that we can see whatever moves in terms of [Overlapping

 8     speakers] ...

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Okay, let's -- let's start then from 10:54.  It's not

10     long.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And then we briefly stopped where we stopped

12     now, and then you indicate when we would move on.

13             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah.  We can move on.

14                           [Video-clip played]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I -- could we stop for a second there.

16             I just -- I didn't count -- I think we moved to 1250 at not

17     camera timer but recording timer, at 11:09 or 11:10.  We are now some 40

18     seconds further on, but we are, as far as time is concerned, we already

19     at 1252 so there must be an interruption there as well --

20             MR. LUKIC:  Obviously, yes.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Obviously.  Yes, please --

22             MR. LUKIC:  Continue.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  -- continue.

24                           [Video-clip played]

25             MR. LUKIC:  Stop.  At 1203, we move to 1204 video time, we move

Page 19010

 1     to 12:55 camera time, and, here, we see tail-fin close to the wall with

 2     number 12.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Can we move on now, please.

 5                           [Video-clip played]

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Stop.  At 1213, and we have 12:14 on our screens

 7     right now, we move to -- of video time, we move to 12:56.  Twelve hours,

 8     56 minutes of camera time, where we see lifted tail-fin, standing

 9     straight.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes --

11             MR. LUKIC:  -- somebody was holding it with -- I don't know what

12     that is.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I think we do not know, if there are two, which

14     tail-fins were shown here.  Or have I missed something, Mr. Lukic, as far

15     as you are concerned?

16             MR. LUKIC:  No, I don't know.  I couldn't --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, okay.  Let's move on.  We look at the tail-fins

18     now from the bottom.

19             MR. LUKIC:  Mm-hm.

20                           [Video-clip played]

21             MR. LUKIC:  Stop.  At 12:33 video time, we moved to 13 hours.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  12:23, it seems to be.

23             MR. LUKIC:  Okay.  12:23, video time.  We moved to 13 hours

24     camera time.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

Page 19011

 1             MR. LUKIC:  On this video, we have tail-fin in the middle of the

 2     street with number 13.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, whether it's in the middle of the street is --

 4             MR. LUKIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ... it will be more visible

 5     later.

 6             Can we continue.

 7                           [Video-clip played]

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Stop.  Here, it's visible at 12:32 video time, still

 9     13 hours camera time, that this tail-fin marked with number 13 is in the

10     middle of the street close to the tram tracks.

11             Continue, please.

12                           [Video-clip played]

13             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah, stop.

14        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Higgs, we have seen that at 1245 camera

15     time, a shot was taken of a mortar stabiliser at this same location

16     without any number.  It was followed then at 1300 hours, as shown on the

17     camera, that the same stabiliser is at the same place with number 13.  So

18     number 13, at 1300 hours.

19             In the meantime, at 1255 hours, which is a time intervening

20     between the shot of stabiliser without the number and the stabiliser with

21     the number 13, the stabiliser was filmed on a different location close to

22     a wall bearing the number 12.

23             Is it really your evidence that this is one and the same

24     stabiliser?  Or would you change your view now?

25        A.   From the -- the -- the photographs of the damage to the tails,

Page 19012

 1     it's still appears to be that -- the same damage on the stabiliser -- on

 2     the fins.  So it still looks to be the same stabiliser.

 3        Q.   After watching this video, do we have to accept that somebody

 4     filmed a stabiliser in the middle of the street, without any number, then

 5     took it to the door next to the wall and then filmed it again with a

 6     camera with the number 12, and then carried it back to the original

 7     position where it was filmed ten minutes earlier and gave it the number

 8     13?  And we are talking about one and the same stabiliser.

 9             Do you really want us to believe that?

10        A.   I don't know if -- well, how, it could have been moved.  I can

11     only go from the damage that I can see on the -- the pictures of the

12     stabiliser, where it appears to be -- the damage is consistent in both

13     pictures, so I don't know if it was moved or not.

14        Q.   If you don't know if it was moved or not, then it means that we

15     are talking about two stabiliser.  Would you agree?

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, this is unfair to the witness.  If --

17     first, it's argument.  If the witness says, I do not know, it means that

18     he doesn't know whether it's one and the same or whether they're two

19     different ones.  He limited himself to observing damage to a tail-fin

20     which he said seemed to be him to be identical damage.  That's where it

21     stops.  Whatever else is not within the realm of the expertise of the

22     witness, whether someone moves something, yes or no.  Again, I could have

23     stopped you on the previous question.  I didn't do that.  But the witness

24     clearly said then, I have no idea about whether it was moved or not.  The

25     only thing I can say is that, comparing the two photographs, that the

Page 19013

 1     damage seems to be exactly the same and, therefore, in the witness's

 2     view, he considers that they are the same.

 3             All the rest is, I would say, for the Chamber, to consider, and

 4     we'll seriously consider it.  But don't tell the witness what the

 5     consequences of his answers are, especially not if they do not follow

 6     from his answers.

 7             Next question, please.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  If I may Your Honour, this witness said that he saw

 9     this video before.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But before he wasn't able to see whether

11     someone moved it either.  He just doesn't know.  That's what he tells us.

12     The only thing he knows is that what he sees is damage of such similarity

13     on two stills that he thinks that it's the same tail-fin.

14             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Mr. Higgs, do you have information how many stabilisers were

16     discovered in situ?

17        A.   No, I don't.

18        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Higgs, for answering our questions.  Now I'm going

19     to hand over to my learned colleague, Mr. Weber.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Lukic.  I think Mr. Higgs will also

21     be glad that your timing was such that at least even more time than

22     expected.  But perhaps there will be some further questions.

23             Mr. Weber.

24             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I can tell you that I'm not going to be

25     working with this video anymore so I don't know


Page 19014

 1     if [Overlapping speakers] ...

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  We can remove the screens then so that the public

 3     is -- but, first, the picture should be taken from the screen, from the

 4     monitor at this moment.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The screens behind the witness can be removed.

 7             Meanwhile, we can continue.

 8             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 9                           Re-examination by Mr. Weber:

10        Q.   Mr. Higgs, today I'm going to attempt to clarify some matters

11     with respect to the type of shells that had been discussed during your

12     testimony.

13             On Tuesday, at pages 18840 to 18857, you were shown firing tables

14     and trajectories for an M49 P1 (OF-843/1) shell fired from an M74 mortar.

15             Do you recall being shown this material and being asked to mark

16     on portions of it?

17        A.   Yes, I do.

18             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P498,

19     page 20 of the B/C/S original, and page 17 of the English translation.

20        Q.   While this is coming up, I'm going to be starting with the BiH

21     MUP police ballistics analysis for Markale II.  I'm going to then, from

22     this, ask you to walk us through some materials today and then afterwards

23     I will have more detailed questions about the certain type of mortar

24     shells and tables.

25             MR. WEBER:  If I could please have the lower portion of the

Page 19015

 1     English version.

 2        Q.   Directing your attention to findings number 4 and 5 on this page,

 3     could you please tell us what type of shell fragments were found at the

 4     scene of the Markale II shelling.

 5        A.   From section -- sorry, paragraph 4, it states that parts

 6     belonging to the front curve part of a 120-millimetre light fuse contact

 7     high explosive-type shell.

 8        Q.   And does finding number 5 also correspond to a 120-millimetre

 9     light fuse contact high explosive-type shell?

10        A.   Yes, it does.

11        Q.   I'd like to directing your attention now up to findings number 2

12     and 3 on the same page.  Could you please tell us what type of fuse the

13     BiH concluded was used?

14        A.   In paragraph 2, they state that it belonged -- type of fuse

15     belonging to an M62 designed for mortar projectile 120-millimetre, and in

16     sub-para 3, again, it says M62 type fuse.

17        Q.   Okay.  I'd like to clarify this because the similarity in

18     numbers.  So I just wanted you to see this.  We're now going to move to

19     the JNA operations manual regarding 120-millimetre mortars.

20             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 30261,

21     page 159 of the B/C/S and page 119 of the English translation.

22        Q.   Mr. Higgs, the page that's coming up before you is from the

23     operation manual for the M74 and M75 mortars.

24             Directing your attention to section number 4, regarding the M62

25     UTU impact fuse with instantaneous and delayed action, is this the same

Page 19016

 1     type of fuse that the BiH police found at the location of the Markale II

 2     shelling?

 3        A.   This has the same designation number as the report we've just

 4     seen, correct.

 5        Q.   According to the first sentence of paragraph 385, could you

 6     please tell us the type of shell that an M62 UTU impact fuse is intended

 7     for?

 8        A.   The impact fuse is instantaneous and delayed actions intended for

 9     an M62 light contact-fuse shells.

10        Q.   Let's go to that part.

11             MR. WEBER:  In the same manual, could the Prosecution please have

12     page 142 of the B/C/S and page 106 of the English translation.

13        Q.   Directing your attention to number 6 for the M62 120-millimetre

14     light contact-fuse shell, can you just confirm that this is the same type

15     of shell that the M62 UTU fuse that we just looked at was intended for?

16        A.   Yes, it is.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  You asked the attention for -- to number 6.

18             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I believe it's --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Number 6 of what exactly?

20             MR. WEBER:  I believe it's right before paragraph 346.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It was transcribed as number 6.  And that's

22     how you understood.  346, yes.  Please proceed.

23             MR. WEBER:

24        Q.   Is this type of light contact-fuse shell consistent with the type

25     of shell fragments that the BiH police investigators found at the

Page 19017

 1     location of the Markale II shelling?

 2        A.   Yes, it is.

 3        Q.   On page 18908 of yesterday's transcript, you stated that the

 4     analysis of distances you performed for Markale II was based on the M62

 5     shell.  Is it correct that you used the firing tables corresponding to

 6     this type of light contact-fuse shell?

 7        A.   Yes, I did.

 8             MR. WEBER:  Now could the Prosecution please go to page 140 of

 9     the B/C/S and page 105 of the English translation of the manual.

10             And, Your Honours, I'm going to be focussing on the part right

11     above paragraph 343.

12        Q.   For completeness, I'd like to address with you the M49 P1 with

13     parenthetical designations of (OF-943) and (843/1).  At the heading on

14     this page it says it's a 120-millimetre modified contact-fuse shell.  If

15     you could please look at paragraph 343, is it correct that these shells

16     can also be used with the M62 UTU fuses?

17        A.   Yes, it states on line 3 that B-45 fuses were replaced with new

18     M62 fuses.

19        Q.   Now, this is described as a modified shell according to the

20     heading.  Before moving on, I'd like to draw your attention to the first

21     sentence of the paragraph numbered 343 which states:

22             "These are, in fact, modified shells described in

23     paragraphs 335-342."

24             Do you see that sentence?

25        A.   Yes, I do.

Page 19018

 1             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 137 of the

 2     B/C/S and page 103 of the English translation.

 3        Q.   According to the heading of section number 2 on this page, which

 4     is right above paragraph number 335, these following paragraphs relate to

 5     an OF-843 heavy contact-fuse shell.

 6             Could you please review this page and let me know when we can

 7     move to the next page.

 8        A.   Yes, I've read that.

 9             MR. WEBER:  And in the B/C/S version, the next page continues

10     through to the next two pages, in the B/C/S.  So if we could please have

11     the next page of the English translation.  I just want to note for the

12     record that it carries over for two pages in the B/C/S.

13        Q.   Mr. Higgs, could you please let me know when you've completed

14     your review of this page.

15        A.   Yes, I've read.

16        Q.   Thank you for reviewing those pages.

17             Do I correctly understand that a MP49 P1 shell is a type of heavy

18     contact-fuse shell, according to the paragraphs you just reviewed?

19        A.   Correct.

20        Q.   We will look at some specific data in a second.  But, first, I

21     would like to simply ask you whether a heavy contact-fuse shell is

22     different than the light contact-fuse shell found near the Markale market

23     by the BiH police investigators.

24        A.   From reading the text here is that the thickness of the wall is

25     different between the two rounds, so the two rounds do have different

Page 19019

 1     characteristics.

 2             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please now go to 65 ter 30458,

 3     page 2.  This is an uploaded excerpt of Defence 65 ter 1D1293, page 16.

 4             And in the B/C/S version, if we could please rotate clockwise

 5     90 degrees the page and then focus on the top half.

 6        Q.   Mr. Higgs, I'm going to be directing your attention to the chart

 7     on this page that its head is:  M74 mortar ammunition basic data.  Will

 8     you please let me know if you can locate the appropriate numbers

 9     corresponding to the M49 P1 series and also the M62 series?

10        A.   Is it possible to blow it up, make it a bit bigger, so that I can

11     see the data?

12             The top three lines relate to M49.  And then the -- we then have

13     a different types of M62s then at different lines further down the table.

14        Q.   And based on the data, could you please explain to us what the

15     significant difference is between an M49-type shell and an M62-type

16     shell?

17        A.   One of the main differences was explained in the previous

18     document, where the M49 has a thicker wall jacket to the explosive part

19     of the round.

20        Q.   I'd like to direct your attention to the shell mass without the

21     fuse.  If -- you can let me know whether or not there's a -- I view it

22     that there's -- that the M49 series weighs 15.780 kilograms.  Do you see

23     that?

24        A.   Yes, I do.

25        Q.   And the M62 series varies a little, but it weighs

Page 19020

 1     12.1 grams [sic] with the M62 being 12.160, and the M62 P3 being slightly

 2     lighter.  Do you see that?

 3        A.   Yes, I do.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  You wanted to refer to kilograms, I take it.

 5             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honour, kilograms.

 6        Q.   Would the difference in weight between -- or what -- what would

 7     be the significance of the difference in weight between these two types

 8     of series in terms of it -- the velocity of these shells, the height that

 9     they would achieve, and the distance that they would travel?

10        A.   The M49, for its extra weight, it would affect its maximum range

11     that it could achieve would be less; the vertex height it achieve would

12     also be less; and its velocities would be low as well.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, could I ask one additional question.

14             Is this a conclusion on basis of the weight or is it also

15     considering whether or not the charges, the propelling charges which are

16     used to fire it are the same or different.

17             THE WITNESS:  It would be taking comparable charges, Your Honour,

18     so a charge 2 on an M49 as opposed to a charge 2 on an M62.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, would you use the same propelling charges

20     for two such different kinds of shells?

21             THE WITNESS:  I'm not aware of the charges on the M49.  They

22     could be the same, but normally different types of ammunition would

23     possibly have different types of charge systems as well.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  So, therefore, any conclusion as, because they are

25     heavier they would travel slower with a shorter range is, if, as you

Page 19021

 1     said, is not usual if fired with the same propelling charges.

 2             THE WITNESS:  Correct, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And, therefore, then I think the answer should have

 4     been it depends on whether the propelling charges are specific ones for

 5     those heavier shells or whether they are fired, which is quite unusual,

 6     with the same charges.

 7             Is that the full answer?

 8             THE WITNESS:  That would be correct, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             Mr. Weber, please proceed.

11             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

12        Q.   Just on His Honour's question, directing your attention now over

13     to the right column, do I read correctly that certain types of M49 shells

14     can be used with the same type of additional charges as the M62 series

15     shells, depending on its type?

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Shall we first ask whether the table contains any

17     information as to the propelling charges being used with those?

18             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

19        Q.   Mr. Higgs, did you just hear His Honour's question or would you

20     like me to repeat it?

21        A.   Could you repeat the question.

22        Q.   Sure --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Does this table give any information about the

24     propelling charges to be used with this various kinds of shells?

25             THE WITNESS:  Yes, in the column second to the right,

Page 19022

 1     Your Honour, it gives a standard mark and then an additional one that can

 2     also be used.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And they are different for the first three compared

 4     to lines 4 and 5, isn't it?

 5             THE WITNESS:  Correct, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  So, therefore, the charges --

 7             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes?

 9             MR. WEBER:  I don't read line 5 as being different.  I see

10     your -- that line [Overlapping speakers] ...

11             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... let me see.

12             MR. WEBER:  [Overlapping speakers] ... it's different.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  First standard, M67 - I only read the first part -

14     second standard, M67; third standard, M67; fourth standard, M57; and then

15     the fifth standard, M74.

16             And then the additional charges for 1, 2, 3, and 5, seem to be

17     the same; whereas, for line 4, it seems to be a different one, the

18     additional charge is M56.

19             MR. WEBER:  That's how I read it too.  Thank you, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So standard different for the M62s.

21     Additional charges different for one of the two M62s and the same as for

22     the M49 for the other one.

23             MR. WEBER:

24        Q.   The last question I have on this chart is that since certain

25     types of M49s -- let me rephrase this.

Page 19023

 1             If an M49 series type shell, heavy contact shell, was using the

 2     same type of fuse, an M62 UTU, as an M62 light contact shell with the

 3     type of fuse make any type of difference in the flight of a mortar round?

 4        A.   No discernible difference.  The type of fuse wouldn't have a

 5     massive impact on the range, no, or the flight.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Would that even be true if the weight of the fuse

 7     would be considerably different from the other ones?

 8             THE WITNESS:  If that was the case, Your Honour, I have no

 9     evidence to prove that, but fuses are normally very similar types of

10     weights on this type of round.  But, yes, if -- if you did have a fuse

11     which was noticeably heavier, then, yes, it would have an impact.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Do we see on line 5 a fuse with the weight which is

13     approximately four times the weight of the other ones?  470 instead of

14     120.

15             THE WITNESS:  Correct, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Would you consider that to be a considerable

17     difference in weight?

18             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  With this type of fuse that would make a

19     difference.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

21             MR. WEBER:

22        Q.   Since we've gone through these materials, I'd just like to

23     confirm with you that the firing tables that you were shown by the

24     Defence for M49 P1, whether or not you can say those were the correct or

25     incorrect firing tables for the type of charge that was found at -- or

Page 19024

 1     type of shell that was found at the Markale II scene which indicated it

 2     was a light contact-fuse?

 3        A.   I believe they were the wrong range tables, as the round -- parts

 4     of the round discovered at that scene were M62.

 5             MR. WEBER:  I'm going to move on, Your Honours, but I know that

 6     this was some technical material, so I just wanted to pause to see if you

 7     had any further questions about it.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, where are the applicable fire tables?

 9             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, we're -- I believe that they should all

10     be tendered and in front of the Chamber, and I'm -- I think that we can

11     agree to admit both the ones that apply to the M49 P1s and also the M62

12     series, and the Chamber will have the data translated in front -- in

13     front of it to look at.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, do I understand that you would agree on

15     providing tables for different types of shells --

16             MR. LUKIC:  Absolutely, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  -- and then we'll see what the difference in outcome

18     is?

19             Please proceed.

20             MR. WEBER:

21        Q.   Mr. Higgs, during cross-examination, you were asked questions

22     about possible locations where mortar fire can originate from.  In

23     particular, you were asked about the area around Mount Trebevic on

24     transcript page 18815.  I just have a more general question:  What would

25     make a particular location suitable for the firing of a mortar?

Page 19025

 1        A.   When positioning in a mortar, first of all, is -- taking into

 2     consideration is their own protection, so you would not want to put it

 3     too close in an exposed position to obviously enemy fire.  So a protected

 4     location.  Also keeping it as close as you can to a confrontation lines,

 5     you're getting maximum effect for the ranges of the charges that a mortar

 6     could fire.  An example would be if you put -- placing your mortar so far

 7     to the rear where they have to fire at charge 6 at everything, then that

 8     may well be okay for a target which is directly in front of them, but if

 9     they're then called to engage a target which is further to the left or

10     the right or further away, they probably won't be able to reach it.  So

11     you want your mortars to be close enough where they can use a full range

12     of charge effectively but not that close where they put themselves in

13     jeopardy from direct fire weapons from the opposing forces.

14        Q.   Are there any physical characteristics of the ground or immediate

15     area that would be preferable or make a certain specific location better

16     for the firing of a mortar?

17        A.   One of the other advantages which we have already discussed is

18     altitude, so if you can get your mortars above the target locations, that

19     will effectively increase your ranges for every charge.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, if you intend to ask about surface

21     needed, flat or not, why not ask the witness because it seems that that's

22     what you're [Overlapping speakers] ...

23             MR. WEBER:  It is.  I just didn't want to lead the witness.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness express himself on what kind of

25     terrain you would need not for tactical purposes but for technical

Page 19026

 1     purposes?

 2             THE WITNESS:  Type of ground.  You can fire mortars, really, from

 3     any type of ground.  Obviously steep slopes cause an issue because the

 4     mortar needs to have predominantly a flatter surface to sit upon, which,

 5     of course, can be dug out.  But if you can find ground which is

 6     predominantly flat, it makes the preparation area simpler to do.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  How many square metres would you need for the mortar

 8     itself, not for the crew yet but ...

 9             THE WITNESS:  For 120-millimetre mortar possibly 4 square metres

10     of flight ground.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

12             Please proceed.

13             MR. WEBER:

14        Q.   In your previous testimony, you've discussed your experience with

15     mortar investigations.  I'd just like to, based on cross, ask you

16     generally, when is the best time to -- to conduct a crater analysis as

17     part of a mortar investigation?

18        A.   As soon as possible after the incident.

19        Q.   Could you please explain why that is the case.

20        A.   The quicker you can get to the location, obviously less

21     degradation of the crater as there will be flash marks on the ground

22     which could possibly be worn away with weather conditions.  So the sooner

23     you can get there and see it in its fresh state, the more accurate you

24     can be with your findings.

25        Q.   And in the investigative materials that you reviewed for your

Page 19027

 1     report, did you rely on the materials that were done as close in time to

 2     when the shelling occurred?

 3        A.   Yes, I did.

 4        Q.   Could you please explain why you did that.

 5        A.   Because for the reasons just mentioned.  The area -- sorry, the

 6     time as close as possible to when the incident took place, those

 7     investigations tend to be more accurate than if one was conducted at some

 8     time at later date.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask one question.

10             MR. WEBER:  Sure.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  If the ground which the shell impacts is very hard,

12     concrete or tarmac, would the difference in time be similarly important

13     or would it be less important?

14             THE WITNESS:  Probably less important as far as some of the major

15     scrapes that may be affecting the road, but you would still lose any of

16     the blast indications because they're obviously reliant on the weather.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  What do you exactly understand by blast indications?

18             THE WITNESS:  You may have a scorch marks which you could use on

19     the ground, and, of course, they would not last as long.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Any other blast marks?

21             THE WITNESS:  Not the ones that would be worn away by the

22     weather.  The other ones caused by the shrapnel, of course, on hard

23     ground would stay there a lot -- a lengthier time as opposed to, as you

24     said, soft ground where it would degrade far quicker.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Was it at any time that you relied upon -- on

Page 19028

 1     these blast marks, as you just described them to me?

 2             THE WITNESS:  Not in this -- as I could -- because I was using

 3     obviously the data from other forces could not, from the photographs

 4     supplied, really use those in any -- enough detail to see any of those

 5     marks.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Scorch marks were considered by you in

 7     photographs or did you take them into consideration in any specific way?

 8     Were they reported at the time?

 9             THE WITNESS:  Not as reported at the time.  No, I didn't,

10     Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  So the whole scorch marks is -- is not used either

12     by you, or you found them in the earlier reports?

13             THE WITNESS:  I didn't see specifically mentioned in the reports,

14     no.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  So, therefore, the difference of immediately

16     investigating and later looking at it, does not materialise in these

17     reports and in your findings?

18             THE WITNESS:  I didn't see anything specifically related to it.

19     I don't know if the teams on the ground used anything on calculating

20     their bearings or not, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

22             Please proceed.

23             MR. WEBER:  If I could just have one moment.

24                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

25             MR. WEBER:  Thank you for your patience.

Page 19029

 1        Q.   I'll now move onto another topic.  On Monday at transcript pages

 2     18776 to 18787 and Tuesday at transcript pages 18800 to 18809, you were

 3     asked questions related to annotated photographs from your past Karadzic

 4     report and your current Mladic case report which depict different angles

 5     for the street where the Markale II shell landed.

 6             In a question about these annotated photos at transcript

 7     page 18801, you stated with respect to your determination of the

 8     direction of fire that:

 9             "My conclusion didn't change.  My conclusion is still that the

10     round has come from a direction closely around 170 degrees."

11             Also at transcript page 18806, you stated in relation to these

12     photographs that:

13             "I am not carrying out a direct crater analysis."

14             I'm sorry, your quote was:

15             "I'm not carrying out here a direct crater analysis."

16             Do you recall the annotated photographs that I'm talking about?

17        A.   Yes, I do.

18        Q.   It was assumed in these questions that you were performing a

19     mathematical calculation of the direction of fire based on the direction

20     of the street.

21             I have the following question:  Does whatever angle the street

22     runs along have any effect on the measurement of the mortar crater to

23     determine the direction of fire?

24        A.   No, the investigation teams would not have used that in their

25     investigation.  They would have taken it from the pattern of the crater

Page 19030

 1     on the ground.

 2             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have -- excuse me,

 3     before moving on to that.

 4        Q.   This morning in relation to incident G4, the football match,

 5     Mr. Lukic asked you about the visibility of the soccer pitch from VRS

 6     positions.

 7             Can I ask you:  Is it necessary, or even common, for the soldier

 8     actually manning the mortar to have visibility of the intended target?

 9        A.   No, it's not necessary.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I just seek some verification.

11             Mr. Lukic, when you put the question to the witness, was it --

12     was it about small-arms fire or was it about mortars?  Visibility from

13     Serb positions to -- or both?

14             MR. LUKIC:  This morning I was talking about small-arms.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Small-arms.

16             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.

18             Please proceed.

19             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have P538 --

20             MR. LUKIC:  I'm sorry, I'm sorry.  I'm -- I'm recapitulating what

21     I was talking about.

22             At the end I was talking about small-arms, but before, at the

23     beginning of the day, I think I was talking about the mortar fire.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  That's the reason why I asked --

25             MR. LUKIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ... there was no visibility,

Page 19031

 1     according to our Defence, so you can apply it to any fire.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  That's why I asked:  Or both.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  I think this morning, in total, both.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.

 5             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I see it is the possible time for a

 6     break.  If I could break here.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We can take a break.

 8             How much time would you still need after the break, Mr. Weber?

 9             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I just have actually just one section

10     left.  I have gone quicker than I expected.  And then I do have a number

11     of housekeeping items that I was hoping to at least address and resolve

12     with the witness concerning the admission of the report and previous

13     testimony and things like that.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  And what does that mean in minutes for the -- for

15     the examination?

16             MR. WEBER:  I probably will be another, at most, seven to eight

17     minutes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And then there will still be some time left,

19     Mr. Lukic, if there is any need for further cross.

20             Could the witness follow the usher.

21                           [The witness stands down]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  We take a break, and we'll resume at ten minutes

23     to 2.00.

24                           --- Recess taken at 1.28 p.m.

25                           --- On resuming at 1.54 p.m.

Page 19032

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  While the witness is brought in ...

 2                           [The witness takes the stand]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, your last seven to eight minutes.

 4             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 5             Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P538, page 20 of the

 6     original, which is written in French, and page 28 of the B/C/S

 7     translation.

 8             Since this document is not in the witness's native language the

 9     Prosecution has brought clean copies of the English translation for the

10     witness and anyone else who would like a copy of the English translation.

11     The Prosecution has uploaded the English translation under 65 ter 100 --

12     I'm sorry, 10010B, as in boy.  We'll be asking that this be included with

13     the exhibit at the conclusion of the examination.

14             If I could ask the Court Officer to please hand the witness a

15     translation.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  May I take it there's no objection against attaching

17     the English translation to the French original.

18             MR. LUKIC:  No objections, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Then leave is granted to attach to P538, the English

20     translation.  Please proceed.

21             MR. WEBER:

22        Q.   Mr. Higgs, yesterday you were asked a number of questions about

23     the covers related to the Markale I shelling in February 1994.  Before

24     you is UNPROFOR Staff-Sergeant Dubant's report related to his examination

25     of the crater at the Sarajevo market.  I was wondering if you could

Page 19033

 1     please review this document and let us know when you're complete with it.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 4             MR. WEBER:  And for Your Honours, just in case you're interested,

 5     in the pages following in this report, in the uploaded version of P538,

 6     the sketches are present.

 7             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I've read that.  Thank you.

 8             MR. WEBER:

 9        Q.   Mr. Higgs, I just wanted to give you the time to read the full

10     report but what I'm going to focus on with you relates to the second

11     paragraph from the top, in particular, the portion that starts:

12             "I could see that the lateral spray which was clean and sharp had

13     been produced by direct impact on the ground.  We were able to rule out

14     the possibility that the mortar shell had hit one of the market stalls

15     before hitting the ground."

16             He then lists three points that led him to this conclusion.  In

17     reviewing these three-points, do you agree that these are consistent with

18     Staff-Sergeant Dubant's conclusion that the mortar made a direct impact

19     upon the ground?

20        A.   From seeing of the -- the photographs, the videos, and from

21     looking at the points here that this gentleman has made, yes, I would

22     concur that the round detonated when it hit the ground.

23             MR. WEBER:  That's all I have for re-examination.  At this time I

24     would re-tender a number of exhibits.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Before we move to that, Mr. Lukic, have the


Page 19034

 1     cross-examination [sic] has it --

 2             MR. LUKIC:  I just have a few questions, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 4             MR. WEBER:  And --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps we first deal with that, Mr. Weber, if you

 6     would not mind.

 7             MR. WEBER:  Of course, Your Honour.  Just so I don't lose track

 8     of it, there were a -- manual that -- there were two different -- I used

 9     the JNA manual and also the excerpt.  We will further discuss that with

10     the Defence, and then also if the Chamber has any preference on what

11     sections that they would see -- seek or like, we're happy to also include

12     those.  They are available under the 65 ter numbers.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then, again, you would prefer to first discuss

14     the matter with Mr. Lukic and then to make a joint -- or at least that

15     Mr. Lukic can add whatever he thinks relevant before you tender it.

16             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's accepted.  We will keep that in the

18     back of our mind.

19             Anything else, at this moment, Mr. Weber, before we move to a few

20     other matters.

21             Yes, Mr. Lukic.

22                           Further cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:

23        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Higgs, just briefly.  It has been suggested

24     to you that Defence erroneously used M49 tables, that, instead, we should

25     have used M62 tables.  Would you agree with me that M62 has a longer

Page 19035

 1     trajectory and that the vertex point of the trajectory would be higher if

 2     compared to the trajectory of M49?

 3        A.   Yes, that is correct.

 4        Q.   In your report on page 15, you have cited different ranges for

 5     charges 1, 2, 3, and 4.  When you were drafting this, did you use any

 6     tables at all in order to determine the ranges?

 7        A.   Yes, the M62 tables.

 8        Q.   Do you know the pages and the exhibits from which you extracted

 9     these data, and the tables as well?

10        A.   Not the page numbers, no.

11        Q.   It was also suggested to you today that it shouldn't have been

12     taken into account at all, regarding incident Markale II, the angle of

13     the street.  Would you agree with me that when you were doing your

14     measurements and calculations, you linked your findings to the curb of

15     the street - that is on page 14 of your report - which, in fact, contains

16     the direction of the street; is that correct?

17        A.   Yes, I used the angle of the street to give me an approximate

18     direction.

19        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Higgs.  This is all that I wanted to ask you.

20     Thank you again.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Lukic.

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23                           Questioned by the Court:

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I have one question.  We looked at this French

25     report a minute ago, the three reasons given why the impact would have


Page 19036

 1     been on the ground rather than to hit a stall.

 2             Now, I saw that that black marking is the black markings which I

 3     do understand to be scorch marks is mentioned here.  Have you considered

 4     this report when preparing your report?

 5        A.   No, I have not seen this before today, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  That was only for the first time.  Okay.  Thank you.

 7             No further questions for you.

 8             Then do we need the presence of the witness to deal with the

 9     administrative matters?

10             MR. WEBER:  No, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  If not, I would like to thank you, Mr. Higgs, very

12     much for coming a long way to The Hague and for having answering all the

13     questions that were put to you, either by the parties or by the Bench,

14     and we regret that we were not able to release you any earlier, but at

15     least now you can travel home again.

16             THE WITNESS:  Thank you very much, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  You may follow the usher.

18                           [The witness withdrew]

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, I have a few matters.

20             I think, in relation to D399, you raised that one before, that

21     was the Google Earth map, which was marked for identification to give you

22     some time to consider your position.  You addressed that exhibit.

23             Is there any position yet by the Defence, or is it a matter

24     you'll further work out?

25             MR. LUKIC:  Your Honour, as you know, I'm not privy with the


Page 19037

 1     Sarajevo area, so --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, okay.  Then --

 3             MR. LUKIC:  I have to check it.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We'll then leave that for the time being.

 5             Then I move to D356, excerpts of the 82-millimetre mortar manual.

 6     D356 was MFI'd during the testimony of Witness Turkusic.  And the

 7     Prosecution indicated in an informal communication that the parties

 8     discussed the tendering of additional excerpts but that it was still

 9     awaiting a translation.  The Chamber wondered whether there's any update

10     in that respect.

11             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, correct.  We made a selection of

12     additional portions of that, some of which was not translated.  Since it

13     was our selections, we did put in translation request which we were told

14     would be available in a month from the date of that communication.  So at

15     the point in time that -- as earlier as possible when those translations

16     are available, if it's okay with the Chamber if we could address it and

17     then seek admission at that time.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  The date of that communication being?

19             MR. WEBER:  I'd have to look that up, that precise date.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  But is that 28 days ago or was it yesterday?

21             MR. WEBER:  It was before yesterday.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Which leaves still 26 days.

23             I do understand that it was somewhere at the end of October.  So,

24     therefore, most likely another two and a half to three weeks to wait for.

25             Then, finally, the witness's report.  Unless there's anything to

Page 19038

 1     be said in addition at this very moment to what has been submitted

 2     already previously.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Nothing -- nothing, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we have considered the parties' filings and we

 5     have heard the testimony of the witness, and the Chamber decides to admit

 6     the witness's report previously marked as P2605, as well as the witness's

 7     previous testimony marked as P2606 and P2607.

 8             In addition, the Registry is instructed to replace the current

 9     version of P2606 with the corrected version, which was uploaded under

10     Rule 65 ter number 30277a.

11             Is there ... have the parties any further matters?  If not ...

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

14             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, you took care of most of my matters.

15     The one other matter that I had is that we did prepare a table of

16     concordance for both the items referenced in the report and also the

17     items referenced in the previous testimony tendered pursuant to

18     Rule 92 ter.  This table is available under 65 ter 30453 and that we ask

19     that it be admitted at this time.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, no objection, I take it.  It's purely

21     instrumental --

22             MR. LUKIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ... no objections.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... instrumental and doesn't

24     add anything.

25             Mr. Registrar, the number for 65 ter 30453 would be?

Page 19039

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  P2628, Your Honours.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 3             I will briefly deal with one more matter, which is the

 4     Prosecution request for leave to reply to the Defence response to the

 5     military justice bar table motion.

 6             The Chamber recalls that on the 25th of October, the Prosecution

 7     requested an extension of seven days in which to file a request for leave

 8     to reply to the Defence response to the military justice bar table

 9     motion.  This request was granted by the Chamber on the 28th of October,

10     whereby the Chamber stated that the seven-day extension was running as of

11     that day, the 28th of October, making the deadline the 4th of November.

12             The request for leave to reply and the attached reply were filed

13     on the 5th of November, 2013.  The Chamber considers this filing to be:

14     One, a request for leave to reply; and, second, a corrigendum to the

15     motion withdrawing the tendering of four documents.

16             Considering that the reply was filed on the 5th of November, the

17     Chamber will, pursuant to Rule 126 bis, deny the requested leave to

18     reply, as the filing was submitted after the expiration of the prescribed

19     deadline.  The Chamber will, however, consider the withdrawal of the

20     tendering of four documents as indicated by the Prosecution in the

21     request for leave to reply as a corrigendum.  For the clarity of the

22     record, the Chamber invites the Prosecution to specify which documents

23     are subject to the withdrawal.

24             It's time to adjourn.

25             MR. LUKIC:  If I may swiftly, Your Honour.

Page 19040

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Lukic.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Sorry.  We just want to attach one English

 3     translation to one of the MFI'd documents.  It's 1D1355, now D389, MFI'd.

 4     There is English translation under doc ID 1D06-0678.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Again, what was the document, Mr. Lukic?

 6             MR. LUKIC:  It was D389.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  No.  What was the document about?

 8             MR. LUKIC:  I just got this message from our Case Manager, so

 9     I --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  And I will give you a similar message that we'll --

11     we'll grant leave to attach the English translation to the document MFI'd

12     as D389.

13             D389 is admitted into evidence and if there's any problem with

14     the English translation or if there's any other reason for objections by

15     the Prosecution, we'd like to hear not any later than by Tuesday.

16             MR. WEBER:  Understood, Your Honour, and thank you.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

18             Then we adjourn for the day, and we'll resume Monday, the

19     11th of November, and if I'm not mistaken in this same Courtroom III, at

20     9.30 in the morning.

21                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.17 p.m.,

22                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 11th day of

23                           November, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.