Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 6549

 1                           Friday, 11 January 2013

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.35 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone in and around this

 6     courtroom.

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

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.

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

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11             In the absence of any preliminaries, could the witness be

12     escorted into the courtroom.

13             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, if I may make quick use of this time.

14             There were two exhibits, Your Honours, P542 and P627, which were

15     marked for identification pending a B/C/S translation.  These two have

16     now been obtained, have been uploaded, so the Prosecution requests first

17     that the Court Officer be given permission to attach the translations,

18     and, second, that they finally be admitted into evidence.

19             Thank you, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Groome.

21             The translations now being provided, the Registry may attach the

22     two documents --

23                           [The witness entered court]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  -- to the document upload in e-court.  And P542 and

25     P627 are admitted into evidence unless there were any objections.  I

Page 6550

 1     don't think.  It was just a matter of translations.

 2             And P627 is admitted under seal.

 3             Good morning to you, Mr. Van der Weijden.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Good morning, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  May I remind you that you're still bound by the

 6     solemn declaration you've given yesterday that you'll tell the truth, the

 7     whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 8             Mr. Ivetic will now continue his cross-examination.

 9                           WITNESS:  PATRICK VAN DER WEIJDEN [Resumed]

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

11             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

12        Q.   Good morning, sir.

13        A.   Good morning.

14        Q.   I wish to now turn to the main body of the report that you

15     authored in this proceeding and the Scheduled Incidents to look at some

16     of them in greater detail with you, although we will not have time to

17     look at all.

18             But, first of all, I want to ask you with respect to this type of

19     expertise, that is, the examination of incidents to determine the origin

20     of fire, have you ever authored any articles, reports or publications in

21     this area of expertise that have been subjected to peer review?

22        A.   No, I haven't.

23        Q.   And I'd like to call up 65 ter number 1D00539, which is the

24     transcript of your testimony in another proceeding, in the Perisic case,

25     and I would like page 34 in e-court of this 65 ter number.

Page 6551

 1             And while we wait for that, sir, I would ask that we focus from

 2     the beginning of line 7 onwards, and if you can follow along, I will ask

 3     you to comment on the testimony from this -- this portion.

 4             "Q.  I heard today, and I think you can confirmed this

 5     previously, as well, that you didn't take into account the medical

 6     reports, and you state your reasons why not, why you didn't think they

 7     would be useful or would be useful, but would you agree with me when I

 8     say this:  That a medical report about certain wounds and injuries, if it

 9     contains a precise description of entry and exit wound, can fairly

10     clearly determine the angle at which the body -- the bullet entered the

11     body?

12             "A.  Combined with the exact location and the direction the

13     victim was facing at the time, it would, yes.

14             "Q.  So a medical report of that kind would mean that you could

15     establish, if you knew the position of the victim, that you would be able

16     to establish the direction from which the bullet came; right?

17             "A.  Yes.  That would be possible.

18             "Q.  And what is very important, the angle at which the bullet

19     entered the body.

20             "A.  Yes, I understand."

21             Now, first, I want to ask you with respect to this selection,

22     does this accurately reflect your recollection of the testimony that you

23     gave in the Perisic proceedings relating to this matter of the medical

24     reports.

25        A.   Well, I do not remember myself exactly what I've said at that

Page 6552

 1     session, but if this is the transcript, this is what I have said, and

 2     reading it now again, it's -- I still believe this is the -- still stand

 3     behind my -- my words.

 4        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  And then if we could just continue the next

 5     section which is -- starts at line 23 in the transcript and goes on to

 6     line 3 of the next page:

 7             "Q.  Did you ask the OTP to provide you with those crime reports?

 8     Did you ask them whether they had possession of any crime reports?

 9             "A.  I don't remember [sic], but I don't -- I haven't received,

10     and I haven't worked with the crime reports, and as you have stated, I'm

11     not a -- I don't have a specific medical background, so it would be of

12     not much use for me personally."

13             Does this accurately represent your -- the answer you would give

14     today on this same question?

15        A.   I would like to elaborate a little bit on that.

16             I have medical -- I have had medical training.  There are medical

17     crime reports -- medical reports within the evidence that I received

18     before -- that I received so -- and could have used.  Only those reports

19     were mainly focussed on the cause of death instead of technical details.

20     But I haven't asked for additional crime reports, that's true.

21        Q.   What I'd like to ask you, sir, is in terms of performing your

22     analyses and rendering your conclusions, did you have access to or did

23     you utilize medical reports or crime reports of the nature that was

24     discussed previously, i.e., with the entry and exit wounds delineated or

25     described?

Page 6553

 1        A.   Well, I did use some information of the medical reports or crime

 2     reports in my report.

 3        Q.   Do you recall if you relied upon any descriptions of entry and

 4     exit wounds for purposes of rendering your opinions as to the

 5     Scheduled Incidents in this case?

 6        A.   I would have to check.  Just a minute.

 7             I did rely on -- in some cases, for instance, in case F1, in

 8     the -- the medical reports she was wounded on -- in a -- in her right

 9     leg, and from that -- from that information, I draw the conclusion what

10     calibre could have been involved.  In case F4, the direction of fire is

11     based, as well -- in my beliefs on the technical and tactical

12     possibilities but also on the information that the bullet wounded the

13     mother in letter left thigh and wounded the daughter on her right and in

14     her abdomen.  And that's the same for F12.

15             So there are several cases where I used medical information.

16        Q.   Would you agree with me that in certain cases the medical

17     information can also exclude certain calibres of munitions because they

18     would cause greater injury and that is present in a particular victim?

19        A.   Yes, I do agree.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Isn't this clear from the report itself -- isn't it

21     true that the witness has written this down in his report?  I think at

22     least twice.  There's no need to repeat what is clearly in the statement

23     or in the expert report.

24             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

25        Q.   Sir, with regards to these Scheduled Incidents that are in your

Page 6554

 1     report, am I correct that your analysis as to each of these incidents

 2     presupposes that the shooter was a trained sniper rather than a marksman

 3     or an ordinarily soldier with an assault rifle?

 4        A.   No, you're not.

 5        Q.   Okay.  I'd like to -- I'd like to ask you with respect to these

 6     incidents, did you have information among the information provided to you

 7     by the Office of the Prosecutor that the -- that there were other

 8     witnesses who indicated that the shooters in Sarajevo were using

 9     low-power scopes and medium-quality weapons and were not persons with

10     accuracy to be snipers?

11        A.   I don't recall any information like that.

12        Q.   Would such information have been relevant to your inquiry and

13     your analysis?

14        A.   I don't believe so.  I -- I nowhere in my report state that the

15     shooter has been a sniper, so I don't see the relevance.

16        Q.   Well, sir, would you not agree with me in the instances where it

17     is a long-range shot or a difficult shot that you are supposing is the

18     source of the fire that it would therefore presuppose that the shooter

19     was a trained shooter using a better-quality scope, for instance?

20        A.   A trained shooter with better-quality scope, yes.  That's true.

21        Q.   I'd like to show -- present you with the -- a portion of the

22     testimony of Mr. John Jordan, a ten-year veteran of the US Marine Corps,

23     who was also a volunteer fireman with the United Nations, who spent some

24     considerable time in Sarajevo during the time-period that is -- that is

25     at issue and experienced first-hand the -- what was called the sniping.

Page 6555

 1     And at this trial, at transcript page 1812 through 1813, line 10 onwards

 2     he states as follows, and hopefully as I read can you follow what is in

 3     today's transcript so you can -- so you can process the entirety of the

 4     statements before commenting on them:

 5             "Q.  Thank you.  If I can direct your attention to

 6     paragraph 24 of your statement, here is where you state and then I quote:

 7     'I would classify most of the shooters as marksmen, not snipers.'  Then

 8     later on you say most of the shooting was with medium-quality weapons

 9     with low-power scopes.  Would you agree with me that here we're talking

10     about the snipers that were shooting upon the GOFRS personnel in this

11     paragraph?

12             "A.  I am saying that I considered most of the people who were

13     referred to as snipers as, in actuality, gunmen, not necessarily a

14     trained sniper who could hit somebody a thousand yards away.  The

15     expression, quote/unquote, sniper in Sarajevo was used by just about

16     anyone to refer to when anyone was shot and when that was really not the

17     case.  Many of the people who were shot walking around were shot by men

18     who fired a burst out of a window from a thousand yards away, and people

19     would say the wounded person was hit by a sniper when they were actually

20     hit by, you know, some guy literally holding a gun over a wall and

21     letting a magazine go.  They would say the person was shot by a sniper.

22     If there were really that many good snipers there, there would have been

23     more dead.

24             "Q.  Would the fact that these persons that were incorrectly

25     referred to as snipers, would the fact that they were using low-power

Page 6556

 1     scopes, medium-quality weapons, and were not persons with accuracy to be

 2     snipers, would that mean that they would have lower accuracy than someone

 3     who would be trained as a sniper?

 4             "A.  Yes."

 5             First of all, based upon your experience, would you tend to agree

 6     with the statements of Mr. Jordan?

 7             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  I'm just going to object to the -- that was a

 8     tremendous amount of testimony that was read back to the witness.  If we

 9     could break down what it is he's supposed to be agreeing with.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, you are asked and now encouraged to

11     split it up.

12             MR. IVETIC:

13        Q.   Would you agree that, again based upon your analyses, persons

14     tended to uses the term "sniper" even for instances where gunmen shot

15     blindly over a wall or shot a salvo through a window?

16        A.   I would agree that more or less it's the same -- the same thing

17     that I put in my report.

18        Q.   And with respect to the Scheduled Incidents that you analysed, am

19     I correct that you cannot 100 percent exclude the reasonable possibility

20     that the scenario was caused by an untrained marksman shooting a burst

21     through a window or letting go a salvo from an assault rifle over a wall?

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, would you include a marksman shooting a

23     burst through a door?  Or through a hole in the wall?  I mean, let's get

24     concrete again.  Let's get concrete.  Let's see what we know about what

25     happened and ask questions about that.

Page 6557

 1             I have not, apart from what Mr. Jordan gave as a possibility

 2     blindly shooting, et cetera, let's focus -- of course, you cannot exclude

 3     anything -- you cannot exclude that someone took a rifle, put it

 4     backwards over his shoulder and shot somewhere.  Of course, you cannot

 5     exclude that if you had not seen the person who shot.

 6             Let's try to get to the concrete knowledge we have and see what

 7     conclusions are reasonably do be made and which ones are -- which cannot

 8     be made.

 9             Again, I, as a Judge - and I'm not speaking for my colleagues

10     yet - I have not yet excluded someone shooting backwards, not even

11     looking at his target.

12             Please proceed.

13             MR. IVETIC:  But, Your Honours, the -- well, the point is trying

14     to get to the methodology of this particular witness and how he

15     determined that a particular shot had to be an intended shot from a

16     particular point, particularly targeting the victim who was struck.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber, having read the report, is well aware

18     of what the limitations are of what an expert can say about these things.

19     And if you point at certain points where you say, and I think we

20     explained that already, if I only take you back to the water level that

21     little was known, the Chamber is fully aware that the report has to be

22     read with a critical eye.

23             You may proceed, and if you want to point at any matter where you

24     think methodology is flawed, do it directly.

25             Please proceed.

Page 6558

 1             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

 2        Q.   I'd like to ask you briefly about optical sights and the ability

 3     to see targets through them, and to do so, I'd like to walk you through

 4     your testimony in the Perisic proceedings so, again, we need 65 ter

 5     number 1D539, and this time it will be page 39 in e-court.

 6             And, sir, if we can start at line 19 of this transcript, you can

 7     follow along, and I will have questions for you about the matters

 8     contained therein.  And this will bleed over onto the -- onto the next

 9     page of the transcript:

10             "Q.  Regardless of the model, if we have an optical sight times

11     four, do you -- would you agree with me when I say that a target which is

12     over 600 metres -- at a distance of over 600 metres cannot be seen using

13     those sights in view of the line in the sniper which is wider than a

14     human face, the dividing line in the sights?

15             "A.  If the radical of the M-70 scope or M-80 scope are similar

16     to the Soviet models or the Russian models, then, indeed, the needle

17     which is used to target -- to put on the target is wider at larger

18     distances like it would be for iron sights, but it doesn't mean that the

19     bullet cannot get there.  It only limits the effect of the means for the

20     shooter to aim his rifle.

21             "Q.  At all events, if this line exists, it is an impediment to

22     see the target at a distance greater than 600 metres; right?

23             "A.  Yes, it would."

24             Now I want to stop there and ask you to confirm whether you still

25     stand by what was said in the Perisic case, with the caveat that I will

Page 6559

 1     be also reading your further explanation from lines 10 through 25 of this

 2     page and 9 of the next page of the transcript.

 3        A.   Well, indeed the reticule - and it should be not "radical" but

 4     r-e-t-i-c-l-e - would cover the -- a person at the that range.  However,

 5     before I train my sight on that target, the chances that the reticle will

 6     immediately cover the person without moving the scope is next to zero.

 7     So you can't exclude it, but he would have to aim his reticle at

 8     something extremely close to that target.  So the chances that he hasn't

 9     seen a person in his scope are next to zero.

10        Q.   Let me ask you to follow up on that, sir.

11             Let's assume that the sniper or a shooter is using such a scope

12     to target a legitimate target, a combatant, would it be possible for the

13     reticle to mask any other items in the surrounding area such that a near

14     miss would then strike a civilian?

15        A.   With the reticle of the scopes most likely used in the conflict,

16     the -- it would only be possible if the unintended target would be below

17     the intended target and nowhere else.

18        Q.   And if, for instance, you are shooting at someone on an elevation

19     and the unintended target is farther away than the actually target, would

20     they not, in fact, be below the intended target on the scope?

21        A.   They might, if they're very close to the intended target.

22        Q.   Thank you, sir.

23             Now, if we could return to line 8 on the screen and scroll up so

24     that the entirety of this -- through line 25 on e-court is visible.  And

25     if we could follow along:

Page 6560

 1             "Q.  And if the magnification is in the ratio of 1:3, then at a

 2     distance of over 500 metres the same problem will occur?

 3             "A.  It might, but I would like to explain something.  In Western

 4     sniper courses and from the countries I know, the sniper always works

 5     with his rifle.  If he works alone, he also has a pair of binoculars

 6     because you -- during my sniper course, you have a rifle with a six-time

 7     magnification, you have a pair of binoculars with six-times

 8     magnification, which has a clearer view, but you also have a spotting

 9     scope of 20-times magnification.  So if I were to work alone, I had to

10     first use the spotting scope, first use my binoculars to see moving

11     things, things that would stand out in my field of view; then if I see

12     things that are moving or things that stand out, I turn to my 20-times

13     magnification to identify that object, and if it -- that were to be a

14     target, then I put -- I use the reference that I had from my 20-times

15     magnification, to take my rifle again to -- and use it to aim, whereas a

16     lot of snipers, or especially in fixed positions, there could also be a

17     spotter next to the sniper who directs -- who has bigger magnification

18     that be the rifle scope who directs the shooter onto the target.  So

19     that's -- the three times or four times doesn't necessarily mean that it

20     is impossible to hit the target.

21             "Q.  But would you agree with me, when the distance is greater

22     than 1.000 metres, a sniper can have -- can be of little assistance in

23     identifying the target?

24             "A.  I've written in my report that there were several

25     indicators.  But if you don't -- if you're not able to see the colour of

Page 6561

 1     the clothing but you can also see from activity of the object the way

 2     people move, people that are fighting move differently than people who

 3     are not fighting.  If I'm carrying a bucket of water to my house, it

 4     looks different than when I'm trying to set up a position or carrying

 5     supplies.

 6             "Q.  Yes, I read that in the report.  With an optic sight, which

 7     is times four, through the sight at a distance of 1.000 metres, can you

 8     see what the target is doing, any activity, because, as far as I

 9     understand it, you can just see a dot or a point.  That's what I'm asking

10     you.  Can you actually discern anything at that distance?

11             "A.  It would be possible.  It would - [Microphone

12     not activated] - but it would be possible."

13             Now, first of all, sir, I want to ask you if you recall and if

14     can you complete for us your answer to the last question in Perisic where

15     your microphone was not activated.  What was the full answer that you

16     gave to the last question?

17        A.   I probably will have said it would be possible.  It would be

18     difficult, but it would be possible.

19        Q.   Thank you, sir.  And now, with that addition, does this portion

20     of the Perisic transcript accurately reflect how you would respond to

21     these questions today?

22        A.   Yes, it would.

23        Q.   And as part of your answer, you qualified your answer by talking

24     of the Western sniper courses in countries that you know of when talking

25     about the methods that might be used to overcome the visibility problems

Page 6562

 1     of the optical scope, and I just want to verify again now that as we

 2     discussed yesterday, you do not know what equipment was available and

 3     what training or what protocols were available for either the snipers of

 4     the Army of Republika Srpska or the snipers of the Armija, BiH, do you?

 5        A.   In my -- during my stay in -- in UNPROFOR and on the daily news,

 6     I've on several occasions seen binoculars in the hands of Serb --

 7     Republika Srpska personnel.  So there was optics available.  Maybe not

 8     directly to the sniper -- to the shooters, but there were binoculars

 9     available.

10        Q.   Thank you, sir.  One more question about optical sights before we

11     go to one of the incidents.

12             Am I correct that using a scope or sight with a four-times

13     magnification at a distance greater than 800 metres, it would be very

14     difficult for the shooter to be able to see what a person is carrying or

15     holding in their hands, through the scope?

16        A.   It would be difficult to see for the -- for the shooter to see

17     what the person is -- his actions are.

18        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Now I'd like to turn to incident F1 that you

19     have already mentioned.  So if we can turn to 65 ter number 28541.  And I

20     hope -- I hope today I have the right 65 ter number, that I haven't

21     transposed the numbers again.

22             And, sir, incident F1 is at page, I believe, 12 and onwards in

23     the hard copy.  Do you still have the hard copy of your report in front

24     of you?

25        A.   Yes, I have.

Page 6563

 1        Q.   Okay.  And this will be at page 13 and onwards in English and 16

 2     and onwards in B/C/S for those following the e-court version.

 3             But I'd like to first ask you about the table of materials that

 4     you have at page 15 in the hard copy, page 16 in e-court in English,

 5     page 21 in the B/C/S.  And, sir, I'd like to ask does this table

 6     accurately indicate the entirety of the materials that you reviewed

 7     and/or relied upon in regards to making your conclusions and performing

 8     your analysis as to this incident, the F1 incident?

 9        A.   As list -- as is listed above the table, it's the information

10     provided by the ICTY.  It doesn't mention the information that I got from

11     my visit to the -- to the incident site.

12        Q.   And when you went to visit the site, did you, in fact, review

13     other potential shooter locations that could have resulted possibly in

14     the type of shot that injured the victim; or did you just look at the

15     Spicasta Stijena location to determine if it was technically possible for

16     a bullet to have come from there?

17        A.   First of all, it's not Spicasta Stijena.  That's on the

18     north-east side of Sarajevo.  It is Baba Stijena.  But I did say -- take

19     into -- I visited the site, as has been my method, and looked at all

20     possibilities, and then on te basis of my technical -- on the basis of

21     the details, I -- I excluded on technical and tactical possibilities and

22     determined -- tried to -- from that tried to determine where the shot

23     might have come from.

24        Q.   And, in particular, for this incident, did you look at any sites

25     that were identified to you as having been held by the BiH forces?

Page 6564

 1        A.   In this incident, I didn't know where the BiH forces were.  Or

 2     the VRS forces specifically.

 3        Q.   If -- if we look at the -- page 12 of the hard copy, page 13 in

 4     e-court, page 13, also, in the B/C/S, you identify this as being a

 5     instance of where the alleged shooting position was 920 metres from the

 6     incident site.  Would you agree that this is, therefore, a long-range

 7     shot which we discussed yesterday, where you cannot exclude the

 8     possibility of a mis-shot or a ricochet?

 9        A.   In the -- there's never -- it's never an option to exclude the

10     possibility, but I would say in this incident that possibility is close

11     to zero.

12        Q.   Why do you say that?

13        A.   If you would look at the photo that is on page 14 of the hard

14     copy, and then photo 1, it's the view at the incident site from

15     Baba Stijena.  Baba Stijena, it's not a GPS co-ordinate with a 1-metre

16     accuracy.  It's the name of a big rock formation, but on that rock

17     formation, the location that I visited, it offered a view in -- into the

18     courtyard.  And if you look around that court -- around the point of the

19     arrow, there's no other possible target in view.  There -- it's only

20     roofs and a blind wall.

21        Q.   Now --

22        A.   So, unless the shooter was just wildly shooting downhill, then

23     still the possibility that has been a random shot is extremely limited.

24        Q.   And I want to ask you, you mentioned that the Baba Stijena site

25     is not a GPS co-ordinate but is, rather, a big rock formation.  How did

Page 6565

 1     you determine where, on that expansive formation, a shooter would have

 2     been placed, or did you pick the only position where you had a view of

 3     the incident site?

 4        A.   As I stated before, I visited the incident site.  From the

 5     incident site, I looked at possibilities where a shooter might have the

 6     been, and the only option that I deemed possible was on somewhere on that

 7     Baba Stijena rock from the incident site.  I identified the location and

 8     then visiting Baba Stijena went to that location to take the picture that

 9     you see in photo 1.

10        Q.   Am I correct from other locations at the very same Baba Stijena

11     you cannot have visual line of sight with the incident site?

12        A.   You would be --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, in order to assist the Chamber, we

14     should be precise on that.

15             The location you spotted, what was the size, approximately, of

16     where you thought the bullet may have come from?  Are you talking about

17     1 metre?  Are you talking about a range of 20 metres?  10 metres?  I

18     mean, what did the definition of the location from where the bullet may

19     have come from -- what was the size of that?

20             THE WITNESS:  If I remember correctly, Your Honour, it would be

21     about a width of 20 metres that the shooter could have been on.  I did

22     find remnants of positions within those 20 metres.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Which means that if you would have taken the

24     photograph from, well, let's say 5 metres away, it would still be within

25     that range?

Page 6566

 1             THE WITNESS:  That is correct, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

 3             MR. IVETIC:

 4        Q.   Am I correct, sir, that at such a large or long-range distance,

 5     the trajectory of the type of rounds that you identify as being

 6     potentially used would resemble a parabola?

 7        A.   That is correct, as is always the case for any -- any shot.

 8        Q.   Am I correctly reading your conclusions on paragraph 6 that you

 9     would exclude the 7.62 mm round, that is an ordinary assault rifle round,

10     because it would be inaccurate and at its extreme range to reach the

11     target site?

12        A.   That is correct.  I would have to add it would be 7.62 times

13     39 millimetre since there are more rounds of calibre.

14        Q.   That is correct.  Thank you for -- for correcting me.

15             Let's look at 1D00513 at this time in e-court.  And while we wait

16     for that, sir, you did visit the incident site on the house at

17     Zagrica Street; is that correct?

18        A.   If the house at that street is the incident site, yes that I

19     visited.

20        Q.   Can you look on the screen.  Does that appear to be --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, you refer to paragraph 6 -- conclusions

22     on paragraph 6 that would exclude -- page 12.

23             MR. IVETIC:  It's on the middle of page 12, Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let me just have a look.

25             Yes.  Now, let me see the question again.

Page 6567

 1             Yes.  Your exclusion is not a factual one but is one which says

 2     this would be an unsuitable weapon to use at that distance because the

 3     accuracy would be so limited that you better use another one.  Is that --

 4     or do you exclude that a certain weapon was used?

 5             THE WITNESS:  The exclusion is purely on the -- on my assumption,

 6     on my -- my beliefs that this weapon would not have the accuracy or the

 7     range for this --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  So you have --

 9             THE WITNESS:  -- incident.  It's my opinion.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You have ignored the possibility that even a

11     weapon which was not very suitable to hit a target at that range could,

12     nevertheless, have been used?  Although it would not be wise to use it.

13             THE WITNESS:  I didn't ignore the possibility, but I exclude

14     because -- there's -- of course, as mentioned before, it's not possible

15     to exclude it, but the chances that a weapon of this kind with -- the

16     ammunition of this kind has been used is -- it's close to zero because of

17     the range.  And the weapons from which it's fired.  I haven't had the

18     bullet in my hands, so I wouldn't be able to determine what round it was,

19     but it's my -- it's my belief that this round hasn't been used.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, I was asking this question because I

21     always want to clearly make a distinction between what actually happened,

22     what the facts were, and what is likely to have been used as a weapon

23     under those circumstances from such a range.

24             Please proceed.

25             MR. IVETIC:

Page 6568

 1        Q.   If I can ask you a follow-up question, sir, and if you can follow

 2     along with me.

 3             Your answer presupposes that someone with an assault rifle was

 4     intentionally targeting the -- the incident site rather than some

 5     position closer to the shooter; isn't that correct?

 6        A.   I don't think I presupposed that someone with an assault rifle

 7     was --

 8        Q.   No, no, you misunderstood.  Your testimony that you believe an

 9     assault rifle was not used because it's at its extreme range and would

10     not have been accurate to target the incident site, that presupposes that

11     the incident site is the intended target of a person who would be the

12     shooter; isn't that correct?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  The simple question is, Mr. Van der Weijden,

14     whether, in all your reasoning, whether you assumed that the shot was

15     deliberately targeting the victim.

16             THE WITNESS:  Yes -- yes, I did.  I --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Simple questions, clear language, Mr. Ivetic, give

18     you the best answers.

19             Please proceed.

20             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you for your assistance, Your Honour.

21        Q.   Would an assault rifle using an ordinary 7.62 times 39 mm round

22     be an appropriate weapon to target BiH forces located at the cemetery

23     that is visible in your photograph on page 14?  Approximately halfway

24     between the incident site and the alleged shooter site.

25        A.   Well, I see the cemetery starting there halfway up to about, I

Page 6569

 1     guess, three-quarters of the distance, and then an assault rifle still --

 2     with this calibre would still not be the appropriate weapon for targeting

 3     the BiH forces.  It's -- it would still be at a range over 300 metres.

 4     And firing several types of AK-47-type rifles myself, even at a range of

 5     200 metres, it's already not an easy shot.

 6        Q.   What if it's the only weapon you have?

 7        A.   Then again as -- if I had positions on a location like

 8     Baba Stijena, I would be foolish not to request machine-guns or heavier

 9     weapons to dominate a valley below me.  It's military -- from a military

10     view it would be very unwise not to request or provide from higher up the

11     appropriate weapons.  But if --

12        Q.   Sir --

13        A.   -- there was nothing available, then have you to work with what

14     you got.

15        Q.   I hope we're still talking about the shooter, because I thought

16     your report excluded the possibility of a machine-gun being used to wound

17     this victim.

18        A.   I wasn't talking about this incident.  I was talking about the

19     possibility of weapons on Baba Stijena, and I believe you asked me about

20     the cemetery.

21        Q.   Do you permit the possibility that the shooter, armed either with

22     an assault rifle or a sniper rifle with a four times magnification, could

23     be targeting BiH forces located in the area of the cemetery and that an

24     errant shot or a missed shot could have struck the victim in incident F1?

25        A.   I would have to break up that question.  For the assault rifle,

Page 6570

 1     it would be the question that I -- it would be an answer that I already

 2     elaborated on.  I don't believe an assault rifle would have that range

 3     for the bullet.  Even if he missed the cemetery, the -- the chances that

 4     the bullet would travel that far away and still have the -- the effect

 5     would be more than unlikely.

 6             For the sniper rifle, no.  If he was targeting the cemetery, then

 7     there's no way that the -- the bullet will go out of the -- the view of

 8     the -- at least maybe not the reticle itself, but it will be in the

 9     sight, the view of the sight.

10        Q.   Could this cemetery have been another possible shooting location

11     that could have line of sight with the incident site?

12        A.   No, as you can see by the photo that's on the -- my other screen.

13     There's no view to anywhere above 50 metres than to Baba Stijena.

14        Q.   You refer to the photograph that's on the screen.  Do I take it,

15     then, that you recognise this location?

16        A.   Yes, I do.

17        Q.   And could you identify this location for the Chamber.

18        A.   This is a photograph taken on the porch where the incident took

19     place, and it gives a view towards -- Baba Stijena isn't exactly visible

20     on this photograph, but I believe the -- the black markings on the

21     photograph give a view of what the victims and the witnesses believe the

22     shot came from.

23        Q.   Do you believe that there is a line of sight from Baba Stijena

24     visible in this photograph?

25        A.   I believe there is, because it more or less resembles the

Page 6571

 1     photograph -- the photo that I took under different circumstances.

 2        Q.   Okay.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, I would move to admit this photograph

 4     into evidence as the next exhibit number.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, 65 ter 1D513 shall be assigned

 7     Exhibit D125.  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  D125 is admitted into evidence.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  And if we can call up 1D00515 and put that on the

10     left side of the monitor, and 1D00516 and put it up on the right-hand

11     side of the monitor, it might help speed things up.

12        Q.   Sir, looking at the left side of the monitor, the first picture,

13     does 1D515 appear to be a different angle from the same location of that

14     house?

15        A.   It is.  I believe it's in the vicinity because I see the porch to

16     the right, but it's not from the same location.

17        Q.   Okay.  And from that vicinity, if you look at the right picture

18     which is a magnification from that vicinity, do you now see the cemetery

19     in the upper right corner as having a visual line of sight with the

20     vicinity of the incident of sight?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And do you know -- strike that.

23             Did you -- did you note the cemetery when you were doing your

24     analysis, and did you perform any analysis in relation to positions from

25     that location?

Page 6572

 1        A.   Again, my method has been to visit the exact incident site, From

 2     that incident site look where possible shooting positions were and from

 3     the exact shooting position which is above -- it is with my head on the

 4     ground since she was three years at the time she was hit in her leg. I

 5     wasn't able to see the cemetery because it was blocked out of view from

 6     the exact position, so I didn't visit the cemetery to see if I had a

 7     reverse view to the incident site.

 8        Q.   Would you agree with me that in order to scientifically exclude

 9     the cemetery site, one would have to go and perform the reverse of that

10     analysis to see if there's a direct line of sight from the cemetery to

11     the incident site?

12        A.   No.  I did not see -- I wasn't able to see the -- the cemetery

13     from the exact location of the incident site, so there was no need to

14     visit the cemetery.

15        Q.   But you were at ground level.

16        A.   Yes, that's correct.

17        Q.   A shooter would not necessarily have been aiming at the ground

18     level, but the range might have made the bullet go lower than he was

19     aiming; is that correct?

20        A.   I don't understand your question.

21        Q.   Your methodology would not have determined if a shooter had a

22     line of sight higher than the foot of the victim; is that correct?  In

23     excluding the cemetery as a potential source for the fire.

24        A.   Well, if -- if the -- the --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, a line of sight is, as I understand it,

Page 6573

 1     a line to be drawn from a person looking to another object.  Now, to say

 2     a line of sight higher up means a different line of sight.  So,

 3     therefore, a line of sight, I would way, always in that same direction I

 4     have a line of sight.  Just look in the air and that's a higher up line

 5     of sight, a star, whatever, a tower.  Please be --

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Specific.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  -- accurate in your questions and in the language

 8     you are using.

 9             And we are at four minutes past 10.30.  Perhaps you would take

10     your break to think about the formulation of your questions.

11             We take a break, and -- but not before these pictures -- the 65

12     ter pictures where do they come from?  Is it -- are they taken by whom --

13             MR. IVETIC:  They are taken by the Defence experts, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  When?

15             MR. IVETIC:  I don't have that information.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Is there anything known about the exact

17     location from where the photograph was taken?  And is there any

18     information about, especially, the altitude compared to the floor of

19     where the victim was?  Because it looks -- I'm just looking at it.  It --

20     it looks as if the position of the lens is at adult level or -- I do not

21     know exactly.  But before we draw any conclusions from all of this, I

22     think we need to have precise information.

23             MR. IVETIC:  And that's why we will have our Defence witnesses to

24     discuss that.  I just wanted to see if he had seen the cemetery, and I

25     will now be asking him after the break about -- particularly about this

Page 6574

 1     line-of-sight issue, because I believe there is an important point that

 2     has been missed.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Then that may be -- we're looking forward to it.

 4             We take a break, and we resume -- but not until after the witness

 5     has left the courtroom.  And we resume at five minutes to 11.00.

 6                           [The witness stands down]

 7                           --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.

 8                           --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

10                           [The witness takes the stand]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.

12             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

13        Q.   Sir, I want to make sure that I understand the technique that you

14     utilised to visually examine from the incident site to exclude the

15     cemetery as a potential source of the fire.

16             Am I correct that you, looking from ground level, that is with

17     your head on the ground, visually with your eyes examined and could not

18     see a straight line of sight with the cemetery?

19        A.   That is correct.

20        Q.   I thought you told me bullets travelled in parabolas.

21        A.   They do.

22        Q.   Did you account for that?

23        A.   But first when I -- in the end I ended up looking at it from

24     ground level, but first, of course, I just took a look in the standard

25     position, and as well we would go down.  So even from the standing

Page 6575

 1     position I did see -- I could not see the cemetery from the exact

 2     incident site.

 3        Q.   And how is it that you determined the exact incident site, that

 4     is to say the precise location where the victim was situated when shot?

 5        A.   It was pointed out to me by the investigator, and it was -- as

 6     well in the -- of the witness statement of the, I believe, the mother,

 7     and there was also the exact location of where the bullet had penetrated

 8     the -- let me see, the doorsill, the doorsill.  Excuse me.  Sorry for the

 9     English.  The wood next to the door.  Sorry.

10        Q.   The wood frame.

11        A.   The wood frame, sorry.  So that combination determined the exact

12     location, the level, and also the origin of fire.

13        Q.   Okay.  Now I'd like to move to another of the incidents that you

14     analysed, incident F3.  If we can turn to 65 ter number 28541.  This will

15     be page 20 in the hard copy, page 21 in English in e-court, page 27 in

16     B/C/S in e-court.  And if we could not broadcast the same, just to be

17     safe.  I'm not sure if there's any redacted information on that one since

18     we're using the unredacted original.

19             And I want to ask you, when we come up with that page, does this

20     table accurately indicate the entirety of all the source materials that

21     you had at your disposal and which you reviewed for purposes of

22     determining and making the conclusions that you made in this particular

23     case?

24        A.   It would be the same answer as for F1.  So I believe this is the

25     information provided by the ICTY, but it does not include my visit to the

Page 6576

 1     location.

 2        Q.   When you say just as with your answer for F1, I guess I should

 3     ask you this in relation to all of the scheduled incidents.  Did you

 4     actually read all of the documents that are on the table, or did you --

 5     let's -- let's start with, first, the witness statements.  Did you read

 6     all the witness statements yourself, or did you operate off of summaries

 7     that provided by the Prosecution investigators?

 8        A.   I read, reviewed, or viewed, because there were also some

 9     photographs or video footage, but I reviewed everything that's listed in

10     the table.

11        Q.   Okay.   What about the crime reports to the extent that the crime

12     reports are included on some of the tables?  Did you review the crime

13     reports in their entirety for the Scheduled Incidents?

14        A.   If I did have the English translation, then I did.

15        Q.   Okay.  If we can turn to page 17 in the hard copy, page 18 in

16     English in e-court, and page 23 in B/C/S in e-court.  We see here that

17     the distance from the alleged shooting site to the incident site is 1.104

18     metres.  Would you agree, based upon our discussion, that this is a very

19     long-range shot, as we said yesterday, subject to all of the potentials

20     for a miss if the shooter -- because all of the factors you identified

21     yesterday?

22        A.   I would agree that this is a very long-range shot.

23        Q.   And, in fact, I believe somewhere in your analysis you even said

24     that this was at the extreme range for the type of rifle that you

25     concluded had probably been used.  Could you explain that for us?  Are

Page 6577

 1     you saying that this rifle would not have been an appropriate rifle to

 2     use to deliberately target the -- the incident range -- the incident

 3     site?

 4             If I can help you out, it's the second-last paragraph.

 5        A.   This would -- that I believe that for all weapons this is extreme

 6     range, for all small-arms.  But I believe that from the weapons in the

 7     report, the rifles that I have mentioned are the most appropriate ones

 8     even though it would be at the extreme range.

 9        Q.   Is it your position, then, that it would be the only logical

10     conclusion that a rifle at its extreme range would be -- would be

11     intentionally targeting a target that is within -- that is at its extreme

12     range.  Would that be a logical conclusion for a sniper to --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, could I try to analyse your question

14     before we invite the witness to answer.

15             Would it be the only logical conclusion that a rifle at its

16     extreme range would be intentionally targeting a target ...

17             I -- I -- if I don't understand the question, the answer cannot

18     assist me, but let me just guess what I might want to ask.  Is that if a

19     rifle is used to target a target in its extreme range, that we come close

20     to the point where the accuracy would so bad that it doesn't make much

21     sense to use such a weapon?  Is that what you intended to --

22             MR. IVETIC:  For this question, yes.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  For this question.

24             THE WITNESS:  I wouldn't completely agree.  Quite recently I

25     fired a rifle with the same kind of calibre that ranges up to

Page 6578

 1     1.150 metres, which is at extreme range but you can still hit the target.

 2     So it's not -- it's not something you would choose, but -- well, like you

 3     said -- like I said earlier, if this is the rifle that is the most

 4     appropriate one, that's the one you would use.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  With -- if I understand you well, for a trained

 6     person, a fair chance of hitting the target.

 7             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 9             MR. IVETIC:

10        Q.   But you chose this potential shooting site over another one that

11     was closer and that would not have been at its extreme range; isn't that

12     correct?

13        A.   That is correct.

14        Q.   Is it also not true that the site that you identified -- so we

15     can all follow along, let's look at page 18 in the hard copy, page 19 in

16     English in e-court, page 25 in the B/C/S in e-court.  I believe -- oops.

17     You identified --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Could -- Mr. Ivetic, I think I -- I know where

19     you're aiming at.  Let's see whether I can put those short question to

20     the witness and see whether that covers what you intend to find out.

21             Looking at your report, you -- when considering the -- an origin

22     of fire of 636 metres, you say:

23             "The apartment block" --

24             That is, the block at 636 metres:

25             "... was occupied by ABiH troops at the time, with SRK troops

Page 6579

 1     occupying the red-roofed apartment buildings across the street to their

 2     east.  The ABiH troops would unlikely have their focus towards the canal

 3     with enemy troops that close by.  In my opinion, the apartment block at

 4     636 metres was not where the shooter was located."

 5             This seems to a very strong conclusion based exclusively on your

 6     opinion on what ABiH forces would focus at and has got little or nothing

 7     to do with the technical expertise you gave in your report.

 8             Would you agree with that?

 9             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, I hope to have assisted you.

11             MR. IVETIC:  You have, Your Honour.  Thank you.

12        Q.   Now, focussing again on this apartment building which was --

13     which would be approximately -- well, about 400-and-some metres from the

14     alleged shooting site, did you consider that the building, apartment

15     building held by ABiH forces could have been the target of the shooter,

16     such that the Serb position was more logically aiming at that shot rather

17     than a long shot at the extreme range of its weapon?

18        A.   It was not -- I didn't consider it because it wasn't possible.

19        Q.   It --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  So I may then take it that you considered it and

21     concluded that it was not possible?

22             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

24             MR. IVETIC:

25        Q.   Is it your testimony that it was not possible to -- for the

Page 6580

 1     alleged shooting position to target the apartment building?

 2        A.   It would be perhaps only - let's see - the most southern corner

 3     of the apartment building, because otherwise they would be shooting their

 4     own troops through the apartment blocks where their own troops were

 5     across the street toward -- in order to hit the apartment block where the

 6     ABiH troops were.  The troops were on both on the west and east side of

 7     the street.

 8        Q.   Okay.  Yesterday I believe Judge Orie already asked you about the

 9     location of the victim, so I will skip those questions.

10             But I want to ask you:  Did the information that you were

11     provided by the Office of the Prosecutor include information that the

12     bridge was fortified with sandbags piled 2 metres high and that there

13     were armed ABiH soldiers near the bridge and also later on the bridge

14     shooting in the direction of the church?

15        A.   No, I'm not aware.

16        Q.   Would such information, if accurate, be of importance to

17     determining if the shots that struck the victim were intended for her or

18     were, in fact, missed shots aimed at the ABiH soldiers, either on the --

19     on or around the bridge?

20        A.   If the ABiH soldiers would have been on the bridge and they would

21     view the church as -- as a dangerous location, I don't think they would

22     expose themselves on the bridge and therefore would not be visible.  But

23     if the soldiers would simultaneously with the civilian on the water's

24     edge would be exposed, then the shots that were -- that hit the victim

25     could be aimed at the ABiH soldiers.

Page 6581

 1        Q.   If we could just briefly call up 1D00524.  And that will be an

 2     extract from the Galic Trial Judgement.  Around at paragraph 350 of the

 3     first page, the last line on the page, we see there the recitation of

 4     some of the other witnesses of this incident talking about sandbags up to

 5     a height of 2 metres being placed along the length of the bridge.

 6             And if we go on the next page, it says there:

 7             "On both sides to protect civilians closing the bridge, as well

 8     as being dug so that people would not risk being wounded or killed while

 9     fetching water from the river."

10             At paragraph 352, we see that there were, in fact, ABiH soldiers

11     who were near the bridge and were said to have later gone onto the --

12     "... positioned themselves on the bridge behind the sandbags and shot in

13     the direction of the Orthodox church."

14             Does this information that you did not have, is it of the type of

15     information that would have assisted you and led you to have more

16     detailed or different conclusions about the incident that has been

17     labelled as F3?

18        A.   That would depend if I knew exactly what trail the ABiH soldiers

19     would have been following.

20        Q.   Okay.  Would that --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, in your line of questioning, you are

22     putting fortified positions of soldiers.  And then you say shot into the

23     direction of the Orthodox church.

24             But -- but you then, to give a complete picture, should also

25     read:  "ABiH soldiers passing by the bridge saw what had happened."

Page 6582

 1             So they were not positioned at the bridge.  They were passing by

 2     the bridge, and you --

 3             MR. IVETIC:  I think I said that, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

 5             MR. IVETIC:  I said, Your Honour, if you read my question, I said

 6     that they later positioned themselves on the bridge.  I did not at all

 7     misrepresent the Judgement.  I said that they were near the bridge and

 8     that they later positioned themselves on the bridge and shot at the

 9     Orthodox church.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me have a look -- I'll re-read it.

11             The witness may answer the question.

12             MR. IVETIC:  It's at page 32, line 23, Your Honours.

13             THE WITNESS:  I believe I already answered the question.  If I

14     would have known exactly what the trail -- the track of the -- the troops

15     would have been, then it might have been of use.  But I do not know what

16     their position was or exactly where they were walking.

17             MR. IVETIC:

18        Q.   Okay.  I would now look to move to incident F11 briefly.  That

19     can be found beginning at -- if we return to 65 ter number 28541.  This

20     is the incident that's -- that starts at page 39 in the hard copy,

21     page 40 in e-court in English, and page 49 in the B/C/S.

22             And while we wait for the e-court to come up, sir, this is the

23     incident that involved a tram line.  Is that accurate?

24        A.   That is accurate.

25        Q.   Okay.  And if we can turn to page 43 and 44 in the hard copy, and

Page 6583

 1     page 45 and 46 in the English but not broadcast the same, can you

 2     confirm, sir, that this table accurately indicates the entirety of the

 3     materials that you had at your disposal, these two pages of the table, in

 4     regards to this incident?

 5        A.   Again, I believe this is the totality of the information provided

 6     by the ICTY but does not include the information that I got from visiting

 7     myself.

 8        Q.   Did you review the medical reports listed herein?

 9        A.   Yes, I did.

10        Q.   Okay.  Do you recall that the entry wound was on the thigh and

11     the exit wound was at the hip, such that the wound canal for the named

12     victim stretched upwards?

13        A.   Or downwards, depending on what side you --

14        Q.   Or downwards, correct.  Do you recall with respect to this

15     incident that the -- during the -- during the Karadzic proceedings you

16     viewed some videotape of this incident of other civilians that were hit

17     near the point of the tram.  Is that accurate?

18        A.   I believe so, yes.

19        Q.   If I could refresh your recollection, and if we could look at

20     1D00536, which is the Karadzic transcript.  And if we could turn to

21     page 39 in e-court, I believe that will correlate to transcript page 7059

22     from that trial.

23             And if we could look at line 17 onward, there's the video-clips

24     that were played.  And I will recite for you the question and answer that

25     you had with respect to the video that was played from line -- I guess

Page 6584

 1     it's line 18:

 2             "Q.  Mr. Van der Weijden, do you agree that the dust is going

 3     vertically up under a large angle, probably 90 degrees or thereabouts?

 4             "A.  The particles are going up from the impact.

 5             "Q.  Mr. Van der Weijden, from the Serbian positions that were

 6     321 metres away and at the elevation of 11 [sic] metres, the descent

 7     angle in this situation could be maximum 5 degrees?

 8             "A.  I did calculate that yesterday evening, and it would be just

 9     about 5 degrees."

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Ivetic, you misspoke.  I think you said 11

11     metres but we see in the transcript 13 metres.

12             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

13        Q.   Sir, do you -- with the correction of the error in my recitation,

14     do you agree that this accurately reflects your calculations and findings

15     of the descent angle, the maximum descent angle from the alleged shooter,

16     the alleged Serbian position?

17        A.   I believe so.  It reflects the line of sight.

18        Q.   Okay.  And if we could turn to the next page in the transcript

19     and focus on the follow-up question that was proposed at line 12:

20             "Q.  Thank you.  But you can see where these people who are hit

21     are.  They are a metre away from the place where the dust is going up.

22     What's the distance between their entry wound, which is 70 metres above

23     the ground, and the edge of the pavement?  It's approximately 90 degrees.

24     I'm talking about angle.  So, you see, they are not very far away from

25     the pavement ... they were hit at about 70 or 80 centimetres above the

Page 6585

 1     ground.

 2             "Can that make a 5-degree angle or a 35- or 45-degree angle?

 3             "A.  If it was just one bullet, it would not be possible.  Or it

 4     would be very unlikely."

 5             Could you please --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, have you got one second.

 7             Mr. Registrar.

 8                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I have a technical problem.

10             MR. IVETIC:  No problem.

11                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's, meanwhile, proceed, but I can't have it on my

13     screen the way I want to have it.

14             Awaiting a solution for this, Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.

15             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

16        Q.   Now, sir, this selection that I've just read, first of all, could

17     you verify whether it's accurate and whether you would still answer the

18     same way or hopefully explain the answer.  I'm -- that's what I was

19     really hoping you would do.

20        A.   Well, I would like to explain the answer.

21             The questions are asked in a way that it is assumed that it's

22     only one bullet.  Only in the video there is clearly a burst of fire

23     visible with impact and several bullets hitting the area.  At 321 metres,

24     a burst from a machine-gun will, by its design, don't cover -- don't

25     cover a group of 10 centimetres.  It will be a metre or more than a

Page 6586

 1     metre, depending on the position of the machine-gun on a tripod, on a

 2     bipod, the experience level of the -- of the gunner.  So there will

 3     always be -- the shots will never be exactly in the same location.  Which

 4     I believe accounts for entry wounds centimetres above the ground and

 5     other rounds hitting the ground where the dust is visible.

 6             I would also like that -- that dust is kicked up where a bullet

 7     impacts the ground, but depending on the wind conditions of the -- of the

 8     of that day, sometimes it's not visible, sometimes it will blow straight

 9     up, sometimes it will move to the left, to the right.  It depends on the

10     wind conditions.  It's just dust.

11        Q.   Is it your testimony that the --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, I briefly discussed it with my

13     colleagues.  It is very difficult for us to follow this evidence without

14     having looked at the video.  I hope you understand.  It is all

15     interpretation of what people have seen.  We haven't seen it.

16             Therefore, could you please find a solution such -- especially

17     because it is about degrees and all kinds of details which I would like

18     to be able to verify.

19             MR. IVETIC:  I would hope when the -- when the Defence experts

20     have completed their work that they will be able to come in and explain

21     everything for you.  I obviously cannot present what was presented in

22     three days of cross-examination within the time period that we have in

23     this case, nor do I --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  But the evidence is about -- you've looked at

25     the video.  This is what you see.  We want to see it as well so that we

Page 6587

 1     are able to follow whether we agree with the observations by those who

 2     are asking questions and are giving answers.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  Then I will have to move on because I don't have the

 4     video or the means to present the video at this point, so ...

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Let's then move on.

 6             MR. IVETIC:

 7        Q.   With respect to --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.

 9             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Yes, I apologise.  I could -- I just wanted to

10     alert my -- counsel that I believe the video he is talking about is

11     actually the Prosecution 65 ter 22533.  I don't know what -- what portion

12     of that video it is, though.

13             MR. IVETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...

14             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Although Ms. Stewart informs me she -- she

15     thinks she can locate it.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Well, at least you have the assistance of the

17     OTP if you would -- if you would go the way that enables us to look at

18     the video.

19             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

21             MR. IVETIC:

22        Q.   In determining the -- in determining the potential location of

23     the fire, am I correct that you excluded the buildings that were closer

24     to the tram site and that, in fact, were looking upon the street upon

25     which the tram travelled, which were occupied by ABiH forces?

Page 6588

 1        A.   I did exclude those buildings as possible locations, that's

 2     correct.

 3        Q.   Based upon what analyses did you exclude those locations?

 4        A.   On tactical assumptions.  The Holiday Inn was a well-known

 5     location for the international press, and if ABiH troops would have been

 6     firing from that position onto the trams approximately 30 metres away, I

 7     don't think it would have been ignored by the press.

 8        Q.   In your report at page 39 in the hard copy, which would be

 9     page 40 in e-court of 29541 -- 28541, I apologise, Your Honour.  Again, I

10     have difficulty with that number.

11             In your discussion, you identify that the victim stated that she

12     had heard a burst -- or had heard bursts of fire.  That's under the

13     calibre/weapons category.  And I want to ask you if -- is it more likely

14     if a shooting victim hears fire that the source of the fire is closer

15     rather than farther away?

16        A.   In an urban environment, with echoing of buildings, the source of

17     fire would be -- would have to be over 600 metres to -- to lessen the

18     sound.  300 metres away is clearly hearable.

19        Q.   Okay.  I'd like to call up 65 ter number 1D00423.  This is an

20     information report from the interview of General Sir Michael Rose with

21     the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal.  And if we could turn to

22     page 3 of the document, this is a selection I'd like to present to you

23     and ask some questions about.  And it begins by saying -- it's at the

24     bottom of the page in English so we can follow along:

25             "I am sure that the Serbs were firing at the trams, but I believe

Page 6589

 1     Ganic also organised his secret police to snipe trams.  His sniper unit

 2     sniped so that the angle of the shot matched the direction of the [sic]

 3     Serb line.  During long cease-fires, I think that Ganic and the Muslims

 4     were responsible for breaking the cease-fire.  This kept the tension."

 5             Sir, in performing your analysis, did the Prosecution provide

 6     information to you or was it otherwise available that the Bosnian

 7     Presidency secret police snipers were believed to be sniping at the trams

 8     in a way to mimic the angle and -- to mimic the direction of the Serb

 9     line?

10        A.   I believe this is part of the evidence, and I've read all the

11     evidence.  I believe this is part of the -- I -- I have read this.  I

12     have taken into account, because I tried to identify all possible

13     shooting locations, if -- if shooters would try to mimic Serb forces

14     on -- across the river, in -- in their angle of fire they would have to

15     lean out of windows in order to be able to hit from -- to hit the trams

16     travelling when they passed the intersections.

17             So, therefore, leaning out of windows with the enemy -- in clear

18     view of the enemy, in my view, would be -- well, tactically very unwise

19     and very dangerous.  So I don't believe, in this case, that it could have

20     been done from another position, although I don't know exactly who was in

21     the building across -- across the street.

22        Q.   And just to be clear, you said you believe you've read this part.

23     Is it your testimony that you have read this information sheet previously

24     or that you've -- or were made aware of its contents?  Which -- which is

25     it?

Page 6590

 1        A.   I remember there are -- this is the list of the -- of the

 2     information that I was provided at this time.  I -- I do recall

 3     information about this.  I -- I can't remember exactly where, but I've --

 4     it is familiar.

 5        Q.   Okay.  Fair enough.  I would like to move along to more one

 6     incident before our time is up.  F9, which begins at page 34 in your hard

 7     copy, page 35 in the English version in e-court, and page 43 in the

 8     B/C/S.  And if we could not broadcast the same, that way we could be

 9     assured that I'm not broadcasting any sensitive information.

10             And ... and, here, you have noted that the -- that uniformed

11     soldiers warned the victim of an active sniper.

12             Am I correct and was it your understanding that these soldiers

13     were Armija BiH soldiers?

14        A.   They were uniformed soldiers.

15        Q.   Okay.  Would you permit that uniformed soldiers would have been

16     an appropriate and legitimate target for the opposing side to shoot at?

17        A.   If the uniformed soldiers would have been in the same view of --

18     the same side picture for the shooter, then they -- well, I would agree

19     that a uniformed soldier could present a legitimate target.

20        Q.   Did the information you received from the Office of the

21     Prosecutor, in relation to this incident, include any information as to

22     the placement of BiH or -- or Armija BiH personnel in the vicinity of the

23     incident site?

24        A.   I can't say 100 per cent that I'm sure exactly where the -- those

25     uniformed soldiers were at that time.

Page 6591

 1        Q.   Did the information given to you by the Office of the Prosecutor

 2     in relation to this event identify how far this location was from the

 3     confrontation or front line?

 4        A.   No.  I only -- the -- the trench that is mentioned in the reports

 5     is a trench to -- to cross a street safely.  It doesn't mention where

 6     exactly the front line was.

 7        Q.   Okay.  If we turn to page 36 of your hard copy, and page 37 in

 8     English in e-court, and page 45 in the B/C/S in e-court.

 9             And -- perhaps I should repeat that.  So page 37 in English in

10     e-court and page 45 in the B/C/S.

11             And we have here a photograph that you say was part of the

12     information given to you by the ICTY to enable you to write the report.

13     Can I take it that you did not actually go to the site yourself to take a

14     photograph from the alleged shooting site.  Is that accurate?

15        A.   That is accurate.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We have the wrong page in B/C/S on the screen.

17             MR. IVETIC:  I apologise.  It should be the next page in B/C/S.

18        Q.   And could you tell me why it was that you did not go to the

19     incident site to verify that the information provided to you by the

20     Office of the Prosecutor was, in fact, accurate?

21        A.   Well, I did visit the incident site.  I didn't go to the alleged

22     shooting position.  There was no possibility to visit the shooting

23     location at that time.

24        Q.   Okay.

25        A.   Also, the -- there used to be holes in the blind side, and the

Page 6592

 1     picture that I was provided by the ICTY was taken from one of those

 2     holes, former windows, but since the -- on the blind side those holes had

 3     been fixed, there was no need for me to go there, as well as that there

 4     was such a wide view of the -- of the area that I didn't deem it

 5     necessary.

 6        Q.   The photographs appears to have a magnification of -- of the

 7     site.  Do you happen to know what magnification or zoom factor was being

 8     used for this photograph?

 9        A.   No, I don't.

10        Q.   You state in your report that this was taken in the upper level

11     of the school of the blind.  Can you be more precise?  What floor?

12        A.   The upper level.  There's -- for the building, there are two --

13     in English, I believe, first floor is the ground floor.  So it would be

14     on the second floor.  Or higher.  And on -- on the attic.

15        Q.   Would you agree with me that there are other positions from which

16     the bullet could have come from that could have produced the same

17     injuries?

18        A.   They could have come from the windows in the -- on the -- the

19     southeastern side.

20        Q.   Are you talking about the windows on the same building or a

21     different building?

22        A.   Yes.  There are other possibilities where the bullet might have

23     come from, but since the girls were using the buildings to -- to walk, it

24     would have been strange for the shooter to wait if he had been in the --

25     in the -- in one of the buildings that encircles the -- the square where

Page 6593

 1     the girls were, to wait until she was at the corner.  At the end of the

 2     trench.

 3        Q.   Did the information provided to you also indicate where Dobrinja

 4     was located?  That -- the road towards Dobrinja.

 5        A.   I do remember that, looking at the map, that I was aware where

 6     Dobrinja was, yes.

 7        Q.   If we can call up 1D527 --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, before doing so and perhaps it could be

 9     done.

10             Could I ask the witness one clarifying question.  I think it's

11     not only at this incident that you draw conclusions from when the shooter

12     fired.

13             Now, if I am in a position where I can see the victim, well,

14     let's say, walking for a hundred metres, a nearby position, and if there

15     is a position further away where you can see the person moving only for 5

16     or 7 metres, because that's, I think, the situation we are comparing.

17             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I think so.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Now you say, I would not have expected the shooter

19     to wait that long.  And this is not the only incident where you draw such

20     a conclusion.

21             Now, if someone, if I see someone walking from a nearby position

22     for 50 metres, you could also say, Take your time.  If that person is

23     exactly in the middle, or I take my time to see whether there are no

24     other possible victims, or whatever, I mean, what is it in your

25     professional experience or expertise that you would expect a shooter

Page 6594

 1     always to engage the target not halfway but right in the beginning, and

 2     you draw quite some conclusions on the basis of that.

 3             Could you explain?

 4             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I could, Your Honour.

 5             If I'm in a prone position, that is, a position lying on the

 6     ground behind my weapon, which is the position that is the most stable,

 7     and for a longer time is the most preferred position by most shooters.

 8     The other position would be on a table, on a chair behind a table with a

 9     sandbag on the table which is in the sport shooting world knows as

10     benchrest shooting, those are the two most stable positions.

11             The problem with those positions that -- with being in a position

12     like that is you can -- you have only a small arc in which you can use

13     your weapon.  So if the target is outside of that arc, you would have to

14     shift your position, aim again, and then eventually it's only a couple of

15     metres that you are -- you are at your utmost -- most comfortable

16     position.

17             So if I wait for a long time, so at 50 metres and the victim

18     would move 400 metres, I would have to change position probably more than

19     ten times, which is not something that I would do.  I would -- if there's

20     a moving target in this case, as she would have been if she was fired at

21     from within that square, I would have to -- I would spot her, I would

22     shift my position before her, that -- that she's walking into my arc of

23     fire, and then wait until she's in, follow her, and then put my sights

24     slightly before her, and then wait until she walked into my sights, and

25     then I would fire.

Page 6595

 1             I so hope it explains why I excluded -- it depends -- it's about

 2     shooting from a good position.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, it seems that the whole of your answer is

 4     based on having the target within the arc already right at the beginning.

 5             Now I am in a comfortable position as a shooter.  I see someone.

 6     I'm nearby.  I have a long range.  I know that that person is moving in

 7     such a direction that in five seconds or ten seconds will enter the arc

 8     of where I am positioned now.

 9             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Then you could also say instead of moving, which you

11     say is not easy, not very comfortable.  Let's just wait until the person

12     is there.  I'll then aim, pull the trigger, I don't have to move my

13     weapon at all.  So, therefore, that would be a logical explanation for

14     not shooting immediately when the person comes in sight.

15             I'm trying to understand your -- your logic.

16             THE WITNESS:  I understand, Your Honour.

17             The -- I agree that I would -- I could wait a few seconds, but

18     the longer a target is visible, I don't know exactly what the target will

19     do.  So if the target -- if there's a wall or a door and the target will

20     disappear, then I will have missed my shot, so ...

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, if a target walks on a -- in a public place

22     from crossing the street, why not wait until she's in the middle of the

23     street, if that is comfortable as in view of the position of my weapon at

24     that moment?

25             THE WITNESS:  Well, in this instance, I believe that the girls

Page 6596

 1     were talking to -- they were warned by the soldiers so they were probably

 2     standing at the corner and standing -- a static target is always better

 3     than a walking target.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  This is rather speculative.

 5             THE WITNESS:  It's speculative, that's correct, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Because it is not that the shooter would have known

 7     the conversation which took place at a quite a distance.

 8             THE WITNESS:  No.  But he would have seen that the target would

 9     have been static for -- for a short time.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  You -- yes.  But it's -- you would agree with me

11     that your logic is involving a lot of speculative elements.

12             THE WITNESS:  It's speculative but based on experience, sir.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That --

14             Please move on, Mr. Ivetic.

15             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  We are, I think, at the

16     time for the break, but -- is that accurate?

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, we are approximately at the time of the

18     break because we started approximately one hour ago.

19             How much time would you still need?

20             MR. IVETIC:  Six minutes.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Six minutes.  Then I am also looking at Mr. Mladic,

22     whether it would be preferable to, first, continue for six minutes and

23     then take the break.  The Chamber is willing to take the break now,

24     whatever is preferred.

25                           [Defence counsel confer]

Page 6597

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             MR. IVETIC:  We're able to continue, according to Mr. Mladic.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Apart from that, I said we started an hour

 4     ago.  We started 54 minutes ago.  We started after 11.00.  We were late.

 5             Please proceed.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

 7             If we can call up 1D527 briefly.

 8        Q.   And, sir, does this intersection look familiar to you?  Is it, in

 9     fact, the intersection near the vicinity of the place of the incident?

10        A.   My visit was in 2009.  I don't -- I couldn't say for sure.  I'm

11     sorry.

12        Q.   Okay.  In respect to the incident site, did you agree that --

13     would you agree that there were potential directions of fire, in addition

14     from the direction of the house of the blind, that there was a clear

15     trajectory from Dobrinja or the opposite direction from Dobrinja as well?

16        A.   I agree there were no potential directions of fire, but I could

17     not say the -- as for Dobrinja, if that was -- I couldn't say that now.

18        Q.   Okay.  If we look at the pockmarks on the building in this

19     photograph, first of all, in your opinion, could that be evidence of a --

20     that this location was the recipient of a significant exchange of fire

21     between the warring factions?

22        A.   I remember seeing a lot of buildings in Sarajevo that looked like

23     this and had a lot of bullet-holes in them.

24        Q.   I want you to focus on the buildings that you saw in the area of

25     the incident site for this particular incident.  Were there a lot of

Page 6598

 1     buildings that were pockmarked in this manner in that area when you

 2     visited?

 3        A.   That -- yeah, that's correct.

 4        Q.   And -- and now I ask you:  In your opinion, could those pockmarks

 5     be evidence that this location was a recipient of significant exchange of

 6     fire between the warring factions?

 7        A.   There was, over the time that the conflict took place, over that

 8     time, those shots would have been collected, but I don't know if that was

 9     done in -- within a week, which would have been very intense, or over the

10     course of months or years.

11        Q.   Okay.

12             MR. IVETIC:  I guess I should tender this photograph based upon

13     the questions about the building; but I do not, at this time, intend to

14     rely upon the markings of the locations.  That will have to wait for

15     another witness.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  First of all, we'd have to know exactly where

17     the picture is taken and what it depicts.

18             Is there any dispute about the pockmarks on the building, that

19     are the traces of fire?

20             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  No, Judge.  I wouldn't dispute the pockmarks as

21     to the location.  Obviously I would have an objection for it coming in --

22     as to the precise locations.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

24             Mr. Ivetic, do you want to tender it now or not?  Or would you

25     wait for a later moment?  If you want to tender it, we need more details

Page 6599

 1     about --

 2             MR. IVETIC:  Could I at least get it MFI'd so that we don't lose

 3     the discussion that this witness has had with respect to it or ...

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  That seems to be fair.

 5             Mr. Registrar, the MFI number this document would receive, this

 6     photograph.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  D126, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  The document is marked for identification as 126.

 9             Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.

10             MR. IVETIC:

11        Q.   I earlier asked you, sir, if you knew how far the confrontation

12     line was from this location.  I believe you said you did not.  Did you at

13     least know the direction the confrontation line was from the incident

14     site was for this particular incident?

15        A.   No, I only know that the school of the blind was viewed as a

16     sniping nest by the people and that there were ABiH soldiers close to the

17     trench where the girls were.

18             For the rest, I do not know where the confrontation line was.

19        Q.   Let's see if I can try one more photograph.  1D528.

20             And while we're waiting for this, in the information that was

21     provided to you when you visited the location, did anyone mention the

22     retirees' home or nursing home that was approximately 40 metres from the

23     incident site?

24        A.   I remember seeing this building, but I don't recall any other

25     information about it.

Page 6600

 1        Q.   Okay.  When you say you remember seeing this building, did you

 2     remember seeing this building nearby the incident site for this incident?

 3        A.   If nearby would be within 300 metres, I believe so, yes.

 4        Q.   And that's fair enough.  Is the building and the damage to the

 5     building representative of what the surroundings of the incident site

 6     looked like or showed evidence of?

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you mean about as far as bushes are concerned,

 8     about gates, about --

 9             MR. IVETIC:  The damage.  The damage to the building, the

10     pockmarks.

11             THE WITNESS:  Well, I believe this building looks worse than --

12     probably it's a different type of building than the apartment building

13     that we just saw.  This building, I believe, is built of solid bricks and

14     the apartment building is usually of -- from the houses that I have seen

15     in Bosnia, most of the houses have hollow bricks, and one bullet will

16     have a bigger effect on it than on a brick -- a solid brick wall, as well

17     as for the stucco on the walls, it doesn't necessarily represent the real

18     damage.  But this building does look worse than other buildings that I

19     have seen.

20        Q.   My information is that this is 40 metres, approximately, from the

21     incident site, but it doesn't matter.  I'll go with your within 300

22     metres.  If the confrontation line and buildings with this type of damage

23     are 300 metres from the incident site, can you, with a reasonable degree

24     of professional scientific certainty, exclude the possibility that the

25     victim in this case was wounded by cross-fire or fire emanating from the

Page 6601

 1     warring factions at the confrontation line?

 2        A.   I wouldn't rely entirely on scientific certainty.  I believe

 3     there are other factors.

 4             If I were a young girl, even if I was -- wanted to keep my shoes

 5     clean, which I believe I read in the -- in one of the witness statements,

 6     if there was shooting going on, I would not try to cross the street.  So

 7     that it is not scientifically but it is pure logic, in my view.

 8        Q.   Well, in your view, if you were a young girl and soldiers had

 9     told you not to go a particular way because it was dangerous, would you

10     have gone?

11        A.   That is what I've read in the witness statement.  But the line

12     between people telling me where not to go and actual exchange of fire

13     with bullets whizzing by, I believe that is something completely

14     different.

15        Q.   Okay.  Fair enough, sir.  I thank you for your answers.

16             MR. IVETIC:  And, Your Honours, I have concluded with this

17     witness.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we take a break.

19             Could you give us an indication, Ms. Hochhauser, as to how much

20     time you would need after the break for re-examination?

21             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  I'll be able to give a more precise estimate

22     at -- directly upon returning, but I would say approximately half an

23     hour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We'll consider that.  Please consider what is

25     necessary to be asked in re-examination.

Page 6602

 1             Then could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom.

 2                           [The witness stands down]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  We whether take a break, and we will resume at 25

 4     minutes past 12.00.

 5                           --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.

 6                           --- On resuming at 12.28 p.m.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, I'd like to move into private

 8     session.

 9                           [Private session]

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 6603

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21                           [Open session]

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're in open session.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

24             Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

25                           [The witness takes the stand]

Page 6604

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Van der Weijden, you will now be re-examined by

 2     Ms. Hochhauser.

 3             Ms. Hochhauser, you may proceed.

 4             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 5                           Re-examination by Ms. Hochhauser:

 6        Q.   Mr. Van der Weijden, during your cross-examination, you were

 7     asked on several occasions about the -- whether the charts in the back

 8     of -- lists that you list in your report following the incidents included

 9     this -- the entire sum of everything that you considered for that

10     incident.

11             Did you also, in addition to what is in those charts -- excuse

12     me, sorry.  You also referenced in your responses certain videos and

13     photographs.  Did you also see videos taken with witness -- with victims

14     and an OTP investigator, such as the one we saw in Court yesterday at 65

15     ter 22457?

16        A.   Yes, I did.

17        Q.   And -- let's see.

18             Okay.  Also, earlier today, and this is in regard to incident F9,

19     at temporary transcript page 41, lines 17 through 19, you were asked

20     about, in particular, whether you would permit that uniformed soldiers

21     would have been an appropriate and legitimate target for the opposing

22     side to shoot at.

23             In response, you stated:  "If the uniformed soldiers would have

24     been in the same view of the same picture for the shooter, then they --

25     well, I would agree that a uniformed soldier could present a legitimate

Page 6605

 1     target."

 2             And I would like to -- I would like, at this point, Your Honours,

 3     to show -- to add to the 65 ter exhibit list a statement of one of those

 4     witnesses, 65 ter 28627.  And, Your Honours, for your information, this

 5     has been -- this is a document that is one of the subjects of the

 6     Prosecution's fifth 92 bis motion filed 6 September 2012.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just try to understand you.

 8             You said you'd like to add the statement to the 65 ter list.  Is

 9     that not included in the 92 bis motion?  And even for a 92 bis witness, I

10     would expect that the witness statement would already be on the 65 ter

11     list.

12             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Your Honour, we did not -- had not yet assigned

13     it a 65 ter number, although it is a pending statement that's subject of

14     one of those -- of that motion.  Which is still pending.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  What you're doing at this moment, so you are

16     assigning a 65 ter number to that.  It doesn't -- is yet, not yet, on the

17     65 ter list.

18             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  It has been disclosed to the Defence.  It is a

19     subject of that pending 92 bis motion but it had not yet been assigned a

20     65 ter number.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But what are we supposed to do with it now?

22             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  I would like to have the witness look at a

23     portion of it.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  To look at a portion.  Or would you like to ask

25     questions about it?  It is a bit unclear to me how you want to proceed.

Page 6606

 1             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  I could simply proceed by quoting from it

 2     without showing it.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Perhaps that would be -- if the Defence is

 4     then aware it has been -- it's disclosed material, and it arises now in

 5     cross-examination; therefore, please do as you suggested.

 6             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Okay.  Thank you, Your Honour.

 7        Q.   So, Mr. Van der Weijden, referring back to that same portion of

 8     testimony about F9, and I'll refer to information that -- from a

 9     statement that you list in your chart in regard to F9, the statement of a

10     witness dated 8 November 1995 in which -- and this is from one of the

11     victims.  In which she says:

12             "Not from my place at about 1900 hours or 1930 hours, we arrived

13     at a spot where we saw soldiers on the opposite of the street.  They were

14     at a balcony on the third floor and shouted at us."

15             And this is the shouted warning that was referred to, that was

16     discussed in the cross-examination, the shouted warning to the two girls

17     about snipers in the area.

18             So, Captain, my question for you, is:  These soldiers on the

19     third floor of the building on the opposite side of the street, and given

20     the distance that's noted, the short distance that is noted in your

21     report from the location in the school of the blind that you identified

22     as the origin of fire, and the -- and the incident location where the

23     girls were shot, if the shooter was aiming at soldiers in such a

24     location, would you expect the soldiers to be in the same view of the

25     shooter as the witness and her friend?

Page 6607

 1        A.   How -- reading these lines, I believe that the soldiers, if they

 2     would have been on the third floor of the building on the opposite side

 3     of the street, they've been on a balcony facing the square where the

 4     girls were also present.  They wouldn't have been visible to the point of

 5     origin, which I think is the school of the blind.  So they wouldn't even

 6     have been visible.

 7        Q.   Now, I'd like to refer you now to yesterday's transcript,

 8     page 6544, at line 22, where you had the following question and answer:

 9             "Q.  Would you agree with me that you cannot know if there are

10     any other targets in the area on that day that may have been the intended

11     target, which resulted in a missed shot that could have struck this

12     victim in the manner we discussed before?"

13             And you answered:

14             "No, I do not agree."

15             Can you explain or elaborate upon this answer.

16        A.   Could you point out in -- what incident is involved in this one?

17        Q.   I -- I don't believe that it was -- let me just turn to it.  I

18     don't believe that it was a specific incident.  It was a general

19     question.

20             Do we see the -- let's see ...

21        A.   I believe I -- I think I remember that we were discussing

22     Spicaste Stijena at that time, Sharpstone.  And, as I recall, there -- it

23     was about the BiH lines down in the valley, if they could have been the

24     intended target instead of the target, the further -- further in the

25     valley.  I think --

Page 6608

 1             Could we check that?  Is it possible?

 2        Q.   Yes.  Actually, if we could -- if we can go ... to the question

 3     before.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  It's about the second of the Unscheduled Incidents,

 5     it seems, Spicaste Stijena.  We find that on line 14:  "If we can turn to

 6     the second of the Unscheduled Incidents."

 7             That was what the question was about.  It was about a shot at a

 8     range of 850 to 950 metres.  You said:  "It is a difficult long-range

 9     shot."

10             And then the question just quoted by Ms. Hochhauser was put to

11     you.

12             Ms. Hochhauser, any further questions on this matter?

13             MS. HOCHHAUSER:

14        Q.   Did -- did -- did being pointed to that enable you to clarify

15     your answer or expand upon the answer when you said, No, I do not agree

16     with Mr. Ivetic's proposition.

17        A.   Yes.  What -- because we -- I believe we were discussing the --

18     the ABiH lines compared to the VRS positions at that time.  The

19     difference between the ABiH lines and the incident site is that far apart

20     that there is no -- there can be no stray shot or the -- the -- as people

21     commonly refer to it, or a missed target.  The -- it was the -- the only

22     civilian target within that area.  The military targets were further

23     down, closer to Sharpstone, and shots fired at that direction or at those

24     positions, then guns would have -- be elevated to an extreme level.  It's

25     close to zero.

Page 6609

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  You just exclude any military target which is not on

 2     a fixed position close to the confrontation line; is that correct?

 3             THE WITNESS:  I concluded that that target was that far from the

 4     confrontation line, that there was no military target close to that --

 5     not -- front line target close to the incident's location.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But that doesn't resolve the problem.  Could

 7     there be two soldiers walking nearby, which is not a fixed position, at

 8     the confrontation line?  Not to say that there's any evidence for that at

 9     this moment, but ...

10             THE WITNESS:  That might have happened.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  So --

12             THE WITNESS:  I accept that.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  You just do not know.  You say -- as a matter of

14     fact, you say it was the only civilian target you are aware of, where you

15     have considered primarily fixed positions close to the confrontation

16     lines.

17             Is that how I have to understand your --

18             THE WITNESS:  That is correct, Your Honour.  It is the only

19     civilian target compared to the positions at the confrontation line.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Hochhauser.

21             MS. HOCHHAUSER:

22        Q.   I'd like to turn to today's temporary transcript, page 13,

23     lines 21 through 25, and in the context of the methods that might be used

24     to overcome the visibility problems of an optical scope on a sniper rifle

25     you were asked about whether you knew what equipment was available to

Page 6610

 1     either the snipers of the VRS or the Army of BiH.

 2             In connection with this line of questioning, can we please draw

 3     up on the monitor 65 ter 28490.

 4             And this is a Sarajevo-Romanija Corps command order number

 5     20/15-1244, signed by Stanislav Galic, dated 29 October 1993.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honour, just for the record, this is also one

 7     of the documents that was not identified as having been reviewed by the

 8     witness in his expert report and which was the subject of the objection

 9     to the, quote/unquote, 31 documents that was in the Defence response to

10     the 94 bis submission for this witness.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But it now apparently has become relevant on

12     the basis of your cross-examination, which creates a different situation.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Right.  I'm just bringing it to the record that this

14     is one of the documents.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

16             Ms. Hochhauser.

17             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  I'm not seeing the document on the screen.

18     Oh ... sorry.  Thank you.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Now let me just see ... yes.

20             Please proceed.

21             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Okay.

22        Q.   And I would draw your attention, Captain, to the

23     paragraph labelled 1 on page 1 of this document, where it states that:

24             "Each brigade set up a platoon-strength snipers group, 30 plus 1

25     soldiers.  These should be supplied with sniper rifles, optical and IC

Page 6611

 1     infrared passive sights silencers."

 2             Is there any equipment mentioned in the extract that I've just

 3     read out that could be used to overcome visibility problems of an optical

 4     scope on a sniper rifle?

 5        A.   Well, I believe the infrared and passive sights would certainly

 6     be able to overcome low visibility concerning -- low-light visibility

 7     problems.

 8        Q.   And as a follow-up to this document, I'd also like to draw up,

 9     please, 65 ter 28491.

10             And if we could scroll down to the final paragraph on the first

11     page, where it reads:

12             "Thus far" --

13             It's the last sentence in the English.  I'm sorry, I can't

14     identify it in the B/C/S.

15             "Thus far, the snipers from the subordinated units have been

16     active mostly in pairs, in the areas of Trebevic, Hresa and Podgrab ..."

17             And, again, I apologise for any mispronunciations.

18             And, again, in the context of overcoming visibility problems of

19     an optical scope on a sniper rifle, does the working in pairs have an

20     impact on that?

21        A.   It most certainly would.  As I have written in the report is that

22     working in pairs enhances the effectivity of the -- of the sniper, since

23     the spotter can support him with his optical sights.  Or his -- his

24     optics and, in general, binoculars or his spotting scope.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Hochhauser, just to say that you can't identify

Page 6612

 1     it in the B/C/S is not -- is it on this page?  Let's have a look where

 2     it's supposed to be.  I think it is at bottom part.

 3             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Yeah, I just wasn't able to identify that

 4     particular sentence on the -- in the B/C/S.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I see the word "zrak," which immediately

 6     precedes the portion you read in the last paragraph on the first page.

 7     And Trebevic appears on the fifth line of the -- in that bullet point

 8     part on the first page.

 9             Yes, please proceed.

10             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Okay.

11        Q.    And Captain, in fact, at yesterday's transcript, page -- it

12     was -- I have here noted 650, but I -- that may have been the -- the

13     temporary transcript which I noted down.

14             But you were -- you were asked specifically a question about a

15     portion of your report in which you identify that snipers work in pair --

16     are often found working in pairs.  And the question read:

17             "Among those items" --

18             Well, the full question read at page 4 in the English and page 6

19     of the B/C/S:

20             "You outline tasks and deployments of the sniper and training of

21     a sniper.  And among those items you include several times the necessity

22     of a sniper team to consist of two persons."

23             So, again, I want to make sure that is in relation to your

24     experience and knowledge as to NATO armies.  And I see it's at transcript

25     6.520.  And that you are not suggesting any expertise or knowledge of

Page 6613

 1     such factors in relation to the Army of Republika Srpska or the Army of

 2     BiH.

 3             And so I would also like to ask you in regard to what is on --

 4     what the document -- the document that is still on the monitor, 28491,

 5     where it says that the units have been mostly -- active mostly in pairs,

 6     what that suggests to you.

 7        A.   Well, that would suggest that snipers are, in fact, using the

 8     same time of tactics as NATO armies, since working in pairs makes them

 9     more effective.

10        Q.   And, Your Honour, at this time, I'd like to tender, please, 28490

11     and 28491.

12        A.   Excuse me, it should be -- because I'm reading which suggests

13     that snipers are, in fact, using the same type of tactics.  Instead of

14     attacks.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

16             MR. IVETIC:  Well, to the extent that the witness has testified

17     about it now, I don't see the -- if I can object.  But, again, it's

18     mixing and matching apples and oranges.  Because the questions I asked

19     were related to whether he had reviewed anything prior to issuing his

20     report and had any knowledge thereof, and now we're pulling out one

21     document that he hasn't seen until the courtroom, and it's being

22     presented for something.  So I have an objection to the manner in which

23     it is being presented, but I do believe that the documents should be

24     entered because the witness has testified about them.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Hochhauser, there seems to be no objection,

Page 6614

 1     so -- unless you want to -- to admission.

 2             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Well, no.  Except that there is no objection to

 3     admission.  But I would just say that actually the questions yesterday

 4     were to -- went directly to the weight of this witness's testimony based

 5     on his area of knowledge.  And so the similarities --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Hochhauser, yes.  There's no objection.

 7             At the same time, I take it that you want to say that apples and

 8     pears are similar fruits of the same size; whereas, you are pointing at

 9     the difference between apples and pears.

10             Mr. Registrar.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, 65 ter 28490 becomes Exhibit P675;

12     while 65 ter 28491 becomes Exhibit P676.  Thank you.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  P675 and P676 are admitted into evidence.

14             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  If we could please show --

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before you do that, I think the witness made a

16     correction of the transcription where the correction is not recorded

17     correctly.  I think.  Page 36, line 6.  If I understood you correctly,

18     you said the same of -- type of tactics; is that right?

19             THE WITNESS:  That is correct, Your Honour.  And tactics is

20     t-a-c-t-i-c-s.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.  It was page 63.  I misspoke.  Sorry.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  And now, finally, did you correct in this way, the

23     language you used before, or did you correct the transcript?

24             THE WITNESS:  I corrected the correction on the transcript of the

25     language that I used before.

Page 6615

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 2             Please proceed.

 3             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  If we could please have 65 ter 25229 on the

 4     monitor.  Which is the programme for a sniper course in the VRS issued by

 5     the Republika Srpska Main Staff.

 6        Q.   And, sir, I believe you've had the opportunity to see this

 7     document before.  But if we could -- if I could ask if we could just

 8     slowly turn to page 1 and then 2 so that the witness can recollect what

 9     it is he is looking at.

10             And do you recall having seen this document?

11        A.   Yes -- yes, I do.

12        Q.   And can you tell us whether the training course for snipers in

13     the VRS run by the Republika Srpska is typical or atypical of the sniping

14     curricula that you are familiar with from your experience?

15        A.   The subjects of the course would -- are certainly familiar -- of

16     similar with other courses.

17             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  I'd like to tender this document, 65 ter 25229,

18     please.

19             MR. IVETIC:  Well, on this one, there has been no basis for it to

20     be admitted in whole.  I mean, I don't even know how many pages this one

21     is, Your Honour.  But this witness, just by saying -- looking at one page

22     and saying it appears to be consistent with what NATO courses teach

23     doesn't meet, I think, the standards for admission of a document if it's

24     being presented for the truth of the matters asserted therein.

25             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Your Honours, I would say that the witness has

Page 6616

 1     actually testified that he has seen the whole of the document.  I just

 2     didn't take the time in court to flip through each page.  And, again --

 3     and I -- I don't want to the co-opt Your Honour's words, but I think

 4     we're having the same argument about the apples and the pears.  I think

 5     the Defence has, in its cross-examination, made the point that he has

 6     knowledge -- or tried to make the point that this witness's knowledge is

 7     not based or not applicable to the Army of the Republika Srpska, and so I

 8     think that it's proper re-direct and proper comment from the witness to

 9     talk about -- to -- to put in evidence that it is similar and that it

10     does jive with what he has testified to.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  There are two issues.

12             The first one, whether what is written here has happened.  That

13     is a matter, part of the evaluation of the evidence giving weight to the

14     evidence.

15             The objection is denied.

16             Mr. Ivetic, you have consistently challenged that training,

17     education, many aspects of sniping in the former Yugoslavia, may have

18     been -- in the Republika Srpska may have been different from what the

19     witness told us was usual in other armies.

20             This is a document which allows him to compare what was at least

21     written.

22             Now, Ms. Hochhauser, before we decide on the matter, the document

23     is dated 1995.  Do you have any further details?  And, apart from that,

24     it is an attachment number 7, I think, to another document.

25             It was attached to what?

Page 6617

 1             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  I -- Your Honour --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Annex number 7, it says.

 3             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  I would have to take a -- take a few moments to

 4     answer that question, so if -- if we could, if I could have the

 5     opportunity to provide you with that information at a later date and

 6     revisit the ... the issue, I would.

 7                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  The document will be MFI'd.

 9             Mr. Registrar, the number to be assigned would be ...

10             THE REGISTRAR:  P677, Your Honours.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  P677 is marked for identification.

12             You may proceed.

13             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  If I could please have 65 ter 28602 on the

14     monitor.

15        Q.   And, sir, while it's coming up, you've had the opportunity to

16     visit the Metalka building, have you?

17        A.   Yes -- yes, I have.

18        Q.   Okay.  And that is the location that, in your opinion, was the

19     origin of fire of several of the Scheduled Incidents?  I believe 11,

20     12 -- at least 11, 12, and 14.

21        A.   That is correct.

22        Q.   Now, can you recognise what's on the screen now?  Do you

23     recognise that view?

24        A.   Just a moment, please.

25             Yes, I recognise the structures in the -- in the view, in the

Page 6618

 1     photo.

 2        Q.   And can you tell us the likelihood -- we've heard on

 3     cross-examination about the possibility that victims of the incidents

 4     that you address in your report were hit by errant shots.  And can you

 5     explain the likelihood of a range of deviation -- excuse me.  Can you

 6     explain the range of deviation of a -- of a shooter from such a position

 7     as this?

 8        A.   Well, if the shooter would use a 7.62 times 39 millimetre rifle

 9     or 7.62 times 51, 54, or the 7.9 at a range of a little over 300 metres,

10     the point of aim, it -- it depends on the adjustments on the scope.  But

11     I believe that the deviation would be not more than 1 metre.  But then he

12     would have make -- made a -- big mistakes.

13        Q.   Okay.  And this -- I'm sorry, you did say you recognised the

14     location.  Can you tell us what the location is?  What you recognise --

15        A.   I recognise the yellow building, which is the Holiday Inn, the

16     hotel.  And I recognise the street that runs between the Holiday Inn and

17     the Metalka building.

18             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  So I would like to tender this exhibit, please.

19             MR. IVETIC:  No objection.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, 65 ter 28602 shall be assigned

22     Exhibit P678.  Thank you.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  P678 is admitted into evidence.

24             Could I ask one follow-up question in this context,

25     Ms. Hochhauser.

Page 6619

 1             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Yes.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  At -- for various incidents, you have pointed at

 3     witnesses saying it -- shots came from the Grbavica building, and you

 4     said that was impossible apart from how that building is identified, but

 5     because that seems not to be very specific.

 6             But then you always jump to the Metalka building.  You say, There

 7     is a building in that area.  And then you start explaining that -- you

 8     could have fired from there and hit the target.

 9             Have you also considered other buildings in the same area?

10     Because you do not explain why you choose for the Metalka building rather

11     than any other building which could serve as a substitute for the

12     rejected Grbavica building?

13             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

14             The Metalka building is at the end of the street.  The street

15     itself forms a natural tunnel, and so from the location where the -- the

16     tram I believe just -- was hit just in front -- just before the

17     Holiday Inn hotel, just before the S-curve in the tracks where the tram

18     would have to slow down if travelling from west to east, there's only one

19     building that has a direct view on that intersection that is -- in a

20     tactical way and a technical way, the -- an option.

21             So I took into account other buildings, but the only other

22     buildings that would offer a technical possibility are the museum close

23     to the street and the faculty.  The buildings in the streets, they

24     would -- it -- is where I have testified that shooters would have to lean

25     out the windows and expose themselves to enemy positions in order to be

Page 6620

 1     able to fire at the location.  So that is where -- how I ended up at the

 2     Metalka building.  It's simply for me, it's the only option there is.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You have excluded other options.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  So your report would have been complete if you would

 6     have said, Having considered all the possible buildings, I ended up that

 7     the Metalka building was the one who had a free view or a free line of

 8     sight.

 9             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Hochhauser.

11             MS. HOCHHAUSER:

12        Q.   If I could ask you a follow-up clarification of the language that

13     you used in your response to Judge Orie just now.

14             You used the word "tunnel."  "The street itself forms a natural

15     tunnel."  And I think you used that same word in describing the bridge

16     incident when you were describing the water.

17             Can you tell us what you mean by "a tunnel"?

18        A.   It's -- it comes more or less from a tunnel view.  It's -- there

19     are buildings on left and the right side and -- that forms -- yeah.  It's

20     a natural tunnel towards somewhere or from somewhere.  So you are boxed

21     in on the left and the right side.

22        Q.   Captain, we've heard evidence in this proceeding for -- to the

23     effect that there were trained snipers operating in the Grbavica area.

24     How likely do you think it that a trained sniper would accidentally hit a

25     tram in front of the Holiday Inn while firing from a position within the

Page 6621

 1     Metalka building?

 2        A.   Well, not likely.  For a trained sniper.

 3        Q.   And counsel was asking about the possibility of the victim of F1

 4     being hit by an errant shot.  Did you view the witness statements of the

 5     parents of the child, Mr. And Mrs. Pita, in relation to that incident?

 6        A.   It is a long time, but if the witness statements are listed in

 7     the evidence list that I provided, then I have read them.

 8        Q.   And to your recollection, was there any indication of an ongoing

 9     fire-fight in that vicinity at the time the victim was struck?

10        A.   I recall that there was mentioning of a few shots earlier in the

11     morning and that there was fog in the morning, but I don't -- I think I

12     read ...

13        Q.   Well, I'm sorry.  If I can ask you the question a different way.

14             Would -- would information about whether other shots were heard

15     or not heard be a factor that you would consider in whether -- in

16     considering whether this -- whether the child was an intended target of

17     the -- of the shooter?

18        A.   They might be a factor, yes.

19        Q.   Can you explain that.

20        A.   Well, if the shots were heard or there were impacts in the

21     vicinity of the incident site, then those shots might have been intended

22     for the target as well.

23        Q.   Okay.  And what would you expect to hear if there was an ongoing

24     return of fire between the two parties up on the ridge of -- of Baba Rock

25     and in the cemetery of Baba Rock?

Page 6622

 1        A.   Could you explain?

 2        Q.   Yeah.  There was questioning about whether the bullet that struck

 3     Anisa Pita could have been the result of a volley of fire on -- between

 4     the -- the BiH and VRS positions up on Baba Rock.  What would you expect

 5     to hear if there was -- if there was ongoing -- if return of fire between

 6     the two parties at the time that the victim was shot?

 7        A.   Well, you would hear different -- every -- the shots that would

 8     have been fired from the cemetery would sound different from the ones

 9     from Baba Stijena because of the -- the difference in distance.  So you

10     would be able to clearly distinguish between a fire-fight that wasn't in

11     the -- in the direct area.

12        Q.   And are there other factors that you would consider when

13     examining whether somebody who was the victim was -- whether -- excuse

14     me.  When considering whether the victim that was struck was actually the

15     intended target of a shooter?

16        A.   Well, there are -- there was the issue of identification that I

17     will take into account.  I believe for this instance that there is --

18     that the courtyard where the girl was is, it's not the easiest location

19     to look at because it's -- it's -- it's a darker hole than the

20     surroundings.  So identification is something that I always take into

21     account.  But I also look if there are tactical positions or if they had

22     been there nearby.  So if they are mentioned in witness statements that

23     there were soldiers close by, then that might be a factor that I would

24     include in my research.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I try to analyse your last answer and see what

Page 6623

 1     it really means.

 2             The question was whether the victim that was struck was actually

 3     the intended target of the shooter.

 4             Now, part of your answer was the issue of identification.

 5             Now, if the person struck would be a small child, would that be

 6     an intended shot at that target?

 7             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry, Your Honour, I think I misinterpreted

 8     the question the little bit.

 9             Identification is not something entirely relevant to the

10     question.  What I do consider is the actions of the target at the time of

11     the incident -- I'm sorry.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Still then, how could this tell you that the shooter

13     was intending to target that person or that place?  It depends, isn't it,

14     if the shooter, let's just assume for argument's sake, that the shooter

15     is not willing to act in accordance with the -- with the rules

16     applicable, then if you shoot a small child, he may have intended to do

17     so.  If the shooter wanted to obey all the rules, then hitting a small

18     child might be an indication that he was not intending to target that

19     victim.

20             So, therefore, how could you possibly say anything about the

21     intentions of the shooter just by looking at what happens?  If you say,

22     It is a difficult shot, now, if you intended to shoot at that position,

23     then it was intended and it took quite an effort to do that.  If it was

24     not intended, it was a shot fired just at random and happened to enter

25     that place.

Page 6624

 1             So I do not either understand what Ms. Hochhauser is trying to

 2     elicit as evidence.  Neither do I understand the logic of your answers.

 3             Please proceed.

 4             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  And I apologise if my question was confusing.

 5        Q.   What I'm asking, lieutenant, is we -- sorry, Captain, is we spoke

 6     today and yesterday at greater length about this idea of errant shots or

 7     what the intended target was.  And can you -- and also the deviation of a

 8     bullet as it -- as it leaves, and we also addressed the idea of ricochet.

 9             Can you tell us what the -- what the range of deviation is that

10     we're talking about?  For example, using any of the scheduled -- or any

11     of the Scheduled Incidents as an example, what kind of range of deviation

12     from the intended target would you expect?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Hochhauser --

14             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Yes.  Is that, again, a bad question?

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm afraid it is.

16             Because what are -- are you talking about deviation caused by

17     wind, by other such factors as listed by the witness, if the shooter was

18     a skilled shooter; or are you talking about the quality of the shooter?

19     An untrained person, would he usually stay within 2 metres from the

20     target, would he not.  These are two different questions, and, therefore,

21     deviation is an unclear concept in this context.

22             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Okay.  Thank you, Judge.  I'll --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  And, of course, to some extent, the witness has

24     given an answer in respect of a certain distance.  He said, If you would

25     miss by 1 metre, if a trained sniper would miss by 1 metre, he would have

Page 6625

 1     made quite a mistake.

 2             So that means that a trained sniper, apparently at the distance

 3     we were talking about, at that time, should well remain within 1 metre

 4     from his intended target.

 5             So, to some extent, the witness has answered that, but you always

 6     need outside influence or the skills of the shooter, and that is what you

 7     ignored in your question.

 8             Nevertheless, if the witness could comment on your question, or

 9     could comment on my observations, he is invited to do so.

10             THE WITNESS:  I would like to comment that the distance we're

11     talking about, that was on a different distance.  So it was a shorter --

12     a shorter range.  So 920 metres would, of course, have more -- there are

13     more variables to be taken into account for such a shot.

14             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Your Honours, thank you for your patience.  That

15     concludes the -- the re-direct examination.

16             There is -- I see Mr. Ivetic is on his feet.  There is also the

17     issue of still the offering of the report.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Ivetic.

19             MR. IVETIC:  Two or three questions that arise out of the

20     re-direct, with your leave.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please.

22                           Further cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:

23        Q.   Sir, counsel asked you about the problems with optical sights,

24     and by my recollection, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the optical

25     sight problems that we discussed were with four times magnification, you

Page 6626

 1     could not see what a person is holding in their hands at distance greater

 2     than 800 metres, and the problem that the reticle on the optical sight

 3     can be an impediment to see things at 600 metres.

 4             Am I accurate in the topics that you and I discussed earlier this

 5     morning as to problems with optical sights?

 6        A.   Not completely.  I think I said it would be difficult to see what

 7     a person is holding and not excluding it.

 8        Q.   My focus was on the 600 metres and the 800 metres.  Is that the

 9     what we were discussing?

10        A.   I believe so, yes.

11        Q.   Ms. Hochhauser showed you some documents with some information as

12     to some passive infrared sights.  Am I correct, sir, that such sites are

13     known as second generation sights and are good for up to 300 to 400

14     metres?

15        A.   That is correct.  Mostly.

16             MR. IVETIC:  No more questions for this witness, Your Honour.

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Since the Chamber has no questions for you either,

19     Mr. Van der Weijden, this concludes your evidence.  I would like to thank

20     you for coming to this court and for having answered all the questions

21     that were put to you by the parties and by the Bench, and I wish you a

22     safe return home again.

23             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  You may follow the usher.

25                           [The witness withdrew]

Page 6627

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  The tendering of the report itself is the remaining

 2     issue.

 3             Anything you'd like to add, Mr. Ivetic, to what was already in

 4     the written submissions?

 5             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 6             We would strongly oppose the tender of the report into evidence

 7     as an expert report.  Given what we have heard, the Defence would renew

 8     its objections as follows.

 9             An expert is expected to give his or her expert opinion in full

10     transparency --

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the counsel please slow down for sake of

12     interpreters.  Thank you.

13             MR. IVETIC:  I apologise.

14             An expert is expected to give his or her expert opinion in full

15     transparency of established or assumed facts that he or she relies upon

16     and of the methods used when applying his or her knowledge, experience,

17     or skills to form his or her expert opinion.  This is the ruling of the

18     Martic Trial Chamber on 13 January 2006, at paragraph 37, and the ruling

19     of the Gotovina Trial Chamber from 27 August 2009 at paragraph 10.

20             Given the responses by this witness that he can't remember what

21     materials he had, that he either misplaced or gave back to the

22     Prosecution the materials that were his source, that the underlying

23     military handbooks can neither be identified with particularity, nor

24     given to the Defence without clearance from the government, all these

25     things go against full transparency of this report, a report, I might

Page 6628

 1     add, that is virtually devoid of footnotes, and we learn now is also

 2     based on unknown material the witness gathered from the Internet from

 3     unknown web sites that he was unable to identify for us.

 4             The jurisprudence is very clear that the sources for an expert

 5     report must be clearly indicated and accessible in order to allow the

 6     other party or the Trial Chamber to test or challenge the bases on which

 7     the expert witness has reached his or her conclusions.

 8             The jurisprudence says that in the absence of clear references to

 9     accessible sources, the Trial Chamber will treat the matter as the

10     witness's personal opinion rather than an expert opinion.  This is from

11     the Milosevic Trial Court, a decision on the expert report of Robert

12     Donja, 15 February 2007, at paragraph 8.  And, in the same case, they had

13     a Defence expert witness that had the same result, 21 August 2007, at

14     paragraph 7; and is also from the Stanisic and Simatovic, the decision on

15     the Prosecution's submission of the expert reports of Nina Tromp and

16     Christian Neilsen pursuant to Rule 94 bis of 18 March 2008, at

17     paragraph 9.

18             There is -- here, there is little opportunity for the Defence

19     experts to advise the Defence on the matters that are the bases for this

20     witness's testimony when he cannot provide clear references to accessible

21     sources.

22             Accordingly, this report does not meet the test to be admitted as

23     an expert report, and the testimony of this witness must be disqualified

24     as expert in nature as a result thereof.

25             Thank you.

Page 6629

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Hochhauser, anything you would like to briefly

 3     say about it?

 4             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Yes, just briefly, Your Honour.

 5             The witness's report does, in fact, contain the source of the

 6     information that he relied upon.  I think that when Mr. Ivetic refers to

 7     the testimony about certain sources that he had returned or that he

 8     couldn't completely identify, that -- that testimony is limited solely to

 9     the Unscheduled Incidents and not to the Scheduled Incidents, so I wanted

10     to point that out to the Court.

11             In addition, I would rely already on what's already been said in

12     the written filings about his experience and his expertise in this area,

13     but I would specifically like to address the argument, also, about the --

14     about these military handbooks and the use of the Internet for certain

15     things.

16             The witness testified that during the course of his -- of his

17     schooling, there were military handbooks that, of course, formed the

18     basis of some of his schooling as he received a military education that

19     went on -- from which he went on to have a long career and -- in sniping

20     and as a sniper instructor.  The on-the-job training for which -- and

21     experience for which is obviously a huge part of his qualifications,

22     which has led to him being deemed an expert and accepted as an expert in

23     four prior trials before this Tribunal.

24             The military handbooks that he -- that Mr. Ivetic refers to, to

25     me, I would submit, to the Chamber is the equivalent of asking a doctor

Page 6630

 1     who comes in to testify about DNA to submit his biology text that he --

 2     that he was trained on in college for the basis of his original -- the

 3     basis of his original training from which he then went on and gained an

 4     expertise.

 5             So that's -- those are the only additional arguments that I would

 6     like to address in response to what Mr. Ivetic just raised orally in

 7     court.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  The Chamber will decide on the admission

 9     of the expert report of Mr. Van der Weijden in due course.

10             We take the break.  And is the Prosecution ready to call its next

11     witness after the break?

12             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour.  Also prepared to address the

13     Chamber on that initial matter with respect to that e-mail.  I can do

14     that now or after the break.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  About that e-mail.  I think it would be better --

16     would you need much time for that?

17             MR. GROOME:  About two minutes, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  About two minutes.  Then, after the break, we'll ask

19     that the witness be on stand by after the two minutes when we deal with

20     the matter in private session.

21             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  We take a break, and we resume at ten minutes

23     to 2.00.

24                           --- Recess taken at 1.29 p.m.

25                           --- On resuming at 1.55 p.m.

Page 6631

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome, we turn into private session so that you

 3     can you make your submissions.

 4             MR. GROOME:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 5                           [Private session]

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 6632

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5                           [Open session]

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

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

 8             When the next witness is escorted into the courtroom, I have one

 9     matter to raise -- no, two matters, as a matter of fact.  Therefore, the

10     witness might need a bit more patience.

11             The first is the Defence has requested seven extra days to

12     respond to the 92 ter motion for Witness RM120.  That request is granted.

13             Then there was an issue about scheduling for the 25th of January,

14     a Friday, a videolink.  Unfortunately, on that Friday the Judges are not

15     available for extended sessions in the afternoon.  First of all, it is

16     always risky to schedule a video-conference witness on a Friday, because

17     if something goes wrong, then he has to wait for the whole of the

18     weekend.  So, therefore, it is preferred to schedule witnesses not on

19     Fridays if they are giving their testimony through videolink.

20             There are a few possible solutions.  The one is to postpone the

21     evidence and to hear the testimony on another day.  Another option would

22     be that the parties would consider to what extent they can commit

23     themselves to not going beyond the time available on that Friday, and if

24     you'd be half an hour or one hour short, the Chamber would consider an

25     extended session but not in the afternoon but by starting at an earlier

Page 6633

 1     point of time in the morning.

 2             To the extent the parties could resolve this matter, they're

 3     invited to do so and inform the Chamber [Overlapping speakers] ...

 4             MR. GROOME:  [Overlapping speakers] ... perhaps I will discuss it

 5     with the Defence and raise it with the Chamber again next week.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And, of course, we need to act urgently,

 7     because if the videolink cannot take place on the 25th, then the

 8     preparations should be changed as well.

 9             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Then -- yes.  Could the witness be escorted into the

11     courtroom.

12                           [The witness entered court]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon.

14             No protective measures.

15             MS. D'ASCOLI:  No, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  Before you give evidence in this court,

17     Mr. Mandilovic, the Rules require that you make a solemn declaration.

18     Could you please stand and make that solemn declaration.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

20     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

21                           WITNESS:  MILAN MANDILOVIC

22                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, please be seated.

24             Mr. Mandilovic, we have limited time today.  It's unfortunate,

25     but we started later than expected.  You'll now first be examined by

Page 6634

 1     Ms. D'Ascoli.  Ms. D'Ascoli is counsel for the Prosecution.

 2             Please proceed.

 3             MS. D'ASCOLI:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 4                           Examination by Ms. D'Ascoli:

 5        Q.   Sir, can you please state your full name for the record.

 6        A.   Excuse me, the interpreter is not here.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Is the witness --

 8             THE WITNESS:  The interpreter is not here.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Likely it is still on channel 4, which was for the

10     previous witness.

11             Can you now hear me in a language you understand?  Still not.

12             Is the volume okay?  Is the channel okay?  Channel ...

13             Could you ...

14             Can you now hear me in a language you understand?  I see you're

15     nodding yes.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. D'Ascoli, please proceed.

18             MS. D'ASCOLI:  Yes, Your Honours.

19        Q.   Sir, can you please state your full name for the record.

20        A.   Milan Mandilovic.

21        Q.   Can you tell the Chamber what your current profession is.

22        A.   Medical doctor, a specialist in the General Hospital in Sarajevo.

23        Q.   Dr. Mandilovic, do you remember providing a statement to the ICTY

24     on the 24th of February, 2010, in Sarajevo, a statement that amalgamated

25     evidence from your previous testimony before this Tribunal and previous

Page 6635

 1     statements you also gave with some additional observations, as well as

 2     comments made to certain medical documents?  Do you remember that?

 3        A.   Yes, I do.

 4             MS. D'ASCOLI:  Can I ask the Court Officer to please display

 5     65 ter 28611, which is the witness statement.

 6        Q.   Dr. Mandilovic, once I see the document is on the screen before

 7     you, can I ask that you view the first page in the English version, and,

 8     in particular, the signature at the bottom of the page and indicate

 9     whether you recognise that signature.

10        A.   Yes, that is my signature.

11        Q.   Dr. Mandilovic, have you had an opportunity to read and review

12     this statement and the exhibits that are referred to in the statement in

13     preparation for your appearance today?

14        A.   I have.

15        Q.   Sir, you also had some corrections and clarifications to your

16     statement; correct?

17        A.   Correct.

18             MS. D'ASCOLI:  Can I ask the Court Officer to please display

19     65 ter 28622 on our screens, please.  This is a chart of corrections and

20     clarifications that was prepared with the witness, Your Honours, and we

21     circulated by e-mail to all the Defence and Chamber.

22        Q.   Sir, now that the document is on the screen, do you recognise

23     this document as the table of correction and clarification that was made

24     with you in preparation for this -- for your testimony today?

25             MS. D'ASCOLI:  And can we go to page 2 also, please, of the

Page 6636

 1     English.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  That is my signature, and I

 3     authorised it.

 4             MS. D'ASCOLI:

 5        Q.   And did you have an opportunity to review this document?

 6        A.   I did.

 7        Q.   And does it accurately set out the corrections and clarifications

 8     that you wanted to make to your statement?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Dr. Mandilovic, with these corrections and clarifications, are

11     you satisfied your statement is an accurate record of your evidence and

12     what you experienced in so far as you can remember?

13        A.   Yes, I do believe that it is.

14        Q.   And if you were asked today the same questions that you were

15     asked when the statement was taken, would you give the same answers and

16     provide the same information, in substance?

17        A.   Generally speaking, yes, for sure.

18        Q.   And now that you have taken the solemn declaration, do you affirm

19     that you provided the information in your statement in accordance with

20     the truth and that your statement is a truthful and accurate reflection

21     of your evidence?

22        A.   Yes, I do.

23             MS. D'ASCOLI:  Your Honours, the Prosecution tenders the

24     65 ter 28611, which is the witness statement, together with the

25     65 ter 28622, which is the table of correction and clarifications

Page 6637

 1     pursuant to Rule 92 ter as public exhibits.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Whom in the Defence team I have to address?

 3             Mr. Stojanovic, no objections.

 4             Mr. Registrar, 65 ter 28611 witness statement receives number?

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P679 Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  P679 is admitted.

 7             65 ter 28622.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P680, Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  P680 is admitted into evidence.

10             Please proceed.

11             MS. D'ASCOLI:  Your Honour, we have also prepared a table of

12     concordance for the 65 ter numbers and the incident numbers that are

13     referred to in the witness statement because these are those of the

14     Karadzic case, and this way the parties would have an easy way to refer

15     to the correct one in our case, in the Mladic case.  We have asked leave

16     to this table to the 65 ter exhibit list, and I would now tender it as a

17     public exhibit.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  It will assist the Chamber and the parties.

19             Mr. Registrar.

20             MS. D'ASCOLI:  I would give the 65 ter number.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             MS. D'ASCOLI:  Which is 28608.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P681, Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, did I understand it well that

25     there's no objection to this table to be admitted?

Page 6638

 1             P681 is admitted into evidence.

 2             Please proceed.

 3             MS. D'ASCOLI:  Your Honours, I also note there are 39 exhibits

 4     associated to Mr. Mandilovic's statement.  Upon review, the Prosecution

 5     will not tendered them all, but will seek to tender 25 of these

 6     documents.  These are mostly hospital medical records that the witness

 7     has authenticated through his statement.  These are -- he has reviewed

 8     them and authenticate them as discussed in paragraphs 117, 118, and 119

 9     of the statement.

10             Now, I will deal with this associated exhibits during the course

11     of my examination, also taking into account the objections that the

12     Defence has raised in their response to our 92 ter motion.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Please do as you suggest.

14             MS. D'ASCOLI:  And now with the Chamber's permission, I will

15     summarise Dr. Mandilovic's evidence for the record and the public.

16             Dr. Mandilovic is a surgeon and a former JNA medical officer.

17     From 1982, he worked at the military Hospital in Sarajevo, which was

18     renamed the state Hospital in May 1992 in conjunction with the JNA

19     withdrawal from the hospital, which then became a civilian facility.

20     Mr. Mandilovic left the JNA and remained working at the Sarajevo state

21     hospital throughout the war, from 1992 to 1995.

22             He describes the conditions of work at the hospital during the

23     war, water and food shortages, medicine and oxygen shortages, power cuts,

24     which all heavily impacted on the normal functioning of the hospital.  He

25     also describes how the hospital building was directly hit on several

Page 6639

 1     occasions, the southern side of the hospital receiving most of the

 2     damages.

 3             Dr. Mandilovic performed surgery on wounded patients on a daily

 4     basis from May 1992 until the end of the war.  He was on duty at the

 5     state hospital on 28 August 1995 and treated casualties from scheduled

 6     shelling incident G18, also known as the Markale II incident.

 7             Dr. Mandilovic authenticates selected hospital records relating

 8     to scheduled sniping incidents F5, F9, F11 F13, and relating to scheduled

 9     shelling incidents G4, G6, G7, G8, G13, and G18.

10             And that concludes the summary of the witness's evidence, Your

11     Honours.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Ms. D'Ascoli.  I'm looking at the clock.

13     I don't think it makes much sense to start further questioning the

14     witness for the last two minutes.

15             MS. D'ASCOLI:  It does not, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mandilovic, you have not answered yet many

17     questions, but I nevertheless have to instruct you that you should not

18     speak about your evidence, whether that is evidence given today or

19     evidence still to be given next Monday, and we'd like to see you back

20     Monday morning at 9.30 but in a different courtroom.

21             Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom.

22                           [The witness stands down]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume on Monday,

24     the 14th of January, at 9.30 in the morning, in Courtroom III.

25                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.14 p.m.,

Page 6640

 1                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 14th day of

 2                           January, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.