1 Tuesday, 1 July 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, kindly call
6 the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon,
8 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-74-T, the
9 Prosecutor versus Jadranko Prlic et al.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Today is Tuesday, good
11 afternoon to the Defence counsel, the accused, the OTP representatives,
12 and all the people assisting us in our task.
13 I believe that Mr. Kovacic wanted to say something. Is it so?
14 Do you want to take the floor or not, Mr. Kovacic?
15 MR. KOVACIC: Thank you, Your Honour. No, I don't have any
16 procedural questions before we start. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's have the
18 witness brought in.
19 Madam Prosecutor?
20 MS. WEST: Just one procedural matter. I was under the
21 impression initially that the Prosecution was given two hours for
22 cross-examination and then I understand that there is a possibility that
23 it is actually only an hour and a half.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, an hour and a half. You
25 understood well.
1 MS. WEST: I, nonetheless, am going to make a request for at
2 least an extra half an hour, and I do that bearing in mind the direct
3 testimony of the witness and the questions that came from the Bench. I
4 think that Your Honours have expanded the subject matter here and it will
5 require appropriately at least another half an hour from the Prosecution
6 for cross-examination.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, I shall ask my
9 Yes, Mr. Kovacic.
10 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
11 respond. As far as time is concerned, we all know that the time that the
12 Chamber took for its own questions belongs to a separate category of
13 questions by the Judges. I can't imagine a situation in which the OTP
14 would need more time for their cross-examination because of something
15 that occurred during the questions being asked by the Judges. The OTP
16 got 50 per cent more time than the Defence, and I don't think the Chamber
17 should grant this request for additional time. It was on very few and
18 rare occasions that the Defence asked for additional time to examine a
19 witness and actually got it.
20 Second, regardless of how much time the OTP may or may not be
21 granted, obviously there is a tendency here to expand on the subject
22 matter, which means that I'll probably have some questions in re-direct
23 which will yet again take up more time later on. Thank you.
24 JUDGE PRANDLER: I would like to clarify with Mr. Kovacic, he
25 said, and I quote, that: "The OTP got 50 per cent," 5-0 per cent, "more
1 time than the Defence and I do not think the Chamber should grant this
2 request for additional time."
3 Now, I believe that the OTP has not been given 50 per cent more
4 time, but it was given the same, I mean 90 minutes, which the Defence
5 originally used. And that is why I think that the 50 per cent is not
7 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, yes, I agree -- [Interpretation] I
8 agree with your math, Your Honour. What I meant was, given the fact that
9 the Defence got one hour and the Prosecutor got one and a half hours,
10 that's 50 per cent more than the time we were granted for our
11 examination-in-chief. But I think basically we are talking about the
12 same thing.
13 MR. KHAN: If it please Your Honour, I would respectfully support
14 my learned friend's response and I do object to the application orally
15 put forward by my learned friend for the Prosecution. I believe it was
16 the witness, the one before last, that was subject to a similar
17 application by the Prosecution. On that occasion, on behalf of
18 Bruno Stojic, we did not intervene or make any representation. However,
19 as a matter of procedural law, it's my submission that when Your Honours
20 determine and allocate time to the parties, the party moving for
21 additional time should show, in my submission, that matters have arisen
22 in the course of examination-in-chief that could not have been reasonably
23 anticipated. In other words, matters that were not in the reasonable
24 contemplation of the cross-examining party.
25 Your Honours, rather than being a cause for additional time, it's
1 my respectful submission that given the length and depth of Your Honours'
2 questioning indeed many areas were covered and clarified in relation to
3 this witness's testimony that takes a burden and a significant burden at
4 that, away from the Prosecution's shoulders. So, Your Honours, in my
5 submission there's been no good cause put forward by my learned friend as
6 to why an additional half an hour is needed. The area of the witness is
7 very discrete, very clear, and in my submission an hour and a half is
8 more than sufficient to get to the nub of this issue.
9 MR. STEWART: Your Honours, the Petkovic Defence supports the
10 position adopted by our learned friends on this side of the court.
11 Your Honours will know that throughout this case in many respects the
12 Defence have never been that enthusiastic about the time-limited approach
13 to examination of witnesses, but that is the approach consistently
14 adopted throughout the case. It's the approach that's been applied to us
15 and it's the approach which should be applied throughout.
16 And looking at it now, what happened according to -- in
17 accordance with Your Honours' guide-lines, is that the Prosecution were
18 given an hour and a half. The way Your Honours do it, an hour was to
19 match the hour that Mr. Kovacic had for his witness and the other
20 half-hour was to match the half-hour that the other Defences were given.
21 Now the Prosecution were then, therefore, entitled to that hour and a
22 half Your Honours gave them that to start with whether or not we actually
23 used that 30 minutes, but we didn't, and that is the real position. So
24 the real position is that there has only been an hour of examination from
25 the Defence side. There has, of course, been fairly extensive
1 questioning by the Judges, but what my learned friends say I adopt there,
2 which is that Your Honours have, in fact, clarified a number of issues,
3 you've made it unnecessary to deal with a number of issues. And if the
4 Prosecution now want extra time, they must as Mr. Khan clearly pointed
5 out, they must demonstrate exactly why it is they need it and what has
6 expanded the area of cross-examination. Because, really, this report is
7 in a very clear, discrete area. Your Honours' questions were directed to
8 matters in the report and they just don't need any more time.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Judges are going to confer.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam West, could you explain
12 to us why you need additional time? What is your reason? Since
13 Mr. Kovacic had one hour, we had granted 30 minutes to the other Defence
14 teams, that is one hour and a half, and generously enough, we granted you
15 an hour and a half as well, whereas normally, based on the case law of
16 other Trial Chambers, it's 50 per cent for cross-examination, I say that
17 from memory. So you have had one hour and a half which is 50 per cent
18 more than Mr. Kovacic. Why do you then need additional time?
19 MS. WEST: Your Honour, I think perhaps I should have said this
20 initially, but I think the disadvantage that the Prosecution has with an
21 expert witness, particularly one that is offered to the Chamber based on
22 a report, is that the counsel, the expert's counsel, can put his entire
23 opinion in through a written submission and then highlight the parts that
24 he thinks are important. However, the disadvantage that I face is that I
25 have to go through the entire report and cross the entire report. I
1 cannot take out just the highlights that were focused on by counsel. So
2 I think it's inherent in the act of putting on an expert witness who is
3 submitting a report that it makes it quite difficult for the
4 cross-examination to be limited only to an hour and a half. And that's
5 why I would submit that two hours is not an unreasonable request and it
6 is only a half an hour more. I also will note for the Court that I
7 understand that there have been several expert witnesses put on by the
8 Prosecution, for example, I would just note that there was a sniping
9 expert that the Prosecution witness -- excuse me, the OTP put on for the
10 Chamber used two hours, yet the defendants or the accused counsel were
11 granted four hours for cross-examination. Your Honour, that's the basis
12 of the Prosecution's request.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're going to discuss the
15 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may, just a
16 single detail bearing in mind this new element that my learned friend has
17 just brought up. I do have to say that the sniping expert, the example
18 that they brought up, was the only case in which the Defence got
19 additional time because the material was very comprehensive, and the
20 remaining three cases, with all due respect, as far as I remember we got
21 maybe a little more time than the Prosecutor for their chief. At any
22 rate, the Prosecutor has already got 50 per cent more time; that is the
23 reason. And that is the discrepancy that we are talking about and that
24 we have so far tried to comply with. Thank you.
25 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may just say a
1 single sentence. It was with great interest that I followed the
2 arguments put forward by my colleague Ms. West, and I remember that the
3 Defence used the same arguments during the OTP case when we talked, when
4 we cross-examined more or less all of the expert witnesses of the OTP.
5 It is in that context that I would like to remind you all that the
6 military expert, Mr. Pringle was in this courtroom and that the Defence
7 of Mr. Petkovic, General Petkovic, despite the written submissions that
8 we had filed beforehand and all the arguments that we put forward got a
9 single hour for cross-examining this witness. Thank you.
10 MR. STEWART: Your Honours, may I just make a two-sentence
11 observation on what Ms. West said just now. The point that she made in
12 her last comments is a point which, if it applied at all, applied at the
13 beginning. It hasn't changed. That would have been an argument for
14 asking, whether good or bad, it would have been an argument for her to
15 put forward asking for more time right at the outset. Your Honours gave
16 an hour and a half at the outset. That point is not a change at all, so
17 it doesn't justify any additional time.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] After deliberating, the
20 Trial Chamber has decided to grant another 30 minutes to the Prosecution,
21 but I shall express separate opinion on this issue and the Trial Chamber
22 reserves the right to decide to grant additional time to the Defence if
23 need be, to the Praljak Defence if need be. My own opinion is as
24 follows. The Trial Chamber is granting 30 minutes, but I personally fail
25 to see the purpose or the usefulness of it because I see the question as
1 being very clear. Was a charge positioned on the very structure of the
2 bridge or not? That's the very question at the heart of the matter.
3 This debate was started by the Defence and by the Judges' questions, but
4 it may be that I did not understand anything.
5 So therefore, you have got another 30 minutes.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I think it should be that the majority opinion
7 is also reasoned, and you will allow me to say that in the majority's
8 view, the equality of arms mainly gives the right to each party to have
9 the time it needs for an effective presentation of its case. Here it is
10 true that the Judges have asked an enormous amount of questions
11 yesterday, and it is also relatively time-consuming always to have these
12 DVDs again and again. And we have always said that we were flexible so
13 that's why we agree here to extend the time, but at the same time we also
14 are prepared to accept for time for re-direct on the side of the Defence,
15 and this would be a gift time not counted towards your general credit.
16 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, before the witness
17 appears I do have another matter to raise. I was about to give it up,
18 but after I read the OTP's letter that I got a minute before you,
19 Your Honours, appeared in this courtroom, it is only now that I begin to
20 see the meaning.
21 Just before you came to this courtroom today, Your Honours, we
22 got a letter from the OTP informing us that they would disclose to us a
23 DVD not meant to be part of their cross-examination, one that has not
24 been disclosed as part of the Rule 68 material. It is not exculpatory.
25 Still, they were about to disclose this document to us because some
1 issues were raised yesterday.
2 The letter seems to suggest that the Prosecutor is serving on us
3 a DVD containing the results of forensic tests, various kinds of footage,
4 recordings of the destruction and eventual collapse of the Old Bridge in
5 Mostar in November 1993. And then they go on to say: "The analysis was
6 conducted by," and now the original [In English] " ... the digital
7 technology and biometric department of the Netherlands Forensic Institute
8 Ministry of Justice and was received by the Office of the Prosecution on
9 June 24." So that was last week, if I'm not wrong.
10 [Interpretation] In the meantime, Your Honours, my colleague has
11 tried to skim through this DVD just to see if it's worth anything at all,
12 given the fact that the Prosecutor said they wouldn't be using it. Given
13 the three minutes and given the technology available in this courtroom,
14 the only thing we could conclude at this moment was that we simply have
15 to go through this, we have to study this before we resume with this
16 witness. It's quite likely that this very material contains things that
17 we might be using on re-direct. It may even call for further tests and
18 analyses, and this is something that as we all know the OTP failed to do
19 during the presentation of their case, although they actually had a
20 theory as to why the bridge was destroyed.
21 If I look at the title of this analysis, and bearing in mind the
22 two minutes that we've actually managed to see, we simply have no choice
23 but to seek to have at least another half-hour to study this material and
24 see what it's all about. This is something that might have a significant
25 bearing on the procedural status of both parties, not just the Defence
1 but also the OTP.
2 Secondly, this is something that I've never seen so far. I've
3 never seen this happen at this Tribunal, but I move that the Chamber at
4 least address a formal admonition, a caution, to the OTP, if not actually
5 some formal kind of punishment because this might be relevant material,
6 it might even be exculpatory but we don't know that yet. Yet, this is
7 disclosed to us two or three minutes before the Chamber walks into this
8 courtroom midway through the evidence being given by this witness, the
9 very witness that this material is related to. And although the
10 Prosecutor claims that this is no Rule 68 material, and although the
11 Prosecutor claims that they only got it a week ago, on the 24th of June,
12 I think this makes no difference. Thank you very much.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, I'm absolutely
14 flabbergasted. How is it that this DVD material which seems to be
15 connected to expert work on the destruction of the Old Bridge was
16 disclosed only a few minutes before the witness, the expert witness, came
17 in as part of the cross-examination? What happened?
18 MR. STRINGER: Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours, and
19 to everyone in and around the courtroom. Douglas Stringer appearing on
20 behalf of the Prosecution. This is a disclosure matter so I'm going to
21 take this.
22 I don't -- I think that the situation is not quite as dire or
23 severe as it's been indicated by counsel or perhaps the extent to which
24 Mr. President's indicated in his comments. I can tell you very briefly
25 what this is about. The Prosecution received the report of Professor
1 Jankovic on the 9th of May, that's the Defence expert report submitted by
2 the Praljak team. We received it on the 9th of May. When we -- and
3 actually, we had to wait approximately a week or so after the date the
4 report was filed to obtain the videos themselves that Professor Jankovic
5 relied on in his testimony and in his report. The videos accompanying
6 the report did not actually come to us until about a week or so after the
7 report of the 9th of May.
8 When we finally got the videos, and these are the videos referred
9 to by Professor Jankovic, the two clips, the ORF2 and the Mostar TV
10 videos, we looked at those and we noticed that on one of them there
11 appeared to be a discontinuity. Now, Professor Jankovic said a good many
12 things yesterday that are not referred to or contained in his report.
13 One thing that's not contained in his report is reference to any
14 discontinuity in either of the video-clips that he reviewed and made a
15 part of his findings. Now we know from his testimony yesterday that he
16 did observe in one of the clips, the ORF2 clip, that there is a
17 discontinuity. He referred to it, and it's actually -- everyone can
18 notice that when they look at the video, but it's not referred to in his
19 report and we didn't know what he would say about that. So we determined
20 that we should see if we could get someone to look at
21 Professor Jankovic's videotapes to give us an opinion as to whether there
22 is, in fact, a discontinuity which is found in one or both of those.
23 And so at that point, and now we're into mid-May or the third
24 week of May, we decided to try to send those out to have an expert look
25 at them and that's what we did. And together with the two video-clips
1 that are referred to by Professor Jankovic in his report, we added a
2 third video-clip -- actually, we sent a number of video-clips to the
3 Dutch forensic lab and asked them to look at all of these.
4 Let me say this first of all and as clearly as possible.
5 Everything that was sent to the Dutch forensic lab and which is referred
6 to in the report that came back to us last week is in the possession of
7 the Defence, has been in the possession of the Defence or was disclosed
8 to the Defence years ago, years ago. We're talking about the two clips
9 that are part of Professor Jankovic's report; we're talking about
10 Exhibit P 1040, which is the other clip that Ms. West used in her
11 cross-examination yesterday; and we're talking about a couple of other
12 clips of basically the same footage that are in the possession of the
13 Prosecution, were disclosed to the Defence years ago, but which haven't
14 been used during the trial.
15 So I want to be clear, Mr. President, there is nothing -- there
16 is no new material, there is no new video material that we're talking
17 about here. After we received the Jankovic report, we sent these
18 materials out to the Dutch to see if they could determine whether there
19 was any discontinuity or whether we were just interpreting the video
20 incorrectly. We did this in order to prepare ourselves for the
21 cross-examination of Professor Jankovic.
22 We just received the report and the disk that came back from the
23 Dutch last week. My letter's actually incorrect. The report is dated
24 the 24th of June, we received it on the 25th is what I'm told. We looked
25 at it. It doesn't contain anything new. There aren't any disclosure
1 requirements that are raised by the video in our view. Only after
2 yesterday's proceedings when Mr. Kovacic stood up and indicated a desire
3 or a wish that, if possible, one could play the recordings side by side,
4 that it might be useful to him, that we went back last night, we talked
5 about it further this morning, and in fact that's what essentially this
6 video DVD is that came back from the Dutch forensic lab. It simply takes
7 all the videos and runs them in a synchronised fashion, all the videos
8 which they've always had.
9 We discussed it last night, we discussed it further this morning,
10 and we decided out of an interest in full disclosure or to assist
11 Mr. Kovacic in his review of these materials, for whatever reason, we
12 would disclose it. We had to make the copies for all the Defence, we
13 wrote the letter, we regret that it wasn't disclosed earlier, but that's
14 just the nature of the beast, if you will.
15 Mr. President, there's nothing new and in our view it doesn't
16 raise any significant issues in respect of this witness or this issue.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment.
18 Mr. Stringer, what is the conclusion drawn by the Dutch lab?
19 MR. STRINGER: Well, we -- if I could just take a step back. We
20 decided that for purposes of cross-examination there's no witness to come
21 tell you about that and maybe we could do that at a later time, but what
22 they've done is to note that among the various footages of the
23 destruction there is discontinuity and we know that. And what the report
24 essentially does is to tell us where the discontinuities exist among the
25 different clips that you see. I mean, it would be the Prosecution's
1 submission that in fact this report shows that the ORF video footage, and
2 I think the witness was admitting this yesterday when he talked about the
3 discontinuity, that the footage of the initial water fountain or water
4 wall in terms of its being juxtaposed directly ahead of the collapse of
5 the bridge, there may be a question whether, in fact, there is a lapse of
6 time. But of course, we all can see that there is a lapse of time before
7 the bridge collapses and we see that in the other video which was always
8 in evidence here, which is P 1040.
9 So the report essentially confirms what we had sort of thought
10 among ourselves about the timing of the water wall that Mr. Jankovic
11 bases his report on and then the subsequent collapse of the bridge which
12 now indicates or demonstrates, in our view, that the water wall on which
13 he relied actually occurs some minutes before, at the very least --
14 actually, we don't know how much time elapses between the water wall and
15 the explosion that Mr. Jankovic talks about and then the subsequent
16 collapse of the bridge. We don't know how much time elapsed between
17 those two events because all of the video has breaks in it at certain
18 times. But when you synchronize them all, it's clear that the water wall
19 which forms the basis of Professor Jankovic's opinion is not the event
20 that actually causes or precedes immediately the collapse of the bridge.
21 So that's what we think the report -- those are just my -- just answering
22 your question, that's my -- I guess, my understanding of what the report
24 But getting back to the basic point, it's something that we've
25 used. We wanted to learn about discontinuity. We learned yesterday for
1 the first time that there was, in fact, agreement about discontinuity.
2 We didn't know that at the time we received his report because
3 Professor Jankovic doesn't talk about it. So that was the reason why the
4 materials were sent out. It was in response to the report that we
5 received in mid-May and the videos. We received the report. We looked
6 at it. And then again, in light of Mr. Kovacic's remarks yesterday, we
7 decided to disclose it. That's really all.
8 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, unfortunately this
9 will take more time than it actually merits, but I would like to make
10 three points here. The first point is I would like to compliment my
11 colleague for the detailed information that has just been given to us,
12 and I would like to thank my colleague for testifying and for providing
13 us with an analysis of the evidence that is still in front of us or the
14 case that is still ongoing. And I would kindly ask you to disregard it
15 because you are supposed to draw conclusions after this evidence has come
17 Secondly, the Defence of course cannot talk about the value or
18 quality of the material that was disclosed to us seven minutes ago
19 because we have not been able to go through it. However, the title
20 itself of the material that was disclosed to us and the name of the
21 institution that carried out this analysis, in light of the additional
22 information provided by our colleague as to what the analysis contains
23 tells me that it would be necessary for us to at least look at it, to go
24 through it, to see what this is all about. The alternative for us in the
25 Defence is simply to put our trust in the Prosecution and to take
1 everything the Prosecutor told us at face value; and what he has told us
2 is, for all intents and purposes, that there is nothing there. And,
3 Your Honours, with all due respect for the Prosecution, I have been
4 trained not to trust the Prosecution, just as they have been trained not
5 to trust the Defence. And you are the ones who should put your trust in
6 what one or the other side tells you.
7 So I will not -- I don't want to accept the explanation provided
8 to us just like that. I want to do my own verifying.
9 And the fourth thing is we heard about the time-line, they
10 received the DVD, there's nothing new there. I agree with them, there is
11 nothing new there except for one thing, and that is the opinion -- the
12 opinion of -- of a respectable institution, at least based on its name.
13 And we, I think, should have the right to go through it.
14 And to conclude, if it is true that the Prosecution received this
15 material on the 25th of June, that was last Thursday if I'm not
16 mistaken -- I think it was actually Wednesday. The expert came here on
17 Thursday and we had the first briefing session on Friday, it lasted for
18 about an hour, and it would be reasonable, then, for us to have been able
19 to go through it on our own and then to ask our expert to look at it.
20 So I don't challenge the claim that all the video
21 recordings - and I have to accept what the Prosecution has said - that
22 all the recordings that the institute has seen, that we have already seen
23 them all because the Prosecution disclosed everything to us, we disclosed
24 everything to them. But I would like to know what the opinion was of the
25 institute. Thank you very much.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Kovacic, the best
2 solution -- wait, wait. I will give you the floor in a moment.
3 Mr. Kovacic, you asked for 30 minutes to watch the DVD, so the
4 best now is to pause for 30 minutes and enable you to watch the DVD and
5 maybe this will help you after you have seen it. Maybe there will be no
6 new problem. You asked for 30 minutes. The best solution is for you to
7 watch this DVD.
8 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. This will
9 assist us, but I still stand by what I proposed at the beginning, and
10 that is that you at least reprimand the Prosecution, at least in moral
11 terms, for failing to disclose this to us on the 25th or the 26th because
12 it -- that would have saved us the half an hour that we're about to spend
13 and heaven only knows what we'll find there and whether there will be any
14 need for any further discussion.
15 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President --
16 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, sorry, before my learned friend.
17 Your Honour, as far as trust is concerned, I think on behalf of
18 Bruno Stojic, it's not a matter of trust. Of course I'm more than ready
19 to accept undertakings from the other side of the courtroom, from the
20 Prosecution bar, and I would hope that they would be willing to take
21 undertakings and accept undertakings from the Defence bar on relevant
22 matters. I think the issue alluded to by my learned friend Mr. Kovacic
23 is one of professional responsibility, yes, and that can be cured, at
24 least in part, by some time, half an hour, to be granted. What I'm not
25 clear on, and the issue to which I'd like some clarification, am I
1 correct in understanding that the Prosecution is not intending to show
2 this video to the witness and use it in evidence? Is it simply disclosed
3 to the parties rather than a document or an exhibit that they seek to put
4 to the witness today? If it's the second, I would have submissions to
5 make on that.
6 MR. STRINGER: Taking Mr. Khan's point first, Mr. President, as
7 we've indicated in the letter, it has never been the intention of the
8 Prosecution to use this report or this video during the cross-examination
9 of Professor Jankovic. That's number one.
10 Secondly, going back to Mr. Kovacic's remarks, Mr. President,
11 there's nothing to remand the Prosecution for and we reject any
12 suggestion that the Prosecution's acted improperly or anything less than
13 fully transparent and appropriately. If counsel led evidence and expert
14 testimony on the basis of videotape that has defects or has discontinuity
15 which sheds light on the opinions, that's his problem, that's not ours.
16 He could have sent these out years ago and got the same opinion that we
17 did when we sent them out only after receiving their expert report. We
18 didn't know what the issues would be until they gave us their report.
19 Counsel could have done that years ago, and it's his own fault if he's
20 surprised about what's contained in the video. That's number one.
21 Number two, we disclosed this simply out of good-will. There is
22 no legal obligation to do so. We are entitled to take their expert
23 reports out and to show them to other expert reports and to perhaps try
24 to get a little more peer review than this witness got. And the
25 information that we learn when we go to experts to try to prepare our
1 cross-examination of their experts is not something that we have to give
2 to them. It's not our job in this system here at the Tribunal to give
3 them our cross-examination outline of their expert witnesses. It's not
4 our responsibility to call Mr. Kovacic and tell him what we're going to
5 do on cross-examination with his expert witnesses. We're entitled to
6 prepare ourselves, and that's what we've done. And only after
7 Mr. Kovacic expressed a desire to have simultaneous or synchronised
8 videotape yesterday did we decide out of a courtesy, a professional
9 spirit of cooperation, to share this with him should he wish to use it.
10 We're not tendering it, we're not tendering any reports or findings of
11 the Dutch. It was simply disclosed and there is no improper conduct on
12 the part of the Prosecution here.
13 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, one word, if I may, one word.
14 [Interpretation] We're not claiming that this is new material.
15 There seems to be a misunderstanding here. We believe that this
16 institute of the justice ministry of the Netherlands, that they saw the
17 materials that we have seen here in the courtroom and that we all have,
18 but it is a fact. And this is the only thing that we're talking about,
19 that the Prosecution received this material and it appears to be an
20 analysis, on the 25th of June, as our colleague has indicated, so one day
21 before my witness came here to The Hague for the briefing. I was in
22 The Hague, the Prosecution knows that, and I could have gone through this
23 with the expert and it is up to me to decide whether this is exculpatory
24 or not, whether this is the Defence case or not; but in this case, I am
25 bereft of this possibility. So I thank you for giving us at least this
1 half an hour for us to be able to go through it. It may really be
2 meaningless, I agree, but it may be of critical importance. I just don't
3 know that. Thank you.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
5 So we are going to pause for half an hour and we will resume at
6 half past 3.00, and therefore this will give you the time to watch this
8 --- Recess taken at 3.00 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 3.38 p.m.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We resume now, and just before
11 the witness comes in there's a question to the Prosecution.
12 The video which you showed us yesterday which seems to feature
13 explosion, smoke, and then the bridge which is -- remains still for a
14 moment, where does that particular video comes? Who shot it?
15 MS. WEST: Your Honour, that is Exhibit P 01040. It was tendered
16 into evidence a year -- July 4th of 2007. The witness who tendered it
17 was Denis Saric, and it was -- oh, may I have a moment, please.
18 [Prosecution counsel confer]
19 MS. WEST: Pardon me, Your Honour, Mr. President, I stand
20 corrected. It was given to us by Denis Saric, however, it was tendered
21 by Delalic, D-e-l-a-l-i-c, on July 4th.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So it is
23 Denis Saric who shot this video?
24 MS. WEST: No --
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No?
1 MS. WEST: My apologies, Your Honour. May I have a moment.
2 [Prosecution counsel confer]
3 MS. WEST: It's my understanding, and I will clarify this to
4 ensure that we're giving the correct information to the Court, but I
5 understand that he didn't shoot the video, he didn't take the video, he
6 recorded it.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, during the 30
8 minutes you had the time to see the video, what is your conclusion?
9 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Yes, we have gone through this as
10 much as we have been able to. You received this paper just a moment
11 before you entered the courtroom, so I don't think that you were able to
12 actually go through it. I would just like to make a couple of points and
13 make a proposal --
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, no, I can work very fast.
15 I don't need 30 minutes to take recognition of the document and I saw the
16 conclusion immediately.
17 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I agree, but in
18 light of the numbers for the videos that we're talking about that are
19 being analysed, in order to be able to really grasp what this is all
20 about we have to first look at the scene that appears under this number
21 to be able to know what we're talking about. But what I wanted to say,
22 first, it is undoubted - and that stems from the chapter entitled
23 "Observations" at page 3 of 10 that this analysis contains - having
24 analysed this chapter we can conclude that a certain video with the
25 number 2389 and another one numbered 2777 is in fact the video that we
1 saw yesterday in the courtroom, that bears the number P 01040. And in
2 the observations it is further noted that the TV ORF1 [as interpreted]
3 that the analysis, that the expert analysis relied on and the one that we
4 saw in P 01040 were taken by the same camera and that the so-called
5 Mostar video that we discussed with the expert yesterday and that is
6 mentioned in his analysis was taken by another camera.
7 So if we go back, the expert in simplified terms told us quite
8 clearly, and this is in the transcript, that the analysis was done on the
9 basis of two video recordings. One is the ORF2 and the other one is the
10 so-called Mostar video. And the expert himself told us that a
11 discontinuity was noted on the ORF2 video, and that is why they
12 controlled it by looking at the other video, Mostar video, and the expert
13 report of this witness indicates that the time-line, the chronology, of
14 events is absolutely the same. In other words, despite the discontinuity
15 that exists in the video recording, the time-line is the same, the
16 sequence of the events is the same. And then the Prosecution showed this
17 other exhibit which shows that the sequence of events after the smoke and
18 the flash and the water wall is different because the bridge does not
19 collapse, it collapses some ten seconds after that. But perhaps I'm
20 going too far here.
21 My proposal is the following. It is obvious that this analysis
22 has not contributed to the Prosecution case substantially and it could
23 not really cast any doubts on the expert witness's report and testimony,
24 at least in my opinion; otherwise, they would have used it in their
25 cross-examination. So it seems to me that this analysis actually
1 confirms one of the basic arguments and that is that two cameras, two
2 tapes, are what the analysis relies on and they're identical. So if
3 anything, this expert report that we have just received supports the
4 reasoning of the expert witness and his claims.
5 But in order to be fair, I maintain what I said at the beginning.
6 The expert should have been in the position to see that. I should have
7 been able to show this to the witness who is a literate man, an expert
8 person. He went through all the materials that we have and they, the
9 two -- the experts, decided to use the two videos that were taken by two
10 different cameras. And I propose that we give this to the expert, to let
11 him go for today, to call him back to the courtroom tomorrow, and then
12 before the cross-examination continues, the Defence should be entitled to
13 ask him whether the expert report that he had been able to read
14 overnight, whether it in any way changes his opinion and that would be
15 our ground zero. We would proceed from that. And then the Prosecution
16 could continue with the cross-examination.
17 The second thing is -- the second option is to deem it irrelevant
18 and to forget about its existence and I'm not in favour of the second
19 option. Thank you very much.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I will confer with my
22 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me, Mr. President, excuse me -- excuse me,
23 Mr. President, sorry --
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: Wait a moment.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right. What do you want to
2 say, Mr. Stringer?
3 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a few brief
4 remarks in response to those of Mr. Kovacic. First of all,
5 Mr. President, just to again state what's obvious, that this is a Defence
6 expert called by a Defence team, and the analysis that is done is one
7 that could and perhaps should have been done by the Defence since they're
8 the ones who are tendering the videos and they're tendering an analysis
9 and an expert opinion on the basis of the videos. That's number one.
10 Of course we do not agree with the conclusions or the suggestions
11 of counsel in respect of the meaning of the report and its impact or its
12 evidentiary value. In fact, the report is not in evidence, and as we've
13 indicated it was never our intention even to offer it into evidence, at
14 least not at this stage, because it was received late. It was received
15 to enable us to prepare for cross-examination and only for that purpose.
16 If we were to tender it, it would have to be at a later stage during the
17 Prosecution rebuttal case.
18 And the fact is that this analysis is one that requires there be
19 a witness in the box who can testify about it, who can tell the
20 Trial Chamber how it was prepared, who can elaborate and answer the
21 Trial Chamber's questions and indeed the questions of the parties in
22 respect of the report, in respect of the video that was done. And I
23 don't think it's going to be useful to anyone to try to have
24 Professor Jankovic comment on it when, number one, it's not in evidence;
25 and secondly, no one here really knows the basic information that the
1 Trial Chamber requires in order to assess the report itself.
2 Thirdly, Mr. President, just the logistics of what Mr. Kovacic is
3 proposing. Because the Prosecution didn't intend to use or to tender
4 this report, it's not been translated and I think that there are
5 logistical language issues in respect of Professor Jankovic's ability to
6 review it and to assimilate the information and then to comment on it in
7 a meaningful way here. It's not in the B/C/S and it's not in French, so
8 I think that's another impediment. So our suggestion simply,
9 Mr. President, is to do what we had always intended which is to leave it
10 aside and come back to it at a later time, maybe we will, maybe we won't.
11 It was simply offered, again, as a good-will gesture or in fairness to
12 Mr. Kovacic based on his remarks from yesterday.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Chamber has heard the
14 parties and has decided that the witness would come in and the
15 Prosecution will ask him -- will examine him as cross-examination for
16 about an hour, and during the questions the Judges, if they consider that
17 it's useful, questions will be asked from the witness specifying that the
18 witness is not an expert on videos or on footage for stills which have
19 been taken by the videos. But the Defence will be able during re-direct
20 to come back on these matters.
21 So let's have the witness in the courtroom. Madam Usher, would
22 you please go and get the witness.
23 [The witness entered court]
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, please be seated.
25 Sorry for the delay. We had to settle a procedural matter. We
1 should have started at 2.15. Basically we're going to start at 4.00, but
2 that's life, c'est la vie, and all our apologies for you having to wait.
3 I'm going to give the floor to Madam Prosecutor, who's going to
4 proceed with her cross-examination.
5 MS. WEST: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 WITNESS: SLOBODAN JANKOVIC [Resumed]
7 [Witness answered through interpreter]
8 Cross-examination by Ms. West: [Continued]
9 Q. Good afternoon, Professor. I hope you had a good evening.
10 Professor, since you left here yesterday, have you spoken to anyone,
11 whether in person or by the telephone, regarding your testimony here
13 A. No, I did not speak to anybody.
14 Q. I'm going to ask you some questions regarding the issue of
15 discontinuity. You mentioned this several times yesterday, and
16 specifically on page 30100 of the transcript you were commenting, this is
17 the transcript which you don't have in front of you but I'll read it, you
18 were commenting about the discontinuity you saw in the TV ORF video. Do
19 you remember talking about that?
20 A. Yes, I do remember that well because that's the fact.
21 Q. Correct. And let me just cite for you what you said to remind
22 you. This is on 30100, it's line 12, and you said yesterday: "If you
23 look at the ORF2 footage, the impression is that two pieces of footage
24 have been glued or pasted next to one another as if the camera -- as if
25 there was a camera filming up to the moment of collapse and the other one
1 would have filmed the collapse itself. The impression is that the first
2 part was filmed while somebody was handling the camera because you see
3 the moves by the cameraman, and the second footage seems to be a fixed
5 Do you remember that testimony?
6 A. Yes, I do, because that's my opinion.
7 Q. And I'll just direct the Court to page 30112, it's line 17, you
8 further testified in speaking about again this discontinuity that: "The
9 movements that we can see are those of someone handling the camera."
10 A few moments later you then followed up and said: "If it were
11 not for that footage," and here you're talking about the TV Mostar
12 footage, "I would not be here today because there is no continuity in the
13 TV ORF footage."
14 Do you remember that testimony?
15 A. Yes, I do remember, but could -- can I express my opinion on this
16 movie or the footage that I saw yesterday for the first time?
17 Q. We're going to speak about that in one moment and you can express
18 it then. Let me ask you another question going back to discontinuity.
19 You appear to consider it to be a very important part of the TV ORF
20 video; is that correct?
21 A. Well, everything is important.
22 Q. But notwithstanding, you spoke about it extensively yesterday;
24 A. I did.
25 Q. Professor, why didn't you mention it in your original report, the
1 report that you submitted to the Trial Chamber?
2 A. What we submitted in our report is an analysis carried out by the
3 three of us, and it's a technical report. So we did not include in that
4 report impressions, things that had not been proved.
5 Q. Sir, you submitted that report as an expert report to this
6 Trial Chamber. Shouldn't that report have been your full and thorough
7 analysis of the events?
8 A. I believe that I -- no, no. I tried yesterday to explain that I
9 saw, I and my colleagues, this discontinuity but that we thought that the
10 two pieces of footage corresponded to one event that we saw on the -- in
11 the other footage, in the other video.
12 Q. Professor, are you again suggesting that you understand that
13 these two events -- rather, these two videos are the same event?
14 A. I said that I have no proof that it is not so; therefore, we
15 thought that it was one and the same event but it could be two. We have
16 no evidence. We cannot say that it is one or two events. It's
17 impossible to say so.
18 Q. Professor, we've spoken about this issue of same event several
19 times before. Yesterday you noted that in your report you indicated that
20 these two videos reported one event, that it was the same event. On
21 direct testimony yesterday, four separate times you indicated that these
22 two videos were the same event. On cross-examination, you again noted
23 four separate times that these two videos were the same event, and I'll
24 direct your attention to 30128, line 18, where you --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down when giving numbers. Thank
2 MS. WEST:
3 Q. -- when you said: "We thought it was the same event and we still
4 believe it."
5 However, on cross-examination late in the day you then testified
6 that you were not certain that the two films shown were one and the same
7 event. Professor, after seeing Exhibit P 01040, you have not seen it
8 fully and we'll go back to it, after seeing that exhibit, what is your
9 answer today? Are the events leading up to the collapse in TV ORF and in
10 the TV Mostar video the same event or are they a different event?
11 A. Let me start with the beginning. We believed - and believing is
12 one thing, facts can be different - we believed that this reported one
13 single event when we wrote our report. We had no reason not to believe
14 so, but we realized that in the first video we had, in fact, two pieces,
15 that's obvious. It is, therefore, normal for me to tell you in the
16 beginning that we thought that this was one single event.
17 When you showed me our video, of course then I realized now, this
18 is my belief now, I think this has to do with two events. And when you
19 ask me what I think now, what I'm thinking, I can explain. In your
20 video, which is more or less the same as the first video that we got;
21 right up to the collapse of the bridge, the two videos are more or less
22 the same. I don't know if they are the same, but they're more or less
23 the same. I did not notice any difference between the two. So
24 everything we said yesterday about the dot of light, the water wall, the
25 black smoke can be seen in both videos. So technically speaking, we say
1 in a similar case, as can be seen in your video, it was a missed
2 destruction. They tried to destroy the bridge, in other words, but they
3 failed to, something failed to work --
4 Q. Professor, let me stop you there. Assume for the purposes of my
5 question that you now believe, just assume for the purposes of your
6 answer, that in fact the events leading up to the collapse on those two
7 videos are different events. If you now understand that to be a fact,
8 would you change your opinion about the cause of the collapse?
9 A. No. It would not have changed my opinion, but I would say that
10 the probability might have been lessened a little. Why? Allow me to
11 finish what I was trying to say before. So I'm now talking about your
12 video, the one I saw yesterday. We saw all the elements in a
13 concatenation towards the explosion, but we did not see the destruction,
14 we did not see the light ball or the spot of light. That means that the
15 detonator was activated but the explosion did not take place, that can
16 happen sometimes, I don't know --
17 Q. Sir, sorry for the interruption again --
18 A. We had this on several occasions --
19 Q. [Previous translation continues]... you can then speak about
20 it -- excuse me, Professor --
21 A. Let me finish answering your question.
22 Q. No --
23 MS. WEST: Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Professor, please answer the
25 questions as they are asked. Do not add any other comments.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I answer the question strictly?
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What did you want to say?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I wanted to say was that we
4 spoke about the destruction of the bridge with a projectile, everything
5 stays the same, nothing has changed.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, Madam Prosecutor, you're
7 going to show us this video again, P 1040, but please give us the sound
8 as well, the soundtrack, because yesterday we were shown footage without
9 the soundtrack and I would like to hear whether there are people
10 speaking, whether there are detonations. Normally it would be possible
11 to hear that.
12 MS. WEST: Thank you, Mr. President. Indeed, if we can have the
13 sound, we will do so.
14 Q. Professor, the reason I stopped you was for that very reason.
15 We're going to play the video and you can explain it along the way.
16 While we're getting that video you just said though your opinion wouldn't
17 have changed, the probability might have lessened a little bit.
18 Yesterday you said you were 80 per cent sure; is that right?
19 A. Yes, I was.
20 Q. Thank you. If now the probability has lessened a little bit,
21 what percentage sure are you now?
22 A. Let's say 75 per cent.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MS. WEST: Mr. President, may I proceed? I believe there will be
1 Q. Professor, I'm going to play the video from yesterday again. I'm
2 just going to start it at the beginning, although we stopped at about
3 5.26. We're just going to start right ahead from the beginning.
4 [Videotape played]
5 MS. WEST:
6 Q. Professor, we're now at 5.28. We saw your water pillar at about
7 4.26. We're about a minute later. You will agree with me that the
8 bridge still stands; correct?
9 A. It's obvious.
10 Q. I'm going to play up till 5.40, and I will ask you to focus at
11 about 5.38 and then I'll ask you a question.
12 [Videotape played]
13 MS. WEST:
14 Q. Now, right before I stopped it, it was right at 5.38. Did you
15 see a little skip or a jump or some discontinuity in the tape?
16 A. No, I didn't. You need much more time to see it.
17 Q. Okay. I'm going to go back again and we'll try it again.
18 [Videotape played]
19 MS. WEST:
20 Q. Professor, did you see that skip in the tape?
21 A. No, we look at things like this in slow motion.
22 Q. Okay. We'll try this one more time just to ensure that you're
23 clear about what I'm looking for. I'll again direct your attention to
25 [Videotape played]
1 MS. WEST:
2 Q. Professor, did you see the skip in that tape?
3 A. I think I saw a skip, a downward skip, of the footage.
4 Q. Now, if you can assume for the purposes of this question that
5 there was a skip --
6 A. A downward skip, I'm saying that to the interpreter.
7 Q. Okay. Thank you.
8 If you can assume for the purposes of this question that there
9 was a downward skip or a cut or a splice, would you agree with me that,
10 in fact, there had to have been a stop in filming, there was a period of
11 time that was not filmed?
12 A. I don't know that, not at all.
13 Q. All right. Well, yesterday you spoke about the concept of frame
14 by frame, and you told the Trial Chamber that it was very important that
15 you examined the period of time before the collapse frame by frame. So
16 you know what concept means; correct?
17 A. Of course.
18 Q. And the reason it's important to examine something frame by frame
19 is to ensure that you're not missing anything on the video; correct?
20 A. No -- well, on a frame-by-frame analysis we used that in order to
21 see what was -- what caused the bridge to collapse. So I said, if it was
22 because of a projectile, we should have seen the projectile before the
23 bridge would collapse; or else, when we wanted to analyse at what time we
24 saw the spot of light, the water wall, and the black smoke, we needed to
25 analyse frame by frame to see whether the times would tally.
1 Q. Thank you. I'm going to continue the video and we're going to go
2 to 5.55, and right before 5.55 I would ask that you focus on the events
3 on the video.
4 [Videotape played]
5 MS. WEST:
6 Q. Professor, did you just see the video frame either skip or was
7 cut or what might be called a splice?
8 A. Yes, I agree.
9 Q. Now, I'm going to back up just to ask you another question about
10 that and play it again, and I'm going to ask you whether the video, in
11 fact, changes vantage point.
12 [Videotape played]
13 MS. WEST:
14 Q. Did it change a vantage point?
15 A. Before you spoke we saw some images, some frames, so, you know, I
16 couldn't really react. The images went by.
17 Q. I'll do it again and slow down.
18 [Videotape played]
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Indeed.
20 MS. WEST:
21 Q. And I just want to ask you about one more difference and it
22 regards the smoke that we now see at 5.55.1. I'm going to back this up
23 and ask if you see that smoke in the frame immediately before.
24 [Videotape played]
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I can't see it.
1 MS. WEST:
2 Q. So would you agree with me that again here we have another splice
3 or another cut in the tape?
4 A. Probably so.
5 Q. Would you also agree that the --
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment.
7 Witness, I don't want to interfere with Madam Prosecutor in her
8 questions, but like everybody I'm following this footage very carefully
9 and I imagine the following hypothesis and you'll tell me straight away
10 whether this is wrong or it can have some merit.
11 When the Prosecutor started playing the footage we saw that there
12 was this water wall and then black smoke. Thereafter we could see the
13 bridge still standing. Looking at this, I wondered whether there was not
14 a shell that hit the water before the bridge, the shell exploded, and
15 that could cause the smoke. And now just watching a few seconds ago the
16 other frame, my impression is that a shell hit further than the bridge,
17 may have hit a building, for instance, that there was some smoke that
18 rose and it seems to be seen in the picture and because of the wind it
19 went back, the smoke went back towards the bridge. Am I wrong? Am I
20 right? What do you think?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I remember properly, in some
22 videos that we did not use as evidence I saw projectiles, more
23 specifically one, that hit, as you said, a building behind the bridge; if
24 I remember properly, it happened exactly the way you described it, it's
25 possible. But I would not -- the two water streams are different.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Prosecutor, you may
3 MS. WEST: Thank you.
4 Q. You just said that the two water streams are different. I'm not
5 sure I understand what you mean. Do you mean the water activity we see
6 on TV ORF is different from the water activity we see on the TV Mostar
8 A. No, I said that the linear water gush that we saw in the three
9 videos, the two that we introduced and the one you presented, are totally
10 different from the water activity resulting from the fall of a projectile
11 into the water or a ricochet, a projectile that would hit the water.
12 That cannot be mixed up, it's totally different, of course for those who
13 know the effects -- the facts.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.
15 MS. WEST:
16 Q. Thank you. Going back to this video, we're now at 5.55, and I'm
17 just going to back up again and play it.
18 [Videotape played]
19 MS. WEST:
20 Q. Did you just see the skip in the video and the smoke in the sort
21 of -- above the bridge?
22 A. Yes --
23 Q. And --
24 A. -- I could see the smoke but in a continuum, in the second part.
25 Q. Professor, does the smoke suggest that there might be another
1 impact somewhere?
2 A. This is to be found in the second part of the video you showed us
3 or you're showing us.
4 Q. Professor, my question is: Does this smoke --
5 A. After the cut. Can I finish? Therefore, the smoke may be as the
6 Presiding Judge said and as I saw in other videos, namely, that there was
7 a projectile that hit something behind the bridge.
8 Q. So, Professor, you would agree with me that this smoke, in fact,
9 indicates some sort of impact?
10 A. Probably.
11 Q. Thank you. I'm going to continue to play the video for about 20
12 more seconds --
13 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I've been very
14 patient, I really have. However, if you look at the heading, at the
15 title of this analysis, if you look at the content and if you look at the
16 evidence of this witness so far, it just doesn't follow that we have
17 before us an expert in video analysis. This is simply not true.
18 The subject of this evidence is an analysis of the destruction of
19 the Old Bridge based on such video footage as is available. That is what
20 this witness is here for. He's not an expert in interpreting all sorts
21 of detail that he's now being asked about. Any one of us laymen could
22 perhaps comment on all these features, but this is simply --
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, let me stop you.
24 The Prosecutor is trying to make a demonstration. Let's follow her.
25 We're now at the stage of smoke, of smoke, and I think the smoke results
1 from a previous hit beyond the bridge. The witness we have in front of
2 us is not contradicting me. Let us wait and see. Now the counter is
3 5.55.4. Let's see the rest.
4 Continue, please.
5 MS. WEST: [Microphone not activated]
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
7 Microphone, please.
8 MS. WEST:
9 Q. Since we are now at 5.55, at this point the water pillar, you
10 remember, was at 4.23, we're already about a minute and a half later.
11 And you will agree that the bridge still has not come down; correct?
12 A. Well, in your video, yesterday's video, that was true, as you
13 said. After the water wall, the wall -- the bridge remained intact. So
14 technically we say that it was a missed trial. We -- one tried to
15 destroy the bridge, one activated the detonator, we could see the spot of
16 light, but the main charge was not ignited. That's my interpretation of
17 your video.
18 Q. Okay. But in my video, the video that you see in front of you,
19 this is the same water pillar at 4.26 that you saw on your video, TV ORF;
20 isn't that correct?
21 A. Well, to be absolutely certain I should compare in further
22 detail, but my impression was that it was the same. It was my
24 Q. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to continue to play this video up
25 until about 6.15 and then I will ask you another question.
1 [Videotape played]
2 MS. WEST:
3 Q. Professor, at about 6.08 you saw the collapse of the bridge;
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. All right. Do you want to see it again?
7 A. Well, to give you my opinion on this video I should have to watch
8 it as I can see it in my computer, quietly, in slow motion, but --
9 because if I fail to see something I watch it frame by frame. It would
10 be too dangerous to give you whatever opinion it is.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can your assistant from now on
12 play it frame by frame?
13 MS. WEST: Well, Your Honour, I can play it frame by frame.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please go ahead.
15 MS. WEST:
16 Q. Right now we're at 6.06 and we're going to go frame by frame
17 through the collapse.
18 [Videotape played]
19 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, frame by frame,
20 please. But this is cutting, this is not frame by frame. We simply
21 don't have the sort of technology available to view this frame by frame.
22 We don't have it. This is a series of cuts. If my learned friend is
23 convinced that that's what it is, I'm afraid I have to disappoint her and
24 announce that that is not what it is. As I said yesterday, we are simply
25 unable here in this courtroom to perform this sort of analysis. This is
1 something for a forensic expert in a darkroom and that's how it must be
2 studied. We need at least three pairs of eyes to be able to conduct this
3 sort of analysis. Thank you very much.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
5 continues]... you have now 6 minutes, 6 seconds, and 7, so in theory
6 there should be 8/10th, 9/10th, 6 minutes, 7 seconds. Isn't it possible
7 to go either by second or by tenth each frame? Because when we see the
8 bridge collapse, as already we have seen several seconds go by.
9 MS. WEST: Your Honour, counsel is correct, that is second by
10 second, not frame by frame. I can continue and we will inquire as to
11 whether it can be done frame by frame in the courtroom. We were able to
12 do it frame by frame, I think, on another video. I'm not sure if we can
13 do it on this one, but I'll inquire.
14 Mr. President, may I continue?
15 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] If I may be of assistance,
16 Your Honours, the analysis that we talked about this morning at 4.10, the
17 Dutch analysis -- [In English] "The assumption has been that the
18 different video footages were recorded at the typical speed of 25 frames
19 per second."
20 [Interpretation] This same standard is applied in our own
21 analysis. There are several references in this analysis to these
22 frame-by-frame images, ORF page 3, for example, 0 seconds, 40
23 milliseconds, 80 milliseconds, and so on and so forth. This is something
24 that is simply not available in this courtroom. My colleague is talking
25 about frames, but we have 25 frames in a second and this is not something
1 that we can reproduce in this courtroom. This is a technical delusion.
2 It's like someone takes me to a dark forest in the middle of the night
3 and tries to convince me that I can actually see anything, which just
4 isn't true. My learned friend should be bringing an expert here who
5 dealt with that sort of thing. Here we have Professor Jankovic and he is
6 someone who actually looked at that kind of thing.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
8 continues]... frame by frame, or as soon as you press your button, does
9 one see the bridge collapse and then it's 6 minutes, 8 seconds count or
10 something like that?
11 MS. WEST: Your Honour, on this software it goes second by
12 second. I think there are two options available to us. I know there is
13 some possibility of frame by frame that I saw, I think, on a different
14 video, but also this witness testified yesterday that he's done it frame
15 by frame and I wonder if he has that video with him. May I continue,
16 Mr. President, and I'll ask him that question?
17 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, I'm sorry, but this is the question --
18 this is the question equals to Dr. Jankovic: Do you have a jumbo jet 747
19 in your bag? I mean, what are we talking about here?
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Prosecutor, when one
21 watches the video one can see the bridge collapse but one can't see
22 before that whether there is a flame, smoke, and the water wall or a
23 projectile. That you can't see it in your video here, so you may show it
24 again. But it goes so fast that one can't see. Therefore, let's go
1 MS. WEST: Your Honour, it goes second by second, but I'm going
2 to try to open it in a different media player to see if it comes up
3 differently. If I can just have a moment.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Praljak.
5 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honours, I'm not
6 trying to influence the proceedings in any way, but if you look closely,
7 please believe me, you can use any kind of equipment you like to look at
8 this, but there is a cut here, the sort used by film technicians. The
9 part just before the collapse and the destruction itself and right
10 after --
11 THE INTERPRETER: The interpretation cannot proceed because we
12 have several channels at the same time. Thank you very much.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, your assumption, of course
14 I thought about it, but to check it I wanted us to be shown second by
15 second or tenth by tenth of second.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I add something?
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Witness.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to call your attention
19 that passage from one frame to another there should be 4/100ths [Realtime
20 transcript read in error "1/400th"] of a second or 40 milliseconds.
21 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, is this going to get confusing. The
22 transcript says 1/400th of a second which is not what I understood the
23 witness to say. That just in case that shouldn't get corrected, he said
24 4/100ths of a second, in other words, 1/25th, which corresponds with 25
25 frames per second. That's what I understood.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, you're right.
2 [Prosecution counsel confer]
3 MS. WEST: [Microphone not activated]
4 It's not possible to play it on a slower version in the
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, Witness, between the last
7 picture or frame that we've seen at 6 minutes, 6 seconds, and 7/10ths, I
8 think, and after that the bridge collapses. According to you, would
9 there be a cut in the picture?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted to know exactly when I
11 have this impression I will look frame by frame, but ...
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Prosecutor.
13 MS. WEST: Thank you.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You may continue.
15 MS. WEST: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Q. You'll remember on this video your water pillar was at 4.26, and
17 although we couldn't see the frame preceding the collapse at 6.08, you
18 will agree with me that that's about a minute and three-quarters later;
20 A. Yes, if that's -- you've calculated correctly, yes.
21 Q. Well, whether I've calculated correctly or not, it's a
22 considerable amount of more time than you had on your video, right?
23 A. Absolutely.
24 Q. You'll agree with me that the TV ORF video that you viewed was
25 either edited, spliced, or was clearly not in the original format?
1 A. I accept that.
2 Q. And you'll agree with me that at least this video suggests to you
3 that there was a greater amount of time between the water pillar and the
4 actual collapse of the bridge?
5 A. That is to say, this video we've seen, there has been a moment
6 after the water wall and the bridge doesn't collapse for a moment. So
7 according to that film, the bridge was not destroyed by that explosion or
8 by this activation of a detonating cord or the initiating as we have seen
9 and so on. That is obvious, but the collapsing of the bridge in this
10 film, I -- gives me the impression that there is also before the bridge
11 collapses a cut, there is a discontinuity.
12 Q. Professor, I'm just going to back up and repeat to you. At line
13 20 you said: "According to that film," which is the film we just
14 watched, "the bridge was not destroyed by that explosion or by this
15 activation of the detonation cord ..."
16 So are you now testifying that, in fact, the water pillar that
17 you saw in this video which you testified to be the same water pillar you
18 saw on TV ORF is not the cause of the collapse of the bridge?
19 A. My impression is that there have been two different things.
20 First, the Mostar film shows a continuum, activation and destruction of
21 the bridge. I accept that this film is of bad quality. The film of ORF,
22 which is of much better quality, there is a cut, a splicing. You have
23 more or less the same film also with a cut, but there is a time interval
24 which shows that the water wall and this activation is not the cause of
25 the destruction of the bridge because if it had been the cause, the
1 bridge should have collapsed immediately after.
2 Q. Thank you, Professor. If that is the case and if that is now
3 what you base your facts on which are quite different than the facts that
4 you based your original report on, then will you agree with me that the
5 TV ORF water pillar we see is not the cause of the collapse of the
7 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Objection. It is not clearly
8 implied -- or rather, the question implies that the expert is changing
9 his position. The question is not specific enough. It should specify
10 that this is in relation to what we're watching now, which is P 01040,
11 because afterwards if we were to read the transcript, it would just be
12 completely unclear.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Hold on a second.
14 Mr. Witness, expert, I shall summarize the problem. We have
15 three videos, the Mostar video, the ORF video, on those two videos you
16 have based your own expert report; there's a third video which is being
17 shown at the moment, which is the video which the Prosecutor has
18 introduced. If I make any mistakes, stop me immediately, tell me.
19 In the video presented by the Prosecution it is practically
20 certain, it appears practically certain, that there has been an explosion
21 which does not have -- that doesn't make the bridge collapse. The bridge
22 in this video is going to collapse later, much later.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Later.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Later. From that point, if one
25 tries to reconcile the three videos, would the following outline be
1 possible? First, the first attempt which tries to make the bridge
2 collapse, and you can see on video P 1040, one can see smoke, a water
3 wall, but the bridge remains as is. And sometime later we see the smoke,
4 the water wall, and the bridge which collapses. Does this scenario, is
5 it compatible with what you know as an expert? Does it reconcile with
6 the video of the Prosecutor?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's how I see matters, yes.
8 Therefore, there's a first attempt which it failed, a second attempt
9 which succeeded.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
11 Madam Prosecutor.
12 MS. WEST: [Microphone not activated]
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
14 MS. WEST: Thank you.
15 Q. We're going to move on to the TV Mostar video. Do you recognise
16 this first frame?
17 A. [No interpretation]
18 Q. And yesterday you saw IC 574, which was a Defence exhibit that
19 was admitted in 2007. You also saw -- then you saw a clearer version of
20 this. Do you remember that?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Well, I'm going to show it to you again, this is IC 574, it's the
23 same video but just clearer, and I'm just asking if this looks -- excuse
24 me, let me ask you if this looks familiar to you.
25 [Videotape played]
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it seems to be -- it looks
2 very much like the Mostar film.
3 MS. WEST:
4 Q. Okay. I'm going to use this instead for questions because it's a
5 better video if you will agree that it's the same one and we're going to
6 start at the beginning. I'm just going to play it for one second.
7 [Videotape played]
8 MS. WEST:
9 Q. Now we're at 0.5 and on the right-hand side you see some water
10 activity. Do you see that?
11 A. Yes, yes, the water gush.
12 Q. And you also see some water activity in the middle of the river;
14 A. Yes, I can see there's -- something has fallen in the water,
15 pieces of rock have fallen in the water.
16 Q. Now, if I understand your testimony so far, you will now agree
17 with me that this water activity we see in the right on this video is not
18 the same water pillar that you saw on the TV ORF video?
19 A. I would say that isn't the same.
20 Q. Okay. I'm going to continue it a little bit further and I'll
21 remind you about your testimony and the questions yesterday regarding the
22 piece of something that fell off the bridge that we saw right from the
23 middle, if you just keep watching I'll ask you a question.
24 [Videotape played]
25 MS. WEST:
1 Q. I'll just stop the video again at 2.9 and I'm going to back it up
2 so you can see it again and ask you whether you see anything falling from
3 the bridge.
4 [Videotape played]
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see the whole bridge collapsing.
6 MS. WEST:
7 Q. Let me ask you another question, Professor. Do you remember from
8 the TV ORF video we actually saw a separate piece fall from the bridge
9 and then it splashed in the water?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So I'm going to ask you whether you see that in this video.
12 [Videotape played]
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't see it.
14 MS. WEST:
15 Q. Thank you.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, this water wall which
17 can be seen which might correspond to the Bickford cord which explodes.
18 If this cord explodes, may some pieces of this cord fall further away and
19 make this sort of appearance just by sight?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When the cord exploded -- before it
21 explodes, the detonation wave is extremely fast and has already started
22 with the detonator -- the explosion of the detonator before the explosion
23 of the whole charge, the detonator may probably make some stones or bits
24 of rock crumble, which after that -- should I repeat?
25 This is my impression, that's my explanation.
1 MS. WEST: [Microphone not activated]
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
3 MS. WEST:
4 Q. You've indicated that the water pillar we see in TV Mostar is not
5 the same water pillar that we see in TV ORF, and I just want to
6 momentarily go back to TV ORF so you can see that water pillar again.
7 [Videotape played]
8 MS. WEST:
9 Q. Do you see it right there at 1.4?
10 A. Yes, I can see it.
11 Q. And you'll agree with me and you testified yesterday that what we
12 see on the screen now resembles what you later tried to replicate in your
13 experiment; is that right?
14 A. Absolutely.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Witness, on the frame one
16 can see there is the water wall which is fairly long, but one can also
17 see at the level of surface of the water small splashes on the left of
18 the water wall. Would this correspond to the splashing on the other
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I think it's the same.
21 MS. WEST:
22 Q. Professor, you have now indicated at least 15 times the issue of
23 whether these two events are the same or different. Yesterday I already
24 recited for you at least over ten times in which you indicated that they
25 were the same event, and then yesterday towards the end of the day you
1 indicated that they were a different event. About ten minutes ago you
2 finally agreed that they were a different event, yet you have just
3 testified again that they are the same event.
4 I will ask you one final time, are these water pillars, these
5 events preceding what you believe to be the collapse, the same event or a
6 different event?
7 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, perhaps I can make one observation. In
8 fairness to the witness he did say repeatedly, of course my learned
9 friend is quite correct the way she puts her last question, but, for
10 example, at page 38, line 22, and the witness said very clearly: "To
11 give you my opinion on this video I would have to watch it on my
12 computer, quietly, in slow motion."
13 The witness has said that kind of statement on a number of
14 occasions. Now it's completely proper for my learned friend to test the
15 witness's expertise and the conclusions upon which he bases his report,
16 but to seek to turn the crucible of the courtroom into a laboratory
17 whilst he's surrounded by judiciary, members of the parties, and to look
18 at matters that -- frame by frame when the technology is not available
19 and then to seek to criticize him for some conclusions, when he said very
20 properly this is not a laboratory, very properly that he needs time to
21 look at it on a frame-by-frame basis is perhaps a little bit unfair.
22 Of course the witness can give his instinctive reactions in the
23 same way that we all have our own views from looking at the evidence
24 without any degree of scientific or technical analysis, but it's my
25 submission that may not be of an awful lot of assistance to Your Honours.
1 Your Honour, that's the observation I do make.
2 MS. WEST: Your Honour, may I be heard?
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Witness, maybe there is a
4 linguistic problem. You express yourself in French which has, of course,
5 qualifications and is very precise. When you say the same splash, the
6 same event, in your mind is the fact that there are two splashes in two
7 different videos correspond to the same event or do you say that the two
8 splashes we've seen are two different events? Could you be specific on
9 that, because sometimes English does not cross exactly the nuance of the
10 French language. So when you speak of these splashes, same splashes, are
11 you talking about the same event or are you saying there are two splashes
12 and they are two different events?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will start by the beginning if I
14 may. I say that it is one event, one splash, in the two cases when we
15 wrote our report. I've been shown here something which features
16 clearly -- by the way, something -- I've seen here something I haven't
17 been able to analyse. To say that two splashes are the same I have to
18 analyse them because the same splash seen by two different cameras, I
19 have to -- they are seen from a different angle but it is one splash or
20 one pillar. Is it the same although it is seen from a different angle
21 because there are two different cameras which have recorded this? That
22 is one point. Therefore, I couldn't do that.
23 But as you will have noticed, I have been requested to give a yes
24 or no opinion. I have, therefore, the impression now that those are two
25 splashes: One after which the bridge does not collapse and the other one
1 after which the bridge collapses. But for all this, as I have told you,
2 one has to be able to see peacefully frame by frame --
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So to conclude, if one watches
4 the three videos, there are two splashes which correspond or water
5 pillars which correspond to the first event when the bridge does not
6 collapse, therefore it's an attempt which failed; and the second water
7 wall or pillar corresponds to the falling of the bridge and that is an
8 attempt which is successful.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think this is what I think now
10 but without performing an analysis. With all we have here that is what I
12 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, if I may be of some assistance and
13 since the Prosecution was so --
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, I don't think it's
15 necessary. I think I have perfectly summarized the situation and your
16 witness agrees with my summary. So if you want to add something there
17 will be more confusion.
18 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I agree precisely
19 because it was summarized. I don't want to appear as if I want to spoil
20 it, quite the contrary is the case, I'm quite happy with the way you
21 summarized it. But in this regard I would like to say something because
22 I will not be raising this in re-direct. At page 8 to 10 of the document
23 that was disclosed to us today, there is a chapter that for the most part
24 confirms your argument, your summary. But we cannot now go into that. I
25 just wanted to draw your attention to this. I don't know if anyone wants
1 to tender this document into evidence or not.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So it's the first
4 Madam Prosecutor.
5 MS. WEST: [Microphone not activated]
6 Q. Professor, you've been a professional for a long period of time
7 and so you're familiar with the concept of peer review; is that right?
8 A. We have a specific procedure in order to check our colleagues,
9 that's all I can say.
10 Q. And yesterday you testified that you welcomed your colleagues to
11 review your work here; correct?
12 A. Yes. If anybody can help find the truth, of course I shall bow
13 to that.
14 Q. Professor, I'm going to direct your attention again to
15 Exhibit 3D 03154, it's in your binder and it's the Hartmann report that
16 we spoke of yesterday.
17 A. Yes, I have it.
18 Q. You remember Judge Prandler actually asked you some questions
19 about this yesterday.
20 A. No.
21 Q. You don't remember those questions?
22 A. No, I don't.
23 Q. Well, nonetheless, do you remember on page 44, line 14,
24 commenting that Professor Hartmann's opinion did not run counter to yours
25 and, in fact, that they went together. Do you remember testifying to
1 that yesterday?
2 A. Yes, I explained that regarding the destruction of the bridge
3 with an explosive charge we share the same opinion, Professor Hartmann
4 and myself.
5 Q. Okay. Professor --
6 A. However, with regard to the destruction of the bridge with
7 projectiles, Professor Hartmann does not know projectile-related
8 specialty, it's not his specialty, he doesn't know that technology.
9 Q. Okay. But nonetheless, you asked Professor Hartmann to make
10 comments on your report, didn't you?
11 A. No, I didn't.
12 Q. Who invited him to make the comments?
13 A. Well, ask Mr. Kovacic.
14 Q. All right. We're going to go to paragraph 3 and we're going to
15 go through this piecemeal. We'll start with the first sentence under
16 paragraph 3. Dr. Hartmann wrote: "According to the material available
17 to me, the actual reasons for the collapse of the bridge are extremely
19 Notwithstanding your view of Dr. Hartmann's credential, is it
20 fair to say that he disagrees with your conclusion that the bridge came
21 down because of an explosion via an underwater detonation cord?
22 A. Further down, Professor Hartmann said that everything we wrote
23 down was possible and real.
24 Q. Okay. That's not my question. My question is: According to
25 that sentence, would you agree with me that Professor Hartmann disagrees
1 with your conclusion?
2 A. I shall repeat. He believes or he sees the destruction of the
3 bridge only from the point of view of explosives. He's not able to
4 assess whether the bridge was destroyed by projectiles. Because he does
5 not know that fact, he's bound to conclude the way he does. I would have
6 done the same. But since I know that the bridge did not collapse because
7 of a projectile, I conclude that there's no other possibility than the
9 Q. Thank you.
10 A. -- all the manifestations of the destructions are shown as by
12 Q. Professor, the next sentence is: "However, it is obvious to me
13 that the tank shelling caused enormous destructions to the Old Bridge in
14 Mostar ..."
15 Here Professor Hartmann is speaking about the shelling that
16 happened previously and we saw all of the coverage that happened or much
17 of the coverage that happened on November 8th. Did you consider the
18 previous shelling in your analysis?
19 A. Well, first of all, let's be careful. I don't know what elements
20 or what material Professor Hartmann has. I feel that we did not have the
21 same material, but at any rate in the material that we had we looked at
22 all the effects. And as I said, I agree that the bridge had been
23 damaged, but I also draw your attention to the fact that the destruction
24 was mainly on what was built on the bridge.
25 Q. Sir, are you testifying that, in fact, you did consider all the
1 previous shelling in your analysis?
2 A. Yes, everything we could see in the videos.
3 Q. Can you point to me where in your opinion you talk about the
4 previous shelling on November 8th, in your analysis of the videotapes of
5 November 8th?
6 A. I have the text in its French translation. It should be exactly
7 the same as in the English translation. So let me read the French text.
8 "I can see the destruction of the -- because of the HVO tank
9 which can be seen" --
10 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters are asking for the page,
11 please. Can we have the page in the translation?
12 MS. WEST: Professor --
13 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] English text --
14 MS. WEST:
15 Q. Go ahead.
16 A. Page 3 in English.
17 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly asked to read slowly.
18 THE WITNESS: "The fire of the military tank of the Croatian tank
19 [indiscernible] is being held responsible for the destruction of the
20 Old Bridge in the city of Mostar," and so on.
21 MS. WEST:
22 Q. Professor, I'll just ask you one question that might make this a
23 little bit more simple. You did not look at extensive videotape from the
24 November 8th shelling, did you?
25 A. [Interpretation] So can you show me what you think I didn't see
1 and then I'll tell you.
2 Q. No, it's impossible for me to show you what I think you didn't
3 see. The question is: Did you review extensive videotape from
4 November 8th in order to write your report? The answer is yes or no.
5 A. Well, we watched a lot of things and out of all this material
6 everything that related to our report is appended in the attachments.
7 That's all I can say.
8 Q. Okay. And you'll agree with me that the only thing appended to
9 your report is the TV ORF video, the TV Mostar video, and your experiment
10 video; correct?
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. Thank you. Look at the -- back to Dr. Hartmann's report. If you
13 look at the fourth paragraph, it's the --
14 MR. KHAN: Well, Your Honour, I do apologise. This is now the
15 second time my learned friend has characterized the document from
16 Dr. Hartmann as a report. I think that overstates the case. The doctor
17 says in paragraph 2 that he makes only comments, and I quote: "... an
18 official appointment as assessor took not place," that's obviously a
19 mistake in the syntax, "at no point in time. As a consequence, the
20 following annotations remain informal."
21 It is a letter that no doubt my learned friend has disclosed in a
22 spirit of fairness. There's no details from the face of this letter
23 regarding the amount of time Dr. Hartmann spent on this project, and so
24 it does go to the earlier comment regarding peer review. In my
25 submission, it can't properly be put as a report that in any way, shape,
1 or form can be said to gain say in any material in particular the
2 evidence of the witness under oath before you.
3 MS. WEST: Mr. President, this is not my report, this is a report
4 that the Defence admitted yesterday or spoke about yesterday, this is not
5 something that we came up with.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I think that is not the issue, but I think that
7 counsel is quite right, this is a letter, and the word "report" is
8 putting it too high.
9 MS. WEST: Then I will say letter.
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes, I think you should do that.
11 MS. WEST: Thank you.
12 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may since we
13 have interrupted the testimony. A moment ago when the expert read a
14 couple of sentences from the expert report it was not entered into the
15 transcript because he was reading too fast. Perhaps just a reference,
16 that's at page 3, both in the B/C/S and the French version, that's the
17 second paragraph, I think he read two or three sentences. So just so
18 that we have a reference. So it's page 3 in the French and the English
20 And now that I've taken the floor, I didn't want to waste time
21 about what my colleague has just indicated, but I do think that we have
22 to distinguish -- make a distinction here. This is a letter that was
23 sent to me by Dr. Hartmann at my request, nothing else and nothing more
24 than that. This person was not retained as an expert, we do not intend
25 to call him as an expert. We merely wanted to get his opinion. So it is
1 just a letter.
2 You heard that there was a question about any challenges to their
3 expert opinion once the analysis was published I wanted to -- I initiated
4 this in order to see whether there was any criticism of the report. So
5 this is the purpose behind this letter.
6 MS. WEST: Mr. President, may I proceed?
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please do proceed.
8 MS. WEST: Thank you.
9 Q. Looking to paragraph 4, the sentence starts with: "Nevertheless,
10 having studied the explanations in the engineering opinion of the
11 aforementioned Zagreb experts, in accordance with the more or less
12 corresponding video sequences, I can establish that the conclusions drawn
13 there with respect to 'water jet caused by detonation of detonation cord'
14 are plausible."
15 Do you see that part of the letter?
16 A. I do, but the word is plausible.
17 Q. Professor, focus on the part of the sentence it's right in the
18 middle, it says: "I can establish ..."
19 Do you see that part?
20 A. I do.
21 Q. And the sentence that comes after or the words that come after
22 it, you would agree with me this is what Professor Hartmann -- his
23 opinion or his conclusion is would start right there, do you agree with
24 that, would be the rest of that sentence?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. He then writes: " ... that the conclusions drawn there," and
2 here he writes "with respect," and he puts in quotes "'water jet caused
3 by detonation of detonation cord' are plausible."
4 Would you agree that the only thing that Dr. Hartmann concurs
5 with is that it is possible that when you put a detonation cord under
6 water it will create a water jet?
7 A. [No interpretation]
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness --
9 MS. WEST: I think there's --
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] The answer was not recorded in
11 the transcript, and I clearly heard "yes."
12 THE INTERPRETER: Sorry, the interpreters didn't.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can you confirm that you said
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, two things, there is
18 your expert report and then his letter, your German colleague's letter in
19 which he expresses his opinion. The Prosecutor is very fast, but I would
20 like to go back precisely to what you said which seems to me relevant.
21 This is what you say.
22 "The destruction of the bridge by an HVO tank that was located
23 south of the bridge and west of the Neretva River at about 1.4 kilometre
24 of distance from there, any video or documentation it is obvious that in
25 the morning of the 8th of November from 9.57 hours to 15.52 hours was hit
1 by many projectiles. Therefore, it is very probable that it was hit by
2 the projectile of the said tank. This conclusion can be drawn on the
3 basis of the recorded visual effect of the explosion."
4 So initially you do not rule out that the bridge may have been
5 destroyed by those projectiles based on the videos, but you add this:
6 "However, the footage of the ORF2 footage just before the collapse of the
7 bridge can suggest another cause for the destruction of the old bridge
8 around 10.00 on the 9th of November. This footage showed a linear water
9 gush," et cetera.
10 Therefore, in your opinion initially you mentioned a possible
11 destruction by shelling, but watching the ORF2 video you concluded that
12 it was caused by an explosive charge, by a splash of light, by smoke, and
13 by a water pillar.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As confirmed by the TV Mostar
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's very important.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Your colleague must have seen
19 all of your report, and he seems to conclude in his letter that he is
20 just about certain that the water pillar is connected to the detonating
21 cord that caused the water to rise. So he's about a hundred per cent
22 certain. However, as to the certain causes he does not take any stand
23 because his last sentence seemed to say that all causes remain open. We
24 have the English word "open" at the end of the letter. Therefore,
25 everything remains open. Is this how the letter by your colleague can be
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's the way I understood
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You may proceed,
5 Madam Prosecutor.
6 MS. WEST: Thank you.
7 Q. Sir, I'm going to direct your attention to another page of this
8 same exhibit, the page number is 3D 35-1174, it's the same exhibit but
9 it's the cover letter that went with this --
10 A. One moment, please.
11 Q. I believe you have it right in front of you.
12 A. I do.
13 Q. Thank you. This is a cover letter, it's more statements by
14 Professor Hartmann in regard to your report and I'm going to read the
15 first sentence.
16 "In the attachments you will find my statement in which I have
17 taken over most of your adjustments. Further alterations, however, would
18 not suit me. I kindly request you not insist on additional changes."
19 This cover letter was directed to counsel for Mr. Praljak. Since
20 this was based on your own report, were you consulted about the
21 additional changes requested of Hartmann by counsel?
22 A. I don't know at all.
23 Q. You don't know if you were consulted about those changes?
24 A. I don't know what the changes are about.
25 Q. I'm going to go to the next sentence. There he writes: "Due to
1 my limited time and my burden in many current research projects, I would
2 also very much appreciate if you could avoid any future involvement of my
3 person in the case of the prosecution of General Praljak" --
4 MR. KOVACIC: If I may object, Your Honour. If I understand
5 correctly, the witness clearly said, "I don't know at all," so the
6 witness was not involved in my communication with Professor Hartmann. He
7 clearly answered, so he is now asked once again. He cannot be asked when
8 he provided the answer, "I don't know," and if anybody would have to
9 testify on that it would be me. I sent the letter to Professor Hartmann,
10 I got one response, I put additional letter, I got an additional
11 response. So it's not for witness.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're not going to spend the
13 entire winter on this.
14 Now, there was a communication, an exchange, between
15 Professor Hartmann and Mr. Kovacic. Apparently you were not aware of
16 that, but as much as you can remember, at any point in time did
17 Mr. Kovacic call you to tell you that you had to change your report on
18 this or that part?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not at all.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And you are saying this under
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And you raised your hand to do
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 MS. WEST: Thank you, Mr. President, I have no further questions.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
3 It might be good to break. Judge Trechsel thinks that we can
4 still hold on for another ten minutes. Okay. We'll work until 5.30.
5 Usually it's one and a half hours.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Professor, I'd like to draw your
7 attention to page 6 of your report in English. Take your time. Your
8 report. Did you find it?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I've got it, but I think the
10 numbering is not the same. I mean, I have a copy from my computer.
11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] You have the page on the screen.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can somebody help me?
13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Just in front of you, you can
14 see the picture on your screen.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Fine.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] You have six frames, don't you?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] These frames come from
19 TV Mostar, from that video?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] We can see water activity,
22 splashes, but I fail to see a water wall because it's -- the focus is too
23 narrow. Is there any reason why you thought that here as well there was
24 a water wall, a long water wall, as can be seen in the ORF video?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely. We discussed this
1 very issue, and our conclusion was that it cannot be seen here, not
2 because it does not exist but because the vantage point is much to the
3 left. You can't see all of the water wall, you see only part of it.
4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Look at the bottom right frame.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's just at already the end
6 because you have 1.88 seconds, so nearly 2 seconds have elapsed.
7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Did you compare these frames
8 with ORF2 frames to see how that is at around the same time, like 1.88?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I remember we did carry out
10 the comparison for the -- and the results thereof were good for the
11 splash time that our worry is that the bridge did not fall fast enough.
12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] I have a second question. Take
13 the next page in your report. There's a small sketch showing your thesis
14 of the detonating cord.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] I agree, we saw all this in the
17 video showing the first event. And in your theory, shortly thereafter
18 there was a second event causing apparently the bridge to collapse. Is
19 that so?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that's what we were saying
21 earlier on, that there were two water splashes or walls. Well, that's
22 the logical conclusion based on everything we saw here in court, not in
23 the report.
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Two things. Firstly, is it
25 probable and feasible to place under water two detonating cords? Second
1 question: If you activate one, how probable is it that the second would
2 explode as well because suddenly there is an enormous pressure that is
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is precisely what I was
5 thinking myself, but I'm not a professional in the use of explosives.
6 But I know that very often you have various chain, as it were, of cords
7 to make sure that if one fails there's another chain that you can try to
8 make it work. That's my opinion. If there was a main charge there could
9 be two detonators, two detonating cords. The first was activated and it
10 failed, then the second was activated and it worked. That's possible,
11 but I can't guarantee that it's right.
12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] And you cannot say whether the
13 activation of the first detonating cord may have caused the second cord
14 to be activated?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first did not activate the main
17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] I know that, but I'm worried
18 about the two explosive detonating cords. And normally, an explosion
19 will have some kind of contagious effect. If you have an explosion and
20 other explosives nearby, more often than not the other explosives will
21 also produce a blast which accounts for some disasters. If you had put
22 two cords, two detonating cords, you would have put them far away from
23 one another, far apart, because one could damage the other, that's for
24 sure. So the other cord was somewhere else, in another position, maybe
25 some metres away, I don't know, maybe some tens of metres away, but not
1 really next to one another. In the same water does it help, is there not
2 any shock wave that would transmit faster than air?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't think so. The fact
4 that one explodes is not going to influence the other provided they are
5 sufficiently far apart.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Have you carried out any
7 experiments on that?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, but I'm aware of the physics of
9 explosives so that's what I say.
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Based on the footage we have, is
11 it possible to see that there would be several metres between one and the
12 other hypothetical cords?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is possible, that could be.
14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] But it cannot -- no trace can be
15 seen of that?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, you have to analyse all that.
17 It would be too risky to say anything, to provide an answer like that.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Kovacic, did you have
19 any re-direct or not?
20 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Yes, maybe a couple. I think it
21 might be a good idea to have a break now, which is necessary at this
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
24 We shall resume in 20 minutes' time.
25 --- Recess taken at 5.30 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 5.51 p.m.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, you have the
4 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we'll be very brief.
5 We've looked at the transcript, we have some special questions, including
6 references to your own questions. All that will not be necessary,
7 actually. There is one thing that I would like to raise, though.
8 Re-examination by Mr. Kovacic:
9 Q. [Interpretation] Professor Jankovic, you still have the OTP
10 binder in front of you, don't you; if not, I'm sure someone can hand you
11 a set.
12 A. I don't have it. I don't know what you're talking about.
13 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Could we have Ms. Usher's
14 assistance, please. [In English] Okay. Take it. Could you please
15 assist me, usher, document number P 10515.
16 Q. [Interpretation] Professor, there is a letter there, an opinion.
17 First you have the English translation. If you keep on leafing through
18 it you will find the Croatian, a total of two pages. There is something
19 there that wasn't copied properly, and then you have the Croatian text in
20 the upper right corner, the last three digits 558, you can see that
21 that's where it begins, that's page 1. 558 and 559, 560.
22 As far as I remember, some time ago I sent you a copy of this
23 letter as soon as I got it. Please have a look to see if you still
24 remember it. This was sometime in September 2007.
25 A. I don't remember. I'm not sure I read it.
1 Q. Fine. I'm not entirely certain that I forwarded it to you. I
2 thought that I had, but it's a very brief one so we can go through it. I
3 would like to draw your attention to the title itself: "A position on
4 the analysis of the destruction of the Old Bridge in Mostar based on
5 video footage." And then there is a description there, table of
6 contents, and then something that reads basis or foundation or background
7 and you can see Professor Melzer's qualifications and the material that
8 you used and then the situation and the description of the bridge and so
9 on and so forth.
10 Can I draw your attention to something on page 559, that's page 2
11 in your copy, paragraph 5 towards the bottom of the page. A position
12 taken based on such analysis as is available, the situation, the
13 description of the bridge, you see what he is talking about here. If you
14 look at paragraph 5 Dr. Melzer states: "Having closely studied the
15 analysis," which is referenced as number 1, that is your analysis, pages
16 1 through 15, "I have not identified any significant technical
17 inaccuracies ."
18 And then: "The flash at the abutment cannot be identified. We
19 can also say that before the fall of the bridge instead of one there were
20 two separate explosions. The reason for that is probably the lower frame
21 frequency (25 frames per second) and the editing methods used in the
22 available video-clips (the video-clips available to me, the so-called
23 fields have also been reconstructed, so that effectively the number of
24 frames per second is 50)."
25 And then on the next page, another two sentences that read:
1 "Nevertheless, the conclusions reached in analysis 1 are certainly
2 technically correct."
3 And then he goes on to state: "Following my own examination of
4 the available video recordings, I can now fully endorse the statements
5 made in analysis 1," and that is your finding.
6 Professor, do you agree with this?
7 A. I agree, I'm happy.
8 Q. Thank you very much. If you go back to page 1 and you look at
9 the header, Dr. Rainer Melzer, a civil engineer, office for building and
10 destroying the buildings and facilities; do you perhaps know this person?
11 A. This is the first time I hear from him and the first time I see
12 this document, the first time I hear about him.
13 Q. Do you have any doubts speaking of this introduction that it is
14 your analysis that he's focusing on?
15 A. I have nothing to doubt about.
16 Q. Thank you very much.
17 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the next page 3962,
18 we have it in English, Professor Melzer wrote a letter to me in reply to
19 my letter to him. Perhaps I should provide an explanation for the
20 benefit of the Chamber. This opinion is very precise and it fully
21 endorses the analysis that we are now tendering into evidence --
22 MS. WEST: [Previous translation continues]...
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 MS. WEST: Thank you. I think that we're about to get into the
25 same thing that we got into on the Hartmann report. He's now talking
1 about a cover letter that was sent to counsel that this witness has never
2 seen also the witness has never seen this particular report. The second
3 thing is this is an expert report under 94 bis which I would submit he
4 has not complied with the Rules on and cannot now admit it through this
6 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may respond.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Madam Prosecutor, about
8 Mr. Hartmann's letter, you quoted it so you have to allow the Defence to
9 use the letter of Dr. Rainer without quoting 94 bis.
10 MS. WEST: Your Honour, the Hartmann letter was produced by
11 counsel to us. He indicated to us for the proceedings that it was not
12 going to be admitted as an expert report. We had some discussions about
13 this. However, this is quite different in that this -- he is calling it
14 a report, it is truly an expert report that he's now trying to admit. So
15 it's not complying with Rule 94 bis.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Kovacic.
17 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] If I may just respond to this
18 objection, to this objection, it's not new to me -- the letter from the
19 OTP during my preparation, but it wasn't about this, it was about
20 Professor Hartmann's letter that we were looking at a while ago. I would
21 like to respond in purely legal terms. Provisions of Rule 94 bis say
22 that a party, the Defence here, is entitled to move for an expert opinion
23 to be tendered into evidence or not. I haven't done so yet in the case
24 of this opinion because that would probably mean that we would need to
25 call this gentleman to prove him and so on and so forth, which we believe
1 to be entirely unnecessary bearing in mind that we already have an expert
2 report by qualified experts.
3 The idea was precisely about this and I think the witness
4 mentioned this yesterday in part at least, and that is why I picked it up
5 today. This was the idea. There were no reactions from any qualified
6 researchers after the book was published on the Old Bridge which included
7 their own analysis or study. We were concerned by this absence of
8 reactions. As Defence counsel I wanted some form of criticism, I wanted
9 some sort of a reaction, in order to be able to reassure myself that the
10 analysis was technically sound or perhaps that it displayed certain
11 weaknesses, were there certain questions that should be raised, that sort
12 of thing.
13 In this way, we eventually reached two experts in Germany. One
14 was Professor Hartmann, the other was Professor Melzer, two experts that
15 I exchanged letters with. I had received tips from other people who were
16 insiders, but these details are not so important. I asked them several
17 questions. This is the expert report, please criticize, please spot any
18 weaknesses if you can, do you agree, can you endorse this or not.
19 I am not tendering this as an expert report. There is no reason
20 for me to be tendering this as an expert report. What I am, doing simply
21 because the witness referred to this document, I asked a couple of
22 relevant questions, I showed the witness the document, the Professor
23 agreed with the finding in this document. And if we look at the details
24 of the document, it entirely tallies with all the evidence that we've
25 been looking at over the last three days here in the courtroom. This is
1 all directly linked. And I will be moving for this exhibit to be
2 admitted into evidence.
3 I think based on the Chamber's practice so far there shouldn't be
4 any problems with this document becoming an exhibit. Its authenticity is
5 beyond challenge, it definitely has probative value, it's relevant in
6 relation to our case in every way, and by way of a conclusion it was the
7 OTP that tabled this document because they were the ones who placed this
8 in the witness's binder. They brought this on themselves. All I'm doing
9 is reacting to this letter, otherwise you might end up asking yourself
10 why aren't we using this.
11 That is my proposition. I think we are free to do this.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Madam Prosecutor, since
13 there is going to be an IC number with a list of documents which will
14 be -- for which you will request admission, you may request it for this
15 document of Dr. Rainer.
16 MS. WEST: Mr. President, I just want to ensure that I am clear
17 as to this particular report. The Office of the Prosecutor is not
18 requesting the admission of this report from Dr. Melzer, I understand
19 that counsel is requesting that admission. What I am pointing out is
20 that it is an expert report that was not provided to us under 94 bis, so
21 it has not complied with the Rules and should not be admitted in this
23 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, I don't know if it assists, but the other
24 way of looking at matters, of course, is that -- and I believe my learned
25 friend for General Praljak alluded to it. It may be that the report
1 that's under discussion need not be admitted for the truth of its
2 contents, but of course it can be admitted on another basis. My learned
3 friend in a way, in my respectful submission, opened the door when she
4 sought to put the Hartmann letter to the witness to impugn his findings
5 in part under the rubric of peer review. In that context it may well be
6 the case that the new report can be used to evaluate the credibility of
7 the witness under the same rubric of peer review whilst not being
8 evidence for the truth of its contents. Your Honour, I don't know if
9 that assists as a way forward.
10 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I thank my learned
11 friend for lending me his support and handing me another argument in my
12 favour. One thing I would like to point out is that the Defence
13 disclosed to the OTP all of our materials on the 31st of March and over
14 the next following days in a variety of different media, that was after
15 the Rule 65 list was already concluded. We gave them everything we had
16 all at the same time And that was how they got this letter. It was part
17 of my sets of documents. There is no surprise factors involved.
18 Secondly, it is the OTP that who placed this document on the list
19 of documents which they wanted to use during their cross-examination.
20 Thirdly, what my colleague has just underlined, the fact itself
21 that it was the OTP who chose to use the Hartmann document as some sort
22 of an endorsement, and I'm using this on redirect. This is also an
23 endorsement of the expert opinion. It is not in itself an expert opinion
24 or a finding; it is a mere endorsement. It is a document that the
25 Chamber must bear in mind when assessing the expert report before us and
1 all of the evidence provided by this witness. I think this is in the
2 interests of justice. I don't think there should be any procedural
3 intricacies standing in the way, especially not Rule 94 bis. If I wanted
4 94 bis, I would go for 94 bis, but I definitely have no need at all to
5 take that step.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
7 continues]... finished. Very well --
8 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours, yes,
9 this completes my re-direct.
10 Q. Mr. Jankovic, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you
11 for coming here, to make this enormous effort not just on behalf of
12 General Praljak's Defence but also on behalf of my other colleagues here,
13 my learned friends and the Chamber itself. I thank you very much for
14 coming here.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Very well.
16 Your testimony is now finished. I wish to thank you in the name
17 of my colleagues who have come to The Hague to bring your contribution in
18 order to find the truth, and you have my best wishes for your future
19 activities and I shall request from Mrs. Usher to accompany you out of
20 this courtroom.
21 [The witness withdrew]
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before we adjourn, since we
23 won't have other witnesses this week, Mr. Prlic's witness will come next
24 week as foreseen. I will tell you that the Appeals Chamber, if you don't
25 know, has rendered its decision on the motion concerning determining the
1 time allotted and the Appeals Chamber confirmed the decision made by our
2 Chamber and rejected the appeals of the several Defence teams. So you
3 will certainly read the judgement maybe this afternoon.
4 Therefore, if there is nothing else on the agenda -- I think
5 Mr. Scott wants to say something.
6 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour, good afternoon.
7 Two things, Your Honour, and I'll take them -- the one item of
8 business, but while I'm on my feet, just on the last point that's been
9 made this afternoon in terms of this last document. I just want to make
10 it very clear the Prosecution position is that this is an entirely
11 improper way to introduce evidence. The fact that it may or may not have
12 been listed as a cross-examination exhibit means absolutely nothing. It
13 may or may not have been proper for cross-examination, but since it was
14 never used, it has no bearing on the question.
15 The Rules provide specific means for the introduction of
16 evidence. One of them, for example, is 92 bis, a witness who -- a party
17 wants to call and the witness has to come for cross-examination or not.
18 But this is a whole new vehicle: Testimony by letter, testimony by
19 vouching letter, and there is no provision in the Rules for that. If
20 Mr. Kovacic wants to file a Rule 92 bis motion to introduce in that
21 manner and the Prosecution can respond and request cross-examination or
22 if he wants to propose it as a 94 bis expert, we will certainly ask for
23 cross-examination, but there is no -- there is no procedure whatsoever
24 for admitting evidence by letter to vouch for the testimony of another
25 witness. That's basically -- that's fundamentally wrong.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In order not to lose time,
2 Mr. Praljak's Defence may perhaps, I'm not sure, put this exhibit in its
3 IC list so then you will have the possibility to challenge in writing.
4 So don't pursue on this issue. You will have the opportunity to do so in
6 MR. SCOTT: I want to make it clear, Your Honour, that I think it
7 was improper to put it to the witness at all.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It will be even clearer if it's
9 in writing.
10 MR. SCOTT: That doesn't address the point, Your Honour, but we
11 will address it in writing, but the information should never have been
12 put before the Chamber, that was improper. That's my point.
13 Number two, I would -- as the Chamber will be aware, there have
14 been a number of applications made for provisional release. I don't know
15 that they've all -- all six accused have now made them, I think not. I
16 think four -- maybe four, perhaps five have filed, but there's one or two
17 that have not yet filed, I think. What the Prosecution would ask the
18 Chamber to do in the interest of efficiency and ask the Chamber to
19 entertain, either inquire of the Defence or ask the Chamber to entertain,
20 a dead-line for the filing of all such motions and then what the
21 Prosecution would like to do is file a single -- a single consolidated
22 response with -- once we have them all, I would ask to make our response
23 within 14 days, the normal time.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So there are several requests
25 for provisional release which have been filed, not all of them. So I
1 don't know for the moment who are the Defence teams who haven't done so
2 yet, but I invite you, for those who haven't done so yet, to do so so
3 that the Prosecution can file a consolidated reply so that the Chamber
4 may render its decisions. There will be six decisions, all this takes
5 time and I will remind you that we have to finish around the 24th of
6 July. Therefore, all those who are lagging are requested to file as
7 quickly as possible so that Mr. Scott may in the next 14 days file his
8 own motion. I know that, Mr. Scott, even if the Rules give you 14
9 days -- well, the earlier it will be done the better it will be in order
10 to enable the Chamber to make its six decisions.
11 So I think everything has now been seen and we shall meet again
12 next Monday at 2.15.
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.14 p.m.,
14 to be reconvened on Monday, the 7th day of
15 July, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.