130122ED

Page 7133

1 explained that my assignment, overall, was an impartial assignment, and

2 that one of the parties was setting more obstacles on the way than the

3 other party.

4 Q. But that was not the question. The question was whether the task

5 that you were given was of such a nature as required you to pin-point the

6 Bosnian Serb snipers and not the snipers on the other side. And you were

7 asked whether this was correct, and your answer was: correct.

8 A. [Previous translation continues] ... repeat that what I said in

9 my answer, that this applied to the French units that were on the Bosnian

10 Muslim side. This assignment was an impartial one, and, as regards the

11 people on the other side of the confrontation line, their assignment was

12 the same for the opposing party. I think this is pretty clear.

13 Q. I'd like us to look at the French version, page 17, paragraph 3

14 of your statement; page 13, the middle of the page, in English; and

15 page 24, paragraph 1, in B/C/S.

16 Here, you explained how snipers' positions were being detected.

17 You say here, in essence, that they would reveal themselves by opening

18 fire from a certain position. We were able to monitor that with the

19 detection and surveillance resources we had, and we could see that

20 evidently there were victims among the civilian.

21 So what was the way, really, that you detected sniper positions?

22 Was it in this first way or in this second way, as explained here?

23 A. This is a technical question. It so happens that in 1995, which

24 is a long time ago now, nonetheless, a time when the snipers of the

25 French Battalions had optronic observation means, which means it's much

Page 7134

1 easier to detect and record the shots in a much more precise fashion than

2 the human eye. These specialists already had this technical equipment.

3 They, therefore, were able to observe the shots being fired, while

4 bearing in mind the fact that the Bosnian Serb snipers were well

5 positioned, well concealed, and difficult to detect.

6 On the opposite side, the equivalent specialists in the Russian

7 battalion did not have the same modern, technical equipment. From a

8 technical point of view, therefore, it was more difficult for them to

9 make the same observations, in so far as they were carrying out their

10 mission.

11 Q. The latter way of detecting positions was, as you stated, by

12 observing victims among the civilian population. Now, would you agree

13 with me, in line with what you said yesterday, that the snipers used the

14 same sort of ammunitions -- ammunition as others did, and that,

15 therefore, it was impossible to find whether a person was wounded from a

16 sniper rifle or normal weapons simply on the basis of observing the

17 wound?

18 A. As far as the medical observation of the lesion is concerned,

19 yes, of course. Other things come into play: The position, the angle of

20 fire, and other observations of this nature.

21 Q. Did you receive any medical documentation from the Muslim side

22 for that purpose?

23 A. There are two remarks I would like to make here. The first is

24 that the observer teams went on-site every time an accident -- an

25 incident occur, when it was possible, because it wasn't always possible.

Page 7135

1 And these people inquired about the incident; i.e., the position, the

2 angle of fire, and this kind of information. And the nature of the wound

3 as well. These people also went to the hospitals to assess the situation

4 as regarded those people that had been injured, in order to collect

5 medical data. That is the first point.

6 The second is that we noticed, from a statistical standpoint,

7 that during the period I was occupying the position I mentioned

8 previously in Sarajevo, the number of civilian casualties increased

9 dramatically. These civilian victims were all Bosnian Muslims.

10 These are the two remarks I wish to convey to you.

11 Q. How were you able to distinguish between civilians and soldiers

12 in Sarajevo? And is it true that quite a few members of the Army of

13 Bosnia-Herzegovina had weapons but not uniforms?

14 A. As regards your first question, it is extremely rare, even in

15 this kind of situation, to find women, elderly women, men, some elderly

16 men, or children, wearing weapons -- bearing weapons. Generally these

17 people are not soldiers or at least I would hope so.

18 Now, as regards your second question, which has nothing to do

19 with the first one, there were people, of course, who were wearing plain

20 clothes and who, at other times, could put their uniform on and join

21 their units.

22 As you know, this is a legacy from the recruitment process of the

23 Territorial Defence, which stemmed from the former Yugoslavia, and the

24 warring parties behaved in this fashion at that time and at other times

25 also.

Page 7136

1 Q. Very well. Can we now move to page 18 of the French version of

2 your statement; page 14 in English, paragraph 4; and, in B/C/S, page 25,

3 paragraph 2.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Before we further continue, Witness, you -- you made

5 an observation from a statistical point of view, and the last observation

6 in that respect was that these civilian victims were all Bosnian Muslims.

7 Now, apart from the question how you could distinguish between

8 civilians and non-civilians, is your reference to the Bosnian Muslims, in

9 your view, relevant, because, if the victims were Bosnian Muslims, the

10 perpetrators must have been Bosnian Serbs?

11 Is that the gist of that part of your answer?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To a certain extent, yes,

13 Your Honour. I understand what you're saying.

14 All the victims, the identity of which we recorded, lived in

15 Sector Sarajevo, which was controlled by the Bosnian Muslims. Among

16 these victims, there might have been Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Croats who

17 were living in Sarajevo.

18 Let me repeat: All the victims that were identified during this

19 period concerned people who lived inside Sarajevo. I have never had any

20 information on victims who had been hospitalised, civilian victims that

21 had been hospitalised in sectors which were not controlled by the

22 1st Corps of the Bosnian forces.

23 This is what I wanted to say.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. A few follow-up questions.

25 Serbs were still living in Sarajevo? Within the town, within the

Page 7137

1 part controlled by the 1st Corps?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, of course. There were Serbs

3 who had remained inside Sarajevo.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, if you say they were all Bosnian Muslims,

5 that puzzles me. Because if I'm a sniper, how could I possibly see from

6 a distance of 700 metres when some Serb is crossing the street or whether

7 when some Muslim is crossing the street? And I'm seeking your comment on

8 this observation, if you have any.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I tried to

10 explain this in my previous answer. I shall withdraw the term "Bosnian

11 Muslim victim."

12 In my mind, of course, this pertained to the inhabitants living

13 in the Bosnian Muslim part of Sarajevo.

14 JUDGE ORIE: This, having been clarified, one of the underlying

15 issues, which is implied in the questions and -- is that the Defence's

16 position is that the Bosnian Muslims may well have sniped at their own

17 people.

18 Any comment to that?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not feel that the Defence was

20 putting this question directly. It is clear, however, that this argument

21 has often been put forward. I heard about this from the liaison officers

22 or with the contacts I had with the Bosnian Muslim side at the time.

23 During the period in which I was on duty, I never asked myself

24 this question, i.e., regarding the snipers. It was clear that the shots

25 came from the other side. It seemed clear to me, at any rate, that the

Page 7138

1 snipers were from the other side, pertaining to the losses of civilians

2 in the area under the control of the 1st Corps of the Bosnian Muslim

3 forces.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you refer to the high-tech equipment which

5 would, far better than the naked eye, be able to identify the source of

6 long-distance fire, if I could call it like that.

7 Using this equipment, was there ever any indication that the

8 shots that hit victims within the city may have come from within the

9 1st Corps-controlled area; or did the equipment, when used, always

10 indicate that the shots came from Serb-controlled areas?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All the reports we received on this

12 kind of observation confirmed that the shots came from buildings

13 controlled by the SRK staff.

14 JUDGE ORIE: And you're now referring to reports on incidents

15 where this high-tech equipment was used to determine the source of fire.

16 Is that well understood?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course. The reports which comes

18 through the standard channels, the radio for instance, yes, the reports

19 we received, which were recorded on an ongoing basis at -- at the command

20 posts.

21 JUDGE ORIE: There may be some misunderstanding in this respect.

22 I tried to make a clear distinction between what was reported on

23 the basis of what was observed by the naked eye and what was reported as

24 a result of the use of these high-tech equipment.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry.

Page 7139

1 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I should clarify my question.

2 The source of fire is established either by the old-fashioned

3 way, that is, where did it come from, et cetera, and sometimes it was

4 established, as you said, through these high-tech equipment, the better

5 equipment than the Russian battalion had -- the Russian battalion not

6 having similar equipment.

7 I'm mainly interested in whether, when using this high-tech

8 equipment, whether it was ever reported that the source of fire may have

9 been anything else than coming from the Bosnian Serb side.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Precisely. These reports we

11 received all demonstrated that the firing was coming from the Bosnian

12 Serb side. This equipment, which is individual equipment, sniper rifles,

13 these were -- telescopic sights mounted on the weapons themselves at the

14 time, enabled the soldier to identify the shot, and these specialists

15 could react or responded by firing on these well-identified snipers. The

16 reports were then forwarded through the normal channels, and the radio.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

18 Please proceed, Mr. -- well, yes, we have another five minutes

19 before the break.

20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Sir, in such situations as indicated in Judge Orie's question,

22 did you monitor the snipers' activity of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

23 and did you rule out the possibility that they were involved, or did you

24 not monitor them at all?

25 A. It was extremely difficult to monitor them. I admit to this

Page 7141

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 [Open session]

6 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

8 Before we -- you continue, Mr. Lukic, I have one question for

9 you, Witness.

10 You referred several times, and I did after that as well, to the

11 technical equipment which was available to observe the source of fire of

12 the Bosnian Serbs. Technical equipment which was not available for the

13 Russian battalion on the other side of the confrontation line.

14 At later moments, when asked about this technical equipment, you

15 seemed to refer to optical sights mounted on the rifles of the

16 anti-sniping unit.

17 Could you clarify for me: Were you referring only to those

18 optical sights when you talked about the technical equipment, or was

19 there any other technical equipment which allowed to observe the shots

20 being fired?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It is equipment which in some

22 models looks like optical sights but are not optical sights but

23 optronics. So equipment that would allow the night-vision, for instance.

24 At the time it was relatively new. Now -- nowadays it is equipment that

25 is more frequent, lighter also. At the time it was a new thing. So the

Page 7142

1 specialists in the French Battalions had, on one hand, these optronic

2 sights which use -- was adapted to the specific situation. And, on the

3 other hand, they also had periscopes that had the same function as

4 optronics. They looked like a periscope that would enable the observer

5 to be behind a screen. So these were the two types of optronics that

6 were used by the sharpshooters of the French Battalion.

7 And, as far as I know, I do not think, or I did not know, that

8 their Russian counterparts might have had the same equipment.

9 JUDGE ORIE: A follow-up question would be this. Both type of

10 equipment seemed to require that you are already looking into the

11 direction of where the fire came from with a rather limited angle of

12 view.

13 First of all, could you confirm that?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Would that also mean that there was a fair chance

16 that you would miss the origin of fire if it came from any position which

17 was not yet covered by that electronical, optical sight mounted on either

18 the rifle or on this periscope?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Theoretically that could be,

20 indeed. But I have said that these sharpshooters were always working in

21 twos, so two people, two individuals, one would do a general monitoring

22 and the other one a specific monitoring.

23 On the other hand, the corridors in which shooters that were

24 located on the other side of the front line might see and shoot were not

25 numerous, so you had the avenues that were going to -- in the direction

Page 7143

1 of the north that would give enough view or perspective, so it was rather

2 easy to determine from the possible areas of the incoming shots to

3 determine the -- where they came from, what are the areas that they came

4 from. These were monitored as a priority.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

6 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

8 Q. Sir, I would now kindly ask you to try to give us answers that

9 are as brief as possible so that we would finish as soon as possible. If

10 we need something that is contained in your statements, we are going to

11 refer to that ourselves. I will do that, and then the Prosecutor in

12 re-direct, if necessary, so there's no need to repeat anything. We

13 have -- already have your statement on our screens. It's page 14,

14 paragraph 4 in English; and, in French, it is page 18.

15 You see here that the Judge put a question to you. I'm not quite

16 sure I understood your answer, especially how this is an answer to my

17 question.

18 "It is not necessary to go to the Bosna-Serbian side to see that

19 it was a BH sniper that fired and that there is a Muslim sniper nest."

20 And then your answer:

21 "Mr. President, I would like to say that in the period that we

22 spoke of, snipers were operating all the time. Incessantly. This is a

23 period in which the forces of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina tried to

24 unlock the grip around Sarajevo with a great number of attacks around the

25 city. In these attacks, the Bosnian Serb side responded with fire from

Page 7144

1 heavy weapons or by counter-attacks of limited range. In this

2 complicated situation, it was very difficult to observe what the result

3 would have been of possible sniper fire coming from the BH side."

4 My question: Were these same difficulties there when you were

5 trying to determine what the sniper fire was that came from the Serb

6 side?

7 A. The answer is yes. And, briefly, I would like to make the

8 distinction between the areas where you had combat between the warring

9 parties. Indeed, it was very difficult to determine the incoming and the

10 outgoing, and the neighbourhoods or the areas that were calmer where you

11 had no attacks and where the assignment of anti-sniping was keeping on.

12 I would like to insist on the fact that one should make the distinction

13 between the areas that were in military activity from other sectors.

14 Q. Is it correct when you speak about the areas where there was

15 fighting, that attacks of the Muslim forces were launched on all four

16 sides of Sarajevo: The south, north, west, and east?

17 A. No, sir. During the time where I was on duty and in charge, the

18 attacks from the 1st Corps, the Bosnian Muslim Corps, were directed on

19 two axes, specific axes, from Stup to Ilidza in the west, and in the area

20 of Debelo Brdo to Lukavica to the south. The other sectors were kept as

21 were in the regular activity level.

22 Q. Thank you. We'll go back to that topic. I thought that we could

23 link this up, but I could not find it in the questions.

24 Anyway, is it correct that UNPROFOR was deployed in Sarajevo in

25 such a way that, on the side that was under the control of the Muslim

Page 7145

1 forces, there were five battalions, namely, the 2nd French Battalion, the

2 5th French Battalion, the 4th French Battalion, the Egyptian Battalion,

3 and the Ukrainian Battalion; whereas, on the Serb side, there was only

4 the Russian Battalion?

5 A. That's right, sir. With one more point. In Sarajevo proper, the

6 city, were deployed only two battalions: The 2nd and the 4th French

7 Battalion. The 5th Battalion was, as you may know, in Mount Igman

8 sector. On the other hand, there was also an Egyptian Battalion, and as

9 to the Ukrainian Battalion, it was reduced to one command unit. The rest

10 of the unit was deployed in the Zepa pocket.

11 And, of course - I'm sorry - on the -- the SRK side, there was

12 the Russian Battalion that you mentioned.

13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now I would like to ask for 65 ter

14 15746 in e-court, please.

15 This is a document that was tendered by the Prosecution through

16 you. It is a document from 1994, when you were not in Sarajevo, and

17 obviously you're not familiar with this particular incident.

18 You say that this is the usual type of form. However, I'd like

19 to ask you something. This is the usual form with regard to sniper

20 activity; right?

21 A. That's correct.

22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need page 5 of this document.

23 THE REGISTRAR: There is no page 5 in this document.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from that, Mr. Lukic, you say it is tendered

25 by the Prosecution. I think it's the shaded part of the associated

Page 7146

1 exhibits which will not be tendered, if I'm ...

2 MS. HOCHHAUSER: That's correct, Your Honour. It is an

3 associated exhibit that we weren't planning on tendering, but it's on the

4 list, yeah.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. But if it sheds any light on the statement of

6 the witness, then, of course, the Defence can use it.

7 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I have no objection to its admission, Judge.

8 MR. LUKIC: If it's not tendered, I will move on. And there is

9 some technical problems anyways.

10 Now I would like to move to the subject of Markale.

11 [Interpretation] We need the following document in e-court: P749.

12 That's the witness's statement. And we need the French version, page 21;

13 and page 28 in B/C/S.

14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Which page in English?

15 MR. LUKIC: We are trying to locate that.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It should be page 16, I think.

17 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.

18 Q. [Interpretation] We'll dwell on this particular subject a bit

19 longer.

20 In your statement itself, on page 28 that we have before us now,

21 you say the following. You say that there were several shells fired on

22 that day at that moment and that this could be heard. However, yet

23 again, we are going to dwell on page 51 of the B/C/S version. Actually,

24 page 52.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Could we have the B/C/S version on our screen,

Page 7147

1 together with the English version, and the witness has the French version

2 available to himself, so that everyone is able to follow the proceedings.

3 [Defence counsel confer]

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] At the same time, we will need page

5 52 in B/C/S; and page 28, paragraph 5, in English. That's the French

6 version, but we need the English version. Page 28, paragraph 5.

7 Q. You say:

8 "I no longer know whether there was one shell or two."

9 "[In English] I no longer remember whether there was one shell or

10 two, but as far as I remember, the shelling [sic] came from the

11 south-east."

12 [Interpretation] You say that you're not an expert in explosives;

13 right?

14 A. Certainly.

15 Q. You say that you relied on the findings of the French sappers.

16 Through their findings, or in some other way, did you find out that 75

17 witnesses that were heard in respect of this incident who were on the

18 spot heard only one single explosion?

19 A. I do not know what other witnesses said.

20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now see 65 ter ... actually,

21 we won't need the photograph.

22 Q. I'm just going to ask you whether you know that

23 Military Observers of the UN at Mali Hum -- just a moment, please.

24 Do you know where OP-1 is? You do know where Observation Post 1

25 is, don't you?

Page 7148

1 A. What do you call the P1, please?

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, are you referring to Observation Post 1

3 of the UNMOs, United Nations Military Observers?

4 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic asks you whether know where observation

6 Post 1 of the United Nations Military Observers was.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Because Sector Sarajevo had no

8 observers on Mount Hum. This being said, I do not know the position that

9 had the UNMOs at the time that were not under the command of the sector.

10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. So you do know or you do not know that observers from Observation

12 Post 1 heard just one explosion?

13 A. No, I didn't know.

14 Q. Thank you. Do you know how many radars were operating at the

15 time?

16 A. We had two Cymbeline radars that were in operation in the area,

17 in the sector.

18 Q. At the time, in addition to these two radars, was there also a

19 French radar and a Dutch radar?

20 A. Both radars, both Cymbeline radars that I talked about, were

21 French.

22 Q. My apologies. In that case, was there a Dutch and English radar

23 active as well?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Where were the two French radars positioned?

Page 7149

1 A. The active radar that monitored the south of Sarajevo was located

2 in the southern part of Sarajevo airport.

3 Q. And the other, please.

4 A. The other one was towards Rajlovac.

5 Q. Was there, at the time, a -- a system for sound detection placed

6 at Trebevic, to your knowledge?

7 A. Trebevic was outside our area. We had no sound detection system.

8 Q. In your yesterday's evidence, you said that you were certain, or

9 believed, that the shell which landed at Markale had the first-degree

10 charge; is that right?

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. You do know that the angle of descent of a shell, the minimum

13 angle of descent of a shell is 60 degrees. You do know that, do you? If

14 the angle were any smaller, then the shell would hit the building?

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, apparently you are talking about a very

16 specific situation, not of a shell but apparently of a shell landing at

17 the place where it impacted.

18 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ORIE: And then, I think, it would be fair to say that the

20 minimum angle of descent would be an angle of descent taking into

21 consideration a certain origin, direction, or origin of fire. These are

22 all relevant matters to be included in your question, if you want to --

23 the witness to say anything about it, apart from whether he's able to say

24 anything about it. But -- you would agree with that.

25 MR. LUKIC: Absolutely, Your Honour.

Page 7150

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then phrase the question in such a way that

2 the necessary elements are there and that you also are talking about a

3 specific shell landing at that moment near the entrance of the

4 Markale market because that -- apparently you're referring to.

5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Sir, you heard the guidance given by Judge Orie. Can you confirm

9 for me, please, if it is correct, that, according to the azimuth as

10 measured and according to the direction of fire in respect of the point

11 of impact of the shell which killed and injured civilians, the minimum

12 angle of descent possible was 60 -- 60 degrees?

13 THE INTERPRETER: 67 per cent, interpreter's correction.

14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Do you know that? 67 degrees.

16 A. The angle of descent, the angle of impact observed by the

17 specialists from the French engineering unit is, indeed, 67 degrees.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, in your first question, you referred to

19 the first charge used. Could you give me the exact page of yesterday's

20 transcript? Because I find three references to the word "charge," and

21 none of them seem to be the one you're referring to.

22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Since I don't have the references

23 with me, can I put that question to you again, sir.

24 Q. In your view, what sort of charge was contained in the shell that

25 killed and wounded individuals at Markale?

Page 7151

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, here again, your question, you said "a

2 charge contained in the shell."

3 May I assume that you want to refer to the charge with which the

4 shell was fired. Is that what you want to refer to?

5 MR. LUKIC: I think it was lost in the translation. The charge

6 would use -- the shell was fired.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because -- but please correct me when I

8 misunderstand this technical aspect - I understand that a projectile has

9 a charge with which -- is within the projectile and explodes upon impact

10 and there is a charge with which the projectile is propelled.

11 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Which does not fly with the projectile but just

13 gives the propelling power.

14 MR. LUKIC: Yeah.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you were talking about a charge that was

16 contained in the shell --

17 MR. LUKIC: No. The propelling charge.

18 JUDGE ORIE: The propelling charge.

19 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Then it may be a misinterpretation, I do not know.

21 But then the question was whether you have knowledge of the propelling

22 charge that was used for the projectile that landed near the entrance of

23 the Markale market.

24 Would you agree with that question, then, Mr. Lukic? Yes.

25 Could you answer that question, please.

Page 7152

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

2 The angle of impact enables specialists who are familiar with the

3 firing tables of this piece of artillery to determine that they are in

4 the presence either of a maximum charge, charge 6, six packets of

5 propelling powder placed under the projectile of propellant, or a charge

6 1, one packet of powder, placed -- propellant placed under the shell.

7 There are -- only these two cases are possibly, and only -- it's either a

8 minimum charge 1 or a maximum charge 6 which provides a proper

9 explanation.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you consider yourself to have specialist

11 knowledge on these matters, or are you referring to specialists other

12 than you, you being unable to verify whether it's accurate what they told

13 you?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have basic knowledge on mortar

15 firing, like any officer. But firing tables were used by true

16 specialists, i.e., the team of investigators of the engineering unit, and

17 this is what they specified in their reports.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20 Can I have the assistance of Ms. Stewart in this. I'd like us to

21 view the video we saw yesterday. It's P446. From 5 minutes to 5

22 minutes, 48 seconds. We will need the audio recording as well. We would

23 first play it without interpretation so that the witness may hear what

24 number the French soldier mentioned, and then we would have it

25 interpreted for the second time.

Page 7153

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. For the witness: For very technical reasons,

2 we play videos with text twice. First, without interpretation, so don't

3 worry about that. The second time you receive interpretation.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, we don't have the

5 transcript.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the interpreters say that they have not

7 received the transcript.

8 MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated]

9 JUDGE ORIE: Could you activate your microphone.

10 MR. LUKIC: Yes. All we are interested is one number that was

11 pronounced by the soldier, the French soldier, at the end.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Let's see whether we can hear that.

13 We first play it with sound, and you're interested only in the

14 number mentioned?

15 MR. LUKIC: Yes, yes.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Let's listen to it first --

17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

18 JUDGE ORIE: -- and look at it.

19 [Video-clip played]

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps we could first ask the interpreter

21 whether they -- I take it you want to listen to the very end --

22 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

23 JUDGE ORIE: -- where the soldier is holding a little instrument

24 and then, at the very end of the -- says something.

25 Were the interpreters able to hear what this soldier said at the

Page 7154

1 very end? We could then play it again and ask for interpretation.

2 I -- perhaps I should switch to the French channel to hear an

3 answer, but ...

4 Yes. The French booth has confirmed that they can hear what is

5 said at the very end.

6 Could we play it again, and could we receive translation of the

7 number mentioned at the very end.

8 [Video-clip played]

9 JUDGE ORIE: Could we hear from the French booth what number was

10 mentioned at the very end of this clip?

11 THE INTERPRETER: 2.800 mils.

12 JUDGE ORIE: And that is in English? Let me just check because I

13 can't listen to two channels at the same time.

14 Yes. We have now in French and in English 2.800 mils.

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Sir, have you heard the number as well?

17 A. Yes, perfectly.

18 Q. Have you also heard the number 2.800?

19 A. I did hear that figure, 2.800, mentioned.

20 Q. The French soldier used the NATO scale, did he not, where the

21 circle is divided into 6.400?

22 A. This is not a NATO scale but a scale which is commonly used by

23 western armies because it is more accurate than a degree scale.

24 Q. The Warsaw Pact used a different scale, as did the JNA, and that

25 one was divided into 6.000 degrees; is that right? If you know.

Page 7155

1 A. I don't know that.

2 Q. Thank you. Let us look briefly now at 65 ter 14118.

3 Sir, this is Prosecutor's evidence, and we can see it says:

4 "OP-1," Observation Post 1, "Sarajevo, 1995."

5 Were you aware of the existence of this observation post in 1995?

6 A. I have never seen this photograph before. I'm just trying to

7 find my bearings on it.

8 Q. Can you observe, on the basis of -- of this photo, that you can

9 see Markale from it? Or not.

10 A. I must admit that I cannot see it.

11 Q. Thank you. I'm sorry to have taken up your time showing this

12 photograph, but let's move on.

13 In your statement, you say that you don't know what the intervals

14 were between the explosions. Let me first ask you this: As you sit here

15 today, would you say that there was only one explosion at the time or

16 that there were several?

17 A. I can confirm that from where I was in the French embassy, I

18 heard several explosions.

19 Q. Let me go back to my previous question then.

20 Is it correct that you don't know how far apart these explosions

21 took place?

22 A. No. The explosions came shortly, one after the other. I would

23 find it very difficult to give you the exact interval between the

24 explosions.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Could we -- your question was translated to us,

Page 7156

1 Mr. Lukic, as:

2 "Is it correct that you don't know how far apart these explosions

3 took place?"

4 Now, explosions can take a distance apart and in time. Which of

5 the two were you referring to?

6 MR. LUKIC: Time, Your Honour. It was correct answer. It was

7 regarding time.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, correct answer. If the question is not

9 clear, every answer is good. The other answer would have been good as

10 well, if you have not put a precise question to the witness.

11 But you intended to ask what the distance in time was and that

12 question has been answered by the witness.

13 Please proceed.

14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 Q. Do you know where these other shells that you mention landed?

16 A. From what I could hear, they landed in the same area, close to

17 one another.

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at 1D565, an image.

19 Q. You said that you didn't believe that anything had been staged in

20 this incident at Markale. You see this man with an enormous gapping

21 wound in his chest. You will have noticed that there is almost no blood

22 beneath him; right?

23 A. If you like, yes, I can see a stain of blood on the ground.

24 Q. Would you be surprised if I told you that this man was not

25 registered among those killed at Markale on that day?

Page 7157

1 A. I have no information entitling me to say whether it was recorded

2 or not.

3 Q. Thank you. When you came, were all the bodies already taken

4 away, or were some of the bodies there and still being -- in the process

5 of being taken away?

6 A. When I arrived, the last bodies were being evacuated, and people

7 had started cleaning up the street. I can tell you that when I arrived

8 and in front of a store which I believe is a chemist's, in front of the

9 market, I inadvertently stepped on the severed hand of a woman.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you've shown a photograph to the witness,

11 but it's not just a photograph. There's text on that picture as well.

12 The Chamber has no idea what the text says because there's no translation

13 into English in e-court. And the Chamber has no idea, especially since

14 you are suggesting that there may have been some manipulation, the

15 Chamber, of course, would like to know where this picture comes from. Is

16 it staged? Or is the photograph manipulated? Where does it come from?

17 What is the source of your suggestion in your question that this person

18 has not been registered? Do we know who it is?

19 It raises more questions at this moment than it answers. But the

20 first one is: What is the text? And where does the photograph come

21 from?

22 As you may remember, the Chamber has -- no. Please -- please --

23 MR. LUKIC: Yeah. Since, I think we cannot introduce this

24 picture through this witness, and we will be showing this picture more in

25 the future. So I --

Page 7158

1 JUDGE ORIE: Also then the Chamber, of course, would like to

2 know -- we have had an experience of a likely manipulated video in the

3 past. Therefore, if you come with sources unknown to us, we'd have to

4 find out where it comes from. Last time it was from a web site where it

5 looked as if there had been manipulation with sound and pictures.

6 Therefore, even if you'd use it with another witness in the

7 future, please make sure that we always know exactly where it comes from;

8 and if there are any suggestions about registration, make sure that we

9 have clear information about that.

10 MR. LUKIC: All I can see from here is that it's coming from some

11 Sarajevo newspapers, obviously. But [Overlapping speakers] ...

12 JUDGE ORIE: Sarajevo is a divided town to some extent.

13 MR. LUKIC: We will --

14 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...

15 MR. LUKIC: -- produce more information in the future.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I might ask a question to the witness before we

19 forget.

20 Witness RM055, you were asked a question by Mr. Lukic a few

21 minutes ago. That's at page 35, just above line 8, as to how -- how many

22 or where these shells landed.

23 Your answered, you said:

24 "From what I could hear, they landed in the same area, close to

25 one another."

Page 7159

1 Now, you did finally go to the scene. My question to you is:

2 From what you could see, where did they land, and how many were they?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Once again, as far as I remember,

4 and as far as my impressions were right, I heard five impacts.

5 When I arrived on the scene, I reviewed the impact which was

6 located a little way beyond the entrance to the market. That was the

7 first deadly impact. I did not spend any time on the other impacts.

8 From a visual point of view, my impression was --

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I -- may I interrupt you.

10 My question was very simple: How -- how many were they that you

11 found, and where were they located? When you -- that you saw with your

12 eyes. Not heard.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I shall repeat.

14 I heard --

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Don't repeat. Give me the answer to the question.

16 How many did you find when -- when you looked, and how far were they

17 apart?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I saw the first impact in the

19 street, in front of the market. It seems that I saw the other impacts in

20 the perpendicular street, about 200 metres from the junction from afar.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: How many, sir.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't go on the spot,

23 Your Honour. I saw impacts in the perpendicular street at about 200

24 metres. I didn't go to the spot. There were other things more important

25 at the time in the -- where the first impact was.

Page 7160

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I know you didn't go up the street. I'm just

2 asking you how many did you see.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Could I try to -- to intervene.

4 Is -- when you said, "They were at a distance of approximately

5 200 metres in a perpendicular street," does that mean that you cannot

6 tell us the number of impacts at that distance?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, Your Honour. Yes, at

8 that distance, no. One couldn't see. I would have had to go on the

9 spot, which I didn't do.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE ORIE: Before we take a break, Mr. Lukic, I -- I have been

12 looking at the photograph, which you did not tender, which you'll not

13 further use with this witness. Nevertheless, I noticed that in the text

14 the Markale market is mentioned in the context of February 1994. At

15 least that is what I figure out from the text that appears in the frame

16 on the photograph. And, also, reference is apparently made to

17 General Milosevic.

18 Now, as far as I understand the evidence we have received until

19 now, the February 1994 Markale incident did not take place during the

20 period when General Milosevic was in charge.

21 So, therefore, I'm a bit confused about finding a reference to

22 February 1994, and, at the same time, to General Dragomir Milosevic.

23 MR. LUKIC: My understanding was, and is, that this picture

24 depicts 1995. But -- [Overlapping speakers] ...

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But what does the text say? Because I

Page 7162

1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

2 Mr. Lukic, please proceed.

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

4 First, I shall address you in relation to the photograph that was

5 discussed at the end of the last session. I would like to tell you that

6 I'm deeply surprised that you believe that I fabricated something here.

7 In relation to the photograph itself, I will tell you --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Let me immediately interrupt you, Mr. Lukic.

9 I do not believe that you fabricated anything, at all. What I

10 said is this. This Chamber, at a previous occasion, found material

11 which, I take it by others, may have been manipulated and where you may

12 have not noticed that, that's at least what we start thinking. There's

13 no suggestion of any intentional fabrication or manipulation on your

14 part. The Chamber, nevertheless, urges everyone in this courtroom,

15 including itself, to very critically look at all the evidence that comes

16 to us.

17 You may proceed. I interrupted you. You would tell me what?

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] This photograph that is before us,

19 indeed, the text does pertain to 1994, to February.

20 However, as you noticed yourself, this has to do with

21 General Milosevic, who assumed his duties only in September 1994.

22 This photograph was taken out of the video that we watched today,

23 P446. It pertains to the incident of Markale II.

24 So the text is wrong. The photograph is not. I think that the

25 Prosecution can stipulate at this moment that this photograph is from the

Page 7163

1 video that we watched today.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think that the Chamber, having had a bit

3 more time, already thought that it was a still from the video. And,

4 therefore, we do not understand why you take a -- a photograph with text

5 which we cannot read, which is not translated, if the video is available.

6 That is -- comes as a surprise to us, especially if the text is then

7 confusing. But I think that one of my colleagues even seemed to have

8 remembered to have seen this as part of moving picture in the video. If

9 you would -- it would certain assist if I would know exactly the P number

10 of the movie but.

11 THE REGISTRAR: It was P446, Your Honours.

12 JUDGE ORIE: P446. Thank you, Madam Registrar.

13 And, Mr. Lukic, do not lightheartedly accuse the Chamber of

14 accusing you that you fabricated anything. That's not what I meant to

15 say, and I think it's not what I said either.

16 MR. LUKIC: I'm glad that's the case, and I apologise if I

17 understood wrongly.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

19 MR. LUKIC: Thank you why I used this explanation is because I

20 don't know how to take stills from the movies, and my colleague was busy

21 who knows how to do that, and I couldn't ask him to do it for me, so

22 that's why I used this picture with the wrong text, and I apologise for

23 that as well.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Everyone is willing to help you. I think even

25 Ms. Stewart would play it and stop at the right time.

Page 7164

1 Please proceed.

2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

3 Now I would kindly ask that we have 1D567 in e-court.

4 Q. Sir, in this photograph, we see the corpse of Vehid Komar, and he

5 was registered among the dead from the Markale market on the 28th of

6 August, 1995. We see the date and hour when this was registered at the

7 mortuary. Two wounds were found on his body, and there are red circles

8 around them here. Would you consider these wounds to have been inflicted

9 by mortar fire?

10 A. Personally -- personally I don't really see clearly what you're

11 aiming at with the question, but I will answer it.

12 The corpse of person that we see here on the picture was hit with

13 projectiles with a weapon that would be a gun, and it doesn't look like

14 mortar fire wounds.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, one question for the witness.

17 Could you tell us whether you are able and, if so, on what

18 grounds, to distinguish between wounds inflicted by very small pieces of

19 shrapnel and wounds inflicted by small-calibre bullet, for example?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A -- a shrapnel of a shell will

21 tear, whether it be artillery or mortar. A projectile that is shot by a

22 regular rifle will go through the impact -- the initial impact is very

23 small, and it will open a bigger wound when exiting, but the impact at

24 the entry is a small hole.

25 So I should repeat: A shrapnel of a shell or a grenade, as a

Page 7165

1 matter of fact, would tear.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Irrespective of the size of the fragment?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Whatever the size of the

4 fragment.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

6 Please proceed.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

8 Q. You were on the scene itself, and you say that you supervised the

9 investigation; is that correct?

10 A. I found -- I found myself on the spot at the end of the cleaning

11 up -- well, let me go back.

12 I found myself on the -- at the location a short while after the

13 impact as the -- the last bodies were taken away and cleaning up had

14 started in my duties, after which I supervised the technical

15 investigation and took away the conclusions.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you have told us what the picture

17 depicts, the person. We see a date and an hour; that's true. I do not

18 see any face -- could you tell us when this picture was taken? By whom?

19 Whether it's attached to any medical report? And could we have a bit of

20 a context of this photograph so as to better able to understand your

21 questions.

22 MR. LUKIC: In the future I will be dealing with this picture and

23 other pictures a lot and that's the picture of Komar, Vehid.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's what you say.

25 MR. LUKIC: And this picture is taken in a morgue when those

Page 7166

1 bodies were processed.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is there any medical documentation attached to

3 it or linked to it?

4 MR. LUKIC: There is. But I don't have it with me now.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please allow us to already have a

6 look at it, since you're using part of it, and make it available to the

7 Chamber so that we could ask relevant questions on the matter, if -- if

8 the context would -- would trigger such questions.

9 When do you think you could provide it? Or can the Prosecution

10 assist in any way?

11 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honour, we can't assist with this

12 photograph. I don't have any knowledge about this photograph or its

13 derivation. I do see on the left-hand upper corner that there's

14 something in writing that I would take to mean that this something off of

15 a video still that was part of a videotape, but I would also object to

16 the admission of this without additional information.

17 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not talking about admission at this moment. I'm

18 just focussing on -- it says paying. Do we have to pay for it, Mr. --

19 MR. LUKIC: I don't know. We didn't.

20 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I think it says playing.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Playing. Yes, it says "playing." Yes.

22 MS. HOCHHAUSER: As in a video.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you, nevertheless, try to assist? You have

24 got the name now by Mr. Lukic. Could you perhaps make a small search on

25 whether have you any medical documentation on it?

Page 7167

1 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Oh, in terms of looking for that victim's name,

2 yes, we can assist in that.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and possible medical documentation.

4 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Sure.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

7 Q. [Interpretation] Witness RM055, while you were on the scene, what

8 did you notice? How many stabilizers were found on the spot; and did you

9 see the film that was taken by the police in Sarajevo, where two

10 stabilisers can be seen on the spot?

11 A. When I arrived on the site, I shall repeat. The last bodies and

12 victims were being evacuated, and, simultaneously, the clean-up of the

13 street, of the sidewalk, was being started, and also the roofs were being

14 cleaned. I didn't see any stabilisers, and I didn't -- it was not my job

15 to go and see what kind of stabiliser there were and the technical

16 details. All these were left to specialists. And concerning the movie

17 taken by the police in Sarajevo, I didn't see it at the time. I saw it

18 much, much later.

19 Q. As you reviewed the material, did you notice that these two

20 stabiliser were marked as 12 and 13 in reports, as exhibits 12 and 13?

21 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I would just ask, I'm sorry, for a little bit of

22 clarity about which two stabiliser and which reports are -- are being

23 referred to. This is a very general question -- or very generally

24 phrased for a very technical question.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, your previous question was, among others,

Page 7168

1 whether the witness had seen the film. That question was not answered.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I now see that. Yes. No, I see it's answered.

4 Could we -- then, Witness, do you have any recollection of seeing

5 any stabilisers and numbers attached to it?

6 If not, then perhaps, Mr. Lukic, we should, if it's important for

7 you, we should show it to the witness so that we can refresh his

8 recollection.

9 Unless you recently have reviewed that film.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I did see the film

11 taken by the police recently. But I didn't see on the spot. I didn't

12 notice one or more stabiliser, and, even less so, the numbers for these

13 stabilisers.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic. I'm not trying to stop

15 you, but I'm trying to get organised.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] As for these stabilisers, we will

17 certainly be discussing them a great deal in the future, so I just wanted

18 to check whether this gentleman remembered too, and whether he observed

19 that, because he said he had been on the scene. I'm not going to go into

20 an in-depth discussion with him on the matter.

21 Thank you.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.

23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24 Q. Is it correct that 2.800 corresponds to 160 degrees in

25 measurements? Can you confirm that; and do you know that at all?

Page 7169

1 A. Yes. 2800 mils do match about 160 degrees.

2 Q. When you read the report that you said that you read, is it

3 correct that the investigators could not explain the deviation and that

4 they claimed that the shell had hit a building before it fell?

5 A. Well, sir, I never read that the investigators, the technical

6 investigators, from the French engineering --

7 THE INTERPRETER: Sorry, correction of the interpreters: of the

8 engineering team.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- would say that the -- this shell

10 had hit another building before landing. If it were the case, the

11 detonators are very sensitive and would have launched the explosion at

12 the time of the first contact and would not have exploded later.

13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Thank you. Do you remember, with regard to this remainder,

15 whether it had been marked or not? What did your French investigators

16 find?

17 A. I do not know what you mean to ask, as to what was marked or not.

18 Regarding the second question, the investigating team did observe

19 the impact, the characteristics of the crater, and identified the

20 stabiliser, got it, and recorded the number that was on the stabiliser.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you're referring to reports and what

22 explanations? Is that a report which is in evidence at this moment?

23 Then please provide us with the number so that we're better able to

24 follow your questions and the answers. If not, could you then assist us

25 in getting access to any report.

Page 7170

1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We can take a look at it. In

2 e-court, 65 ter 10243.

3 Now, the witness should be able to see weather this is the report

4 that he had looked at or whether it was something different. So perhaps

5 we can leaf through this in e-court, if you will. We can look at the

6 report page by page.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can confirm that this is the

8 technical report that was drafted after the investigation conducted by

9 the team of the -- of investigators, the French engineering unit.

10 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear the name of the

11 person heading the team.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat the name of the person who

13 was heading the team.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. This was

15 Lieutenant-Colonel Mougey, M-o-u-g-e-y, the head of the investigating

16 team. O-u-g-e-y.

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now I would like to ask that we have

18 10239 in e-court.

19 Q. This is a patrol report, UNMO patrol report, dated the 29th of

20 August, 1995. Five mortars, mortar shells, that had to do with the 28th

21 of August, 1995.

22 And then, on the next page, we have number 4.

23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] So could we please move onto the next

24 page. Number 1, it says the aim of the meeting was to compare the

25 reports made by UNMO and the rest of the investigation team.

Page 7171

1 And then in parentheses it says:

2 "(Representatives of various Bosnian authorities)."

3 When it says various Bosnian authorities here, what is meant is

4 the representatives of the Muslim authorities in Bosnia. Representatives

5 of the Serb and Croat authorities did not take part; is that right.

6 A. Yes, that's correct.

7 Q. Thank you. A2, or rather 2A, says:

8 "In the time-frame of the five impacts, UNMO and ICZ team" -- its

9 illegible, "working on observations posts saw or heard no outgoing mortar

10 rounds, neither from Bosnian army territory nor from Bosnian Serb army

11 territory."

12 You aware of the fact that not a single round was registered to

13 have come from any side at that moment; right?

14 A. I read on this document that the UNMOs who are mentioned did not

15 hear any shells being fired. This means that one is able to check that

16 there was OP-1, which was an observation post, which you have mentioned

17 previously, that this was not placed under the command of the sector

18 which was directly subordinated to the BH Command. And, therefore,

19 these people heard nothing at all.

20 If you'll allow me to make an observation. Given the location

21 you indicated at this observation post, it is not surprising, given the

22 distance.

23 Q. Is it your testimony today that it is only normal that these

24 observers would not have heard that these five 120-millimetre mines --

25 shells were fired?

Page 7172

1 A. [Previous translation continues] ... that it is not surprising

2 that they did not hear this, given the fact that on the 28th of

3 May [as interpreted] other events were taking place elsewhere, also.

4 Q. You meant the 28th of August, I suppose, because we have 28th of

5 May in the transcript.

6 A. Yes, of course, 28th of August.

7 Q. Thank you. Further on, under (b) it reads:

8 "The maximum angle of impact of the mortar projectile which hit

9 near the market-place was" -- and the value here is illegible. Can you

10 tell us, what does it read here?

11 A. Listen, I can read that this angle is a 70-degree angle.

12 THE INTERPRETER: Is 7-degree [sic] angle.

13 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I'm sorry, can we be specific about --

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Subparagraph (b).

15 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Thank you.

16 I'm sorry.

17 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, I said 67, 6-7 degree

18 angle.

19 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I would just point out that at least the way the

20 transcript reads, Mr. Lukic's question was -- it reads "the maximum angle

21 of impact...," and I believe when we zoomed in on (b), which is where the

22 witness went to, that reads the minimum angle of impact.

23 JUDGE ORIE: I think in the translation it says "the maximum."

24 There may be a translation issue there. Could we have a closer look at

25 the original handwritten version on paragraph (b).

Page 7173

1 Mr. Lukic, it -- it looks as if there is a -- as if there is a

2 translation error. In the original, it says the minimum angle of, and

3 I'm not a B/C/S-speaking person, but it very much looks as if it says

4 "maximum."

5 Now, usually, the angle of impact, taking into account the

6 surrounding buildings, results in a minimum rather than in a maximum.

7 However, of course, there's also still the pattern of the impact on the

8 ground, which may shed some light on the -- on the angle of descent as

9 well, although with less precision usually.

10 Is it sufficiently corrected here? I, nevertheless, would like

11 to have a better translation in B/C/S, not because the Chamber will rely

12 on it but to have a complete and accurate record.

13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14 Q. Sir, is it correct that at an angle of 67 degrees, as an angle of

15 descent of a shell, and with charge 1, when the shell is fired, the

16 distance between the point from which the shell was fired and the point

17 of impact is 1.000 metres or less?

18 Do you have knowledge that would enable you to either confirm or

19 deny this?

20 A. No. I deny this statement. The specialists who are familiar

21 with the firing tables used by artillery men with this type of equipment

22 indicate that for a minimum charge, the minimum range is 1.300 metres, if

23 I remember correctly.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Did you say 300 metres?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1.300 metres.

Page 7174

1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. And what is the maximum range? What did they tell you?

3 A. The maximum range of -- for this type of weapon would be 8 to 9

4 kilometres. Let me specify, with the maximum propelling charge, i.e.,

5 charge 6.

6 Q. Perhaps I wasn't precise enough again. We are talking about

7 military issues, after all. What would the maximum range be for a shell

8 propelled with charge 1 and considering that the angle of descent is 67

9 degrees?

10 A. I must tell you that my technical knowledge does not go that far.

11 Q. Thank you anyway. Mine would be even less than that.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one additional question in this

13 respect.

14 I take it that you need the tables to interpret the range of --

15 or at least the trajectory, to establish them.

16 Would you agree with that?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, one should be able to

18 read the corresponding firing tables and, of course, it would be useful

19 for somebody accustomed to reading these firing tables to do so.

20 JUDGE ORIE: From the place from where the projectile was fired

21 and where it landed, would that have an impact on the distance such a

22 projectile travels?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, certainly, Your Honour. Not

24 on the characteristics of the trajectory itself but on the distance, yes.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

Page 7175

1 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Sir, I will conclude this topic soon, but let me ask you this:

4 Is it true that you and General Smith decided to advance a theory whereby

5 the charge used was charge 1 as that would have justified a NATO strike?

6 A. This is an interpretation which only you can commit to and I do

7 not share this interpretation, and I can explain to you why. Even if

8 contrary to what you've asked me to do, I would provide you with a rather

9 lengthy answer. The conclusions I presented to General Smith,

10 conclusions which he endorsed, was that the projectile, the deadly

11 projectile, could have only have been fired with a propelling charge 1

12 because the angle of impact was consistent with the firing tables which

13 our specialists had given us, that's the first point.

14 And second point, the trajectory radar, Cymbeline, which was

15 located to the south of the airport, which you have mentioned, detected

16 no trajectory whatsoever. Therefore, the projectile flew below the

17 monitoring range of the equipment. If the projectile had been fired with

18 a propelling -- with a maximum propelling charge, it would have, in its

19 ascending period, and descending period, it would have crossed the

20 radar -- the range of the radar, the purpose of which is to detect

21 artillery fire. The radar provided no information whatsoever. The

22 projectile, therefore, flew below the range of the radar.

23 So it was, indeed, the minimum -- minimum charge 1 which was

24 used.

25 That said, we did have questions on the consequences of this

Page 7176

1 statement and as part of the military/political context at the end of the

2 month of August. We knew that these conclusions would have dire

3 consequences. We did think about it and weigh up our conclusions and

4 we -- I personally felt, and this was shared by General Smith, that this

5 had to be put down on paper and signed, and we did this in full

6 responsibility and not lightheartedly at all, I can assure you.

7 Q. In your view, how far away was the confrontation line in Sarajevo

8 when you draw a line to the point where possibly the shell was fired

9 from?

10 A. In relation to the entrance of the Markale market on the azimuth

11 line, the confrontation line was between 800 and 1.000 metres from the

12 point of impact at the entrance of the Markale market. Between 800 and

13 1.000 metres. In other words, if fired with a minimum charge, charge 1,

14 the artillery piece could have been at a bare minimum from -- landed from

15 300 to 500 metres from the confrontation line.

16 Q. Thank you. In the reports you looked at, was there any mention

17 of the position of one or both stabilisers in relation to the explosion

18 itself? And was that position usual in respect of the place where the

19 explosion took place?

20 A. I'm not in a position to tell you where the stabiliser was found.

21 The stabiliser or these stabilisers.

22 All I can say is that one stabiliser was found. It was analysed.

23 The registration numbers were -- was recorded, and the specialists put

24 that down on paper. I have no other information about this.

25 Q. Thank you. We have finished with Markale. Let's move on.

Page 7180

1 JUDGE ORIE: 65 ter, yes.

2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, this is a video, is it?

3 MS. HOCHHAUSER: There's a document on the list, pardon me.

4 That's 10176. Perhaps that's what you mean.

5 MR. LUKIC: Yeah.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's on the Prosecution's list.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 MR. LUKIC: That's it.

9 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, we have a document before us that deals

10 with this event of the 28th of June. It was compiled on the 29th of

11 June. It's the UNMO/UNPROFOR HQ that is sending it.

12 In the first paragraph, below the heading, it says:

13 "At the 28th of June, a UN Military Observer coming into the PTT

14 building, parking his car on the lower parking place, observed the

15 following: Heard and saw an outgoing projectile across the parking place

16 and road, from grid," and then there's a numerical reference, "(the place

17 is on BiH territory, approximately 1.800 metres from the nearest CFL)."

18 My first question is the following. On that day, did only one

19 such projectile explode, or were there more of them?

20 A. That day, on the 28th of June, 1995, there was, as far as I know,

21 two shots of this type of homemade projectiles. One that hit the TV

22 building, and the other one that fell on the street, in the street.

23 Q. The third bullet point in this document says:

24 "The projectile was following a low trajectory, travelling

25 directly from firing point to target, and hit the TV building on the

Page 7181

1 northern side, facing the British Cymbeline building."

2 First of all, let me ask you the following: You have already

3 been asked about this. Do you doubt the reports of the Military Observer

4 who claims, in this report, that that projectile came from the territory

5 that was under the control of the Muslim forces?

6 A. This is a report that -- that commits only the author thereof.

7 That's what I said already.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the Chamber would be greatly assisted if

9 we would know where approximately grid BP 866587 would be, because that's

10 what the witness says and that allows us to better assess what the

11 witness could see and hear from the PTT building where he was parking his

12 car.

13 Could you assist or could the witness assist? I take it that the

14 parties would not disagree on a -- yes, I see that the witness is raising

15 his hand. Could you please assist us?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

17 Your Honour, it would be easy to check that the co-ordinates that

18 were specified by the observer were those of the parking lot of the PTT

19 building.

20 JUDGE ORIE: So the grid reference is to the place where he was

21 at the time, as far as you are concerned?

22 That's clear.

23 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

25 Q. My next question, sir. In this paragraph, there is also a

Page 7182

1 reference to another radar for monitoring mortar fire. In addition to

2 the two French ones that you mentioned, there's a reference here to the

3 British radar; is that correct?

4 A. Once again, no, sir. If it were about the second French radar

5 that was deployed in the Rajlovac sector, these Cymbeline radars, the

6 first generation thereof for trajectories were built by the British, so

7 this what brings about some confusion in your mind.

8 Q. If anything brings me into confusion at all, it is this reference

9 to a building here right next to the TV building. And it says here that

10 this projectile hit the northern side of the TV building, facing the

11 building where the British Cymbeline was.

12 Which building faces the northern side of the TV building?

13 A. Well, the text in English seems quite clear to me. The

14 projectile hit the TV building on its north face, which is facing the

15 building where the radar, British Cymbeline radar was set up. The

16 Norwegian Captain Hansen probably mistook the British manufacturer of

17 this item and the French user thereof.

18 Q. Very well. Thank you. Now I'd like to dwell on this date, the

19 28th, a bit more.

20 Is it correct that at that time a major Muslim offensive was

21 launched and forces from Sarajevo were involved, as well as forces from

22 Zenica, and forces from Tuzla? The objective was for the Army of

23 Bosnia-Herzegovina to get to the Drina. Were you aware of this

24 operation, or were you only familiar with what was going on in Sarajevo?

25 A. I was aware of the whole of the operations that were launched by

Page 7183

1 the Bosnian Muslim forces, since the 15th of May, in the region. I had

2 general knowledge of the operations outside of Sarajevo which was not

3 within our area of responsibility but which was for information only, and

4 I was aware for action of the events that were taking place in Sarajevo,

5 within that sector, and so I can confirm that with -- jointly with the

6 actions that were led outside, the forces of the 1st Corps that were

7 within Sarajevo attempted to break the lines of their adversaries in both

8 sectors that were mentioned, one in the south, in the direction of

9 Lukavica and Debelo Brdo, and the other one within the direction of Stup

10 and Ilidza, to make it simple.

11 Q. And that operation was part of this broader operation, wasn't it?

12 A. I think that I could agree with you on that.

13 Q. Thank you. Now, in relation to your statement, we need page 32,

14 paragraph 2 in French; page 23, second paragraph of the English version;

15 and page 43, fourth paragraph of the B/C/S version.

16 JUDGE ORIE: When this is found, could I ask a few questions.

17 Could you tell us, Witness, what is approximately the distance

18 between the PTT building and the TV building?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The -- the approximate distance is

20 about 800 metres.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Could you assist me in better understanding the

22 report we had on our screens, where one UNMO reports that he saw an

23 outgoing projectile across the parking place, and you said that was at

24 the PTT building where he saw that; and further down it reads:

25 "Another UNMO was on the parking place at the same time and he

Page 7184

1 reported the following: He heard the sound of an approaching rocket

2 motor. The round was fairly close and that he took cover."

3 And then, on the next page:

4 "He heard the impact but no detonation."

5 And:

6 "The UNMO stood up, and after a few seconds, there was a

7 tremendous explosion at the base of the TV building."

8 It -- it seems to be contradicting, the one saying I saw a

9 projectile being fired from where I was, and the other one saying there

10 was an incoming projectile, same time, same place, apparently. Then he

11 hears the impact. I take it that if it doesn't explode, that it's not

12 easy to hear an impact at a distance of 800 metres, and he, nevertheless,

13 says that there was a tremendous explosion at the TV building after a

14 couple of seconds.

15 I'm totally lost as to how to understand this information, which

16 seems to be partially presenting an outgoing round from the PTT building

17 and a kind of a mixed report on an incoming projectile, which then later

18 explodes at a great distance from there.

19 That's my confusion. If you can help me out, please do so.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will try and do so, Your Honour.

21 There was, indeed -- there were two projectiles that were fired.

22 One around 9.30 a.m. One hit directly one of the sides of the TV

23 building, while the detonation was rather significant and the destruction

24 also, I checked that myself afterwards, the other -- the other impact is

25 the one that I was specifying, that did -- hit the road and made a crater

Page 7185

1 there. And the author says that the explosion was not heard, which is

2 surprising. The impact was true, real, and the crater is also concrete.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for this explanation.

4 Mr. Lukic.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you for having taken us back to

6 this document I've forgotten. You know that that I rarely seek admission

7 into evidence but I would like to tender this document.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

9 THE REGISTRAR: May I just verify that this is document 10176?

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think it is.

11 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you. Then document 10176 receives number

12 D134, Your Honours.

13 JUDGE ORIE: D134 is admitted into evidence.

14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now, we should go back to the

15 statement again, P749. I've already said that in the French version, we

16 need page 32, the second paragraph; in the English version, we need

17 page 23, second paragraph from the bottom of the page; and, in the B/C/S

18 version, page 43, fourth paragraph.

19 Q. In the paragraph above they ask you to look at a document. It's

20 a protest dated the 8th of June, 1995, that General Gobillard sent to

21 General Milosevic.

22 You say, in your response:

23 "This letter concerns events which took place in the southern

24 part of the city in the sector of the Jewish cemetery and in Debelo Brdo

25 between the 15th of May and 15th of June. Units of the Bosniak army

Page 7186

1 1st Corps attacked the crest line which overlooks Sarajevo in that

2 sector. They moved closer to the UNPROFOR post in the sector located in

3 Debelo Brdo. The Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, which was defending that

4 position, retaliated with artillery fire and tanks and launched several

5 well-targeted counter-attacks. The problem was that the SRK response was

6 disproportionate to the attack and the SRK disregarded any possible

7 collateral damage ..."

8 Again, we are in this period of fierce fighting initiated by the

9 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that right?

10 A. The Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the 1st Corps, was, indeed, at

11 the origin of these -- of this fighting, and I should remind you, a

12 number of operations, pre-operations, for their adversaries.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could I ask one additional question.

14 The last portion of what was read to you reads as following, and

15 I'll do it in French:

16 "[Interpretation] The SRK bombed the city and responded to the

17 attacks by the Bosnian side. This is at least the way the SRK perceived

18 the situation."

19 What was preceding, that is, the description of the military

20 operations, and the counter-attack? Was that an example of what you said

21 in the last line, meaning that it also attacked the town?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This comment, when I read it again,

23 is, in my mind, the example I provided for the lack of moral fiber and

24 this disproportionate attack. The random shelling on the town was

25 reported by the SRK correspondents who said that this was in retaliation

Page 7187

1 to other attacks.

2 General Gobillard and other people reminded our contact people

3 that these actions could not be perceived as proportionate retaliatory

4 acts.

5 As regards what happened between 15th May and the 15th of June,

6 I'm talking now from a professional standpoint, if the offensives

7 launched by the 1st Corps of the Muslim forces could have been better

8 organised, well, the reaction of their opponents of the SRK could have

9 been more measured and would have had the same effect.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.

11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. These attacks in your area of responsibility launched by the

13 Muslim forces always came out of the part of the town that was considered

14 to be a protected area; right?

15 A. In my area of responsibility, yes.

16 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Is it also correct that the number of the members of the

19 1st Corps was disproportionately high compared to the membership of the

20 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Was the number of the attacks by the BH army on the positions of

23 the SRK disproportionately higher than the attack launched by the other

24 side?

25 A. Well, certainly when these attacks were launched. However, you

Page 7188

1 seem to omit the conditions under which the population and the units were

2 living, subjected to constant random shellings, subjected to a blockade.

3 Under these conditions, it is not surprising, is it, that this party felt

4 aggressed and wanted to release the strangle-hold it was caught in?

5 Q. You know what? There's one thing that I don't understand. I

6 can't understand that an officer of the NATO pact would be speaking of

7 disproportionate use of force when we know that Tomahawk rockets were

8 used to target the inhabited or built areas of town without the opposite

9 side having any possibility to return fire. Isn't that what you would

10 call disproportionate use of force? If there's no possibility of

11 response whatsoever.

12 A. I would like you to tell me when between May and October 1995

13 Tomahawk missiles were used in the area of Sarajevo. I like to hear

14 about this.

15 Q. I'm talking about the principle involved. Since you testify here

16 as an officer of the NATO pact about the disproportionate use of force --

17 JUDGE ORIE: This witness testifies as a witness of the truth and

18 not in a specific capacity. Your previous question was introduced by a

19 desperate cry-out of not understanding something, is which comment rather

20 than question. You may put questions to the witness, Mr. Lukic.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22 JUDGE ORIE: No consultations in the courtroom. Write it down on

23 a note and give Mr. Mladic, if he needs, a pen and a piece of paper.

24 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 7189

1 Q. When bombing the Serb positions in the surrounding area of

2 Sarajevo, when NATO was bombing these positions, was there a

3 disproportionate use of force at that time?

4 A. Listen, I can state that the force used was artillery fire, on

5 the one hand, and air-strikes on the other. (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 since from the beginning of July onwards when the first artillery pieces

9 started arriving, the use of this force was always extremely measured,

10 extremely cautious, and a great deal of attention was paid to do all we

11 could to avoid casualties.

12 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 Q. Were you aware of the fact that Pale -- the Pale hospital was hit

16 by the Mirage. Did that amount to a disproportionate use of force?

17 A. May I know what the date of the incident, please, Your Honour?

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There are two questions first, whether you're

19 aware of the Pale hospital being hit. Are you aware of that?

20 And if Mr. Lukic has a date, that might assist.

21 Do you know of any such hit?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am aware of fire hitting Pale,

23 not the hospital in particular, but I believe the date is important.

24 JUDGE ORIE: But it is about the hospital. If you do not know

25 anything about the hospital being hit, then, of course, we can move on.

Page 7190

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I cannot confirm that

2 the hospital was hit. I don't believe so. I'm wondering whether there

3 isn't a confusion on a previous attack against Pale.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Notes. No consultations. Mr. Mladic.

5 Well, the witness may have knowledge about Mirages firing at the

6 Pale area, but seems not to be familiar with the hospital being hit,

7 which makes the next question superfluous, it looks, Mr. Lukic.

8 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. I understand that.

9 JUDGE ORIE: I'm also I'm looking at the clock at this moment.

10 Yes, could you give us an indication as to how much time you

11 would still need tomorrow.

12 MR. LUKIC: I think one hour, one and a half hours.

13 JUDGE ORIE: One and a half hour.

14 Ms. Hochhauser, could you give already an indication, as matters

15 stand now, how much time you would need for re-examination?

16 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I -- as matters stand now, Your Honour, I would

17 estimate about half an hour.

18 JUDGE ORIE: About half an hour.

19 All the estimates for the witness -- the other witness to come

20 this week, are still solid?

21 MR. GROOME: From the Prosecution's point of view, Your Honour,

22 yes.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, any reason to believe that you'd need

24 more than you asked for, for the next witness?

25 MR. LUKIC: I think that my colleague Ivetic will fit it in the