151007IT

Page 39793

1 [Witness answered through interpreter]

2 Cross-examination by Mr. Weber: [Continued]

3 Q. Good morning again, Ms. Subotic.

4 A. Good morning.

5 Q. The 122-millimetre Grad rocket is designed to be launched from a

6 multi-barrel rocket-launcher; correct?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. The 122-millimetre Grad rocket has no guidance system; right?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. Grad is just a nickname. The more formal name for the

11 122-millimetre Grad rocket is the M-21-OF; correct?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. In the Karadzic testimony, at transcript page 38484, you were

14 asked:

15 "Q. Right. Well, I'm going to put this to you that rockets are

16 not designed to be fired simultaneously. They're designed to be fired in

17 a salvo, which is to say consecutively, albeit with extremely short

18 durations of time between the exit of each rocket from the MBRL?"

19 Your answer:

20 "Well, we're discussing this all this time. This is what I told

21 you to start with, didn't I?

22 "So you'll agree with that assertion," was the next question.

23 Your answer was:

24 "That's what I already said at the beginning."

25 Do you stand by this testimony.

Page 39794

1 A. Yes, of course.

2 Q. By rockets being fired in a salvo, there's a distance created

3 between each rocket in the air, correct, since they are fired

4 consecutively?

5 A. Minimal. If a salvo is being fired you choose the number of

6 rockets that you are going to fire. And then through the firing system,

7 that is regulated. If three or four are being fired, salvos,

8 conditionally speaking, then it is a very small time distance, if we can

9 put it that way.

10 Q. The amount of impulsive force is different if an air bomb is

11 propelled by one rocket, three rockets, or four rockets; correct?

12 A. Yes, it is different. The total impulsive force, yes.

13 Q. Given that we are dealing with rockets of different numbers and

14 air bombs of different weights, the total mass of each modified air bomb

15 in each variety is different; correct?

16 A. Every construction solution has a different mass, individually

17 speaking, yes.

18 Q. Given there was a --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, sorry to interrupt you, but earlier you

20 said aerial bombs to be fired. It was my understanding that you drop

21 aerial bombs from planes and that, therefore, you don't fire them but you

22 release them and that they -- so I'm a bit puzzled by what you said about

23 firing aerial bombs if not mounted with rockets.

24 MR. WEBER: I -- I don't know if Your Honour is referring to line

25 24 of page 8. But I meant to be saying in that that when asking if the

Page 39795

1 air bomb is propelled by the rockets, so referring to then a modified --

2 it being -- the air bomb being attached with a rocket.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because earlier you said they are not -- yes.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 JUDGE ORIE: I think it was a little bit further back that

6 you ... let me see.

7 [Prosecution counsel confer]

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe my earlier question might have

10 been with respect to the rockets, not necessarily the air bomb. I don't

11 know if that's what you're referring to.

12 JUDGE ORIE: By rockets being fired in a salvo -- let me just

13 see. Yes, it's all about rockets and not about ... yes, I now better

14 understand where I went wrong. But if you are talking about rockets

15 attached to an aerial bomb, then if that's what you mean, or rockets

16 being fired separately apart from being mounted on an aerial bomb, then

17 it may become clearer for me.

18 MR. WEBER: I will keep that in mind. I was earlier referring

19 just the rockets.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Just the rockets. Yes, thank you.

21 MR. WEBER:

22 Q. Ms. Subotic, given that there was a different combination of mass

23 and propulsive force for each of the configurations of modified air

24 bombs, the ballistic properties for each of the configurations was

25 different; correct?

Page 39796

1 A. Well, that's not correct. Each individual one went within a

2 technical solution. It's not that every one of them went individually.

3 There were FAB-100s and FAB-200s. The 100 had three motors and 250 had

4 three and four motors, so these were separate technical solutions. It's

5 not that each and every one of them was different. Each and every

6 modified air bomb, that is.

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

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.

9 MR. LUKIC: I think that Ms. Subotic should answer again since

10 everything was not recorded correctly.

11 JUDGE ORIE: If there's any doubt in that respect --

12 Could you please.

13 MR. WEBER: And I --

14 JUDGE ORIE: -- repeat your answer. I noticed that at least the

15 FAB-200 -- FAB-200 a little bit later were FAB-250.

16 MR. LUKIC: I think it's even correct but for 100 it is --

17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Could you repeat what you said about the

18 FAB-100.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, I said it's not true

20 that each bomb had its own design, its own technical solution. Within

21 certain technical solutions there existed FAB-100, which had one rocket

22 or three; and FAB 200, which had a three-motor or four-motor option.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

24 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

25 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 1D5497;

Page 39797

1 page 222 in the B/C/S and page 246 in the English. And we may need to

2 rotate the image. Yes, thank you.

3 Q. This is what appears to be a thrust diagram for a 122-millimetre

4 Grad rocket from Appendix 2 of your modified air bomb report. The

5 information in this chart is for a single Grad rocket; correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Where did you get this information from?

8 A. From my lab which tested these Grad rockets.

9 Q. According to this chart, the propulsive force of a Grad rocket is

10 used up in about 1.8 seconds; correct?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. You agree that it would be vitally important to ensure the

13 accuracy of an air bomb, if it is modified with multiple rockets attached

14 to it, that each of the rockets ignite at exactly the same moment?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Let's say -- and I want to direct you back to this chart. Let's

17 say there is an air bomb with four rockets attached it, and one of the

18 rockets were to ignite .4 of a second after the other three. This one

19 rocket would still be burning .4 of a second after the other three stop

20 burning; correct?

21 A. Hypothetically, it's true. However, such a rocket does not

22 exist. It doesn't pass the checks, the tests, and there are a series of

23 tests measuring the time of ignition and the time of burning. These

24 tests are made on every series of motors and these never pass assembly.

25 .4 would be extremely high. You see how much it is. It's 20 per cent of

Page 39798

1 the total burning. It's absolutely out of the question.

2 Q. Ma'am, if we could stay focused. According to your graph with .4

3 seconds left in the fuel tank, the impulsive force being driven on the

4 modified air bomb from, let's say, that one last rocket is still going to

5 be 25.000 newtons down to 0; right? That's what this chart would

6 indicate?

7 A. No, this chart shows what kind of propulsion force a regular

8 Grad motor has, what its burning is like, how the propulsive force

9 develops in the chamber, and how it disperses during the burning. It

10 doesn't show anything like what you said.

11 Q. In the Karadzic case at transcript page 38494, a question was put

12 to you:

13 "I want to put it to you that after -- with 0.4 seconds left in

14 the fuel tank, if you like, the impulsive force being driven on the

15 modified air bomb system by that one rocket that is still going is by

16 your own graph 25.000 Newtons decreasing down to 0. Do you accept that?"

17 You answered:

18 "Yes, that is indeed the case."

19 That was your previous testimony; right?

20 A. I said that previously, but that's a hypothetical proposition.

21 Such a thing does not exist. Such a thing does not happen. Because a

22 motor like that does not ever get through to assembly.

23 JUDGE ORIE: I'm afraid, to the extent I understand the

24 discussion, you're talking at cross-purposes.

25 Mr. Weber presents a chart in which the development of the

Page 39799

1 propelling power is shown and then asked questions about the consequences

2 if the rockets are not ignited exactly at the same time.

3 You're saying it doesn't say anything about that because you do

4 not accept that it could happen that they do not ignite at the same time.

5 And that's the reason why you say it's all hypothetical, because it

6 wouldn't have passed assembly.

7 Now you can go on for a long time to do this, but the core

8 therefore is two questions: First, how precise is the simultaneously --

9 is the ignition simultaneous, is it really exactly the same time; and if

10 not, what are the consequences for the trajectory or at least for the

11 flight path.

12 I think these are the two core questions Mr. Weber wants to touch

13 upon. If you try to understand that and not say it has got nothing to do

14 with it, because it has something to do it, irrespective of whether it

15 would have passed assembly. If the ignition is not accurately

16 simultaneous, then, of course, that may have consequences, I take it.

17 You say that doesn't exist. Mr. Weber is putting questions about that

18 situation.

19 I think -- I tried to find out how much you were in

20 cross-purposes. I hope you both are now on the same line again so that

21 we can receive useful testimony.

22 Please proceed.

23 MR. WEBER:

24 Q. Absolutely synchronised ignition of a modified air bomb with

25 three to four rockets is impossible to achieve; correct.

Page 39800

1 MR. WEBER: I see that the transcript refers says "absolutely

2 ignition." I was referring to "absolutely synchronised ignition."

3 Q. I'm sorry, ma'am. Could you please answer the question.

4 A. Synchronised ignition is precisely defined by designed

5 documentation, and its tolerances are determined in such a way that it

6 has no influence on dispersion at target.

7 Q. In the Karadzic case your co-author, Mr. Poparic, testified at

8 transcript page 39038 to the following:

9 "Q. The modified air bombs with three and four rockets required

10 absolutely synchronous ignition of those rockets; correct?"

11 His answer:

12 "Absolutely synchronised ignition does not exist; it's impossible

13 to achieve."

14 He then went on to explain the requirements. Do you agree with

15 Mr. Poparic?

16 A. Absolutely.

17 MR. WEBER: Can the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33191 for the

18 witnesses. And if we could please just have one of the images in front

19 of us.

20 Q. Before you is a photograph that was taken by an investigator of

21 the Office of the Prosecutor on 19 April 1996 in Vogosca. We see that

22 there's four rocket motors attached in a manner that they were supposed

23 to be used with a modified air bomb; correct?

24 A. I really see four motors here linked into one whole, but I don't

25 see a bomb. It's possible they were used, but I cannot see that from

Page 39801

1 this photograph.

2 Q. For a modified air bomb to be attached with a rocket system like

3 the one we see here, it would be important, if not vital, that each

4 rocket is connected in a manner that is exactly parallel to each other

5 rocket; correct?

6 A. That's one of the conditions.

7 Q. Another thing if you're going to connect this to an air bomb, the

8 assembly that we see here would have to be exactly parallel to the air

9 bomb itself; correct?

10 A. Relative to the horizontal axis of the air bomb, yes.

11 Q. If we could go into the -- focus in on the -- let's take the rear

12 part of the upper right rocket.

13 We are zoomed into the rear part of one of the rockets. Do you

14 see the pieces of metal that are underneath what appears to be a -- I'll

15 describe it as a greyish/green metal band?

16 A. If this is a metal band, I see something greyish/green and it

17 does look like a band.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, could you, with the assistance of the

19 usher, take care that the cursor moves in such a way that we know exactly

20 what you're talking when you're talking about the metal band.

21 MR. WEBER: Sure. If the -- if the court usher could please go

22 to the right -- to the back end of the rocket that's visible on the

23 screen. To the back end of it, please. To --

24 JUDGE ORIE: That's the far end.

25 MR. WEBER: Yes, to the far right.

Page 39802

1 JUDGE ORIE: The back is where the -- where the seven circles

2 are --

3 MR. WEBER: Correct --

4 JUDGE ORIE: -- or the seven dark spots. Yes.

5 MR. WEBER: Yes. So right there do you see what appears to be --

6 I'm going to describe it as a piece of metal underneath what -- a band on

7 the rocket.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Is that where the cursor is now at this moment?

9 MR. WEBER: Yes, at the top of what I'm referring to as a piece

10 of metal, underneath the band.

11 JUDGE ORIE: And that piece of metal is then where. Could you --

12 MR. WEBER: It's right on it. Now it just moved off it.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Let's see just a little bit up, then. There it is?

14 Is that what you --

15 MR. WEBER: Nope, a little off. If you're following the

16 circle -- there it is.

17 JUDGE ORIE: There it is. Okay.

18 Please proceed.

19 Perhaps it later could be marked, so let's keep the picture as it

20 is at this moment.

21 MR. WEBER:

22 Q. Ma'am, do you see what I'm referring to? What I'm directing

23 to you -- is that the stabiliser of the rocket that's fastened under --

24 that's fastened what is a band, what I'm describing as a band?

25 A. I really can't see that from this position on this kind of

Page 39803

1 photograph. Yes, there is something.

2 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution would tender the photograph into

3 evidence.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The photograph is not clear.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Nevertheless, in order to understand what

6 we're talking about, it's good that that portion will be marked. Now,

7 you can invite the witness to do so, but it should be clear then that

8 it's not her expression of the marking --

9 MR. WEBER: Yes --

10 JUDGE ORIE: -- because she has the pen and she's in control at

11 this moment.

12 Mr. Usher, could you please assist the witness.

13 Witness, it's perfectly clear that it's not primarily your

14 testimony but that you mark the area where the cursor is now and that it

15 only reflects where the cursor was at the time. You make perhaps a

16 little cross. A tiny little cross there. No, could you -- no. Could

17 you erase that, Mr. Usher.

18 Witness the only thing is a tiny little cross at the spot where

19 the cursor was a second ago and where the pen is now.

20 THE WITNESS: [Marks]

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, this is up. It's not exactly the same

22 place, as a matter of fact. It is -- could it -- could it be erased

23 again.

24 Mr. Usher, perhaps you -- yes. I think that was the spot, if all

25 parties agree. Yes, that's then the little blue cross. That's where the

Page 39804

1 witness marked where the cursor was a second ago, and it's not her own

2 that it's -- means anything.

3 Please, Madam Registrar, the number would be for this enlarged

4 zoomed in photograph marked by the witness.

5 THE REGISTRAR: P7562, Your Honours.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence. Please proceed.

7 MR. WEBER: And, Your Honours, if I could also tender the full

8 photo, 65 ter 33191 into evidence.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We want this to be separate exhibits, yes.

10 Madam Registrar the full photograph.

11 THE REGISTRAR: The full photograph of document 33191 receives

12 Exhibit P7563, Your Honours.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.

14 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

15 MR. WEBER:

16 Q. Modified air bombs were launched on rails; correct?

17 A. Yes. These modified air bombs were launched from a rail

18 launcher.

19 Q. If we could step by step, please. The length of the rails

20 impacts the precision of the modified air bomb. For example, a rail that

21 is 25 metres long will be more precise than one that is 4 to 6 metres

22 long; correct?

23 A. I think it's quite enough to secure the whole length of the bomb

24 together with a motor, plus one length. That's quite enough.

25 Q. I'll ask if you confirm a part of your previous testimony at page

Page 39805

1 38498 in the Karadzic case:

2 "Q. Well, it looks like we've reached agreement that the length

3 of the rails will have an impact on the precision?"

4 Your answer was:

5 "Yes, on the precision, but this has no bearing on the range

6 whatsoever."

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, the problem is that the witness doesn't

8 answer your question. The witness says what she thinks is enough,

9 whereas your question was whether 25 metres would be better than 4 to 6

10 metres. So therefore, Witness, if you would please answer the questions.

11 That saves a lot of time. Do you agree that a rail of 25 metres would

12 give more precision than a rail that is 4 to 6 metres long?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know why exactly 25 metres.

14 I can't understand that. It's very important --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you don't have to understand that. The

16 question simply is whether it gives more precision, not in range but in

17 the direction of firing.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Higher precision in terms of

19 dispersion of target, that could be. But not necessarily. It's not a

20 pre-condition. They just provide a more secure start.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Which means a more secure flight path, isn't it?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. The thing is, it would

23 positively influence the reduction of impulse at start that the rocket

24 has when it leaves the rail launcher. In the beginning of flight of any

25 projectile, there are disturbances at the beginning that affect

Page 39806

1 precision. This perhaps could be favourable because it could reduce

2 these initial disturbances.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

4 MR. WEBER:

5 Q. In paragraph 167 of your modified air bomb report, you state:

6 "It was assumed that the average range of bombs was 6.000

7 metres."

8 This was the base-line distance you used for the range of a

9 modified air bomb; right?

10 A. No. That was the basic distance for which we determined

11 precision. That is the distance at which we defined precision and

12 conducted further analyses because, of course, we were in a position to

13 determine exact distances of firing in the incidents that we analysed.

14 For the most part.

15 Q. Okay. Since it appears you say that the average range of bombs

16 was 6.000 metres, would it be correct that the angle of elevation of the

17 rails would either increase or decrease the range of the modified air

18 bomb and the distance it travels to the target?

19 A. The start angle is always a parameter that is closely related to

20 range.

21 Q. Yes. So if the rails would be either raised or lowered, that

22 would affect whether the modified air bomb could possibly travel,

23 according to you, more than 6.000 metres or less than 6.000 metres;

24 right?

25 A. Correct.

Page 39807

1 Q. In paragraph 11 of your report, it appears that you take issue

2 with Berko Zecevic's calculations for modified air bomb of between 4800

3 and 6800 metres. The fact is your assumed range falls within the ranges

4 provided by Mr. Zecevic, and actually Mr. Zecevic's ranges appear to be a

5 bit conservative compared to yours; right?

6 A. No. What you just said is a conflation. In our analysis, we

7 made analysis of precision for an average range. That's one kind of

8 range. There is a point in our report where we contested the analyses of

9 Mr. Zecevic, and they refer to ricochet start angles, ricochet angles on

10 the ground, the exact co-ordinates at sites that he referred to,

11 et cetera --

12 Q. Ma'am --

13 A. Those are different things.

14 Q. Those are different things. I was just focusing on the range

15 that he says. You agree that your average range falls within the ranges

16 that he calculated; right?

17 A. He also dealt with ranges of 8.000 metres and various other

18 ranges. Maybe at one place we coincided.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, why don't you answer the question? The

20 question is about a range given by Mr. Zecevic between 4800 and 6800,

21 whether the range you calculated - that is, 6.000 plus or minus - falls

22 within that range. That was the simple question.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The question is simple but it's not

24 correctly put because it's not the same analysis. He was not contested

25 on the ranges he proposed.

Page 39808

1 JUDGE ORIE: Then if you are contesting - and that's apparently

2 what your answer implies - that Mr. Zecevic calculated the range between

3 4800 and 6800, then we'll check that or Mr. Weber will put it to you,

4 perhaps now or later, that that is what Mr. Zecevic says. And if you

5 then says he does not, then at least we know where the difference of you

6 is.

7 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

8 Yes, I saw you looking at the clock. I should have done that.

9 Let's take a break, and the witness may follow the usher. And we'd like

10 to see you back in 20 minutes.

11 [The witness stands down]

12 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at ten minutes to 11.00.

13 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

14 --- On resuming at 10.50 a.m.

15 MR. WEBER: Your Honours.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.

17 MR. WEBER: I did further confirmation and checking over the

18 break on what Mr. Zecevic listed as the effective range for the modified

19 air bombs. For a FAB-100, it was 4.145 to 5.560 metres, and the

20 effective range of a FAB-250 as 5.820 to 7.680 metres, and this is being

21 based on --

22 JUDGE ORIE: Is that anywhere in evidence before us?

23 MR. WEBER: No, Your Honours. It's based on his testimony and --

24 well, Your Honours, I believe that there are some adjudicated facts that

25 relate to range of modified air bombs which may be based in part upon

Page 39809

1 this.

2 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a look at them.

3 [The witness takes the stand]

4 JUDGE ORIE: And the difference in range is the result of the

5 angle of firing or.

6 MR. WEBER: That -- that -- that is my understanding.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well --

8 MR. WEBER: But I --

9 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will not deliver its judgement on the

10 basis of the understanding of the OTP if --

11 MR. WEBER: I would -- I understand that.

12 JUDGE ORIE: So please try to be precise in that respect.

13 Mr. Weber, you may continue.

14 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours.

15 Q. Ms. Subotic, a fully assembled modified air bomb as well as the

16 launch systems for the modified air bombs would have to have had to be

17 manufactured under tightly controlled factory conditions and thoroughly

18 tested before being approved for use; right?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. In order to fire any modified air bomb with accuracy, you would

21 need detailed firing tables; correct?

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. Nowhere in your report do you refer to contemporaneous test data

24 from 1994 or 1995 for modified air bombs or the system used to launch it;

25 correct?

Page 39810

1 A. Yes, that is correct. That was not the subject of this analysis.

2 Q. Do you accept that a modified air bomb could be off target by at

3 least - and I'll just use this as a figure - 250 metres in any direction?

4 A. No, not in any direction. There are exact calculations involved

5 and probably certain deviations, and we'd have to know in some of these

6 deviations are larger and in other cases they are smaller, so we'd have

7 to take a look. It's that kind of a system. We'd have to see what kind

8 of range we're looking at and what this is all about. In principle that

9 can happen, but again it's not in any direction. Just one. That would

10 probably be the biggest deviation that could be found in the system.

11 Q. Okay.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Let me try to understand. In every direction I

13 understand to be the left, to the right, short, and long. You said it

14 could be found not in any direction. Just one. Which one? Or would you

15 say that it never would go -- which one?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted to say, and I thought that

17 I was precise enough, it behaves differently during flight depending on

18 the range. Deviation in terms of direction and in terms of distance. It

19 cannot be that big in both ways. It's either in terms of distance or in

20 terms of direction. That's the nature of the system. That is how the

21 forces work. That is how the flight takes place. I never saw anything

22 that big, but let's say it's up to 200 metres.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Now let me to try to understand. You say it's

24 either the direction or the range. Do I understand you well that if

25 there's a deviation in the range - that is, that it's short or longer -

Page 39811

1 that it couldn't deviate to the left and to the right?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, not to that extent. Perhaps

3 to a smaller extent. It's not going to be 200 left, 200 right, 200

4 front, 200 back. If it is range, then it is considerably less in terms

5 of direction and vice versa.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any data or tables for -- or any outcome

7 of research on that, for the specific modified air bombs?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, I have told you. I had

9 tables in my hands from 1990-something and 2002, so, yes, I did see that.

10 JUDGE ORIE: These are firing tables which is something not

11 exactly the same as research on deviation.

12 My question is: Do you have not what you once had in your hands,

13 but do you have any reliable documentation on the deviations either in

14 the -- in short, long, left, or right, any test results or whatever, so

15 that we can look at it.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The results of the testing were

17 certainly included in firing tables. They're always attained in an

18 experimental way. They're not being calculated --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But we don't have the firing tables. You once

20 had them in your hands. And now I'm asking you whether you have any of

21 these test results, and you say you can't produce them. You don't have

22 them so that we can look at them.

23 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have a follow-up.

25 What Mr. Weber asked you was whether the deviation could be 250

Page 39812

1 metres. You say no it could be less. How much less?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I saw up to 200, 210. But

3 again, I'm saying not at the same time in the same range.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Weber's question didn't include time. He just

5 asked whether you accept that the deviation would 250 metres in any

6 direction. You're saying no, not 250. 200, 210. Thank you so much.

7 JUDGE ORIE: But then just for my understanding, it could be 200

8 metres to the left or 200 metres to the right?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Which then covers 400 metres; or on 210 metres, 420

11 metres?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

13 JUDGE ORIE: And now short and long, the same? Also 200 to 2140

14 metres short or 200 and 210 metres long.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In terms of range, I think a bit

16 less. Because the very characteristic of forces of reaction leads to

17 more dispersion in terms of direction.

18 The bigger the range is, the smaller the dispersion is.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you have any documentary test results so

20 that we can look at those?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Not except for those tables I

22 said you could ask for.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I just understand one thing.

25 Ma'am, you're talking of dispersion. Does an air bomb disperse

Page 39813

1 or does it -- is it just one solid thing that falls on a particular

2 object, a particular target?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Air bombs are solid and they fall

4 on a certain target. When speaking of dispersion, it has to do with a

5 surface. Say if we fire seven or eight projectiles in the same

6 direction, and then we are talking about that dispersion. And then when

7 we're talking about deviation --

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm talking about one bomb.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- we're talking about 1. -- yes,

10 one bomb, yes.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: So one bomb, does disperse or does it hit a

12 target?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I say "dispersion," I'm

14 talking about possible deviation in terms of where the bomb will fall in

15 relation to the desired target.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Oh, so you mean "deviation," then that's a

17 different story. Thank you so much. I understand you better now.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, that is a characteristic

20 of dispersion.

21 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 1D5497,

22 page 199 of the B/C/S and page 218 of the English translation. And could

23 I please have the B/C/S version rotated.

24 Q. Coming up before is table 5 from your modified air bomb report in

25 this case, which is -- follows as part of paragraph 167 of your report

Page 39814

1 where you indicate you assume the average range of modified air bombs was

2 6.000 metres.

3 I would like to discuss a few of the entries with you.

4 First, column number 5 is entitled: "Deviation from target." In

5 this column, you entered what you considered to be the distance from a

6 probable target that you felt was there to the point where the projectile

7 impacted; correct?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. Going down the column to number 8, it appears that you list the

10 impact at Cobanija number -- I'm sorry to the row, not column. Number 8.

11 It appears that you list the impact at Cobanija number 7 as being 490

12 metres from an army command. At number 14, the point of impact appears

13 to be 250 metres from what you considered to be a business commercial

14 centre.

15 Assuming these distances are accurate - and just for the record

16 we -- the Prosecution isn't conceding that they are - and the type of

17 projectiles you list impact at these locations, these are instances where

18 modified air bombs were off target by at least 250 metres; right?

19 A. That's right. But I have to note something here.

20 We intentionally put Cobanija 7 there, that is, as you can see,

21 490, in order to give the most unfavorable case. If you remember, what

22 we established there was that not a single air bomb was there. Rather,

23 that there was --

24 Q. Ma'am --

25 A. -- a staging that took place. It didn't fall there but we dealt

Page 39815

1 with it so that it would not seem that we did not want to include

2 something that was unfavorable.

3 Q. I'm focusing on your chart. We'll eventually admit

4 the investigative materials and let the Chamber deduce what happened.

5 But I want to just -- for these two entries, the 490 at Cobanija and the

6 250 that you list in row 14, would these entries -- would these have been

7 overshoots, undershoots, wide left, or wide right?

8 A. Well, you know? No. It didn't go too far, too close, too much

9 to the left, too much to the right. Just look at 6 and 7 here. These

10 are columns that speak about probable --

11 Q. Excuse me, I'm focusing on two entries: Entry on line 8 and

12 entry on line 14. Let's take very specifically line 8. Was this an

13 overshoot, an undershoot, wide right, or wide left?

14 MR. LUKIC: Objection. I think that Ms. Subotic answered number

15 8 already.

16 JUDGE ORIE: In cross-examination, certainly under the present

17 circumstances, you can put a question twice and it's still questionable

18 whether she answered the question.

19 Please proceed, and you may answer the question, Witness.

20 MR. WEBER:

21 Q. If this was a -- if this was an impact, as you indicate in this

22 chart, would this have been an overshoot, an undershoot, wide left, or

23 wide right?

24 A. Yes, that is the only projectile out of these 16 that were

25 analysed that had a deviation that was more than 3, according to tables.

Page 39816

1 And in artillery, left, right, overshoot, undershoot, that is considered

2 to be standard deviation that is permissible. That is a characteristic

3 of a system that is satisfactory as far as ballistics is concerned.

4 So a normal deviation is --

5 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not catch what.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is the only projectile that

7 left this border, if you will, and that can be seen on the next page.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And now you should answer the question.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Would you now please answer the question. It was

10 490 metres off target. Which direction. Left, right, overshoot,

11 undershoot?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't have that information

13 here, whether it's an overshoot, undershoot. I mean, in the table that

14 is. And --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you gave us a long answer, whereas

16 apparently you now are telling us you don't know. Just tell us that

17 right away that you don't know. That's fine.

18 Mr. Weber, please proceed.

19 MR. WEBER:

20 Q. Are you saying that an acceptable deviation for a modified air

21 bomb is 490 metres in any given direction?

22 A. For any artillery system, regardless of whether it's a mortar

23 system, an artillery system, or a rocket artillery system, 3 VV

24 plus/minus and 3 VD plus/minus are acceptable deviations.

25 Q. Yes. So are you saying then that's an acceptable deviation for a

Page 39817

1 modified air bomb? That's what you're saying; right?

2 A. No. I'm saying no for 8, because it probably went beyond that.

3 And it's best for us to analyse it according to the circular one in

4 column 8. And that is the only analysed bomb out of the 16 that went

5 beyond normal ballistic expectations.

6 Q. Let's take number 14. The 250 metres, was that an overshoot,

7 undershoot, wide right, wide left, or do you not know?

8 A. Circular deviation within 2 and 3 deviations in terms of a

9 circular direction. Now, I would have to know exactly on the map whether

10 it was overshoot or undershoot. I would have to look at that case. It

11 would be best to discuss what is in column 8.

12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Your short answer would be: I don't know.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If the question is repeated for me,

14 I will respond by saying "I don't know." The answer I provided is the

15 one that I thought was appropriate.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Let's move on.

17 MR. WEBER:

18 Q. Do you find 250 metres to be an acceptable deviation for a

19 modified air bomb?

20 A. According to all rules and regulations of the profession, yes.

21 Q. Let's focus a little bit more here. In columns 6, 7, and 8 of

22 the table, you include values for different variables under the heading

23 of "Probable Table Deviation." These are values that you selected,

24 correct, for the FAB-250s and the FAB-100 modified air bombs?

25 A. This is experimental data taken from the firing tables for

Page 39818

1 FAB-100 and FAB-250 for analysing a range of 6 kilometres.

2 Q. Okay. I -- let's -- let's define things here. The VD -- I don't

3 accept that these come from the firing tables, but I want to go through

4 your chart nonetheless.

5 Let's define what we're talking about here. The VD is a value

6 for the dispersion of hits according to distance. VP is the dispersion

7 of hits according to direction. Probable deviation is a measure of the

8 dispersion of hits whose value in metres is calculated so that it is

9 equally probable that half the hits are less than and the other half

10 greater than this value.

11 You agree that these are the standard meanings of these values;

12 correct?

13 A. These are probable deviations according to direction and

14 according to range, and this is probably circular deviation, yes.

15 Q. Let's just see if we can go through some examples.

16 In column 6 for the VD --

17 JUDGE ORIE: Could you explain briefly again what is circular

18 deviation is?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it is precisely what the

20 Prosecutor, Mr. Weber, referred to.

21 JUDGE ORIE: The problem is perhaps that ... let's move on.

22 Please proceed.

23 MR. WEBER:

24 Q. In column 6 for the VD of the modified air bombs, you indicate

25 the 100 and 250 kilograms varieties all had the same value: 43 metres.

Page 39819

1 And in this chart, you have no indication whatsoever of the rocket

2 composition or the angle of fire.

3 Do you really think that the values would be exactly the same for

4 air bombs of different weights with differing amounts of rockets being

5 fired at different angles? This would not be the case; right?

6 A. Of course. You're right. Special cases were dealt with here.

7 They were analysed and information was provided for them; that is to say,

8 if we established that there's a FAB involved with three motors, then

9 that is the information contained here. And if it was established that

10 it is FAB-250 with three motors, then again - here we had these cases,

11 mostly - we provided that information. It has nothing to do with the

12 angle if we defined range, so we gave it all for one range. There is --

13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness slowly

14 state her last question [sic]. Thank you.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is different for 6 kilometres

16 for the other bomb. So information was provided for specific cases in

17 accordance with firing tables.

18 MR. WEBER:

19 Q. You understand that the variables for mortars are different in

20 the mortar firing tables depending on size and the type of mortar, its

21 weight, the number of charges, and the angle of fire? You must realise

22 that; right?

23 A. Well, of course. That is an elementary thing, professionally

24 speaking.

25 Q. You have inserted values here that are not much greater than the

Page 39820

1 deviations for a mortar; for example, an M62 P3 120-millimetre light

2 mortar fired on charge 6 at its lowest angle has a VD of 38 metres. It's

3 not credible that you are asserting here that modified air bombs were

4 about as accurate as mortars; right?

5 A. Anything can be convincing for you or anything cannot be

6 convincing for you. You're not in your own field. I have a honourable

7 proposition for you and the Trial Chamber: Do write a request for the

8 firing tables. They will probably provide that to you, and you will find

9 that information there. I am not lying.

10 JUDGE ORIE: We're not seeking your advice. We're seeking your

11 answers to the questions that are put to you, and one of -- the last

12 questions was, whether you -- it's your view - although that was

13 expressed slightly different - whether it was credible or not credible

14 that modified air bombs were about as accurate as mortars.

15 Could you please answer that question, whether the position --

16 the accuracy is the -- approximately the same.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The precision approximately is not

18 the same. But if it coincided with regard to this range, then it is

19 exactly what is contained here in the table. It was exactly taken over

20 from the firing tables. It was obtained on the basis of research, and

21 there is no mistake involved here.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

23 MR. WEBER:

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm slightly confused. You said the data you

25 have taken from firing tables. Which firing tables?

Page 39821

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Firing tables from 2002, compiled

2 by the institute in 2002. And there is detailed testing and research

3 involved of all the equipment, including these bombs, before they were

4 made.

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But we are talking about weapons used during the

6 war.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Technically it is more or less the

8 same weapon, as far as the technical design is concerned. There is no

9 particular effect in differences in construction with regard to the

10 flight.

11 I think that that model that was presented in 2001 is something

12 that I attached to one of my previous papers.

13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

14 Mr. Weber.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Again, do you have the detailed fabrication -- the

16 detailed sketches, the material for those bombs that were produced during

17 the war? Do you have the -- the -- as technicians do, they have details,

18 centimetres, millimetres, material, et cetera? Do you have them?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

20 JUDGE ORIE: So it's very difficult for you to be --

21 to accurately compare the -- what was produced during the war with what

22 was produced after the war. It's only a general comparison rather than a

23 detailed comparison. Is that accurate?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's true --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

Page 39822

1 Please proceed.

2 MR. WEBER:

3 Q. I just want to translate your evidence a little further here, and

4 I'll take the values that you have for the -- for a FAB-250 modified air

5 bomb and try to put it to you in lay terms.

6 According to these valuations, you are saying that there is a

7 50 per cent chance that a FAB 250 modified air bomb fired from 6

8 kilometres away would land in an elliptical area of 154 metres by

9 86 metres; right?

10 A. I apologise. I didn't hear the beginning of the question.

11 FAB-250?

12 Q. Yes. What I'm taking is -- let's just focus on row 1. You

13 have -- for a FAB-250, you have a VD of 43 and a VP of 77. So that would

14 translate, according to these values -- what you're saying is that there

15 is a 50 per cent chance that a FAB-250 modified air bomb fired from

16 6 kilometres away would land in an elliptical area of 154 metres by 86

17 metres; right?

18 A. I see here some data that doesn't fit in with your reckoning. I

19 said that 50 per cent should fall within a circle of a 270 diameter if we

20 look at column 8. But if we look at column 7 and 6, those are 3 VV to --

21 ahead and 3 VP to the left and right. So in the first case we are

22 talking about all fired projectiles, and in the second case 50 per cent.

23 Q. I'm not looking to go into Gaussian discussions with you here.

24 I'm just asking for a simple one variable distance, okay? And this --

25 this was gone through with your colleague in the past. So the elliptical

Page 39823

1 area that would be covered, according to this, would be in 154 metres by

2 86 metres, and 50 per cent of the hits, according to what you're saying

3 in this chart, would land inside that elliptical area and 50 per cent

4 would land outside; right? And this is standard stuff in the firing

5 tables.

6 You're nodding your head. If you could please give a verbal

7 response.

8 A. 50 per cent.

9 Q. You agree; right?

10 A. Yes. That's correct.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You have to wait for the translation.

12 MR. WEBER: Sorry.

13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Don't be impatient.

14 MR. WEBER: Sorry.

15 Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33201, page 12 of the

16 B/C/S. And if we could just enlarge this one because there's lot of

17 information on the one table for the witness to see. And if we could --

18 yes.

19 Q. All right. This is the firing table for the M21-OF, as you've

20 acknowledged, known as the Grad rocket of 122-millimetres. I'd like to

21 go on this table to about seven rows down, the row starting with the

22 figure 6.000 on the left-hand side. You agree that according to this

23 chart that a 122-millimetre Grad rocket fired from 6.000 metres has a

24 VD of 202 metres and the VP of 43 [sic] metres; correct?

25 A. No, it has a VP of 34 metres.

Page 39824

1 Q. That's what I said. So you agree that the VD is 202 metres and

2 the VP is 34 metres; correct?

3 A. Yes. Yes, I heard in my headset 43 metres. That's why I

4 corrected it.

5 Q. According to this if you're firing a fully tested 122-millimetre

6 Grad rocket from a fully tested rocket-launcher located 6.000 metres from

7 a target, there's a 50 per cent chance that the rocket will land within

8 an ellipse which is 404 metres by 68 metres; correct?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. In your report in table 5 that we just looked at, what it appears

11 that you're saying is that both FAB-100 and FAB-250 modified air bombs,

12 regardless of their configuration, launched from a modified rail

13 launcher, were far more accurate than the 122-millimetre Grad rocket when

14 it was just fired on its own as intended; right?

15 A. The results that we presented are a bit different. We had

16 50 per cent more dispersion by direction, compared to Grad, and half the

17 dispersion by length -- by range, by distance. There is a great

18 influence of the aerodynamic shape on the velocity of a projectile, and

19 one should not forget that we talking here about subsonic projectiles

20 which are far more precise than the type of Grad, for instance.

21 Q. I'm not sure you're answering my question. What you're saying in

22 your table 5 of your report is that modified air bombs - FAB-100,

23 FAB-250 - regardless of their configuration in terms of number of rockets

24 are far more accurate than a 122-millimetre Grad rocket when it's just

25 fired on its own; right?

Page 39825

1 A. At the beginning of my sentence, I said, and I don't see why you

2 are neglecting it, the precision per direction at 5 kilometres in

3 modified air bombs is almost 30 per cent less than the Grad rocket, and

4 the precision -- I wanted to say more. We have 43 and 48, and here we

5 see 34; whereas, in terms of range, it is more precise. That is to say,

6 less dispersion.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Now, at the end, the surface of where the rockets or

8 the modified air bomb would land, is it smaller for the rockets, or is it

9 smaller for the modified air bombs? What area where they are likely to

10 fall with the 50-per cent rule, I think.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Grad would fall into an ellipsoid

12 of a length 404 metres and 68 metres wide, whereas an air bomb FAB-250

13 would --

14 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness stop here and slow down.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Witness -- Witness, first of all, you're invited to

16 slow down. Second, my simple question was: The surface of which of the

17 two ellipsis is larger?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It would be larger with Grad at

19 6.000 metres.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Which then means that the aerial bombs would be more

21 accurate than the Grad rocket if fired separately, individually?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely. Those are the

23 results in the firing tables for Grad and the firing tables for modified

24 air bombs.

25 JUDGE ORIE: I think that was the gist of the question by

Page 39826

1 Mr. Weber.

2 Mr. Weber, is that right?

3 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

5 MR. WEBER:

6 Q. Your evidence that Grad rockets somehow became more accurate and

7 almost as accurate as any projectile possible by adding large

8 100-kilogram and 250-kilogram air bombs to them is not credible. Do you

9 really expect us to believe that?

10 A. For the record, I have to say this: I am talking about the Grad

11 rocket, meaning the complete Grad rocket, the whole system whose firing

12 tables were shown to me; whereas, the second thing we are talking about

13 are modified air bombs with a Grad rocket motor.

14 I don't want to leave any confusion. I don't want anyone to

15 understand me as if I had said something about the Grad rocket.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please answer the question. The question

17 is whether the -- I'll not repeat the question. You have heard it.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I heard the question. It's all

19 right. Experiments show that that is so.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Please -- please proceed, Mr. Weber.

21 MR. WEBER:

22 Q. I don't know if you've looked at the tables for a 120-millimetre

23 Grad rocket, but are you aware that, according to these tables, that a

24 Grad rocket is not recommended to be fired on distances under

25 5 kilometres?

Page 39827

1 A. Those are safety systems with all systems, safety precautions and

2 safety recommendations for all systems of rocket artillery. I know that.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, again, please answer the question. Don't

4 tell us what exists elsewhere. Just answer the question.

5 Please proceed.

6 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution would ask

7 that 65 ter 33201 be marked for identification. We do have to complete a

8 translation for this specific table that's in front of Your Honours, but

9 I see the other translations are available.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, what number would the table

11 receive.

12 THE REGISTRAR: P7564, Your Honours.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Is marked for identification. We're not there yet,

14 Mr. Weber.

15 MR. WEBER: I'm just trying to balance the rest of my time.

16 Q. Let's try to discuss a couple different incidents. In your

17 modified air bomb report, you discuss two impacts in the area of Hrasnica

18 on 7 April and 1 July 1995. These two impacts occurred on the same

19 street about 200 metres apart from one another; correct?

20 A. I'm sorry, which incident do you mean? If you would be so kind

21 as to tell me.

22 Q. I'm referring to G-10 and what you've described as the

23 1 July 1995 event.

24 A. Yes. The answer is yes.

25 Q. The trajectories on both occasions came from the direction of

Page 39828

1 Ilidza; correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P582 for

4 the witness. And if we could please have page 2 of the original; the

5 English version.

6 Q. This is the UNMO report related to the impact on 7 April 1995.

7 Toward the end of the report, the report reads:

8 "The UNMOs heard the weapon coming (it landed approximately 200

9 metres from the team location) but did not see it in flight."

10 Did you consider the proximity of the UNMOs' position to the

11 locations where the modified air bombs impacted on the 7th of April and

12 on the 1st of July, 1995?

13 A. I think we did.

14 Q. You agree that UNMOs being there as military observers would be

15 aware of the military locations and targets in their area of observation;

16 correct?

17 A. That's logical.

18 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please now go to

19 Exhibit D01268, marked for identification.

20 Q. And I want to focus just a little bit further on incident G-10.

21 You indicate that you feel that this was a FAB-100 modified air bomb.

22 MR. WEBER: If we could please go to page 15 of the B/C/S of the

23 investigative file and page 9 of the translation.

24 Q. This is the forensic report on the traces found at the scene. I

25 want to direct your attention to the second full paragraph from the top

Page 39829

1 of the page before you, this is the bottom paragraph in the English

2 version, where the report discusses some of the metal parts and states:

3 "According to the sign ABY-3 T, 350 written on a metal part, it

4 was established that it belonged to a part of an electro-pyrotechnical

5 fuse of a FAB-250 aircraft bomb of Russian origin."

6 The fact is is that the physical traces of this impact show that

7 there was a 250-kilogram aircraft bomb; correct?

8 A. On the basis of the traces on the ground, we estimated that it

9 could not have been a 250-kilo bomb and we described that in detail.

10 Q. All of the contemporaneous VRS documents related to this incident

11 indicate it was a 250-kilogram air bomb, and I'd refer the Chamber to

12 P591 and P1048.

13 The commander of the VRS Brigade who fired this very modified

14 aircraft bomb on 7 April testified in this case, at page 23196, that it

15 was a 250 kilogram aircraft bomb. I put it to you that you're wrong and

16 all the evidence shows that it was a 250-kilogram aircraft bomb. Do you

17 accept that?

18 A. First of all, I cannot accept the first line of this finding here

19 in the first paragraph, which refers to --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, would you please answer the question. The

21 question was whether you accept that the evidence referred to by

22 Mr. Weber, whether you accept that that evidence, which apparently

23 clearly states that it was a 250-kilogram bomb, whether you accept that

24 you be wrong in view of that evidence.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't accept it, regardless of

Page 39830

1 what is written in this report, because all of it contradicts the action

2 at target.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, Mr. Weber did not refer you or certainly

4 did not refer you exclusively to this report. He referred to

5 contemporaneous documents and he referred to the commander, I think,

6 whose unit had fired a bomb who had said that it was a 250-kilogram

7 aerial bomb. In light of that, and please don't change the question in

8 your answers, in light of that, do you accept that you're wrong? That

9 was Mr. Weber's question and could you please answer that.

10 MR. LUKIC: We have exhibit numbers, Your Honour, but can we have

11 more precise quotations so we can check? Really, we are not able to

12 check because --

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but, Mr. Lukic, if you think that the

15 quotations are wrong, then have you an opportunity in re-examination to

16 deal with that.

17 Could you please answer the question, Witness, whether in light

18 of the evidence as told to you came to this Chamber, whether you are

19 wrong or not?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If somebody testified that he had

21 fired that bomb on that day at that location, I have reason to believe

22 that he was not telling the truth because the effect at target and all

23 the traces speak differently. There remains the possibility if somebody

24 really accurately stated that he had done it, the probability exists, but

25 then it's -- runs completely counter to the traces on the ground.

Page 39831

1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

2 MR. WEBER: I would re-tender the investigative file right now,

3 D1268 which is currently marked for identification.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Re --

5 MR. WEBER: I tender it into evidence, if the counsel

6 [Indiscernible].

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

8 MR. WEBER: It is -- just given a couple moment -- days, I think,

9 for counsel to check the file.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

11 MR. LUKIC: Is anything -- I'm sorry, is anything added to our

12 pages or not?

13 MR. WEBER: It's the same thing that was uploaded the other day

14 under the 65 ter number, so counsel has been given an opportunity check

15 it, so --

16 MR. LUKIC: Until the end of this week. Today is not the end of

17 the week.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, it's tendered. We give the Defence

19 an opportunity to revisit the matter this week, and we'll -- yes, D1268.

20 D1268 is now admitted into evidence, and the Chamber will hear

21 any further comments made this week or any further observations made by

22 the Defence.

23 Please proceed.

24 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I was just about to start another

25 incident quickly.

Page 39832

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if we move to another incident, we should first

2 take the break.

3 Ms. Subotic, we take a break of 20 minutes, and we'd -- you may

4 follow the usher.

5 [The witness stands down]

6 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I might have inadvertently spoke. I

7 meant to say "P1048," not "D1048," in terms of my reference to the VRS --

8 one of the VRS exhibits. Just if that clarifies matters.

9 JUDGE ORIE: I hope it does.

10 We take a break, and we resume at ten minutes past midday.

11 --- Recess taken at 11.50 a.m.

12 --- On resuming at 12.11 p.m.

13 JUDGE ORIE: While we're waiting for the witness to be escorted

14 in the courtroom, I wanted to give the calculation to the Registrar in

15 order to be translated. There's a little bit of text on it. And could

16 that be done with urgency so that we have it before the witness leaves.

17 And then I leave it to the parties, after they've received a copy -- and

18 perhaps, Mr. Lukic, you can already look at the original so that if

19 Madam Registrar would make a copy for you already so that you are in the

20 advantageous position to be the first. And then I leave it to the

21 parties what evidentiary value they'd like to attach to it, and perhaps

22 the Chamber would put on the record what the outcome of the calculations

23 is.

24 [The witness takes the stand]

25 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Weber.

Page 39833

1 MR. WEBER:

2 Q. Ms. Subotic, I'd now like to direct your attention to the impact

3 in Hrasnica on 1 July, 1995. This is the modified air bomb that hit

4 Aleksa Santica Street number 50. The location of this impact was further

5 away from the Aleksa Santic school than incident G-10; correct?

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that incident G-10?

7 MR. WEBER: Correct, G-10.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

9 MR. WEBER:

10 Q. Ms. Subotic, is that correct?

11 A. Yes, yes.

12 Q. In paragraph 103 of your modified air bomb report, which is a

13 very -- well, it's a one sentence, you state that no one was killed or

14 wounded in this incident. And looking down at the footnote, 407, we see

15 that you're saying this on the basis of a BiH official report, number

16 19/10-4-116/95. This information is not true; right?

17 A. I am not saying that. If so, would you please indicate to me

18 what it is that is not right. The reference or what?

19 Q. Your statement --

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Weber, before do you that, can you just make

21 sure that you're transcribed correctly in your question. I thought you

22 said you state that no one was killed.

23 MR. WEBER: Yes. The entire paragraph reads:

24 "No one was killed or wounded in this incident."

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]

Page 39834

1 MR. WEBER:

2 Q. That's not an accurate statement; right?

3 A. I think it is accurate.

4 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33140 for

5 the witness. And if we could please go to page 2 of the B/C/S and page 1

6 of the translation.

7 Q. This is the BiH official report under the same number you

8 reference in your footnote dated 4 July, 1995. The first

9 paragraph refers to the incident on 1 July and states:

10 "Two persons were seriously and 11 slightly wounded in the

11 explosion. The damage to the apartment buildings was also great."

12 And if you could -- you could probably see it in the version

13 before you, but you can see that this report goes on to individually list

14 all of these individuals by name, and this is going on in the English

15 version, and it describes whether or how their injuries were treated.

16 This file also includes medical certificates of the victims. The

17 report -- the information in your report is not accurate; right?

18 A. On this day, there were several incident, I think. Are you sure

19 that this list of wounded and injured persons pertains to Aleksa Santica

20 50 exactly?

21 Q. Yes, it --

22 A. I don't think you're right on that.

23 Q. Well, we see that in the first paragraph that it does. We also

24 see that this is the exact report that you specifically rely upon for

25 this incident.

Page 39835

1 A. If you look at the building in Aleksa Santica 50, there is no

2 major damage.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, it's not about damage to buildings. It is,

4 and that's what Mr. Weber put to you, you are relying on a report in

5 footnote 40 -- what is 407 or 408 which is exactly the same report that

6 this one, where Mr. Weber quotes people injured are mentioned. That's

7 the issue.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No one was injured at this address

9 and in this incident.

10 JUDGE ORIE: The issue is that you referred to this report when

11 you state that no one was injured or killed. The report says otherwise.

12 Do you agree with that?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to see the entire

14 report, and it is quite possible that -- that there's some confusion

15 there, but I do know that -- I mean, perhaps we have the wrong reference,

16 but I don't think that's the case either.

17 Could I please take some of your time now in order to read this

18 calmly? No one was killed or injured in this incident and no major

19 damage was sustained.

20 MR. LUKIC: It is third paragraph. Third paragraph you will find

21 the place where people were wounded.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Then you can deal with that in re-examination. If

23 Mr. Weber is -- would -- well, I leave it.

24 Please move on, Mr. Weber.

25 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 23 of both

Page 39836

1 versions.

2 Q. This is one of the statements of one of the individuals in the

3 file who lived in one of the houses that was damaged by the explosion.

4 Towards the end of the statement, and I'll read it verbatim, this

5 individual states:

6 "There are no military facilities near my family house. The

7 Hrasnica-based UN Military Observers were quartered in the house next

8 door, and some of them were also injured."

9 UN military observers were injured as part of this incident;

10 right?

11 A. That is right but that happened in Bunicki Potok, 150 metres

12 away, not at Aleksa Santica 50.

13 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution tenders 65 ter 33140 into evidence.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

15 THE REGISTRAR: 33140 receives Exhibit P7565, Your Honours.

16 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

17 MR. WEBER:

18 Q. I just want to go through a couple other quick matters before I

19 end.

20 MR. LUKIC: I just want to know whether the Prosecution accepts

21 that it's not Aleksa Santica - should I deal with it or not? - but

22 Bunicki Potok.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you can deal with it re-examination if you

24 wish. Mr. Weber is aware of the issue you raised. You say it's a

25 different incident. I leave it to Mr. Weber whether to address it. And

Page 39837

1 if he doesn't, you have an opportunity to do so.

2 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, it's one event. Just so it's clear what

3 I am referring to, it's entitled "Case 10" in the expert's report as

4 Aleksa Santic number 50 in Hrasnica, and there's a broad statement that

5 says no one was killed or wounded in the incident. So whether it's one

6 occasion or the other is -- [Overlapping speakers].

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, you can deal with it with the witness --

8 MR. WEBER: Okay.

9 JUDGE ORIE: But don't argue at this moment. Either do something

10 with it or leave it to Mr. Lukic to do it.

11 MR. WEBER: That's fine.

12 Q. Let's discuss incident G-13 quickly. Last week at transcript

13 page 39517, you stated:

14 "Evident here are traces of a small-calibre projectile coming in

15 from the top according to the traces on the facade, which indicates that

16 it could be a mortar projectile from a distance of 10 to 15 metres from

17 the building."

18 Are you saying in this event that a mortar crew set up a mortar

19 immediately below a building and fired it into the building while they

20 would still be right below it within the blast radius of the explosion?

21 Are you really saying this is what happened?

22 A. Yes, correct. That's what happened. They took the wrong

23 elements --

24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We could not understand

25 the rest. Could the speaker please be asked to slow down and re-start.

Page 39838

1 Thank you.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please slow down and start your answer

3 again. You said they took the wrong elements, and could you repeat what

4 you then said.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I said: Yes, correct. They

6 took the wrong elements for firing and they hit a building instead of

7 shooting over the building, which I assume was their intention because

8 such traces can be left on a vertical wall only by a mortar projectile

9 that has an upward trajectory.

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think you may proceed, Mr. Weber.

11 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour.

12 Q. Your theory on incident G-13 is that the modified air bomb did

13 not directly hit the apartment building but it first ricochetted from a

14 roof from what you claim to be the original target, the RTV building;

15 right?

16 A. Right.

17 Q. In paragraph 50, you write that the distance between the RTV

18 building and the apartment building is approximately 620 metres, and the

19 difference in height is approximately 45 metres.

20 First, the apartment building is, in fact, higher in elevation

21 than the RTV building; correct?

22 A. As far as I can remember, the building has 1, 2, 3, 4 -- 5

23 floors. I did not compare anything, but it's a five-storey building and

24 it's as being as it is. I haven't got any other estimate. But at any

25 rate, it's a five-storey building and we provided all the information

Page 39839

1 relevant for the analysis.

2 Q. And the building, just to we have it clearly on the record, that

3 you're referring to is the building that was impacted not the RTV

4 building; right?

5 A. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, just for me to better understand. Higher

7 in elevation, did you mean the height of the building or did you also

8 include the elevation on which the building was?

9 MR. WEBER: Both.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Both. Yes, because the witness apparently may have

11 understood the question in such a way that she only was thinking about

12 the dimensions of the building rather than the position of the building

13 in terms of elevation.

14 Please proceed.

15 MR. WEBER:

16 Q. Ms. Subotic, I don't know if that clarifies things for you, but

17 the building on Safeta Hadzica Street sits elevated and then -- than the

18 RTV building; right?

19 A. Yes, all right.

20 Q. I just want to understand what you're saying happened here

21 according to the trajectory that you're saying it was originally intended

22 to target the RTV building. Are you saying that a modified air bomb came

23 towards the RTV building, hit the RTV somewhere on its roof, and then

24 went off to the right and upward by 620 metres or so to hit the -- the

25 location Safeta Hadzica number 52? Is that -- is that what you're saying

Page 39840

1 happened here?

2 A. When I listen to you I would say, no, but the answer is yes.

3 This is what actually happened: On the roof of C there was a ricochet,

4 that is clear, and the traces can be seen very clearly. And after the

5 ricochet on the roof of studio C, it's 0 - I don't know what height -

6 there was this ricochet. After 600 metres this projectile that

7 ricochetted in the direction where it left a trace on the roof of studio

8 C, it hit the building in Safeta Hadzica. We carried out analysis that

9 involved the following --

10 Q. I just want to --

11 A. -- the angles of ricochet, the co-ordinates, everything, and on

12 that basis we checked things and we came to the conclusion that FAB-100

13 and FAB-250 for all angles of ricochet are over 10 degrees, can hit this

14 building where the modified air bomb fell at Safeta Hadzica 52.

15 Q. You agree with me that modified air bomb projectiles don't spin

16 or rotate in the same way as an artillery shell; right?

17 A. Of course.

18 Q. Now, just I was looking through some of the materials that you

19 cite - for example, the marines manual in footnote 4 00 - and it appears

20 to me that your theory that the modified air bomb would spin off to the

21 right in a ricochet is actually based on a theory that applies to

22 artillery and its rotation. Do I understand that correctly? That's what

23 you did?

24 A. Are you sure that you're discussing this case with me? There is

25 no turn to the right here. There is a trace here on studio C and there

Page 39841

1 is this direction of ricochet that is clearly indicated on the roof of

2 studio C. There is no turning to the right. I think you're talking

3 about another incident now that we can discuss, but that pertains to

4 Safeta Hadzica 50, I think, and after the modified air bomb went through

5 the ground. After that, since it remained without a motor, it

6 Bunicki Potok. I think that you've moved on to a different incident and

7 you're talking about this one. It's true that both of them were in

8 Safeta Hadzica, you see.

9 Q. I have not, ma'am. But what maybe we can agree on right now is

10 that -- that for -- it wouldn't be accurate to say that a modified air

11 bomb, because it doesn't rotate like an artillery shell, it wouldn't be

12 right to say that that could ricochet at a rather steep or a significant

13 angle to the right; right? Correct?

14 A. I don't know where you found this turn to the right in this

15 incident. That's my question. That's why I cannot give you an answer.

16 And the second answer is this rotation that you keep referring to -- I

17 mean, there are two types of rotation: Minor and major rotation;

18 stabilizing rotation and stabilisation with fins. Neither has anything

19 to do with ricochet.

20 [Prosecution counsel confer]

21 MR. WEBER:

22 Q. A modified air bomb wouldn't ricochet like an artillery shell;

23 right?

24 A. Whether a projectile would ricochet or not does not depend on

25 whether it's a modified air bomb or anything else. It depends on the

Page 39842

1 configuration of its external shape and its angle of descent. You can

2 totally exclude a modified air bomb as a special problem for ricochet

3 because quite simply it doesn't depend on the construction of the

4 projectile. It depends on the angle of descent and also the external

5 shape of the projectile. These are the parameters that define ricochet.

6 The angle of ricochet is determined by these two parameters: The

7 angle of descent and the external shape of the projectile. So it can be

8 any projectile. It will certainly ricochet at one point in time. And in

9 a certain way.

10 Q. Are you saying that based on the shapes -- the relative shapes of

11 an artillery shell and an air bomb that they would possibly ricochet in a

12 similar manner?

13 A. Every one of them in their own way and every one will ricochet.

14 It's a process, as we all know, and this is something that is not

15 described analytically but experimentally. We mastered this very well.

16 So this is something that we can count on, and we restrict elements for

17 firing so that projectiles would not fall into angles of ricochet so that

18 they could accurately hit the target involved.

19 Q. Okay. I'm going to move on.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one question?

21 MR. WEBER: Sure.

22 JUDGE ORIE: If I understood Mr. Weber's question well, he asked

23 you whether it would be possible after ricochet to -- that the projectile

24 hits finally a structure at an altitude of 600 metres higher -- or is

25 that further? Then I misunderstood him. Thank you.

Page 39843

1 Please proceed.

2 MR. WEBER:

3 Q. In reviewing your modified air bomb report, you describe the

4 amount of damage to many different locations. The -- this appears to be

5 based on what you found in the investigative materials related to the

6 ditch incidents; is that correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. In looking at them, there were -- I'm just going to put it to you

9 because we're going to separately tender the actual files themselves for

10 the Chamber to review, but I want to have you have a fair opportunity to

11 comment.

12 I'm putting to you that you consistently understate the amount of

13 damage that -- that occurred during these different impacts.

14 A. We analysed the parameters that we had, we analysed the firing

15 power of both bombs, we analysed the experimental results that were

16 finally cited by our colleague, Mr. Zecevic, and on that basis we

17 provided the findings that we provided.

18 We didn't want to increase or decrease anything. Whenever we

19 were not sure that it was a FAB-250, we said so. Of course, on the basis

20 of the material effects on the target.

21 Q. So you'd accept that the Chamber having the ability to actually

22 review that and verify it for themselves; right?

23 A. The Chamber is going to review and verify everything that we did.

24 I believe that that goes without saying. I accept that.

25 Q. Did you have any contact or communications of any kind with

Page 39844

1 Mile Poparic since you started your testimony two weeks ago?

2 A. We have breakfast together every morning, but we do not

3 communicate about this work.

4 Q. And you had -- and when you say "every morning," you've had

5 breakfast with him every single day since you started your testimony?

6 A. Well, today we didn't have breakfast together and perhaps that

7 happened on another day or two, but usually we do have breakfast

8 together.

9 [Prosecution counsel confer]

10 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, there -- it's -- at this time I would

11 not have further questions. However, that's with the understanding that

12 the investigative materials related to the modified air bomb incidents

13 would be admitted into evidence. If could I read those numbers on the

14 record just right now.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.

16 MR. WEBER: That would be the -- I'm going to skip D1268, which

17 was already used.

18 D1270 MFI; 65 ter 33107; 65 ter 33108; 65 ter 33109;

19 65 ter 33110, which is actually the remaining investigative materials

20 from G-15; 65 ter 10208; 65 ter 33131.

21 In addition to that, Your Honours, there would be one document

22 from Ms. Subotic's report, modified air bomb report, footnote 80. It's a

23 military document. It's a VRS intelligence centre document on

24 information on ABiH units. We've uploaded that document under

25 65 ter 33130. That military document along with the military document,

Page 39845

1 and this is in light of your Chamber's guidance in terms of the scope of

2 the expertise, we'd ask for that document and 65 ter 24659 to be

3 admitted.

4 24659 is a 24 May 1995 VRS Main Staff report, and the

5 specifically relevant part would be item 3B mentioning that the SRK was

6 carrying out offensive operations according to the Talas 2 operation on

7 that date. The Prosecution is just seeking to bar table this. This is a

8 date where we don't -- where we did not put this in because we've dropped

9 those incidents but we'd be seeking to tender that document at this time.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before -- Mr. Weber, the first document you

11 mentioned was D1270, MFI. Have we got up to D1270 in this case? The

12 thought the last one was D1268.

13 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I stand corrected. I stand corrected.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Then do I understand that you're awaiting our

16 decisions on the admission of all the others but that in addition to that

17 that you're seeking 65 ter 24659 to be admitted into evidence at this

18 moment?

19 MR. WEBER: Correct.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

21 MR. LUKIC: I thought this will all be discussed when

22 Mr. Weber and I have --

23 JUDGE ORIE: If that is part of your discussions then --

24 MR. WEBER: I'd like to know now because I don't want to sit

25 down -- and if it's even disputed, then I'll just use it.

Page 39846

1 JUDGE ORIE: It's clear that --

2 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, we have to sit down before it's agreed.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, Mr. Weber, you have an opportunity to

4 further put questions to the witness if any of these documents would not

5 be admitted into evidence, and that includes this last one. If that

6 would be sufficient, then we'll wait until you have sat together and then

7 discussions on admission will be delivered.

8 MR. WEBER: As long as it's understood. And the reason I mention

9 it was because I'm going to end my examination, so I didn't want the

10 record to be incomplete without that understanding.

11 JUDGE ORIE: You reserve your position in terms of whether or not

12 some of the -- some of the tendered exhibits are admitted, yes or no.

13 MR. WEBER: Then there is some leftover matters from the shelling

14 examination, in particular. The video that's corresponding to

15 65 ter 33095B, as in "boy," there was some discussion about this, whether

16 this was the same as A or -- version. It's a different excerpt, so we'd

17 ask to 65 ter 33095B as it relates to shelling incident G-5.

18 JUDGE ORIE: And that's separate from the other matters.

19 Mr. Lukic, any objections against this new excerpt?

20 MR. LUKIC: We'll have some video experts definitely, so maybe it

21 will be part of ours. I don't know by heart now.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But any objection against admission of this

23 excerpt?

24 MR. LUKIC: I should check now what it is --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you have an opportunity --

Page 39847

1 MR. LUKIC: I don't think that we would object really, just to be

2 on the safe side.

3 JUDGE ORIE: You have an opportunity to revisit the matter but

4 not later than by the end of tomorrow's hearing.

5 Madam Registrar, 65 ter 33095B would receive what number?

6 THE REGISTRAR: Receives Exhibit P7566, Your Honours.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

8 Before I give you an opportunity to re-examine the witness,

9 Mr. Lukic, I would have a few questions. And perhaps I better do it

10 before you re-examine the witness.

11 Could we have on our screens 1D5498, which is the Sarajevo

12 shelling report. English page 89; B/C/S page 88. And could we zoom in?

13 And we don't need, as a matter of fact, the English, yes, we have it

14 there. Could we zoom in on the picture. Yes, it's the same so we can do

15 with one. Could we zoom in on ...

16 Witness, this is figure 43 of your report. You have plotted

17 northerly direction, and you have plotted the azimuth of Spasenije Cane

18 Babovic Street. If you would translate the compass bearing of that

19 street in more northerly direction, what would the compass bearing be?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean the upper part of the

21 street which looks like taking a turn? Is that what you mean? North of

22 the point where I worked or all the way up there?

23 JUDGE ORIE: No. I'm just asking about the -- that part of the

24 street where the yellow dot is, in southerly compass bearing is 157

25 degrees. Now in the opposite direction, what would be the compass

Page 39848

1 bearing of that same portion of the street?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the opposite direction, if it

3 would be measured from M -- N - sorry - up to this same line on the other

4 side.

5 JUDGE ORIE: What would be the compass bearing in degrees if you

6 don't look in downwards direction of that part of the street but rather

7 look in upward direction and still the street where the yellow dot is?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That would be 360 minus 23. If I

9 can do the math quickly if my head, that would be 337.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, 337.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think so.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's 157 plus 180, so I have no comment on

13 that.

14 Could we now move to another picture of the same street in the

15 same document; that is, page 97 in English and page 96 in B/C/S. That's

16 the same street, isn't it, we just discussed?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. And that's the place of the

18 incident.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, you testified that the yellow line, which

20 indicates the origin -- the direction of the origin of fire would be at

21 an angle of initially you said 10 to 20 degrees, later you took it a bit

22 broader and you said 10 to 30 degrees. Could you then tell us what in

23 the minimal - that's 10 degrees - and what in the maximum - that's the 30

24 degrees - would the compass bearing of that yellow line?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that would be very close to

Page 39849

1 the north/south direction, regardless of whether it's 10, 20, or 30. We

2 did not restrict it that way. It's just close to north/south.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's take it step by step.

4 If it would be 10, what would be the compass bearing of the

5 yellow line?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That would be 100 -- 157 minus 200.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You earlier said that in this direction it was

8 337. Would that be 337 plus 10?

9 MR. LUKIC: I think that there is some wrong translation.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's then take it again.

11 If the curb stone is as you said earlier at 337, if the yellow

12 line would be at an angle of 10 degrees, then that line would have what

13 compass bearing?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 327.

15 JUDGE ORIE: I would expect, as a matter of fact, 347. That is,

16 337 plus 10.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

18 JUDGE ORIE: If it would be 20 degrees, what would it be, the

19 compass bearing of the yellow line, if it was at an angle of 20 degrees

20 from the compass bearing of the street itself?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 337, 360, that would be very close

22 to the north. Maybe it would cross over by 1 degree to the east. Yes,

23 it would be north. 337 plus 20, that's 357; right?

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that's still west, isn't it?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very close to the north.

Page 39850

1 JUDGE ORIE: Still west of north?

2 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

3 JUDGE ORIE: We don't hear you.

4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Repeat your answer, please.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm saying yes.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, if it would be 30 degrees, then what

7 would be the bearing of the yellow line?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 367; right?

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's what we usually call 7 degrees because

10 we start anew at north, isn't it?

11 Now you earlier said - and I asked you whether you were sure

12 about it - you said it's obviously east from north. Is it? The whole of

13 the range you gave that goes from 347, if it is 10 degrees, up to 7

14 degrees, if it would have been 30 degrees, an angle of 30 degrees. You

15 said it's east of north, and I asked you whether you were sure about it.

16 You said yes, you are.

17 I'm again asking you whether the bearing, compass bearing, of

18 this direction of origin of fire in your own analysis would always be in

19 the east of north?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because at the point where the

21 incident happened, we observe where the projectile had arrived from, then

22 in my only analysis, that's in the greatest proximity to north/south

23 direction. Looking from the point where the incident happened --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, that's not what you testified. You said it

25 was east of north and I asked whether you were sure about it. You said

Page 39851

1 you were. Do you want to correct yourself?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe just a little. But that is,

3 for all intents and purposes, north/south.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, I think from your previous answers, I took

5 it that the range, in a bit of a rough assessment, perhaps, the range of

6 compass bearings for this yellow line would be between 347 and 07

7 degrees. Do you agree with me?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, we analysed it a moment ago.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that in the middle of this range we'd be

10 at 352; correct?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

12 JUDGE ORIE: That's west from north; correct?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

14 JUDGE ORIE: In your report, we read that the BiH positions were

15 from strict north to -- well, quite a bit further down in easterly

16 direction; is that correct?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Now, your conclusion that it would have been fired

19 from BiH-controlled territory was based on that territory to be found

20 from north to east of north. And where you said obviously, the direction

21 of the origin of fire was east of north. Is that correctly understood?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Or the direction north/south.

23 I mean, it's closer to the south than to -- sorry. It's closer to north

24 than to north-east.

25 JUDGE ORIE: It's west of north, isn't it? Let me rephrase this

Page 39852

1 question.

2 In the previous questions, I think you concluded that the -- most

3 of the range of the compass bearing of the yellow line was in the area

4 west of north and only a smaller portion was east of north. You agree?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Now, in paragraph 61 of your report, you say it's

7 obvious because it was fired east of north - and let me just --

8 Could we have paragraph 61, I think, is immediately following

9 this figure. It's a really -- in English, we need to go to the next

10 page. Could we go not next page in English.

11 Yes, I think -- still the beginning was on the previous page but

12 we couldn't see it. Could we go back briefly. And could we zoom in on

13 the lower part, 61.

14 You said that anything from north to 67 degrees was BiH-held

15 territory.

16 Could we now move to the next page in both versions and zoom in

17 on the top part. And that, by the way, is illustrated in figure 52a.

18 Your conclusion is:

19 "It is obvious" --

20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: First we -- now it's okay.

21 JUDGE ORIE: "It is obvious that all the directions from the

22 north to the azimuth of 67 degrees pass through the territory that is

23 controlled by the BH army."

24 That is from 0 degrees to, as plotted, 66, but as described, 67

25 degrees.

Page 39853

1 Now if you correct your conclusion that the yellow line which is

2 the origin -- the direction of the origin of fire is not east from north

3 but more prominently west from north, would that in any way affect your

4 conclusion as to where this shell may have come from?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As you can see, we did not deal

6 with detail the deviation of the strip from the curb. We just concluded

7 that it's an angle less than 90 degrees. So it's an acute angle --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, let me stop you there. You testified that

9 it was your assessment that it was between 10 and 20 degrees. If you

10 want me to go to the transcript page, we'll do that. And then later,

11 because you said it was a bit rough, you broadened it to 10 to 30

12 degrees. Your testimony was not that it was less than 90. Your

13 testimony was initially that it was 10 to 20, and then that it was 10 to

14 30.

15 On the basis of this, do you also revise that it's all obvious

16 that the shell must have come from an area which was BiH-controlled area?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe I clumsily estimated these

18 angles when I gave my answer. They look very acute. But just to be

19 completely safe, we took it only as an acute angle less than 90 degrees

20 and that's how we analysed it in this paper precisely in order to avoid

21 arriving at this analysis that we made today. My estimate would be 10,

22 then 20, then 30, even 40, is it so, or isn't it so, that's we just put

23 it in as an acute angle.

24 So I still stand by what I said: That the safest estimate we

25 could give is the one we gave in the paper.

Page 39854

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you gave your testimony in this courtroom,

2 and that's just as important, and there you limited to 10 to 30 per cent.

3 Now, you also said on the basis of that assessment that the

4 origin of fire was east from north. Do you revise that conclusion on the

5 basis of your own estimate that the angle with the compass bearing of the

6 street would be between 10 and 30 degrees? Do you revise your conclusion

7 it would be east of north?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My estimate based on this picture

9 here in the courtroom, I'm afraid it's not completely safe, and I have to

10 stand by the answer that I gave before.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, I'm not asking you whether you want to

12 revise the estimate. My question is whether you want to revise on the

13 basis of the estimate - right or wrong - that the origin of fire, the

14 direction of the origin of fire, was east of north.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In our own analysis here, now, was

16 the same relative to the north. The one we just discussed.

17 JUDGE ORIE: I have no further questions for the witness.

18 We'll take a break. We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes.

19 Could you follow the usher.

20 [The witness stands down]

21 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at 1.30.

22 --- Recess taken at 1.09 p.m.

23 --- On resuming at 1.31 p.m.

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

25 Mr. Lukic, the Chamber finds that the evidence of this witness

Page 39855

1 should be concluded this week. That means not later than tomorrow. And

2 we may need another half an hour for some procedural matters. Not to say

3 that we may have a few further questions as well. We do not know yet.

4 But both parties should be aware that in view of the length of the

5 examination-in-chief and the cross-examination and the length of the

6 reports produced and the course the taking of evidence took, that we

7 should conclude this week.

8 [The witness takes the stand]

9 JUDGE ORIE: And if you make up your mind together with

10 Mr. Weber, I don't know how much time you would still need and ...

11 MR. LUKIC: I have a lot, but I will obviously have to shorten

12 it.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And if you could urge the witness to answer

14 the questions rather than to explain all kind of things which were not

15 asked, that certainly will bring you closer to your aim.

16 Please proceed.

17 Ms. Subotic, you'll now be re-examined by Mr. Lukic. I would

18 again urge you to carefully listen to the questions and to answer them

19 rather than tell us anything which is not directly in the question

20 itself.

21 Please proceed.

22 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

23 We would ask to have P7548 on our screens, please.

24 Actually, no, I would start from -- I'm sorry. It's the

25 Prosecution exhibit and it does not have all the pages we need. So we

Page 39856

1 need 1D01293, please.

2 Re-examination by Mr. Lukic:

3 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, we have firing tables before us for

4 a light mortar, 120-millimetres, model M74. This is the cover page.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we see the next page.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, am I right to say that whereas the

7 B/C/S says 1982, the English one says 1992 on the cover pages?

8 MR. LUKIC: I hadn't paid attention to that one, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated].

10 MR. LUKIC: Can we go back? It does. It does. It's checked.

11 1992.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]

13 MR. LUKIC: In B/C/S, it's 1982.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: So it's 1982 on the B/C/S and it's 1992 on the

15 English?

16 MR. LUKIC: So obviously wrong translation. Probably typo. Can

17 we go back in English version one page. Yeah. Should be 1982. Thank

18 you, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: 1982 is the correct one.

20 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

21 Can we go to the second page now, please.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic should not speak aloud.

23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. We see here in this firing table we have M74 shell, M62, M56 P1,

25 and M49 P1 in chapter 2 of this report, which is on page 15 in B/C/S, and

Page 39857

1 10 in English.

2 MR. WEBER: I'm sorry, I don't know if counsel misspoke, but I

3 don't see an M74 shell.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Well --

5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's mistake.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

7 MR. LUKIC: And I mentioned 49.

8 JUDGE ORIE: It has been -- you're listening not to the English

9 channel --

10 MR. LUKIC: I am listening but [Overlapping speakers] --

11 JUDGE ORIE: -- but -- yes.

12 MR. LUKIC: Correct, yes.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

14 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And M76 was also a mistake, I think.

16 MR. LUKIC: 56.

17 Q. [Interpretation] On this page, we see ammunition and we see N49,

18 M62, M56. Then let's look at the next page in both versions.

19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] 16 in B/C/S; 11 in English.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Could we go back to the other page again. The

21 previous one, Mr. Lukic. In English as well.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, now I see it, yes. Could we enlarge slightly.

24 Let me just have a look. Yes, I've seen it. Thank you. Please proceed.

25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

Page 39858

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm still looking for M56.

2 MR. LUKIC: It's on --

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Oh, I can see it now.

4 MR. LUKIC: Yes, yes. So can we go now to page 16 in B/C/S and

5 11 in English, please.

6 Q. [Interpretation] We see the basic data for ammunition here. Also

7 we see M49, M62, M56. I just want to draw your attention to this, and

8 then I would like to move to page 24 in B/C/S and 13 in English.

9 MR. LUKIC: I don't know if I asked -- yeah.

10 JUDGE ORIE: You did ask for new pages, yes. And there they are,

11 apparently.

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. We see under point 4, gunpowder charges. Item 55 says that the

14 propellant powder charge for 120-millimetre M74 mortar shells is

15 comprised of the primary and increment charges. Only with the primary

16 charge firing does not take place. Why is that so; do you know?

17 A. That is because it's a heavier shell, a large shell.

18 Q. In the second paragraph of item 57, which is on the next page.

19 In paragraph 2, it says:

20 "The charge comes fitted into the shell stabiliser and it does

21 not require any preparation before firing."

22 Page 26 in B/C/S and 15 in English, please. When you discuss the

23 M62 shell, specifically:

24 "M62 P3, M62 P3, M56 P1, and M62 P2, M64 light smoke shells, and

25 the M66 illumination shells, they come with charges fitted onto the shell

Page 39859

1 during the production and do not require any preparation before firing."

2 As opposed to this -- actually, does this correspond to what you

3 know?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. So the primary charge on this shell, is it screwed on during

6 the -- at the positions or is there such a possibility?

7 A. No, not for these shells.

8 Q. Let us look at paragraph 64 now. That is on page 26 in B/C/S and

9 page 15 in the English version.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, are we looking at this in general or in

11 relation to a certain incident?

12 MR. LUKIC: To a certain incident, Your Honour, and two artefacts

13 we saw here in the courtroom, and there was a discussion whether that

14 basic charge should be dealt with somewhere in the field or not. And it

15 was presented to Ms. Subotic actually that --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. And --

17 MR. LUKIC: -- it could be done.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If you could remind me, that was what kind of

19 a shell exactly? What number.

20 MR. LUKIC: M62.

21 JUDGE ORIE: M62. Thank you. Please proceed.

22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Here in paragraph 64 what is discussed are M49 shells, and it

24 says -- we see it's that shell.

25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In the B/C/S version, we need to move

Page 39860

1 onto the next page; and also in English version, we need to move onto the

2 next page. That's where the text continues.

3 Q. So for M49 at the top of the page, the first bullet point in

4 B/C/S and in English, it says:

5 "One primary charge, packed in the same box as the fuse and

6 placed in the designated slot inside the shell crate."

7 As for this shell, M49, is it necessary to mount the primary

8 charge?

9 A. Yes, it is put into the stabiliser.

10 Q. Does this shell look different when one looks at it compared to

11 M62?

12 A. Well, no. Just if we look at them at the same time, they all

13 vary, but it doesn't really matter.

14 Q. These shells that you looked at in relation to the Markale

15 incidents, it says that they're M62. Would you agree with that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. There's some variations here of M62 but we're not going to deal

18 with that any longer.

19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] However, we would like to tender this

20 document because it is more comprehensive. We would like to have it

21 admitted need, and we can link it up to what the Prosecution already

22 tendered.

23 JUDGE ORIE: You can do that. Have you done it?

24 MR. LUKIC: No, we haven't because we cannot merge anything with

25 the Prosecution.

Page 39861

1 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just wondering what we should do at this moment,

2 whether we should reserve a number or provisionally admit.

3 Mr. Weber.

4 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, there's some paragraphs missing, and we

5 believe that those could impact on the relevance of some of the

6 information that was presented. So as a general matter, we've no

7 objection to the admission of manuals. So if there's a provisional

8 number that can be assigned, that's no problem, but if we could please

9 discuss what portions of this should be maybe additionally translated.

10 MR. LUKIC: We are willing to have the whole manual. We have no

11 problem. If anything is missing...

12 MR. WEBER: I leave it to counsel what he wants to translate. We

13 might have a couple extra paragraphs that we would like to have

14 translated.

15 JUDGE ORIE: One of the problems is if you do not deal with

16 certain pages of the manual, Chambers staff will then to go through all

17 that if you have not clearly defined. At the same time, of course, we

18 should also be careful not to lose context.

19 For the time being let's reserve a number for the whole of this

20 manual, and then the parties could sit together and see what is relevant

21 or not so as to save unnecessary work for us as well.

22 Please proceed.

23 MR. WEBER: And I didn't want anything to be misunderstood that

24 we think that it's been linked up to what was used by the Prosecution as

25 of now, so ...

Page 39862

1 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be reserved.

2 THE REGISTRAR: D1278, Your Honours.

3 JUDGE ORIE: That's for the manual on this 120-millimetre mortar

4 shells. It's -- we know the 65 ter number. It's therefore not only

5 reserved but it's MFI'd, and we'll later hear what portions we really

6 will have to look at.

7 Please proceed.

8 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

9 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, it was put to that you had you

10 problems in terms of perspective because you used photographs from police

11 documents. How did you redress that? Actually, I cannot ask you

12 directly.

13 A. Sorry, I didn't hear a question.

14 Q. All right. Problems of perspective, because you used photographs

15 from police files.

16 A. The problem of perspective is one that we practically did not

17 have to resolve by special methods. Where it was necessary to resolve

18 it, we used programmes and we carried out many analyses on the spot, and

19 then we compiled photo documentation about that, so --

20 Q. That's what you wished to say?

21 Markale I and II were discussed, and what was mentioned was that

22 one mortar shell fell in both places. I don't know whether you can tell

23 me now, but how many mortar shells are needed in order to destroy a

24 target? I'm referring to 120-millimetres or 82-millimetres; that would

25 be the calibre?

Page 39863

1 A. This is tactical information. Right this minute, I wouldn't

2 know.

3 Q. Very well.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could all unnecessary

5 microphones please be switched off. Thank you.

6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we briefly take a look at 1D1293.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it the same D1278 MFI?

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's on the screen.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's on the screen.

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Which page do you need?

11 MR. LUKIC: That's right, yeah. Page 57.

12 Can we have this one enlarged, please.

13 Q. [Interpretation] You were already asked about this. Judge Orie

14 asked you about this. He asked you whether you took into account minus

15 500. That is to say, a 500 metre difference in altitude.

16 A. Yes, I said that we did not and that there was no need for that

17 because we analysed this throughout the horizontal plane.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.

19 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, a couple of things. I'd just -- in

20 order for follow -- we've discussed many, many incidents, and things have

21 come up at different times. If we could please have a precise reference

22 to where things were made so that we can track what the actual testimony

23 was.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could you assist both Mr. Weber and the

25 Chamber.

Page 39864

1 MR. LUKIC: No, not at this moment, I'm sorry. I have cut out

2 something completely different.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll try to finds it ourselves, but ...

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. You told us that there was no need for that. On this table, can

6 minus 500 be seen?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 JUDGE ORIE: One second.

10 MR. WEBER: If counsel could just state for the record -- I see

11 that the type of mortar is on the page, an M74, but I'm not sure what the

12 break -- actually, what type of mortar shell this table refers to, and

13 there's no translation of it.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.

15 MR. LUKIC: I only can see that it's first charge -- give me one

16 minute, please.

17 JUDGE ORIE: On the top of what we see is 120-millimetre M74, is

18 that -- apparently with a 130-millimetre per seconds initial speed.

19 That's what with he can see from it.

20 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I'm just going to leave this vague.

21 But to state my concern, I'm concerned we're possibly not looking at the

22 right type of mortar.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, do you have any better mortar for us to

24 look at?

25 MR. LUKIC: I'll move on and I'll come back, obviously. I have

Page 39865

1 some ... I cannot see it.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.

3 MR. LUKIC: I'll come back to this one.

4 Can we have 1D5756 now, please.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Who took this photograph? The one before you, Ms. Subotic.

9 A. This photograph was taken by my colleague, Mile Poparic, and

10 myself when we visited in September, the 17th of September, in

11 Vase Miskina. We did this as instructed by the Trial Chamber.

12 Q. And what was your finding? How big are these tiles?

13 A. What I've already said, that it is squares and --

14 MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honours.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.

16 MR. WEBER: Could we please have some foundation? We have when,

17 where. I mean --

18 MR. LUKIC: Everything is there.

19 JUDGE ORIE: I think it was in response to --

20 MR. WEBER: Otherwise, we are just talking about a file.

21 JUDGE ORIE: I think it was in response to a request of I then

22 take it the Karadzic Trial Chamber or any other Chamber?

23 When was it?

24 MR. LUKIC: It says 17th of September. Only year is missing.

25 JUDGE ORIE: 17 September of what year?

Page 39866

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 2010 in the street of Vase Miskina.

2 I did say that.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

4 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

5 Q. [Interpretation] My colleague Mr. Weber asked you about what

6 he -- actually about what Mirza Sabljica marked during his testimony.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] 1D05544. Could we please take a look

8 at that first.

9 MR. WEBER: I'm just -- are we moving to a different incident?

10 MR. LUKIC: Yeah. Yes, we are.

11 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, just for the record the relevance of

12 this photo is unclear to the Prosecution.

13 MR. LUKIC: It will be.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Let's move on. Mr. Lukic, we're moving now to which

15 incident?

16 MR. LUKIC: Klare Cetkin Street.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. You used this photograph in your report.

20 A. Yes. This photograph is one that we dealt with as photo

21 documentation in terms of measuring traces on the spot in Klare Cetkin

22 Street. So we used it for verification for what we measured on the spot.

23 Q. Were you present when this photograph was marked?

24 A. Yes. I was in the courtroom when Witness Mirza Sabljica

25 testified.

Page 39867

1 Q. Thank you.

2 MR. LUKIC: Can we have 1D1405 on our screens now, please.

3 Q. [Interpretation] This is the transcript of Mr. Sabljica's

4 testimony.

5 MR. LUKIC: Can we have page 22 in e-court, please. Should

6 correspond to page 7-8 ... the next one then, please. Should correspond

7 to page 7834 of the Karadzic transcript. And then from line 12, it

8 starts -- line 20, the question was:

9 "Do you see that this crater here is right next to the pavement.

10 One bit of the pavement even had to be replaced and repaired.

11 "A. That's clearly visible."

12 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I'm sorry to interrupt, but just

13 to [indiscernible] -- the -- the phrase immediately above, it's relevant

14 for the context of this photograph. If counsel wouldn't mind starting at

15 line 16.

16 JUDGE ORIE: If would you follow the suggestion, Mr. --

17 MR. LUKIC: Yes, of course.

18 JUDGE ORIE: You are free to do so. Of course, otherwise

19 Mr. Weber will revisit the matter in --

20 MR. LUKIC: Yes, because it was clear later. I will just need to

21 read more, but that's fine. Page 16:

22 "Q. Do you know this place?"

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Line 16.

24 MR. LUKIC: Line 16. What did I say?

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: "Page."

Page 39868

1 MR. LUKIC: Okay. Line 16. Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Q. "Q. Do you know this place?

3 "A. Looking at this photograph it could be anywhere in the city

4 of Sarajevo because I can't see the buildings around, so I couldn't even

5 tell you in which part of town it is based on this photograph."

6 And then after that, I already read.

7 Then Mr. Sabljica was shown several other documents in Karadzic

8 case like 1D2576, and it was -- he was informed that it's regarding G-6

9 incident. On page 7844, from lines 18 to 22, 23, 24, and then he was

10 shown this photograph which was marked in Karadzic case as 1D2440.

11 And now we need page 7846 for this transcript, so we have to go

12 12 pages ahead.

13 Line 9, Mr. Sabljica was asked, I quote:

14 "Sir, can you now recognise the heating plant at Alipasino Polje

15 and this same spot, a portion of the sidewalk that had been replaced and

16 also the pavement that was repaired?

17 "A. Yes, I do, but now it's taken from a different angle.

18 "Q. Would you agree with me that this photo was taken from

19 outside the building where -- bearing the memorial plaque?

20 "A. Yes, I do agree based on the replacement of the sidewalk I

21 could agree with that."

22 And then they were -- talked -- they talked about the photograph

23 at line 25, starts the question:

24 "Thank you. Can you now please tell us whether this measuring,"

25 end of quote, and we have to go to next page.

Page 39869

1 I quote:

2 "... band was placed in the way that you would place the band to

3 indicate the major axis.

4 "A. Yes, but we did mark all the traces and based on the

5 photograph it is my assumption that this could be indicating the

6 direction from which the projectile had come in."

7 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I'm going to object based on the fact

8 that he just jumped the discussion about the major axis in the preceding

9 page. I'm worried that this is being misleading.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. I'm afraid that it escapes my

11 understanding what exactly your problem is, Mr. Weber. And could you do

12 it in such a way that ...

13 MR. WEBER: I will try to do it in a general way. There was a

14 photo that's been shown that was marked with the witness that did have a

15 location, which is referred to on the previous page which Mr. Sabljica

16 was commenting on in terms of the major axis and him being able or not

17 able to determine that major axis based on that photograph that we saw

18 which counsel is relying upon. I think if counsel is going to do that,

19 we should have the full discussion about the reference points that

20 Mr. Sabljica is being able to comment or not comment upon.

21 JUDGE ORIE: I leave it at this moment in the hands of Mr. Lukic,

22 and if there's any error made there, then have you an opportunity --

23 because I'm just a bit lost. You're referring to a lot of things which

24 we haven't read, so therefore I'm unable to follow it.

25 Mr. Lukic, you may proceed but for not more than one or two

Page 39870

1 minutes.

2 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. That's why I have to go back now in the

3 transcript as well because the picture was first marked and then he was

4 explained where this whole picture was taken. And so we have to go back

5 to page 7834 in the transcript, which is 13 pages back.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Will you able to do this exercise in one or two

7 minutes or -- if not, then we should stop. I take it we go back and I --

8 from what I saw a minute ago was it that Mr. Sabljica initially said, "I

9 don't know where it is," and then later that was apparently in one way or

10 another was resolved.

11 I'd like the parties to sit together and to see how they divide

12 their time tomorrow. We need at least half an hour, if not a little bit

13 more, for other matters.

14 Ms. Subotic, this is the last time I'm going to instruct you that

15 you should not speak with anyone or communicate because the Chamber

16 considers it -- that your testimony should be concluded by tomorrow.

17 Therefore, also if you want to serve the interests of justice best, then

18 it would also be best to immediately answer to the questions, because

19 otherwise some questions may not be able to be put, which would be a

20 pity.

21 You may follow the usher, and you should not discuss your

22 evidence with anyone or communicate about it.

23 [The witness stands down]

24 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day, and we resume tomorrow,

25 Thursday, the 8th of October, 9.30 in the morning in this same courtroom,

Page 39871

1 I.

2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.15 p.m.,

3 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 8th day of

4 October, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.