1 Thursday, 8 February 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.56 p.m.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you call
7 the case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I would like to greet everyone
11 present on Thursday, the 8th of February, 2007, on this snowy day.
12 Mr. Registrar, could we have two IC numbers.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, we have the list submitted by 3D in
14 relation to the documents that should be tendered through Enes Vukotic,
15 and the list shall be given Exhibit number IC 385.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Very well.
17 We are almost 45 minutes late in commencing with the hearing.
18 This is because of the snow that has fallen, which apparently paralysed
19 the Dutch police who weren't able to fetch the accused on time.
20 In addition, I met the Registrar who informed me that a decision
21 had been taken to cancel the hearing. I told him that I did not share
22 this opinion. International justice should not be brought to a standstill
23 because of a few centimetres of snow. I informed him that, given the
24 staff problems and given the problems of those in the courtroom, because
25 they might find it difficult to return home and because of the problems
1 that the Dutch police might have to take the accused back to the Detention
2 Unit, we would be concluding the hearing at 6.30 p.m.
3 As a result, we have three and a half hours of effective working
4 time. I know that Mr. Mundis needs at least 20 minutes to conclude his
5 examination-in-chief, and I also know that the Defence was allocated four
6 hours. Therefore, it's quite likely that we won't be able to conclude the
7 hearing of this witness. If I were to put questions or if I could control
8 the way in which questions were put, we would be finished by 6.30. But as
9 that is not the case, it's highly probable that the witness will have to
10 come back. I know that the witness will soon have to return to another
11 country that I won't mention, and I also know that the witness will be
12 testifying in another case which would make it possible for us to see the
13 witness on another occasion and to resume our examination of the witness,
14 if that is necessary.
15 Mr. Mundis, you have the floor.
16 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. I will move as
17 expeditiously as possible.
18 WITNESS: PATRICK VAN DER WEIJDEN [Resumed]
19 Examination by Mr. Mundis: [Continued]
20 Q. Good afternoon, Lieutenant van der Weijden.
21 A. Good afternoon.
22 Q. I would now ask if we could again turn to your report, which is
23 P 09808, incident 6, page 19. In e-court that would be page 20.
24 Sir, can you please tell us what steps you took when visiting
25 Mostar to produce the description and analysis of incident 6.
1 A. As in most incidents, I visited the incident site to determine the
2 possible directions of fire that -- the possible direction that the
3 shooter might have shot from, what the range would have been to the most
4 likely position, as well as the alleged -- and if the alleged shooting
5 position given by the witness, the victim or the witness, was possible.
6 In addition, there's some thoughts on the calibre or weapon that
7 could have been used and additional information.
8 The photos that I included, as is written below the first photo,
9 is a photo that I've taken from the top of the narrow building, towards
10 the incident site. The yellow arrow marks exactly the spot where the
11 victim was shot. And the second photo gives a view of the tripod with the
12 laser range-finder looking in the direction of the incident.
13 Q. Okay. Now, sir, you've mentioning the Ledera building. Could you
14 please tell us how you came to the conclusion with respect to the Ledera
16 A. I would have to go to incident number 7 for that, because I
17 included an extra photograph in incident number 7. The second photo on
18 incident number 7, which gives a view from the end to the side, which is
19 taken from a different angle than incident number 6 --
20 Q. Sorry to interrupt. You're now on page -- which page of your
22 A. 23 of my report.
23 MR. MUNDIS: In e-court that would be page 24, and again we're on
24 P 09808.
25 Q. Please continue, sir.
1 A. I'm aware that there are several high-rise buildings visible in
2 that photo. The problems that would arise from shooting -- to be able to
3 take a shot at the victim in case number 6, in front of the victim where
4 the hill slopes down towards the Neretva River and on the other side
5 there's the banks. Shooting uphill with structures is, yeah, nearly
6 impossible. To get a good view at the victims who -- the shooter would
7 have to be at a longer distance to have a clear view of its target.
8 Looking in the direction, there are several high-rise buildings.
9 The taller ones are too far away for a hot to be fired -- well, it's not
10 too far away for a shot to be fired, but it's just very difficult to take
11 a shot from that distance. So the most obvious one would be the Ledera
12 building, which offers very good views of the incident site.
13 Q. Sir, if we could then return back to incident number 6 and
14 specifically if you would turn to page 21, or again page 22 in e-court.
15 Could you describe for us the steps taken at that Ledera building.
16 A. At the Ledera building itself, there was -- I don't think that the
17 shooter would have been on top of the roof of the building, because again
18 here with the -- the time of year would be acceptable to be outside for a
19 longer time, but it would be in -- also in -- in view of people on the
20 other side of the river. That would lead me to believe that the shooter
21 would have been on the upper floors of the building. But since there was
22 no possibility to enter the apartments of the building, together with the
23 interpreter, I went onto the roof, directly above the most likely
24 apartments that had the best view. And the distance was approximately 2
25 metres above the apartments.
1 Q. And, sir, if you can tell us, based upon the fact that you were
2 approximately 2 metres above the apartments, what effect, if any, that
3 fact had on the conclusions you reached with respect to incidents 6 and
5 A. That would have no impact.
6 Q. And, again, just to be clear, can you please describe for us the
7 photograph that's contained on page 21 in the hard copy or page 22 in
8 e-court. What does that depict?
9 A. It depicts the exact location of the tripod with the raise
10 range-finder mounted on it, and that's the exact location from which I --
11 which I lasered the distance to the incident site.
12 Q. Again, Lieutenant van, based on the instructions you were provided
13 and which you provided us yesterday, can you tell us what conclusions you
14 reached with respect to incident 6?
15 A. The conclusions would be that -- although you can never be 100 per
16 cent sure of the exact location of the shooter, the Ledera building offers
17 one of the best possibilities for the shooter to have fired from.
18 Q. Let's turn now to incident 7, pages 22 and 23 of the hard copy,
19 and 23 and 24 in e-court. Can you please tell us, sir, what steps you
20 took to produce the analysis contained in incident 7?
21 A. In incident 7, it was not someone specifically that was fired at
22 but it was rather a truck that was fired at, which -- one of the bullets
23 entered the cabin of the truck and injured him in the head. The truck was
24 moving at the time, so when visiting the incident site, I measured
25 distance with the laser range-finder, during which the truck would have
1 been visible towards -- from the west, which was a 110-metre stretch.
2 Well -- and the fire truck was shown on the DVD. It's an old truck that
3 was already old at the time and would be moving uphill, as can be seen on
4 page 23 of my hard copy. It's a slightly incline of the hill, so the
5 truck won't have been moving that fast. I calculated it would probably be
6 around 20 kilometres an hour. And if my calculations -- in my
7 calculations, I concluded that the truck then would have been visible for
8 about 20 seconds to the shooter, which would give someone, even at a
9 larger distance, enough time to shoot several times, because it's a large
11 Q. And can you please, just so everyone is clear in understanding,
12 the top photograph on page 23, or again page 24 in e-court, the top
13 photograph, can you describe the markings that you placed on that
15 A. The markings that I placed, the horizontal or with a slight
16 incline yellow line on the left, and it starts it where -- the truck would
17 have appeared from behind the white house and it stops at the right side
18 where it would have disappeared behind bushes and the houses next to the
19 bushes. In case of -- the arrow with case number 7 is the exact spot
20 where the victim was hit. So the truck might have been hit before that,
21 but that's where the victim itself -- himself was hit.
22 Q. Now, Lieutenant van der Weijden, again, based on the instructions
23 you were provided, can you please describe for us the conclusions you
24 reached with respect top incident 7.
25 A. As with case number 6, as is shown in the photo, the Ledera
1 building offers a very good view of the incident site, and in my opinion
2 would offer a very good shooting position to -- for the shooter to have
3 been in.
4 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, I would ask to briefly go into private
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, private session, please.
7 [Private session]
11 Pages 13800-13803 redacted. Private session
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: We are back in open session, Your Honours.
6 MR. MUNDIS:
7 Q. Lieutenant van der Weijden, with respect to incident number 11,
8 can you please tell us, sir, what steps were taken to produce the
9 description and analysis concerning incident number 11.
10 A. In this case, the difference of -- again, the buildings with the
11 stairs in between was approximately 1.8 metres wide, so a narrow staircase
12 up between two houses which forms a tunnel. So anything -- any position
13 outside of -- within the direction of the stairs would be impossible to
14 have fired -- to have been used as a position. The victim was also at the
15 top of the stairs, and the farther he goes up the stairs, the smaller or
16 the narrower the angle of possible locations becomes.
17 Again, the photo shows a view towards possible locations taken
18 through the laser -- with the camera. This one is not through the laser
19 range-finder. The insert is, which shows the glass house, which was the
20 alleged shooting position. Also marked on the photo is a new building, so
21 I marked that roof blue. As with incident number 6 going down, positions
22 at shorter ranges would be impossible because there were more structures
23 just behind the newly built house. So the shooter would have to be at a
24 farther distance to get a clear shot. The glass house would be an option,
25 but as well as some of the other high-rise buildings.
1 Q. Again, Lieutenant, based on the instructions you were provided,
2 what were the conclusions you reached with respect to incident 11?
3 A. The conclusions would be that the shooter must have been somewhere
4 in the view that I've shown in the photo, and that the alleged shooting
5 position would offer a good possibility for the shooter to have been in.
6 It could have been somewhere there, but the glass house which was,
7 according to the victim -- according to the victim, the location, that
8 certainly is possible.
9 Q. Now, Lieutenant van der Weijden, I'd just like to ask you a couple
10 of questions about the use of a sniper or snipers in a covering role, that
11 is, to cover certain geographic areas. Are you familiar with that use of
12 snipers in general?
13 A. Yes. Not just snipers but any military personnel.
14 Q. Now, these four locations that we've talked about, Stotina, Ledera
15 building, Spanish Square, and the glass house building, can you comment on
16 those in terms of their ability to cover certain areas within the city of
17 Mostar from a sniper perspective?
18 A. I'll go through each of the locations one by one.
19 First of all, the glass house, I wasn't able to visit the glass
20 house because it was not -- it couldn't be visited at that time, so I
21 wouldn't -- I just would be able to conclude that, from any high-rise
22 building, you get a very good view of the surroundings, so that offers a
23 dominating position from which even one man, armed with a rifle, can
24 dominate the neighbourhood.
25 The same goes for the Ledera building and Stotina, which are
1 buildings on prominent features within Mostar, which offer good views.
2 The Spanish Square isn't a dominating feature in Mostar. It's --
3 on the map you can see, because there are some roads leading to it, but it
4 offers the best view down the street. So a man with a rifle would, yeah,
5 be able to suppress everyone on the street, because it's just, you know,
6 it's just a shooting gallery.
7 Q. Thank you, Lieutenant van der Weijden.
8 MR. MUNDIS: The Prosecution has no further questions.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. I just have an
10 extremely simple question I'd like to put to you. It won't take much
11 time, rest assured.
12 You said that you had also consulted medical documents on the
13 wounds. As far as the medical documents are concerned, we've seen two
14 types, the certificates that describe the wound, established by Dr. Raskov
15 [phoen] in the Institute of Hygiene, and then we saw some photographs of
16 wounds that show the wounds.
17 My question is as follows: You know the energy and matter formula
18 of Einstein equals MC2. Energy is determined by mass and speed squared.
19 A bullet has a mass, so you have the weight of the bullet. You can
20 determine the velocity of the bullet on the basis of your calculations.
21 You can use the hypotheses on arms, that speed decreases with time, but as
22 you determine a distance of 400 or 500 metres in such cases, and depending
23 on various factors, you can calculate the energy.
24 But did you ask yourself, when you had a look at the wounds,
25 whether you could establish a relationship between the wound and the
1 energy:matter ratio.
2 THE WITNESS: It's very difficult because on the photos you only
3 see scars, and there's a description in the medical reports which
4 sometimes is as much as a rifle shot. I was able to conclude that one
5 victim - and I would not be able at this time to determine exactly which
6 victim it was - who thought it was hit by a 50-calibre round, but in the
7 video, the victim is not limping and he was shot in the leg. A 50-calibre
8 round would have most likely taken his leg off, because -- just from the
9 energy the round has. In that way I was able to conclude that it was
10 more a -- a smaller rifle calibre like the ones I've described in the
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You've just mentioned a calibre
13 50 round. For those not in the know, if a sniper uses a weapon, the
14 calibre of which is 50, this is a very specific weapon which, in theory,
15 is not usually used on the ground.
16 THE WITNESS: Well, the 50-calibre sniper rifles are common in
17 almost every army. I know that also in Yugoslavia, Croatia, Serbia, they
18 make/produce sniper rifles in larger calibres. At that time I believe
19 they were not available locally, but the Barrett 50-calibre rifle that I
20 included in the report was present in Bosnia at that time. I don't
21 know -- I wouldn't be able to say in whose hands, but it was available at
22 the time. But it is a rifle -- the calibre is used a lot by snipers.
23 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I would like to protest.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute, Mr. Praljak.
25 You'll have the floor in a minute.
1 The 50-calibre rifle is the Barrett M42 the well-known --
2 THE INTERPRETER: M82 rifle, interpreter's correction.
3 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just to conclude, in your chart
5 on the various types of weapons, you've listed the rifles, M70 B, the
6 Zastava at the beginning of the list, when I compare it with your report,
7 when I compare your list with your report where you had various theories
8 on the weapons, my impression is perhaps that most frequently you think
9 it's the 782 Mauser, the 762/58 weapons. The M76 weapon is also
10 frequently referred to. So is this the general conclusion of your
11 examination? The weapon used could have been a Zastava.
12 THE WITNESS: The weapon could have been a Zastava or any other
13 rifle in those calibres. It's the calibre that I was -- that I most hear
14 about that was used, because of the range and, well --
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We'll now have the
16 Defence. They have four hours, so that means 40 minutes for each Defence
17 team. I'll be counting the time.
18 I don't know whether you've reached an agreement or not. Perhaps
19 not. Who will be starting? Whoever will be starting should tell me how
20 much time they require.
21 Counsel Tomic for Mr. Coric.
22 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have 40
23 minutes, and I think that's how much I will need and use.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. So
25 you're saying that you're going to use all your 40 minutes; is that
2 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Go ahead. Start,
5 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Tomasegovic Tomic:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir. Because I'm under time
8 constraints, I'll try and ask you questions which can merit brief
9 responses. So wherever possible, could you give me a yes/no answer, yes,
10 no, or I don't know.
11 A. I understand.
12 Q. My first question relates to your CV, and I'd like to know whether
13 I understood you correctly yesterday when you said that from January to
14 June 1993, you were a member of the Dutch Battalion within UNPROFOR, and
15 that you were in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Is that right?
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. Can you just tell me briefly what area of Bosnia-Herzegovina you
18 were in? What was your area of responsibility?
19 A. I was in the station at the compound in Simin Han, east of
21 Q. Thank you. Tell me now, please, once again if I understood you
22 correctly, you attended two trainer courses for a sniper; is that right?
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. Could you tell me, please, how long these courses lasted, or each
25 of these courses lasted?
1 A. The basic sniper course for me was shorter than usual because I
2 had already done my sharpshooter course within the air mobile unit. The
3 basic sniper course for the special forces unit is four weeks at that
4 time. And my sniper instructor course nowadays is parallel to the sniper
5 course which now is ten weeks.
6 Q. You told us that within the frameworks of those courses, you were
7 trained in recognising wounds from firearms. Could you tell us how long
8 that lasted, how long you were trained in the subject of wounds?
9 A. I was not only trained in those courses in the subject of wounds,
10 because I've also received medical training. But in total I would have
11 been had class -- I would have had classes of about one and a half days,
12 so 12 hours.
13 Q. Thank you. Could you tell me, please, whether within those
14 courses you may have done some testing with gelatinous material which is
15 evident when our body is wounded by a firearm?
16 A. I haven't done tests with that material myself, but I was shown
17 the test with that material.
18 Q. Very well. That is enough. Tell me, please, within those 12
19 hours of training, did you have forensic experts, pathology experts,
20 teaching you?
21 A. I was taught mostly by medical personnel which are not in my unit
22 pathology experts, but I was in my firearms instructor course at the
23 police academy, was taught by a forensic -- a ballistics expert.
24 Q. And where they specialists in forensic medicine; do you know?
25 A. The man that taught me at the police academy in the course is an
1 authority with a medical background as well as a ballistic expert.
2 Q. Could you answer the question directly. Was it a physician who
3 was also a pathologist, or don't you know? So was it a forensic medical
4 expert, or don't you know?
5 A. It was a physician who is now a ballistics expert.
6 Q. Well, you haven't answered my question, but since I haven't got
7 time, I'll move on.
8 Tell me, please, is it correct, and is this something you were
9 taught at your training course, that in order to identify a weapon with
10 any precision, that weapon that caused wounding, as well as the mechanism
11 of the wound in the forensic sense, is it necessary to have detailed
12 information about the wound immediately after the wounding took place from
13 which one can see the age, the formal shape, size, and colour of the
14 wound, and possible traces of gunpowder, the remnants of a bullet, and
15 things like that?
16 A. I would like to expand a little bit on that. It is -- it's not
17 necessary for shooting at longer ranges to have that information
18 available. With my dealings with the police, I know that most of the
19 ballistics and forensic experts of the police are experienced in shooting
20 at short distances with pistol calibres but have less experience with
21 shooting at extremely long ranges like this. So at longer ranges, the
22 external ballistics are equally or more important than the end ballistics
23 or wound ballistics.
24 Q. Tell me, please, regardless of what you've just told us, when you
25 produced your report - and Judge Antonetti asked you this so I'd just
1 like to follow on from his question - when you wrote your findings and
2 report, did you have at your disposal any medical documentation, post
3 mortem findings, or anything like that, which would contain more detailed
4 and specific information about the wounds, except for what was attached
5 to your instructions to begin with? And we've all had a chance to see
7 A. I was only -- available to me was only the attached photos and the
8 medical reports that were given to me by the ICTY.
9 Q. Tell me, please, were you given any traces of a bullet extracted
10 from a victim to look at?
11 A. No, I wasn't.
12 Q. Tell me, please --
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A follow-up question there. I
14 apologise, Counsel Tomic for interrupting, but as I can see you're very
15 professional and you're asking precise, specific, questions and that
16 you've broached an important topic.
17 Sir, we had a witness here who showed us his stomach and the
18 stomach had been pierced and apparently the bullet passed through the
19 stomach. Now, Ms. Tomic is asking precisely the sort of questions that
20 need to be asked. In that particular case the victim was operated on, and
21 you know as well as I do, because you had 12 hours of medical training,
22 that when there's a surgical operation, the surgery -- the surgeon says
23 what he's going to do and then somebody takes notes of the procedure. And
24 when a bullet is found, then the surgeon will say he found the residue of
25 a bullet, or whatever, and this would be recorded.
1 Now, did you have access to reports of that kind, to reports taken
2 on the basis of the operation and the surgeon's notes?
3 THE WITNESS: No, I haven't.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
5 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. I'm not an expert in the field, and I know practically nothing;
7 however, I consulted ballistics experts and forensic experts and they told
8 me that it was a well-known fact that if a bullet hits a body on a larger
9 area, like the body and head, that it is easier to determine the calibre
10 because the bullet passes through the body and creates a tunnel or
11 channel; whereas, if a smaller area is targeted, like a heel or a finger,
12 it destroys the surrounding tissue and then it is more difficult to
13 establish what the calibre used was. I don't know if that is correct, but
14 may we have your opinion, please.
15 A. That is correct. When a bullet passes -- enters the body, there
16 are two different cavities that are created by the round. The first one
17 is the temporary wound cavity, which is the absorption of the energy by
18 the body. That cavity is larger than the permanent cavity which is the
19 cavity left by the destroyed tissue of the body.
20 Q. Yesterday you said, and today as well, that part of a sniper's
21 training was the police training that you underwent yourself; is that
23 A. It's not a specific sniper training, but it was a training that I
25 Q. I assume that the rules of conduct when it comes to a military
1 sniper differ from a police sniper and the rules governing their conduct;
2 am I right?
3 A. I wouldn't know because it's not a police sniper course that I
4 went to; it's a general firearms instructor course from the police.
5 Q. For me to ask my next question, I need to present you with a
6 document. I'm not professional enough to be able to ask you the question
7 without the document.
8 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] So may we have on e-court
9 document 5D 02011.
10 Q. And you'll have it come up on your screen, sir. It is a book. 5D
11 02011 is the number of the document. It is a book published by the unit
12 for training from the FBI academy, from Virginia, and it is called
13 "Advanced Rifle Training for the Observer Sniper."
14 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] May we turn to page 3 of
15 that document, please, in the English version. And it is page 2 in the
16 Croatian version. I'll read it slowly. I'm reading paragraphs 2, 3, and
17 4 now, and the last and penultimate paragraph as well.
18 Q. And it says here: "Military snipers act independently against a
19 wide variety of both specified targets and targets of opportunity. They
20 need not be concerned with questions of authority to act, criminal and
21 civil liabilities, innocent bystanders, or the necessity to justify their
22 actions in court after the fact. They operate in a hostile environment in
23 which friends and foes are clearly delineated.
24 "Military snipers will generally engage targets at extreme ranges
25 in order to better avoid detection and counteraction by the enemy. Thus a
1 military sniper need not be concerned about the effects of shooting. A
2 killing shot is as good as a wounding one. Either will remove an enemy
3 from action. There are no hostages or victims whose welfare would be
4 imperilled by a miss or a wounding shot. Further, identification of the
5 target is not as critical as it is in civilian law enforcement.
6 "In war, everyone on the other side of the line is an enemy
7 against whom the propagation of force is proper. Destruction of the enemy
8 is the goal, and to attain that goal military force is brought to bear
9 against both the enemy and the environment in which the enemy operates."
10 My question now is this: Are you well acquainted with theories of
11 this kind, and do you agree or disagree with them?
12 A. I am familiar with these theories. I disagree. I don't know at
13 which -- at what year this document was published, but the situation
14 described in this document defines the traditional warfare in a
15 large-scale war where there's -- where civilians are not present on the
16 battlefield, but there are -- the enemy is entrenched or engaged in a
17 fight with -- as written by the author, with -- clearly to be identified
18 from one another. So it's the enemy and it's your own personnel. It does
19 not speak of urban settings where civilians are present.
20 Nowadays, on my deployments, these views are not -- actually, not
21 representable any more.
22 Q. According to my information, this is a manual that is used with
23 the FBI to the present day. It is still in force, still valid. And this
24 is your explanation, although I don't see any difference --
25 differentiation between urban or non-urban or any other areas.
1 But I'd like to go on to the next topic now. Tell me, please,
2 when you compiled your report, did you have information about the fact
3 that in Mostar, during the incident, there was a state of war? Did you
4 know that? When the incidents that you described in your expert report
5 taking place, that there was a state of war?
6 A. I was aware that there was a war going on. I don't know about the
7 legality, if it's officially considered a war since it's not between
8 countries but within a country. But I was aware there was a war-like
10 Q. Tell me, please, did you have information about the positions of
11 the BH army when you compiled your expert report? In Mostar, I mean.
12 A. I did not -- I was not given any information, but information was
13 attainable from the scars of war which are still visible in Mostar, which
14 are visible on the western bank of the Neretva River, where there's --
15 most obviously there's been a front line, because all the buildings are
16 still destroyed or not accessible due to mines.
17 Q. Could you please try and give me yes or no answers; otherwise, I
18 won't be able to get through my questions.
19 Did you know where the positions of the Serb army were when the
20 incidents in Mostar took place, the ones that you describe in your expert
22 A. No.
23 Q. Tell me, please, did you have any information about the fact that
24 the BH army had snipers; yes or no?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Tell me, please, is it true and correct that a sniper is usually a
2 very capable soldier, very well-trained and equipped, and is of value to
3 the army to which he belongs?
4 A. That's true.
5 Q. A hypothetical now. If the BH army had snipers, then their task
6 would be, among other things, anti-sniper action; is that correct?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. Within your report and the cases you study, we saw that there was
9 a house in Stotina which you consider was the place that a number of the
10 firing incidents came from; is that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. We also saw that it was from this particular house at Stotina,
13 according to your expert report, that there was a sniper that was working
14 there over a longer period of time. In view of the periods in between the
15 various incidents, it would make this a longer period of time; is that
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now, another hypothetical: The enemy army would easily be able to
19 identify a sniper location if, over a longer period of time, he were to
20 stay in the same place and, as a rule, open fire from that statement
21 place. In that case, it would be very easy to locate that sniper and, by
22 the same token, eliminate him?
23 A. The locating would be relatively easy, but the eliminating would
24 be difficult.
25 Q. Tell me, please, if, within the range of the firing position,
1 there was enemy artillery positions, for example, a cannon that could
2 destroy the house with one firing, having identified the locality, would
3 that be sufficient to eliminate a sniper? If they were to establish that
4 the sniper was sniping from that particular house, then they say, "All
5 right, let's blow the house up."
6 A. It would take more than one round, but it would be possible to
7 destroy the house with artillery.
8 Q. Tell me, please, if a sniper shoots at a distance of, say, 760
9 metres, does this make it difficult for him to identify the target, or, in
10 other words, would it call for a very highly trained, precision sniper to
11 hit the target at such a great distance? Is that right?
12 A. It would call for a highly trained precision shooter, not
13 definitely -- not specifically a sniper. And for identification, the
14 farther away, the more difficult to identify.
15 Q. And something we said earlier on: A soldier like that would be
16 highly valuable -- a highly valuable member of the unit he belonged to,
17 and it would be a pity to lose such a valuable member.
18 Now, to ask you about some conclusions on the basis of what we've
19 established so far. We have a sniper in that house in Stotina who is
20 there for a number of months, doesn't move from that house, and he's
21 shooting at distances of 760 metres, hitting his targets, which means that
22 he's a very good shooter. It seems to me unreasonable on the part of the
23 army whose member he is to risk the loss of such a sniper just to hit a
24 target from a distance that doesn't guarantee a successful outcome but
25 quite the contrary. Am I right in saying that?
1 A. I wouldn't be able to give an answer to that. In my -- in the
2 Dutch -- in my unit, we wouldn't risk a sniper like that.
3 Q. Tell me, please, when you compiled your report, were you
4 acquainted with the regulations governing total national defence that held
5 true in Yugoslavia while it existed, or All People's Defence, and later on
6 in the war years were taken over by the individual republics, which became
7 independent states, Bosnia-Herzegovina being one of those and taking them
9 A. No.
10 Q. Tell me, please, do you know that in Mostar, during the incidents,
11 there was in force general mobilisation. During the time of the incidents
12 that you describe in your report.
13 A. No.
14 Q. Tell me, please, do you know which individuals, on the basis of
15 the rules and regulations in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in the cases that you
16 dealt with, were military recruits? Do you know their age and gender?
17 A. I don't know the exact age of all the victims, neither do I
18 know -- I do know the gender because of the summary and the DVD, but I
19 don't know the military recruits.
20 Q. I'm asking you in general. Do you know who was -- which age group
21 would have been eligible for military recruitment, according to the
22 regulations that were in force in Bosnia-Herzegovina at that time?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Tell me, please, do you know which units, which formations, at the
25 material time of your expert report, were within the armed forces of
2 A. No.
3 Q. Tell me, please, do you know what uniforms and what quantities of
4 uniforms the BH army had at the material time, the time you deal with in
5 your expert report?
6 A. I know the BH army had American-style uniforms with American-style
7 camouflage, but I don't know the quantities of the uniforms.
8 Q. A number of witnesses told us here that the BH army had very
9 limited resources and that its members wore all kinds of clothing, ranging
10 from civilian clothing to mismatched clothing and things like that. Did
11 you know that when you wrote your report?
12 A. I don't know exactly at Mostar, but I'm aware that combatants
13 sometimes mix civilian with military clothing.
14 Q. Tell me, please, in determining military targets, when a sniper
15 determines his target, would a military target also include premises,
16 people, and things which represent logistic support to military units?
17 For example, a place where food is collected or water or equipment for the
18 army up at its positions, individuals and vehicles transporting these
19 kinds of goods, and things like that.
20 A. That depends on the rules of engagement given to the sniper in his
22 Q. Tell me, please, as a rule, in the army are those kinds of targets
23 said to be military targets? Is that frequent, rare, never? You deal
24 with this in your expert report, I think. I think you said that things
25 like that could be considered military targets.
1 A. Depending on the situation, they can be considered military
3 Q. Tell me, please, do you know that at the critical/material time
4 that you deal with in your expert report, in Mostar vehicles which
5 otherwise, under normal conditions, would be civilian vehicles, for
6 example, a fire engine, a water truck or civilian trucks, were used
7 precisely for bringing in water, food, ammunition and men to the combat
9 A. No.
10 Q. Tell me, please, yesterday you told us that the types of weapons
11 and facts about that, the types of weapons that the HVO had, that you
12 amassed that information from a book called "Monitor and Kill," or
13 something like that, or rather you used a photograph from that book. And
14 you saw several HVO soldiers in that book, a picture of them, holding
15 certain types of rifles or weapons. Is that right?
16 A. That's not completely right. Some of the information I obtained
17 from "Stalk and Kill," by Adrian Gilbert, and other information I
18 collected on the Internet and in the media during the years which showed
19 HVO soldiers with those types of weapons.
20 Q. Tell me, please, on the Internet or on the photographs in the
21 book, did you see where and when those photographs were taken? Does it
22 say anywhere which areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina they were taken, and
24 A. In some instances it was given, but usually it was not.
25 Q. Tell me, did you have at your disposal official documents of any
1 kind which contained a list of the weapons that either the HVO or the ABiH
2 had during the relevant period of time?
3 A. I had the Bosnia country handbook that I had from UNPROFOR days,
4 as well as IFOR, which had photos of the -- during the war, which showed
5 some of the photographs.
6 Q. And tell me, when you compiled your report, did you make use of
7 the handbook that you have mentioned?
8 A. Only partly.
9 Q. And tell me, in that case, why didn't you refer to that source in
10 your report? You only referred to the book "Stalk and Kill," and then
11 there's another book referred to that deals with bullets exclusively. You
12 know what you referred to better than I do. But you didn't mention the
13 UNPROFOR handbook as a source you used when you were in Bosnia. We have
14 Jane's Infantry Weapons, Jane's Land/Air Defence. These are mentioned as
16 Have you received the interpretation? Can you tell me why that
17 source wasn't referred to in your expert report?
18 A. Because I considered the source just general media. The
19 descriptions with the photos were usually not 100 per cent correct. But
20 with the use of "Jane's Infantry Weapons," I was able to make the correct
21 names for the weapons used.
22 Q. Very well. Yesterday we were told that you used a laser
23 range-finder when measuring distances in Mostar, when you went to that
24 site visit. You also told us that the laser range-finder first started
25 being used in the mid-1990s. Am I correct?
1 A. The laser range-finder in that use started to be used from 1995 --
2 1994/1995, mid-1990s. But it was available for other purposes at that
4 Q. And please tell me, apart from using that laser range-finder to
5 make measurements, did you also look through an optical sight, an optical
6 sight when making measurements?
7 A. I looked through the optical sight of the laser range-finder,
8 which shows -- the reticle which is shown in the photos.
9 Q. But the simpler device that preceded the laser device, you didn't
10 use that simpler optical device. I don't really know much about weapons,
11 so perhaps my question sounds a bit odd. But I'm trying to put it in the
12 clearest terms I can.
13 A. The laser range-finder that I used comes up with a back-up reticle
14 which shows the -- a grid you can use to measure distances, like with the
15 older optical sights that have similar reticles.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, very briefly, what
17 seems interesting, given the question put to you, is the following: When
18 you were on site, did you take an optical sight with you, for example, the
19 kind used an a Dragunov weapon? Because yesterday you made a sketch of
20 this optical sight that one mounts on a weapon. Did you take such an
21 optical sight in order to determine whether one could see the target?
22 Because we do understand that you used this laser range-finder to make --
23 to measure distances. But why didn't you use this scope that's used on a
24 Dragunov to measure these distances, or why didn't you use the scope that
25 is used an a SIG-Sauer SSG, naturally, if you had such devices at your
2 THE WITNESS: I didn't have those sights at my disposal, but the
3 magnification of the laser range-finder of seven times is slightly more
4 than the six times camera used in most optical sights. The Dragunov
5 sights or M76 sights have four times magnification, so they are lower in
6 magnification. But I didn't have any at my disposal.
7 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. I'd like to ask you something about an incident now. I'll first
9 provide an example and then I'll go back to the incident. When a victim,
10 a potential target, is stalked by a sniper is hidden behind a shelter and
11 has to quickly move through an open space to the next open shelter, the
12 length of the trajectory that the person has to pass isn't 4 to 5 metres,
13 so the person runs from one shelter to the other. As far as I have
14 understood, snipers need at least a second to prepare to fire a shot.
15 They need that time to identify the target and to prepare themselves, to
16 focus. And then the sniper has to fire at least 3 metres in front of the
17 target if the target is moving rapidly or running. So have I understood
18 this correctly? If the person is running, does the sniper have to shoot
19 in front of the target?
20 A. It is -- one method is to shoot in front of the target. The
21 amount of the -- the distance with which you have to shoot in front of the
22 target depends on his speed and the range at which the target is. But you
23 would have to aim in front of him or make adjustments within the sight to
24 compensate for his speed.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This question is also of great
1 relevance. Let's take a distance of 3 metres. If someone is running very
2 fast, 10 seconds, 200 metres, he's an Olympic champion. To cover 3
3 metres, he needs at least, well, a fraction of a second. So things move
4 very fast. But your sniper, his time of reaction, is it superior to the
5 time it takes someone to cover 3 metres? And as the Defence counsel has
6 said very clearly, wouldn't this oblige your sniper to anticipate and to
7 fire at a point since he knows that the runner will, in fact, reach this
9 THE WITNESS: That is a possibility to use. It is very difficult
10 to shoot at moving targets, and at longer distances it would be considered
11 always -- it would be considered a lucky shot if you hit the target.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So in conclusion, there is a
13 kind of shooting that involves anticipation. The sniper sees people
14 running and tells himself, "Well, the target's running." He prepares, and
15 as soon as he sees the target, he pulls the trigger and believes that he
16 will hit the target. Because you said that it's very difficult to shoot
17 someone who is moving. Naturally, if someone is covering a hundred
18 metres, there's a lot of time available. But if the distance covered is
19 very short, then it's necessary for the sniper to anticipate, as counsel
20 put it very clearly.
21 THE WITNESS: It's necessary to anticipate for the sniper.
22 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Could you have a look at incident number 9 now, please. It's
24 contained in your report. Incident number 9. It's page 27 of your
1 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we move into private
2 session, please, if necessary. The e-court number is 28.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar.
4 [Private session]
11 Pages 13827-13830 redacted. Private session
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
3 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. I'm interested in information about the possibility of a person,
5 at a distance of over 400 metres from the firing position of a sniper, can
6 notice a flash when the sniper opens fire in daylight. So, tell me, is it
7 possible in daylight, given that there's a certain gas dispersal device at
8 the exit of a muzzle of a weapon, is it possible that in daylight, with
9 the sun shining, it's possible for a person who is 400 metres away, or
10 over 400 metres away from the sniper, is it possible for that person to
11 notice a flash when the shot is fired?
12 A. It depends on the type of rifle used and the presence of a
13 flash-hider or not. But it's -- theoretically it would be possible.
14 Q. And if the weapon has a flash-hider in order to reduce the sound,
15 disperse the light, et cetera, is it possible in that case?
16 A. For -- just for information, a flash-hider doesn't disguise sound;
17 it only disguises the flash. It is not a suppressor. But it would
18 greatly diminish the chance of seeing the flash.
19 Q. I don't want to take up too much of my colleague's time. But you
20 have your report in front of you, as everyone else does. I want to refer
21 to incident number 2. We don't have to call it up in the e-court system.
22 It's page 12 and 13 in the e-court system, and it concerns the victims who
23 were in the fire engine.
24 One of the victims has testified here and the victim mentioned a
25 dark room, or, rather, a dark cabin. Unfortunately, we haven't managed to
1 establish whether a dark cabin means the lorry cabin that he was in or
2 whether he had something else in mind. If that person, that witness,
3 meant that the cabin of the lorry was dark, would that have had an
4 influence on the possibility of identifying the person in the cabin?
5 Would that have had an influence on a sniper identifying that person in a
6 cabin, who was at a distance of 426 metres from the sniper?
7 A. That would be difficult, to identify them. However, if the sniper
8 had been observing for a while, 9-year-old boys don't usually drive trucks
9 and could, therefore, have been seen entering the trucks. But identifying
10 within the cabin is very difficult.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] For the sake of your answer,
12 Witness, you're not familiar with all the circumstances, but the boy who
13 was in the vehicle said that in front of him there was a Golf, and there
14 had been a first shot and then a second shot, and apparently there was a
15 third shot, too. And it seems on each occasion he was claiming to have
16 seen this well-known flash.
17 Thank you, Mr. Karnavas, for having given Counsel Tomic your time.
18 The counsel wanted to ask this question of a witness. Unfortunately,
19 counsel wasn't able to answer the question because there was a
20 misunderstanding. But now counsel can put this question to you, and you
21 seem to be the right person to put the question to.
22 So this boy who sees and hears, apparently, three shots, would it
23 have been possible to notice the flash of the third shot, for example?
24 MR. STEWART: Excuse me, Your Honour, it was a couple days ago,
25 but my recollection was not that the witness had said he claimed to have
1 seen the flash on all three occasions. I'd stand to be corrected,
2 Your Honour, but that's not my recollection of his evidence, that he saw
3 the flash. It was on one occasion, is what I remember. It seems that my
4 colleagues are going along with that, which I'm delighted about.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Stewart is
6 certainly right, but there may have been two hypotheses; either he saw the
7 flame on a number of occasions or just once when he himself was hit.
8 So when answering this question, could you try to imagine all the
9 possible scenarios?
10 THE WITNESS: I -- it could be possible that he saw the first
11 flash, if he saw the first flash. The second or the third ones would be
12 very difficult, because usually window shields of vehicles are made of
13 safety glass which cracks and breaks up -- it stays intact but it breaks
14 up in all these little particles which would greatly diminish his chance
15 to look out the window shield. So I think he wouldn't be able to see all
16 three flashes.
17 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I think, in fairness to the witness,
18 he would here be under a complete misconception, because he didn't hear
19 the evidence as to what the evidence involved, because there's no secret
20 about it. It was -- the witness's evidence was that two shots, of
21 course, didn't hit the windscreen. It was a third shot hit that the
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for that information,
24 Mr. Stewart.
25 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I'll be very brief because
1 I think that something didn't enter the transcript, since people -- a
2 number of people were speaking at the same time in the courtroom.
3 Q. If I've understood you correctly, you said that if the situation
4 in the cabin was as I described it or as I suggested, the sniper could
5 have seen the boys and identify them if it was possible for him to see
6 them entering the vehicle. I think that's what you said, but I would like
7 that to enter the transcript and I'd like to check that.
8 A. That would be the occasion where he would be able to identify
10 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
11 Your Honours. I have no further questions. I would like to thank my
12 colleague, Mr. Karnavas.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, I would also like
14 to thank you.
15 Mr. Karnavas, it's half past 4.00. I'm told that it's necessary
16 to have a break. Ideally we should have our 20-minute break now. It will
17 then be ten to 5.00 and then we'll continue without a break until 6.30.
18 We'll then stop, so in theory we can have two Defence teams. We'll have
19 sufficient time for both Defence teams.
20 So we will now adjourn and resume in 20 minutes' time
21 --- Recess taken at 4.30 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 4.52 p.m.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As we seem to be the only ones
24 working in the Tribunal now, I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Karnavas.
25 However, just a few seconds, Mr. Karnavas, because the registrar needs to
1 do his job and he has a number for a document.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you very much, Your Honours. The OTP has
3 submitted a lists of documents to be tendered through Enes Vukotic.
4 Therefore, this list will be given Exhibit number IC 386. Thank you very
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Your Honours.
7 Cross-examination by Mr. Karnavas:
8 Q. Good afternoon, lieutenant. We meet for the second time; is that
10 A. That is correct, yes.
11 Q. We had an opportunity to go over your report in the presence of
12 Mr. Spork, right?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. And I didn't intimidate you in any way --
15 A. No.
16 Q. Not that I could, with my size compared to yours, your training
17 compared to mine. Very well.
18 Before I get into the specifics, I just want to see if I can
19 understand the essence of your testimony here and of your work. You can't
20 tell us to any degree of certainty whether the shooter was an ordinary
21 soldier or a civilian. You can't tell us that, can you?
22 A. No, I can't.
23 Q. And you can not tell us whether that shooter was a sniper or
24 someone who had excellent shooting skills, such as a sharpshooter or
25 huntsman, or -- right.
1 A. No, I can't.
2 Q. You can't tell us whether that individual was trained in the same
3 method that you were trained or other NATO snipers are trained; right?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. You don't know whether that shooter was acting independently, was
6 acting with someone else as his spotter; right?
7 A. No, I can't.
8 Q. And you certainly can't tell us whether that person was actually a
9 member of a local HVO unit.
10 A. No, I can't.
11 Q. And you can't tell us whether that shooter was under anyone's
12 effective command and control at the time that that person was
14 A. No, I can't.
15 Q. Okay. And if I understand, if I understand, and correct me if I'm
16 wrong, that based on what you were able to do in the field and based what
17 you did do in the field, all you can tell us today is that, more or less,
18 shots came from a particular direction.
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, your background, very quickly. I won't
21 dwell on specifically, because it's been covered to some extent. But we
22 know that you are a professional soldier; correct?
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. Trained in sniping?
25 A. That is correct.
1 Q. But you're not a forensic expert.
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. You're not trained in ballistics, so you're no, sir a ballistics
4 expert either.
5 A. I have been trained in ballistics but --
6 Q. Go ahead.
7 A. I'm not a ballistics expert.
8 Q. Because I've been trained in ballistics, too, but far be it for me
9 to claim I'm an expert.
10 A. No.
11 Q. And you're not a forensic pathologist.
12 A. No.
13 Q. We'll have to slow down. I'm a little bit under the weather so I
14 just want to make sure I have enough energy to get through.
15 You never conducted prior to this occasion a scene
17 A. No, I haven't.
18 Q. All right. And I take it, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't
19 see anywhere in your CV -- but that doesn't necessarily mean that's not
20 the case. I don't believe that you've ever participated on a board of
21 inquiry, such as later on trying to determine what happened.
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. Okay. And the reason I mention that is in the news we see now
24 there's all that stuff with the Americans having shot a British soldier
25 and there's all this hoopla trying to figure out what exactly happened.
1 But you never participated in that sort of a fact-finding mission where
2 you would go out into the field, look at relevant information, and try to
3 piece back together what exactly happened.
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. In fact, it's fair to say that this -- this -- this opportunity
6 was your first opportunity to apply your skills, such as they are, in
7 trying to conduct -- to do a research and a report; is that correct?
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. All right. Now, as I understand --
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Am I speaking too fast for the translators?
11 Q. If I understand, okay, your mission was basically to conduct field
12 research, to go into the field and do some research. You're shaking your
13 head. That means yes?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Ask any -- for any additional information, if it was necessary?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. Make some findings and general conclusions, which indeed
18 you did?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Write a report?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And then, of course, if necessary, testify, and that's what you're
23 doing here today.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. All right. Now, prior to your engagement, prior to your
1 engagement, on 14 October 2004, you were given a letter, or a letter dated
2 on that particular date?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you recall that?
5 MR. KARNAVAS: I don't know if this is in the e-court with the
6 Prosecution's documents, and I must say, Mr. President, it completely
7 slipped my mind. I thought it was part of the report. But have the
8 members of the Trial Chamber a copy of the letter dated 14 October 2004?
9 If not, I can put it on the ELMO and then we can make copies for everyone
10 to have afterwards. And I apologise again. I assumed -- it's one of
11 those errors in life when one assumes -- you have it, Your Honours. We
12 can put it on the ELMO.
13 Q. Do you have it presently with you?
14 A. I have it here.
15 Q. Okay. And, of course, this letter, along with an annex, basically
16 was a memorandum to you specifying exactly what they wanted you to do;
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. And if I may take -- go on a little bit of a frolic for the
20 purposes of other witnesses.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honours, if it hasn't escaped your attention,
22 you will note that this is an excellent memorandum, and one must ask why
23 has it not been done with other experts, such as Mr. Tomljanovic,
24 Mr. Donja, and others that will appear in court, because it specifies
25 exactly the terms of reference of the gentleman's mission. So I just
1 point that out so later on we could discuss it.
2 Q. Now, in this particular memorandum, sir, on page 2, it says at the
3 very bottom, it says: "If, in the exercise of your professional judgement
4 and expertise, you find it appropriate to consider other information, we
5 ask that you please keep a careful record of that information considered
6 and identify in your report the information or resources used in the
7 course of your work."
8 So, in other words, I take it they were letting you, as the
9 expert, determine what, if anything, more you needed to do your research;
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. And, again, that's relevant here but it's also relevant for
13 other in-house experts that we've seen.
14 Now, if I can go on to the next page -- actually, page 4, this
15 sort of struck me a little bit and I thought it would be good -- a good
16 segue as I go into my cross-examination, it says on the top paragraph:
17 "In reaching and expressing your opinion, you may wish to consider," and
18 I've numbered these for the ease of the Court and the Trial Chamber, "you
19 may wish to consider, 1, the location of the incident (was it close to the
20 confrontation line); 2, was it close to military activity that threatened
21 the side of the apparent shooter, et cetera; 3, the specific circumstances
22 of the shooting; 4, the presence of ABiH forces in proximity to the
23 location where the victim was hit; 5, the number of shots fired; 6, where
24 the bullets impacted the body or any other evidence that could be of
25 relevance to answer this question."
1 So I take it that you were aware prior to going to Mostar that
2 they were asking you to exercise your independent judgement to see whether
3 you could -- in reaching your opinion, you could consider these factors as
4 well; correct?
5 A. That would be correct.
6 Q. Okay. Now, as I understand it correctly, there was a question
7 posed yesterday by the President of the Trial Chamber, and it appears that
8 you were not aware - and this was confirmed again on the
9 cross-examination - when you went to Mostar, you were not aware of, and
10 you were not made aware of, the various locations of where the HVO was
11 located, where the ABiH was located, and where the Serbs were located,
12 other than having a general idea.
13 A. I only had the general idea.
14 Q. You only had the general idea. Now, you obviously must have known
15 there was a confrontation line; right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. But clearly, as a professional soldier, you would agree with me
18 that not all the soldiers on every side are pitted against each other at
19 the confrontation line; right?
20 A. Especially in urban environments.
21 Q. Especially in urban environments. Exactly. And if I can use a
22 term in a broad sense, a zone of operation as it were, or something like
23 that, you would expect to have military personnel further back, behind the
24 confrontation line; correct?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. And if we're looking at the east side of the confrontation line,
2 on the ABiH side, you would find them not only -- you would find them on
3 both sides of the Neretva River; correct?
4 A. I'm not completely aware of the confrontation line, apart from
5 what I --
6 Q. That one area.
7 A. Yes. Then that would be -- if that was the confrontation line,
8 they would be west and east of the Neretva River.
9 Q. All right. Okay. Now, I take it, if we were to go to this list,
10 and there are about seven of them, as I've already indicated. The
11 location of the incident, you know, was it close to the confrontation
12 line, were you able to make that determination?
13 A. The confrontation line that I mentioned, yeah, I could -- that's
14 something I took into consideration.
15 Q. Okay. Was it close to military activity that threatened the side
16 of the apparent shooter?
17 A. There was no information available to me.
18 Q. Okay. Now, I want to stop you there, because there's a difference
19 between available -- being made available -- information being made
20 available to you and information being available, in other words --
21 A. Okay.
22 Q. -- if one does not ask, one does not get, or if one does not
23 provide, one does not have. So can we conclude that, 1, the Prosecution
24 did not provide that information to you; right?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. And, of course, you did not ask for that either.
2 A. I didn't ask for it either. Before I went to Mostar, I was also
3 made clear that I could not always ask for every information because that
4 would be not suitable for use in the report.
5 Q. Well, okay, I understand all that. But you gotta ask in order to
6 get the yes or the no; right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I mean, it's like I said earlier. It's like asking for a date.
9 If you don't ask, you'll never know. They may say yes, they may say no.
10 You may get lucky. So in this case, you never asked, you never got, you
11 don't know.
12 Now, if we go on to the next, the specific circumstances of the
13 shooting, in that -- now, as I understand it, you didn't have the
14 statement available of the victim or the witness, whichever it might have
15 been; right?
16 A. I had the DVD with their witness -- with their --
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Excuse me, Mr. Karnavas.
18 I thought that Mr. Karnavas was going to ask this follow-up
19 question, which he failed to do, so I'm going to have to do the work and
20 ask the question myself.
21 So we have a witness who was a victim, who was a BH soldier, who
22 told us that he was standing guard at 100 metres from Stotina, at that
23 famous house, and that he was in touch with his colleagues.
24 Now, had you known that, would that have changed anything as far
25 as the positioning of the sniper was concerned, knowing that 100 metres
1 from there, there was the enemy who could have done some counter-sniping?
2 Would that have changed or modified anything?
3 THE WITNESS: That would depend on the exact location of the
4 guard, because Stotina is on a -- on a -- built on a hill, and if the
5 sniper would be a hundred metres at the bottom of the rock, he wouldn't be
6 able to take shots at the house.
7 MR. KARNAVAS:
8 Q. Now, the presence of ABiH forces in proximity to the location
9 where the victim was hit, that information, again, they never provided it
10 to you and you never asked for it; right?
11 A. No. The only information was from the witness statements and the
13 Q. I understand that. We're going to get to that. But the bottom
14 line is, the Prosecution did not provide that information to you and you
15 did not ask for it, although they indicated that maybe you might wish to
16 consider it; right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. The number of shots fired, at least from one or two of the
19 witnesses or victims, you were able to glean that more than one shot was
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. And then where the bullet impacted the body, you had
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. But you did not meet with those individuals.
1 A. No, I haven't.
2 Q. Okay. And, in fact, you did not meet with those individuals in
3 situ, in that very location, perhaps to have them demonstrate to you how
4 exactly they were situated, where they were facing, and what position
5 their body might have been, based on their recollection, at the time they
6 were hit.
7 A. Apart from what they show on the video, I had no face-to-face
9 Q. But clearly we don't want to suggest to the Trial Chamber that
10 those folks were unavailable to you.
11 A. They were unavailable to me.
12 Q. Well, they were unavailable because, again, no one made them
13 available to you and you didn't ask for them; right?
14 A. Yeah.
15 Q. All right. Because if I understand you correct will you - and
16 I'll slow down for the translators - you indicated yesterday that by
17 serendipity on number 3, you knocked on the door because you had to use
18 part -- part of the doorstep, and there was the gentleman who had found
19 his wife. Do you remember?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So there was an opportunity for you to actually meet someone;
22 right? You're shaking your head; you have to make a record.
23 A. That is correct; I saw him.
24 Q. Other than saying, you know, dobra dan, dobra dan, there was no
25 other exchange?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. But nothing would have prevented you at that point in time to ask
3 the gentleman to show you exactly where his wife was located and where he
4 had found her, and maybe even ask for more information than that was
5 provided to you on that video clip; correct?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. Now, if I could just go on real quickly, because I'm mindful of
8 time and I'm trying to be as efficient as I possibly can.
9 The tasks that you performed, as I understand it, you read some
10 available information that was provided to you by the OTP. You're shaking
11 your head again.
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Okay. And of course they shows -- they selected what they thought
14 you would need. Of course, they did give you an opportunity to ask for
15 more, right?
16 A. Yes. Me visiting Mostar was my idea.
17 Q. Do you mean to tell me they weren't even planning on sending you
18 to Mostar?
19 A. They gave me information and then consulted me on what I thought
20 was necessary.
21 Q. Now, I hate to ask this question, but are you getting paid for
22 this work?
23 A. No, I am not, apart from some -- the daily thing.
24 Q. Such as it is. Okay. And I ask that question because hopefully
25 the Dutch government will be generous with the Defence as well when we
1 call upon them to provide us with experts.
2 So you went to the field with an OTP investigator; right?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. And then when you were there, you tried to locate the possible
5 locations of the shooters; right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you wrote a report as well; right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. Now, let me just very briefly go over the task I believe -
10 and correct me if I am wrong - that were not performed. And I'm not being
11 critical, by the way. I'm just sort of pointing it out to him; the Judges
12 can make whatever they wish with this information. You did not become
13 familiar with the ABiH, HVO, or Serb positions. We've already said that;
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You did not become familiar with the ABiH zone of operation, as it
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. You did not incorporate this sort of information particularly
20 with respect to the conflict into your fact-finding mission and into your
22 A. Apart from the appendix on weapons, no.
23 Q. Right. You did not meet with any of the victims or witnesses;
25 A. No.
1 Q. You did not consult with any former ABiH or HVO snipers.
2 A. No.
3 Q. In fact, as I -- did I hear you correctly when you said that you
4 were not aware that the ABiH used snipers as well?
5 A. Well, I could assume that they used them, but I have -- I have
6 no -- well, I assume every army uses similar, but I wasn't, yeah, aware
7 that they had courses, sniper courses, or something similar.
8 Q. Right. But you would have been aware that they had sharpshooters,
9 at the very minimum, or individuals that could shoot?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. All right. I'm told we have to wait. You're speaking too
13 You did not consult with any former ABiH or HVO members.
14 A. No, I didn't.
15 Q. Okay. Or officers of that --
16 A. No, I didn't.
17 Q. In other words, they didn't make available to you, or you didn't
18 ask, to perhaps meet with some members of the ABiH or the HVO to get some
19 particularised information on whether they had snipers, what sort of
20 weapons they might have been using, what kind of locations they might have
21 been at, and so on and so forth. That information was never given to you;
22 you never asked for it. Right?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Okay. Now, as far as the conditions on the particular day of the
25 incidents, okay, because we have dates; right? You're shaking your head
1 again. We have to make that record.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. I don't mean to be a pest about it, but, you know ...
4 Now, fair to say that when I read your report, I don't see that
5 you went back through some almanac or - and I assume that the information
6 would be available - to locate in Mostar on that particular day what were
7 the conditions, what was the humidity, what was the temperature, you know,
8 was it sunny, was it cloudy, all that stuff. That wasn't done.
9 A. That wasn't done.
10 Q. Okay, all right. And I have this here, and maybe I'm wrong, but
11 when I listen to you and when I read this report, it appears that you did
12 not locate all possible locations or ranges of the shooter.
13 A. I did try to locate all possibilities. I've testified -- as I
14 have answered on some questions as to the availability of positions.
15 Q. Okay. All right. And may I say that in doing so, one would
16 suspect, because I've been out -- I've done some of this work myself a
17 little bit, not of this nature but I've done a little bit, it would appear
18 that when you're out with an expert and they're trying to narrow down the
19 universe of choices, that they would go to certain areas to show the
20 unavailability. In other words, you're saying it must have come from that
21 house in Stotina and not from the rocks or not from some other place, but
22 we have no identifiable proof, like, for instance, a photograph from your
23 scope with a laser beam to show that at least from that particular
24 location it would have been impossible. We don't have that.
25 A. No. Other than my word, no.
1 Q. Other than your word. How many other locations did you look at?
2 Were you just -- because that house in Stotina, as I understand it, was
3 actually pointed to you, it was shown to you -- you're shaking your head.
4 A. Yes, because it was the alleged shooter location so it was pointed
5 out to me.
6 Q. And, in fact, when you were out in the field you were out with
7 another fellow. He's an ex -- he's an ex -- he's an ex --
8 A. Marine.
9 Q. Special forces?
10 A. Not special forces.
11 Q. He likes to claim that he is.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. That's Carry Spork; right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Well, all right.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please. You're
17 going very quickly.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: I apologise.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I would like to have something
20 specified, because Mr. Karnavas brilliantly has asked you a whole series
21 of questions. He touched on a point and then went ahead very quickly.
22 The house at Stotina, you were pointing it out, it was pointed out
23 to you, but had nobody pointed it out to you and nobody told you that that
24 could have been the building where the shots came from, would you
25 yourself, with your knowledge and your technical equipment and the fact
1 that you were in the locality, would you have arrived at that conclusion
2 yourself? That, potentially speaking, there could have been a sniper in
3 that house, if nobody had told you anything or pointed it out to you?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes. In most cases I would have come to the same
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Q. But the point that I was trying to drive at is this, and there
8 will be others that will follow me, Your Honours, that will go into the
9 specifics. I'm not going to go into the specific incidents. But the
10 point is, you're asked to go into the field and locate the possible
11 locations, but it's like putting a bull's eye on the building and saying,
12 "This is where everybody is telling us," and that's, in fact, what
13 Mr. Spork did in this case. He told you, "This is what people are saying
14 where all the shooting is coming from."
15 A. They said -- that is the alleged shooting location, so that, of
16 course, gets more attention than the rest of the possibilities.
17 Q. All right. Now, just one final question on this sort of topic.
18 You did not do any reconstruction in the scenes -- of the scenes.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please. There's
20 a question from the Bench.
21 JUDGE PRANDLER: I'm sorry, Mr. Karnavas, to interrupt you. I
22 would like to say that probably it's not the most favourable thing to
23 mention, those who had been involved in this investigations. I mean, I
24 speak about Mr. Spork.
25 MR. KARNAVAS: He's on the witness list, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE PRANDLER: Of course I know that he had been there, and
2 we've seen him on the --
3 MR. KARNAVAS: It's a trial.
4 JUDGE PRANDLER: -- we've seen him on the documentary video.
5 That's fine. But I believe we should not personalise so much this issue.
6 But it's my personal view; you may agree with me or not.
7 The second question is the following: The very beginning of your
8 questioning, and when you had the very first questions asked from the
9 witness, and they came after each other very quickly as a kind of
10 machine-gun fire, I would say that one of your questions was, if I recall
11 it, that if the witness could or can ascertain if the sniper or snipers
12 had been, in a way, incorporated in a kind of military command, and if he
13 had, if he or she had any superior command. There, the answer was that he
14 cannot take this conclusion. I would like to say that -- on the other
15 hand, I would like to ask the witness if, according to his view, in an
16 armed conflict, in a confrontation situation like we speak about, is it
17 possible that a sniper or snipers would have acted for their
18 [indiscernible] time and without any kind of notice of those units which
19 had been situated and employed over there, deployed over there; and, on
20 the other hand, if he or she or they could have survived or worked without
21 any kind of logistical support or help.
22 Now, I'm not speaking about which army is it or which troops are
23 being involved, whether the HVO or ABiH. I'm only asking you your --
24 asking you, Lieutenant, if you really think that a kind of prolonged
25 action of a sniper or snipers could be, in a way, imaginable without this
1 kind of chain of command or without any backing from other people other
2 than the snipers themselves.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, before you
4 answer, and this question I share in -- I share the opinion of my
5 colleague judge that this question should be asked, is it imaginable, can
6 one imagine, on the terrain that a unit says, "Here you are, here's a
7 weapon," says to a sniper, "go into the field and make your own way," or
8 could that not be done; as my colleague said, that he should have precise
9 orders, that he's given a mission, given an objective, and then they can
10 control the results of his mission and then he is given support in his
11 mission by logistic support, as my colleague pointed out, whichever, by
12 various means of communication, and whether he is given support and
13 reinforcement, and whether they communicate with him?
14 THE WITNESS: In my opinion, of course, it would be almost
15 impossible for snipers or sharpshooters or whoever the shooter was to
16 completely, independently, operate alongside units or, yeah, whatever unit
17 they were next to, that they would be completely unaware that there were
18 snipers employed alongside them. They would have to -- they would need
19 water; they would have to go -- relieve themselves; they would need extra
21 If I look for Stotina, the first incident in which Stotina is
22 mentioned in my report, in the summary, it says that's a period of months
23 at a time, more than half a year. I would think it very unlikely, nearly
24 impossible, to completely operate as a rogue sniper, as someone would
1 Furthermore, in orders given -- you could be given orders for --
2 that are general in -- a general order, "Secure this area," whereas a
3 sniper would be able to act only on his own will but -- yeah, it still
4 would -- the order would be to secure that area, so it would still be an
6 MR. KARNAVAS: May I continue?
7 Q. Now, the question was posed to you, and I posed this to one of the
8 witnesses and I drew a response from the Bench, in fact, about ABiH
9 snipers. They would have been -- if this was a six-month, ongoing
10 operation, as we are assuming now, because now we are assuming facts that
11 are not necessarily in evidence, we're just hypothesising; but until such
12 a point in time, that's all we have.
13 So if this house was operational as a place for shooters to
14 operate out of for a six-month period, do you think that snipers on the
15 other side would have located that white house -- that house on Stotina?
16 A. They would have located it.
17 Q. They would have located it. And do you think they would have done
18 something about it or tried to do something about it? Or would they have
19 said, "Ah, just let them snipe away."
20 A. Someone had tried because there was bullet-holes next to the
21 windows on the house.
22 Q. But there was a conflict, wasn't there?
23 A. There was.
24 Q. There was a conflict that went on for a long period of time,
1 A. That's true.
2 Q. Right. And there was a conflict that went on for a long period of
3 time which you, sir, according to your earlier testimony are not terribly
4 aware of the specifics.
5 A. I'm not aware of the specifics, no.
6 Q. Okay. And, in fact, one of the things they asked you was to look
7 at the specifics of what was happening, what kind of conflict among the
8 two sides was going on at the period of time of the shooting, and we don't
9 have that information, you don't have that information; right?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. Okay. Now, as I understand --
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment. A question which
13 continues on from what's being said.
14 This notion and the fact, as Mr. Karnavas said, of this house with
15 the traces of shells, we know that the BH army was about 100 metres away,
16 and you must have known that it was very difficult to shift a sniper.
17 Now, the BH army was not an army of the middle ages; they were equipped.
18 Now, an RPG rifle or a mortar, couldn't it have wiped out the house,
19 eradicated it?
20 THE WITNESS: Well, one RPG wouldn't destroy a house; that doesn't
21 have enough power for it. And I mentioned yesterday that RPGs could be
22 used to -- as a counter-sniper weapon, but the distances -- a reasonable
23 distance -- for instance, the guard, if he was a hundred metres away, he
24 probably would have been on the bottom of the hill from where he wouldn't
25 be able to get a good shot at the house. And the RPG has an effective
1 range of 400 metres, so it's very difficult to get a good hit.
2 As far as mortars, if it's a house that is fortified, you would
3 need large-calibre mortars, such as the 81-millimetre or the
4 120-millimetre to get good results.
5 MR. KARNAVAS:
6 Q. The bottom line is, that's speculation?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you can't tell us beyond reasonable certainty, certainly not
9 beyond a reasonable doubt, that the ABiH did not have the requisite
10 material from which it could use to knock down that house. You cannot --
11 you cannot tell us that.
12 A. I don't know if they had that material available to them.
13 Q. All right. Now -- and in fact, as I understand it, getting back
14 to the question that was being posed, because there seems to be an
15 implication at least in the air, that these snipers, wherever they might
16 have been, must have been under effective command and control if they went
17 on for that long a time; right?
18 Were you aware of how much weapons were being -- were available at
19 that time?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Okay. Do you know how accessible weapons were?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. All right. And was -- do you know that -- do you know whether
24 everybody was serving in a unit such as yours or that you had individuals
25 that were, for lack of a better word, self-managing?
1 A. I wouldn't know.
2 Q. Okay. So we don't have that information.
3 A. No, I haven't.
4 Q. But we had this little discussion the other day where it was
5 brought, at least to my attention, that one need not have been a sniper,
6 could have been at a location long enough to develop skills in order to
7 hit a particular target.
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. Okay, all right. Now, if I could go on. I don't have much more,
10 because I'm just covering the general stuff, and I'll let others handle
11 the more specific.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: So it might appear that I'm skipping over some
13 topics, Mr. President, but I'm leaving it to my colleagues.
14 Q. The information that was unavailable to you, if I could go down my
15 laundry list here, what -- you told us that there was a range of weapons,
16 but you don't actually know which weapons were used. You just know the
17 range of weapons.
18 A. I know the range of weapons, yes.
19 Q. And part of that information you learned from the Internet.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. And part of it was from Jane's?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Which is a reliable source, in many ways. But, again, you didn't
24 consult any of the local folks that might have participated?
25 A. No, I haven't.
1 Q. And, of course, you weren't asked -- you never asked to meet with
3 A. No, not on that --
4 Q. Like a fellow sniper to kind of exchange ...
5 A. No. I did consult some of my colleague snipers in my own unit on
6 some issues but not outside of my own unit.
7 Q. Okay. And fair to say, based on your deployment in 1993 in the
8 Tuzla area, which is much further away, that had nothing to do with the
9 events in Mostar.
10 A. No. It was January 1995 till June 1995.
11 Q. Okay. Well, that was the easy period, so to speak of. Now, we
12 don't have any bullets or fragments so we can't -- we don't have that.
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. And we haven't located any casings. In other words, you would
15 think with all the hundreds of thousands of snipings going on, or shooting
16 going on at that particular location, one might be able to find at least
17 one single, solitary, lonely casing lying over there. We don't even have
19 A. I don't have, no.
20 Q. And as I understand it, you never went into the house.
21 A. It was not possible at the time.
22 Q. Okay. Now, you say it was not possible at the time. I wasn't
23 there so I don't know. Was it not possible --
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. We're dealing
25 with Mr. Karnavas's general questions, and you told us that you were at
1 the location of the Stotina house. Out of purely intellectual curiosity,
2 didn't you feel the desire to search the ground a bit, to dig into the
3 ground with a knife or with your foot, in order perhaps to find a bullet
4 case? Didn't the thought cross your mind?
5 THE WITNESS: On arriving at Sarajevo, prior to visiting Mostar, I
6 asked to be shown the mine map of Mostar on which Stotina, the location --
7 because I was aware of the general location of Stotina, it was -- still
8 had some red marks that showed that could be mined. So when visiting the
9 house, I was very prudent on the grounds, only stepping on the larger
10 areas and avoiding other areas. So digging into the ground was not really
11 an option for me.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Witness, apparently
13 there's good cooperation between the Tribunal and the local authorities.
14 Wouldn't it have been possible to ask the military authorities to provide
15 you with a metal detection device that you could have used at the
16 location? Perhaps you could have had an anti-mining device as well and
17 in that way obtained certain information that would have further added to
18 the substance of your report. Perhaps it's a certain approach, a
19 perfectionist approach, but this is something that might cross one's
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, I was -- I didn't ask for a metal detector. I
22 was given the impression, at least by the OTP, by the investigator, that
23 because the situation at Mostar still apparently is sensitive, that -- or
24 getting a higher professional by resorting to consulting police or
25 military at the location was not --
1 MR. KARNAVAS:
2 Q. Feasible.
3 A. It was feasible but it was not advisable. On the metal detectors,
4 prior to deployment, the Dutch military always have to go through
5 mine-awareness course. With mines, mines don't always have metal parts.
6 They are usually -- mostly constructed just with plastic, so they are not
7 detectable with metal detectors, other than put in the ground with sharp
8 objects. Given the risk of their organisations and military units that
9 specialise in demining, and I thought it wasn't worth the risk at that
10 time to search the grounds further than that.
11 Q. All right. But you take it you gave it a quick look? I'm not
12 talking about digging down, but just look around. Did you eyeball the
13 situation, as they say?
14 A. I did eyeball because I was trying to be careful because of the
16 Q. All right.
17 A. Furthermore, I didn't really look into the round for casings,
18 because at the ground level in front of the house, there you wouldn't have
19 a view of the locations. You would have to be inside the house, which I
20 didn't visit.
21 Q. All right. But I take it -- and you made the assumption that
22 maybe casings wouldn't fall out of the house or be swept out of the house
23 if that house was, indeed, used to do all those hundreds of shootings or
24 thousands of shootings, that maybe some of it may have been swept to the
25 ground. That didn't occur to you?
1 A. I fired both with the Dragunov and the Steyr 76, and all the
2 rounds are ejected to the -- slightly right forward. But for the casing
3 to go out of the window, the shooter would have to put his barrel on the
4 window sill, which is the -- not the smartest thing to do for a shooter.
5 Q. But we're talking years later when they're trying to clean up the
6 house; right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. That's what I'm talking about. I understand where the casing is
9 going to fall. But let me ask you this, then: You said that the house
10 was unavailable to you to go inside.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. Now, was that -- you were told by the local authorities,
13 "You cannot go in there"?
14 A. No. I wasn't.
15 Q. You were told by the owner that you could not go in there?
16 A. There was no owner present.
17 Q. When you told by the OTP that you couldn't go in there?
18 A. No, I wasn't.
19 Q. Well, who told you that you couldn't go in there?
20 A. Because, as I said, the situation was still sensitive at that
21 time, that I was told by the OTP the house was --
22 Q. Hold on. Let me interrupt you because I don't want to waste too
23 much time. Forgive me, but you get two metres up to the house --
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- and to get up to that point, it was safe enough. But making
1 the extra effort to go inside, you thought that might have been a cause of
3 A. Well, the house was locked at that time and it was not being lived
5 Q. But we're talking 2004, and clearly neither you nor the OTP can
6 claim that the authorised officials of the municipality of Mostar or of
7 BiH prevented you, or would have prevented you, from going into that house
8 had you merely asked?
9 A. I would not know.
10 Q. Okay.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you very much, Your Honour. I think in light
12 of some of the questions that were posed by the Bench, I don't have any
13 further questions.
14 Q. I thank you very much, sir. Good luck in your deployment, and be
16 A. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 And now for the next Defence team.
19 MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Murphy:
21 Q. Good afternoon, Lieutenant.
22 A. Good afternoon.
23 Q. You told Mr. Karnavas that you do not regard yourself as being a
24 ballistics expert; is that right?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. And I take it from that that you are aware there is a profession
2 of forensic scientists that are called ballistics experts.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And that these people are trained to assist the police and assist
5 the courts in reconstructing certain events arising from shootings.
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. And effectively what the OTP asked you to do was to reconstruct
8 some shootings that occurred about 11 years previously.
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. So you were engaged in a form of criminal investigation, in a
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And this would have been the first time that you've really
14 attempted a criminal investigation.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And I assume that in investigating these different cases, you
17 relied a great deal on the facts that were supplied to you by Mr. Spork
18 and other OTP personnel.
19 A. As far as the information that was given in the information
20 packets I obtained from OTP, yes.
21 Q. And, in fact, if it turned out for any reason that that
22 information was inaccurate, you might have to go back and revise the
23 opinions that you initially formed. Would that be fair to say?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. All right. Now, even though you're not a ballistics expert, I
1 want to ask you about some techniques and technical matters in the hope
2 that you might be able to help me a little.
3 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, I wonder, with the registrar's help, may
4 we have back on the ELMO the sketch that the witness drew during
5 examination-in-chief yesterday, which I think is IC 381. It was the first
6 of two sketches that he drew when asked by Mr. Mundis. It will have to go
7 on the ELMO. It won't be in e-court. It is in e-court? Oh, okay. All
9 Q. And while that's coming up, Lieutenant, you remember what I'm
10 talking about?
11 A. Yes, I remember.
12 Q. Mr. Mundis asked you to draw a couple of diagrams for it.
13 MR. MURPHY: In view of the file, perhaps the usher could put
14 it -- oh, it's coming up. I think that's 382. Is that the -- yes, that's
15 the one I want. Thank you, if we could hold it there.
16 Q. You see that diagram?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. Okay. At the top there, what you've drawn, I think, is the
19 trajectory of a bullet coming out of the barrel of a weapon; is that
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Now, isn't it the case that the centre line of the bore of a rifle
23 actually points upwards, to a certain extent.
24 A. No, not with rifles.
25 Q. Okay.
1 A. It does happen with handguns, because with the shorter ranges and
2 the way handguns operate. But with rifle barrels, to my recollection, and
3 I know a great deal of weapons, the barrel is parallel, and within the
4 barrel the centre line of the bore doesn't -- because that would mean that
5 around -- the barrel would not be equally thick everywhere, which is very
6 important to get a -- a consequent shot.
7 Q. I see. So in all the weapons you're discussing, the centre line
8 of the bore is in a straight line with the sight to the line of the
10 A. Yes. The only deviation would be through mechanical problems when
11 manufacturing. But it is strived to get the best quality.
12 Q. Yes. Now, when we look at the trajectory of the bullet, as you've
13 shown it there, would it be fair to say that -- when the bullet leaves the
14 weapon, it encounters what I would call in English "drag." I don't know
15 if you use that same term. In other words, resistance from the air
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And if I understood you correctly, the resistance that the bullet
19 meets can be affected by a number of different factors.
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. Including, for example, the density of the air.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. The weather conditions.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. The speed and direction of the wind.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And, of course, in addition to that, we have the force of
3 gravity that is tending to make the bullet fall towards the earth;
4 is that right?
5 A. That is right.
6 Q. Now, do you understand -- if I use a technical term here, please
7 tell me if you understand what it means. Do you understand what I mean by
8 the ballistic coefficient --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- of a bullet.
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. Would you explain to the Trial Chamber what that term means,
13 please. Just in simple terms, if you can.
14 A. Well, it explains the -- it's the -- it's a combination of certain
15 factors which you calculate into which --
16 Q. Let me help you. Let me help you, if I can. Isn't it true that
17 the manufacturers of bullets produce tables which are called drag
19 A. Yes, or trajectory tables.
20 Q. Or trajectory tables, yes. And these tables indicate, don't
21 they, a number in relation to a bullet which is called the coefficient of
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Which is a factor of the weight of the bullet and of the diameter
25 of the front area.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And that coefficient is important if you want to reconstruct the
3 trajectory of a bullet, isn't it?
4 A. It's not always essential in reconstructing the trajectory of the
6 Q. But isn't it true to say, sir, that the trajectory depends on the
7 velocity of the bullet?
8 A. Yes, it does. But if I could explain a little?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. The ballistics coefficient also helps to produce trajectory tables
11 which produce -- which means that at 100 metres -- if the rifle is zeroed
12 in at 200 yards, at 100 yards, the bullet would be 4 centimetres, for
13 example, above the line of sight; at 200 metres it would be zero because
14 that's where the trajectory and line of sight intervene; at 300 metres, it
15 would be 10 centimetres, and so on and on. So that's the tables that
16 snipers use to set their scopes up.
17 Q. Yes, I understand. But it's true, is it not, that the expected
18 drag based on the officially published tables depends, as we've said, on a
19 variety of other factors.
20 A. Yes, it does.
21 Q. And is it not true, sir, that a ballistics expert, in
22 reconstructing the range of a shot, would need to know the trajectory of
23 the bullet?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And is it not also a fact that to find the trajectory of the
1 bullet, the expert would need to understand the velocity and the drag that
2 was involved in that particular shot?
3 A. Yes, but then -- that's true.
4 Q. Okay. Well, now, with that in mind, then, I'd like to ask you
5 about one particular incident in your report, and that's incident number
6 3. If you could please find that. This is, in my copy, on pages 13 and
7 14. I'm not sure of the pages in e-court.
8 MR. MURPHY: To refresh everybody's recollection, this was a
9 situation that actually Mr. Karnavas mentioned in passing where a woman
10 was shot on the terrace of her house.
11 Q. You remember that case?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. Okay. And that was the incident where you said that you did
14 briefly meet her husband when he opened the door.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. But did not talk to him.
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. Now, according to your report, it reflects that this shooting took
19 place in June of 1993; is that right?
20 A. I think that's correct.
21 Q. And I want to ask you a few questions about it. Firstly, on the
22 occasion of this shooting, what were the weather conditions around this
23 particular residence?
24 A. I would not know. Just from the general conditions that would be
25 normal for that type of year.
1 Q. So you can't tell me, for example, the direction or the strength
2 of the wind on that day, can you?
3 A. No, I couldn't.
4 Q. Or the degree of humidity.
5 A. I couldn't.
6 Q. By the way, what is the elevation of Mostar above sea level?
7 A. I wouldn't know at this time.
8 Q. What kind of -- what kind of bullet was used in this shooting?
9 A. It would be a speculation, but I've specified the calibre and
10 weapon, it would be 7.62 times 51 or 54, or the 7.92 times 57 Mauser
12 Q. Now, that's an assumption based upon your estimate of the range of
13 the shot, isn't it?
14 A. It is.
15 Q. And if you're wrong about the range of the shot, then that
16 assumption could be wildly off, couldn't it?
17 A. It would not be wildly off because those calibres were used on all
18 sides. The only round that stands out from the rest, as pointed out in
19 the appendix, is the 7.62 times 39.
20 Q. Well, we're making a number of assumptions here, aren't we? We're
21 making the assumption that whoever shot this lady was using a military
23 A. I'm not making the assumption -- I'm making the assumption that
24 the calibre used, most likely, so the ones I've just mentioned, and that,
25 yeah, it was a sniper rifle.
1 Q. But you describe that, I think, in an answer -- your original
2 answer as being a speculation; is that right?
3 A. It is a speculation, yes.
4 Q. Yes. Now -- so, when I ask you -- if I were to ask you the
5 question, and I know it may be a little unfair for me to do this in a way,
6 but precision is necessary. But if I were to ask you the question what
7 bullet -- what kind of bullet was used in this shooting, your answer,
8 really, is "I don't know."
9 A. I don't know.
10 Q. Yes. Now, let me -- if you go to the next page, sir, where you
11 deal with a paragraph of additional information, and you see that you've
12 recorded there - this is four lines down - "the woman was walking up the
13 second set of stairs to her front door when she was hit." Do you see
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And in fact, the Trial Chamber has been shown some photographs of
17 the house. It appears that in this particular residence there was what
18 we've called an upper terrace with some stairs leading down --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. -- to a lower terrace. You recall that?
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. What was the basis for your statement that the woman was walking
23 up the second set of stairs to her front door when she was hit?
24 A. That is -- if I did not get the information from the summary, that
25 was supplied to me by Spork -- Carry Spork, the investigator, and on the
1 DVD as well.
2 Q. If that information were, for any reason, to be inaccurate, would
3 it be possible that you might have to revise your conclusions about
4 incident number 3?
5 A. No, I don't think so, because she was hit at the top of the
6 stairs. So if she would be at the top of the stairs or on the terrace
7 itself, it wouldn't make a difference for the type of weapon or the
8 calibre used, in my opinion.
9 Q. Well, that's why I'm asking, because I'm trying to get the basis
10 of your statement that you said she was walking up the second set of
11 stairs, and you say that that's -- you're relying, essentially, on what
12 Mr. Spork told you for that.
13 A. Yes, and from the video, the DVD.
14 Q. Of course, unfortunately, tragically, in this situation, the
15 one person who would have known exactly where she was can't tell us, can
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And I also have to -- to -- well, let me ask you this: In what
19 part of the body was the victim hit in this case?
20 A. She was shot in the head.
21 Q. Do you know which part of the head?
22 A. No, I don't.
23 Q. Did you -- were you given a photograph or a medical report or a
24 death certificate of any kind that would help you about that?
25 A. That, I would have to look into. But I wasn't given a photograph,
1 not a photograph. It might be in one of the reports that she was hit in
2 the head, but I don't -- I would have to --
3 Q. Well, all right.
4 MR. MURPHY: If we can bring up on e-court. We have a death
5 certificate in this case. I think it's P2655, if the registrar would be
6 kind enough.
7 Q. And while that's coming up, you said that you weren't -- you were
8 not provided with a photograph in this instance.
9 A. No, I ...
10 Q. See, from -- if you go back to the preceding page when you are
11 talking about your Heading "Calibre/weapon", you say, "judging from the
12 range and type of wounds, the standard 7.62 and so on, can be ignored."
13 So what information did you have about the type of wound, if you
14 didn't have a photograph?
15 A. The conclusion that I made is that the -- because the larger
16 calibre would be used, that is, the .50 calibre, there would be, with
17 almost certainty, not a head any more. But she was shot in the head.
18 Furthermore, just a standard AK round doesn't have the range --
19 well, it does have the range, but the rifles using that round don't have
20 the -- it would be a very lucky shot if it would have been used. So
21 that's why I concluded that the other calibres would have been used.
22 Q. All right. Well, then, you say that -- because your information
23 that the damage to the head was not severe enough to -- for a finding that
24 it was the 50.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. I don't know whether -- do you have the death certificate now in
2 front of you?
3 A. Yes, I have.
4 Q. Does that provide any information there that assists you at all?
5 A. Well, she was shot, wounded in the head, around the neck.
6 Q. Did they -- I'm not very familiar with Dutch education. Did they
7 make you take Latin in school?
8 A. Well, I did have Latin in school, yes.
9 Q. Did you -- if you look at the B/C/S version for me for a moment,
10 which should be on the right-hand side of the screen there, can you see
11 in the last paragraph where there's writing. It's hard to read, but it's
12 in Latin and it begins with the word "vulnus," so wound. Do you see that?
14 In the second line, it seems to say, and again we're awaiting a
15 new translation on this, so I'm not going to try and be dogmatic with you
16 about it, but it seems to be the last two words there, "occip.,"
17 apparently a reference to the occipital bone of the skull, and what
18 appears to me to be "dex.," which I -- which just might be an abbreviation
19 for dexter, meaning right. Is that possible?
20 A. I wouldn't know.
21 Q. You don't know?
22 A. I don't know. I heard -- I heard that -- that much.
23 Q. That's fair enough. Let me just tell you this, that the Trial
24 Chamber has heard what we might regard as conflicting evidence about
25 whether the victim was hit on the left or the right-hand side of the head.
1 Would that make difference to your opinion in this instance?
2 A. No, it wouldn't.
3 Q. Wouldn't make any difference at all?
4 A. Yeah, depends on the position she was facing, of course. Yes.
5 Q. Yes. And if there was some uncertainty about that, then it might
6 cast some doubt on your overall opinion, mightn't it?
7 A. Yes, it might.
8 Q. Now --
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, we dealt with this
10 question through the spouse of the deceased who told us that his wife had
11 been hit on the left side, so the conclusion might be illogical. She was
12 hit when she was going down the stairs, where she was on her terrace, and
13 the shot came from the left, as you said in your report. But Mr. Murphy
14 has shown us this certificate that we were familiar with, and in this
15 certificate it says occipital and there's the word "dex" which should be
16 the abbreviation for "right." And if it was that part, the occipital
17 part, that was hit on the right, wouldn't she have been in the other --
18 facing the other direction? Wasn't she going up the steps rather than
19 going down the steps? And she was hit by the same shot, the shot coming
20 from the same direction.
21 So, in your opinion, depending on how the woman was moving, what
22 conclusion would one reach?
23 THE WITNESS: Well, it would be difficult to conclude. But if I
24 were to be shot from the left side -- if the shot would originate from the
25 left side, slightly forward of me or backwards of me, the shot would be
1 able to hit me on the left side, or if it's 5 centimetres away on the
2 right side, which medically would be left and right, but it would give no
3 indication as to where the shot came from, so it -- if the shot came from
4 the front, I can be hit in left -- on the right side. If the shot came
5 from the left, just by -- just a little -- it could be left or right
6 medically, so it changes.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you are saying, because we
8 were observing your gestures carefully, if you were in the position of the
9 woman and the shot came from the left, as you said, and if the shot passes
10 through the neck, because we can see that the neck is also referred to,
11 and if the bullet goes through the neck and up to the brain, it comes out
12 at the level of the right occipital area and it would have caused wounds
13 to the right occipital area. Would that be coherent or not? Given the
14 calibre of the bullet, could the bullet have gone through the neck and
15 lodged in the bones within the head?
16 THE WITNESS: If the bullet goes through the neck, it's very
17 unlikely that the bullet will go straight up. It does happen with -- with
18 rounds that if they end up here, it doesn't mean they go on a straight
19 line. It depends how they hit the target and what's the density of the
20 target. So they could go up or go down, but it -- if she was hit in the
21 neck, which I'm -- I don't know the exact Latin words that are here, if
22 she was hit in the neck, it's very unlikely that the bullet would have
23 lodged in the brain. So that would be almost too far up.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And if the bullet was an
25 explosive or fragmentation-type bullet, could it have entered below in the
1 neck and fragmented into the upper half of the head?
2 THE WITNESS: Well, the only explosive rounds that I'm familiar
3 with are for .50 calibre and up, because the lower calibres are too small
4 to contain a small amount of explosive with a detonator. The only -- as
5 for fragmentation bullets, there are ways to build fragmentation bullets,
6 but it's -- as in case number 2, where there's talk of a fragmentation
7 bullet, as I've explained, it's more likely that it's a bullet going
8 through the glass, stripped of its copper coating, and then break up. So
9 a fragmentation bullet doesn't really exist. What does exist are
10 so-called soft or hollow-point or soft-nose bullets, which blossom or
11 mushroom on impact, creating a bigger effect, but particles breaking away
12 can only do so when hitting harder structures within the body.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A question from the Bench.
14 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, I have just one question.
15 Based on the book the Defence presented us with by the FBI agent on
16 snipers, observer sniper, and the difference between military snipers and
17 police snipers, the difference is the military wished to hit the target at
18 all costs where the others don't.
19 Now, the area in which the lady was killed, that area was under
20 the control of the BH army and therefore I think that the opposing army
21 should try and hit military targets.
22 Now, the question that I want to ask you is this: If I understood
23 you correctly, you did not examine the bullet that hit the lady in
24 question. Now, from your point of view, since the calibre of the bullet
25 tells us something about the calibre of the weapon and the strength or
1 power of the weapon used, could you have perhaps been wrong in analysing
2 the distance, not the direction but the distance, between the sniper and
3 the woman? And if that is the case, then perhaps the sniper could not
4 distinguish the silhouette of the woman and he might have thought that the
5 woman was a military target, wrongly identifying her clothing, thinking
6 that she was a member of the armed forces. Because you didn't actually
7 find the bullet and examine it to know whether it was a fragmentation
8 bullet or not. The bullet wasn't found. So could my analysis be correct
9 in the final instance? What do you think about that?
10 THE WITNESS: If I were wrong about the position of the sniper,
11 the sniper -- then the sniper would have to be much closer, making
12 identification easier because of the range. Had the sniper been away
13 for -- at a bigger distance, which I think is unlikely given the
14 availability of locations, then identification is more difficult. The
15 only -- if, in this case, the distance to the -- from the alleged shooting
16 location, which I think is a -- well, it offers good views, would have
17 offered good views at that time; now, not any more because of newly built
18 structures. But at 420 metres with a scope rifle, it's fairly easy to
19 identify a person by his actions, gender, or -- yeah, just by actions or
20 gender or clothing as a combatant or non-combatant.
21 But if I were to be wrong about the location of the shooter, it
22 will -- as I said, the shooter would have to be close -- would have to be
23 closer to the target, because this was a position that was farther away.
24 But it doesn't -- there weren't a lot of options for a shooter to be in.
25 But then identification would have been easier than in this case.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Now, for the
2 transcript I would like to indicate that the discussion on the medical
3 report, in fact, comes from the Latin translation which we still do not
4 have. And if we look at the occiput dexter, the right occiput, then we
5 meetings have thought she was hit on the right. But looking at the Latin,
6 which -- I see that "capitis" is the word that comes before, which means
7 head, and then there's a point after the occiput. So the word "right"
8 might relate to the three terms that go beforehand, but if we had a
9 translation of the Latin we would be able to draw a better conclusion,
10 because for the moment, and I think Mr. Murphy agrees with me there,
11 because at the moment it's inconclusive.
12 MR. MURPHY: Yes, I'm grateful, Mr. President.
13 Q. In fact, I think what we're saying here, sir, is we have an area
14 of uncertainty about the nature of the wound suffered by the victim in
15 this case.
16 A. There is an uncertainty.
17 Q. And following on from the question that Judge Mindua asked you a
18 moment ago, there is another possible conclusion, isn't there, if the
19 range is questionable. You said -- your response was that maybe the
20 sniper was in a more exposed position, but isn't it also a possibility
21 that it wasn't a sniper at all?
22 A. As I've described in the first -- in the introduction, the
23 word "sniper" -- the military sniper is not always the sniper used in the
24 media, so the sniper defines a military-trained sniper but a person with a
25 rifle or a scope rifle. It could not have -- it might not have been a
1 trained sniper, yes.
2 Q. In fact, we can only conclude, if we stick to the evidence as
3 opposed to what we would like to read into the evidence, the only actual
4 conclusion that can be drawn is that this lady was shot by someone with a
6 A. Yes, that's true.
7 Q. Thank you, Lieutenant.
8 MR. MURPHY: I have nothing further, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Murphy.
10 Mr. Praljak, you want to start off?
11 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Well, yes, I'll start off,
12 although I'm sorry that I can't get through all my -- these eight cases
13 confirmed by the witness for the simple reason that even the simplest of
14 sketches will show, in each case, that this is a job very badly done, from
15 what the expert wrote himself.
16 Cross-examination by the Accused Praljak:
17 Q. I'm going to point out one factor. If the fracture of the head in
18 the case of this woman who was killed on the steps, and her slipper,
19 according to what the witness said, was on the -- her slippers were on the
20 first and third step, if she was hit from the right side of her head, or
21 on the right side of her head, there is no theoretical possibility that
22 the shot came from Stotina.
23 Let's look at the situation, sir. You sketched and drew a bullet
24 from Stotina coming at an angle of 45 degrees precisely as you and I are
25 sitting now, in that direction and angle. Now, if I am walking up steps
1 that are parallel to the bench, can you hit me behind the head; yes or no?
2 Look at my position. Can you hit me in the nape? This is the house,
3 these are the steps, Stotina is over there. Now if I turn around, then
4 you cannot at all, in any event, hit a woman in her right or behind her
5 right ear from Stotina. That is just simple geometry.
6 Now, take a look at your sketch and I'll show you what I mean. It
7 refers to case number 3, incident number 3.
8 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] So could Their Honours and
9 everybody else be shown a copy of case 3, incident 3. I studied it. Let
10 me at least take two cases. I hope I'll be able to get two incidents. 3D
11 00766 is the number. 3D 00766.
12 Q. Lieutenant, just look and see what you omitted to do. If you know
13 that somebody was hit from a certain place, you have to look at whether an
14 entry or exit wound exists. Well, the fact that you can hit one spot from
15 another spot doesn't mean that you would necessarily hit a person there on
16 that particular day; is that right? Is that right?
17 A. That's right, yes.
18 Q. Now, take a look at your sketch, and I have some profiles there.
19 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] May we have a look at --
20 zoom in on the entire picture, the entire sketch. The top and the bottom,
21 thank you. Yes.
22 Q. Now, can you see that Stotina is at an angle of 45 degrees up and
23 down the steps?
24 A. Yes, more or less.
25 Q. Now, take a look at the profile of the head, and you see the ear.
1 And as you say, the woman is walking up the stairs. "A woman walking up
2 the stairs," and this is something you wrote, "cannot be hit in the nape
3 of her neck from this Stotina position."
4 A. If the nape of the neck is -- this is the nape of the neck?
5 Q. You see the direction. Yes, that's the nape of the neck. Can she
6 be hit if she's walking up the stairs?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. At the back, at the nape?
9 A. Medically you would be able to hit that side of the head. As
10 I've --
11 Q. Leave medicine alone. You're not a doctor. Look at the sketch.
12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, Mr. Praljak, to my knowledge you are
13 not a doctor either. So I think if you make suppositions, the witness
14 should be in the position to do the same kind of speculations, if you
16 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge Trechsel,
17 I'm not making any assumptions or suppositions. I was looking at the
18 gentleman's sketch and drew exactly what could be said. In his statement,
19 it says that the victim was walking up the steps. We see where the woman
20 was and what direction she was taking. And we can see that at an angle of
21 45 degrees, the bullet can come from this direction, and my question is
22 quite simple.
23 Q. If the woman is walking up the stairs that way, can it happen
24 that a bullet shot from Stotina can hit her in the back of the head or in
25 the nape of her neck? That's something we need not even ask. It's
1 self-evident. Let me ask --
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: No, Mr. Praljak, your hypothesis is that woman
3 lopes, walks, straight up like a soldier, with her head. But we do not
4 walk like this all the time. We look around. We turn our head. We have
5 no idea, even if she went up the stairs, whether she was not looking back
6 into the garden. This is an assumption. So everything, more or less, is
7 possible here. It doesn't give us more certainty either way.
8 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] On the assumption presented
9 here, the woman is walking up the steps. The bullet comes at an angle of
10 45 degrees and hits her, according to one variant, behind the right ear
11 and, according to the other variant, behind the other ear. Now, I have
12 made two sketches. If the woman didn't turn her head left and right, she
13 could have been hit going down the stairs. If she had been going down
14 the stairs without turning around, she could have been hit behind her left
15 ear as well. But we are here to establish the facts and not make
17 May I have the next page, please.
18 Q. And the question is: If the woman didn't move around and turn her
19 head, if she was walking normally up the stairs, could she have been hit
20 only from the front, at an angle of 45 degrees, which is the direction
21 from Stotina? Is that right?
22 A. If the woman was walking up the stairs, looking forward, she would
23 be hit on the left or on the back of -- in the nape of her neck. So
24 that's -- that would be the areas where she might have been hit, as well
25 as the right side, because the entry wound doesn't -- in the report or in
1 my information, it doesn't specify the entry or exit wound, so the wound
2 might be anywhere on the head -- the wound created by the round doesn't
3 mean that the bullet came from that direction. If I'm shot in the back of
4 my head on the right side, it could still come from this direction and the
5 wound would be on this side.
6 Q. I can't understand that. I can't follow you. Does that mean
7 that to conclude anything we would have to know the position of the person
8 who was hit? Otherwise, we're just doing guesswork. She could have been
9 hit, left; she could have turned left, right, this way, that way. Now,
10 you said here that she was walking up the stairs. On what grounds did you
11 say she was walking up the stairs? Did you get that information from
13 A. The information was -- I remember the information is either on the
14 DVD with the -- the witness information or given to me by Carry Spork, by
15 the OTP investigator.
16 Q. Furthermore, the witness showed us that the head of the woman, he
17 laid down and showed us that the head of the woman was facing west and her
18 feet, east. And I drew that on my other sketch.
19 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Judge Antonetti,
20 Your Honour, genetic energy throws the bullet on the opposite side of the
21 hit. It is E=MC2. Well, not Einstein's formula but kinetic energy and so
22 on, the other formula. Now, if this hit the woman when she was walking
23 down the steps or going up the steps, she would have fallen opposite the
24 hit. That would mean that her head would have to have been facing east
25 and her feet facing west, whereas the witness said that she was facing the
1 other way around. So we can't conclude anything. If you're hit in the
2 breast, do you fall on your back?
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, have you understood
4 Mr. Praljak's question? There is the kinetic energy of the bullet. Now,
5 if she was hit in the head, would she have been thrown to the ground in a
6 different direction? You see the relevance of the question. But what can
7 you say, what can you tell us?
8 THE WITNESS: I see the relevance of the question. Contrary to
9 what is usually shown in the movies, people don't fly backwards from a
10 shot. They are hit by a shot which causes a wound, but it doesn't mean
11 they will fall in the direction from which -- opposite from the direction
12 they were fired from -- on from. So it's not like in the movies. People
13 usually fall down like a sack of potatoes, just -- they drop to the
14 ground, and there they -- they don't drop down from the energy of the
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Witness, could you confirm that this depends on
17 the calibre, and that with a 9-millimetre or more calibre, it is possible
18 that then the victim is actually overthrown?
19 THE WITNESS: Well, I've been fired on myself with less lethal
20 elimination, with beanbags, and the body absorbs the energy. You don't
21 fall over from -- you fall, but you don't necessarily fall over in the
22 direction opposite to the one -- to the direction you are fired on from.
23 So it ...
24 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation].
25 Q. How often will there be an exception, if a bullet hits a man in
1 his chest that he will fall forward or back? The percentage,
3 A. I wouldn't know the percentage.
4 Q. Thank you. You don't know the percentage. Right.
5 Now look at the next page. I'll just show you another portion of
6 the job you did and how you did it. In incident 2, you say -- you have
7 the GPS markings east --
8 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Next document, please. It's
9 not there. It's the same number, the same number. It's just the next
10 page, the next piece of paper. The next page. One more page. Go
12 Q. On the house here, you said that they were shooting from the upper
13 floors. Now, did you notice that on that upper floor if there were any
14 traces of bullets? Bullet the roof, that at particular area, the
15 uppermost floor, the top floor, this house at Stotina that we see here.
16 You have it on your screen, sir.
17 A. It's not on my screen. The picture on my screen is not clear
18 enough for me -- I'll try to locate the picture in the file to just ...
19 Q. Underneath the attic, do you know that that top floor didn't exist
20 in the war, during the war?
21 A. I wouldn't know.
22 Q. Do you know that? In incident 2 and incident 3, you state how far
23 that locality is east, according to GPS, the GPS reading, and here you
24 have E equals 17 degrees for incident 2, 49 minutes and 10.6 seconds.
25 Now, with incident 3 nearby, you say that it is 17 degrees and 98
1 minutes, .02 seconds. Now, Lieutenant, do you know that a difference of
2 50 minutes equals 85 kilometres in reality? Are you aware of that? Do
3 you know that?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Thank you. Now 3D 00768 next, please. I just want to address the
6 professionality of your report, so may I have this next number up, please,
7 3D 00768. 00768. This is the case of the two boys, and counsel, the
8 Coric Defence counsel, already showed us this. Let's see what it says
10 The circle is a cross-section of the boy across his stomach. The
11 direction of movement is green, is in green. The bullet from Stotina is
12 black. And the direction of the wound that the boy showed us here went
13 this way, from -- the entry was on the left and exited here.
14 Lieutenant --
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, look at Mr. Praljak.
16 He's showing you something.
17 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
18 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]
19 Q. That's where the bullet entered, on the left, and it exited over
20 here, and you'll see this on the photograph later on.
21 Now, if the HVO didn't have -- if they had some intelligent
22 bullets which were able to bypass the victim, how come a bullet from
23 Stotina, in the direction of movement, comes under an angle of 90 degrees?
24 So I'm walking towards you, or, rather, the angle is 90 degrees and the
25 bullet hits me here, over here, and you sign that report as being correct
1 and proper? Is that possible?
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Allow the witness to answer.
3 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Is that possible?
5 A. If the boy was walking in that direction, that would be
6 impossible. But he might -- I don't know the witness statement because I
7 don't have access to the witness statement. But if he was looking back,
8 then it would have been possible.
9 Q. My question is: Can we, on the basis of a lack of knowledge - you
10 don't know what the wound was, whether he was walking, whether he was
11 running - can you write a logical report except to say that there was a
12 shot from point A to point B? Is there anything else that one could
13 conclude, Lieutenant, apart from that? Yes or no?
14 A. I wouldn't answer with yes or no, because I would have to -- in
15 this case, in this case, which is specific, as I've pointed out when being
16 asked by Mr. Mundis, the other possibilities for the shooter to shoot from
17 would have been at extremely close range and --
18 Q. I'm not interested in that. We're dealing with Stotina, with
19 movement, direction, wounds, and your analysis. And all I wish to do is
20 challenge your expert report by asking you logical questions.
21 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Next page, please.
22 Q. Did you calculate the difference in height levels between Stotina
23 and the place where the boy was hit?
24 A. I did not calculate the height level.
25 Q. If you don't know where the difference in height is, how can you
1 calculate the angle? Whereas Stotina is at least 40 degrees higher. What
2 is the angle in height for the bullet to be able to penetrate the boy's
3 body had it been fired from Stotina? Did you calculate the angle or not;
4 yes or no?
5 A. I didn't calculate the angle, no.
6 Q. Now take a look at the next page from this document.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, it's already 6.30,
8 and the registrar has told us that we have to end the proceedings for
9 today because of the security personnel who have to get back under these
10 extreme weather conditions.
11 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I just want five more
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Go ahead, then.
14 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Now, the tables and charts that I took from Adrian Gilbert, the
16 boy that was 14 or 15 was running 4 metres per second, which means that he
17 would cross this area of 2 metres, he would run across it --
18 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Why has it gone off the
20 Q. Take a look at the wound.
21 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Can I finish this? If not,
22 then we'll leave to next time.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It would be better, perhaps, if
24 we were to end there and carry on next time because it's exactly 6.30. I
25 have the clock on front of me. You'll be able to come back to that
1 question the next time, at the next sitting.
2 I would like to thank you, sir. As you know, you'll have to come
3 back. It will be at an early date, I hope, so we'll all have this fresh
4 in our memory. And when you come back, Mr. Praljak will continue with his
5 questions, and with the time that he has in front of him, he'll be able to
6 ask you the questions, having studied the material even more.
7 We come back on Monday, 2.15. We have three more victims.
8 Tuesday and Wednesday we have two and three victims and another one on
9 Thursday. So that is the programme for next week. Be careful going home,
10 and we'll reconvene on Monday.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.31 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Monday, the 12th day of
13 February, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.