130205ED

Page 8040

1 [Witness answered through interpreter]

2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Sabljica. Please be seated.

3 Mr. Sabljica, you give your testimony with face distortion, which

4 means that people will not see your face outside this courtroom; however,

5 they'll hear your testimony, they'll hear your own voice, and they're

6 able to follow the content of your testimony. Mr. Weber will now examine

7 you. You'll find him to your right.

8 Mr. Weber, please proceed.

9 MR. WEBER: Good morning, Your Honours. Thank you.

10 Examination by Mr. Weber:

11 Q. Could you please introduce yourself to the Trial Chamber.

12 A. My name is Mirza Sabljica. I was born in Sarajevo on the

13 26th of February, 1966.

14 Q. Have you previously testified before this Tribunal on four

15 earlier occasions in the Dragomir Milosevic, Galic, Perisic, and Karadzic

16 cases?

17 A. Yes, I have. I testified as a witness in all four cases.

18 Q. Prior to your testimony in the Karadzic case, did you provide a

19 statement consolidating portions of your previous testimony and other

20 statements?

21 A. Yes, I provided such a statement.

22 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 1 of

23 65 ter 28665. There appears to be a technical problem. If we could

24 please just have a moment. Your Honours, we just called it up in

25 Ringtail and we -- oh, here.

Page 8041

1 Q. Mr. Sabljica, directing your attention to the monitor, do you

2 recognise the document before you as the amalgamated statement you

3 provided on 10 and 11 February 2010?

4 A. Yes, that's the document in question which bears my own

5 signature.

6 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 74 of the

7 English version and page 120 of the B/C/S translation.

8 Q. Mr. Sabljica, could you please review the last page of this

9 statement and confirm whether you signed this page?

10 A. Yes, I signed this page on the 11th of February, 2010.

11 Q. Did you have the opportunity to review this statement in the

12 Bosnian language prior to coming to court today?

13 A. Yes, I had the opportunity to examine it both in the English

14 version and the Bosnian one.

15 Q. And for clarification, do you speak the English language?

16 A. Yes, I speak English.

17 Q. Do you have any additional clarifications or corrections to this

18 statement?

19 A. No. Everything is absolutely accurate.

20 Q. If you were asked the same questions, would you provide the same

21 answers in substance?

22 A. Yes, I would provide the same answers.

23 Q. Now that you've taken the solemn declaration in this case, do you

24 affirm the truthfulness and accuracy of the statement?

25 A. Yes, I do.

Page 8042

1 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders

2 the statement from 2010, uploaded under 65 ter 28665 into evidence as a

3 public exhibit.

4 MR. LUKIC: No objection.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Document 28665 receives number P855,

7 Your Honours.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. I'm just -- if you

9 would bear with me for one moment, Mr. Weber. I have a hard copy in

10 front of me with some redactions, but not the ones I have in e-court. So

11 I'm wondering what caused me to have the wrong --

12 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, thank you for reminding me. When the

13 Prosecution submitted its 92 ter motion, we redacted one portion based on

14 the now-availability of a fully legible copy which was merely read into

15 the statement. Since the Chamber's decision last Friday, the Prosecution

16 endeavoured to further review the materials for this witness, and we've

17 redacted an additional incident all together from the statement from

18 27 February 1995 and we're reducing the number of associated exhibits

19 based on that. So there should be a second redaction now --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

21 MR. WEBER: -- right before the witness statement. I apologise,

22 Your Honour, for not --

23 JUDGE ORIE: A new redacted version was sent to Chambers staff?

24 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, we just completed it. And, I'm sorry, I

25 do not think the new redacted version was provided.

Page 8043

1 JUDGE ORIE: But, Mr. Weber, so therefore I -- by scrolling

2 through all this I have to find out that the copy I looked at yesterday,

3 I studied, is not the copy you are tendering without any notice? I think

4 that really deserves the apology you have just given already so we don't

5 need to do that again.

6 Madam Registrar, the newly redacted and uploaded copy receives

7 number -- I think you gave a number already.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. Number P855, Your Honours.

9 JUDGE ORIE: P855 is admitted into evidence.

10 You may proceed.

11 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution will tender

12 the associated exhibits. We provided to the Defence, the court officer,

13 and also the Chamber a list of associated exhibits that we'll be

14 tendering. For clarity of record, I'll tender them in three sections.

15 The first section being eight marked photographs or diagrams and one

16 video related to the Markale shelling. We're tendering these all as

17 public exhibits. If Your Honour would like, I can read out the

18 65 ter numbers.

19 JUDGE ORIE: We have received the list.

20 Let's first hear from the Defence whether they have any

21 objections.

22 MR. LUKIC: We reviewed the list ...

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. ...

25 MR. LUKIC: We reviewed the list and the documents and we don't

Page 8044

1 have any objections on those documents.

2 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. So then I go for the first series.

3 Madam Registrar, you have received the same list, I take it, a

4 list starting with 18640 and the last number, number 9, the video,

5 bearing 22364?

6 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Would you reserve nine numbers for those, that would

8 be the numbers --

9 THE REGISTRAR: Numbers starting from number P856 up to including

10 P864, Your Honours.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Those numbers are reserved. Let's try to deal with

12 it. We'll put everything correctly on the record finally. The next one

13 I have on my list now are four -- section 2.4, associated investigative

14 materials and other documents.

15 MR. WEBER: That's correct, Your Honour. At this time the

16 Prosecution tenders 65 ter 14290A, 9999A, and 10001A, those are the

17 investigative materials, and an UNPROFOR report which is 9927. These all

18 specifically relate to scheduled incidents in the indictment --

19 JUDGE ORIE: It does not correspond with my list because in my

20 list the UNPROFOR report is 9928 and not 9927.

21 MR. WEBER: Thank you for the correction. It's correct on the

22 list and it's incorrect in my notes. It's 9928. And --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

24 Any objections?

25 MR. LUKIC: No objections, Your Honour.

Page 8045

1 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, 14290A receives number ... ?

2 THE REGISTRAR: P865, Your Honours.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted under seal.

4 9928?

5 THE REGISTRAR: Number P866, Your Honours.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.

7 9999A?

8 THE REGISTRAR: Number P867, Your Honours.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.

10 10001A?

11 THE REGISTRAR: Number P868, Your Honours.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted under that number.

13 We move to the --

14 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, if those materials -- if we could please

15 have what is now been admitted as P865 under seal.

16 JUDGE ORIE: I admitted it under seal, Mr. Weber.

17 MR. WEBER: Oh, sorry.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Third section.

19 MR. WEBER: Third category. Your Honour, at this time the

20 Prosecution just tenders two exhibits related to unscheduled events.

21 These are 65 ter 18642 and 15689.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.

23 MR. LUKIC: Sorry, no objections, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, 65 ter 18642?

25 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P869, Your Honours.

Page 8046

1 JUDGE ORIE: P869 is admitted into evidence as a public exhibit.

2 65 ter 15689?

3 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P870, Your Honours.

4 JUDGE ORIE: P870 is admitted into evidence as a public exhibit.

5 I slowly read the other numbers from the first section.

6 Madam Registrar, we have dealt already with the first one 18640,

7 which received P856. The next is 18637.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P857, Your Honours.

9 JUDGE ORIE: 10447.

10 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P858, Your Honours.

11 JUDGE ORIE: 18638.

12 THE REGISTRAR: Number P859, Your Honours.

13 JUDGE ORIE: 18639.

14 THE REGISTRAR: Number P860, Your Honours.

15 JUDGE ORIE: 18643.

16 THE REGISTRAR: Number P861, Your Honours.

17 JUDGE ORIE: 14030.

18 THE REGISTRAR: Number P862.

19 JUDGE ORIE: 14032.

20 THE REGISTRAR: Number P863.

21 JUDGE ORIE: And then we have the last one which was already

22 assigned P864 corresponding with 65 ter 22364.

23 P856 up to and including P864 are admitted into evidence as

24 public exhibits.

25 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, could I please seek leave to present a

Page 8047

1 public summary of the witness's evidence?

2 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.

3 MR. WEBER: Mr. Mirza Sabljica served as a forensic ballistics

4 analyst with the security services centre, for CSB, in Sarajevo from

5 July 1993. He participated in ballistic investigations of shelling and

6 sniping incidents in Sarajevo. The witness describes the methodology

7 used when investigating incidents, including the method of determining

8 the calibre of the projectile, the direction of fire, and the angle of

9 descent at the point of impact. He also discusses documentary evidence

10 prepared by his team and others relating to a number of shelling and

11 sniping incidents, including the shelling of a football game in Dobrinja

12 on the 1st of June, 1993; the shelling of a civilian location where a

13 group of children were playing in the snow on the 22nd of January, 1994;

14 the shelling of a residential area in Dobrinja on the

15 4th of February, 1994; and the shelling of the Markale Market on the

16 5th of February, 1994.

17 In respect of the Markale Market incident, Mr. Sabljica describes

18 the work done upon his arrival at the scene of the shelling after the

19 shelling had taken place, including the measurement of the shell crater

20 and inspection of the traces on the ground. He concluded on the basis of

21 his measurements that the projectile had come from a north/north-eastern

22 direction at a bearing of approximately 18 degrees.

23 In respect of the shelling on the 22nd of January, 1994,

24 Mr. Sabljica's statement refers to his report of the incident, in which

25 he concluded that the projectiles had been fired from positions in

Page 8048

1 Nedzarici, an area which was under Bosnian Serb control.

2 Mr. Sabljica also participated in approximately 60 investigations

3 into incidents of sniping. Among the sniping incidents he discusses are

4 a sniping attack on the tram on the 23rd of November, 1994. He states

5 that the origin of the sniper fire often was the Metaljka building and

6 other high-rise buildings in Grbavica, an area under Bosnian Serb

7 control.

8 That concludes the witness summary. At this time may I proceed

9 with questioning?

10 JUDGE ORIE: You may, Mr. Weber.

11 MR. WEBER:

12 Q. Mr. Sabljica, thank you for your patience. On pages 10 to 18 of

13 your statement you explain the process of ballistics analysis you used

14 during your 80 to a hundred investigations of shelling incidents. Before

15 we discuss some specific investigations, I would like to discuss with you

16 some general items. On page 11 of your statement you explain that when

17 you arrived on scene you looked at:

18 "Mechanical traces resulting from impact of projectiles and

19 fragments and that would be contoured on an asphalt surface or some other

20 surface."

21 Could you please explain to us the visible traces left by a

22 projectile on an asphalt surface or other surface?

23 A. In the course of the fall of a projectile - in this case a

24 shell - the body of the shell will burst and the fragments will usually

25 leave an identical trace on the surface, which is known as a rosetta. In

Page 8049

1 other words, around the centre of the crater there would be two irregular

2 ellipses that fan out and stretch upwards -- or rather, they are most

3 visible in the direction from which the projectile actually came.

4 Q. When you describe a rosetta, are you referring to a particular

5 type of shell or a pattern caused by a particular type of shell?

6 A. Yes. At the very start of my sentence, that's what I said. This

7 is typical of shells, mortar shells, in other words, from smooth barrels,

8 and these projectiles leave a very characteristic pattern which is known

9 under the name of rosetta.

10 Q. In your statement you indicate that you used the central axis

11 method to determine the direction of fire. Could you please explain this

12 method.

13 A. Yes. Based on the traces found, I mean these two ellipses,

14 regular ellipses that are formed around the centre of the crater, we

15 would then connect the points of the axis of the longer ellipse with the

16 centre of the pattern; and then you get an angle and a middle axis that

17 would determine the direction from which the projectile had come.

18 Q. Would you use any particular type of equipment in performing this

19 analysis?

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, is these explanations, is there any way

21 to visualise them?

22 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I will be going through photos if you --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but if the witness now explains if it's visible

24 on the photos, rather use the photos now so that we do not miss part of

25 the evidence.

Page 8050

1 MR. WEBER: All right.

2 Q. Before going to specific incident, on page 14 of your statement

3 you stated:

4 "Based on the size of damage because an 82-millimetre creates a

5 smaller damage than created by a 120-millimetre shell ..."

6 During your investigations could you tell the difference in

7 calibre based upon observations of the impact site?

8 A. Yes, of course. An 82-millimetre weapon, the rosetta or those

9 ellipses would be smaller of course than the ones created or that left

10 behind a 120-millimetre shell. Of course that would also depend on the

11 surface of impact, but usually the differences that we would get during

12 these regiments -- measurements would be about 30 per cent less; in other

13 words, when you compare the two shells, the 80-millimetre and

14 120-millimetre traces, it's easy to actually identify which calibre is in

15 question based on these different sizes of the crater.

16 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 10261,

17 page 3, in both versions.

18 Q. On pages 18 and 19 of your statement, you provide evidence

19 concerning your investigation of the shelling of Dobrinja on 1 June 1993.

20 On page 19 you confirm the authenticity of a report authored by yourself

21 and Mr. Zlatko Medjedovic. Is this the report you were referring to in

22 your statement that is now before you?

23 A. Yes, that is the report that me and the late Zlatko Medjedovic

24 actually put together.

25 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 6 of the B/C/S

Page 8051

1 version only.

2 Q. In your report you make a number of forensic observations and

3 refer to photographs. Directing your attention to the top photograph

4 marked number 3, in your report you refer to this photograph and state:

5 "The centre of the crater shows physical damage to the Tarmac

6 surface and is in the shape of an irregular circle ..."

7 And:

8 "The central part of the crater spreads out in traces of

9 elliptical rays or, specifically, the centre of the explosion is

10 surrounded by two ellipses."

11 Could you please explain to us using this photo the two ellipses

12 and what they show?

13 A. May I use this pen?

14 MR. WEBER: Your Honour --

15 JUDGE ORIE: For the pen you would mark and then of course you

16 would mark the whole -- if we could separate the photograph from the

17 exhibit, take that one photograph out --

18 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I plan on tendering the whole file. If

19 it would be okay with the Chamber if the witness does wish to mark, if we

20 could take a screen capture and tender that separately and then tender

21 the whole file after the examination.

22 JUDGE ORIE: And that would not affect the integrity of the

23 exhibit as a whole.

24 So, yes, then the witness -- Mr. Usher, could you guide the

25 witness in what pen to use.

Page 8052

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to try and illustrate

2 the entire methodology we used based on this photograph. As the

3 Prosecutor asked about the central crater and it has the shape of an

4 irregular circle, this is it. Now, around it there would be two

5 irregular ellipses, this is one of them and this is the second one. So

6 as I've said before, portions, fragments, of very hot metal would --

7 coming from the disintegrated shell would form this pattern on the Tarmac

8 surface.

9 Now, here we have the axis of these ellipses and we can see that

10 the traces are more visible and deeper and they spread out at a distance

11 from the -- away from the direction from which the shell came. Now, we

12 can see next to this that there is a measuring tape which is part of our

13 forensic equipment used in measuring the dimensions or size of the trace

14 evidence found, physical evidence found on a Tarmac surface.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Could I stop you for a second. Could you perhaps

16 using a small arrow first put a C for centre to the first irregular

17 circle you've drawn.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here it is.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Could you make E1 and E2, E1 for the smaller ellipse

20 and the E2 pointing at the borders for the larger ellipse.

21 THE WITNESS: [Marks]

22 JUDGE ORIE: And then we have two X's. Could you indicate what

23 is X1 and what is X2.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here we have the longer, it would

25 be X1 and the shorter one X2.

Page 8053

1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

2 Please proceed.

3 MR. WEBER:

4 Q. With respect to the larger ellipse that you've drawn which is now

5 marked E2, what specifically does this ellipse show?

6 A. I'm not receiving interpretation, but I understand your question.

7 The longer ellipse, as I've already said, shows the fragments that were

8 left as a result of the impact of fragments of the projectile and they

9 are deeper in the direction from which the shell came, because as a shell

10 is flying toward the impact point there would be an angle there. And as

11 a result of the explosion, the traces would be deeper and clearer from

12 the direction from which the shell came, whereas on the opposite side the

13 traces would be less visible. This would be the simpler explanation.

14 And I still have no interpretation in my headset.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Could we check that the witness receives

16 interpretation.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No I do. Now I am.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Could I now ask you, looking at this photograph,

19 apparently the X1 ax is the ax which gives the direction from which the

20 projectile arrived. Could you tell us, did it come from, to say so, from

21 the upper part of the photograph or was the origin of fire to the lower

22 part of the photograph?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in an idealised photograph,

24 as we see it here, it's obvious that it comes from the bottom part of the

25 photograph because you can see that the traces there are more visible and

Page 8054

1 they are more dispersed away from the centre of the explosion. So the X1

2 ax is actually, that's -- it's coming from the direction of the bottom of

3 the photograph, if I may put it that way.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So we're looking along the ax on which the

5 projectile landed, being fired from our backs if we look at the

6 photograph?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No -- well, actually, it came from

8 my direction, if I can put it that way.

9 Yes, right, from your backs as you are seated.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Everyone who's looking at the photograph in the same

11 way as I do would find that it was fired from behind, landing on the

12 photograph.

13 Yes, please proceed.

14 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution tenders the

15 marked exhibit --

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the marked excerpt of the report

18 would receive number?

19 THE REGISTRAR: Number P871, Your Honours.

20 JUDGE ORIE: P871 is admitted into evidence.

21 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have --

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before we move to another exhibit may I put one

23 question to the witness.

24 Sir, you have explained the different ellipses, but I see

25 above -- now the marking disappeared now. Can we have the marking back?

Page 8055

1 I start already with my question. I see some markings in the road above

2 the centre of the impact as you described. Can you -- have you any idea

3 what is that marking indicating? There are some spots you haven't

4 described yet.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Those points are, in fact,

6 also traces left by the fragments of the shell, but you can see that they

7 are closer to the centre of the explosion. Because, as I've already

8 said, the traces are always more pronounced and deeper in the direction

9 from which the shell came. And of course these are all traces of this

10 mortar projectile, or rather, its fragments.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Do you have an explanation why we see these

12 little spots also in a kind of circle?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that is the characteristic of

14 the so-called rosetta that I've already mentioned that is left as a

15 result of impact of a mortar projectile on a surface. When the fragments

16 or shrapnel disperses, this is the shape that it would leave behind, but

17 we also have to bear in mind the angle of descent at which this shell

18 landed; and then we can determine how far these traces would spread out.

19 But as I've already said, they're always longer and more pronounced on

20 the side from which the projectile came. But it's also normal that

21 traces would be seen on the other side, if I may put it that way, from

22 the centre of the explosion. But that would then depend on the incoming

23 angle of the shell.

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you for that. Just for the clarity of the

25 record, we are discussing now the little spots on the left side of the X1

Page 8056

1 marked by you and not as clearly visible on the right side of that X1.

2 Thank you very much.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one more question. The closer you

4 look at the ellipse, closer to the centre of impact, the smaller, more

5 narrow it is, whereas further away from it the ellipse gets broader. Is

6 that how I have to understand this picture?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct. It fans out.

8 You understood that very well. It spreads in the shape of a fan, yes.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you.

10 Please proceed.

11 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 7 of

12 65 ter 10261 in the B/C/S version only. And if we could please focus on

13 the lower photo marked number 6.

14 Q. Mr. Sabljica, directing your attention to this bottom photo

15 number 6, could you please explain how you used the equipment depicted in

16 this photograph to determine the direction of fire?

17 A. In this photograph you can see the traces marked. You can also

18 see the centre of the explosion. That's where all these sticks meet.

19 You can see the shapes of the ellipses, the smaller one and the larger

20 one that fans out. You can also see that these two lateral sticks form a

21 certain angle that we derived by connecting the outward poles of the

22 longer ellipse with the centre of the explosion. And this central stick

23 that goes towards the centre, it has some red colour on it, that is the

24 central axis of the angle formed by these two other sticks. And at the

25 same time, that would be the direction of the projectile.

Page 8057

1 Now, beyond this you can see this measuring tape below the sticks

2 which shows the direction north, and I believe there is an N there. Now,

3 on the upper part of the photograph you can see a map of Sarajevo and the

4 compass that is north-oriented and placed close to the location as best

5 we could on the map. So this is what you can see in this photograph and

6 this explains the method of the central axis, an illustration, as it

7 were.

8 Q. Is this the same crater as we looked at in the previous photo?

9 A. Yes, it is the same crater but the photograph is taken from a

10 different angle.

11 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution tenders

12 65 ter 10261 into evidence as a public exhibit.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

14 THE REGISTRAR: Document 10261 receives number P872,

15 Your Honours.

16 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

17 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P865,

18 page 15 of the B/C/S and page 8 of the English translation. The

19 Prosecution requests that the document not be broadcast to the public.

20 Q. Mr. Sabljica, I'd like to direct your attention to the shelling

21 on the 22nd of January, 1994, in Alipasino Polje.

22 If I could please have page 8 of the English version and page 15

23 of the B/C/S.

24 Do you recognise this as -- the document before you as the report

25 you authored in relation to your investigation of the shelling on the

Page 8058

1 22nd of January, 1994?

2 A. Yes, I wrote up this report together with my colleague,

3 Borislav Stankov, late, who was at the time a forensic ballistics expert.

4 Q. In this report you make observations about three projectile

5 impacts. Could you explain to us what specific measurements you took

6 during this investigation that allowed you to determine that two of the

7 impacts were caused by an 82-millimetre mortar shell and one from

8 120-millimetre mortar shell?

9 A. We used the usual method. We used the central axis method. We

10 did the measurements, as I've already explained a moment ago, using those

11 photographs. And we even found a stabilising fin in one of the craters,

12 the 82-millimetre stabiliser. And the dimension of these -- the

13 dimensions of these rosettas, or rather, these irregular ellipses

14 corresponded to the second shell where we didn't find the stabilising fin

15 but we could conclude that it was an 82-millimetre shell. And the third

16 shell that landed near Rade Koncar Street was the result of a

17 120-millimetre shell impacting that ground there because the rosetta or

18 the traces that we found on the surface were about 30 to 40 per cent

19 larger than the traces that we found in Klare Cetkin Street. So it was

20 really easy to establish what type of projectiles or what type of calibre

21 they were.

22 Q. Could the Prosecution please have the next page of the report in

23 both versions.

24 With respect to the one that you determined to be a

25 120-millimetre shell, exactly how much bigger was it in comparison to the

Page 8059

1 two other ellipses according to your measurements here?

2 A. Well, here you can see the measurements themselves and they speak

3 for themselves. The 120-millimetre shell, the length of the axis was

4 rather greater than the ones we found where the 82-millimetre shells

5 impacted the ground. In other words, this second one even was 80- to 120

6 centimetres long and it spread out 3.20 by 4.80 metres - you can see that

7 - as compared to the 80-millimetre shell. We can read it from the

8 report.

9 Q. I'd like to move on now and discuss with you the Markale

10 investigation that you conducted on the 5th of February, 1994. Your

11 discussion of this is on pages 30 to 48 of your statement. One of the

12 exhibits that you comment upon is a video of the market. The Prosecution

13 is again going to show you parts of this video and ask you for some

14 additional comments.

15 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, this video has been admitted as P864 and

16 with your leave I'll ask Ms. Stewart to play the first 17 seconds of the

17 video.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.

19 [Video-clip played]

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 8060

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 MR. WEBER: If we could please continue playing to the

5 17th-second mark.

6 [Video-clip played]

7 MR. WEBER:

8 Q. Mr. Sabljica, which direction is the camera facing at this time?

9 A. It's facing the Marsala Tita Street. It's the southern side in

10 relation to the market.

11 MR. WEBER: I will now ask Ms. Stewart to play the video from the

12 6 minute, 39 second point and pause 20 seconds later at 6 minutes and 59

13 seconds.

14 [Video-clip played]

15 MR. WEBER:

16 Q. Mr. Sabljica, in the portion of the video that we just saw, what

17 is depicted?

18 A. The central crater, the point of impact. You can see

19 fragmentation traces, blood, flesh, and these three sticks that

20 demonstrate the method used. You have the two lateral sticks and the

21 white stick would be the central axis, so that should correspond to the

22 direction from which the shell came.

23 Q. Did you place these sticks on the crater during this crater

24 analysis?

25 A. Yes, I and a colleague of mine, Hamdija Cavcic, we were at the

Page 8062

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

2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

3 Mr. Weber, I read there -- perhaps the witness could carefully

4 listen as well - Mr. Sabljica, in the summary of your evidence, which by

5 the way is not the evidence itself, Mr. Weber read that you had concluded

6 that the projectiles had been fired from positions in Nedzarici. Reading

7 your statement I see that you say that the projectiles originated from a

8 westerly direction, that in that westerly direction Nedzarici was found.

9 But I did not actually see that you said that they were fired from

10 positions in Nedzarici, although they may well have been. Is that an

11 accurate reflection of your testimony?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, because the methods we used

13 were not such that we could determine with precision the location from

14 which a shell had been fired. So we never really specified the exact

15 position and the troops that were there. Nedzarici was in that area, as

16 it says in the report.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but it could have come from that direction but

18 further away than Nedzarici. You did not determine the distance the

19 projectile had travelled; is that correctly understood?

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

21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

22 Please proceed.

23 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, if we could please return to

24 Exhibit P864. During the break I asked Ms. Stewart to pause the video at

25 the next portion which is 8 minutes and 33 seconds into the video.

Page 8063

1 Q. Mr. Sabljica, before you is a compass map and arrow. Could you

2 please explain what these items show in this portion of the video.

3 A. They show a map of Sarajevo, the location of Markale roughly

4 speaking. The compass has been positioned in that area. And the map

5 is -- direction was north. You can see that the compass is to the north

6 and you can see that it's 18 degrees to the north/north-east from the

7 location we assumed that the shell came from.

8 Q. Did you use these specific items during your investigation to

9 determine that the shell came from 18 degrees to the north/north-east?

10 A. Yes. We always used a compass and a map in order to provide

11 approximate bearings, approximate locations in the vicinity of the town

12 of Sarajevo.

13 MR. WEBER: If we could please play this video for the next

14 12 seconds and pause at 8 minutes and 45 seconds.

15 [Video-clip played]

16 MR. WEBER:

17 Q. What is depicted on the screen before us at this point in the

18 video?

19 A. The centre of the crater. This is the point of impact.

20 Q. Did you make your determination as to the direction of fire

21 before all of the debris had been removed from the crater?

22 A. Yes, you can see that you already have the lateral stakes there

23 and also the main axis.

24 MR. WEBER: I will now ask Ms. Stewart to play the next 20

25 seconds of the video and pause at 9 minutes and 5 seconds.

Page 8064

1 [Video-clip played]

2 MR. WEBER:

3 Q. In the segment that we just saw there was some individuals in

4 blue helmets cleaning away the debris from the crater. Who were these

5 individuals?

6 A. UNPROFOR members, the specialist team that would often go to

7 on-site investigations when the town was shelled. These members were

8 from the French Battalion.

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 MR. WEBER: And if we could play just another seven seconds of

17 the video and pause at 9 minutes, 22 seconds.

18 [Video-clip played]

19 MR. WEBER: If we can just go back briefly. Thank you.

20 Q. On page 36 of your statement you state that the stabiliser was

21 found at the centre of the crater at a depth of 9 centimetres from the

22 asphalt surface. You continue to state that the measured depth was from

23 the top of the asphalt up until the last part of the stabiliser. Did you

24 measure the stabiliser in the position that is depicted on the screen

25 before us?

Page 8065

1 A. Yes, those are the dimensions before it was taken out, before the

2 stabiliser was taken out from the centre of the crater.

3 Q. Did you measure the total depth of the crater after the

4 stabiliser had been removed?

5 A. I didn't do so personally.

6 Q. I'd like to turn -- we're completed with the video.

7 I'd like to turn to discuss some brief things with respect to

8 sniping. On pages 60 and 61 of your statement you discuss how you went

9 to four high-rise buildings on Lenjinova Street in 1996. Did you go to

10 these buildings as part of a commission that was formed?

11 A. Yes, after the reintegration of Grbavica, after the peace

12 agreement and as ordered by the investigative judge, an expert team went

13 to the site to carry out an examination in the buildings in

14 Lenjinova Street.

15 Q. Who were the other members of this commission?

16 A. They were experienced ballistics experts, colleagues of mine, the

17 late Cavcic, the late Stankov, and the late Medjedovic. There were

18 officials from the CSB police in Sarajevo and there was the investigative

19 judge and myself and two forensic experts, Sanjin Hasanefendic, I

20 believe, and I can't remember the name of the other person.

21 Q. On page 61 of your statement you describe how these apartments

22 looked, including the demolished partitions and conical openings. Did

23 you find any ammunition or weapons in these apartments during this

24 investigation?

25 A. Naturally we didn't search all the flats, only some that were

Page 8066

1 above the 10th floor. We found so-called sniper nests. That was the

2 first time I had the opportunity of seeing something of that kind. There

3 were these openings in the walls, these breaches that had been made in a

4 professional manner. I read up about it later on and learned certain

5 things about it. There were cartridges that were found, cartridges of

6 bullets of various calibres. They were probably the cartridges of M76

7 semi-automatic rifles. There were M84 machine-guns that had been -- that

8 had probably been used. We found sandbags that were used as protection

9 for snipers. We compiled a report on this, photographed it, photographed

10 everything, and sent all of this material for further processing.

11 Q. What was the result of the commission?

12 A. We visited those buildings mainly because in the course of the

13 conflict in Sarajevo in particular all of our findings showed that this

14 was an area from which we suspected that there were sniper shots on

15 trams, on pedestrians who were walking around parts of the town that were

16 under the ABiH. So according to our assessments, according to our

17 methods that we used, we came to the conclusion that we had been quite

18 precise in our assessment.

19 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I have no further questions at this

20 time.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Weber.

22 Mr. Lukic, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?

23 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. I just need one minute to organise

24 myself.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

Page 8067

1 Meanwhile, Mr. Sabljica, you will be cross-examined now by

2 Mr. Lukic. Mr. Lukic is counsel for Mr. Mladic.

3 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:

4 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Sabljica.

5 A. Good day.

6 Q. We're all laymen here when it comes to the field that you are

7 testifying about, so I do hope that you will use simple language when

8 explaining certain matters to us and we will try to make good use of the

9 investigations you have carried out. And perhaps you could provide us

10 with more detailed explanations. Can we start now?

11 A. Very well. Yes, of course.

12 Q. When you started working in the MUP you had -- you didn't have

13 much knowledge of the field of ballistics; isn't that correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. You learned about ballistics when you attended a six-month course

16 and this course was provided by the MUP?

17 A. That's correct too.

18 Q. Although you have already testified about this, I'll just repeat

19 this so that we can clear certain matters up. Your task was to determine

20 the origin of fire, the type of shell fired, and the calibre of the shell

21 in question; isn't that correct?

22 A. Yes, that's correct.

23 Q. You didn't determine the distance?

24 A. No, we didn't determine distances.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the expression "origin of fire" is quite

Page 8068

1 ambiguous in this context. I take it that you wanted to refer to the

2 direction of the origin of fire, which from the follow-up question I

3 think is what you meant to ask?

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

5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. On page 10 of your statement you say, it's line 24:

8 We stated the area under the control of such and such an army

9 only if we were a hundred per cent certain that no one else had positions

10 there.

11 Is it true that there was a confrontation line around the entire

12 town of Sarajevo?

13 A. Yes, that's correct, you're quite right.

14 Q. Is it also correct that that confrontation line was wave-like,

15 the entire line was wave-like?

16 A. That's correct too.

17 Q. When you worked as a ballistics expert in the MUP, did you

18 receive any information from the 1st Corps of the ABiH about where their

19 units were deployed?

20 A. Unfortunately, no. There was no such co-operation at my level.

21 Q. Did you know where the warehouses were, where the brigade staffs

22 were of the 1st Corps of the ABiH?

23 A. I knew about certain places, but not for all of -- not about all

24 of them. There are very few places I was aware of as a policeman and a

25 citizen.

Page 8069

1 Q. Very well. Thank you. Very briefly I'd like to have a look at

2 10347 [as interpreted], which is a 65 ter document. I would like to see

3 it in the e-court system. It's a Prosecution exhibit and I will briefly

4 ask you about it -- something about it when it comes up on the screen.

5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, for the record this is P858.

6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. I didn't have time to include today's

7 numbers to my questions.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Registrar, I thought P858 was exhibit -- was

9 65 ter 10447 and this one is 10347.

10 MR. LUKIC: No, I quote 447, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you say 447?

12 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, my apologies.

14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Mr. Sabljica -- [In English] Okay. That's it.

16 [Interpretation] Mr. Sabljica, does this arrow that extends from

17 the shell to the edge demonstrate the direction from which the shell came

18 or not?

19 A. No, this is just a way in which we marked where the central

20 crater was located, the central crater in which the stabiliser is

21 embedded.

22 Q. Thank you. We don't need this photograph anymore.

23 In the testimony you gave in other cases you explained the method

24 you used to determine the direction of fire. And, amongst other things,

25 you said the following in your statement on page 19:

Page 8070

1 "A mortar shell, when it falls, its axis closes off an angle

2 which is usually below 90 degrees. When it comes into contact with the

3 surface and when it explodes, the shell fragments and you can see visible

4 traces that spread out from the centre of the explosion in the direction

5 from which the shell arrived."

6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter notes there is a lot of

7 interference and the interpreter can't hear anything.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the interpreters tell us that there's a

9 lot of interference and that they have difficulty in hearing you. Is

10 there any paperwork --

11 MR. LUKIC: Probably because of the paper --

12 JUDGE ORIE: -- which is touching upon the microphone?

13 MR. LUKIC: I will turn off the mike in the future.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

15 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. And I apologise to the translators.

16 [Interpretation] Could we have a look at 1D703 on the screen,

17 please.

18 Q. Could you take a pencil and mark the centre of the explosion at

19 the point of impact and the way in which the fragments are fanned out.

20 Can you see this in the photograph?

21 A. Yes --

22 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps the usher would assist if the witness would

23 make any markings.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the centre of the

25 explosion, I'll mark it with a C, and here we have the ellipse -- the

Page 8071

1 ellipses here, given what I can see in the photograph. So this is a --

2 an idealised manner of depicting the situation.

3 MR. LUKIC: Can we save this as the next Defence exhibit marked

4 as it is?

5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D703 as marked by the witness receives

7 number D171, Your Honours.

8 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] If we could now see 1D697 on the

10 screen.

11 Q. Mr. Sabljica, could you mark the centre of the explosion in this

12 photograph too and the ellipses that show the traces left when the shell

13 exploded?

14 A. This is the centre of the explosion --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, before we continue I think one question

16 should be put to the witness first.

17 Until now you have explained to us how you measured the direction

18 of the origin of fire if a shell landed on a surface -- on the ground.

19 Apparently we now hear/see an impact of a projectile on a wall. Would

20 the same theory and the same explanation apply to the impact of a

21 projectile on a wall? That's the first question before we continue.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the case of a mortar shell there

23 would be a rosette. If it's a projectile from a barrel, bore barrel,

24 then it would be different.

25 JUDGE ORIE: And would the rosette be explained in a way similar

Page 8072

1 to a mortar shell that would have landed on the ground?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the principle is the same. If

3 we are dealing with a mortar shell there's no difference.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

6 Q. [Interpretation] The Judge put some questions that I was going to

7 put to you, but could you please now mark the ellipses for us in this

8 photograph.

9 A. [Marks]

10 Q. When I -- when we have a look at this photograph would you draw

11 the conclusion that the shell came from below?

12 A. Well, that wouldn't be logical. How would that be possible? If

13 you have an opening in the wall, it must have hit the wall at a certain

14 angle, that is more or less a right angle. That's common sense. But you

15 can see how the shrapnel spread, so perhaps it was an angle of between 75

16 and 80 degrees. The circle seems to be a little more regular in relation

17 to the ellipses when you're dealing with, for example, a shell that hits

18 the ground.

19 Q. I will just ask you about this because there were positions there

20 and certain people suspect that the shell was fired from a lower level.

21 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't see any shrapnel traces on the upper

22 side on the facade. Can you? You're referring to the damage inflicted?

23 A. Well, you can see these traces here further above, but it's

24 difficult to carry out an analysis on the basis of a photograph. You can

25 see the opening made by the projectile that penetrated through to the

Page 8073

1 flat. So the angle was over 15 degrees, for example, if we talk about

2 someone who fired from a lower level, but the picture would be a lot

3 clearer if we could go to the site. But what you're saying can't be

4 excluded, but if you have a look at the photograph it wouldn't be logical

5 to say that someone fired from a lower level and then managed to

6 penetrate the wall in this manner.

7 Q. I'm not saying it was from down below but perhaps from the

8 vicinity. But now I'd like us to concentrate on another incident that

9 concerns the 1st of June.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the photograph --

11 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

12 JUDGE ORIE: -- does this originate from any of the scheduled

13 incidents or --

14 MR. LUKIC: It is --

15 JUDGE ORIE: You gave the 65 ter number but I do not know where

16 it's taken from.

17 MR. LUKIC: It's actually -- I don't know if I can mention the

18 name of the witness, one of the witnesses who is coming soon brought

19 this -- these pictures.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, which is not a real answer to my question who

21 brought it. I was more interested to know it is related to one of the

22 scheduled incidents? Is it anything found on the spot of one of these

23 scheduled incidents or is it --

24 MR. LUKIC: I have to check this.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

Page 8074

1 MR. LUKIC: I'm not sure.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'd like to know that.

3 MR. LUKIC: Okay. Thanks.

4 JUDGE ORIE: And you would like to have this one admitted?

5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you to Judge Fluegge, yes.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I speak on his behalf.

7 Madam Registrar.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Photograph 1D697 as marked by the witness

9 receives D172, Your Honours.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. D172 is admitted into

11 evidence.

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Let us move on to the incidents that are the reason for you being

14 here today. We have that clearly separated, but I don't know if this

15 image is part of it. So let's move on to the 1st of June, 1993, the

16 shelling of the football match in Dobrinja. You say:

17 "I've looked at the photo documentation of the BH MUP of

18 20th November 1995 and the report of 24th November 1995."

19 So this is not a mistake. This photograph and the reports were

20 produced two and a half years after the incident; correct?

21 A. That's correct because the 1st -- on the 1st of June, 1993, I was

22 not even in the MUP and we did this investigation after the signing of

23 the Dayton Agreement pursuant to a request by the ICTY investigators.

24 Q. You signed this report and I --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, is there any way to get on our screen

Page 8075

1 what you're referring to?

2 MR. LUKIC: I have next session. It's page 29, lines 3 to 8, in

3 B/C/S actually.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if it's photographs, I do not mind that

5 much --

6 MR. LUKIC: No, no, this is from the statement of this gentleman.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, yes, we are talking about the statement. Page?

8 MR. LUKIC: Page 29 I had in B/C/S. One second.

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is it perhaps page 19?

10 MR. LUKIC: I have different lines, line 3.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see what I can find.

12 MR. LUKIC: It's about forensic investigation. I can't see it.

13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is the corresponding page to the B/C/S page

14 on the left side of the screen.

15 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers]

16 JUDGE ORIE: Which page are you in B/C/S?

17 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] It's page 29 of the B/C/S.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Twenty-nine of the B/C/S.

19 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have a --

21 MR. LUKIC: And it is page 18 in English I am told.

22 JUDGE ORIE: 18 in English, thank you.

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think it's 19.

24 MR. LUKIC: Or 19. Okay, the first -- the line numbers are not

25 the same. Yes, it's page 18, line 40, and it goes to the next page,

Page 8076

1 page 19 --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I found it. I have inspected it, yes.

3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. You tell us:

5 "The forensic investigation was done on site with the help of a

6 CSB forensic technician, Miralem Sarvan, and an authorised official of

7 the crime department of the BH MUP, Enes Zeljkovic. Also present were

8 the international criminal tribunal investigators, Jan van Hecke, an

9 operative of the Sarajevo CSB, Mirsad Kucanin and witness Refik Sokolar.

10 It was determined that the shell that fell on a Tarmac surface was an

11 82-millimetre shell."

12 At the time when you prepared this report were you aware that

13 there had already been a report on this incident made by UNPROFOR in

14 1993?

15 A. Unfortunately, no, I didn't know of that.

16 Q. Do you remember whether you questioned Dinko [Realtime transcript

17 read in error "Vinko"] Bakal as a witness, whether you interviewed him?

18 Because in this report that was prepared by the UN this person was

19 mentioned as someone who claimed that it was a 60-millimetre shell, and

20 according to him the BH Army had established that this was the calibre in

21 question and taken away the fragments. Did you interview this man?

22 A. I have no idea who Dinko Bakal is and, among other things, I can

23 mention it wasn't my job to interview any witnesses. I only did the work

24 that I explained this morning, in other words, determining the direction

25 of a shell, the patterns, the trace evidence, and so on.

Page 8077

1 Q. Do you recall whether anyone interviewed Mr. Bakal?

2 A. I really don't know anything about that. If I did, I'd tell you.

3 Q. Very well. Thank you.

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We now need exhibit -- actually, it

5 was 10261 earlier.

6 THE REGISTRAR: This is Exhibit P872, Your Honours.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Lukic, my apologies.

8 Your Honour, if you allow, the name of Mr. Dinko Bakal in the

9 transcript is misrecorded. It says "Vinko Bakal." It should be

10 "Dinko Bakal." Just to make sure everything is clear.

11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Thank you for your assistance.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Just -- I'm a bit surprised. You're correcting a

14 name of a person you say you've no idea who he is. That is -- now you

15 say it's not Vinko but it's Dinko.

16 MR. LUKIC: Yes, because the gentleman heard how I pronounced it.

17 That's why he was able to [overlapping speakers]

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is you pronounced it as "Dinko," it was

19 transcribed as "Vinko" --

20 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

21 JUDGE ORIE: -- and that was corrected. Now I understand.

22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. In this document, P872 - and you can see what it is, it's a --

24 it's this report, the photo file - on page 2 in the B/C/S, which is

25 probably page 3 in e-court, yes, we need page 3. And that's page 4 in

Page 8078

1 the English version. The top paragraph on this page of the report -- or

2 actually the sixth paragraph and that's the second tab begins with the

3 words "the position of the central crater ..." Can you see that?

4 A. Yes, I can.

5 Q. It says:

6 "The position of the central crater on the Tarmac surface created

7 by the explosion of an artillery shell was fixed based on an arch section

8 in relation to the stairwell (on the eastern side of the parking-lot) and

9 a known length of the segment, which is 4 metres (and on the eastern edge

10 of the parking-lot) ..."

11 A little later I will ask you to depict this paragraph -- to make

12 a sketch on paper if possible because it's really difficult for me to

13 follow this as it is. Also, in this same report it says that this shell

14 had come from the south-east; correct? We can see that on the following

15 page of the B/C/S version. Could we please pull that up. And that's on

16 the following page in the English version as well.

17 Is this the direction that you determined, 110 degrees from the

18 north?

19 A. Yes, that is the direction.

20 Q. Could you tell us briefly how you determined the direction?

21 A. I used the same method that I described earlier, the main axis

22 method and using the compass and the city plan. So that's the way we

23 determined the direction.

24 Q. But on this occasion you did not try to establish the incoming

25 angle of the projectile, did you?

Page 8079

1 A. No, we did not.

2 Q. You did not establish the source of fire either, did you?

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, incoming angle is again an ambiguous

4 expression. I take it that you want to refer to the angle of descent?

5 Because the incoming angle could also be to north or south or west or

6 east, but the angle of descent is the vertical angle and that is what you

7 refer to, I take it?

8 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed. Let's try to use as clearly

10 our words so that no confusion can result.

11 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

12 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Sabljica, you did not establish the source

13 of fire or the place from which the shell was fired either, did you?

14 A. Well, of course not. That was impossible based on the physical

15 evidence.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now pull up in e-court

17 1D696.

18 Q. Do you remember whether this photograph was taken on that

19 occasion?

20 A. Yes, it was and I am in the photograph too.

21 Q. Could you establish now - and do you agree with me - that

22 according to this photograph bearing north is a bit to the left of the

23 house at the foot of Mojmilo hill that we see in the background here?

24 A. Yes. Approximately in the direction of this gentleman who is on

25 top of this van and that house behind him, thereabouts.

Page 8080

1 Q. Thank you.

2 MR. LUKIC: I'd like to tender this document into evidence.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

4 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D696 receives number D173,

5 Your Honours.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

7 Mr. Lukic, just for my understanding, it's very difficult in a

8 two-dimensional photograph to find where north is.

9 MR. LUKIC: But --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Because if you're from that group of people would

11 make -- well, let's say from the heads of the people to the right to the

12 feet of the man standing on the car, then on the photograph north would

13 be to the left of the photograph. But you also could think of some depth

14 and then you're talking about the house. I see three houses before

15 Mojmilo hill, isn't it? But I take it you want to refer to the most --

16 the one most to the left. But even then I can draw your -- a lot of

17 lines and still do not know what north is. Now, not to say that it is

18 not important and that it cannot be established, but not on the basis of

19 this photograph. That's my problem.

20 MR. LUKIC: Being semi-blind I saw only one building on this

21 picture but I --

22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, yes, you know that the Chamber has to keep

23 both eyes open, all three of us, which makes six eyes.

24 MR. LUKIC: So --

25 JUDGE ORIE: But --

Page 8081

1 MR. LUKIC: -- should I clarify with this witness from which

2 position he thinks that -- I was thinking from the position of the man

3 who was standing here and taking the picture.

4 JUDGE ORIE: My problem is that on a two-dimensional photograph

5 you can't bring in any depth. You would need a three-dimensional

6 photograph for that.

7 MR. LUKIC: But we --

8 JUDGE ORIE: And therefore if --

9 MR. LUKIC: We did have some three-dimensional photographs but we

10 were informed that we cannot use it here in the courtroom.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Then we should find ways that we are able to do it.

12 If that is a request, I certainly will follow it up with the -- but at

13 this moment the witness has been asked questions. How we evaluate his

14 answers is a different matter, but the document now is in evidence. I

15 just wanted to let you know -- is it in evidence, by the way? Yes, I

16 admitted it. It was admitted. I just wanted to share with you my

17 concerns about what you can see and what you could deduce from the

18 witness's answers.

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 JUDGE ORIE: My colleague Judge Fluegge included in your

21 question, although I didn't see it, I only saw that could you establish

22 on the -- according to this photograph, but that you wanted to take as a

23 starting point the point where apparently the photographer has -- yes,

24 that was not part of your question, but I better understand it now. If I

25 made a mistake, which is well possible, then I'll correct myself. Please

Page 8082

1 proceed.

2 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Everybody makes mistakes,

3 even Judges sometimes.

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 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 8085

1 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

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

3 Q. We will now briefly have a look at a video. I have to say we

4 don't have a transcript for the video. We will only view a one-minute

5 extract and perhaps we could have a look at it twice so that the

6 interpreters can interpret it. As I have said, we don't have a

7 transcript.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Lukic, you know that playing it twice is a

9 procedure which we apply even in the presence of a transcript. We'll

10 play it for the first time and then we'll ask the advice of our

11 interpreters to see whether they think that without a transcript that the

12 speed of speech is such that they possibly can translate the second

13 round.

14 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ORIE: So we first look at it for the first time.

16 MR. LUKIC: I kindly ask Ms. Stewart to play video marked as

17 V000-3497. That's video from 18th September 2001 and we need time 1.55

18 to 2.55.

19 [Video-clip played]

20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'm afraid this is wrong video. We

21 need one with Mr. Hogan on it, that's 3497.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Certainly this is not a video of September 2001.

23 Therefore, we -- apparently you are --

24 MR. LUKIC: I'm using help of Ms. Stewart so we didn't have time

25 to prepare --

Page 8086

1 JUDGE ORIE: This seems to the extent I know who Mr. Hogan is, it

2 seems to be closer to --

3 MR. LUKIC: Yes. Can we play it now, please.

4 [Video-clip played]

5 "Mr. Hogan: Could you please show me by standing in the spot

6 where one of the posts for the goal-posts was located on the

7 1st of June, 1993.

8 "Could you now please show me by standing on the spot where the

9 second goal-post at this end of the parking-lot was located on the

10 1st of June, 1993, to the best of your recollection."

11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we'll first have to ask the booths -- as a

12 matter of fact, there seems to be no B/C/S/English problem because it is

13 translated already. So therefore it's mainly the French booth and I'll

14 switch to channel 5 now to hear whether they were able to translate in

15 the second round.

16 Mr. Lukic, the French interpreters think that they could

17 translate if we play it for a second time. We have English and B/C/S

18 already. Of course, I would like to invite the English and the B/C/S

19 interpreters to tell us whether the translation as given in the video is

20 accurate, yes or no, because that could be a second source of confusion.

21 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters in the English booth note that

22 the interpretation is accurate.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We have confirmation that the interpretation

24 is accurate. Let's play it for a second time and then we have a full

25 record, it being translated by the French booth as well.

Page 8087

1 [Video-clip played]

2 "Mr. Hogan: Could you please show me by standing in the spot

3 where one of the posts for the goal-posts was located on the

4 1st of June, 1993.

5 "Could you now please show me by standing on the spot where the

6 second goal-post at this end of the parking-lot was located on the

7 1st of June, 1993, to the best of your recollection."

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

9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 Q. [Interpretation] Do you agree, Mr. Sabljica, that the man with a

11 crutch covered the distance of about 3 metres to show how wide the

12 goal-posts were apart?

13 A. Yes, I can agree that that's approximately what it is. I believe

14 these are the hand-ball goals.

15 Q. Yes. And you could also note that behind Mr. Hogan in the

16 background, behind Mr. Hogan and the man with a crutch, we could see the

17 monument erected in memorial of the people who were killed there?

18 A. Yes, I could see that.

19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please show a much

20 shorter clip, video-clip. We don't need audio. We just need V000-2479.

21 We just need a few seconds beginning from 2 hours, 8 minutes, and

22 20 seconds, to 2 hours, 8 minutes, and 26 seconds.

23 [Video-clip played]

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we show it one more time,

25 please, and would you please just pay attention to the Volkswagen where a

Page 8088

1 small goal can be seen, much smaller than a hand-ball goal.

2 [Video-clip played]

3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We have interference in

4 our headsets and it's very difficult to follow.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, there's interference again in the

6 headsets of the interpreters.

7 THE INTERPRETER: We believe it's of a technical nature. It has

8 nothing to do with what's going on in the courtroom.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Could I then ask the specific attention of the

10 technicians to this interference.

11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Did you see in this photograph any traces of blood that there was

13 someone injured here and probably dragged across?

14 A. Well, what you can see in front of the Volkswagen and the blue

15 car, and there is a kind of line there, a curved line, you mean that?

16 Q. Yes, yes. This is a photograph, or rather, a video-clip from one

17 of the BH TV stations from that day, and we're going to deal with this in

18 more detail. I can't find the number now. I should show you a

19 photograph. Please bear with me. Could we now pull up 1D705 and show it

20 on the monitors.

21 This is the playground in Dobrinja. Can you recognise it? And

22 we can see the goal-post there and these are, I would say, hand-ball

23 posts.

24 A. I do see that it is a playground and that it is in Dobrinja, but

25 I'm not sure that that is that particular playground because I don't know

Page 8089

1 how well you know Dobrinja but there are many areas that look similar to

2 one another.

3 Q. Yes. Now, do you know that this playground was built and the

4 goal-posts were actually placed there when Dobrinja settlement was being

5 built?

6 A. Well, I really don't know anything about that because I lived in

7 a different part of town.

8 Q. Very well. Thank you. Were you aware that Mr. Richard Higgs had

9 visited this site with OTP representatives?

10 A. No, I don't know anything about Mr. Higgs. I only know what I

11 did with Mr. van Hecke, what we did together.

12 Q. Very well.

13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this

14 photograph, please. And although we didn't hear much detail from this

15 witness, but we will need it in our work and we will be using it again

16 and I believe that the Prosecutor will not object because it's from their

17 source.

18 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution wouldn't oppose marking

19 it for identification just so we have a clear record of its use later.

20 However, based on the foundation laid by this witness it's really unclear

21 as to what's being depicted. So I accept that counsel may use this later

22 in [overlapping speakers]

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

24 MR. WEBER: [Overlapping speakers] It marked for identification.

25 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, I agree. And I can give the V number from

Page 8090

1 which this photo was taken. It's V000-7585.

2 JUDGE ORIE: And it is still from that video.

3 MR. LUKIC: Yes, yes.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number this photograph would

5 receive, it to be marked for identification would be ... ?

6 THE REGISTRAR: Number D175, Your Honours.

7 JUDGE ORIE: D175 is marked for identification.

8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

9 Could we now pull up in e-court 1D662.

10 Q. This is Richard Higgs' report as you can see, and it was prepared

11 on the 12th of February, 2002. We need page 7, second paragraph in the

12 English, and page 8, the first paragraph in the B/C/S version.

13 What you can see here that the first paragraph reads:

14 "At the request of the Tribunal I visited the site with

15 Mr. Chester Stamp and examined the two craters in question. The two

16 craters have been filled in with a red substance and to a degree have

17 made my -- any detailed analysis now impossible. However, enough of the

18 crater is still present to draw some conclusions."

19 This is a description of the same incident. Now, can you explain

20 how it was that Mr. Higgs located -- identified two craters, whereas you

21 found only one?

22 A. Well, I do. I can explain it. I -- it is possible that we were

23 taken to a location where this different incident occurred. Where we

24 went there was only one crater. Now, it is possible also that Mr. Higgs

25 was taken to another location.

Page 8091

1 Q. Very well. Thank you. I already asked you at the beginning

2 related to this incident whether you knew anything about the UNPROFOR

3 report immediately following the incident, and in this report too it was

4 mentioned that there were two shells that landed on a hard surface. And

5 then it brackets it says it's macadam. So where you went and where you

6 investigated there was only a crater -- one crater.

7 A. Yes, and that's what we said in our report and the other one had

8 fallen on earth, on soft earth, and that place had already changed.

9 Q. Thank you. I would now like to talk about the incident at

10 Alipasino Polje of 22nd January 1994. You told us in your report, do you

11 recall, that on this occasion you found two shells, two 82-millimetre

12 shells, but that you could not find a stabiliser fin, but that you did

13 find a stabiliser fin of a 122 -- 20-millimetre [as interpreted] shell

14 that had fallen off a roof-top. Do you recall that?

15 A. Yes, I do.

16 Q. Is it also correct, would you know, that Mr. Tuzovic in his

17 report mentioned that there were three shells that struck on this

18 particular occasion?

19 A. Yes, and we too mentioned the third shell that landed on soft

20 ground at Rade Koncar Trg, but it's also true that we found these two and

21 we did find the stabiliser fin and we assume -- of 120-millimetre shell

22 and we assume that it must have fallen from the roof-top because it

23 couldn't have been otherwise.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, if you would guide us to the relevant

25 page then it's easier for us to follow the evidence.

Page 8092

1 22nd of January, 1994.

2 MR. LUKIC: It's English page 29, line 25. In B/C/S it's

3 page 42.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Let's then see about -- two 82-millimetres and then

5 the 120-millimetre appears.

6 Because you summarised it as a --

7 MR. LUKIC: My mistake. My mistake. It's different section. I

8 asked the question about English version page 19, line 40 to 44.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Let's have a look. Yes, where you said but that you

10 did find a stabiliser fin of 122-millimetre shell, which apparently seems

11 to be 120-millimetre shell, that had fallen off a roof-top, whether he

12 remembers that answer. What I found until now is that the witness would

13 have said:

14 "Except for one shell for which allegedly it was said that it

15 fell on the roof and that has 120-millimetre calibre."

16 So he didn't say that it fell from a roof-top. He said that it

17 fell allegedly as it was said on a roof -- or is it somewhere else,

18 Mr. ...

19 MR. LUKIC: We should continue on page 29.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

21 MR. LUKIC: Where we were.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay --

23 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers]

24 JUDGE ORIE: We now go back to 29.

25 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

Page 8093

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, are we still in the same -- we're still in G6.

2 Yes, 29 --

3 MR. LUKIC: Just ten seconds.

4 JUDGE ORIE: I see a 120-millimetre shell on line 15 --

5 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, we have to switch to line 30 in English, top of

6 the page --

7 JUDGE ORIE: Line 30.

8 MR. LUKIC: And the first row --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see -- yes, one second --

10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] "While this gentleman says," that's

11 the portion. In Mr. Tuzovic's report it was erroneously stated that two

12 120-millimetre shells fell, and the previous page, toward the end of

13 page 29, Mr. Sabljica claims that in total three shells landed, two

14 82-millimetre shells hit Cetkinska Street and one 120-millimetre shell

15 landed which landed in Klara Cetkin Street.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's something different from what you put to

17 the witness first, but please ask him the questions you have in your

18 mind.

19 MR. LUKIC: Maybe I confused and I was maybe rushing too much but

20 I think that gentleman can. My point was that I just wanted to actually

21 point out different reports on the same event done by the Sarajevo

22 police.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that point is clear. We haven't seen the other

24 one. We have the statement of this witness now which says that the other

25 report --

Page 8094

1 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

2 JUDGE ORIE: -- erroneously stated that there were two

3 120-millimetre shells. Which, Mr. Lukic, for me mainly means that if

4 there are two different reports that either one is wrong or the other one

5 is wrong or both are wrong. The only thing is they can't be right --

6 MR. LUKIC: Both.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Unless -- well, unless -- I have not seen that

8 report so I don't know where the problem really lies.

9 MR. LUKIC: 29th page, 39th row we have a question. Mr. Sabljica

10 was asked --

11 JUDGE ORIE: 39 you are --

12 MR. LUKIC: Yes, 29th page, 39th row -- line.

13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Sabljica, can you confirm, is it acceptable

14 for an investigation team that goes to visit a site, especially in

15 connection to such serious incidents with serious consequences, is it

16 acceptable for such a team to provide such blanket statements that

17 haven't been verified? Is this acceptable? Can this being allowed?

18 A. No, it's not acceptable.

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we have for the sake of the interpreters

20 page 29 on the screen in English and the corresponding page in B/C/S. I

21 think you were referring to --

22 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] -- I think.

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- to line 39. It's on the screen now.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. I should have read out the answer provided by Mr. Sabljica, which

Page 8095

1 was:

2 "It is unacceptable and I can't be allowed."

3 And today we see that his position is the same because he

4 provided the same kind of answer to the question that I read out. So we

5 know what his position is.

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Witness, can you confirm that, what Mr. Lukic

7 just put to the Chamber?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, of course. I stand by the

9 findings that I and my colleague Stanko arrived at. And Mr. Tuzovic,

10 according to -- on the basis of his training, was a forensic expert. He

11 couldn't have had more experience when it came to ballistics than we had.

12 Such mistakes are unacceptable but such mistakes were made.

13 JUDGE ORIE: If I understand you well, "by others" you mean to

14 say?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. When I say it's unacceptable,

16 it's unacceptable from the point of view of the rules that guided the

17 service at the time and from the point of view of police practice. I

18 think that Mr. Tuzovic made some mistakes here. He didn't consult anyone

19 when it was necessary to submit the full report. He didn't consult

20 anyone and wait for our findings which are more authoritative in my

21 opinion. According to the police structure our service was a more senior

22 service. He was no more than an assistant in the field in this case.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, please proceed.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

25 If we could now see P865 in the e-court system. Later we'll have

Page 8096

1 to go back to this document when I try to find the pages, but I'll

2 continue with my questions.

3 Q. Have you seen a report that was compiled in relation to this

4 incident?

5 A. Yes, I had the opportunity of reading the full report not in

6 connection with preparations for this case.

7 Q. Would you agree that such a report on an on-site investigation

8 doesn't provide much information?

9 A. From my point of view I would think that the report was a correct

10 one. But as for everything else, all other matters, I'm not in a

11 position to comment on them.

12 Q. As for the photographs taken in relation to the incident, would

13 you say that it was done in an appropriate manner?

14 A. Well, it was done on the basis of certain basic criteria, but you

15 can see that some reports were more professional. A forensic technician

16 has to take photographs of the site in question. That is part of the

17 tasks that he has to carry out.

18 Q. But we do agree that three shells struck?

19 A. Yes, that's what it says in my report and I stand by that.

20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now just have a look at a

21 map 1D664.

22 Q. And if you could mark something on the map once I've put my

23 question to you.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, Madam Registrar reminded us that this

25 document is under seal. She has already instructed that it not be shown

Page 8097

1 to the public -- the previous one. Let's proceed.

2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

3 I think it's necessary to enlarge the part where it says

4 "Alipasino Polje" so that we can see it more clearly. No -- [In English]

5 That's on the right-hand side. Yes, that's it.

6 Q. [Interpretation] Could you now take a marker and mark with

7 numbers, if you know anything about this, the order in which the shells

8 fell. And if that isn't possible just mark the sites they fell at.

9 A. I'll try to mark the sites but I can't mark the order. I didn't

10 speak to the witnesses about this --

11 Q. I apologise.

12 A. I'll try. I think it's in this part of Alipasino Polje. I think

13 it's called square. Now that would be the wider area. Do you want me to

14 mark it with a letter?

15 Q. We have a number or some kind now, number 6.

16 A. Yes, that's number 6 there.

17 Q. Two shells impacted at that site?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And the third one?

20 A. The third one fell behind the buildings and struck soft ground in

21 the park. That was the 120-millimetre one.

22 Q. Could you mark that site with a triangle?

23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The speakers are

24 frequently overlapping now.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please make a small pause between question

Page 8098

1 and answer; and you between answer and question, Mr. Lukic.

2 MR. LUKIC: I think that this witness is very disciplined and he

3 follows, but probably I am jumping.

4 Q. [Interpretation] On this occasion too you didn't measure the

5 azimuth. You didn't know what the azimuth was in relation to the

6 direction of fire, the direction the shells came from?

7 A. No, that's correct, we didn't do that.

8 Q. Is it true that in the photographs taken in this case -- amongst

9 the photographs taken you can't see any photographs of the point of

10 impact of the shell that fell in the Rade Koncar square and the park?

11 A. That's correct, between Klare Cetkin Street and the square, in

12 fact.

13 Q. Could you tell us where this shell hit? How far was it from the

14 building?

15 A. That would be difficult to say. In the report if we had

16 established the measurements it would be impossible to more or less

17 determine the point of impact.

18 Q. Very well. Would the crater of this shell make it possible to

19 determine the direction of fire? Would it be easier to do that than for

20 the other two shells?

21 A. Well, from the point of view of taking measurements I could just

22 say that perhaps that would be the case. However, when the shell

23 exploded there were no victims.

24 Q. Very well, sir. That's why you didn't investigate the matter.

25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we -- could this please be

Page 8099

1 admitted into evidence?

2 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

3 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D664 receives number 1D76 [sic],

4 Your Honours.

5 JUDGE ORIE: And is -- D176 - I take it, Madam Registrar - is

6 admitted into evidence.

7 Mr. Weber.

8 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, well I didn't know if we admitted the

9 marked version of 1D664.

10 JUDGE ORIE: I think we admitted the marked version,

11 Madam Registrar, is that -- we'll check that.

12 The marked version has been admitted.

13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14 Q. So you determined that the shell that fell in Cetinska Street

15 came from the west, that is to say from Nedzarici or from the vicinity of

16 the institute for the blind; is that correct?

17 A. Yes, those are the phrases we used.

18 Q. Does this mean that the west is the direction the azimuth of

19 which is 270 or is that just a guide-line direction or bearing?

20 A. That was just a guide-line in relation to the direction from

21 which the shell came, in relation to the point of impact. It was fired

22 from the west in relation to the incident site.

23 Q. Is it true that in the case of the shell that hit number 4,

24 Klare Cetkin Street, which is now called Bosanska, is it true that you

25 determined it came from the west, I quote -- or rather, somewhat from the

Page 8100

1 north in relation to the west?

2 A. Yes, we could say north-west from -- in relation to the point of

3 impact.

4 Q. And then you established that one could claim that the shell was

5 fired from the west, or rather, from Nedzarici, from the institute from

6 the blind; isn't that correct?

7 A. Yes, and that's what it says.

8 Q. In your statement of the 19th of November, 1995, 1D666 -- when we

9 see the version in B/C/S on the screen we can proceed. You recognise

10 your statement from 1995, don't you?

11 A. Yes, yes, I can see my signature. Everything is fine.

12 Q. We want to have a look at page 3 in the B/C/S version. It's the

13 same page in the English version. It's the first paragraph in the B/C/S

14 version that I'm interested in and in the English version it's the third

15 paragraph. You said the following:

16 "It was one of the typical cases where we could determine with

17 precision the origin of fire. Three shells had been fired and all three

18 directions converged at one point which was the institute for the blind.

19 This position was under the control of the aggressor."

20 A. Yes, that's what it says.

21 Q. But a minute ago we agreed that you didn't determine the precise

22 origin of fire; isn't that correct?

23 A. Yes, that's correct.

24 Q. Because in order to determine the precise origin of fire you have

25 to determine the azimuth and this is just an approximate direction that

Page 8101

1 you determined.

2 A. Yes, you need to determine the azimuth and you need to know the

3 charge used and several other factors.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, when you use the term "azimuth," you are

6 referring to the angle of descent? That's the same for you, isn't it?

7 MR. LUKIC: Let's ask the witness how he understands it.

8 JUDGE ORIE: No, you used the word.

9 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

10 JUDGE ORIE: So you should know what you mean by that.

11 MR. LUKIC: That's what I meant. I don't know if the witness

12 shares my --

13 JUDGE ORIE: What is your understanding of the word "azimuth"?

14 MR. LUKIC: "Azimuth" is actually the degree on the ground.

15 JUDGE ORIE: I was afraid that that was the confusion. I do

16 understand and you used the word both in -- on page 63 and on page 65 in

17 a bit ambiguous way.

18 Witness, the azimuth, when you say we need to know the azimuth

19 and the charge with which the projectile was fired, you are referring to

20 the angle of descent; is that correctly understood?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct, the artillery

22 azimuth that is used when working out the angle of descent and it also

23 has to do with the charge of the weapon from which the shell was fired.

24 Without knowing these factors, it's impossible to determine anything.

25 JUDGE ORIE: To determine the trajectory of the shell. Now,

Page 8102

1 Mr. Lukic, the reason why I ask you is because in page 63 you say the

2 following:

3 "On this occasion too you didn't measure the azimuth. You didn't

4 know what the azimuth was in relation to the direction of fire, the

5 directions the shells came from."

6 Now, apparently this witness is either talking about the

7 direction from which the fire came, that is on the 360 degrees of the

8 compass, north, west, east, whatever. When he's talking about the

9 azimuth he is talking about the angle of descent. And it would be

10 advisable to use the same terminology in your questions.

11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. I immediately said I would try to avoid professional or expert

13 terminology but I'll try to clear this up. Is it true that you didn't

14 determine the azimuth in the field or the artillery azimuth, or, in other

15 words, the azimuth for the angle of descent; or you did so in the case of

16 the field azimuth but not in the case of the artillery azimuth?

17 A. I'd like to correct you and perhaps we could agree on certain

18 terms. We determined the point of the compass, but we didn't do it in

19 relation to the north. This is the angle on the ground. The artillery

20 azimuth or the angle of descent that we will now be using as a term,

21 we've been using it so far, we didn't determine it because that plus the

22 charge would have enabled us to determine the origin of fire. Have I

23 been of assistance?

24 Q. Yes, thank you.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Do I also understand that to determine the point

Page 8103

1 where all the directions of origin of fire come together you need to

2 establish the degrees on the compass from where the projectile came, that

3 is, degrees west being 270, north being 0 or 360, east being 90, and

4 south being 180. So you established for all three you established the

5 direction of the origin of fire?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, we did establish the direction

7 but not the source, the place, from which it was fired.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Just the line, not a spot?

9 THE WITNESS: Exactly.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Is it also true, or rather, did you establish the west, the

13 westerly direction, is that the azimuth? So on the ground would that be

14 270 degrees or is this just an orientation?

15 A. Well, no, that's on the ground based on the main axis analysis,

16 the crater, and the direction of the fall of the shell.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I suggest that you do not use the word

18 "azimuth" anymore because it only confuses because you have two different

19 kinds of azimuth, whereas the witness has only one on his mind. Let's

20 talk about the direction of the origin of fire which gives a line and not

21 a spot and use the angle of descent for the angle between the surface on

22 which the projectile lands and the trajectory at the end of its flight.

23 Please proceed.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

25 Q. In your calculations, or rather, determination, you in fact

Page 8104

1 established two parallel directions that could not intersect, in other

2 words, because a point was never established. It was only the westerly

3 direction that was established.

4 A. Well, if you suppose -- if you take that these two shells fell

5 and that there was a certain distance between them, if you draw a line,

6 an imaginary line between them, you would get an intersecting point in

7 the area of Nedzarici; in other words, the westerly/north-westerly part

8 of the town and that's based on what we drew this conclusion and by using

9 the same central axis method that I explained earlier.

10 Q. Is it correct that from the site itself and from

11 Klare Cetkin Street you could not see the centre for the blind; correct?

12 A. Well, yes, that's correct, you couldn't see it from there. The

13 centre for the blind is in down-town -- institute for the blind.

14 Q. Because we're just talking about the general direction, is it

15 correct that this institute for the blind which was your viewpoint and

16 you could not visually see the -- this institute for the blind, that the

17 shells could have come from the student halls?

18 A. Well, yes, from that general area because the student halls too

19 were in Nedzarici. Correct.

20 Q. Very well.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see 65 ter 1D668.

22 Q. Again, we have a photograph. This is the institute for the blind

23 as it is today. Now let me ask you, is it correct that the street that

24 we see in this photograph in the foreground was throughout the war, in

25 fact, the line of separation between Nedzarici and --

Page 8105

1 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the second

2 location.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I really don't know how far

4 that line went because I was never on the forward lines during the war.

5 I don't know.

6 Q. Very well. Thank you. However, do you know that the institute

7 for the blind was --

8 JUDGE ORIE: For us to understand, this picture shows a road. Is

9 this a road going approximately south-north? Is that what we are looking

10 at at this moment?

11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The road that we have before us in

12 the foreground.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Is the road on the pavement of which this person is

14 walking, that is, the road we see at the lower right part of this

15 photograph?

16 MR. LUKIC: Yes. But since the gentleman does not know whether

17 this was the [overlapping speakers]

18 JUDGE ORIE: Not, but if you ask him whether the confrontation

19 line was here, then at least we should know what road we are talking

20 about, isn't it?

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Well, I said in the foreground.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but which road is that, just for me to know.

23 Is this a road north-south. Is the direction of the building east-west?

24 I would like to know what road we are talking about. Usually you

25 identified roads on maps.

Page 8106

1 MR. LUKIC: We will -- we will not tender this evidence, as the

2 gentleman does not know whether there was a confrontation line in

3 connection with this road. So we are not going to tender this.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

5 MR. LUKIC: And [overlapping speakers]

6 JUDGE ORIE: I hope you understand if you ask a question that

7 this Chamber would like to know what the question is about. And I do

8 understand that you do not any further follow-up this matter but then for

9 future questions the same applies.

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: There's an additional problem, Mr. Lukic.

11 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The interpreters didn't understand the second

13 location you mentioned on page 70, line 13. You said:

14 "In fact, the line of separation between Nedzarici and ..."

15 MR. LUKIC: Vojnicko Polje.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Now the transcript is complete.

17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

18 Q. [Interpretation] Do you know, although you didn't go there, that

19 the institute for the blind was sort of semi-encircled, both from the

20 Vojnicko Polje area and from the student halls area?

21 A. Well, I do -- I am aware of that because I learned that from some

22 reports that I read yesterday during the proofing so it was surrounded on

23 three sides. I learned -- I just learned of that recently.

24 Q. Very well. Thank you. Now we would briefly revisit the issue of

25 calibres. According to your statement in Klare Cetkin Street and in

Page 8107

1 Cetinska Street --

2 MR. LUKIC: Would it be convenient time for the break,

3 Your Honour, since --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it is, but before we do so could I ask you when

5 you are talking about the students' hall, are you talking about the two

6 triangular buildings which are just close to the main road entering from

7 where the tram line is, the main road leading into Dobrinja just at that

8 corner? Is that what you consider the students' hall?

9 MR. LUKIC: I cannot answer your question now, Your Honour.

10 Maybe the witness [overlapping speakers]

11 JUDGE ORIE: You asked him about the students hall.

12 MR. LUKIC: Yes, I did.

13 JUDGE ORIE: You should at least know what you are referring to,

14 Mr. Lukic. You can't ask --

15 MR. LUKIC: I don't know the shape of the buildings

16 [overlapping speakers]

17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Where are they? Because I want to understand

18 what the testimony is.

19 MR. LUKIC: Okay. Can I answer after the break?

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I must say I once made -- not an on-site visit

21 but I once visited a UN office in Sarajevo which was established in a

22 flat building. There were two flat buildings close to each other

23 approximately in that area, both with a triangular shape, which is -- was

24 quite uncommon for that area. Perhaps you could ask the witness whether

25 he -- when he's thinking about the students' hall whether he has a

Page 8110

1 MR. LUKIC: 52.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's at least a beginning. And where does

3 it come from?

4 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Is it part of a report, and under what number is

6 that report known?

7 (redacted)

8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, what you think -- that might be a good

9 trigger --

10 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] --

11 JUDGE ORIE: -- to further find out --

12 MR. LUKIC: Who is coming in a few weeks or few days.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's fine but if you have shown it to this

14 witness, so if we would have any additional questions to this witness we

15 would like to know where it comes from and what it depicts exactly.

16 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, this is all I know for now.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, if you have a clue as to the witness you

18 might want to use it or which brings the document, then - and I'm also

19 asking the Prosecution - to find out whether it's part of any report and

20 then already to give us the 65 ter number of that report so that we can

21 have a look at it and that we can see in which context it was produced.

22 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

24 Please proceed.

25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 8111

1 Q. [Interpretation] Can we continue, Mr. Sabljica?

2 A. Yes, we can.

3 Q. We said the three shells exploded in this incident. There are

4 differences about the calibre and different people having different ideas

5 of what the calibres were. But did anyone report on a fourth shell that

6 exploded somewhere on a roof? Because you said that this stabiliser fin

7 had fallen off of a roof-top, this 120-millimetre shell stabiliser. Did

8 anyone explore that?

9 JUDGE ORIE: You again summarise it as if the witness would have

10 said that it came from a roof-top. I think I corrected you previously

11 that it allegedly -- I think two stories that it would have been. But

12 nevertheless, could you answer the question whether you have investigated

13 anything. Were you able to establish anything in relation to this tail

14 fin which allegedly, as people told, had landed on a roof?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We did not take this into

16 consideration. We just mentioned that it may have fallen off of a

17 roof-top at some earlier point. That was our assumption. That's what it

18 says in the report.

19 JUDGE ORIE: It was not your understanding that it had fallen

20 from that roof on the same day, but that it ever fell down from that

21 roof; is that correctly understood?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. We were told that perhaps it

23 had fallen off of a roof-top. So we took that as an assumption, but

24 whether that had happened on that particular day or some other day, we --

25 I can't tell you. We did not investigate that.

Page 8112

1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

2 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

4 Q. You established that this artillery projectile fell on the very

5 edge of the pavement between the pavement and the roadway; is that

6 correct?

7 A. One of these two of the 82-millimetre, you mean that?

8 Q. Yes. You said that the central crater in that instance, one of

9 them, in the case of one of them, was not very pronounced, not very

10 clear; correct?

11 A. Yes, that's correct because it had struck a rather hard surface,

12 harder than a Tarmac or an asphalt surface, because it had struck exactly

13 on the edge of that pavement.

14 Q. And the length of these elliptical, fanned-out traces was most

15 visible towards a -- west, a bit northerly of the true west; is that

16 correct?

17 A. Yes, that's correct.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Which page are we at, Mr. Lukic?

19 MR. LUKIC: I don't have a reference here, but the witness

20 answered he remembers his report.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Is it in -- do we have to look in the statement or

22 in his report?

23 MR. LUKIC: I don't have the reference. I will come back

24 tomorrow and tell you exactly where I found this. I apologise, but I

25 used the whole night but I still wasn't able to pick up all the numbers.

Page 8113

1 JUDGE ORIE: That's -- we'll hear from you tomorrow.

2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please pull up in

3 e-court 1D670.

4 Q. Now, can you remember this photograph? This was part of your

5 report. Or does this come from a different source? Is this photograph

6 part of your report?

7 A. I have seen this photograph. This is the general view of the

8 point of impact of one of those 82 -- 80-millimetre -- 82-millimetre

9 shells; in other words, just before we began our investigation.

10 Q. Could you please mark on this photograph the elements that you

11 normally mark, the centre, the two, the two ellipses, the two ellipse

12 axis, and the direction of the shell.

13 A. Well, I will try and depict it here. I'll try to be as precise

14 as I can. Here is the centre. The ellipses are about here.

15 Q. So was it based on this pattern of the impact that you determined

16 the calibre of the shell because you didn't find the stabiliser fin;

17 correct?

18 A. Yes, it was on the basis of the dimensions that we measured and

19 on the basis of the data gathered. It was not difficult to determine

20 that the shell in question wasn't 120-millimetre shell but an

21 82-millimetre shell. This is what I explained this morning.

22 Q. You know that at the same time UNPROFOR launched an investigation

23 into this very same incident?

24 A. I wasn't aware of that on that day, but I subsequently found out

25 about that. But in this case they didn't work together with us.

Page 8114

1 Q. Do you know what their findings were?

2 A. I haven't seen the ballistics finding, but I read a report on

3 activities in war zones, a report drafted by members of UNPROFOR. This

4 is something that I consulted yesterday.

5 Q. Could we now see 1D671, please.

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before we move to another document, you should

7 consider to tender this.

8 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour, yes.

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But I would first like to ask the witness, I'm a

10 little bit lost at the moment, can you help me. Which incident did you

11 refer to when you spoke about this location we see here on the screen?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the incident at

13 Alipasino Polje when the children were on sleighs. This was on the

14 22nd of January, 1994.

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That was not clear when this photograph was

16 called up; therefore, I wanted to have that established. Thank you very

17 much.

18 JUDGE ORIE: And this is one of the three shells that fell on

19 that day? Is that well understood?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's quite correct.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number of this photograph

22 marked by the witness?

23 THE REGISTRAR: The number would be D177, Your Honours.

24 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

25 Please proceed.

Page 8115

1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

2 Q. Now I'd like to thank the Chamber because we didn't lose this

3 information. Now I would like to see document 1D671. We can see that

4 the date is the 22nd of January, 1994. Could we now have a look at

5 page 2. We can see page 2 on the left. And on the right page 6 which is

6 the page we, in fact, need. This document is in French on the previous

7 page and there's a handwritten part in English, but this page is in

8 English. Here at the top we can see that it says "number of hits: 3."

9 UNPROFOR established that the type of ammunition used was 120-millimetre

10 mortar.

11 As you weren't familiar with these UNPROFOR reports, I would like

12 to ask you whether you ever discussed which mortar shells fell on that

13 day. Did you ever discuss this with them? Did you ever discuss which

14 mortar shells hit Alipasino Polje on that day?

15 A. I never discussed this incident with them. I didn't have

16 occasion to do so.

17 Q. Very well. Thank you. At the bottom we can see --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could I ask one question.

19 MR. LUKIC: Sure.

20 JUDGE ORIE: In this document we see three hits described, one on

21 the roof of a building. Now, the three hits you described, were they all

22 on the ground?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, they were all on the ground.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 8116

1 Q. Here we can see under "conclusion" in the second line it says

2 angle of approach, between 420.000th [as interpreted] and 4250s

3 [as interpreted]. Is it correct that this is about 236.25 to 239

4 degrees?

5 A. The measures used by UNPROFOR in mils, 1 mil is about 18 point

6 something degrees, I don't know exactly. It's been a long time since I

7 was involved in such matters. This is something you could work out. But

8 you say 210 or 236 degrees from the north. Naturally that's how they

9 measured this, so then again you would have the points south, south-east,

10 or rather, south-west, according to their report if one calculates this

11 approximately from the top of my head.

12 Q. So you would agree that it's between 236.5 to 239 degrees?

13 A. Yes, we could calculate it. To do so precisely it would be

14 necessary to remember how many degrees 1 mil has.

15 Q. A scale of 6.000 was used in former Yugoslavia and a scale of

16 6.400 is used by NATO; is that correct?

17 A. Yes, I agree with that.

18 Q. For the benefit of the transcript I would just like to correct

19 the numbers. When I read them out it should say 4200 thousandths and

20 4250 thousandths.

21 But in the conclusion they also mentioned the angle of descent

22 and it says the minimum angle of descent is 1.100, the angle of descent

23 or angle of fall. Would you agree that this corresponds to an angle of

24 62 degrees?

25 A. It could be calculated quite easily. It would be difficult to do

Page 8117

1 so off the top of my head.

2 Q. Very well. I won't put you through that. Could we agree on the

3 following. Your report and the UNPROFOR report are different with regard

4 to the calibre of the shells that exploded. UNPROFOR claims that all

5 three shells that exploded there are 120-millimetre shells. And as we

6 can see here one exploded at the edge of the pavement, one exploded on

7 the roof of a building, and one exploded in the middle of the road. All

8 three shells are 120-millimetre shells according to them. According to

9 what you say, two 82-millimetre shells exploded and one 120-millimetre

10 shell exploded. If you don't find the stabilising fin of a shell, would

11 you allow for the possibility that you made a mistake or is it your

12 opinion that UNPROFOR made a mistake when assessing the calibre of the

13 shells in question?

14 A. I can say that we drew our conclusion on the basis of precise

15 measurements, on the basis of the measurements of the dimensions of the

16 damage caused. You have seen that and this is why we drew the conclusion

17 that there were two 82-millimetre shells. This UNPROFOR report doesn't

18 state the manner in which they took these measurements. So I wouldn't

19 want to say that UNPROFOR's report isn't correct, but I firmly stand by

20 my report.

21 Q. It is now almost time to adjourn. We will briefly deal with this

22 tomorrow and then move on. Thank you very much.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Sabljica, we'd like to see you back tomorrow.

24 I'd like to instruct you that you should not speak or communicate with

25 whomever in whatever way about your testimony, whether that is testimony