1 Monday, 30 June 2008

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, please call

7 the case.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case

9 number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Jadranko Prlic et al.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11 Today, is Monday, the 30th of June, 2008. My greetings to the

12 witness first, who's going to start testifying in a few minutes.

13 Good afternoon to the Defence counsel, the accused, the OTP

14 representatives, and all the people helping us out.

15 Witness, can you please state your first name, surname, and date

16 of birth.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am Slobodan Jankovic. I was born

18 on the 10th of August, 1932.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness. Well, I

20 can hear you speak French. Thank you for that.

21 Can you please tell me what is your current occupation.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am a retired university

23 professor.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Have you had an opportunity to

25 testify before a court; if so, in which case?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was a witness here as an expert

2 witness on two occasions, in the Blaskic case first and then in the

3 Kordic case.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Have you testified before a

5 domestic court?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, throughout my career I

7 was an expert on many occasions.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please read out the solemn

9 declaration.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will tell

11 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Please be seated.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, sir, some explanation on

15 the way the hearing is going to take place. As you have been a witness

16 on two occasions in the Blaskic and Kordic cases, I'm not going to

17 surprise you in saying what I'm about to say. You will first have to

18 answer questions by the Defence of General Praljak. I suppose you've met

19 his counsel, Mr. Kovacic, prior to this hearing. The overall time

20 scheduled is one hour for those questions. Following this part of the

21 proceedings, the other Defence counsel sitting on your left-hand side can

22 also ask questions of you. We have decided to grant them 50 per cent of

23 their time, that is 30 minutes, if they have questions to put as part of

24 their own cross-examination.

25 Thereafter, the Office of the Prosecutor, represented by the two

1 people sitting on your right-hand side will ask questions as part of

2 their cross-examination and they will have one hour and 30 minutes to do

3 so.

4 You have four Judges in front of you. I'm sure they're bound to

5 ask questions themselves based on the evidence submitted through your

6 answers, following questions by all the parties. You're a professor, as

7 such you know very well that you have to be very concise in your answers.

8 If you fail to understand the meaning of a question, do not hesitate, ask

9 the person asking you the question to rephrase it.

10 We usually break every 90 minutes for 30 -- for 20 minutes; but

11 if you do not feel well, if you wish to have a short break, just raise

12 your right hand and we'll have a break straight away. That can happen.

13 We've known instances such as that. Of course the Trial Chamber is

14 available to you should you have questions for the Judges.

15 You have just made a solemn declaration; that means that from now

16 on you are a witness of justice of the Court. You're no longer a witness

17 of General Praljak's Defence, since your oath commits yourself to tell

18 the truth and you are a witness of justice. In other words, if we fail

19 to finish today, if we have to carry on your testimony tomorrow, you're

20 not supposed to have any contact with General Praljak's Defence.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's very clear. Thank you.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is what I wanted to convey

23 to you before I give the floor to Mr. Kovacic. But before I do so I

24 forgot that our registrar has two IC numbers to give us. Can you give

25 them to us?

1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, there are two lists of documents

2 tendered through Witness Zarko Primorac. Prlic Defence list will become

3 Exhibit IC 818, and Prosecution list will become Exhibit IC 819. Thank

4 you.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Madam Registrar.

6 Mr. Kovacic, you may proceed.

7 MR. KOVACIC: [Microphone not activated]

8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

9 MR. KOVACIC: Sorry.

10 WITNESS: SLOBODAN JANKOVIC

11 [Witness answered through interpreter]

12 Examination by Mr. Kovacic:

13 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. I

14 thank you for allowing me to start. Good afternoon to everyone in the

15 courtroom.

16 A very good afternoon to Mr. Jankovic, Professor Jankovic. I

17 thank you for coming here.

18 Q. Professor, I will be addressing you as Professor Jankovic, I

19 think that is appropriate, in view of your status.

20 A. That's the thing that is usually done.

21 Q. Thank you very much. Professor, just for your own comfort, I'm

22 not sure if you've been told, you could use channel 5 to listen to the

23 French and channel 6 to listen to the Croatian, so whichever you like

24 best. Secondly, you're apparently willing to testify in French. We're

25 only too glad to have you go ahead with that, especially for the benefit

1 of the Trial Chamber. This will be much better in terms of us being able

2 to avoid technical difficulties and misunderstandings. So you want to go

3 on and testify in French, right?

4 A. [Previous translation continues] ...

5 Q. During the introduction by the Presiding Judge you mentioned that

6 you have already testified before domestic courts, national courts, as an

7 expert. A question about that, because our system is different, just to

8 make sure the Chamber understands. Where we come from, experts are given

9 permanent status with a certain Tribunal or court, right?

10 A. Yes, I did.

11 Q. That's what I wanted to hear. Thank you. And you testified at

12 several trials, right?

13 A. Exactly so.

14 Q. I would like to ask you several questions about your CV, since

15 you appear here as an expert, just to try to demonstrate your

16 professional qualifications. With the approval of the Chamber and with

17 the agreement of my learned friends I would try to lead the witness here

18 because this might prove to be very time-saving.

19 Professor, based on your CV you were born in Brussels, you went

20 to the Polytechnic in Brussels and then the applied school of artillery,

21 right?

22 A. That's right.

23 Q. As far as I understand, a degree in civilian -- in civil

24 engineering to do with weapons would be a civilian equivalent of this?

25 A. Yes.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, Witness, you have

2 to wait before answering because the interpreters work from two booths

3 and they have to wait. So when Mr. Kovacic is finished, you have to

4 count until five and then you can answer.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

6 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] My apologies. This is my mistake.

7 I was hurrying along in a bid to save time.

8 Q. This is civil engineering with a specialty in weaponry, that

9 would be the civilian equivalent, right?

10 A. Yes, that's right.

11 Q. And then your graduate studies in Belgrade in 1964, the

12 engineering faculty in Belgrade, right?

13 A. No, I graduated from the school of mathematics.

14 Q. Thank you very much. And then in 1968 you took your Ph.D. in

15 Belgrade, right?

16 A. In the school of mechanics, civil engineering -- mechanical

17 engineer.

18 Q. What about your work after that, was it flight mechanics and aero

19 mechanics?

20 A. Yes, I did.

21 Q. After that, sir, Professor Jankovic - and I'll try to save time

22 here - you worked with the army, with the institute for development

23 specifically, other sectors of the army too, but you spent most of your

24 time there. You worked in the country's industry and you worked at both

25 civilian and military faculties as a professor, right?

1 A. It is exact.

2 Q. Professor, you published a lot of articles, works of research. I

3 think over 40 if my count is correct, in addition to which you published

4 six books from your own field of research, right?

5 A. That's right.

6 Q. Your last important work was published at an important

7 international ballistics conference in San Antonio in the USA in 2000,

8 right?

9 A. That is so.

10 Q. From the early 1990s on, you have been working with the

11 ship-building institute in Zagreb?

12 A. I would add that that year I retired, but the Croatian army

13 recalled me because they needed me and I worked then in that institute.

14 Q. Some people may not know Zagreb or its institutions. Can you

15 please explain in a couple of words what this institute is because the

16 name itself does not really tell us what it is. Can you please so kind

17 as to explain in no more than a couple of words the nature of this

18 institution?

19 A. Until 1990, the institute was mainly working on boat-building,

20 but then when there was a change in states, when there was a new Croatia,

21 that institute became a technical institute, taking in -- taking charge

22 of all complicated projects and that's why they called me.

23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Excuse me.

24 Before it disappears, I believe that I heard that the San Antonio

25 conference was in 2004, whilst I see on lines 7 and 8 2000, not 2004.

1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] What's reflected in the record is

2 correct, Your Honour, 2000.

3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Thank you.

4 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Professor, in addition to all of this you are also a consultant

6 with a recently established state agency, which in a way promotes

7 scientific projects, particularly those of a multi-disciplinary nature

8 and it promotes the work of young scientists. Can you tell us briefly

9 what the work of this institution is about?

10 A. Yes, it is a parliament agency whose purpose is to help new

11 companies when they develop intricate projects through funding. I am a

12 consultant inasmuch as a project will first arrive in my office and then

13 I'll give an opinion on it.

14 Q. Thank you very much. I think this is quite sufficient as far as

15 your scientific background is concerned.

16 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] If no one has a problem and if

17 Your Honours have no further questions to ask, I'd like to move on to my

18 next subject.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Since we're looking into your

20 professional achievements, it seems that you were a JNA officer. Is that

21 so?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I was an

23 officer, an active JNA officer. Once I finished my studies in Brussels

24 at the Polytechnical School and in the applied school until 1972. Then I

25 left the active service, but I remained as a scientist as part of the

1 army but as a civilian scientist.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What was your rank when you

3 left the JNA?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A lieutenant-colonel.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

6 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, just to put a question.

7 What was your service, what was your specialty in the JNA?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Technical service, but mainly for

9 artillery questions.

10 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

11 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

12 Q. Let us now move on to our next subject. Professor, you were

13 working with a number of people, we will get to that later who exactly,

14 and you drew up an opinion at the request of General Praljak, it's

15 called: "The analysis of the destruction of the Old Bridge based on

16 available video footage." January 2006 is the date of this document.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Just for the record, we submitted this document on the 9th of

19 May. The number is 3D 03208. Professor, bearing in mind the nature of

20 this type of research, is this a job that requires a multi-disciplinary

21 approach?

22 A. Whenever we have to examine a technical event that took place

23 somewhere, it is a complicated process. Many disciplines are involved in

24 the event. That's quite normal. Because of that, more often than not,

25 we'll work as a team, not as individuals.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The video 3D 03208, do you plan

2 to show it or not?

3 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Yes, we'll soon be getting to that.

4 It has two parts.

5 Q. Professor, just to make sure my understanding is correct does

6 this mean that in addition to your general experience as an engineer in

7 various fields you needed to use your specialist knowledge as well in a

8 variety of different fields in order to deal with the task you were

9 facing?

10 A. Indeed, it is always the case whenever we examine past technical

11 events we need to have very advanced knowledge.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, try and avoid

13 putting leading questions. This one was a tiny bit leading.

14 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I do agree that this is a leading

15 question, Your Honour, but this is still part of my introduction and

16 that's why I took the liberty. I will now be coming to a section of my

17 examination where I will no longer be asking leading questions. Thank

18 you very much for the caution anyway.

19 Q. Professor, we have established that the analysis was written up

20 by an entire team of people working on it. Can you tell us about the

21 other members of this team, their names and their fields of research?

22 A. Yes, these are two colleagues I used to work with at the

23 institute, at the boat-building institute, they are Aleksandar Sikanic,

24 he is a projectile builder, that's the reason why I invited him on to the

25 team; and the other is Suceska, he's an explosive specialist, since this

1 was also an event concerned with explosives, so I invited him too. And

2 we worked as a team.

3 Q. Professor, you've broached the topic in reply to one of my

4 previous questions, but let's try to be more specific about it. Is there

5 any other reason, aside from purely specialised knowledge, why a project

6 like this would be tackled by an entire team of people? Does this

7 broaden or deepen our understanding of any particular technical issue

8 involved?

9 A. It's always a good thing to have a team because you can exchange

10 views; you know, the more there are, the more we know.

11 Q. Let's try to be even more specific. You work on this project and

12 then a question arises, for example, someone comes up with a theory.

13 Does group work yield better results in these terms? Does it make it

14 easier to study a given theory just because there are several different

15 points of view involved in this research? Does that corroborate any

16 conclusions that are reached even more than individual work might?

17 A. Absolutely. If a problem crops up, we'll discuss it, we'll

18 thrash it out --

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Professor.

20 The Prosecution is on its feet.

21 MS. WEST: Thank you, Your Honours. My name again is Kim West.

22 I just recently joined the OTP and I'll be handling the cross-examination

23 of this witness. I would just point out for the Chamber that I think

24 counsel is now again getting into a leading question, and I would just

25 ask that the questions be open-ended.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Kovacic, do endeavour

2 not to lead.

3 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Your Honours. I do

4 admit that this was a leading question to some extent. I didn't feel

5 that the topic was particularly sensitive, though.

6 Q. Perhaps to save a minute or two, Professor, as for

7 Dr. Muhamed Suceska and Dr. Aco Sikanic, they were your partners on this

8 project. Just for the benefit of the transcript, let me say this: The

9 documents were distributed to the parties, 3D 03220, and

10 Professor Sikanic, 3D 03221.

11 Professor, these documents were attached to your analysis, as you

12 know. Do you agree that the curricula of your fellow researchers are

13 accurate? You can go back to that folder that you've got. I believe you

14 leafed through it already. These are the third and fourth documents in

15 your folder.

16 A. Yes, I know. No need to look at the documents. I know these

17 people. They are professors as well. They are doctors in sciences.

18 They are very competent people, very knowledgeable in their fields.

19 Q. Thank you very much. Now I would like to move on to the next

20 topic, unless the Trial Chamber has any questions. I would now like to

21 move on to the analysis itself.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] With regard to the curricula,

23 just one question. Professor, I haven't had time - please forgive me for

24 that - to read all your publications and those by your excellent

25 colleague Mr. Suceska, but I'm under the impression - and please correct

1 me if I'm wrong - my impression is that you -- you are a specialist in

2 projectiles, missiles, and any other means of carrying explosives, that

3 is your main expertise; whilst Professor Suceska, from a very cursory

4 examination of his articles, seems to be a specialist in what is in the

5 missile or about the core of the explosive charge. So he seemed to be

6 more of a specialist in explosives, and you together -- well, you are

7 sort of complementary, him and you. Am I wrong? Please correct me if I

8 am.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, you're not wrong, but I could

10 also add something. I studied at Ecole Polytechnique, so my knowledge

11 encompasses all these issues. Since we were dealing with explosives, I

12 thought it was better to have a specialist on board for very detailed

13 problems because when you sort of have a broad approach you may forget

14 details. And third thing, we invited Sikanic onto the team because he

15 builds projectiles, so he's aware of details -- well, I know that matter

16 as well very well, but you have to know the weaponry and all the details

17 pertaining to them. You need to have all the information. So as a team

18 we could encompass everything and we also knew right into the details,

19 which we needed when it came to this analysis.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

22 Q. So the analysis itself, for the record, was assigned number

23 3D 03208. You have it in front of you, Professor. My first question to

24 you was: What was the task? What was this expert opinion all about?

25 A. At the very beginning, we received the recordings and we were

1 asked to deliver an opinion. Indeed, until then the only accepted truth

2 was that the bridge had been destroyed by a tank, and we were asked to

3 see whether we could confirm that or not through our analysis. That was

4 our starting point.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Professor, prior to the hearing

6 I was thinking of this -- well, the tank. We may see some video

7 recordings of a tank firing at the bridge. Of course Judges cannot sort

8 of master all the evidence because we depend on evidence adduced by the

9 parties, but from memory I seem to remember that the crew of the tank

10 were subject to disciplinary proceedings following the firing. Could you

11 have access to the files arising from the disciplinary proceedings

12 against the tank crew or could you not?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, we don't know anything about

14 it. We couldn't access them. The only thing we had were the recordings

15 and our conclusions, our findings, are based solely on the recordings.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic.

17 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.

18 Q. So having done this analysis - and we see the results here in the

19 form of this report - what was the main conclusion of your analysis?

20 A. Shall I go straight to the conclusion then?

21 Q. Well, I propose that we go back and deal with the details later,

22 but now I would --

23 MR. KOVACIC: It's me, Your Honour, I was -- I was checking

24 something shortly before the trial and I forget. I'm sorry.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, I hope that you're

1 not going to get the conclusion through your telephone.

2 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, but I have

3 problems switching it off completely to be quite honest with you. [In

4 English] I didn't do that much before the trial, but this time I was

5 checking whether the witness was here, et cetera. [Interpretation] Once

6 again, my apologies to the Trial Chamber.

7 Q. So bearing in mind the task that was given to you, let us now go

8 into conclusions as a whole but could you please give us the key, the

9 main conclusion that answers the question that was defined in the task.

10 So what was the conclusion of your analysis?

11 A. Without explaining how we arrived at the conclusion, here was the

12 conclusion. It is highly probable that the bridge was destroyed by an

13 explosive charge, that was our final conclusion; but I would like to

14 explain how we got there.

15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Excuse me, Mr. Kovacic, but I'd

16 like to ask a question about terminology of the witness.

17 Now, you speak about destruction, but there is another term that

18 is "ecroulement," collapse, are they synonymous in your mind or do you

19 think there's a difference ?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a rather tricky question, a

21 tough one. I'd like to answer your question with the video recordings.

22 When I mention collapse, I think that the bridge would fall into the

23 water; and if I speak of destruction, well, the bridge is destroyed, it

24 no longer exists. That would be my thought. That's what I meant.

25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Thank you.

1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's remain with semantics.

3 Must there be first destruction and then collapse, or can both happen

4 together?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I would say that the bridge

6 is destroyed after it has collapsed. There is first collapse and then

7 destruction. It collapsed, therefore it is destroyed. But it may be

8 that my French is not good enough but that's how --

9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] I don't know whether

10 Judge Mindua wants to ask the same question. I'll give him the right of

11 way.

12 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] No, let's talk about the process.

13 Destruction is the final result, and collapse, that's the event.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right. That's exactly

15 that. Thank you for your help.

16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Well, it may be that my question

17 is a little thornier. Now, does your answer imply that if there's no

18 collapse there's no destruction? Does your answer mean that if there's

19 no collapse there's no destruction? Is that what you mean? Is that so?

20 Is that right?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if there is collapse there is

22 destruction, but there can be other destruction also.

23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24 MR. KOVACIC: [Microphone not activated]

25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Thank you very much. I hope that this has been helpful.

3 Bearing in mind that you have explained in your answers that your

4 analysis was based on the available video materials, that's noted in the

5 title itself of the paper that you wrote, I would like to ask you to

6 describe what video materials were available and what materials you used

7 to do this analysis.

8 A. We were given several recordings, amongst which there were two in

9 relation to those events. The first recording came from the Austrian TV,

10 TV ORF2; as for the second recording, it came from TV Mostar. So those

11 were the two recordings that we analysed.

12 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to ask my associate to play the ORF2

13 recording and then the other one so that you could confirm that those

14 were the two video recordings that you were dealing with in your

15 analysis.

16 [Videotape played]

17 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Well, fine.

18 Q. We saw two short segments. Could you identify and confirm that

19 the first one is the ORF2 material, as we call it?

20 A. That's right.

21 Q. And could you please confirm that the second one is the so-called

22 Mostar video?

23 A. That's right.

24 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have IC numbers for

25 the two clips that we saw, the first and the second video-clip, for

1 technical reasons?

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar.

3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the first video will become

4 Exhibit IC 820, and the second video will become Exhibit IC 821. Thank

5 you.

6 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

7 Q. So your analysis is based on these materials, as we learned from

8 your answers. There is reference to a third video recording in your

9 analysis. Could you please explain to us what is the third video-clip,

10 why and how it was done.

11 A. The third video-clip was a recording of our experiment, an

12 experiment which we made in order, first of all, to confirm our

13 assumption; and secondly, to confirm certain elements for your purposes.

14 In our opinion as specialists we didn't need that experiment, but we

15 wanted to show to other people that a comparison could be made which

16 would allow us to understand better what happened.

17 Q. Fine. Now I would like to ask my associate to play the third

18 video-clip so that you could identify it.

19 [Videotape played]

20 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Could we play it again.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right.

22 [Videotape played]

23 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have an IC number

24 for this video recording too.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, could you give

1 an exhibit number to the third video-clip.

2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be Exhibit IC 822.

3 Thank you.

4 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

5 And this brings us to the very essence --

6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] I have a small question. As for

7 the third video-clip, we saw the same event twice -- one event twice.

8 Was it the same video that we saw twice or was that a video with two

9 sequences?

10 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you saw the same

11 footage twice because the clip lasts for only a couple of seconds and the

12 professor would come back to it later. The only reason why we played it

13 now was to identify the clips because it says in the title of the paper

14 that it -- the analysis was done on the basis of available video material

15 so we just wanted to identify them.

16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, you just mentioned

18 three video recordings, the first one is IC 820. Was that recording shot

19 by the Austrian TV ORF2? The second video, IC 821, was made by

20 TV Mostar. As for the third video, IC 822, this one was a recording for

21 our purposes. But it seems to me that during the testimony of one

22 witness we saw a video, and on that shooting we saw balls, the bridge

23 collapsed, and there was a water gush rising above the water. In the

24 first two video-clips I didn't quite clearly see that. What can you tell

25 us about that?

1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there are other

2 recordings, but if I'm not mistaken, we've seen in this courtroom

3 sections of 821 and of 820, the Mostar video and ORF respectively; and

4 now we've played just a critical portion, the destruction, the collapse

5 of the bridge that is at the core of what the Professor analysed. So

6 they are not interested in what happened before and what happened later,

7 they only analysed the critical moments. But yes, at least one of those

8 recordings have been seen in this courtroom.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] If you allow me I would like to

11 ask a follow-up question.

12 Professor, we saw three video-clips which lasted a few seconds

13 each. Besides those clips, have you seen other footage?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have. I have seen many, in

15 fact, but we did not need them. They were not useful for our purposes.

16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, maybe we will view

18 those recordings later, but personally, I would like very much to see the

19 footage with tracer bullets. On that video we can hear the tanks firing,

20 we can see the bridge collapsing, but what is particularly important is

21 that we see a water pillar vertically to the direction of the bridge.

22 And I think this should be asked -- this should be put to the witness.

23 Maybe we will have time enough to see that video, but in any case I would

24 very much like to see that video again, a video which we have already

25 seen on a couple of occasions.

1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. President --

2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Sorry, Mr. Kovacic, I see that the

3 translation - and it's not an accident that I'm turning to English - the

4 translation speaks of a pillar, a water pillar. The President has said a

5 "mur d'eau" which would be a wall of water rather than a pillar.

6 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judge Trechsel. Yes, I

7 understand that it is in reference to the same phenomenon, so there is no

8 confusion here.

9 But to answer, Mr. President, if you allow me with regard to what

10 you said about water plume or the water wall, you will see this part soon

11 because this is the very essence of the expert analysis and we will see

12 this several times so that everybody has a good chance to see it. We

13 will come to it soon enough.

14 But as regards your second request, indicating that you would

15 like to see what we have seen in this courtroom before again, the

16 shelling of the bridge, the artillery shells, as we have been told; but

17 with all due respect - and my associates may correct me if I'm wrong - we

18 don't have it here with us but we will be able to produce it, I'm sure,

19 after the break. But for the time being, I propose that we do it this

20 way. You will be able to see it later, and I'm sure that the Professor

21 will be able to explain to us why the video starts at a certain point.

22 If you allow me, I would like to continue.

23 Q. Professor, I think this would be the most efficient way to

24 proceed. Could you please explain in broad-brush strokes how you did

25 your analysis, the methodology that you used, and the most important

1 thing how and why you reached the conclusion that we have already

2 mentioned here today. So I'm not going to be asking you questions, but

3 I'm going to let you use your own words.

4 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] My associates --

5 Q. I'm sorry, Professor, just a moment.

6 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] My associates tell me that the

7 registry does have copies of all the videos that were mentioned and that

8 we saw earlier, but at any rate we can make a short break and then we

9 will retrieve one of those but I don't think it will be necessary. But

10 we'll see how -- we'll see that as we go along.

11 Q. But, Professor Jankovic, at any rate, please do continue.

12 A. First of all, as far as the technique goes, I remember that the

13 three of us worked together all the time. Whenever we drew a conclusion,

14 this conclusion was the result of our exchanges.

15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, could you please

16 switch off your microphone.

17 THE INTERPRETER: Switch the microphone off, please.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With respect to the subject I will

19 drop all the technical details which are included in our report. I will

20 try and explain to you how we drew our conclusions. First of all, we try

21 and figured out how the tank could have destroyed the bridge because

22 there was a 100-millimetre gun on this gun and we knew that every

23 projectile was half a kilo, and that was not sufficient to destroy a

24 stone bridge. Several shots would have been necessary to destroy this

25 bridge because all the shells cannot fall, impact, on the same place. So

1 the distance would have been a circle of 1 metre -- the diameter would

2 have been 1 metre.

3 I think we have a problem with the translation. I need to stop

4 now and -- the distance was 1.400 metres. If the gun fires always at the

5 same point, if the aim is always the same, the tank cannot hit always the

6 same point; but if the fire elements are not modified, the radius would

7 be 1 metre. So you would have to fire several shells in order to make a

8 dent in the bridge so that it collapses. That's what we were looking

9 for, and we could not find it anywhere in the recordings. We could see

10 that the tank was firing, that there was damage, but sometimes the tank

11 would fire in one corner and then in another corner. So the firing did

12 not aim always at the same point, not to the point where it could create

13 a dent in the bridge. In such a case, five or six shots within a radius

14 of 1 metre would have been necessary, but we have not seen that;

15 therefore, we could not conclude that the bridge had been destroyed by

16 the tank.

17 Furthermore, if you consider the speed of the projectiles, about

18 700 metres per second, and in view of the number of shots per second by

19 the TV cameras, every time that there is firing it can be seen and

20 recorded. Therefore, the camera which recorded the collapsing of the

21 bridge probably had the projectile in the previous frames, but we were

22 not able to see that. We haven't found it. In view of those two

23 elements we concluded that even though we do not know the reason for the

24 collapse for sure, we could conclude that the bridge didn't collapse

25 because of the projectiles.

1 The bridge was damaged, nobody questions that; but as you

2 mentioned, Your Honour, we saw a water gush or a water pillar, you call

3 it a water wall. We were able to explain what was the reason for that.

4 We see it on two recordings, the recordings made by TV Mostar and the

5 recordings made by ORF2. The only explanation to us was that there was a

6 detonating cord underneath the water. This cord was ignited, and the gas

7 liberated by the explosion were such that the water rose.

8 We needed to verify the situation, even though it was clear to

9 us, but we wanted to show that there was a detonating cord. That's the

10 reason why we did that experiment on a lake. We positioned a cord

11 underneath the water, we ignited it, and we saw that there was this same

12 water wall which I call a water pillar.

13 In slow motion -- you should see in slow motion the recordings

14 made by ORF2 and then the recordings of our experiment, both should be

15 seen in slow motion.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Before we move to

17 another subject, as you can imagine I was listening to you very

18 carefully. The destruction of the Old Bridge is very important in the

19 indictment. Furthermore, it has a symbolical importance. It is

20 therefore very important that the Bench doesn't make mistakes as to what

21 really happened. I was listening to you very carefully, and I have

22 noticed that you just stated that the tank gun had 100-millimetre

23 calibre. This tank could only fire shells weighing one and a half kilo.

24 Therefore, a shell which hits the bridge weighs 1500 grams. Is that so?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will repeat what I said. It was

1 a T-55 tank. This T-55 tank had a 100-millimetre calibre gun. This gun

2 can use several types of projectiles, piercing shells, all the types of

3 shells, I cannot remember how they're called, I don't use them, and there

4 are also explosive shells. Those explosive shells weigh some 15 kilos,

5 200 grams. That is the weight of the projectile. Within the projectile

6 you have an explosive charge which weighs one and a half kilos

7 approximately, 1.46 kilogrammes. That is the explosive charge which

8 destroys the aim, the target.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This explosive charge weighs

10 1.6?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, 1.46 kilo.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You said that the explosive

13 charge can only hit the bridge within a diameter of one metre.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, let me explain. I have to

15 enter into details. That explosive shell is not designed to destroy or

16 pierce the bridge; its aim is to kill people, kill the enemy. It was

17 used in that case, but I do not know why. That projectile was not meant

18 to pierce, it was not the right kind of ammunition to destroy the bridge.

19 If we want to be precise, that gun was designed at fighting against other

20 tanks. That's why you have those piercing shells. And explosive shells

21 can be used as well if there are enemy forces around the tank. That's

22 the first thing.

23 This explosive shell which was used in that case, I have seen

24 those too, I have seen those recordings. That projectile could not have

25 pierced the stonewall. It could damage it and then explode. There could

1 have been a dent in the wall, but in order to pierce the whole wall you

2 need several shells. So there is a dispersion of the impacts on the

3 wall. But if the elements remain the same for the projectiles,

4 dispersion occurs in a diameter of approximately 1 metre.

5 If you hit that stonewall, you have the bridge and you have the

6 wall, if you hit that wall with a few projectiles, let's say five or six,

7 you can pierce the wall or you can make a dent in the wall, a breach in

8 the wall, and then the bridge will collapse; that's possible. But I

9 haven't seen those projectiles. I haven't seen the projectiles being

10 shot with the same elements in such a way that could have make the bridge

11 to collapse.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but we have heard

13 witnesses explaining that the tank fired for a protracted period of time.

14 So mathematically speaking, in view of the accumulation of explosive

15 charges fired at the bridge, wasn't there a breach at some point that

16 could have triggered the collapsing of the bridge?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is probable, it is possible. If

18 several shells were shot and if some of the shells were shot in a grouped

19 way, yes, it's possible.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] My question about tracer

21 bullets had a purpose. On that video recording I mentioned earlier we

22 can see traces of bullets hitting the bridge. You're a former JNA

23 lieutenant-colonel, you're an expert in artillery matters; therefore, you

24 should know that when there are fires, somebody establishes coordinates

25 and those tracer bullets can show the people who fire where to shoot. So

1 if there's an accumulation of explosives over time, there could be a

2 breach that caused the bridge to collapse at one point.

3 When I asked you whether you had access to material relating to

4 the proceedings against the tank crew, I wanted to know whether the time

5 element and the number were taken into account. Unfortunately, we did

6 not have access to the material in those proceedings, but we would like

7 to know what instructions were given to the tank crew and how they

8 directed their fires, how they aimed. Was it haphazard or was it

9 well-directed? Was there somebody for each and every fire? Was there

10 someone directing it to make sure that the shell would hit the bridge?

11 We do not have that element because the Prosecution did not adduce it,

12 therefore we do not know it. That is the reason why I wanted to know

13 whether you had access to the material in those proceedings. Don't you

14 think it was the accumulation of shells that made the -- that eventually

15 made the bridge to collapse?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I mentioned, I had no contact

17 with those documents, I did not have access to them. Fire correction is

18 made for artillery -- field artillery. Tanks fire directly and correct

19 automatically. That is the practice. So you have to take that into

20 account when you view our analysis. I suppose, however, that those who

21 were firing - I don't know why, I haven't thought about it - all I can

22 say is that upon viewing those recordings when I saw those projectiles

23 hitting several points I was not under the impression that they were

24 aiming at the same point.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] T-55 is a tank of Soviet make?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Was it computerized or was it

3 an old model?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot really tell you, but I

5 work on computerized artillery systems and I believe that this particular

6 tank was a mechanical one, it did not have computerized elements in

7 itself, it was not composed of anything that was computerized inside.

8 I'm not certain of this. As far as I remember, while I was working for

9 the army of the former JNA I can tell you this.

10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Professor, you've told us that

11 the projectiles were not piercing bullets but explosive bullets. Just to

12 be absolutely clear on this, could you please explain to the

13 Trial Chamber where do you get this information? Why can you affirm with

14 certainty that no projectile, no piercing projectiles, were used?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is not an information that I

16 have; it's my conclusion, it's the conclusion that I get when I look at

17 the video-clip, when I see the explosion, when I see the little pieces of

18 rock fall in the water. This is the conclusion I draw. If it had been a

19 piercing shell, it would have just lodged itself inside the bridge

20 construction. That's the effect it would create.

21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Just to conclude this particular discussion, I think we're

24 getting ahead of ourselves but then of course it helps, doesn't it?

25 Professor, when you say "I didn't see that projectile," because

1 that's what you were being asked, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean

2 over a certain time just before the bridge collapsed? What is the time

3 over which this occurs? That's my question.

4 MS. WEST: Objection, Your Honour.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said it and I repeat it.

6 MS. WEST: Your Honour, the question here on line 22 is: What

7 exactly do you mean? Had it ended there, that would have been an

8 appropriate open-ended question, but the further comments make it a

9 leading question.

10 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I merely summed up

11 what the witness had said before and in no uncertain terms I'm just

12 trying to draw everyone's attention to the time interval that is at

13 stake. I think the witness should be allowed to go ahead and answer the

14 question.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So let me repeat. If the

16 projectile had destroyed the bridge, if it had caused the collapse of the

17 bridge, in the same video sequence the frame just before the collapse, in

18 that frame we should have seen that projectile, just like we have seen

19 the projectiles on the other frames. Because from one frame to the next

20 the projectile runs approximately 30 metres. So if one frame shows the

21 collapse of the bridge when the projectile hit it, the previous frame

22 should have shown the projectile. That's it. And we looked for it but

23 we have not found that.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand what you're

25 saying, but did you yourself, as well as your colleagues, were you able

1 to view image by image, second by second, footage by footage all the

2 images to check if in the interval before the collapse, a projectile was

3 actually hitting the bridge? Did you do that kind of work? Did you do

4 that frame by frame?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, we've proceeded exactly the

6 way you mentioned.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And you have not noticed any

8 shells, any projectile?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, none. No, none in the footage

10 that we have, that we viewed.

11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] How many images per second are

12 in a frame?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 24 seconds -- 24 images per second.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, General Praljak wishes to

15 take the floor.

16 Yes, General.

17 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you

18 very much. Can you please ask Mr. Jankovic not second by second, but the

19 TV image where you have a split screen, 25 frames a second as opposed to

20 the clip with 24 frames per second. Can you please ask the witness if

21 they were actually using 25 frames per second when they were drawing up

22 this analysis. Thank you.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I answer?

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is exactly what we said. We

1 talked about 25 frames per second, and we analysed frame by frame.

2 That's what we did.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you have not seen any

4 projectiles, any shells?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, absolutely none on the frames

6 that we've analysed.

7 MR. KOVACIC: [Microphone not activated]

8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

9 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I think maybe I shouldn't be asking

10 any additional questions, but even so.

11 Q. Your last reply to the President you say you did not see any

12 shells in the frames that you studied. Is this answer just about a

13 certain time interval from the time of the destruction and then before

14 that moment? Is that what your answer is actually in reference to?

15 A. I will repeat once again. What is really important to understand

16 and to see is the frame before the collapse occurs, that's what's

17 important to analyse. So once again, the frame that precedes the

18 collapse. This is where that projectile should have been visible. So

19 the most important frame is the frame that just precedes the collapse of

20 the bridge.

21 Q. Thank you very much. That is now perfectly clear.

22 Professor, let us try to pick up where we left off -- or perhaps

23 I should try and remind you. As soon as you ascertained that there was

24 no impact by a shell in the period preceding the destruction of the

25 bridge, what were the next steps you took from there and what were your

1 assumptions?

2 A. Well, let's see in slow motion the collapse of the bridge, ORF2,

3 and we could also view in slow motion the video-clip of our trial, of our

4 experiment, in order to see the analogy between the water gush, pillar,

5 wall, that is created in this exercise by detonating the cord and to

6 compare this to what we see the water gush that is visible on the ORF2

7 footage, please.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before we deal with that

9 question, though, I would like to go back to the bridge which collapses

10 following an impact by a shell. While I looked at your CV I was able to

11 notice that you are a specialist in missiles. Hypothetically, let's say

12 that if today we wanted to destroy the Old Bridge which was reconstructed

13 and we actually walked on it, this Bench was able to walk on that bridge,

14 we went there. If one wanted to destroy this bridge today would a MILAN

15 missile or other type of missiles, would that be a thing that could make

16 the bridge collapse immediately?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A missile such as a MILAN missile

18 would not be sufficient because it does not contain a sufficient amount

19 of explosive, but there are missiles that were specially made for

20 destroying these bridges. The former Yugoslavia had a missile called the

21 Grom and it contained 50 kilogrammes of explosive and that one was

22 actually made to destroy bridges of any type of construction.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you had Grom at the time and

24 that Grom missile would have been able to be destroy such a construction

25 but it was not used, to your knowledge, for this particular case?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, to my knowledge, no.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So according to your

3 calculations which are very well done, one needs approximately 50

4 kilogrammes in order to destroy a bridge made in this way?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but I must tell -- correct --

6 make a small correction. A charge of 50 kilometres [as interpreted], not

7 at least 50 kilometres but 50 kilometres.

8 JUDGE PRANDLER: [Interpretation] I would like to ask the

9 Presiding Judge as well as the witness to slow down, please.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, my fellow Judge just

11 reminded me to slow down. Indeed, I shall.

12 So one would need a detonation or a charge of 50 kilogrammes

13 minimum. Is that correct?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As to what is the minimum, that's

15 difficult to answer. 50 kilogrammes would be sufficient.

16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] The angle and the impact is also

17 important, right, on the bridge?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, of course. It depends on many

19 things, not only the angle but also the way the bridge is made, what the

20 bridge is made of. There are also various sides of the bridge. Not

21 every side of the bridge is vulnerable the same way and so on and so

22 forth.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I see that it is a quarter to

24 4.00. It is probably the right time to take a break. We did not see

25 time go by, it just flew. Do you have any -- do you mind if we take the

1 break now?

2 MR. KOVACIC: [Previous translation continues]...

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's take a

4 20-minute break and we'll resume in 20 minutes' time.

5 --- Break taken at 3.43 p.m.

6 --- On resuming at 4.07 p.m.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing's resumed.

8 Mr. Kovacic, please proceed.

9 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Professor, I think we've covered most of your explanations and

11 analysis in the questions and answers that we've done. Could you please

12 move on now to the explanation of the elements in the comparison of what

13 we see in the experiment, the test video in relation to one or both

14 video-clips that were recorded live, the Mostar video and the ORF2 video.

15 So what elements support the conclusion that you made and that you

16 presented to us at the beginning?

17 A. Let me draw your attention to three factors. First, there's this

18 water gush or this wall of water, as the Presiding Judge named it; second

19 factor --

20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not understand.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is a brusque movement and

22 third factor, there is black smoke. We're going to see the three factors

23 very clearly in the ORF2 recording. The light spot is not to be seen on

24 the Mostar, TV Mostar, recording because it's over-lighted.

25 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]

1 Q. Professor Jankovic, you don't have the earphones, but the

2 interpreters have indicated they have not understood the second factor.

3 A. The light spot or point. I shall repeat. First, you have this

4 water gush or wall; secondly, this light spot, point, that appears

5 suddenly and then disappears; third factor, the black smoke. One very

6 relevant thing also is to notice this. When we see these facts, what is

7 the order among themselves? Let's look at the recording. In slow motion

8 we're going to watch ORF2, that footage, and we'll see that the water

9 gush and the water gush we had in the test are basically the same, so the

10 cause could be the same, if you agree to us viewing it. Can we show it

11 in slow motion?

12 [Videotape played]

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You can see this water gush, please

14 be watchful and look at it carefully.

15 [Videotape played]

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Next to the water line, at the

17 bottom of the bridge, on the eastern pillar, you can see a light spot for

18 a very brief moment. Then, following the light spot, you can see black

19 smoke. It is important to note that we first see the light spot, that's

20 the very first thing, and then the water gushing, and then together with

21 the water the black smoke.

22 Can we now view in slow motion the experiment recording?

23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] I just want to make sure of one

24 thing. That black smoke is on the right and the light spot on the left?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. There where the light was you

1 see the black smoke.

2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] That was left, right?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe can we see this footage again

4 to make sure?

5 [Videotape played]

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In slow motion, please.

7 [Videotape played]

8 MR. KOVACIC: [Microphone not activated]

9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

10 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my assistant is

11 trying to pin-point the location with the cursor.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please note exactly where in the

13 bridge the light spot can be seen. I do ask you to be careful because

14 this is precisely where the breach is going to form and this is precisely

15 there where the bridge is going to collapse. On the right-hand side, you

16 can see that the right-hand side remained standing, whilst the left part

17 of the bridge is going to collapse.

18 I shall repeat for the interpreters. On the right of the light

19 spot, the part of the bridge on the right of the light spot remains

20 standing, whilst the left part collapses. So it is that spot of light

21 that is the border, the limit. Let's just wait until the smoke

22 disappears and you'll see what is left of the bridge and then you'll see

23 the right-hand side of the bridge.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Expert, we see this light spot,

25 it was shown with the cursor, the pointer. What does it correspond to?

1 Is that the explosive exploding then?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let us see what we found during the

3 experiment and then we'll have an answer to your question. Please show

4 us the test recording in slow motion.

5 [Videotape played]

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So we've positioned the cord under

7 the water, 50 centimetres below the surface of the water. On the

8 right-hand side we activated, we ignited, the explosion of the detonating

9 cord; on the left we positioned an explosive charge. Can you see the

10 analogy? Have you found the answer to your question? It is relevant to

11 see that the dot or spot of light is before the water wall, because the

12 detonation occurs along the cord at a very high speed, 6.000 metres per

13 second. Before the water rises, the explosive charge is ignited, is

14 initiated. And then, after the spot of light, you can see the black

15 smoke. What you can see here during the test is exactly what you can see

16 on the -- in the ORF2 footage.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you reconstructed the event.

18 What was your explosive charge? What was the power of it?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very small, 200 grams of TNT.

20 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Professor --

22 JUDGE PRANDLER: Yes, I'm sorry, Mr. Kovacic, for taking the

23 floor. Now I simply would like to ask the witness about the following,

24 that what we have seen just now several times, the -- it was, of course,

25 the very last phase of the collapse of the bridge. I wonder if the

1 same -- in the same picture if you have something to show when the bridge

2 was still standing. What struck me was that now we do not see any

3 remnants of the bridge on the two sides, I mean on the left and the

4 right, only what we see, of course, the position and the -- what is being

5 caused by the explosives there. So I wonder if the very picture could be

6 shown again including what happened beforehand, what happened prior to

7 the -- to the collapse of the bridge, and then that picture which you

8 kindly showed to us. Thank you.

9 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that would, in fact,

10 be the ORF2 tape and the Mostar videotape but not in slow motion, the

11 ones that we identified at the beginning. So we can perhaps show it now,

12 first the ORF2 --

13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We cannot hear the

14 counsel.

15 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] And then again the Mostar video,

16 the quality is less there because it's been overexposed.

17 [Videotape played]

18 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Professor, there is a question that comes to my mind when we're

20 looking at this footage, the ORF2 footage, because it's apparent that it

21 is much better quality. In your work as you did this frame-by-frame

22 analysis, this methodology that you applied, what was the key material

23 that you used, that you relied on, as you did your analysis?

24 A. The ORF2 footage showed us much more because the TV Mostar is

25 overexposed and the camera is shaking a lot, so it was difficult to

1 analyse the footage. Still, it is possible to see all these elements but

2 for the light of spot, and we therefore think that it's important

3 footage.

4 JUDGE PRANDLER: Thank you very much.

5 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. And I have a follow-up question. As regards the continuity on

7 both recordings, is there a correlation between the Mostar video and the

8 ORF2 recording? Did this increase the value of the material for the

9 purposes of your analysis? So is there a correlation for purposes of

10 triangulation, for instance?

11 A. When you move from a frame to the next, we know what movements

12 could have been done in that interval. And if you look at the ORF2

13 footage, the impression is that two pieces of footage have been glued or

14 pasted next to one another as if there was a camera filming up to the

15 moment of collapse and the other one would have filmed the collapse

16 itself. The impression is that the first part was filmed while somebody

17 was handling the camera because you see the moves by the cameraman, and

18 the second footage seems to be a fixed camera. That's all I can say.

19 However, because of that, the second part, the second footage, is very

20 important because that one was done in one go.

21 Q. I heard in the interpretation the third video. Are you referring

22 to the Mostar video, so that would mean the second one. Okay. Thank you

23 very much.

24 Well, in light of these explanations and given that our time is

25 limited, I believe that I have about ten minutes left. I would now like

1 to go back to the conclusions of your analysis. You outlined your

2 conclusion already, but could you please give us a very specific answer

3 to the question that is mentioned in your conclusion. What caused the

4 bridge to collapse in light of everything that we saw, was it a tank

5 shell? Was it an explosion? A charge that was set inside the bridge?

6 Or was there a third reason? Could you please give us your conclusion

7 very specifically.

8 A. I'm now speaking on behalf of three members of the team, and we

9 agreed that I would state here that it is highly probable that the bridge

10 was destroyed by an explosive charge. It is highly probable that it was

11 destroyed by an explosive charge and not by a tank shell based on the

12 recordings we viewed.

13 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm trying to keep

14 track of the time. I think I have some ten minutes left, but I would now

15 leave it up to you. Do you want to see the third video-clip, the

16 experiment, once again so that you could do the comparison? I think that

17 we've seen it enough times, but if you want you can ask for it to be

18 played again. I don't want to --

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's not necessary to view the

20 experiment recording because we could see the light caused by the

21 explosive charge, there's smoke, and then the water fountain, so there's

22 no need for that.

23 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I also want to draw

24 your attention to the fact that the parallel analysis of the video

25 recordings, the ORF2 and Mostar video, that they were compared

1 exhaustively in the analysis. So whoever wants to compare them even more

2 can do that.

3 Q. So now after we've heard your conclusion I have another question.

4 You were given a set of documents at the beginning of your testimony, so

5 could you please look at document 3D 03154, it's the last document in

6 this binder. Have you found it?

7 Professor, have you seen this letter?

8 A. Yes, I did. You showed it to me.

9 Q. Professor, you've read this letter?

10 A. Yes, I did.

11 Q. And you've also read the CV of the author of the letter; is that

12 correct?

13 A. Yes, I have.

14 Q. Professor, would you agree that Professor Hartmann, the author of

15 this letter, he wrote this letter to me on the 30th of August. Is he a

16 person who is qualified to speak about reasons for the destruction of

17 buildings and constructions?

18 A. As far as I can see -- or with regard to building destruction by

19 explosive, Professor Hartmann is certainly a highly qualified person.

20 However, with regard to destruction of objects with projectiles, of

21 course he is not a specialist.

22 Q. Very well. But is my understanding of your answer correct, you

23 are suggesting that he is particularly qualified to study consequences of

24 destruction, to judge any consequences or results of destruction?

25 A. I suppose so.

1 Q. Professor, did you at any point express a desire for a third

2 party who you believed was sufficiently qualified to look at your study

3 and perhaps offer up some criticism or advice, purely as a scientist?

4 Was that instinctively your idea?

5 A. Indeed, even more than that we asked anybody who would be able to

6 show us whatever that would be useful to better understand the issue

7 would be welcome. That's what we said.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Professor, Mr. Praljak --

9 MR. KOVACIC: [Previous translation continues]... Thank you.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] -- had given us this booklet

11 that he published on the destruction of the Old Mostar Bridge. And based

12 on the reconstruction frame by frame and based on the experiment that you

13 carried out, among scholars and scientists and experts in explosives or

14 others, when the result of your research was published did scholars

15 challenge the findings in other articles or was there no answer at all?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When it comes to our colleagues, I

17 think that they all basically agreed. There was more noise, as it were,

18 among politicians and journalists.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But no scientist ever

20 challenged your findings, did they?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] One of our colleagues, and he's an

22 old man, but he's -- still he's my student and he had a debate with me

23 trying to contradict and challenge me. We discussed it, but he didn't

24 manage to change my point of view. I can give you his name if you so

25 wish.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There's no need. Now, this

2 water fountain or wall that we can see, does that respond to the cord

3 that was, say, 50 centimetres or 1 metre under water and why this cord?

4 Was it for the person activating the cord to be some distance away? Is

5 that why we have the cord?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We can see this water fountain

8 rising over a certain distance. Could it be caused by a shell falling

9 into the water and causing some splash, basically by sliding on the water

10 it would cause the water to splash and cause this water fountain? I'm

11 trying to thinks of all possibilities.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the beginning of my career I

13 often carried out firing sessions on the Adriatic coast. I had several

14 shells sliding, gliding, on the water. It was not the case here. It

15 doesn't look anything like it.

16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Judge Prandler first.

17 JUDGE PRANDLER: Thank you, Judge Trechsel.

18 Actually, Mr. Kovacic has already submitted a document here to

19 you and to us under 3D 03154, 3D 03154. And it -- that one was a letter

20 addressed to Mr. Bozidar Kovacic, and in that Professor Dietrich Hartmann

21 from the Ruhr Universitaet Bochum has written an opinion about the issue

22 and my question will be the following. According to the third paragraph

23 in that letter, Professor Hartmann, about him you said that you were sure

24 he was an expert and I quote the third paragraph: "According to the

25 material available to me, the actual reasons for the collapse of the

1 bridge are extremely uncertain. However, it is obvious to me that the

2 tank shelling caused enormous destructions to the Old Bridge in Mostar.

3 Insofar, for me it seems irrelevant whether a blasting has led to the

4 final collapse of the bridge or not."

5 And then in the very last sentence of his letter or opinion he

6 says, and I quote again: "A definite statement on the reasons that

7 caused the collapse at the end remains open."

8 Now, my question is that in view of his expert opinion, let us

9 say this, would you agree with his conclusions here which contained -- of

10 course not only in the third paragraph and in the very last sentence

11 which I -- which I quoted, but in his other parts of his own letter. So

12 I would like to ask you if you would kindly comment on his views about

13 the major causes of the collapse of the bridge.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My colleague Professor Hartmann

15 does not know about the effects of projectiles. All he says is that they

16 have caused major damage to the bridge, that's true. He also added that

17 as far as he was concerned it was irrelevant to know what destroyed the

18 bridge. We wanted to be more exact, more precise, and we concluded - I

19 repeat with a high degree of probability - that the bridge was destroyed

20 by an explosive. So it doesn't run counter to his opinion; it goes

21 together, as far as I can see.

22 JUDGE PRANDLER: Thank you very much for this view. If it goes

23 together, that is your opinion and his opinion, then it is then -- may --

24 may remain open, the question may remain open, what he explained here in

25 his very last sentence that is: "A definite statement on the reason that

1 caused the collapse at the end remains open," and, of course, you

2 formulated your own view, that that is a high probability that finally

3 the explosive charge was the reason. But I believe that you do not

4 refuse his - I mean Professor Hartmann's - proposal and submission that

5 the, and I quote again: " ... that the tank shelling caused enormous

6 destructions to the Old Bridge in Mostar." And then he continued to say

7 that it seemed to him irrelevant that a blasting has led to the final

8 collapse of the bridge or not.

9 So as far as I understood your conclusions, then you are both of

10 the same view.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With respect to the effects of

12 projectiles, the effects on the bridge, I can say that the shelling

13 damaged the bridge. Professor Hartmann I think, that's my opinion after

14 viewing the recordings, the damages were -- occurred on the constructions

15 added to the bridge, and those constructions were totally destroyed. The

16 bridge itself was damaged. I do not know which term to use. It is

17 better not to be too precise. I believe that Professor Hartmann is not

18 qualified to talk about the destruction of the bridge caused by

19 projectiles.

20 With respect to the destruction of the bridge by projectiles, we

21 both agree.

22 JUDGE PRANDLER: Thank you, Professor Jankovic, for your views

23 and your explanation. Thank you.

24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Professor, I would like to ask

25 you what could seem like a strange question. Most probably you won't

1 have an answer to my question. I think it's necessary, however, to put

2 that question to be complete. It seems that behind the assumption in

3 question there is a theory that it was the Bosniaks which positioned a

4 detonator and an explosive charge there. Have you ever discussed the

5 matter? Was that matter ever raised during exchanges during your career?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm very happy that you asked me

7 that question. I can provide you with an answer, but this would not be a

8 scientific answer. I can tell you what I know as a former military man.

9 The Yugoslav tactic was such that all bridges were designed to be

10 destroyed. I know that as a former officer.

11 According to my opinion, it is highly probable that this

12 explosive was a remnant of what was positioned there by the

13 Yugoslav Army, but I refuse to say who activated the explosive. I refuse

14 to say that, and my colleagues also said on several occasions that they

15 can provide a technical point of view but they don't know who activated

16 the charge.

17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Thank you. I think it is very

18 right of you to say that. I didn't expect any other answer from you.

19 The second part of your answer is interesting and it doesn't

20 surprise me, because in my country it was just the same, all the bridges

21 were designed to be destroyed if necessary. Does that include the

22 detonating cord or was it only the explosive charge in the bridge, do you

23 know that?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I do not know that, I'm not

25 certain about it.

1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Thank you.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is a very important issue,

3 so we have to have an overview. Speaking of that detonating cord which

4 could have been positioned under water and which was activated, in

5 response to a question put by my fellow Judge you said that you'd rather

6 not provide an opinion as to who activated the ignition. But as an

7 expert, I will use the example of the bridge on the Kwai River, maybe you

8 know about it. In that particular case we know that the bridge was under

9 ABiH control. Was it possible for the HVO to send a diver with oxygen

10 bottles who would have positioned the explosive charge at night, the

11 detonating cord and the firing system, and then go back? Would it be

12 possible that later on through an electronic system with a radio device

13 could have activated the charge? Technically speaking, would that be

14 possible?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Technically speaking, I think it is

16 possible, but that's all I will say on the subject. I do not think that

17 we had this technique at our disposal.

18 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Mr. Kovacic.

19 Witness, on page 46, line 3 and 4, you said that: "All bridges

20 were designed to be destroyed."

21 In French you said -- you used the word "prepared." So when the

22 bridge was built was everything put in place so that the bridge could be

23 easily destroyed? Is that what you meant? Or after the bridge was built

24 were explosive devices and cords positioned on the bridge, as it seems to

25 be the case? If it was done during the construction, is the

1 Old Bridge -- was the Old Bridge in such a situation? Because the bridge

2 was built long before the JNA.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to repeat once again

4 that I was in the technical services, I was mostly in charge of our

5 artillery. Officers working technical services were talking with one

6 another and we knew that bridges were prepared to be destroyed. What I

7 know is that preparation was such that we were expecting the enemy to

8 come from the west. So we were supposed to be activated from the east

9 side. That's what I know.

10 I also know that as far as recent constructions are concerned,

11 the army asked the builders to take into account the place where the

12 explosive would be positioned. As for the old bridges, I don't know.

13 How was it done, I do not know. That's all I know. The rest would be

14 speculation.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We know that in Mostar all the

16 bridges were destroyed, that the Old Bridge was not the only bridge in

17 Mostar. Unless I'm mistaken - and please correct me if I'm wrong - it

18 seems that bridges were destroyed during the conflict with the Serbs.

19 Therefore, certain bridges were destroyed by the Serbs. From a technical

20 point of view, is it possible that the Serbs had positioned explosive

21 charges on all the bridges so that nobody can see them, and for one

22 reason or another they didn't blow up those bridges. Maybe the explosive

23 charges remained as well as the detonating cords. Is it possible that

24 accidentally or voluntarily one device was activated, a device that would

25 have been positioned there not by the warring parties but by a third

1 party? Is that possible from a technical point of view?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This idea occurred to me as well.

3 All I can say is that it is possible from a technical point of view, but

4 I don't know.

5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] I have a slightly different

6 question. I would like us to be as complete as possible. When a stone

7 construction is deconstructed by using an explosive device, it is

8 possible to find on the stones traces of explosives. Did anybody look at

9 it, according to your knowledge?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, nobody looked for it

11 from what I know.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Certain stones that fell into

13 the water are probably still there, or were all the stones taken out of

14 the river?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. The bridge was

16 reconstructed, I know that. I know that the stones were taken out of the

17 river, the bridge was not complete so more stones had to be added.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If there is a stone in the

19 water after an explosion took place, does the water wash away the traces

20 of explosives or can it stay there and is it possible that years later,

21 with all the technical means at our disposal, we can find traces of TNT,

22 syntax, or other explosive devices?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not think so. After an

24 explosion there is no more explosives; you have gas instead. Having

25 stayed in the water for a long period of time, I don't think you would

1 have found such traces. I did not look for them.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I think Mr. Praljak wanted to

3 intervene because this is a technical matter.

4 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] For the benefit of the

5 Chamber, because you asked him about reactions, I want to tell you how it

6 was for me.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, the Trial Chamber

8 reminds you that you cannot testify. Maybe your Defence counsel can

9 provide us with this information.

10 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I just wanted to tell the

11 Chamber that the book you spoke about, 10.000 copies were printed of this

12 book, I sent it to UNESCO and I sent it to everyone precisely in order to

13 cause this kind of reaction.

14 MR. KOVACIC: [Microphone not activated]

15 Q. [Interpretation] I'm done basically, but based on the Chamber's

16 questions I do have another question that I can't avoid asking. There

17 was a reference to the possibility that the JNA earlier on had, in a

18 manner of speaking, set the bridge up for destruction. What about the

19 fuse that was under the water? What would be its expected water life, in

20 a manner of speaking? Would it last a full seven days, 700 days perhaps,

21 seven years? Would that technically be feasible?

22 A. I cannot give you a precise answer, but the detonating cord can

23 remain in the water for a certain period of time. How long, I don't

24 know. Maybe my colleagues who are specialists in that field could

25 answer.

1 Q. Thank you very much. You can't tell us more than you know.

2 I've checked the transcript about all these questions, and can we

3 please have again the slow-motion recording of the Mostar, the Mostar TV

4 video-clip, and just tell us again, Professor, because I'm not entirely

5 certain it was faithfully reflected in the transcript. As for the

6 continuity of this recording, the Mostar recording, does it tally with

7 the continuity seen in the ORF footage and is it continuous in terms of

8 time?

9 [Videotape played]

10 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. This is just the critical moment, as it were, just before the

12 destruction and the collapse itself. Does this tally with the ORF2

13 footage which we have so far been referring to as the principal footage?

14 A. I would even say that the Mostar footage is the most important

15 because it shows a continuity. There is the water gush, and right after,

16 the collapse of the bridge. I have viewed it several times, and it is

17 very important because there is continuity. The movements that we can

18 see are those of someone handling the camera. From one frame to the

19 next, the changing of the way objects are positioned tally with the

20 movements by a man. It doesn't come from two different cameras, not at

21 all. So in my view this is the most relevant document.

22 Q. Your Honours --

23 A. [Previous translation continues]... footage. If it were not for

24 that footage, I would not be here today because there is no continuity in

25 the first footage.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, Mr. Kovacic.

2 There might be a video-clip that I would like to see --

3 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] You took the words right out of my

4 mouth. I wanted to go back to your initial question. We identified the

5 exhibit, this is P 01040, 01040, for the transcript, that was witness

6 Delalic, showing the scenes that I believe you referred to, the

7 projectiles actually hitting the bridge. But I think this should be time

8 that was allowed for your questions because my time is over.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, could we view

10 video-clip P 10040 [as interpreted].

11 MS. WEST: Your Honour, if I may, just for the sake of time, the

12 Prosecution expects to play that videotape.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We might as well see it now.

14 [Videotape played]

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I believe that there is another

16 video, IC 574.

17 MR. KOVACIC: [Microphone not activated]

18 [Interpretation] Your Honours, we don't have it prepared. We

19 retrieved it, but perhaps we might make a small break for the registry to

20 do it. But I would like to draw your attention to the first part of this

21 recording where you can see the impacts of the shells. It's clearly

22 marked as the 8th of November, for -- so it is irrelevant for the

23 purposes of our discussion today because it shows the situation on the

24 8th of November, and according to the indictment the bridge was destroyed

25 on the 9th. So that's why we have those recordings that show just a

1 couple of frames, just a few frames or just a few seconds before the

2 bridge actually collapsed. So we don't have this video with this IC

3 number prepared, but I'm sure that the registry should be able to

4 retrieve it given some time.

5 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar has found it,

7 so we will view it now.

8 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, while we're looking

9 for it I didn't want to interrupt the proceedings, but my colleagues have

10 told me that there is an error in the transcript. I'm not quite sure

11 whether it is an error or not, I think it is. May I ask a follow-up

12 question to the witness. It's at page 45, line 14.

13 Q. So first of all, let me say after a brief explanation that I will

14 read at line 14, Professor Jankovic said, this is discussion with

15 Professor Hartmann, and there is a sentence, the concluding sentence,

16 where Professor Jankovic says as follows: [In English] "With respect to

17 the destruction of the bridge by projectiles, we both agree."

18 [Interpretation] The question was asked by Judge Prandler about

19 this letter and this view, and then the witness replied with respect to

20 the effects of projectiles, the effects on the bridge.

21 [In English] "I can say that the shelling damaged the bridge.

22 Professor Hartmann, I think, that is my opinion after viewing the

23 recordings, the damages were -- the damages occurred on the constructions

24 added to the bridge and those constructions were totally destroyed. The

25 bridge itself was damaged. I do not know which term to use. It is

1 better not to be too precise. I believe that Professor Hartmann is not

2 qualified to talk about the destruction on the bridge caused by

3 projectiles."

4 [Interpretation] And the transcript is accurate. And then we

5 come to the sentence that I read at the beginning.

6 [In English] "With respect to destruction of the bridge by

7 projectiles, we both agree."

8 So the question is, Professor Jankovic, whether "we both agree"

9 refers to Judge Prandler and yourself or to you and Hartmann or should it

10 not read explosives rather than projectiles or does this wording "both

11 agree," does it include what Judge Prandler said or something else? So

12 could you please explain this. The introductory part is quite clear and

13 it is obvious that the final sentence follows from that.

14 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Could perhaps the registry print

15 out page 45 for the benefit of the witness so that he can look at it.

16 Well, obviously it doesn't work.

17 Q. So could you please say what you said.

18 A. I may repeat it. As far as I'm concerned with respect to the

19 destruction of buildings by explosives, Professor Hartmann is undeniably

20 extremely qualified and in that respect, our views tally, we think the

21 same. But what I'm saying is that Professor Hartmann knows nothing about

22 projectiles, the impact of projectiles, he's not qualified to talk about

23 the destruction of the bridge by projectiles. He's perfectly able to

24 watch the footage, to view the footage, and to make comments about it.

25 Of course.

1 MR. KOVACIC: [Microphone not activated]

2 [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I think that now it is

3 quite clear.

4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. The registrar was not in

6 a position to play IC 574, the Defence cannot do it either, but the

7 Prosecutor can play it.

8 [Videotape played]

9 MR. KOVACIC: [Microphone not activated]

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That's precisely the footage I

11 wanted to view.

12 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have to rewind

13 because the screen was not on.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, we have to rewind and to

15 start from the beginning.

16 Professor, please watch this footage very closely. The quality

17 is much better than what we've seen so far.

18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Let's remind you that the date

19 of this footage is the 8th of November and not the 9th of November.

20 [Videotape played]

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Professor, you viewed this

22 footage. We seem to have footage from the 8th and from the 9th. On the

23 8th, we see shells hitting the bridge and damaging the bridge, parts of

24 the bridge collapse into the water, and at the end of the footage we see

25 the collapse of the bridge. This is a video of a far better quality than

1 what we saw before. Does that change your conclusions in any way?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I believe that the second part

3 of the footage is exactly the same as what we saw before, and the

4 beginning of the footage shows the damage caused by a shelling on the

5 bridge. And we see that the constructions that were on top of the bridge

6 have been completely destroyed. You see tiny houses that had been built

7 on the bridge, and at some point you see very clearly how these small

8 houses disappear. You see part of these small houses falling into the

9 water. Maybe that was the aim of the shelling, to destroy these

10 constructions, but it's obvious when watching the footage, serious damage

11 is being caused on the bridge.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If we talk about the footage

13 from the 8th of November, we get the impression that we see tracing

14 bullets, at least we see a red light on the footage. What is it

15 according to you?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that you're right, these

17 are tracing bullets or tracer bullets. I think that we see the

18 projectile in the footage. You can't film that sort of scene without

19 seeing the projectiles, there's no doubt about it, and here we see these

20 tracer bullets. It's something I was not aware of, actually, but --

21 because if you don't have tracer bullets it's more difficult to make out

22 the projectiles on a footage.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You've laid out your theory

24 before us. You've viewed that footage frame by frame. You've looked at

25 the 25 frames preceding the collapse of the bridge, and during this

1 period of time you did not see any shell hitting the bridge. If you had

2 used that technique for the footage of the 8th of November where we see

3 that shells are hitting part of the bridge, then on each frame we would

4 have seen the projectiles, wouldn't we?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, we would have. Yes,

6 precisely.

7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] One brief technical question.

8 Professor, had you seen this last video-clip before?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that we had seen it, but

10 we concluded that this footage did not provide any specific information.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, I don't think you

12 have much time left.

13 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just a very brief

14 question. You raised a very interesting issue and the answer we received

15 was quite interesting, so I think we should follow up on this.

16 Q. Professor, when His Honour Judge Antonetti asked you a question

17 you described in some detail the damage to the superstructure of the

18 bridge, and you say that at one point you can see the little piece, a

19 little piece of the little houses built on the bridge falls into the

20 water. Let me ask you this: As a citizen of the former Yugoslavia, not

21 as a soldier, not as an expert, but did you see this bridge at one point?

22 A. Yes, I had.

23 Q. Professor -- well, and I have to testify now because I myself saw

24 this bridge, this is a notorious fact. But at any rate, there was no

25 superstructure on this bridge?

1 A. Absolutely. I walked over that bridge several times because

2 that's -- that's the bridge on the way to the sea and we would stop in

3 Mostar just to walk on the bridge and there was nothing at the time on

4 the bridge.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, these little houses on

6 the bridge, what are they?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not know. I had never seen

8 them before.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me ask you an incidental

10 question. You were an officer in the JNA, you left the JNA with the rank

11 of lieutenant-colonel, you were trained as an officer. And as part of

12 that training, were you taught the difference between buildings or

13 constructions such as bridges that you can attack if they are military

14 constructions or were you -- and were you taught about buildings or

15 constructions that cannot be attacked because they are not military

16 objectives? Is this part of a training of any military officer, and

17 talking about tank crews, I believe that the one leading the tank

18 crew - you can confirm that for us, talking about the JNA -- although

19 here we are not talking about the JNA, but in the JNA, wasn't an officer

20 always required to lead the crew, the crew of the tank?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, I received my

22 training as a soldier in Brussels at the Polytechnic school and the

23 technical school in Brussels, so I was trained as a soldier in Belgium.

24 And based on that training I can tell you that at that time in Belgium

25 there was always an officer, an engineer, just as me, who would command

1 the tank. There was an officer, engineer, highly trained officer.

2 Unfortunately, I know that in the army of the former JNA it was not the

3 case. It's a subject, it's a topic, that I discussed time and time

4 again. Training technically speaking was not sufficient, and I'm not

5 even talking about solely technical training, but military training was

6 not sufficient when it came to tank commanders in the former JNA. I'm

7 aware of that. We had countless discussions about this at the time when

8 I was still an officer. That's one thing.

9 Secondly, my career was more of a technical career than of a

10 military career, so it -- I would find it difficult to tell you exactly

11 how you select a target. But when you have enemies in a given

12 construction, when you have military enemies in a given construction,

13 that construction becomes a target. But, yes, believe me, I'm a

14 technician. I'm not a high-ranking officer.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16 Mr. Kovacic, I'm being told by the registrar that you've used up

17 your time, but if you have one last question of course you may put it to

18 the witness.

19 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I just wanted to

20 formally conclude my examination.

21 Q. Professor, thank you for coming here, thank you for testifying.

22 As you know, after the break, I assume you will be cross-examined by the

23 Prosecution. Thank you very much.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.

25 Let me now turn to the other Defence counsel.

1 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, 6D does not have

2 any questions.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. 6D, no questions.

4 5D?

5 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] We don't have any

6 questions, Your Honour. Thank you.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] 4D.

8 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we don't have any

9 questions for this witness.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] 3D we know already.

11 2D.

12 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, no questions.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.

14 And 1D?

15 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] Dr. Prlic's Defence has no

16 questions for this witness. Thank you.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.

18 The best is probably to have a break before the

19 cross-examination. It's half past 5.00. We'll have a 20-minute break.

20 --- Recess taken at 5.26 p.m.

21 --- On resuming at 5.50 p.m.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The hearing's

23 resumed for the cross-examination.

24 You may proceed, Madam Prosecutor.

25 MS. WEST: Thank you, Your Honour.

1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

2 Cross-examination by Ms. West:

3 Q. Good afternoon, Professor. My name is Kim West, and I am an

4 attorney for the Office of the Prosecutor and I'm going to ask you some

5 follow-up questions regarding your direct testimony. And in order to

6 ensure that we're all on the same page I want to start with your written

7 opinion in Exhibit 390328 [sic], and that's the opinion that you issued

8 for this case. The English version is page 14 and the B/C/S is page 12.

9 A. I don't have the official documents before me. I have my own

10 documents.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but the Prosecutor has a

12 file and you'll be able to look them up.

13 MS. WEST:

14 Q. Just to be clear, the Prosecution's binder also contains the

15 defendant's -- the accused's exhibits so this will go faster.

16 So I'll direct your attention to page 14 of your report.

17 A. [In English] Croatian? Page Croatian?

18 Q. Page 14 of the English, page 12 of the Croatian.

19 Is that the page entitled "opinion"?

20 A. [Interpretation] Indeed.

21 Q. So I'll direct your attention to -- under "Opinion," it's

22 part (a) and you wrote: "There is a high probability that the Old Bridge

23 has not been destroyed by attacks of gun tanks, but by a detonation of

24 the explosive charge (or mine-explosive means) which have been placed in

25 the bottom part of the bridge arch. The activation of the charge itself

1 has been done through a detonating cord which has been activated from the

2 close vicinity of the Old Bridge. This happened most probably from the

3 left, respectively, the east bank of the Neretva River."

4 Do you see that part of your opinion?

5 A. Yes, I do.

6 Q. And indeed, that is the conclusion that you and your colleagues

7 came to; correct?

8 A. Exactly.

9 Q. In regard to the term that you used, you said "there is a high

10 probability," on direct examination you explained that you and your

11 colleagues discussed it and you came to the conclusion that that would be

12 the term and those would be the words that you used. Why is it that you

13 didn't use stronger language? Why didn't you use the words "high

14 likelihood"?

15 A. When we analysed the technical events, as a rule we have to be

16 very cautious. It could happen, and it happened to me, that you have an

17 explanation for a technical event, an explanation that is absolutely fair

18 and compatible, and I repeat, is absolutely compatible, with the effects

19 that we can observe but it is not to be ruled out that there would be

20 another explanation which is equally compatible --

21 Q. So if you --

22 A. -- so you have to be cautious.

23 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us then what factors -- can you tell us

24 which factors of the videos that you watched made you not use stronger

25 language?

1 MR. KHAN: Well, Your Honour, I think that there's an area of

2 uncertainty, at least to my mind, from my learned friend's questions. Is

3 it the Prosecution's contention that high likelihood signifies a higher

4 gradation of probability than high probability which is the witness's

5 evidence. If a scale is being put forward, perhaps that can be

6 articulated by my learned friend and put to the witness whether or not he

7 agrees with that gradation from high probability to low probability,

8 otherwise we're mixing oranges and apples it seems.

9 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, could I supplement that by saying that

10 my reaction was very much the same as Mr. Khan's. I didn't see the

11 difference in English, but more importantly because I checked with my

12 colleague Mr. Lazic and Ms. Alaburic and they tell me that the

13 translation into the witness's language produces the same meaning for

14 either phrase. So clearly we English speakers only are puzzled, but

15 what's very important is that the witness understands. If there is some

16 gradation that means anything to him, then we've got a basis for the

17 question; otherwise, we simply don't have any basis for this line of

18 questioning at all.

19 MS. WEST: Indeed, Your Honours --

20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: If I may just complement, I've just looked it up

21 in the dictionary. In German it's the same, the translation is the same

22 for both terms.

23 MS. WEST: Your Honour, if I look at the witness's testimony,

24 from line - we're about to lose it - it's line 9 through 14. There may

25 have been confusion among people in the courtroom, but he was not

1 confused because he concluded that probability was less than likelihood

2 if you read his answer in context, but I'll go ahead and ask the question

3 again.

4 Q. Professor, do you understand when I say high likelihood to be

5 stronger language than high probability?

6 A. Well, let's speak in mathematical terms then. The three of us

7 did not mention that, but I personally, I would say that this probability

8 for this explanation is over 80 per cent, 0.8, that's what I would say.

9 Q. And what did the other two [indiscernible]?

10 A. Well, they're not here to give their opinions.

11 Q. Well, let me ask you this question --

12 A. However, I believe that we shared the same opinion, we agreed.

13 There was no problem, there was no difference, no difference in opinion

14 among ourselves.

15 Q. Professor, if you move on to 3(b) of your opinion, there you note

16 what you reviewed in order to come to that opinion and I'm going to read

17 that. It says: "A detailed study of the recordings of the TV ORF2 and

18 TV Mostar, which have recorded the aforementioned events immediately

19 before and during the destruction of the Old Bridge itself, point to this

20 conclusion ..."

21 Do you see that language?

22 A. That's the item (b), isn't it?

23 Q. That's correct.

24 A. [In English] Okay.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, Professor, expert

1 witness, I understood that when you say that it is highly probable you

2 referred to mathematics, and that's the reason why you used this word

3 which is not by chance because if you used it there must be a reason for

4 using it. In other words, there must be a slight doubt prevailing in

5 your opinion, otherwise you would have said it is certain that the

6 Old Bridge was not destroyed by gun or tank guns or it is nearly certain

7 that it was not destroyed by the tank gun. If you say that it is highly

8 probable, that means that you do not rule out another reason or cause

9 other than the tank shell.

10 So what would have destroyed the Old Bridge is the explosive

11 charge, as you indicated, but then why don't you write, We are 100 per

12 cent sure that the explosive charge is the cause on account of the three

13 factors, the light, the smoke, and the water fountain, which establish in

14 a scientific manner that the Old Bridge was destroyed by this explosive

15 charge. Why do you not reach 100 per cent conclusion, since you said 80

16 per cent?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I'm going to tell you why.

18 We said this in this very text. We believe 100 per cent that it is this

19 water fountain that is caused by the explosion of the detonating cord,

20 but we also saw that this transcript -- the recording was actually cut

21 into two bits. If you did not have had the other bit that showed that it

22 really happened that way, we would have said there was a water fountain

23 but we do not know why the bridge fell. But thanks to the other footage

24 we can see this continuity and we can reach our conclusion, but all this

25 drives us to be cautious and this is absolutely normal in our practice.

1 We call that reverse engineering. We must be cautious at all times. I

2 can tell you -- I told you that we could find an explanation that fully

3 tallied with the phenomenon, but we could also find another explanation

4 that is also in agreement with the phenomenon. Therefore, prudence is

5 the word. This is the reason why we choose this terminology.

6 And we add that we are based on the recordings. We did not see

7 it with our own eyes, we did not carry out on-site research. There are a

8 lot of things that we haven't done.

9 MS. WEST: [Microphone not activated]

10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

11 MS. WEST: Thank you.

12 Q. -- the videos upon which you based your opinion, there were two

13 videos. Is that correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. The TV ORF2 video and the TV Mostar video?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Professor, is it your testimony that they are, in fact, different

18 recordings from different angles but of the same event?

19 A. Well, I've been thinking about this. Are we talking about the

20 same event filmed by the Mostar cameras and the ORF2 cameras? I don't

21 know.

22 Q. So when you look at the Mostar camera and you see a water splash

23 before the bridge collapsed, my question: Is that the same water pillar

24 or water wall that you see in the TV ORF video?

25 A. This is precisely what I said earlier on. I don't know that.

1 Q. Well, let me direct you back to your opinion, and if you go to

2 the English version and go to page 5, and that's also page 5 of the

3 B/C/S. Right in the middle your -- this is the description of the TV ORF

4 video, but the last sentence of that paragraph you write: "These

5 happenings are even better visible on video recordings of TV Mostar as

6 shown in picture 4."

7 Professor, doesn't that suggest that at the time you wrote this

8 opinion you believed them to be the same event just different vantage

9 points?

10 A. I do believe it is the same event, but believe and certify,

11 that's two different things.

12 Q. You've testified on direct at page 24, it was line 1, when you

13 were speaking about the two videos. You commented that you saw the

14 explosion and the water pillar in the two recordings, and you cited them

15 as TV ORF and TV Mostar, although I understand that your belief or

16 certification, those are different words. But my question is: For the

17 basis of your opinion, did you rely on them to be the same event?

18 A. Yes, we thought it was the same event and we still believe it.

19 Q. Just to be clear, you were provided these videos by the accused;

20 correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And did Mr. Praljak also tell you they were of the same event or

23 did you come to that conclusion on your own?

24 A. I can't remember that he gave me any such instruction. I think

25 that this is a conclusion we drew ourselves, on our own.

1 Q. I'm going to ask you some questions in regard to timing, and I'm

2 going to go back to your opinion. It's page 14 of the English, page 12

3 of the B/C/S, again we're going to the area under the heading of

4 "Opinion." And in part (b), in talking about the TV ORF and TV Mostar

5 you wrote: "These two videos have recorded the aforementioned events

6 immediately before and during the destruction of the Old Bridge itself,"

7 and that they "point to this conclusion." Do you see that part?

8 A. Yes, I do.

9 Q. And so a key to -- one of the key points to your opinion was that

10 the bridge came down into the water, collapsed, after you saw the water

11 pillar and the explosion; is that right?

12 A. I said that we had the light spot that we saw on the ORF video,

13 but we could not see it on the TV Mostar video because it is overexposed

14 so you can't see any light spot. After the light spot, we saw the water

15 gush or pillar and the black smoke; that was on both videos.

16 Q. And so again my question just so we're clear, that one of the key

17 points to your opinion was that the bridge came down into the water,

18 collapsed; after you saw the water pillar, then the explosion and the

19 light part that you just point out, the key is that it then collapsed

20 into the water. Correct?

21 A. Well, you are now using the word "explosion." We saw the light

22 spot. We saw the black smoke and we saw the water pillar, and thereafter

23 the bridge collapsed. These events can be seen continuously in the

24 TV Mostar footage; and I repeat it, this is the reason why that footage

25 is the more important.

1 Q. Okay. So please go to page 3 of your opinion, in English and in

2 B/C/S. In the top paragraph, sentence in the middle it says: "We have

3 taken out two sequences from the received video documentation which show

4 that the destruction of the bridge and the happenings which immediately

5 preceded the destruction of the bridge."

6 I used the term "immediately preceded." Again, does that show

7 that a part, a key part, of your opinion had to do with timing?

8 A. Absolutely.

9 Q. Thank you. And if you go to the bottom of that page, the last

10 paragraph per sentence: "However, the recordings on picture two of

11 TV ORF 2, which immediately precede the destruction of the Old Bridge

12 itself, indicate another possible conclusion ..."

13 Go ahead.

14 A. Which was the page?

15 Q. Oh, I'm sorry, the same page. It's page -- yeah, page 3 in the

16 English.

17 A. [In English] Okay.

18 Q. And at the very bottom -- you see that small paragraph at the

19 very bottom that begins with: "However ..."

20 In that sentence it says, "... the recordings on picture 2 from

21 TV ORF 2, which immediately precede the destruction of the

22 Old Bridge ..."

23 Again my question to you is: That's another indication that

24 timing was important to you, right?

25 A. [Interpretation] Absolutely, that's right.

1 Q. I'm going to now direct your attention to Exhibit P 10511. That

2 is an interview to a magazine, it's both English and B/C/S. Do you

3 remember being interviewed in February 2006 by the "Nacional" magazine

4 regarding your analysis?

5 A. Well, they called me but I did not discuss with them. I turned

6 down the offer of discussion with them. There was just a few sentences

7 exchanged, some questions that were not very polite I would say, and then

8 I just interrupted the conversation.

9 Q. So your answer is yes, you remember this?

10 A. Yes, I remember and I know that they called me, but it was not an

11 interview, not at all.

12 Q. If you could turn to page 3 of the English version and page 4 of

13 the B/C/S.

14 A. Just give me the English version.

15 Q. Okay. Page 3. Just to confirm, are you in Exhibit 10511? Is

16 that the exhibit before you? Thank you.

17 So I'll direct your attention to page 3 of the English. Do you

18 see that? If you go to the bottom of the page, the last complete

19 paragraph you see that you were asked why so many years later someone

20 finally came to the conclusion that you came to. And this was your

21 response: "'This can be explained in only one way - that no one has,

22 until now, carefully inspected the existing TV footage at the moment of

23 the destruction of the Stari Most and immediately before its collapse.

24 When you carefully examine the recorded material, it can be clearly seen

25 that before the bridge collapsed, there was a water column that elevated

1 along the length of the eastern bank, south of the bridge, and then you

2 see black smoke at the foundation of the bridge. And it can immediately

3 be explained that we are dealing with dynamite and an explosion at the

4 foundation of the bridge on the eastern shore. I think that you do not

5 require great expertise for this explanation.'"

6 Do you remember saying that to them?

7 A. Yes, I do.

8 Q. And again, you focused here on the timing. You talked in the

9 second sentence about what happened immediately before the collapse. Do

10 you remember that?

11 A. Maybe.

12 Q. Professor, had the water pillar and explosion and the smoke and

13 the light spot you spoke of, had those things happened the day before the

14 collapse, so this would be 8th November, then there would not have been a

15 high probability that those events caused the collapse on November 9th;

16 is that right?

17 A. That's logical.

18 Q. Thank you. And it was the close timing or the immediate

19 proximity -- go ahead, you can answer.

20 A. Sorry. You asked me whether there was a water pillar, whether

21 there was a water pillar the day before. That would have meant that the

22 bridge would not have been destroyed by an explosion. That was your

23 question, wasn't it?

24 Q. No, it wasn't. Let me ask you --

25 A. Would you mind repeating your question?

1 Q. I will. Had the water pillar and the explosion and the smoke and

2 the light spot that you spoke about, had those things happened the day

3 before the collapse, so this would now be November 8th, would there then

4 also be a high probability that those events that you spoke on -- of,

5 they happened the day before, would have then caused the collapse the

6 following day?

7 A. Had these events occurred one day before, they could not have

8 destroyed the bridge the next day, that would be -- that's logical.

9 However, however, the same events could have happened in the following

10 day, it could be. I mean, that's the reason why I speak of a high degree

11 of probability. I remain cautious as to the possibility of another

12 explanation, but if there was a water wall one day and a collapse of the

13 bridge the next day, there could have been a water wall the next day too.

14 Q. Sir, are you suggesting that it's possible that there was a water

15 wall, water pillar, whatever you want to call it, that happened more than

16 once?

17 A. Absolutely, because I can see that in the two videos and I'm not

18 certain that the two films show one and the same event.

19 Q. Well, that is your testimony now but that was not your testimony

20 on direct; is that correct?

21 A. Well, I wasn't asked that question.

22 Q. Well, when you were asked to write this opinion, that's not what

23 your belief was, was it?

24 A. What do you want me to answer? If you ask me a question, I try

25 to answer it; that's all I can say. When we wrote our expert report we

1 did not envisage such a possibility, such a hypothesis.

2 Q. And now today as you testify, are you envisioning a different

3 possibility, that being that these two videos are actually separate

4 events?

5 A. Because of that, we could find similar reasons. That's why we

6 spoke of high probability and not of a -- sort of a quasi certainty, as

7 His Honour just asked.

8 Q. So is the answer to that question yes?

9 A. Well, I said what I said.

10 Q. Let's look at the videos, Professor. The TV Mostar video is

11 quite short, it's about 16 seconds long; and the TV ORF is a little bit

12 over a minute.

13 [Microphone not activated]

14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

15 MS. WEST: Thank you.

16 Q. Do you have that video in front of you on the screen? Do you

17 recognise that to be the TV ORF video?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. You will agree with me it's brownish in colour, there's writing

20 on the bottom, and it appears to be taken from the west bank of the

21 river?

22 A. I agree with you.

23 Q. And the vantage point is slightly to the south, you can see the

24 east bank, and on the left portion of the screen you can see trees on the

25 west bank. Do you agree with that?

1 A. No, I don't agree with you. You can see part of the west bank,

2 of the west bank, and it's more to the south -- oh, I have a map. It's

3 about the same position as for the tank, same direction as the tank's

4 direction and position.

5 Q. Okay, Professor, we're going to run it the whole way through and

6 then I'm going to ask you some questions.

7 [Videotape played]

8 MS. WEST:

9 Q. Now, sir, is this one of the videos upon which you based your

10 opinion?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Let's go through it piecemeal. The very beginning, we're looking

13 at the screen right now and it says November 8th on the bottom left-hand

14 corner. You'll agree with me that's footage actually from the day

15 before; correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. So we'll just go forward to the following day. You agree with me

18 that this is November 9th?

19 A. I don't know. It can't be seen.

20 Q. We'll start it again, you can watch it.

21 [Videotape played]

22 MS. WEST:

23 Q. So are those the events upon which you based your opinion?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. So let's look at it a little bit more closely. Right there on

1 the right-hand side of the screen, and for the record it's 1.5 on the

2 counter, there was a splash in the water. What was the importance of

3 that splash to you?

4 A. Would you mind explaining again. I fail to understand you.

5 Q. This area on the right hand of the screen, that looks to be

6 water; correct?

7 A. Yes, this is the water gush or wall we spoke about.

8 Q. Okay. And it does appear from this angle to be a straight line;

9 is that right?

10 A. I'm not certain.

11 Q. Professor, would you agree with me that seeing this video, I

12 suggest it to you that perhaps a detonating cord was under water and that

13 detonating cord caused the explosion?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And would you agree that this, what we see on the screen,

16 resembles what you later tried to replicate in your experiment?

17 A. Yes, that's right.

18 Q. So I'm just going to change to the experiment video, and this is

19 a 3D video.

20 [Videotape played]

21 MS. WEST:

22 Q. Is this the experiment that you testified in direct testimony

23 regarding?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And let's go back to the TV ORF video.

1 [Videotape played]

2 MS. WEST:

3 Q. Okay. So we just saw the water pillar. I'm going to play this

4 again and I'm going to ask you to focus on the period of time right after

5 the water pillar and look at the area under the bridge and tell me if you

6 notice anything. Did you notice anything falling from the bridge?

7 Professor, shall I play it again for you?

8 A. So we have it in slow motion, why don't we see it in slow motion?

9 Q. I'll do that.

10 [Videotape played]

11 MS. WEST:

12 Q. So that was the fast motion and it's about to start in the slow

13 motion, we're at 8.2. Here's the slow motion starting now. Now, there's

14 the water pillar and I'm asking you to focus on anything falling from the

15 bridge. And I'm going to stop right there, which is 29.9. Do you see

16 something falling? What is your answer?

17 A. Yes, I do. I can see something falling, indeed.

18 Q. Okay.

19 A. I don't know what it is.

20 Q. I'm going to continue to play it and I'm going to ask you to tell

21 me if you can see it splashing in the water. Did you see that splash?

22 A. Yes, I've seen it.

23 Q. Okay. So if we start it again, did you just see the water pillar

24 at 2.2?

25 A. Yes, I did.

1 Q. And we continue.

2 [Videotape played]

3 MS. WEST:

4 Q. And did you just see the splash a little earlier than 3.9?

5 A. No, I can see now the bridge collapsing.

6 Q. I will start over again, it's very short. Do you see the water

7 pillar?

8 A. Yes, I do.

9 Q. Do you see the splash?

10 A. Yes, I do.

11 Q. Now, what -- in order to establish a reference point, do you

12 agree that the fall, whatever item that is, from the bridge and the

13 splash come in the moments before we see the collapse? Do you agree that

14 to be the case?

15 A. That's right.

16 Q. And for the record, the splash is at 3.3. I'm going to continue

17 to play this so we can see the collapse.

18 [Videotape played]

19 MS. WEST:

20 Q. Do you agree with me that the collapse comes immediately after

21 the splash?

22 A. Yes, indeed, but it also occurred after the water gush. Those

23 two events occurred simultaneously.

24 Q. Okay. Well, we'll go back to that, but I want to go back to the

25 period of time where the bridge is falling into the water and ask that

1 you focus on that. Now, in direct testimony you spoke about there

2 potentially being two cameras. Do you remember that testimony?

3 A. That's possible.

4 Q. And you testified that there was no continuity in this video;

5 correct?

6 A. That's right.

7 Q. And you would agree with me that there appears right before where

8 it's stopped right now, at 4.4, there appears to be a cut or a splice or

9 some sort of skip in the tape; is that right?

10 A. There is a discontinuity with the segment when the bridge

11 collapses, that's where discontinuity is visible on the video recording.

12 Q. That's exactly right. And I'm just going to continue to play

13 this and you can look at the slow motion and we'll ask you another

14 question.

15 [Videotape played]

16 MS. WEST:

17 Q. And right there at 34.2, we see the splash in the water. Do you

18 see that?

19 A. Yes, I do.

20 Q. And what follows is the collapse; is that correct?

21 A. Indeed.

22 Q. And at 41.1, the bridge appears almost -- almost all to be in the

23 water; would you agree with me?

24 A. Yes, I believe so. However, it is difficult to say because

25 there's a lot of water. We can't see exactly what there is.

1 Q. Professor, the period of time that you term as a discontinuity or

2 the film is discontinuous, would you agree that at that moment there were

3 events that we're not seeing on this film?

4 A. I don't know. That is the reason why I always used the other

5 footage.

6 Q. Okay. But you testified on direct at page 31, line 12, that the

7 most important frame is the frame that preceded the collapse. Is it now

8 your testimony that that only means the TV Mostar video and not this

9 video?

10 A. That's right.

11 Q. Thank you. In the upper left-hand corner it says HRT; correct?

12 A. Just a moment, please, so that we can be complete.

13 Q. Go ahead.

14 A. I stated that we need to view the frame preceding the collapse of

15 the bridge. It is certain that there is continuity, we can see it on the

16 second footage, but here there is discontinuity. I don't know what kind

17 of discontinuity, I don't know what the reason for it is. However, in

18 the second footage -- or rather, in the first footage, I can't see any

19 projectile before the collapse of the bridge. There is none, not in the

20 first footage nor in the second one. As for the second one, I can

21 guarantee that there is continuity; as for the first one, there is

22 discontinuity. The image is not continuous, but maybe there is time

23 continuity. I don't know.

24 Q. Well, that being said, then you would agree with me that you

25 cannot on this video, on the TV ORF video, see the frame that immediately

1 preceded the collapse?

2 A. I repeat --

3 Q. Can you answer that question yes or no, sir.

4 A. I cannot answer your question with a simple yes or no.

5 Q. Okay. Then let me ask you another question --

6 A. Can I give an explanation?

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. I repeat, there is discontinuity in the frames; however, this

9 does not necessarily mean that there is no time continuity. It is

10 possible that one footage was filmed and then the second was filmed from

11 another camera, there were two cameras therefore. Those two footages

12 could have been cut at the same moment, and maybe at the beginning of one

13 footage was pasted which mean that the other one would continue. The cut

14 happened at the same time. I believe that the interpretation is not

15 right.

16 I can try and explain that in English, but my English is not

17 really good.

18 Q. Professor, we'll move on from here and we'll ask more questions

19 about that so you can explain it. But I want you to look back at this

20 TV ORF video and in the upper left-hand corner it says HRT, right?

21 A. That's right.

22 Q. Is that a Croatian broadcast company or Croatian television

23 company?

24 A. Yes, indeed, those are the initials of Croatian TV.

25 Q. And in the right-hand corner, upper right-hand corner, you see

1 ORF2. Do you see that?

2 A. That's right.

3 Q. Is that an Austrian company?

4 A. Those are the initials of Austrian TV.

5 Q. Professor, are you aware that this is a video recording of a

6 television set playing the HRT broadcast of a TV ORF news show?

7 A. I don't know, but I suppose so --

8 Q. So in other words -- sorry, go ahead.

9 A. I was under the impression that this was a broadcast by

10 Austrian TV which was recorded by another TV. I don't know. I'm not an

11 expert in those TV broadcasts.

12 Q. Who gave you that impression?

13 A. I believe it comes from Austrian TV.

14 Q. No, who gave you the impression, was it a person who put that in

15 your mind or is it a result of watching the video?

16 A. Upon watching the recordings, I can see that this is the frame of

17 a television set. I was under the impression that a camera filmed the

18 Austrian broadcast. That is my impression.

19 Q. Professor, you would agree that the quality of this video is

20 poor?

21 A. Indeed.

22 Q. And it's very difficult to discern anything really specific by

23 watching this clip; is that right?

24 A. Indeed, we had problems.

25 Q. Did you make any efforts to enhance the video for a better

1 analysis?

2 A. We used our personal computers and we did a frame-by-frame

3 analysis. We could reduce or maximise the image. Thanks to our personal

4 computers we managed to enhance the quality.

5 Q. Are you or either of your two colleagues who wrote this report

6 video experts as well?

7 A. No, we're not, but we asked a fourth colleague to come and help

8 us out.

9 Q. And is that fourth colleague's name on your report?

10 A. No, because he was not qualified in that subject matter. He only

11 helped us with computer work.

12 Q. Just for the record, the TV ORF video, it's an IC number, and

13 it's 820. I'm now going to show you Exhibit P 01040. We've looked at

14 this during your direct testimony, and this was a video that was admitted

15 into evidence on July 4th, 2007, and it's footage of the bridge that

16 played on the television. Do you see that in front of you?

17 A. Yes, I do.

18 Q. And at the beginning we have November 8th again, this is the day

19 before; correct? Professor, let me back that up and I'll repeat my

20 question. The very beginning you're going to see some footage from the

21 8th of November. Do you see that?

22 A. Yes, I do.

23 Q. Okay. And now it turns to a vantage point that may look familiar

24 to you. Does this look familiar?

25 A. It does, but this image and the previous frame, there is a

1 discontinuity between the two.

2 Q. Are you suggesting that between the November 8th and this footage

3 there's discontinuity?

4 A. That's precisely what I'm saying.

5 Q. Yes, right. I will agree with you. Now, just tell me, this is

6 in colour. The video you watched, it was not in colour; correct?

7 A. That's right.

8 Q. And -- excuse me, I'll slow down. Does this vantage point look

9 familiar to you?

10 A. I would say it is the same, the same as the one from ORF2.

11 Q. Thank you.

12 A. I think so.

13 Q. I'm going to play this for two minutes and then I will ask you

14 some questions and I would just ask that you pay attention to it.

15 [Videotape played]

16 MS. WEST: I'm going to stop it there at 6.15.

17 Q. Sir, is today the first time that you have seen this video?

18 A. Yes, this is the first time that I see that.

19 Q. Thank you. We're going to go back to the beginning. Again, this

20 is November 8th, so it will just take a second to get to the following

21 day, and I'm going to continue until you see the water pillar.

22 [Videotape played]

23 MS. WEST:

24 Q. Now, is that the same water pillar you saw on the TV ORF video?

25 A. I can't say whether it's the same water pillar, I don't know, but

1 this is a similar water pillar. Here we can also see the dot of light.

2 I've seen it.

3 Q. Okay. So we're going to play it again. I'm going to ask you to

4 look at the water pillar and then look at the area under the bridge for

5 that item that falls.

6 [Videotape played]

7 MS. WEST:

8 Q. Okay. Did you see the splash?

9 A. Yes, I did.

10 Q. Now, in the TV ORF video -- excuse me, I'm sorry. In the TV ORF

11 video, you'll agree with me that the collapse came soon after that

12 splash; is that correct?

13 A. It occurred afterwards, indeed, but a certain period of time

14 elapsed between the two events, I don't know precisely how long.

15 Q. Okay. I'm going to play this video for another minute, to 5.26,

16 and then ask you a question.

17 [Videotape played]

18 MS. WEST:

19 Q. Now, a full minute has elapsed, we are at 5.26, and you will

20 agree with me that the bridge has still not come down?

21 A. That's right.

22 Q. Thank you. And this video is different at least in that respect

23 to the TV ORF video that you watched; correct?

24 A. That's right.

25 Q. And, Professor, if you had seen this video before you wrote your

1 opinion, would your opinion have been different?

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, please let the

3 witness answer the question. You will be given the floor afterwards, but

4 please allow the witness to finish his answer.

5 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honour,

6 Mr. President --

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, you will be given

8 the floor later. At this crucial moment, however, please let the witness

9 answer the question; afterwards, I will give the floor to you.

10 Witness, please answer the question without taking into account

11 what Mr. Praljak said.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At any rate, if I'd had this video,

13 I would have compared it carefully with the ORF video in order to see

14 whether the ORF video, as I said before, is continuous in time, if

15 there's a discontinuity in image, okay, but in time whether it was

16 continuous and I would have had an answer. But for the time being look

17 at all this, I can see the water gush, I can see the bridge which is

18 intact; but let's not forget that the Mostar, TV Mostar video shows the

19 water wall and continuously the fall.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now, General Praljak, what did

21 you want to say?

22 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I wanted to tell the

23 honourable Chamber, the witness, and the Prosecution this. If we look at

24 the image the way it is, we can't determine whether it was edited,

25 whether frames or shots were taken from and --

1 MS. WEST: Your Honour, I object.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, what you say is

3 obvious. It could be put together and set up. I've thought of this too,

4 but let Madam Prosecutor finish. You and your lawyer will be able to

5 have redirect. Nothing rules out that frames may have been added without

6 looking at the counter when you see 05.26.03.

7 Please continue, Madam Prosecutor.

8 MS. WEST: [Microphone not activated]

9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

10 MS. WEST: Thank you.

11 Q. I'm going to continue to play the video to 5.40, and I would ask

12 that you focus your attention shortly before 5.40 at 5.38 and I'll ask

13 you a question.

14 [Videotape played]

15 MS. WEST:

16 Q. Sir, at 5.38 did you see what you've termed another discontinuity

17 in the film?

18 A. To carry out such an analysis I would need more time. I can't

19 just do that in a minute. I can only give you bad answers. I need some

20 peace and quiet, watch the video in order to answer such a question,

21 otherwise I can't do it.

22 Q. Okay. Well, I'm going to show it to you one more time just so

23 you can view it again and make one more attempt. I'm not going to

24 forward it but we'll just let it run until 5.38.

25 [Videotape played]

1 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, Your Honour, if I may.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What do you want to say,

3 Mr. Kovacic?

4 MR. KOVACIC: I object to this line of questioning. I object to

5 the Prosecution's attempt to solicit the expert opinion by sight without

6 having the possibility to go into the analysis frame by frame. And if

7 you allow me to continue in Croatian, sorry.

8 [Interpretation] The expert clearly explained, both during his

9 evidence and in the written analysis, that the analysis was carried out

10 frame by frame. That implied a certain set of conditions for them to be

11 able to study the images that closely. Now the OTP are introducing

12 another clip or recording. They want the witness's opinion on any

13 discontinuity that may or may not be there. They're trying to compare

14 this recording to the one that we showed the witness. They are leaving

15 the witness in a situation where he's unable to say anything but simply I

16 don't know. I would need to analyse more closely. On the other hand, in

17 their indictment the OTP claimed that the HVO tore down that bridge.

18 Given the burden of proof, they should have drawn up analysis themselves,

19 brought a witness, or anything. They should have had a frame-by-frame

20 analysis done outside the courtroom, because obviously it's impossible to

21 conduct this sort of exercise in this courtroom. It's not something that

22 he can do here.

23 We ourselves had a number of plans with some further analyses and

24 that sort of thing, but this just wasn't something that was doable in a

25 courtroom setting.

1 Thirdly, if only we had an opportunity here in this courtroom,

2 equipped as it is, to play both recordings side by side, the ORF2 and the

3 one that the Prosecutor has brought up, the images side by side, so we

4 laymen could see if they're identical or not. But even so, it would

5 still be necessary to have a technical frame-by-frame analysis for anyone

6 to be able to say whether there is any continuity; whether there is a

7 continuity of time; and thirdly, these two are identical or they are not

8 identical.

9 The Prosecutor now wants an analysis on sight in realtime and

10 this is simply inappropriate, because the only choice that the witness

11 has is to say: I don't know, I can't draw any conclusions. The witness

12 is unable to show his expertise under these conditions. He's facing an

13 impossible task. They would be much better off asking him, off the bat

14 like that, to say what 9 might be to the power of 227.000. I think they

15 would stand a much better chance of retrieving a reasonable answer.

16 Thank you.

17 MS. WEST: Your Honour, may I be heard?

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's 7.00, we have to stop now.

19 We shall continue tomorrow with the cross-examination. I believe you

20 have some time left.

21 Witness, you are under oath. I remind you that you're no longer

22 to have any contact with Mr. Kovacic because now you're a witness of the

23 Court. You shall return to this courtroom tomorrow at 2.15.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.00 p.m.,

1 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 1st day of

2 July, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25