131127ED

Page 19959

1 Q. Good morning, Mr. Hogan.

2 A. Good morning.

3 Q. Sir, can you tell us what it is that we're looking at.

4 A. Yes. This is a map created by the Army of Bosnia and

5 Herzegovina. I believe this is from July of 1992, and it came into the

6 possession of the OTP in the year 2000, during a search of the ABiH

7 archives by another OTP team.

8 Q. And is -- is what we see on the map the -- I'm sorry, on the

9 screen, the actual form in which it was recovered, so with these white

10 text boxes as well?

11 A. Yes. This is the way it was recovered from the archives.

12 Q. Now, have you had an opportunity to look -- actually, sorry.

13 MS. HOCHHAUSER: First I'll tender the map. I'd like to tender

14 at this point, Your Honours, 19661 into evidence.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

16 THE REGISTRAR: Document 19661 receives number P2951,

17 Your Honours.

18 JUDGE ORIE: And, in the absence of any objections, is admitted

19 into evidence.

20 MS. HOCHHAUSER:

21 Q. Now, have you had an opportunity to look at the confrontation

22 lines in and around Sarajevo as drawn on this map, which is now in

23 evidence as P2951, and to compare them with other maps indicating the

24 same -- depicting the geographic region from this time-period, including

25 SRK maps such as the one that are in the Sarajevo map book, P3?

Page 19960

1 A. Yes, I have. They might not be dated exactly the same date, the

2 2nd of July, 1992, but from the same general time-frame, I have compared

3 these lines with the SRK lines.

4 Q. Okay. And what was the result of that comparison?

5 A. They were very -- very similar.

6 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Now, if we could for a moment, please, have 65

7 ter 0828 -- sorry, 08282B, like boy, on the monitor, please.

8 Q. And, again, can you please tell us what it is that we're looking

9 at.

10 A. This is another map of Sarajevo, showing confrontation lines.

11 This is from -- created by the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the year

12 1995, I believe.

13 Q. Okay. And do you know anything about how it came to be in the

14 possession of the ICTY, or the OTP?

15 A. Yes. In the spring of 2006, I made a request to the Army of

16 Bosnia and Herzegovina for maps of this time-period, and this was

17 physically brought to the Tribunal here in The Hague by General V

18 Vahid Karavelic when he came for an interview, and I think it was

19 June 2006.

20 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honours, I would tender now, at this stage,

21 65 ter 08282B into evidence.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

23 THE REGISTRAR: Document 08282B receives number P2952,

24 Your Honours.

25 JUDGE ORIE: P2952 is admitted.

Page 19961

1 MS. HOCHHAUSER:

2 Q. Mr. Hogan, have you had the opportunity to look at the lines, the

3 confrontation lines as drawn on P2952, the map that remains on the

4 monitor, and to compare the lines as depicted here on this BiH map with

5 other maps showing the confrontation lines from this time-period,

6 including the SRK maps contained in P003? And, if so, can you tell us

7 the consult of that comparison or observation?

8 A. Yes, I have made such a comparison. And, again, the lines are

9 similar.

10 Q. Now, regarding both of these maps, 2951 and 2952, did you provide

11 today for us blow-up mounted copies in the original map size for the

12 Chamber to view?

13 A. Yes, I did. These are -- first one we see here was the original

14 size that was seized from the archives in 2000.

15 Q. And if you could --

16 MS. HOCHHAUSER: With the -- with the permission of the Chamber

17 if the witness could stand and show us the other one briefly? Or if the

18 usher could. Either one. I think -- it's up to the Chamber.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Whatever is practical, the Chamber always agrees.

20 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I think the witness is comfortable doing it.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

22 As long as the witness-stand, he may be too far away from the

23 microphone to be heard. So we should keep that in mind.

24 THE WITNESS: And --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Could I first ask whether this is -- one second. Is

Page 19962

1 this audible for the interpreters?

2 THE INTERPRETER: Nobody is speaking right now, Mr. President.

3 No --

4 JUDGE ORIE: No, but Mr. Hogan was speaking a minute ago. Could

5 we first try to see whether we either have a movable microphone or

6 whether to adjust the microphone in such a way that Mr. Hogan, if he

7 speaks into the microphone, will be able to be heard.

8 Mr. Hogan, could we do a test. Could you just say a few words.

9 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. As I say, this -- [B/C/S on

10 English channel].

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I -- I --

12 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I'm getting the translation now.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which suggests that at least something is

14 heard to be translated.

15 Could I seek confirmation from the English booth, I'm at this

16 moment on the English channel, that Mr. Hogan can be heard.

17 Could you speak a few words again, Mr. Hogan.

18 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. I hope that the English booth

19 can hear me now.

20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters can hear the witness, but we

21 fear that at some time he will turn his back on the microphones and that

22 will change.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hogan, there is some fear that you'll turn your

24 back to the microphones. Is -- don't we have any -- don't we have any --

25 one second.

Page 19963

1 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Could I suggest maybe we move the easel closer

2 to the witness instead of the witness closer to the easel.

3 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We took several actions. The first is that we

5 ask Mr. Hogan perhaps to be as close to the microphone. Being seated

6 diminishes any risk of not being heard. At the same time I asked whether

7 someone could bring us a microphone which allows the speaking persons to

8 move.

9 Mr. Hogan. First question.

10 MS. HOCHHAUSER:

11 Q. Okay. So I -- I believe the -- the map is on -- displayed on

12 top, which everybody can see now, is Exhibit Number P2951. Can you just

13 orient us on that map to what we're looking at and what's indicated in

14 terms of the confrontation lines and colours.

15 A. Yes.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Hochhauser, we don't have it on our screen.

17 MS. HOCHHAUSER: [Microphone not activated]. I apologise, Your

18 Honour. If we could also --

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Microphone.

20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.

21 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I'm trying.

22 Sorry. I apologise. If we could also see it on the screen,

23 please. It's 2951, Exhibit 2951.

24 THE WITNESS: Yes, this is the electronic image of the map that

25 we see on the easel in front of us in the courtroom and this depicts the

Page 19964

1 city of Sarajevo with red lines indicating the outline of the

2 confrontation lines. In this particular map, there are only -- the only

3 confrontation lines are indicated in red, without different lines for the

4 opposing forces.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Could we zoom in on the map so that we can see red

6 lines.

7 THE WITNESS: If we orient ourselves to this feature, there

8 central feature, which is Hum -- I'm sorry, Zuc, we can see a red line

9 running diagonally across that feature which indicates a confrontation

10 line, continues along the northern edge of the city, projects out towards

11 the east before moving south again, and then along the southern edge to

12 Grbavica, and then down towards the airport.

13 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Now if we could please see 2952, both in the

14 hard -- the blow-up and also on the monitor, please. And if on the

15 monitor we could similarly zoom in on the same portion.

16 Q. And, Mr. Hogan, can you please do the same thing with this map,

17 just orient us to the confrontation lines and the colours used.

18 A. Yes. In this particular map, the confrontation lines are drawn

19 in two colours: Blue, to indicate forces of the ABiH; and red to

20 indicate forces of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, or the VRS.

21 Again, if we start at the north-west of the city, when the

22 parties have time to compare the two maps side by side, you might notice

23 that this line has been expanded a little bit towards the north-west,

24 which indicates that the -- that the lines, confrontation lines moved

25 slightly up towards Vogosca, again towards the east --

Page 19965

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hogan, it is perhaps not easy to follow if you

2 don't see what you're doing. What you pointed at is that the feature

3 which you, I think, called Zuc hill before, which was more or less

4 divided by the line in two portions, seems now to be within the

5 Federation-controlled area, at least most part of it. And in that

6 context, you talked about the confrontation lines having moved to the

7 north-west.

8 Is that correctly understood?

9 THE WITNESS: That is correct, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

11 THE WITNESS: And you might observe also that towards the far

12 east of the city, the lines have expanded further to the east so that the

13 sort of peninsula that we noticed on the previous map has now flattened

14 out a little bit farther to the east. And as we move south --

15 MS. HOCHHAUSER:

16 Q. I'm sorry to interrupt. Can you tell us what name that

17 geographic area would have, if you're able?

18 A. It's east of Vasin Han. I think it is Butila area. I would have

19 to reorient myself with a blow-up of the map.

20 But as we go south again towards Trebevic, which I'll point at

21 the south-eastern part of the city, you'll notice that the lines have not

22 changed noticeably. And coming west again, we can see that the lines

23 around Grbavica are largely the same and then running down to the airport

24 again. There is one change to the west that will you notice, that the

25 lines moved to encompass Otes which is here. In the previous map we saw

Page 19966

1 that the confrontation lines ran further to the west. Now these

2 confrontation lines are easterly of Otes.

3 Q. And --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask for one clarification at this moment.

5 You talked about the peninsula which was flattened out. Now, if I

6 compare the two maps, it seems that the peninsula which was on P2951,

7 stretching a little bit into Serb-controlled area, it is not that that

8 peninsula now seems to be -- have become Serb controlled, but, rather,

9 that the surroundings of the peninsula apparently are depicted as having

10 come under Federation control. So the flattening out did not exist in

11 cutting off the peninsula but rather to widen the area around the

12 original peninsula.

13 Is that correctly -- is that a correct interpretation of what we

14 see on this maps?

15 THE WITNESS: That is correct, Your Honour, yes.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

17 Please proceed.

18 MS. HOCHHAUSER:

19 Q. So, Mr. Hogan, can you tell us, the changes that you've just

20 described in the confrontation lines in -- in and around Sarajevo as

21 reflected in these two maps from July 1992 to March 1995, is that

22 consistent with the -- essentially the fluctuations in the confrontation

23 lines in this area throughout that period. So by looking at these two

24 maps, do we get a sense of the whole picture of -- of the -- of the

25 change in the confrontation lines from 1992 to 1995?

Page 19967

1 A. Essentially, yes.

2 Q. Okay. So can you point -- I'm now going to ask you some about

3 some specific geographic regions.

4 Can you point out to us, please, on this same exhibit, 2952, the

5 elevations, and I'll go through a series of them, known as Debelo Brdo?

6 A. Yes. Debelo Brdo is located approximately here. And if I could

7 explain --

8 Q. Please --

9 A. -- in words. It is just to the north-west of Trebevic, within

10 the ABiH line marked in blue, just as the line turns directly north

11 towards -- to -- to encompass Grbavica.

12 Q. And actually, on these maps, if we were to zoom in sufficiently

13 or look closely at these blow-ups are these elevations noted?

14 A. Yes, they are.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Could we say that it's approximately where it is

16 written on the map "1.MB," that that's where Debelo Brdo is?

17 THE WITNESS: I think if you look at the brigade or the -- yes,

18 the brigade marking, that notes "3.MB" correctly north of that.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think I missed it. Yes. From a distance,

20 the 3, I mistook it for a 1. The -- yes.

21 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Actually, it occurs to me that perhaps it would

22 assist if could you mark it on the electronic version.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that would be a good idea.

24 Yes, could the usher assist.

25 MS. HOCHHAUSER: And, actually, before you mark, if it would

Page 19968

1 assist you if we zoomed in at all, just let us know.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Because we can't zoom in any further once you

3 started marking.

4 THE WITNESS: No, I think this is as good as it's going to get

5 because the -- I think with this image we're going to lose resolution if

6 we zoom in further. But can I mark it here. Approximately here.

7 MS. HOCHHAUSER:

8 Q. And can I ask you, please, to do the same with, sorry,

9 Colina Kapa?

10 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness add DB to Debelo Brdo.

11 THE WITNESS: [Marks]

12 MS. HOCHHAUSER:

13 Q. And similarly mark it with its initials, please.

14 A. [Marks]

15 Q. Mojmilo hill.

16 A. I think we'll have to go a little bit further west on this image

17 to see Mojmilo clearly.

18 Q. Okay. Well, we'll -- we won't be able -- we can't move the image

19 once it's -- so we'll hold off on that. You've already described to us

20 the area of Zuc?

21 A. Mm-hm. And that would be up in this area here.

22 Q. And also Hum.

23 A. That's my attempt at an H.

24 Q. Now, can you tell us, is it correct these are all elevations,

25 they're all hills?

Page 19969

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And in whose territory were these hills?

3 A. In the -- in the territory controlled by the Army of Bosnia and

4 Herzegovina.

5 Q. And can you tell us whether there were SRK positions that

6 overlooked these hills?

7 A. With the exception of Zuc, yes. All of these locations were

8 overlooked by SRK positions.

9 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honour, I would tender the marked map so we

10 can -- at this point so we can keep going back to the unmarked one.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Now, before we do so, you asked, although it is not

12 marked, about Mojmilo hill. Was Mojmilo hill also controlled by

13 Federation troops?

14 THE WITNESS: Yes, it was, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then map marked by the witness would receive

16 what number, Madam Registrar?

17 THE REGISTRAR: Number P2953, Your Honours.

18 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

19 One further question. Zuc hill, you marked it, you said it was

20 under the control of the Federation. That is in this time-frame, 1995,

21 because earlier you explained to us that Zuc hill was divided at an

22 earlier point in time.

23 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. I'm marking it as depicted on it

24 this map --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

Page 19970

1 THE WITNESS: -- and as you say, it was changing.

2 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear to me. Thank you.

3 MS. HOCHHAUSER:

4 Q. Can you -- oh.

5 MS. HOCHHAUSER: If I can ask -- may I, Your Honour?

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I was just checking whether it was admitted.

7 It is. Yes.

8 MS. HOCHHAUSER:

9 Q. Two follow-up questions, actually. For Mojmilo hill, can you

10 tell us was that also overlooked by SRK territory?

11 A. From the heights of Ozrenska Street area it overlooked Mojmilo

12 hill. But to the west and south, it was not overlooked by SRK positions.

13 And I should say Ozrenska Street was to the east of Mojmilo.

14 Q. And can you also tell us, if you're able, when -- when the change

15 that you just discussed with the Chamber in the previous exchange to Zuc

16 hill occurred. So when did the change in that confrontation line happen,

17 if you know.

18 A. From the information that I was able to learn over the years, I

19 believe it was in the autumn of 1992 or early spring of 1993.

20 MS. HOCHHAUSER: If we could please now go back to Exhibit 2951,

21 both on the monitor and, I apologise, also on the hard copy.

22 Q. Mr. Hogan, can you please point to us, and if you -- if it would

23 assist, which I'm going to guess it will, to zoom in on a portion of the

24 map, if you could just tell us -- guide us in which -- how to zoom it in,

25 the neighbourhood of Hrasno?

Page 19971

1 A. If we could zoom in on the central part of the city, first of

2 all. I think this is sufficient. And do you wish me to mark it?

3 Q. Yes, please. And if you could also just point it out on the big

4 map.

5 A. All right. On the big map, Hrasno is here, just to the west --

6 sorry. West of Grbavica.

7 JUDGE ORIE: The witness marked it as well.

8 THE WITNESS: And I'll mark this with an H.

9 MS. HOCHHAUSER:

10 Q. And how about Hrasno hill? Is that ...

11 A. On the big map, Hrasno Brdo is just to the south of Hrasno. And

12 I'll mark that on the electronic version.

13 Q. With an HH. Or H ...

14 Can you tell us in whose control was the area -- where the areas

15 of Hrasno and Hrasno Brdo or Hrasno hill?

16 A. They were in the area of control of the ABiH.

17 Q. And did that change between 1992 and 1995, and when I say that

18 I'm asking with reference to these maps, 2951 and 2952?

19 A. No, it did not change.

20 Q. You mentioned earlier in your testimony today when drawing a

21 distinction about -- about confrontation lines, the Ozrenska Street.

22 Ozrenska Street was the alleged origin of fire in the shooting -- in the

23 sniping incident F4. And can you tell us where does Ozrenska Street fall

24 in relation to Hrasno and Hrasno hill? Can you show that to us or

25 describe it to us?

Page 19972

1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hochhauser, it's my recollection that the

2 witness mentioned Ozrenska Street when he explained to us from what

3 positions one could overlook Mojmilo hill rather than about any change in

4 confrontation lines. Is that ...

5 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honour. That's when I

6 mentioned it.

7 JUDGE ORIE: You said from the east Ozrenska Street, from there

8 you could overlook it but not from other directions.

9 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I apologise for the unintentional

10 mischaracterization, Your Honour.

11 Q. But coming back to Ozrenska Street, since you did mention it and

12 it does relate to F4, can you tell us what its relationship to Hrasno and

13 Hrasno hill are?

14 A. Yes, Ozrenska Street runs above Hrasno Brdo and Hrasno, and it's

15 situated to the south of each. And I can point it out on the map and on

16 the electronic version if you wish.

17 Q. Please.

18 JUDGE ORIE: If you would do it by a line and perhaps with arrows

19 at both sides so that the line distinguishes from any confrontation lines

20 we see there, whereas the colour is red always.

21 THE WITNESS: On the big map, Ozrenska runs -- actually was the

22 confrontation line - sorry - along this south -- southern edge. And on

23 the electronic version, I'm drawing a line with an arrow at each end just

24 to the north of the confrontation line. And as I say, the -- the street

25 was the actual confrontation line on the southern edge above Hrasno and

Page 19973

1 Hrasno Brdo.

2 And I'm sorry, I didn't extend it far enough to the east because

3 it would interfere with the circle and the letters that I've drawn, but

4 it ran above Hrasno hill, Hrasno Brdo.

5 MS. HOCHHAUSER:

6 Q. Now, I'd like to turn your attention --

7 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Well, can I tender this, please.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

9 THE REGISTRAR: Document P2951 as marked by the witness receives

10 number P2954, Your Honours.

11 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

12 Ms. Hochhauser, at any suitable point in time, the Chamber sees

13 that there are also a lot of blue markings which, at first sight, appear

14 to be indications of military installations of the opposing party. But

15 it also sees a lot of black markings, especially in the centre of town.

16 If the witness later could explain what these stand for and whether he

17 could confirm that the blue markings are markings depicting military

18 items.

19 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Yes, Your Honour. If it is acceptable to the

20 Court, I'll turn to that at the end -- at the tail-end of the

21 examination.

22 JUDGE ORIE: I left it to you when to do it.

23 MS. HOCHHAUSER:

24 Q. If we could turn for a moment, please, to Mount Trebevic and

25 still using Exhibit P2951, which is the 1992 confrontation line, can you

Page 19974

1 show us, please, on this map -- can you orient us to the confrontation

2 line in -- in -- around near Trebevic?

3 A. Yes. I'll show you on the big map first. The confrontation line

4 ran along the Pale road which was situated on the northern and eastern

5 shoulder of Mount Trebevic, here.

6 And on the electronic map, if you would -- it's going to be

7 difficult.

8 Q. We can zoom before you mark it if that's of assistance.

9 A. It might be.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Could we zoom in on the ...

11 THE WITNESS: On this map, the Pale road, if I could mark --

12 sorry. This is not ...

13 JUDGE ORIE: One second.

14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: He needs the assistance of the usher.

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 JUDGE ORIE: Do we need to zoom in further or is this --

17 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honour, I think this will be sufficient.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

19 THE WITNESS: I'll mark the Pale road which runs here. And I'll

20 draw an arrow at each end of it to indicate a line as opposed to the

21 road. And I'll put a P next to that.

22 And everything below and to the right of this line -- or -- and

23 south and east of this line indicating the road is Month Trebevic.

24 If you'll notice the very twisted road that runs near the letter

25 P that I've marked, that road actually runs up the central spine of the

Page 19975

1 mountain, of Mount Trebevic, and rises in height a great deal.

2 The confrontation line, as you can notice on this map, was to the

3 north of Trebevic and -- and the Pale road.

4 MS. HOCHHAUSER:

5 Q. I just am looking at the transcript and it says and everything

6 below and to the right of this line and then we lost you. So could you

7 just repeat below and to the right of the line is what, and above and to

8 the left of the line is what?

9 A. Yes. The confrontation -- the line which I've indicated as the

10 Pale road and marked with a letter P runs along the northern shoulder

11 and -- northern and eastern shoulder of Trebevic. Everything to the

12 south and east -- south-east of the Pale road line is Mount Trebevic.

13 And the -- the twisted -- twisty road that can you see marked on this map

14 near the letter P is a road which runs up the central spine of the

15 mountain and rises in height a great deal.

16 The -- and the confrontation line as can you see marked on this

17 map in red to the north of the Pale road is -- is as it was depicted at

18 the time.

19 Q. So by going up Trebevic from the Pale road, is that SRK

20 territory?

21 A. Yes, it is.

22 Q. And below the Pale road going -- it would be down Trebevic, is

23 that BiH territory?

24 A. Yes, it was.

25 Q. And can you tell us whether that remains the same on the 19 -- as

Page 19976

1 depicted on the 1995 map, which is in evidence as 2952 now. Do these

2 lines on Trebevic remain the same throughout the war?

3 A. With a slight variation. They -- the ABiH did push a little bit

4 farther south that so that their lines reached just below -- 100,

5 200 metres just below the Pale road, so they did push a little bit

6 farther, but by and large it was -- it was very similar. And Trebevic

7 continually remained within SRK control.

8 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honours, if I might, I'd like to tender

9 this exhibit now, please, the marked exhibit.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

11 THE REGISTRAR: Document as marked by the witness receives number

12 P2955, Your Honours.

13 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted.

14 MS. HOCHHAUSER:

15 Q. Now staying with this exhibit, 2951, and again if you'd need

16 to -- need it to be zoomed in, please, just ask for that. I'd like to

17 draw your attention to the Nedzarici neighbourhood. Are you familiar

18 with what that neighbourhood looked like during the conflict period?

19 A. Yes, I am.

20 Q. Now, can you please show us, both again on the large map and

21 marking on the -- on the map on the monitor, just point out where the

22 Nedzarici neighbourhood is and also specifically can you point out the

23 salient in the confrontation line in Nedzarici so -- by which I mean the

24 position that projected -- of one army into the other's territory?

25 A. Yes. On the big map, this area is Nedzarici, sorry. And on the

Page 19977

1 electronic version, I'll circle it -- I'm sorry.

2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The usher may assist.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Could the usher assist him.

4 THE WITNESS: And mark it with an N.

5 The area that looks like -- almost like a thumb protruding into

6 the -- towards the city is the salient and it includes Nedzarici.

7 MS. HOCHHAUSER:

8 Q. And under whose control was that salient?

9 A. That was SRK control.

10 Q. Now, can you tell us specifically about the salient, not the

11 entire neighbourhood of Nedzarici but specifically the salient, can you

12 describe the types of buildings in terms of their height that existed

13 within that specific geographic area?

14 A. Largely, they were low apartment buildings, single-family houses.

15 There was an army barracks. I think the highest building was the

16 institute -- sorry. The Theological Institute which I believe was five

17 or six storeys. But mostly they were two-to three-storey buildings in

18 that area.

19 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honours, I would like to tender this

20 exhibit, please.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Map marked by the witness receives number?

22 THE REGISTRAR: Number P2956, Your Honours.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.

24 MS. HOCHHAUSER:

25 Q. Now, Mr. Hogan, I would like to turn briefly to the

Page 19978

1 neighbourhood -- to the settlements of Dobrinja. And, actually, I'll

2 leave to you whether you think 2951 or 2952 is the most -- would

3 facilitate your showing this area the best.

4 A. I think the other map would be more appropriate.

5 MS. HOCHHAUSER: If we could please go back to P2952. Thank you.

6 Q. As that's coming up, the Dobrinja settlements are often referred

7 to with numbers. Can you just describe and explain that area.

8 A. Yes. There was, as you say, Dobrinja 1 through Dobrinja 6, I

9 think, and as well as the -- an area that was called the airport

10 settlement. They were -- they were built at different times which is why

11 they were numbered differently.

12 Q. And can you please --

13 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I think we're going to need to zoom in on this

14 map again.

15 THE WITNESS: And --

16 Q. More?

17 A. If we can shift it down further so we can see a little bit

18 farther south. There, that's it.

19 Q. Okay. Can you show us, please, and mark on the map the various

20 areas of Dobrinja and how they were separated in terms of the

21 confrontation line that ran through them.

22 A. On the big map first, as you can see, the confrontation line at

23 the south-east part of the -- of the settlement, ran between apartment

24 buildings. And Dobrinja 1 and 4 were at the south -- furthest south-east

25 area, and they came within the SRK lines. The remainder, except for the

Page 19979

1 airport settlement, were within the ABiH lines.

2 Q. And could you mark that on the -- on the --

3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The usher should assist first because the picture

4 was moved.

5 THE WITNESS: Right. I'm always confused about which is

6 Dobrinja 1 and which is Dobrinja 4. It is either 1 or 4, these ... and

7 I'll mark them 1 and 4. If that's acceptable.

8 MS. HOCHHAUSER:

9 Q. And those are 1 and 4 on this -- in control of the same warring

10 party; is that right?

11 A. Yes. And this is the airport settlement. And if you'll notice

12 on the previous map, the 1992 map, the airport settlement was within the

13 ABiH lines, and during the war it was -- the confrontation line moved so

14 that it came under SRK control.

15 Q. Okay.

16 MS. HOCHHAUSER: May I tender this exhibit, please.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

18 Madam Registrar, the number would be?

19 THE REGISTRAR: Document as marked by the witness receives number

20 P2957, Your Honours.

21 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

22 On the other map, Mr. Hogan, is it true that we do not see yet

23 the fully constructed Dobrinja area, the 1992 map? Because I see some

24 differences in what seems to be constructions.

25 MS. HOCHHAUSER: That was going to be my next question,

Page 19980

1 Your Honour, and I think it would actually assist if we could look at --

2 go back, and I apologise to the --

3 JUDGE ORIE: 2951.

4 MS. HOCHHAUSER: -- to everybody else in the courtroom who has to

5 deal with the switching back and forth.

6 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, that's correct. There is one

7 part of Dobrinja that's not shown on this 1992 map.

8 JUDGE ORIE: You mean a part which was a built-up area already

9 but not being shown as such on this map?

10 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honour.

11 MS. HOCHHAUSER:

12 Q. Has the -- has the confrontation -- the location of the

13 confrontation line changed during that time-period though? From --

14 between 1992 and 1995.

15 A. Yes, it did.

16 Q. And can you just explain that change.

17 A. Yes. First of all, I should indicate this -- this area, which

18 is -- which was constructed and not shown on this map, and this airport

19 settlement which was -- where the confrontation line moved, and if I

20 could mark it on this map that we see in front of us.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we should then zoom in on quite some detail

22 to the airport area. Is this good enough, Mr. Hogan?

23 THE WITNESS: This -- this is fine.

24 And that is the airport settlement.

25 JUDGE ORIE: And the move of the confrontation line was that it

Page 19981

1 became part of Serb-controlled area?

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

4 MS. HOCHHAUSER: If we could tender this map, please, this marked

5 map.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number with the marking of the

7 airport settlement.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Document receives number P2958, Your Honours.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.

10 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honour, I'm going to turn to the topic that

11 you raised earlier about the markings on the map. I will say that

12 before -- that I wanted to inform the Chamber in any case that we've

13 located a -- it's called the instruction on working maps in the armed

14 forces from the JNA. It's a document that has the symbols used and their

15 and the explanation of the symbol used, and Mr. Lukic and I have been in

16 conversation about what portions of that we might be able to agree to

17 tender to Your Honours. So I just wanted you to be aware that that is in

18 the works.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear.

20 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Okay.

21 Q. In any case, Mr. Hogan, if you can look at the exhibit that's --

22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hochhauser, at the same time, I am looking at

23 the clock. I know what your plans are by now. You -- your estimate was

24 half an hour. We are well beyond that. Now, how much time would you

25 still need? Should we take a break now first and --

Page 19982

1 MS. HOCHHAUSER: My only -- I'm done, Your Honour. Just to

2 address the question that you raised, that's it.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Then I suggest we deal with it and take the break

4 after it.

5 MS. HOCHHAUSER:

6 Q. You heard His Honour's question but I'll -- just to put it back

7 in the record next to the answer, can you tell us, looking at exhibit --

8 I'm sorry.

9 JUDGE ORIE: 2951.

10 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Thank you.

11 Q. 2951, we see both blue and black, what appear to originally have

12 been ink markings, can you tell us something about those?

13 A. The blue ink markings depicted in SRK territory show -- they are

14 symbols for weapons, from -- anything from machine-guns to tanks to

15 Howitzers. And I am familiar with some of them but I'm not an expert in

16 testifying about what they represent. Now --

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you mark them, Mr. Hogan.

18 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I couldn't hear.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could you please mark them on this map here.

20 Let's see what is it that is referred to as ink markings.

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 THE WITNESS: For example, I'll circle a few down here but they

23 pretty much surround the city. All these ink markings surround the city.

24 And if I could just demonstrate, some of them there would be a

25 semi-circle with lines -- oops, lines running out from it. That would be

Page 19983

1 one of the -- one of the symbols. For example, that is -- that is here.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

3 MS. HOCHHAUSER:

4 Q. Can you tell us about the black versus blue ink. Is there any

5 meaning to that?

6 A. The black that you see within the city, that's actually just a

7 poor representation on this electronic version. It's -- if you have a

8 close look at the -- at the full-sized map, that's just representing the

9 city streets and city buildings. That's contained on the map. They're

10 not hand-drawn.

11 Q. And the text boxes, are those -- what's the relationship between

12 the text boxes and the markings? Are -- is there?

13 A. The text boxes were placed on that map by the ABiH officer who --

14 or intelligence, whoever prepared that map, to indicate certain

15 information about weapons.

16 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honours, thank you for your patience. That

17 concludes my examination.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Hochhauser.

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that you want to tender the marked

21 version now marking the blue ink markings and the explanation the centre

22 in red.

23 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Yes, thank you.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be?

25 THE REGISTRAR: The document marked by the witness receives

Page 19985

1 Mr. Lukic. I think I explained to you before that Mr. Lukic is counsel

2 for Mr. Mladic.

3 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

4 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:

5 Q. Good morning, Mr. Hogan.

6 A. Good morning, Mr. Lukic.

7 Q. My cross won't be long.

8 MR. LUKIC: First of all, I would like to call P2951. Actually,

9 it is on our screens, and it's the map on the stand.

10 Q. On page 4 of temporary transcript, line 3, you said that you

11 compared those maps and confrontation lines with maps of SRK. So can you

12 tell us now where can we find those maps; and can you tell us ERN numbers

13 or whatever you -- you know. So the maps you compared with those AB and

14 H maps.

15 A. Yes, in fact, some of them are included in the Sarajevo court

16 binder which the Prosecution, I believe, has already tendered in this

17 case. And I obtained additional maps besides the ones which were --

18 which were included in that court binder from the SRK archives in

19 Banja Luka in 2006.

20 Q. You said it's similar. So it's not the same. Can you tell us

21 where the differences are, major differences at least?

22 A. Yes. The -- the SRK maps that I examined or compared tended to

23 be of a larger scale. In other words, they did not only have a map of

24 Sarajevo as we've seen in these two examples today. They had a larger

25 area, which included the SRK zone of responsibility. Therefore, the --

Page 19986

1 the -- the lines that were drawn on such maps tended to be of a larger

2 scale as well, so that when you zoom in on the city, the -- the lines

3 would appear to be 2 to 300 metres wide, just the ink on the lines would

4 appear to be 200 metres wide. So it is very hard to see when we know

5 that confrontation lines ran from one side of the street to the other, to

6 see that the line spreads out over such a large area, it's hard to be

7 precise. That's why I say they were similar, not exact.

8 Q. Okay. Thank you. On page 4, lines 11 to 16 of today's temporary

9 transcript, you said that in -- in spring of 2006, you asked for the maps

10 from Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina of that period. So is it true that

11 those maps you received are not from that period but of that period?

12 A. Perhaps I mis-worded myself -- or misspoke. But I -- I asked for

13 maps that had been produced at that time. So that's my understanding

14 that that's what was given to me.

15 Q. What bothers me with this map is that you have enemy's -- or

16 enemy's positions but you don't have your own positions on your own maps.

17 Is it normal for a military map not to have your own positions?

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.

19 MR. GROOME: If we could just clarify the question. I don't

20 believe Mr. Hogan has any positions on this map. Exactly what is being

21 referred to here.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I take it that you wanted to ask whether

23 the witness considers it normal for an army to produce maps with only

24 the -- the positions of the enemy --

25 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

Page 19987

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The way in which you phrased it was more or

2 less as if Mr. Hogan was a party to the conflict, which he is not, as far

3 as I understand.

4 MR. LUKIC: I don't claim that.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Could you answer that question, Mr. Hogan.

6 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. I don't have any military

7 expertise to say whether that's normal or not. I do know that this map

8 was seized by the OTP during a search of the ABiH archives. This was not

9 a -- a map that was requested or produced independently. They went into

10 the -- the team went into the archives to do a search and seized it in

11 the year 2000.

12 MR. LUKIC:

13 Q. Mm-hm. Thank you. Now we have those text box on that map.

14 Obviously they are glued on top of the map and then, of course, scanned

15 and reproduced but it's visible from the -- them that you can see through

16 them. Do you know who produced those text box? Do you have any specific

17 knowledge?

18 A. No, I don't. All I know is that they were on the map when it was

19 seized.

20 Q. You did not check the accuracy of strength of troops or number of

21 weaponry in those text box?

22 A. You mean to compare them with the ink markings on the map, to

23 compare the text to the ink markings on the map? No, I didn't, no.

24 Q. You didn't compare with any other documents whether, for example,

25 on this -- in these text box it says that there is around 30.000 troops

Page 19988

1 but only it mentioned always a bit strange title, it mentioned only,

2 like, 500 automatic rifles, but it says: Captured and received armament

3 and ammunition in the RgSTO. So you did not compare whether this is --

4 these numbers are correctly inputted on these text box?

5 A. No, I did not. And I'm not testifying as to the accuracy of

6 these text boxes, just on the confrontation lines depicted.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lukic, could you indicate where these parts

9 you referred to are to be found on the -- on the map? And then we can

10 zoom in on the relevant part.

11 MR. LUKIC: If I can see that. Give me one second.

12 First, on the left side, if we can zoom -- yeah, that box. And

13 the bottom part of the first part. Of the first part, sorry.

14 You can see that there is, according to them, 29.295 military --

15 actually, soldiers. And it says that it has -- it's telling about the

16 strength.

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

18 MR. LUKIC: And then a bit further down --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Is this -- could I just have -- is this the left --

20 oh, that's the upper part of it. Yes, thank you.

21 MR. LUKIC: Upper part. And then further down, we see

22 "overview," and we can see English translation, if you want. It's 19961.

23 And there is English translation as well. Of the text.

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Perhaps we can have it on the screen.

25 MR. LUKIC: 19 -- sorry, I misspoke. My mistake. 19661.

Page 19989

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's P2951.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's the English version, which only gives

3 the translation of the --

4 MR. LUKIC: Of the boxes.

5 JUDGE ORIE: -- of the boxes.

6 MR. LUKIC: Yes. So there we can find on page 2 in English

7 version, under "Captured and received armament," it says: M 41 automatic

8 rifles, 726 millimetres, 500. So that was my -- the basis for my

9 question.

10 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, if can I assist Mr. Lukic and the

11 Chamber. The Chamber heard evidence about the use of labels generally on

12 the 12th -- on the 13th of November, 2012, at transcript page 4999.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Now, totally different question although related to

14 this. Reference is made several times to the RgSTO. Do you know what

15 that stands for, or do the parties have any common understanding of what

16 RgSTO stands for because it is not translated. The original and the

17 translation are the same.

18 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, although it's not translated, it's my

19 understanding that it stood for Republic Territorial Defence Staff.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. TO often referred to Territorial Defence. And

21 S diacritic may refer to staff. And then the --

22 MR. LUKIC: Although I'm not clear about Rg [overlapping

23 speakers] --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If the parties could reach an agreement on

25 that, that would assist the Chamber in understanding it.

Page 19990

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I just have a question, Mr. Lukic.

2 MR. LUKIC: Mm-hm.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: You talked earlier when you started asking

4 questions to Mr. Hogan about the -- this -- these writings, you said this

5 represents the numerical strength. I see this is titled: "Captured and

6 received armament and ammunition." Or -- or am I --

7 MR. LUKIC: What puzzles me is "received."

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, that puzzles me too. I don't know, received

9 from whom. But "captured," I would have thought this is just mentioning

10 what was captured not what is the full strength either of themselves or

11 the enemy, I don't know.

12 MR. LUKIC: Exactly. If it's common understanding, then we

13 wouldn't have a problem if it is just captured. Only I asked the

14 gentleman if he checked whether it stands for the whole armament they had

15 or just captured that's -- but the gentleman told us, Mr. Hogan told us

16 that he never checked those numbers.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think the focus of Mr. Hogan was on

18 confrontation lines rather than on the presence of troops or equipment.

19 MR. LUKIC: So when using this particular map we should be --

20 actually have that in mind, that those text boxes were not established.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, they are established but not yet explained.

22 MR. LUKIC: Or -- explained.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

24 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

25 Can I consult with Mr. Mladic for one minute, please.

Page 19991

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you can. If it's urgent. Otherwise, it could

2 be done at the end of your cross-examination.

3 [Defence counsel and accused confer]

4 JUDGE ORIE: Please, volume such that no one can hear it.

5 MR. LUKIC:

6 Q. I apologise for this, Mr. Hogan.

7 Next, you told us about elevations, and you marked some

8 elevations around Sarajevo.

9 MR. LUKIC: So if we can have this map, which is now P2951, on

10 our screens but zoomed out. Yes.

11 JUDGE ORIE: By the way - and sorry to interrupt - I see that on

12 the first page of the English text, there -- just before the total, the

13 RgSTO is -- the acronym is presented as Regional Territorial Defence

14 Staff. Now I know that, Mr. Lukic, that the Defence has sometimes

15 complained about acronyms being interpreted by the translators, but here

16 it may assist.

17 MR. LUKIC: So that was our understanding too, that it's regional

18 Rg, but I'm not sure.

19 Q. So, Mr. Hogan, you talked --

20 MR. LUKIC: If we can have this map on the full screen, please.

21 Q. You talked about elevations in the hands of AB and H, and you

22 mentioned Colina Kapa, Debelo Brdo, Zuc, and Hum. Do you know where hill

23 Vranjace is? And I can tell that you it is near to Debelo Brdo.

24 Vranjace.

25 A. No, I don't.

Page 19992

1 Q. Do you know where Grdonj is, also in the hands of Army of

2 Bosnia-Herzegovina?

3 A. Yes, I do.

4 Q. Can you mark it on this map?

5 A. If we could zoom in on the central area. Grdonj is approximately

6 here. Shall I put a G next to it?

7 Q. Please.

8 A. [Marks]

9 Q. Thank you.

10 MR. LUKIC: We would ask for this marking to be introduced into

11 evidence.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

13 THE REGISTRAR: Document receives number D439, Your Honours.

14 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence. The markings, at the

15 request of the Defence, are in blue.

16 MR. LUKIC:

17 Q. Do you know where Balino Brdo?

18 A. Balino Brdo, I believe it's in the same region as Zuc but I'm not

19 100 per cent.

20 Q. I know that AB and H could control Vogosca from there.

21 A. Possibly, yes.

22 Q. Can you mark it on this map.

23 A. I would have to have it zoomed in where I could not read the

24 inscriptions. I can give it an approximation but it's very --

25 Q. Okay, yeah, just approximately.

Page 19993

1 A. -- broad approximation. It would be in that general area.

2 JUDGE ORIE: I'm a bit puzzled by what happens now. The witness

3 is asked whether he knows certain location. Then he says it's somewhere

4 near Zuc. Then, Mr. Lukic, you give him additional information. The

5 witness then says that's possible, true or not. And then you asked him

6 to mark it on the map, which is a bit of a strange way of -- but --

7 Mr. Hogan, what you now marked, is that approximately where you

8 remember Balino Brdo to be?

9 THE WITNESS: It's approximate, Your Honour. But an examination

10 of the maps with the labels would be able to -- the parties would be able

11 to see it on these maps.

12 JUDGE ORIE: I mean to say also that it is irrespective of what

13 Mr. Lukic told you about this location.

14 THE WITNESS: I understand. Yes, this location is where I recall

15 in the general area.

16 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine.

17 Please proceed.

18 MR. LUKIC:

19 Q. Do you know if this area -- actually, it's obviously under the

20 control of B and H, right? It's inside the red circle?

21 A. Yes, sir.

22 Q. And do you know where Brijesce Brdo is?

23 A. Yes, I do.

24 Q. Can you mark it on the same map, please.

25 A. Perhaps I should put BR next to Brijesce.

Page 19994

1 Q. And -- maybe BB.

2 A. BB.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Looks more like a D, Mr. Hogan. The second one.

4 MR. LUKIC: Actually, I would ask for this to be saved, maybe

5 instead of the first one, since here we have both markings.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

7 MR. LUKIC: If it is possible to be done.

8 JUDGE ORIE: We can -- let me just see. This will be -- you said

9 instead of the first one.

10 MR. LUKIC: Instead of D439. D439 has only markings for the

11 first hill. Now on this one we have both.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we vacate the other one and replace it

13 by this map now marked by the witness with the markings BB for

14 Balino Brdo and BR for Brijesce Brdo.

15 Yes, please proceed.

16 And, Madam Registrar, could you --

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE ORIE: This is then now D439.

19 MR. LUKIC: 439, yes.

20 JUDGE ORIE: This needs some administrative attention.

21 We can move on.

22 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

23 Q. This elevation is also inside the circle of the Army of B and H.

24 A. Yes, it is.

25 MR. LUKIC: And can we zoom out now, please.

Page 19995

1 Q. On this map, can you mark mountain Igman.

2 A. Igman ran roughly ...

3 Q. And Igman was under control of Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina since

4 when?

5 A. Um --

6 Q. Or till when, if you know?

7 A. I know it was taken by the SRK, I think, in 1993, but under a

8 UN agreement, they -- they turned it back over. So I -- I would say,

9 other than a short period of a few months, it was under the control of

10 the ABiH.

11 Q. Thank you.

12 MR. LUKIC: And I would offer this marking into evidence.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Could I -- I have no problems in it being admitted

14 into evidence. But you said it was later under the control of the UN.

15 That is excluded then from -- you said it was only for a few months --

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, under an agreement with the UN, the

18 SRK gave it back or vacated their positions on Igman and the ABiH moved

19 back into their positions, their own positions.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think we heard evidence about the -- the

21 regime that was then imposed and whether or not it was violated.

22 Madam Registrar, the number for this map again marked by the

23 witness with Mount Igman.

24 THE REGISTRAR: This would be number D440, Your Honours.

25 JUDGE ORIE: D440 is admitted.

Page 19996

1 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. And now I would need P2952. Also, it's

2 the other map used today.

3 Q. You marked several of these.

4 MR. LUKIC: Maybe it's better to have P2959.

5 Can we have 8, please. Sorry, I -- P2958. Yes, that's -- that's

6 the map we need.

7 Q. Here, you marked airport settlement. And, of course, you just

8 drew a circle.

9 MR. LUKIC: I would kindly ask the usher to help us to distribute

10 this map. I will give it to Mr. Hogan, Their Honours, and the

11 Prosecution.

12 Q. This map was used in Galic trial. It was P3732 in Galic case.

13 And map was marked by Mr. Ismet Hadzic. Do you know, Mr. Hogan, that

14 Mr. Ismet Hadzic was commander of Dobrinja Brigade?

15 A. I do know that. He was the commander until he was wounded and

16 taken out of action, yes.

17 Q. On this map, it is visible that part of airport settlement is

18 still in the hands of Army of B and H, and I think that you presented it

19 on your drawing, correct me if I'm wrong, but is it true that part of

20 airport settlement was in the hands of Army of B and H?

21 A. I'm not sure if we're talking about the same term here. The

22 airport settlement that I understand is always referred to as airport

23 settlement is the area in the -- horizontally in the centre along the

24 left side.

25 Q. So you think it's not presented -- maybe I'm wrong. You think

Page 19997

1 it's not presented on this map.

2 A. The airport settlement is visible. What I call the airport

3 settlement --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Could -- first of all, could we have this on the

5 ELMO so that we can -- it becomes part of the -- if there's any extra

6 copy. Because I first want to know exactly what appears to depict the

7 confrontation line here. What exactly is understood by the airport

8 settlement ...

9 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, if I could use the pointer to explain

10 what I understand as the airport settlement.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, could we, first of all -- first of all,

12 could we -- it has been presented to us, but 90 degrees turned clockwise.

13 Yes? That is how it is presented, and that's -- now we can read the

14 text.

15 What I see and just -- I'd like to explore whether that is any

16 marking depicting a confrontation line, that is, coming from

17 approximately the middle of the top side where there seems to be a

18 marking of a small number 1 in a small circle. If we take it from there,

19 we see in this black-and-white picture a grey line, starting to turn

20 slightly to the left, which, I take it, is west. Then going around what

21 seems to be two built-up structures, crossing what I think I remember is

22 the Dobrinja river canalised in the middle of Dobrinja, going further

23 south, then going up to north-west again rather sharply, then turning

24 down.

25 Is that -- what I describe here, is that in your understanding,

Page 19998

1 Mr. Hogan, the confrontation line?

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is, Your Honour, as drawn by Mr. Hadzic.

3 JUDGE ORIE: What we see is that we follow this confrontation

4 line further to the south, that it reaches a built-up area with a

5 half-circled shape in its entirety, and it seems that the confrontation

6 line runs through that built-up structure but only marginally to the

7 southeastern side, leaving 95 per cent of the settlement on the ABiH --

8 on the -- on the Serb side.

9 Now, we see two similarly shaped structures. That is almost in

10 half a circle existing of what seems to be various large number of

11 apartment buildings.

12 Mr. Hogan, when you refer to the airport settlement, did you

13 refer to the one more to the left upper side, more to the northwestern

14 side, or did you refer to the slightly different, although basically the

15 same shape which is found a little bit to the south-east?

16 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I was referring to the structure to

17 the north-west, the furthest left as we view this image.

18 JUDGE ORIE: That is the one where on this sketch the

19 confrontation line just -- is just inside the southeastern portion,

20 although a very limited portion, of that settlement.

21 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I tried to organise things in such way

23 that we know what we are talking about. Please put your questions to the

24 witness.

25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. As it -- first, I need instruction from

Page 19999

1 the Registry. Is it possible to save image from the ELMO? So we just

2 can just ask Mr. Hogan to mark --

3 JUDGE ORIE: What we could ask the witness to do is to mark the

4 hard copy on the ELMO, and then the marked copy could be given to the

5 Registry and could be uploaded ...

6 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

7 JUDGE ORIE: All the technicalities are still to be discussed.

8 But once the witness has marked on the ELMO, then through, under the

9 control of the Registry, it will be -- later be uploaded and

10 provisionally a number can already be assigned to the then-marked copy.

11 Mr. Lukic, please proceed.

12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

13 Q. So, Mr. Hogan, just for -- would you be so kind and mark airport

14 settlement on this map.

15 A. [Marks]

16 Q. And would you be so kind and mark confrontation line, just part

17 of it, because Judge Orie already explained.

18 A. [Marks]

19 Q. And just put CL.

20 A. [Marks]

21 Q. Thank you.

22 MR. LUKIC: And if we can provisionally assign the number for

23 this sketch.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could you reserve a number for this

25 document marked by the witness.

Page 20000

1 THE REGISTRAR: Hard copy marked by the witness receives number

2 D441, Your Honours.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And we'll have to wait until it's uploaded.

4 Do you need this any further, Mr. Lukic?

5 MR. LUKIC: No, we don't, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Then could the usher give it to the Registrar.

7 Whatever has to be done by the parties later should be under the

8 supervision and control of the Registry because it's now marked by the

9 witness and is in progress of being -- of becoming an exhibit.

10 MR. LUKIC:

11 Q. Mr. Hogan, when you asked B and H -- Army of B and H to provide

12 you with maps, and we saw that they draw Serbian positions and Serbian

13 armament, have you ever received maps from them with inputted positions

14 of Army of B and H?

15 A. Yes. In fact, on this map here there are positions of the Army

16 of BiH. Weapons positions, I should say.

17 Q. On -- it's -- when you say on this one, you mean P2952?

18 MR. LUKIC: If the Prosecution can confirm that when Mr. Hogan

19 said "on this map," he meant P2952, which is map in front of us.

20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Which is what we see, the big one we see behind

21 the witness. That's the correct number.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Could we ask the witness to -- perhaps to have P2952

23 on our screens and explain to us, either on the screen or to start with

24 on the large map, where the BiH military positions are depicted.

25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we have P2952 on the screen.

Page 20001

1 THE WITNESS: If we could zoom it in towards the central area.

2 That should be fine.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps to cut matters short -- no. I let

4 you -- please explain to us, Mr. Hogan, where you see the ...

5 THE WITNESS: In the area of Zuc, for example, if I could mark on

6 this map, there is a weapons position here. Weapons position here. Over

7 in Brijesce Brdo there's a weapons position there. And here. And,

8 again, marked in ink that are much more visible when it's zoomed in

9 further or -- or seeing it in the full-size map. But they're dark blue

10 ink which tends to blend in a little bit with the background -- the

11 natural background of the map. So they're a little bit harder to see on

12 this map than other maps.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from that, do we also see depicted here areas

14 where a certain unit was deployed. I see, for example, on that same Zuc

15 hill, 1112, and then what seems to be a reference to some kind of a

16 brigade.

17 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, those are the units that were --

18 had the zone of responsibility there, but their headquarters positions

19 were not marked on this map. There are other maps from the ABiH where

20 such buildings are marked but not this map.

21 JUDGE ORIE: So this is limited to weapon positions.

22 THE WITNESS: Yes. Generally some weapons positions and the

23 zones of responsibility of the brigades. And battalions.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I take it that you also have not verified

25 whether these markings are complete reflections of weapon positions?

Page 20002

1 THE WITNESS: I have not verified. And I should point out that a

2 depiction such as this and on the other maps that showed the SRK

3 positions, they have -- the images have to be -- or the symbols, sorry,

4 the symbols have to be outsized. So, for example, an image symbol

5 showing a cannon, if the -- an actual cannon was that size on the ground

6 as is depicted on the map, it would be immense. So an image that is -- a

7 symbol that is shown on a map gives a general area not a precise

8 location.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

10 Mr. Lukic, please proceed.

11 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

12 Q. And I guess, since you said you didn't check exactly that here on

13 that list, we saw in English, it's -- it only says 56 Howitzers or

14 mortars 120-millimetre, 97 pieces, obviously would you agree with me that

15 not everything was marked on this map?

16 A. I can't --

17 Q. You can't --

18 A. -- either confirm or deny --

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lukic, just to clarify you were referring to

20 the other map now?

21 MR. LUKIC: No, no, no, I'm referring to this one.

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Where did you take these numbers from?

23 JUDGE ORIE: Where did you take number 56 from, for example?

24 MR. LUKIC: It is even from 1992. I guess there must be only

25 more weaponry in ABiH position than in 1992 although this map is from

Page 20003

1 1995.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But where did you read 56?

3 MR. LUKIC: It's from -- it has P number now.

4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now are you referring to the other map.

5 MR. LUKIC: Actually, yes, to the other map. It's P2951 --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and --

7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: They are from different time periods.

8 MR. LUKIC: From 1992.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It is -- yes, I see you are relying on the --

10 MR. LUKIC: Previous period.

11 JUDGE ORIE: -- the previous text boxes --

12 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

13 JUDGE ORIE: -- the text boxes we saw which were unexplained --

14 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

15 JUDGE ORIE: -- what they were. Yes. Okay. Then you'd say --

16 MR. LUKIC: But the witness said he didn't check so we will have

17 to establish it with somebody else.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's -- let's proceed.

19 MR. LUKIC: And I'm actually finished.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'll have to proceed.

21 MR. LUKIC:

22 Q. Mr. Hogan, I just want to thank you for answering to our

23 questions.

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Do you tender this marked map?

25 MR. LUKIC: Yes, please. Yes. Thank you.

Page 20005

1 would like to thank you again for coming to this courtroom and for again

2 having answered all the questions that you were put to you by the parties

3 and by the Bench, and for a lot of markings done. You may follow the

4 usher.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 [The witness withdrew]

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, it seems that Mr. Mladic is --

8 MR. LUKIC: He is just asking if he can, during the break,

9 examine the maps.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think there is no problem with that.

11 MR. LUKIC: We tried to but the guards didn't have that kind of

12 permission during the last break.

13 JUDGE ORIE: If Mr. Mladic would like to look at both maps, then

14 we -- I suggest that that would be done in the courtroom because

15 wherever --

16 MR. LUKIC: Yes, in the courtroom, in the courtroom.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because wherever this material goes, it should

18 be supervised by the Registry or by the Chamber.

19 Then, Mr. Groome, we have quite a lot of procedural issues to

20 raise. Now the question is whether we should do that before the break or

21 limit ourselves to the associated exhibits for the previous witness and

22 then go through the long list of items. I have already to warn you, I

23 have 11 items on my procedural agenda, including the reading of some

24 decisions.

25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, whichever pleases the Court. I would

Page 20006

1 inform the Chamber that I also have some procedural issues to raise with

2 the Chamber.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I suggest that we deal with the simple

4 leftover of yesterday, that is, associated exhibits, with the previous

5 witness and that we leave all the other matters until after the break.

6 MR. GROOME: Ms. Marcus is here, but I also would remind the

7 Chamber there are some residual matters with respect to this witness and

8 associated exhibits as well. But we can also deal with that after the

9 break.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE ORIE: I would prefer, as a matter of fact, any matters

12 directly related to this witness, to deal with that one first, then to

13 deal with associated exhibits of yesterday and then leave all the rest

14 until after the break.

15 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, Mr. Lukic and I met yesterday evening

16 to resolve some of the issues that the Chamber had directed us to seek

17 agreement on and I believe we have reached agreement.

18 So the first one is that there is a map uploaded as 65 ter 30469,

19 and there is an agreement between the Prosecution and Defence that this

20 depicts the location of Scheduled Incident F1. The Pita house. I ask

21 Mr. Lukic to confirm if I correctly understand the agreement between him

22 and Ms. Hochhauser.

23 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, it's agreed on.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

25 Second.

Page 20007

1 MR. GROOME: The second one is, Your Honour, with respect to the

2 testimony -- prior testimony from the Galic case of a witness, and there

3 is some disagreement still with the -- between the Prosecution and the

4 Defence. It has to do with some prior testimony from the Galic case.

5 The Defence wishes to include in the transcript excerpt some colloquy

6 between the Chamber and the lawyers which the Prosecution believes only

7 adds to confusion and is not evidence in itself.

8 But perhaps Mr. Lukic could address -- address the Chamber on

9 that.

10 MR. LUKIC: Yes. Thank you. Actually the Prosecution wants to

11 have some kind of explanation that Witness Kundo was facing the opposite

12 direction and it was clarified with Mr. Hogan during his last testimony.

13 What we want is -- we don't object to have that transcript

14 excerpt included into our evidence. Only we would ask that the whole

15 portion without interruptions would be included. It's only several

16 pages. Otherwise -- it would be seven -- and we want probably one page

17 is cut out. So we -- we think it would -- easier to follow the whole --

18 if the whole excerpt is in the evidence. And it's everything from

19 transcript page 5943, line 5, up to transcript page 5950, line 22.

20 JUDGE ORIE: And do you then seek that to be added for context

21 rather than for the substance because if the Chamber is discussing

22 matters with the -- the -- with lawyers, of course, that is not evidence

23 in itself.

24 MR. LUKIC: But there is some words of Mrs. Kundo as well. So

25 it's mixed.

Page 20008

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, what --

2 MR. GROOME: So it is simply our position, Your Honour, but

3 perhaps the Chamber would want to review the transcript itself, is that

4 the colloquy by the Chamber and between the Chamber and the attorneys is

5 not evidence and only adds to the confusion.

6 JUDGE ORIE: And that was in the Galic case?

7 MR. GROOME: Yes.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll have a look at it, and -- has it been

9 uploaded in its complete version so that we can have a look at it, or

10 should we wait for a written copy.

11 MR. GROOME: We can provide copies of the entire version after

12 the break, Your Honour, and then we'll be guided by what should be

13 uploaded once the Chamber makes a decision.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. The Chamber then waits for -- waits to be

15 provided with a hard copy so to see whether it the -- the complete

16 version of that portion of the transcript is admissible as requested by

17 the Defence or whether we should limit it to the portions preferred by

18 the Prosecution.

19 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, irrespective of which version the

20 Chamber tenders, it is agreed between the Prosecution and the Defence

21 that two of the exhibits referred to in that passage are exhibits in this

22 case. So for the record, the Galic Exhibit 3280V is D381, MFI, in this

23 case, and the Prosecution does not object to it being formally admitted.

24 And the 360-degree photo referred in the Galic case as P3279V is

25 in evidence in this case as P1920.

Page 20009

1 JUDGE ORIE: So we don't have to take in that respect any further

2 action. It has now been identified that any reference made to these

3 exhibits in the Galic case, we now know under what number they were

4 admitted as exhibits in the present case.

5 MR. GROOME: That's correct, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

7 MR. GROOME: The next matter is that there's a -- an excerpt from

8 a video that's in evidence -- or uploaded as 22311F. Mr. Lukic had an

9 opportunity to again review that, and I believe I'm correctly saying he

10 does not object to it being tendered into evidence.

11 MR. LUKIC: No objection.

12 JUDGE ORIE: And could we hear, has a number already been

13 provisionally assigned or is it MFI'd? Or I --

14 MR. GROOME: I'm quite sure that it has not been. So I would, at

15 this stage, tender 22311F -- 65 ter number 22311F into evidence.

16 JUDGE ORIE: That would receive, Madam Registrar, number -- one

17 second, please.

18 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

19 JUDGE ORIE: Before we give any follow-up to this tendering,

20 Mr. Groome, the Chamber would like the parties to verify whether D1310 is

21 the same or is in any way related to what was uploaded as 22311F, which

22 is -- yes. When I said D1310, I had to say 1D3010 so to what extent --

23 1D1310 now related to now uploaded 22311F and whether what the relation

24 is between these two and D381, marked for identification.

25 MR. GROOME: We'll investigate that over the break.

Page 20010

1 JUDGE ORIE: If you would first try to find out that so that we

2 do not create more chaos as there seems to be -- exists already in this

3 respect.

4 Mr. Groome, this was the third item you --

5 MR. GROOME: The next item is with respect to D384. It was a

6 portion of a video depicting evidence relevant to shelling incident G4.

7 The Chamber had asked us to agree on the portion of the video to be

8 tendered and there is agreement. And the time codes that are agreed

9 between the Prosecution and the Defence are --

10 MR. LUKIC: These are seconds.

11 MR. GROOME: Sorry -- thank you. So in seconds, 56-01:14.

12 MR. LUKIC: It's from 56 seconds to 1 minute, 14 seconds.

13 MR. GROOME: That --

14 MR. LUKIC: And then from 1 minute 55 seconds to 12 minutes,

15 12 seconds.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, if you agree with that --

17 MR. GROOME: I do agree and appreciate Mr. Lukic's assistance.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Has it been uploaded as such so that this

19 material --

20 MR. GROOME: If that's accepted by the Chamber we will do that,

21 Your Honour, and --

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If the parties agree on what portions should

23 be in evidence, the Chamber has -- as far as matters stand now has no

24 objections and has no wish to [Overlapping speakers] ...

25 MR. GROOME: As it's a Defence exhibit, I trust Mr. Lukic will be

Page 20011

1 able to take care of that.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you'll take care of uploading the now

3 selected and agreed upon portions of this video.

4 MR. LUKIC: I know that my Case Manager would not be thrilled

5 with this, but, yes, we will be able to upload it.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I refrain from any comment of being thrilled

7 as a Case Manager.

8 Mr. Groome, then next item.

9 MR. GROOME: The next video excerpt is presently marked as D385,

10 marked for identification. The Prosecution had previously objected but

11 on further consideration withdraws its objection to the admission of this

12 video.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, D385, which was marked for

14 identification, is now admitted into evidence.

15 Please proceed.

16 MR. GROOME: The last two remaining items, I know that Mr. Lukic

17 and Ms. Hochhauser had additional discussions this morning. One relates

18 to photographs taken from way-points 2, 3, and 4. Perhaps Mr. Lukic

19 could assist.

20 MR. LUKIC: If Chamber thinks that they need 15 additional photos

21 from Mr. Hogan's photo book, we do not object.

22 MR. GROOME: So, Your Honour --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Again, I don't know whether they were tendered

24 already.

25 MR. LUKIC: They are not tendered. They would come from -- I

Page 20012

1 don't know ... P2380. Maybe -- but we have to choose from this document

2 how many pages we want to introduce, since you said that -- Your Honour,

3 that more than 100 pages is too much.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now ... I must say I'm a bit lost. I do not

5 know in addition to what. I have no clear recollection at this moment of

6 the selection procedure for the photo book.

7 Could you assist the Chamber, Mr. Groome.

8 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, P2380 is a book that has many, many

9 photos of areas around Sarajevo. The Chamber was reluctant to admit it

10 in its entirety and asked that we work with the Defence to select photos.

11 We are in agreement that 15 photos in addition to the ones already in

12 evidence should be admitted, and these were photos that were used during

13 the parties' examination. They were originally referenced, I believe, by

14 the e-court page in the -- the original, P2380, and we can ensure that

15 that excerpt, those 15 photos, there are clear indications of how they

16 fit into the testimony of the witness.

17 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, you will upload the selection now

18 agreed upon and you seek that to be admitted into evidence.

19 MR. GROOME: That's correct.

20 JUDGE ORIE: And earlier, P2380, was the MFI number?

21 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So, therefore, you will newly upload a

23 selection of 15 photographs which will replace the entirety of the book

24 which is now uploaded and marked for identification as P2380.

25 MR. GROOME: With the suffix A, Your Honour, to avoid confusion.

Page 20013

1 So 2380A will have the 15 photographs.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. Then ...

3 MR. GROOME: The final --

4 JUDGE ORIE: I'm a bit -- the P2380 was not -- was that a number

5 assigned when the document was MFI'd? Because then we can't change that

6 number. We usually do not have A numbers in admitted evidence, I think.

7 MR. LUKIC: I think I created confusion --

8 JUDGE ORIE: You created --

9 MR. LUKIC: -- with this P number. It's not -- P number is only

10 conical shape on the map that should represent way-points 2, 3, and 4.

11 So Ms. Stewart should help us with the number for Mr. Hogan's book.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So ...

13 MR. LUKIC: This P number is wrong --

14 JUDGE ORIE: Now, was originally a number assigned to the

15 totality of the book when it was -- when the Chamber had problems with

16 the large number?

17 MR. GROOME: It would have been, Your Honour. It will take us a

18 minute or so to do that. If it's convenient, we can do that after the

19 break.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps that is better to do. Because what we now

21 need is that, under a number already assigned or still to be assigned, we

22 would have, under that number, the 15 photographs now tendered, so that

23 those 15 photographs would become the evidence once admitted.

24 We'll wait until after the break.

25 Perhaps I could already --

Page 20014

1 MR. GROOME: There's one more matter related to --

2 JUDGE ORIE: If there's only one, then I would invite you, but

3 also look at Mr. Mladic to proceed for then a few seconds. Yes.

4 MR. GROOME: This relates to 65 ter 19792, and I believe

5 Mr. Lukic is better placed to spell out the agreement.

6 MR. LUKIC: And actually, that's the number of this book of

7 Mr. Hogan, photo book. 65 ter 19792.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

9 MR. LUKIC: And those 15 photographs should come from that book

10 as well. And Ms. Hochhauser and I talked, and from our side, we should

11 have from that book pages, in the e-court, 33, 34, 42, 50, 52, and 95,

12 since we used those pages during the cross-examination of Mr. Hogan.

13 JUDGE ORIE: So we're now again talking about the photo book --

14 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

15 JUDGE ORIE: -- of which apparently some separate photos were

16 already admitted. In addition to that, we are now are waiting for an

17 additional -- or at least 15 photographs to be uploaded separately in

18 order to be admitted. And we do not know much about that yet.

19 Now, these six photographs, do they come in addition to the 15 or

20 are they part of the 15?

21 MR. LUKIC: It's addition --

22 JUDGE ORIE: In addition to the 15.

23 MR. LUKIC: And I think it should be in the same exhibit.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So you'd like to have -- that would then be a

25 commonly uploaded selection from 65 ter 19792 containing 21 photographs

Page 20015

1 to be tendered and admitted as a P exhibit although with some input from

2 the Defence side as well.

3 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I verify Mr. Lukic's understanding and

4 what the Chamber has said with one exception. That during the re-direct

5 of Mr. Hogan, the photo at e-court page 12 was also used and I believe it

6 was agreed that that would be tendered. So it's 22 photos in total.

7 JUDGE ORIE: So the six become seven. The 15 plus 6 now become

8 15 plus 7 amounts to 22 photographs. Could the parties carefully check

9 whether the right 22 photographs are uploaded. A number has certainly

10 not been assigned to this selection. So, therefore, if any previous

11 number was assigned, the Chamber would like to know so that these

12 22 photographs can replace the ...

13 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, Ms. Stewart informs me that there are

14 12 of the photos from this collection already uploaded as P2382 -- I'm

15 sorry, admitted into evidence as P2382.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, of course, I'll not start guessing which

17 12 of the 22 are -- what -- I'm now really relying on the parties to

18 clearly tell us what still should be done and that is best done by

19 summarising what has been done and what then still remains to be done. I

20 would suggest that you give a short written resume of what I just asked

21 for so that we can take the right decisions.

22 One brief matter. You started with the map with the F1 location,

23 Mr. Groome. That map, you said, was 65 ter 30469. Is that uploaded or

24 is that part of an existing exhibit? Is it not part of P3, for example?

25 [Prosecution counsel confer]

Page 20016

1 MR. GROOME: Ms. Stewart informs me that it is uploaded. And if

2 the Chamber is asking me to check whether it's part of P3, I can -- I can

3 check that over the break.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. P3 is the map book, Sarajevo map book. If I'm

5 not mistaken.

6 MR. GROOME: I'll check that over the break and see if it, in

7 fact, has the same pin marking which marks the Pita house.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Then we'll take the break. I get all

9 kinds of information I'll look at during the break and then we'll see how

10 to proceed after the break. As I have threatened you, there are 11 items

11 on my agenda as well.

12 We take the break. Perhaps we take the break slightly longer and

13 resume at a quarter to 1.00.

14 --- Recess taken at 12.13 p.m.

15 --- On resuming at 12.52 p.m.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'd like to start with D441, which you find on

18 your screen now in e-court. That is, the paper copy of a -- an exhibit

19 used in the Galic case which was marked by Mr. Hogan today. It,

20 meanwhile, has -- an electronic version has been uploaded into e-court

21 and is therefore ready for admission.

22 D441 is admitted into evidence, and the Chamber assumed that

23 there was no need to have the hard copy in any way preserved or to be in

24 evidence.

25 Mr. Groome, we dealt with a few matters before the break. If you

Page 20017

1 have any follow-up information, I'd like to hear from you.

2 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. With respect to the transcript

3 and the issue of whether -- what -- what exact portions should be in

4 evidence, Prosecution has produced hard copies here. If I could have the

5 usher's assistance.

6 Your Honour, this is the full version as proposed by Mr. Lukic.

7 The Prosecution is proposing a redacted version which has now been

8 uploaded as 65 ter 30510. So the Chamber will be able to compare the two

9 versions.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Is it clearly indicated where the dispute lies in

11 the full --

12 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour. You would have to compare this

13 against the redacted version. But essentially, it's conversation or

14 colloquy by people other than the witness.

15 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a look at it. If the parties could say -

16 Mr. Lukic, you apparently have paid more attention to it - on which page,

17 what lines are the disputed portions, then it would make life easier for

18 us.

19 MR. LUKIC: Only I would have to open 65 ter document and go

20 through it. I don't know it by heart.

21 JUDGE ORIE: If at any moment you would be able to make life

22 easier for us in this respect, we would like to hear from you.

23 Mr. Groome, another question was about the F1 location on a map,

24 65 ter 30469. Do you have a response to that?

25 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. It is not the same that's in P3.

Page 20022

1 [Open session]

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

3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

4 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I want to update you regarding the

5 exhumation of the mass grave at the Tomasica mine complex and inform you

6 of the decision the Prosecutor has taken with respect to this development

7 in the trial.

8 First of all, an update. Snow fell on the site earlier this week

9 and work has been at least temporarily suspended. Efforts are being

10 undertaken to resume work with specialised equipment and heated tents.

11 Over 470 sets of bodily remains have been recovered so far. They are

12 being stored in a morgue awaiting forensic examination, DNA

13 identification, and ultimately the return of the remains to the families

14 for proper burial. Identification documents recovered from 12 victims

15 indicate that they are most probably named victims in this case.

16 Bosnian prosecutors, other local officials, and the International

17 Commission for Missing Persons are working hard to expedite this process.

18 They face significant challenges in addition to the weather. They lack

19 sufficient equipment and adequate facilities for a grave of this

20 magnitude. They are working tirelessly to overcome these challenges and

21 Mr. Brammertz has come personally involved to support and facilitate

22 their efforts.

23 The last time I provided the Chamber with information about

24 Tomasica, I drew your attention to Mladic's own notebook, where he

25 recorded that 5.000 bodies were at the mine. Recently this Chamber has

Page 20023

1 heard evidence regarding the significant role of the Army of

2 Republika Srpska in the disposal of human remains at Tomasica. The

3 Chamber now has before it specific evidence related to five of the

4 12 bodies provisionally identified - a clear nexus to this case now

5 exists.

6 This evidence is important not only in establishing the death of

7 victims but also the large killing and burial operation being revealed in

8 Tomasica will be relevant to the Chamber's consideration of count 1 in

9 the indictment, genocide.

10 Our case is scheduled to be completed in two weeks. We planned

11 on completing our case at a time that it now appears the work of Tomasica

12 will continue. The Prosecutor has taken the decision to not seek a delay

13 in the proceedings to adduce this evidence as it will be at least several

14 months before the evidence can be brought before the Chamber. Instead,

15 the Prosecution will seek to re-open its case in-chief for approximately

16 one to two weeks to tender newly acquired Tomasica evidence. The

17 earliest that this is likely to occur is in March of 2014.

18 The Appeals Chamber in several cases, including the Popovic,

19 Gotovina, and Delalic cases, has been clear that such a course of action

20 is appropriate and that this Chamber possesses the discretion to allow

21 the Prosecution to re-open our case under certain circumstances. The

22 Prosecution takes the decision to re-open the case and not delay the case

23 at this time strongly believing that new evidence will meet the

24 applicable criteria when it does become available.

25 The Appeals Chamber in deciding such issues also requires that

Page 20024

1 any decision to allow the Prosecution to re-open its case consider

2 whether doing so is fair to an accused. In this case, it is and it will

3 be. This evidence relates to charges already in the indictment. The

4 Prosecution will not be seeking new or additional charges.

5 Additionally, I have put in place a procedure in which

6 documentary materials detailing the exhumation and forensic work will be

7 disclosed to the Defence shortly after we receive them and will be

8 clearly marked as Tomasica materials. This should facilitate any

9 investigations or analysis the Defence would decide to undertake.

10 Should the Defence believe there are other steps the Prosecution

11 can appropriately take to minimise the impact of this developing

12 situation on their work, I invite Mr. Lukic to speak with me. We will

13 certainly do everything we can appropriately do to ensure that this new

14 evidence has no impact whatsoever on the fairness of this trial.

15 Finally, Your Honours, we will file our application to re-open

16 our case once the relevant evidence of Tomasica is available.

17 Considering procedural prerequisites, I anticipate that we will be able

18 to file an application to re-open sometime in February, and should the

19 Chamber grant this application in part or in whole, we anticipate being

20 able to call this evidence in March 2014.

21 If the Chamber has no questions about that submission, I have two

22 other submissions I'd wish to make.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so, may I take it, Mr. Lukic, that you

24 would first want to digest this update before you -- in any way make

25 submissions on the Defence's part?

Page 20025

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

2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

3 Please move to your next item, Mr. Groome.

4 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, this submission relates to pseudonyms

5 for 92 bis and 92 quater witnesses.

6 The Chamber has adopted a practice in relation to witnesses with

7 pre-existing protective measures of a pseudonym of using the Prosecution

8 reference number from the Prosecution witness list filed confidentially

9 on the 10th of February, 2012. As this case advances --

10 JUDGE ORIE: We can with deal with this matter in open session?

11 MR. GROOME: I believe so, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.

13 MR. GROOME: As this case advances, it will become necessary to

14 refer publicly to 92 bis and quater witnesses in both oral and written

15 submissions. The Prosecution is requesting that the Chamber issue an

16 order directing that in the case of 92 bis and 92 quater witnesses who

17 currently benefit from the protective measure of a pseudonym, that the

18 pseudonym shall be the Prosecution reference number indicated in our

19 10th of February, 2012, filing.

20 JUDGE ORIE: We'll consider that request.

21 Any response by the Prosecution -- by the Defence at this moment,

22 Mr. Lukic? Do you think you would not take a position, or would you want

23 more time to consider it? It seems to be a very technical administrative

24 matter --

25 MR. LUKIC: It is, and I don't think that we will have any

Page 20026

1 objections.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Unless you revisit the matter, the Chamber will

3 further consider the request.

4 Mr. Groome.

5 MR. GROOME: And finally, Your Honour, if I could raise once

6 again the issue of the military lexicon, P1116, which the Chamber, on the

7 8th of April, 2013, admitted as a demonstrative exhibit. If I could

8 inquire whether the Defence has had a sufficient opportunity to form a

9 view whether it could be tendered as an exhibit with -- removing the

10 demonstrative marking. Doing so, would alleviate the need to tender the

11 lexicon itself in its entirety. I believe the Defence has checked the

12 lexicon against the original document and the translations have all been

13 verified by CLSS.

14 MR. LUKIC: That's right. That's why I stood up. We checked and

15 we didn't find any problems with the translation.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Does that mean that P1116 is not exclusively a

17 demonstrative exhibit any further but is fully in evidence? Is that --

18 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, and to be clear that the Chamber

19 would be entitled to take the definition found in that exhibit and apply

20 it in its factual findings and in its judgement.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

22 MR. LUKIC: No objections against admitting the evidence.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think it was admitted already but the status

24 now changes that we can rely on it in full in the evaluation of other

25 evidence.

Page 20027

1 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, if the Chamber were inclined to sit

2 tomorrow, the -- I have someone preparing some submissions on RM507.

3 There is a large number of MFI documents related to that witness. Those

4 submissions would take approximately 30 to 40 minutes. I also have

5 someone going through the MFI records now. We would be prepared to make

6 submissions on many of the outstanding MFIs.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Whether we are inclined to sit tomorrow depends on

8 what happens in the next hour.

9 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, any procedural matters to be raised? If

11 not, I'll start with mine.

12 MR. LUKIC: I received invitation from Chambers to present our

13 view on the preparation of our case, so I don't know, should that be done

14 today.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As a matter of fact, that was number one on my

16 agenda. We -- last week, you, Mr. Lukic, and Mr. Groome met together

17 with Chamber's staff to very provisionally discuss some scheduling

18 matters, and the Defence is now given an opportunity to put this matter

19 on the record by making submissions.

20 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honours. And I will switch to B/C/S.

21 Whenever I prepare something, it is much easier for me to prepare it in

22 B/C/S.

23 [Interpretation] Thank you for giving us this opportunity to

24 present our view as to the time that we will need to properly prepare the

25 Defence case for General Mladic. We also seize this opportunity to

Page 20028

1 inform the Chamber that we will be putting our case and adducing evidence

2 in the process.

3 The size and significance of the case make it incumbent upon us

4 to make sure that we do not have less than six months to prepare our

5 case. We believe that this term should start running as soon as the

6 Prosecution will have called their last witness. We heard today that the

7 case -- or the Prosecution case may be re-opened at a later stage. Of

8 course, in that case, we will not be asking for that start of our case to

9 be calculated from that point, but we will ask to get at least double the

10 time that will be assigned to the Prosecution for this particular point

11 when they re-open their case. Should this part of their case related to

12 Tomasica last for two weeks, we will need at least four weeks to address

13 that issue, two weeks preparation time, and two weeks in courtroom.

14 We're all aware of the fact that the Prosecution extended the

15 duration of their case on a couple of occasions, and we have no objection

16 to that. We don't want to explore that in any way. We only wish to say

17 that there are matters that cannot be anticipated that await us on our

18 path to the end of our case that may require at some point that we do the

19 same and extend our case.

20 We have to say that, at this point in time, we are still in the

21 process of including the disclosed documents into our e-court system. We

22 have over 30 individuals working toward that alone. We do have the EDS

23 system at our disposal. All the users of it will agree that it is very

24 slow and that meta data is missing in respect of the vast amount of these

25 documents. In order to properly use the electronic system, we need to

Page 20029

1 have all the relevant data uploaded. It speeds up our work. We need not

2 open every single document. We only need to look at the list of

3 documents and then decide whether we need them or not. The list of

4 documents that a search returns.

5 The next stage is that we aim to call roughly the same number of

6 witnesses as the Prosecution did. We will be seeking the same amount of

7 time that the Prosecution was granted for their case.

8 If you're interested in details, I can tell you that the three of

9 us who are here, that's to say, my colleagues Ivetic, Stojanovic, and

10 myself, have divided up the witnesses amongst ourselves who we yet need

11 to talk to. There are some who the investigators have already

12 interviewed, and we have to leave The Hague and head for the Balkans, and

13 that is when our interviews can start.

14 It bears noting this are quite a few potential witnesses across

15 the world which will probably lead to delays. Some will require the

16 application of Rule 70; others will require consent from various

17 governments or armies. All these issues will be time consuming.

18 Furthermore, an issue which is beyond our control. A number of

19 documents need to be sent for translation to the CLSS. We will be taking

20 quite a few statements, and in order to speed up the process, we will

21 adopt the method used by the Prosecution. We will -- we will probably

22 use Rule 92 ter to present evidence, and, just as the Prosecution did, we

23 will only have a few viva voce witnesses. As I say, all this is geared

24 towards speeding up the proceedings. However, in order for that to work,

25 we need to be adequately prepared.

Page 20030

1 Because of the volume of the whole case and the pace of the

2 proceedings, we were not in a position to review all the documents that

3 we were disclosed. We all know that a great amount of documentation was

4 disclosed shortly before the start of trial and during the trial. It is

5 still the case that every Friday we receive new batches of documents from

6 the Prosecution, containing hitherto undisclosed documents. We do expect

7 this practice to continue through to the end of the Prosecution case.

8 Therefore, the plan is that the three of us lawyers who were present here

9 in the courtroom shall talk to all the witnesses so that we may be able

10 to properly decide not only who would be called as a witness but also

11 which documentation is to be used with which witnesses. This is

12 something that, most certainly, the investigators out in the field are

13 unable to do without our assistance.

14 Hence, we wish to emphasise that it is our position that,

15 together with the number of individuals working on our team at the

16 moment, we'll not be able to properly prepare the Defence case for

17 General Mladic in less than six months following the hearing of the last

18 Prosecution witness; or should the Prosecution case be re-opened, that

19 would mean seven months.

20 What else do we wish to emphasise? You know that we -- we are

21 yet to find out which are the 92 bis witnesses that will be part of our

22 case, and this will certainly have a bearing on our decision as to which

23 witnesses we will be calling and which documentation we will be adducing.

24 Can we now briefly move into private session, please.

25 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.

Page 20037

1 The Chamber recalls that in its decision on the fifth Prosecution

2 Rule 92 bis motion, which was issued on the 11th of January of this year,

3 it held that Zunic's transcript evidence is admissible pursuant to

4 Rule 92 bis but denied its admission due to significant overlap with

5 adjudicated facts. It then invited the Prosecution to resubmit the

6 witness's evidence once appropriate redactions had been made.

7 The transcript has been significantly reduced by the Prosecution.

8 In light of its previous findings in relation to admissibility, the

9 Chamber hereby admits into evidence the excerpts of the witness's

10 previous testimony in the Dragomir Milosevic case. Namely, transcript

11 pages 1712, lines 5 to 14; 1724, line 22 to 1725, line 4; and 1728,

12 lines 4 to 12.

13 The Prosecution is instructed to upload these portions into

14 e-court, and the Registry is requested to assign an exhibit number to

15 this document and file an internal memorandum.

16 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.

17 The next decision I would like to deliver on behalf of the

18 Chamber is the decision on the Defence request for the admission of

19 Exhibit D44.

20 On the 19th of September, 2012, the Chamber requested the Defence

21 to provide further information regarding a video that had been put to

22 Witness Edward Vulliamy. The video was marked for identification as

23 Exhibit D44 the next day, pending the uploading by the Defence of a

24 verified translation of the video's transcript.

25 The Prosecution reserved its position an admission until further

Page 20038

1 information regarding provenance had been provided. This is at

2 transcript pages 2660 to 2661, and at 2689 to 2690 respectively.

3 The Chamber reminded the Defence on several occasions between

4 January and September of this year - I refer to January, to March, April,

5 July - that it was awaiting information from the Defence regarding the

6 provenance of Exhibit D44.

7 On the 25th of July, the Defence indicated it required more time

8 to obtain an original copy of the video.

9 On the 19th of September, the Chamber provided the Defence with a

10 deadline to provide this information by the 10th of November.

11 To this day, however, the Chamber has neither received further

12 information regarding Exhibit D44's provenance, nor did the Defence

13 request more time to provide it.

14 Therefore, the Chamber will proceed to rule on the Defence

15 request for its admission into evidence.

16 During the cross-examination of Witness Edward Vulliamy in

17 September 2012, it became apparent that video Exhibit D44 included a

18 copyright dated, I quote, "2000-2008" by a web site called

19 "emperors-clothes.com."

20 No further information regarding provenance was provided and it

21 was not clear whether the aforementioned web site had compiled or

22 rehosted the material.

23 On the 25th of July, 2013, the Defence submitted that the video

24 is sufficiently probative and recalled that Witness Vulliamy had

25 recognised himself in it. On the same day, the Prosecution opposed

Page 20039

1 admission and submitted that Exhibit D44 is a segment of video

2 Exhibit D43, a video for which the Defence agreed that the audio track

3 was not that of the original and which the Chamber denied admission of on

4 the 6th of November, 2012. I refer to transcript pages 2734, 2735, 3315,

5 4107, 4661, and 15089 to 15090.

6 Particularly in light of the suggested fabrication of the audio

7 of Exhibit D43 and the fact that Exhibit D44, as submitted by the

8 Prosecution, constitutes a segment of the latter, and in the absence of

9 information whether the web site "emperors-clothes.com" had compiled or

10 rehosted Exhibit D44, the Chamber is not satisfied that it bears

11 sufficient probative value for admission pursuant to Rule 89(C).

12 Accordingly, the Chamber denies its admission into evidence.

13 And this concludes the Chamber's decision regarding Exhibit D44.

14 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, if I may --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

16 MR. LUKIC: -- interrupt you, with your leave.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Please.

18 MR. LUKIC: I'm just typing with the Case Manager, and he said

19 that it was given to Ms. Bibles ten days ago for checkup. I don't know

20 if --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you were well beyond your time-limit, I

22 think it would have been wise to inform the Chamber about this follow-up.

23 Because the deadline said for ... it was the 10th of November, and today

24 is the 27th of November, if I'm not mistaken. Which is 17 days after --

25 so even if last week -- if -- even if ten days ago it would still have

Page 20040

1 been seven days beyond the time-limit, the decision is now delivered. If

2 there would be any reason to request the Chamber to reconsider it, which,

3 of course, is -- is -- requires some conditions to be met, then the

4 Chamber will hear that. And if Ms. Bibles became convinced of the

5 importance of having it in evidence, then, of course, the Prosecution has

6 not, until this moment, raised any matter in relation to this exhibit.

7 Mr. Groome.

8 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, giving -- given the unique nature of

9 this particular exhibit, despite the fact that it was -- has not been

10 admitted, I would ask that the Registrar be instructed to retain a copy

11 of it as it may still become relevant later in the trial.

12 JUDGE ORIE: As a matter of fact, Mr. -- I think D43 was, despite

13 it was withdrawn by the Defence, the Chamber denied admission instead, so

14 that it remained accessible in e-court to the parties.

15 I think the same would apply here: Since we denied admission, it

16 doesn't mean that it has disappeared from e-court.

17 MR. GROOME: Thank you.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, if I said anything which is not

19 correct, please bring this to my attention.

20 Then I'll move on.

21 The Chamber still owes the parties the reasons for the decisions

22 on the Prosecution's motion to amend the Prosecution's Rule 65 ter

23 exhibit list, and on witness's Robert Donia's expertise.

24 On the 19th of July, the Prosecution filed a notice of disclosure

25 of Witness Donia's proposed expert reports, seeking the admission of two

Page 20041

1 reports and appendices, pursuant to Rule 94 bis (A) of the Rules. The

2 Prosecution also sought to add these reports and appendices to its

3 Rule 65 ter exhibit list. The report and appendices are hereinafter

4 referred to as the proposed exhibits.

5 On the 19th of August of this year, the Defence filed its Rule 94

6 bis notice and objection. The Defence objected to the addition of the

7 proposed exhibits to the Prosecution's Rule 65 ter exhibit list.

8 Further, the Defence objected to the Prosecution's Rule 94 bis

9 notice on the basis that the requirements of Rule 94 bis had not been

10 met. The Defence requested that Witness Donia be disqualified as an

11 expert and barred from presenting his reports as expert evidence. In the

12 alternative, the Defence rejected the reports in their entirety and

13 submitted that they should not be admitted into evidence.

14 On the 22nd of August, the Chamber granted the Prosecution's

15 motion to add the proposed exhibits to the Prosecution's Rule 65 ter

16 exhibit list, with reasons to follow. Further, the Chamber decided that

17 it considered Witness Donia as an expert and denied the Defence's request

18 to bar him from presenting his evidence, with reasons to follow. This

19 can be found at transcript page 15486.

20 The Chamber recalled and refers to the applicable law governing

21 amendments to the Rule 65 ter exhibit list as set out in its decision of

22 the 27th of June, 2012, on the Prosecution second motion to amend the

23 Rule 65 ter exhibit list. Further, the Chamber recalls and refers to the

24 applicable law concerning expert evidence, as set out in its 19th of

25 October, 2012 decision on Defence request to disqualify Richard Butler as

Page 20042

1 an expert and bar the Prosecution from presenting his reports.

2 Regarding the Prosecution's request to add the proposed exhibits

3 to the Prosecution's Rule 65 ter exhibit list, the Chamber noted that the

4 reports are dated the 18th of February, 2013. In light of this, the

5 Chamber considered that the Prosecution had shown good cause to add the

6 proposed exhibits to its Rule 65 ter exhibit list at this late stage of

7 the proceedings.

8 Further, the Chamber found the proposed exhibits to be

9 prima facie relevant and of probative value as they relate to the charges

10 contained in the indictment. Given their prior disclosure to the

11 Defence, the Chamber found that the accused would not be unduly burdened

12 to their addition to the Prosecution's Rule 65 ter exhibit list and found

13 the addition to be in the interests of justice.

14 Concerning Witness Donia's expertise, in its notice and

15 objection, the Defence argued that the Prosecution had failed to identify

16 Witness Donia's precise field of expertise. The Chamber considered that

17 Witness Donia's CV demonstrates that he is a historian, having acquired

18 the relevant qualifications between 1967 and 1976, and then having

19 lectured in the field from 1976 to 2010.

20 Further, Witness Donia published a number of books, articles, and

21 reviews, many of them focussing on the former Yugoslavia. In light of

22 this, the Chamber considered that Witness Donia has specialised knowledge

23 which may assist the Chamber in understanding the evidence to be

24 presented by the Prosecution.

25 The Chamber therefore considered Witness Donia an expert for the

Page 20043

1 purpose of his evidence before the Chamber, and denied the Defence's

2 request to bar him from presenting his evidence.

3 For the foregoing reason, pursuant to Rules 65 ter and 94 bis of

4 the Rules, the Chamber granted the Prosecution's motion to add the

5 proposed exhibits to its Rule 65 ter exhibit list and decided that

6 witness Donia may testify as an expert.

7 And this concludes the Chamber's reasons.

8 I am looking at the clock. I suggest to the parties that we

9 would continue and that there's a fair chance - but I'm also looking at

10 Mr. Mladic - that we might skip tomorrow's session because I do

11 understand that the Prosecution is not yet ready to call its next

12 witness.

13 Is that well understood, Mr. Groome?

14 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. As indicated in the witness

15 schedule last week, these are all the witnesses for this week. Although,

16 as I indicated earlier today, we are prepared to deal with a number of

17 administrative matters, if that would please the Court.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll have to consider, at the end, to see

19 where we are with the administrative matters which are still on my list;

20 and, second, whether we -- the other administrative matters are of such

21 urgency that we should schedule a specific and although then a very short

22 hearing for that purpose.

23 The next item I'd like to deal with is the following.

24 On the 31st of October, the Prosecution filed submissions with

25 regard to documentary evidence making arguments in support of the

Page 20044

1 admission of materials that have been, or will be, tendered through

2 witnesses and in bar table motions.

3 On the 14th of November, the Defence responded to the

4 submissions, arguing - without reference to any jurisprudence - that the

5 Prosecution had improperly raised matters in contravention of the Rules

6 because its motion contained no request for a ruling or relief and was

7 therefore "formally defected." "Formally defected" is a quote from the

8 Defence submissions. For these reasons, the Defence requests that the

9 Prosecution submission be both stricken from the record and declared

10 moot. The Chamber.

11 Considers that the Prosecution's filing is simply a party's

12 submission on proposed evidence and does not constitute a motion in

13 itself, nor is it evidence. The Chamber takes the same view with regard

14 to the Defence submissions in response.

15 For these reasons, the Chamber dismissing the Defence's request

16 to strike and declare moot the Prosecution submissions.

17 And this concludes the Chamber's decision on the matter.

18 I move to my next item, which deals with D351. That is, a map

19 which was marked by Emir Turkusic.

20 Contrary to what was previously put on the record, the Chamber

21 notes that the Defence has not yet uploaded the line depicting a certain

22 angle for demonstrative purposes on D351. This can be found at

23 transcript pages 15946 and 18196. The Defence is instructed to upload a

24 new version of D351 within seven days, and the Chamber recalls its

25 instruction to the Registry to replace D351 with a new version of D351 as

Page 20045

1 soon as it is available.

2 I move to my next item, which is the delivery of the Chamber's

3 decision on the admission of exhibits marked for identification with

4 Witness RM015.

5 On the 25th of September, 2013, the Prosecution tendered 16

6 exhibits associated with the statement of Witness RM015 with no objection

7 from the Defence. These exhibits were marked for identification as P2405

8 up to and including P2420, pending the Chamber's decision on admission.

9 The Chamber notes as a preliminary matter that Exhibits P2409 and

10 P2412 have since been admitted and will therefore limit its decision to

11 the remaining 14 exhibits.

12 The Chamber recalls and refers to the applicable law on the

13 admission of associated exhibits as set out in its oral decision of the

14 22nd of November, 2012 in relation to Witness Tucker.

15 The Chamber notes that all 15 exhibits at issue were discussed in

16 Witness RM015's statement to the extent that the Chamber considers the

17 statement would be of lesser probative value without their exhibits.

18 When I said 15, I said a minute ago, that we had reduced it

19 to 14. It's true for those 14 certainly as well.

20 The Chamber finds, therefore, that the associated exhibits form

21 an inseparable and indispensable part of the witness's written testimony

22 and admits P2405 up to and including P2420 into evidence with the

23 exception of P2409 and P2412, which are already in evidence as previously

24 noted.

25 The Chamber also notes that the exhibit marked as P2415, a map of

Page 20046

1 Sanski Most town, is of poor quality and instructs the Prosecution and

2 Registry to replace the exhibit with a more legible version, if one is

3 available, and to inform the Chamber whether or not this has been done

4 within seven days from today.

5 The Chamber also instructs the Registry to keep Exhibit P2416

6 under seal.

7 Lastly, the Chamber notes that the Prosecution, on the 25th of

8 September, 2013, made submissions in response to the Chamber's request

9 concerning the origin of a handwritten document marked as Exhibit P2365.

10 In this respect, the Prosecution informed the Chamber that it had

11 agreement with the Defence that the Defence would reconsider its

12 objection to this exhibit in light of these new submissions, and come

13 back to the Chamber. This can be found at transcript page 17355.

14 However, the Chamber is still awaiting a response from the

15 Defence. Therefore, the Chamber will set a deadline of seven days from

16 today, for the Defence to make any additional submissions with regard to

17 the admission of P2365.

18 Next item deals with MFI numbers D166, D167, D168, and D169.

19 They are a number of video transcripts that were MFI'd during the

20 testimony of Witness Martin Bell, pending agreement as to the accuracy

21 between the parties.

22 By informal communication, the parties have reported to have

23 agreed on the accuracy of the documents uploaded as, first, 1D07-2823,

24 which is admitted into evidence and should now replace the transcript

25 currently uploaded into e-court as D169.

Page 20047

1 Second, 1D06-2508, which is admitted into evidence and should now

2 replace the transcript uploaded into e-court as D167.

3 Three, 1D06-2507, which is admitted into evidence and should now

4 replace the transcript currently uploaded into e-court as D166.

5 And, the last one, for 1D06-2509, which is admitted into evidence

6 and should now replace the transcript currently uploaded into e-court as

7 D168.

8 The Registry is hereby instructed to make the above replacements

9 in e-court.

10 The semi-last item.

11 On the 11th of November, the Chamber invited the Defence to

12 upload a corrected transcript of video Exhibit D330.

13 On the 22nd of November, the Chamber was informed through an

14 informal communication that the corrected transcript had been uploaded

15 under document ID number 1D07-2824.

16 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the existing

17 transcript with the corrected version.

18 And this concludes the Chamber's instruction on this matter.

19 To the extent I may have inaccurately referred to the report of

20 the parties, that they agreed on the accuracy of the document uploaded as

21 1D07-2823, perhaps misspeaking by the far last four-digit as pronounced

22 to a 3, I would then correct that. The agreement was on 1D07-2823, which

23 is admitted into evidence, and would replace the transcript that was

24 uploaded until then into e-court as D169.

25 Having made this correction, I move to my last item on the

Page 20048

1 agenda.

2 Which deals with the Chamber's follow-up on its decision on the

3 23rd Rule 92 bis motion.

4 On the 25th of October, the Chamber admitted a number of exhibits

5 on the condition that the Prosecution provide attestations and

6 declarations pursuant to Rule 92 bis (B). The Chamber has reviewed the

7 attestations and declarations which were uploaded by the Prosecution

8 since October 2013 and hereby confirms admission of P2933, P2935, P2937,

9 and P2938.

10 The Chamber also clarifies that the minor corrections made by the

11 witnesses at the time of their attestation necessarily present part of

12 their evidence.

13 These were the items I had on my agenda.

14 Final matter, Mr. Groome, the issue you raised, we could deal

15 with tomorrow. Would we need to have a session for that purpose alone,

16 or do you think that we could find time later on to fit it in somewhere

17 in any hearing which is already scheduled?

18 MR. GROOME: No, that's no great urgency, Your Honour, so -- it's

19 not that I'm insisting on -- that we deal with it tomorrow.

20 The matters related -- there are 220 -- 212 items that are marked

21 for identification which we would be able to deal with, but some in large

22 blocks, one of them being RM507, and that would take about a half-hour to

23 40 minutes to deal with.

24 So I'll leave it to the Chamber to decide whether to do that

25 tomorrow or sometime next week.