1 Monday, 3 March 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.39 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone in the courtroom and those
6 assisting us outside the courtroom.
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus
9 Stanislav Galic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 I do understand that there are still some problems in respect of
12 the tapes that are copied by now, the tapes provided by Mr. Gray. Is that
13 correct? Or are the parties for the time being able to work as they
14 should? If there are no observations in respect of that issue -- yes,
15 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President. What we
17 said was the following, very briefly: Is that the originals are necessary
18 to us, not just the copies. We simply wanted to know when we will be able
19 to have the originals that we never really wanted to tender as such.
20 Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The originals will stay with the registry at this
22 moment. We promised that they would be given back to Mr. Gray. At that
23 time there had been no objections against that, so therefore the originals
24 will stay with the registry at this moment with the promise that they
25 would be given back to Mr. Gray at the time there had been no objection
1 against that. So therefore, the originals will stay with the registry,
2 the parties have been provided with copies. And if there's any need to
3 compare at a certain issue copies and originals or to inspect the
4 originals, you can apply to -- each party can apply to do that.
5 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we'll have a
7 problem, that we never wanted to tender the originals as such, only the
8 sections that we viewed. We would like to be very clear on that point.
9 We don't see why the originals, many more of them than all the sections
10 we've shown, would be tendered. In our mind there's no reason for this to
11 be tendered in totality. What was necessary is to have nine segments and
12 that's all. And also, I gave my word, and I'd like to make sure that I
13 stand by it, is that we would return that to Mr. Gray.
14 JUDGE ORIE: As far as I remember, the Chamber gave its word as
15 well to return it. We'll check it in the transcript, but it's my
16 recollection -- it's the Chamber's recollection, because we briefly
17 discussed the matter, but we'll check every detail, that the Chamber would
18 take care of it after having copied the videos that they would be sent
19 back to Mr. Gray.
20 For the time being, they are available for inspection by the
21 parties in order to see whether, especially if the copies would not be
22 a -- would not be a copy that would be workable for the further
23 preparation of --
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] What I wish to say was that
2 the first versions that were copied and that I had, they didn't seem to be
3 corresponding to the originals. But because I didn't have the originals,
4 I couldn't compare. The images were a very poor quality. One would think
5 that this was the cinema from the beginning of last century. I do not
6 recall that this was the quality of the originals that were handed over.
7 Now, if these tapes had deteriorated in quality during the copying
8 procedure, I don't know. But we really have a problem here in terms of
9 handling these videotapes, because this is something that was viewed.
10 Thank you.
11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, first of all, I have been informed
13 that a second copy, presumably a better copy, has been provided to you, so
14 that you have, apart from the copy of, as you say, poor quality - the
15 Chamber of course couldn't check that - but apart from that, you have a
16 second copy now. If with -- on certain parts a few lines on it, if you'd
17 like on these specific parts where the quality seems to be deficient, the
18 original tapes are available for consultation, especially on these
19 issues. The Chamber has, as far as my recollection goes - but if I'm
20 wrong, we'll certainly check that - has promised to Mr. Gray that the
21 Chamber is responsible for sending them back. The Chamber will do that.
22 And finally, I do understand that you have only the same intent,
23 that is, that the tapes are returned to Mr. Gray and that the content of
24 the tapes is available for the parties, although not -- not tendered as a
25 whole but only certain parts of it.
1 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. IERACE: Might I raise something in relation to that or
4 respond. There are two aspects to the relevance of the copying. The
5 first -- and I should add the viewing by Mr. Gray. The first was that he
6 was to identify, if he could, the part of the tapes which showed the
7 crater in his evidence made by the bomb at the marketplace. The second
8 point of relevance, especially the taping, was to establish where on the
9 tapes disclosed to the Prosecution and provided by Mr. Gray were the two
10 first segments shown by the Defence. I don't know in respect of the first
11 whether Mr. Grey has indicated outside the Trial Chamber where on the
12 tapes the crater appears. You may recall he said it was on the tape.
13 Mr. President, we have received, I think on Friday, two video
14 cassettes which appear to be copies made of the tapes provided. So I
15 assume -- there are two further copies still coming. The two we have
16 received -- excuse me. And we've now received the third one today. So I
17 assume there's a fourth one coming. Thank you.
18 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
19 JUDGE ORIE: There is -- of the missing tape, there's a copy
20 available for the Prosecution, since the originals are still in the hands
21 of the registry. So that problem would have been solved.
22 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I assume that Mr. Gray has left the
24 JUDGE ORIE: That's what I assume as well, yes.
25 MR. IERACE: Yes. Could I be informed as to whether he did
1 indicate on any of the tapes the image of the crater.
2 JUDGE ORIE: As far as I am aware of, he did not. He did not
3 review the tapes. That was partly due to the slow reproduction and the --
4 but I'll ask the registry to check with the Victims and Witnesses Unit
5 whether he has reviewed the tape and --
6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
7 JUDGE ORIE: No, it has not been done.
8 So if this would be vital information for you, Mr. Ierace, we'll
9 have to seek another -- you'll have to seek another way to get to it.
10 Then the parties, in order to avoid whatever confusion, the
11 Chamber would prefer the parties to say exactly what they tender and on
12 what tape it to be found. I take it since the originals will be sent back
13 to Mr. Gray and we don't need them any more, it should be clear -- perhaps
14 a short note would be the best way of dealing with it so that Madam
15 Registrar has the guidance she needs.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, on this issue,
18 we're going to have a problem. Contrary to what the Prosecution has
19 done - I may be mistaken, but I don't think this is the case, for once -
20 the Defence handed over the entirety of the prepared segments, these nine
21 segments that we viewed in the courtroom. That is not the case as far as
22 the Prosecution is concerned because I think that they also prepared a
23 summary of what they'd prepared. But we only have about two or three of
24 the segments out of six or seven that were shown. So here we have a
25 technical problem because the Defence will not accept that as an exhibit
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 are tendered the segments that were neither seen by the witness nor by
2 your Chamber. Now, that is a technical problem. I don't know what is to
3 be done, only that the segments should be copied that were shown in the
4 courtroom. I don't know how the Prosecution will handle this. That is a
5 problem that I'm raising.
6 JUDGE ORIE: It's not to my understanding that the Prosecution
7 wants to tender parts of the tape that have not been played or -- does
8 it? No. So in that respect, there's no problem.
9 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, none of the exhibits for the witness
10 Richard Gray have yet been tendered. Could I respectfully suggest that we
11 nominate a day later in the week to do that and prior to that date the
12 Prosecution indicate now that they also have copies from which tape the
13 first two segments were obtained. Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that your problem is where to
15 find it on the tapes that have been disclosed to you now and that you do
16 not intend to tender any part of the tape that has not been played in
18 Then perhaps it would be good that the parties try to communicate
19 in this respect so that we can deal with it in the most efficient way
20 later this week.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: If the -- just for our clarification, does the
23 Prosecution intend to tender specific parts of the tape not yet tendered
24 by the Defence?
25 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President. That is the parts which were
1 shown during the cross-examination --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. IERACE: -- Of Richard Gray by the Prosecution. We have
4 tendered, or at least Madam Registrar has a tape, of compilations from
5 which we have played some segments. And you may recall that the Trial
6 Chamber --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. IERACE: -- Indicated it didn't need to see any further
9 segments. We don't rely on those. We don't tender --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would it not be -- just for clarity sake, if
11 you could copy the parts played on one tape so that the registry has no
12 tape on which sequences do appear which are withdrawn.
13 MR. IERACE: Alternatively, Mr. President, if we could have the
14 tape back, we could wipe the sections that were not shown.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That would be -- at least if you have not then
16 lengthy parts where nothing appears, because then people might think that
17 that was the end of the tape, whereas after two, three, four, or five
18 minutes a new part comes up. So that there's no clear order that should
19 be written clearly on the tape in beginning or spots indicating so that
20 there will be no confusion, no misunderstanding. Yes.
21 If the parties would then continue to prepare, then we finally
22 will deal with the matter later this week.
23 Then I have to inform the parties that we had a late start because
24 of the other hearing this morning, because the other hearing this morning
25 took more time and was finished late.
1 Is the -- is there any need to re-examine Dr. Vilicic?
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then please, Madam Usher, could you please escort
4 Professor Vilicic into the courtroom.
5 [The witness entered court]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please be seated, Professor Vilicic. Welcome back in
7 the courtroom. We had a late start, and we had some procedural issues to
8 deal with as well. So, therefore, you had to wait for a while. Our
9 apologies for that.
10 You'll now be further examined by counsel for the Defence. May I
11 remind you, as I did before several times, that you're still bound by the
12 solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.
13 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
16 WITNESS: JANKO VILICIC [Resumed]
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 Re-examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Professor.
20 A. Good afternoon.
21 Q. We are now going to go back to your first day of cross-examination
22 by the Prosecution. That was the 26th of February. You were asked a
23 question by the Prosecution in relation to the state of one of the craters
24 on the site of the Dobrinja parking in relation to the football match
25 incident, and you started answering this question speaking of red paint.
1 Do you recall that?
2 A. Yes. Yes, I do.
3 Q. Very well. Could you tell us, Professor, what did you mean to say
4 by this?
5 A. Well, I said I was told by Stamatovic that these traces, or
6 rather, that the crater on the asphalt had been filled by red paint, that
7 in a way they had been protected by further damage. These sites were
9 Q. Very well, Professor. Am I to understand your answer that in a
10 sense the crater had been filled up again, had been closed?
11 A. Yes. What they did, they kept practically the outside view of the
12 crater but you couldn't measure the depth.
13 Q. Therefore, Professor, except if you could reopen that crater,
14 there was nothing else that you could have used, any other element, except
15 this external appearance of the crater. Is that correct; yes or no?
16 A. Yes. Objectively it's not interesting because the angle of
17 descent of the projectile, we would consider the frontal swathe of the
18 shell and the only question was the depth. But bearing in mind the
19 appearance, it was obvious that the depth could not have been any other
20 than the depth that we took from the report of the security centre and the
21 forensic experts that measured it and examined it on the site of the
22 incident at the time when the crater still existed.
23 Q. Thank you. Professor, let us now talk about front lines. You
24 were subject to a series of questions in relation to the positions of the
25 front lines, and you were given documents by the Prosecution, and these
1 documents were referring to the Serb version of your text, of your report.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't know
3 where these documents are now. I believe they are in the hands of Madam
4 Registrar, unless they were returned to the Prosecution.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Are you referring to the filed report in English?
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, I'm speaking
7 of three exhibits that don't yet have numbers, but they are referring to
8 the Serb version of the text of the report. I have that here, if this is
9 of any assistance. These three maps. Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 These three maps, could they please be placed again before the
11 expert. Thank you.
12 Q. Witness, we will start by the map bearing the number 34, page
13 number 34. And I would be very grateful if you can tell us whether the
14 line as it has been positioned on the left-hand side, that is, to the
15 west, whether this line corresponds or not to what you finally kept in the
16 English text.
17 A. No, no. It doesn't correspond. But let me say: With the Serb
18 version - because we thought that the English version was needed by the
19 Court - we also appended also the corrections of the four pages. These
20 were corrections for pages 25, 26. I think it was also for page 43.
21 But -- sorry, no, it was 34 and also -- and for 43, yes. These four
22 pages, we've attached the corrections primarily because of the lines.
23 Q. Professor, I'm going to interrupt you. My question - and could
24 you please focus on the questions - is very simply the following: Could
25 you please take page 34 that you were just handed. Very well. Now, could
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 you please compare it with page 34 of the English text.
2 A. Am I to put it on the ELMO?
3 Q. No, no, no. There's no need for that.
4 A. You see, just this line here, just this line, the one this way,
5 now it's going this way.
6 Q. Professor, please, listen to my question and answer when I finish
7 my question. Is there - yes or no - in relation to the English text, that
8 is, page 34, as it was tendered, the English text, is there a difference -
9 yes or no - between the confrontation lines in the west?
10 A. The old version doesn't, but the new documents that were tendered,
11 they do have.
12 Q. Very well. Can you please place the -- what you call the old
13 version on the ELMO.
14 A. No, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. In the English version, in the English
15 version -- I checked. No, it's mistaken. There's no difference.
16 Q. Professor, for future reference, can you please listen to the
17 questions carefully and answer. So there's no difference. Thank you very
19 Now, Professor, let us take the map that you were just handed, and
20 the page number is 47, please. No, the one that you were just handed --
21 Professor. Professor, the page -- thank you.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Do you see this document before you? Can you please put it on the
24 ELMO with the assistance of Madam Usher.
25 Professor, the line to the west, the one that's circled, does it
1 have any effect on any conclusion that one would be able to draw in
2 relation to the direction of fire, which seems to come more from the east
3 than from the west?
4 MR. STAMP: On what basis, my learned friend, speaking about the
5 direction of fire which seems to come more from the east?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin --
7 MR. STAMP: I don't know if that arises.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the objection is -- or at least
9 the question is whether what the factual basis is that the fire seems to
10 come more from the east than from the west. Are we talking about a
11 specific incident?
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. President, I'm going
13 to repeat. On the basis of the compass points. There is north, south,
14 east, and west. There is a key, which is very clear for everyone to see.
15 For instance, the origin of fire is marked with an arrow. It goes from
16 right to left. And as far as I'm concerned, this comes more from the east
17 than from the west.
18 JUDGE ORIE: You mean on the map.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Of course.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We're still speaking about the
23 Is the objection sustained?
24 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... is the arrow
25 on this map. The objection --
1 MR. STAMP: Very well.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Well, Professor, you were unfortunately interrupted --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, let me just -- if you want to ask
5 the witness - I think that's what you did - whether the difference in
6 confrontation lines would make any difference to the arrow of the source
7 of fire from the east, I mean whatever he says, I think the Chamber is
8 well aware that if you fire at a distance of less than 40.000 kilometres,
9 if the fire comes from the east, a confrontation line that the west could
10 have some influence on, from which side of the confrontation line it
11 comes. So it's not really necessary to ask this question.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. President. But
13 we waste a lot of time on these maps. And this stems from the Prosecution
14 questions. That's why I wanted to proceed in this way. But if everything
15 is clear for the Chamber, all the better. And then we no longer have to
16 talk about the lines.
17 Q. Witness, let us now go to the problem of the car -- of the water
18 queue incident and --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel be kind enough to repeat the
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Do you recall that?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the interpreters are having
24 difficulties in hearing and translating your question. They asked to
25 repeat it. They asked that in English. So would you please repeat the
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I was listening to the Serb
3 booth. Which one is having difficulties, the Serb booth or the English
5 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ...
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Okay. We'll start again.
7 Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Q. Professor, do you recall there was a picture of a motor vehicle,
9 of a car, and this was taken in sine cosine in a way, it was reversed, so
10 that you would make it more adapted to your position as an expert, so that
11 you can view it better. My question is the following: First of all, do
12 you recall that, Professor; yes or no?
13 A. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. And I explained. It was 180 degrees
15 Q. Very well, Professor. Thank you. My question is the following:
16 Was there in anything that the position of this photograph, that is, as it
17 appears either in negative or in positive, would it have changed your
18 conclusions in relation to this incident; yes or no?
19 A. No. No, no.
20 Q. Very well. Thank you. Thank you. Professor, I would like to now
21 go back to the football match incident. You were questioned at length
22 about the difference of altitude, a difference in the altitude of the
23 terrain. And it was said that around this area there was an elevated
24 position, et cetera. Do you remember that?
25 A. Yes. Yes, I do. It was about effectiveness.
1 Q. Exactly. My question is as follows: When one examines the
2 distance between the impact point and the position where these spectators
3 were allegedly located, the fact that they were slight -- at a slightly
4 more elevated position, perhaps standing, perhaps sitting down in some
5 cases, would this have changed anything? Would this have made a
6 difference with regard to the dispersal of the fragments and as a result
7 with regard to the statistical results that concern the victims?
8 A. If we had -- I said that --
9 MR. STAMP: [Previous interpretation continues] ... but when the
10 question is phrased in terms of "slightly," that is too vague. The
11 question ought to be framed in a more precise manner, for the record.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I think the -- it's clear from the witness what has
13 been put to the witness during cross-examination, that we're talking about
14 people that are -- might have been 2 or 3 metres higher -- slightly
15 higher, or on cars, which is also some, I would say, 1 metre 60 up to 2
16 and a half metres. If that is the understanding of all the parties, it
17 would be my understanding. And I take it, Professor Vilicic, that you
18 understood the question also in a similar way. So on the basis of that,
19 would that have altered your conclusion -- your conclusions and
20 calculations as far as the dispersion is concerned?
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
22 A. As I said, in the course of the examination-in-chief, all the
23 spectators were in this area, in this rectangle on page 32, this rectangle
24 which surrounds this area. They were far closer than they would have
25 been -- or some of them were far closer, and that's unfavourable as far as
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 the number of those hit is concerned. They were far closer than if we had
2 taken them to be these elevations which were further away and the effect
3 of the projectile wouldn't have been as great in that case and there
4 wouldn't have been as many hurt. So we took the most unfavourable
5 position. If they had all been close to the point of impact, near the
6 area where the game was held, in that case the projectile would have
7 had -- would have been most effective.
8 Q. Professor, thank you. I'd like you to be shown an exhibit which
9 is a triple x-ray, it seems. It's an x-ray of the explosion of a shell.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] And Madam Registrar, it's this
11 image. It's this image.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's not a shell. It's an
13 artillery shell.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Professor, I -- in French I said "a shell," "mortar shell." I
16 don't know who said "artillery shell."
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] And for the English booth, I
18 didn't mention a mortar shell. I mentioned a shell.
19 A. Thank you very much. It's clear now.
20 Q. So you saw these shells, do you remember that? Yes or no?
21 A. Yes. The picture, yes, I saw it. Mr. Stamp asked questions about
23 Q. You were asked questions, Professor, about the swelling of the
24 fuse. Do you remember this?
25 A. Yes. Yes.
1 Q. Professor, you were asked questions about the type of material
2 used for this part, or rather, you were asked what metal was used, and you
3 answered the question - do you remember that - for this type of shell?
4 A. No, I don't remember mentioning metal. I mentioned the difference
5 in the thickness of the case, of the projectile case.
6 Q. Very well. Professor, on page 52 you said that -- with regard to
7 that zone, that part, you said that it was an aluminium part. It's not in
8 your report. It's in the transcript. Do you remember that? We're
9 talking about the extreme part of the detonator.
10 A. As far as I remember, with regard to an artillery shell, I
11 couldn't have mentioned an aluminium part. When I analysed this picture,
12 I said it didn't correspond to the way in which a mortar shell explodes,
13 given that it has thinner walls. I was asked whether the case swelled. I
14 said it did. And when it swells, the case is opened and the fuse or part
15 of the fuse is ejected. And then Mr. Stamp asked me whether I agreed that
16 part of the fuse could also be deformed, and I said that it was possible,
17 that they could be deformed, but it depended on the fuse, the kind of fuse
18 used. If it's a UTM 78 fuse, the dimensions of which are quite big, then
19 there's enough room for part of the fuse which is made of aluminium to
20 also be deformed. For UTM-68 [as interpreted], there's no possibility for
21 the fuse to become deformed because the diameter is 25.4 millimetres
22 smaller. It is more likely that it will be ejected and it will be broken.
23 There are no elements that could be -- that could swell.
24 Q. Very well, Professor. In order to make sure that everything is
25 clear. You suggested to examine two photographs -- I suggested you
1 examine two photographs and in relation to these photographs, you said
2 that with regard to a grenade -- a mortar shell, we're talking about
3 mortar shells now, you said that with such a weapon, such ammunition,
4 there were no aluminium parts. Can you confirm that? Bearing in mind the
5 answer you provided with regard to this type of shell.
6 A. This question isn't clear to me.
7 Q. I'll repeat the question, Professor. It seems that according to
8 the preceding transcript, you mentioned that a constituent part of these
9 artillery shells was an aluminium part, and you asked about this. What I
10 want to know is whether you stand by what you stated with regard to mortar
11 shells. And you said that such mortar shells didn't have any aluminium
12 parts. And I'm now talking about mortar shells.
13 A. If we're talking about a 120-millimetre mortar shell, the only
14 aluminium parts are parts of the fuse. And the body of the shell, the
15 stabiliser, are made of steel.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think I might
17 need the assistance -- well, probably, yes, I think I'll need the
18 assistance of a technician because I wanted to cover a lot of things
19 but --
20 Q. Witness, I think I'd like to address the question of penetration,
21 with regard to the stabilisers. You were asked a certain number of
22 questions as to whether the first explosion in a certain sense opened the
23 way or made it possible for the stabiliser to penetrate the ground after
24 the explosion. My question is: The firing tables that you mentioned, do
25 they take into consideration such factors? For example, we're talking
1 about table 8 here.
2 A. It depends on the action of the fuse. If it's an instantaneous
3 fuse, the shell will explode and the shell won't penetrate very far. If
4 it is a delayed action fuse, then the shell shall penetrate the ground to
5 a greater extent. So with regard to your question, the stabiliser will
6 penetrate further if you use a time delay shell, since the shell creates a
7 bigger crater. If it explodes on the surface, then -- I mean, if it's
8 instantaneous, if the fuse is a super-quick fuse, then the crater will be
9 smaller and as a result it will be more difficult for the stabiliser to
10 penetrate further. Let's put it like that.
11 Q. Very well, Professor. But my question was: The firing tables
12 that you used -- not the firing tables. The tables that you used.
13 MR. STAMP: Very well.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 Q. The tables that you used, table 8 in particular, do these tables
16 take into consideration the -- the formulas that are included in these
17 tables, do they take into consideration the fact that an explosion takes
18 place before the penetration of the stabiliser? This is my question.
19 That is to say, is the fact that -- is the fact that some of the ground is
20 blown out, ejected, is that taken into consideration in the tables
22 A. I don't think your question is -- well, I'll answer like this:
23 Table 8 or table 7, both of them, take into consideration that the time of
24 reaction of the fuse is 1 millisecond. During that 1 millisecond, the
25 projectile passes a trajectory that we can call LPR. After 1 millisecond,
1 for the sake of an example, a mortar shell in the first column, 46
2 degrees, at a speed of 67 metres -- well, if the fuse didn't activate, it
3 would only cover a trajectory of 18 centimetres. But since the fuse
4 activated after 1 millisecond, then the shell explodes only after it has
5 penetrated 6 centimetres into the ground. And these are the
6 calculations. This is a fact that we used in all our analysis, in all the
7 five cases which concerned mortar shells and the depth of -- where the
8 depth of penetration had been recorded. So table 7 or table 8 have to do
9 with crater depth for projectiles which functioned properly, if they
10 exploded normally and if the fuse was instantaneous, if it was activated
11 after 1 millisecond.
12 If you reduce this time, this reaction time, then the penetration
13 depth would be smaller because the more the time is reduced, the less the
14 depth of penetration. The more time it takes for the fuse to activate,
15 the further it penetrates. So if the fuse is quick, the quicker it is,
16 the faster the fuse acts, the more the penetration depth will be reduced.
17 It's faster if this value is lower than 1. One is 1 millisecond. If it
18 were 0.5, that would be -- .5 milliseconds.
19 Q. Very well. We'll move on to another subject.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] But first I would like to ask,
21 Mr. President, a question concerning the break. Is it going to be at
22 quarter to or later?
23 JUDGE ORIE: I think we'll have our first break a bit later
24 because we started a quarter of an hour later. I intend to have the first
25 break at approximately 4.00.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 Q. Witness, we'll move on to another subject. I would like you to
3 take the English version of the report that you provided us with and have
4 a look at page 28, please.
5 Just a minute. I'll find the page in a minute.
6 Could you have a look at page 45, please. And we can see a map on
7 this page and references made to two impacts. Some questions were put to
8 you about these two impacts. But if we have a look at page 42, you were
9 referred to the existence of three projectiles in your report.
10 A. Yes. Yes.
11 Q. My question is: Would you like to comment on why, although you
12 mentioned three impacts, only two are referred to in your map and
13 something in regard -- in relation to the position of these impact
14 points? Could you comment on that?
15 A. Well, here, according to the record of the ballistics expert,
16 three impact points were recorded, three points of impact that had been
17 hit by projectiles. Two were ascribed to an 82-millimetre mortar. And on
18 a soil surface, on the appearance of the crater, the destruction caused,
19 one could come to the conclusion that the shell used was a 120-millimetre
20 shell. So in that picture there, the first and third projectile were
21 mortar shells, were 82-millimetre mortar shells, and the third projectile,
22 which overflew the building and fell on this soil surface, penetrated to a
23 depth of 40 centimetres, it made a crater which was 40 centimetres deep.
24 And that shell was a 120-millimetre shell. And as far as I can remember -
25 I have the image here - that is a projectile that penetrated -- yes,
1 it's -- image 268 -- 248, and the projectile penetrated at a degree of
2 almost 90 degrees, an angle of almost 90 degrees. And you can see the
4 Q. My question, professor, had to do above all with what you said
5 about the three projectiles and the figure, the plan, where these two
6 projectiles are referred to, and in particular with regard to the question
7 that was put to you, that is to say, whether the projectiles exploded or
8 not in the courtyard of the building. And I wanted you, if you think this
9 might be useful, to comment something about this matter. And they would
10 certainly be much appreciated.
11 A. Well, the fact is that the bodies of the stabilisers of the
12 82-millimetre shells weren't found, so we concluded that there was not
13 precise evidence that 82-millimetre shells were used. But according to
14 the appearance of the crater, one impact was on the edge - this is
15 photograph 268-189 - according to the appearance of a crater the depth
16 of penetration, on that basis we concluded that the shell used was
17 probably an 82-millimetre shell. On the basis of the traces that we
18 recorded, we came to the conclusion that that shell fell at a great drop
19 angle because we made these calculations on the basis of the depth of the
20 crater which was 6 centimetres and the ellipse which was formed during the
21 explosion. These dimensions were provided in the report. And on that
22 basis we came to the conclusion that the drop velocity was greater than 68
23 millimetres, greater than when just one main charge is used, and we came
24 to the conclusion that one charge was used, and on the basis of the drop
25 velocity used when you have one charge, the penetration depth corresponds
1 to the values that we established at the site.
2 Q. Thank you, Professor, for these answer, but my question had to do
3 with the plan, quite simply. If there are any comments you could make
4 about the plan that you made and the comments of the accusation about the
5 shells that fell in the courtyard of the building, it would be a good time
6 to make such comments. If not, it doesn't matter.
7 A. Well, I have to repeat this. I've said this on several occasions
8 already. To analyse all these events, the appearance of the crater and
9 the dimension of the crater was of primary importance to us. It was not
10 relevant whether it was in front or behind a building. That wasn't
11 interesting to us. Only if the building perhaps formed an obstacle to the
12 projectile, that would have been interesting. But in this case, this was
13 not relevant. It was primarily on the basis of the traces found on the
14 site that we determined the parameters that could, let's say, reproduce
15 such an event. We took into consideration the ellipse, the depth of
16 penetration, et cetera, as I've already said.
17 Q. Very well.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, with the
19 assistance of Madam Registrar, could the figure, the almost alpine figure
20 that you produced, could this be shown, could this be placed on the on
22 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Before taking off the -- that page.
23 In your report, professor, you mentioned the Mihaila Pupina
24 Street number 3, page 42, 43, 44.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This is the names of the
1 streets were listed in the record, and also the impacts occurred in front
2 of the buildings in the listed streets, so the numbers were listed. There
3 was Mihaila Pupina Street.
4 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: My question is: Where is that spot? Because
5 I cannot see in your map, the name Mihaila Pupina.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I didn't mark it on the map.
7 I didn't mark it.
8 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: So you don't know which --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What was said was the second
10 projectile, the second one that was fired, 120-millimetres, that had
11 impacted the soil surface, that it impacted in such a way that the body of
12 the stabiliser was found on the site of the impact. Yes, in front of --
13 yes, next to the building, in front of the building, in front of the
14 building in Mihaila Pupina Street. I think that's what it says here.
15 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Yes. But I think we have --
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I did not mark it on the map. I
17 marked Cetinjska Street and Klare Zetkin Street, but for these two
18 projectiles, 82-millimetre shells that were analysed, because this third
19 projectile was the 120-millimetre shell.
20 MR. STAMP: Mr. President, Your Honour, I was wondering what is
21 happening in relation to the answer of the witness. And when I hear
22 Cetinjska Street, and I heard him in earlier answer speaking of
23 82-millimetre rounds, then -- I think there has been some confusion with
24 the earlier questions.
25 JUDGE ORIE: There might be some confusion.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: If you don't know where is the spot, I don't
3 have further questions on that issue. Thank you.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Professor, referring to the sketch that you made on page 45 -- is
8 this sketch in front of you, Professor? No, that is the map of Sarajevo.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Professor, would you please concentrate on the
10 documents that have been provided to you. And if you'd like to look at
11 anything else, please indicate that before. But if you --
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm listening. I'm listening.
13 JUDGE ORIE: But if you would please just look at the document
14 that is on the ELMO at this very moment.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I don't know whether that is
16 the right one. What I would like to have is the page 45 of your report in
17 the English version, please.
18 JUDGE ORIE: That is on the ELMO. That's the one on the ELMO.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. That's
20 it, yes.
21 Q. Professor, my question is the following: The way that you have
22 positioned of the two impact points that we can see on the ELMO, are they
23 vigorously precise or were they positioned as approximate indications?
24 A. Yes, approximate indications, because this sketch is just for
25 indication purposes. There are no dimensions on the basis of which you
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 could assess the distance and so on. But the sketch that I made, what I
2 did was that I enlarged the map, section 1 to 25.000 scale, and that's how
3 I made a map of this site, because on the normal map of Sarajevo that we
4 had taken off the Internet, this street is not on the map because it's
5 very small.
6 JUDGE ORIE: You have clearly answered the question, and you are
7 explaining a lot. But if there's any need for this explanation, you'll be
8 asked for it. The question was whether it was a precise or an indicative
9 position, and you said it was indicative. That's the answer to the
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. We can
13 take this off the ELMO, this document.
14 And now, Mr. President, we would like to have a look at the figure
15 that you sketched at the end of last week, and that is the cross-section
16 of a mountainous position.
17 THE REGISTRAR: For the record, it's document MFI 30.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Madam Registrar.
19 Q. Professor, do you remember this sketch?
20 A. Yes. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes. Yes, Mr. President, I made
21 this sketch, yes.
22 Q. Thank you very much. The question that I wanted to ask was, first
23 of all: What is the drop velocity, maximum drop velocity of a body that
24 is launched in this way bearing in mind the air resistance? So what is
25 the maximum speed while there would be no more acceleration?
1 A. That depends. If we are talking about free fall -- if we are
2 talking about free fall, then we know that the acceleration of the earth's
3 gravity has to be added to the velocity without resistance by
4 extrapolating. That's how I got these results. So I was not able to get
5 precisely the air resistance during the projectile movement.
6 Q. Professor, my question is the following -- my question is the
7 following: Is there a point whether -- from which point there is a free
8 fall of an object where it no longer accelerates, in terms of experiments
9 that were made by dropping two balls and watching when and how they fall,
10 for instance?
11 A. Both balls will have the acceleration. The acceleration stops at
12 the moment when the inertia of the body is zero, that is, when it stops.
13 Q. Very well. In general, in terms of artillery, what is the speed
14 of the fall of an object in free fall when there is no more -- any
15 acceleration that is influenced by gravity, when we come to zero point?
16 A. Well, if we equalise the resistance of the object which is going,
17 then there's no more acceleration, so it is dropping at that rate. But in
18 this case, it doesn't happen. We always have acceleration up to the
19 moment of impact. I am talking about the situation presented on this
20 sketch. What we have to know is that the firing tables were produced for
21 an altitude of zero and for a flat surface. But if you have a situation
22 of firing at a target which is higher than the firing point, that is, when
23 you're firing at a target -- or if you're firing at a target which is
24 lower than the firing position of the weapon, then it is normal that you
25 have the so-called straightening of the trajectory because you move the
1 position, you change the position, then the gravity -- the force of
2 gravity will have a influence on a different angle in relation to the
3 normal trajectory, the way it is calculated. So what will happen is that
4 there will be a straightening of the trajectory and figuratively speaking,
5 we will get a higher or longer range if we are firing at the same angle
6 bearing in mind the distance from this point to this point, if we are
7 talking about a topographic distance. If we take a topographic distance
8 between the firing position and the drop point, the impact point that we
9 wish to fire at, the target, in this case if the target is higher or lower
10 than horizon of the weapon, then it would fire over the target. In other
11 words, what you have to do is to carry out a correction of the firing.
12 That will be the local angle of the target. It could be in positive or
13 negative. And when firing is prepared, then you always have to carry out
14 a correction.
15 Q. Professor, I don't know whether this is possible, but is it
16 possible -- first of all, can you tell us what is an azimuth.
17 A. Azimuth? Azimuth is the direction of firing toward which the
18 weapon is positioned. Azimuth is the direction. That is the angle in
19 relation to the north, which is the direction of the weapon, or in
20 relation to -- in relation to north or in relation to some other chosen
21 point according to which the firing is assessed.
22 Q. Professor, if we look at the horizon, which will be the zero
23 altitude point, is it possible if I want to hit a target lower down, if
24 I'm working on the situation of an imaginary horizon, would it be the
25 point of target? That is, if I modify my angle and my azimuth, therefore.
1 Did you understand the question?
2 A. Well, I don't understand. The azimuth is not in relation to --
3 Q. No, I withdraw the azimuth. I withdraw the azimuth. Did you
4 understand my question, Professor?
5 A. Well, if you mean -- if it is necessary to correct what I said,
6 what happens if you have the target above or under -- I'm just looking to
7 show you the graphic appearance of the trajectory of 120 high explosive
8 mine -- a shell. Now, if the target is below the horizon, as it is shown
9 on this sketch -- may I put this on the ELMO, please.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If Mr. Piletta-Zanin does not oppose against
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Things will be clearer,
13 Mr. President.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, to me the question is not quite
15 clear. What is clear to me is that the witness has already testified that
16 if the target is higher, lower, or higher than the point of firing, the
17 level of firing, that you would need to adjust your target.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely.
19 JUDGE ORIE: So please proceed.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed.
21 Q. Professor, please, could you please explain.
22 A. Well, I'll explain very briefly. Here. This line here, that is
23 the zero line, the nought line. This is the line based on which the
24 firing tables are done. This is nought line. In this case, the weapons
25 go from nought and the target impacts, target sites are on this line.
1 Now, these are the trajectories of the increment charges. Sixth,
2 fifth, fourth, third, second, first. Specifically speaking, say that I'm
3 using third increment charge. The projectile will fall on the target on
4 this site, on this position. However, if the target is 500 metres below,
5 then this projectile under the same angle of firing will fall here. That
6 means it will go over the target. So, for instance, if this is about
7 3.900 metres, it will go at 500 metres. It will fall at the end of this
8 trajectory. That will be roughly 4.250 to 4.300. What happens is that
9 there is -- it will be firing over the target. Because of that, a
10 correction has to be made. The same thing happens, is that if the target
11 is, let us say, at the same distance but above and we are using third
12 increment charge, then what I will get, if you draw a line up at 3.000
13 metres, for example sake we can take this point that I had initially
14 taken, about 3.900 metres, and if at this point this target is up here, up
15 here where I'm pointing now, then I would have to make a correction
16 because of the change of the trajectory.
17 Q. Professor --
18 A. Do you see these lines here? These lines here are the lines of
19 the local angle of the target, and that's why graphically we have to
20 correct the firing, because if the target as at 500 metres - and I'm using
21 the elements that I wanted to hit, the target at 3.900 - I will get the
22 hit here. Here, you see. And perhaps I wanted to fire at the target
23 3.900. So what I have to do, is I have to rotate the curve, the
24 trajectory. I have to seek an angle because I cannot use the third
25 increment charge, but I'd have to use a different charge that will cover
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 this point. So if I could have used the third increment charge, perhaps
2 here I cannot use it there. I'll have to use the fifth or sixth increment
3 charge to be able to hit the target that I had intended, because contrary
4 to a straight line in small arms -- small weapons, these trajectories in
5 here, they are curved trajectories and there are very large margins of
6 error. Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, would you please keep in control
8 of the examination. I mean, the witness has now used 30, 40, 50 lines in
9 order to explain that an adjustment is needed. And of course that's the
10 charge, that's the angle. This is, I would say, for every -- it's not
11 really something that is in need of further explanation.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I was on the point of
13 interrupting the witness. But thank you very much for your assistance.
14 This subject, I believe that this is a perfect moment for a break. And
15 with your leave, perhaps we could finish very briefly when we reconvene.
16 JUDGE ORIE: How much time would you still need?
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have very few
18 things. This is to do with acceleration and the differences between 500,
19 400, and so on, when we are firing at lower targets.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Shall we say 15 minutes, if I listen to what --
21 and then I take it that you'll --
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Including the answers.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But to some extent you have some control on
24 the -- not on the answers but on the length of the answers, certainly.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: We'll adjourn until 4.30.
2 --- Recess taken at 3.59 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 4.32 p.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into
5 the courtroom.
6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, please proceed.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. Professor, earlier you told us in relation to the table that you
10 explained to us, which was on the ELMO, that when you are trying to hit a
11 target which is lower than the nought position of the horizon, there are
12 corrections that should be made so to speak. Now, my question is the
13 following: If we examine such a situation where hypothetically speaking
14 there would be firing from an altitude of over 300 metres from the
15 distance from the target, what would be the probability of hitting the
16 target the first time?
17 MR. STAMP: On this issue, the probability of hitting, it is my
18 submission that it did not arise in the cross-examination.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. President. But
21 this is exactly the continuation of what the witness was explaining,
22 because he spoke about corrections. Now, I know that the witness
23 developed -- perhaps we could just let him develop briefly just on this
24 matter, on this issue.
25 JUDGE ORIE: As a matter of fact, the -- I expressed already that
1 the explanation was not of great assistance because it was -- it wasn't
2 subjected, it did not need much explanation. The question as you put it,
3 Mr. Piletta-Zanin -- if you would have read the report precisely, then
4 you would have known that in order to give a probability of hitting a
5 target needs a lot of elements, most of them are missing in your question.
6 So I do not -- I think the whole system of what happens -- and you
7 introduce an additional element and that is the adjustment has to be made
8 correctly so human error comes into play in even a more complicated way.
9 So I think that would be clear to anyone. But I think, as a matter of
10 fact, the probability put in a question as you did will hardly give an
11 answer to that probability. But -- and so, therefore, I will allow you to
12 put a question in this respect, although it does not arise from the
13 questions I've -- to the witness, apart from whether that -- but if you
14 want to use the opportunity to put a question, although it's not related,
15 please put it in such a way that you can get an answer that might be of
16 some assistance.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I read
18 the transcript and the expert report of the professor, and the Defence
19 believes that it is important for the public that certain things be
20 explained because the public, they do not read expert reports every day.
21 Q. Very well, witness. Let us change the subject. My following
22 question is: You were asked a question about the problem of shell
23 acceleration on an additional trajectory above the horizon, 300, 400, 500
24 metres. Do you remember these calculations that you were asked to do in
25 relation to this?
1 A. Yes. Yes. Yes. I gave the possible acceleration with the
3 Q. Yes. Thank you, Professor. Thank you. My question is simply the
4 following: Would there be a large difference or not - I don't know - in
5 your calculations if we examined a difference of 400 metres in relation to
6 a 500-metre difference?
7 A. Well, approximately, as I said, with the lowering of the altitude
8 by 100 metres, for the highest charge the velocity changes by 4 metres per
9 second. If we take into consideration the air resistance and about 5.7
10 metres per second if we do not take into consideration the air
11 resistance. So basically for 400 metres you can say that there would be a
12 4 metre a second difference, if the weapon is 100 metres higher than the
13 target it would be about 4 metres per second difference in speed, but
14 depending on the data for calculating the trajectory, as I've already
16 Q. Thank you. Very last question: In relation to the methods that
17 you used and in relation to any comments that you could make with respect
18 to what was found by the studies, the examinations, that were conducted in
19 Sarajevo before you -- that is, did you know the results of such and such
20 an expert, for instance, Mr. Zecevic, and such and such an institute in
21 Sarajevo, and my question in relation to this is: What can you tell us
22 about the methodologies that were used and also of the necessity in this
23 case to establish commissions or committees that would be of an
24 international nature?
25 MR. STAMP: Again, this doesn't arise from the cross-examination.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I think it does,
3 Mr. President, because on several occasions the Prosecution, unless they
4 have something else to say -- the Prosecution asked the professor certain
5 questions on the conclusions reached by such and such a commission, in
6 relation to such and such an incident. So I believe that it would be good
7 for the professor if he thinks he can, what he was able to observe on
8 terms of methodology and in relation to his own experience, if he could
9 explain this to your Chamber.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 MR. STAMP: May I just clarify something.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Stamp.
13 MR. STAMP: No questions were asked in relation to the
14 methodology. All that was inquired into was whether or not conclusions
15 were consistent with his. And second, I don't think the professor is
16 competent to testify about the international nature of committees and what
17 the law requires or what practice requires. That's far outside of his
19 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is sustained. It does not arise from
20 cross-examination, apart from the matter that it's not in the specific
21 expertise of this -- of this expert, the methodology of setting up
22 committees. Apart from that, the methodology of setting up is only of
23 relative relevance.
24 That was your last question, then Mr. Piletta-Zanin?
25 Mr. Stamp, is there any need to -- no, it's now for the Judges.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: The Bench will put some questions to you as well,
4 Professor Vilicic. It's first Judge Nieto-Navia who will put some
5 questions to you.
6 Questioned by the Court:
7 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 I would like you to have a look on your table 12, page 56 of the
9 English version. My question is whether this table is based on the
10 Sandian or on the Berezin formulas.
11 A. Your Honour, it isn't. This is a form this table, table 13, on
12 page 57. That's the probability, the hit probability for the Markale
13 market if a 120-millimetre mortar shell is used. It's page 57. It's the
14 hit probability.
15 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: [Previous interpretation continues] ... not
16 13, but 12.
17 A. Yes. Table 12 was done on the basis of the Sandia National
19 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: May I take it that in most of the tables we
20 have used during your testimony the X of the equation is the depth of the
21 penetration of the shell, and here in this table is a velocity, isn't it?
22 I mean, the velocity is the result of this calculation in this table.
23 A. Your Honour, LP is the depth of penetration, and VC is the impact
24 of velocity. The impact of velocity of the projectile.
25 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: [Previous interpretation continues] ... I know
1 that. But the penetration is linear, let's say. The velocity is not
2 linear. So I take it that the velocity is the result of the application
3 of the equation in this table.
4 A. Yes, that's correct.
5 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I would like you to have a look on your
6 report, page 49. You are quoting some testimony, Witness number 2 says
7 that "The shell could be seen over flying." Witness number 3: "I saw an
8 object approaching," and so on. My question is whether it is possible to
9 see a mortar shell when flying.
10 A. You can only see a mortar shell if you are at the firing position,
11 next to the weapon that means. And when the shot is fired, you can notice
12 it if the velocity is up to about 300 metres. But if you are somewhere on
13 the side, if you are in the direction where it's coming from, you can't
14 see the shell. That is to say, if the shell is heading in your direction,
15 in such cases you can't see it.
16 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Well, I have another issue here: You
17 described in your report a theoretical model for predicting the number of
18 victims due to mortar shells. Are there other models than the one you
19 describe in your report which can be used to make such predictions?
20 A. The method that we used is the so-called method for checking the
21 effectiveness of the projectile in an arena. And as far as we know, it's
22 used in a number of European countries. It's a method which is a Western
23 European method. For example, in France, probably in America too,
24 we -- I haven't had the occasion to observe this but it's a method to
25 use -- which is used to examine the effectiveness of the projectile.
1 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: [Previous interpretation continues] ... I'm
2 sorry with the interpreters. Are you aware of other methods, different
4 A. There are simpler methods, yes. The older methods weren't so
5 sophisticated. This model could be realised and developed thanks to the
6 development of technology, computers, et cetera, and differential
7 equations, et cetera. You can use this to make calculations and in a
8 fairly short period of time you get reliable data. But the method was
9 developed, an identical one in France. You check the efficiency of the
10 projectile and of mortar shells. Information on fragments, the dispersal,
11 velocity of the fragments, et cetera, we call this the lethal or effective
12 action of the projectile. Unfortunately, against manpower this is tested
13 in an arena and for each type of projectile it is determined when the
14 projectile is being developed. Now, the quality of the -- the quantity
15 of the explosives and the quantity of material used influences this. This
16 is one of the basic procedures used in order to determine the nature of a
17 shell made of a certain shell in order to determine how efficient it is,
18 with regard to other types of projectiles. As an example, an
19 82-millimetre shell made in Yugoslavia. There were older ones -- there
20 were older. This report also mentions more recent ones consisted of a
21 mixture of TNT and hexogen in order to increase the velocity and in
22 order to increase the lethal nature of the fragments, because in such case
23 it is velocity is greater, they have a greater range, and the number of
24 victims is greater. They cause more lethal wounds.
25 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: If I understand you well, this is a model
1 method. There are other methods but not as model, as accurate as this
3 A. That's correct.
4 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I have the same question regarding the
5 probability of hitting given target by firing a small number of shells.
6 Are there other methods --
7 A. Yes -- no, that's the standard method which is used all over the
8 world. These are statistical methods, and they depend on the -- well,
9 depending on the statistical methods used, you know, there are several
10 laws. There are laws on the division, and this is how these values are
11 determined. It has to do with dispersals that are mentioned in firing
12 tables and the values, the precision of hitting the target depends on
13 these values. You have VD in the tables. It has dispersal for each
14 projectile. And you have a greater possibility of hitting the target if
15 that value is greater, the probability is less. You're not as likely
16 to hit the target with one projectile. If you have a look at table 13,
17 you will see that when you increase the distance, the firing range from
18 the first to the sixth increment charge, as you increase it the
19 probability of hitting the target with one projectile drops because VX [as
20 interpreted], the possibility dispersal over a distance, this increases
21 with the range. So, for example, in the case of the 36 metres of depth of
22 the market for the first charge, it's 12 metres, so the projectile has to
23 be incorrect on three occasions. And here was one mistake, if you use the
24 sixth increment charge, it can hit an area outside of the market or it can
25 hit the market itself. You understand. I think you understand me,
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 because since VD has a large value, there is greater dispersion. In such
2 cases the possibility of hitting the target is less. So this is value 226
3 if I want to hit the market and if I want to be 100 per cent sure that I
4 will hit the target, that I will achieve such a result, then in this last
5 column, according to the laws of probability, in the first case or the
6 first charge -- with one charge, you would need 11 projectiles in order
7 for the projectiles to have a 90 per cent possibility of hitting that
8 area. Then if you use 6 charges you need to fire 131 projectiles in order
9 to have the same probability of hitting the target.
10 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I'm going to another subject. As far as I
11 understand Dr. Zecevic's report, he concluded that the shell landed at
12 Markale had been fired from a distance in excess of 4 kilometres, as far
13 as I remember. He reached this conclusion on a research which was
14 published in the late 1990s regarding the minimum speed necessary for a
15 mortar shell to lodge itself in the ground after an explosion. He then
16 computed the minimum drop speed of the shell to deduce the number of
17 charges which that shell carried and to determine the distance at which
18 the shell had to have been fired. Assuming that a 120-millimetre mortar
19 shell exploded at Markale and had a drop angle of between 55 and 65
20 degrees, could you give me or give to the Chamber an opinion on the
21 reasoning that allowed Dr. Zecevic to conclude that the mortar had been
22 fired from a distance in excess of 4 kilometres? I don't know whether I
23 have been clear in my question. What I want you is to comment on the
24 reasoning of Dr. Zecevic.
25 A. As you know, Your Honour, I followed Professor Zecevic's testimony
1 before this Trial Chamber and the first thing that was said was that the
2 stabiliser wasn't present, that when he placed the stabiliser in the hole,
3 by using a protractor he measured that the angle of the fins was between
4 20 and 30 degrees. I followed the text and I made a note - I think so it
5 was on page 25, line 8 to 11, something like that - and I also noticed
6 that the kiosk which was hit on the edge was mentioned and it was
7 determined that there was an angle of 50 degrees between the edge of the
8 kiosk and the impact point. I don't know how he could have come to the
9 conclusion that the speed was 60 metres -- that a speed of 60 metres was
10 sufficient for the projectile to penetrate to the extent that it did. All
11 our calculations show that this is not possible.
12 If I return to the first fact that an angle of 20 to 30 degrees
13 was established at the very beginning, that was an angle -- a drop angle
14 of 60 to 70 degrees. If you take -- you obtain this result for the drop
15 angle. And later on --
16 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: [Previous interpretation continues] ... I'm
17 sorry. My question is the following: As far as I understand the
18 reasoning of Professor Zecevic, he calculated the minimum speed necessary
19 for the shell to penetrate a certain amount of centimetres in the ground,
20 and then he deduced the number of charges used to reach that velocity. My
21 question is: Do you agree or you don't agree with this methodology?
22 A. I don't agree because the results that he obtained, that he
23 presented - and on page 27 he said that on the basis of the Sutterlin
24 method, he said that he established that 60 metres wasn't a sufficient
25 speed for the stabiliser to penetrate to a depth of 260 millimetres. This
1 does not correspond to the Sutterlin method. You don't obtain these
2 results on the basis of this method nor on the basis of the Berezin
3 method. And that's why we came to the conclusion that this was not
4 possible. We concluded that in such conditions that the stabiliser could
5 not penetrate in this way, because from a distance of 4.000 metres he said
6 that a velocity of 200 metres was sufficient, if you take away 140 then
7 the relative velocity that the stabiliser has, 60 metres, it's enough to
8 penetrate to a depth of 260 millimetres. So that's what I've noted in my
9 papers here and that was in the testimony that I followed.
10 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Sorry, Professor. The UN expert concluded
11 that it was impossible to determine with a reasonable degree of accuracy
12 the drop angle of the shell because the recovered tail fin had been
13 extracted from the ground. But in your report, on pages 50 to 153, you
14 provide some trigonometric calculations to determine the drop angle of the
15 shell. I'm talking of Markale. And you determined that based on the
16 imprints left by the explosion -- I think that this is the same
17 methodology used by Professor Zecevic. Are you confident of this computed
18 drop angle or the value provided by you is just a, let's say, technical or
19 educated guess given the circumstances of the incident?
20 A. Your Honour, on page 53, our conclusion is that on the basis of
21 the values measured, the measurements which we found in Zecevic's report
22 and in the forensic ballistics report, the parameters 56 and 26 are the
23 measurements for the ellipse. And we determined that the drop angle with
24 the first charge could be 56 --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the figures and
1 could the witness slow down, please.
2 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Please, please the interpreters cannot follow
3 you. Will you please repeat your answer.
4 A. Yes. On page 53, on the basis of the parameters which were
5 measured at the Markale market -- that's A value, that's the fourth item.
6 That's 56 centimetres and B is 26 centimetres, on that basis we determined
7 that the drop angle could be 62.5 degrees, if you're using one increment
8 charge, and 55.6 degrees if you're using a sixth increment charge. In
9 other words, as I have already said, we confirmed that the drop angle on
10 the basis of these parameters could be between 55 and 65 degrees.
11 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you, Professor. No further questions.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Judge El Mahdi also has one or more questions.
13 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 [Interpretation] Professor, I would like to be sure that I have
15 understood you correctly. Let's start with what you stated. You stated
16 that the fragments -- the shell fragments, when the shell explodes, you
17 don't calculate the fragments that go beyond 2 metres, taking into account
18 the fact that beyond 2 metres you no longer hit the normal figure -- have
19 I understood you correctly?
20 A. Yes. Yes. That's what I said.
21 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] In response to a question from
22 the Defence today, you were asked whether the fact that the spectators at
23 the football match - and some of them, it seems, were at elevated points,
24 on cars, et cetera - you said that that did not affect your conclusions in
25 any way. Your conclusions, which were based, if I have understood you
1 correctly, on the fact that you did not include fragments that went beyond
2 2 metres. And the conclusion was that if the spectators were sitting or
3 standing but were at a distance exceeding 2 metres but were within the
4 range of the explosion, they could have been hit.
5 A. Yes. It's true that we thought -- we took all the spectators to
6 be on the playground. So these conditions are far more severe with regard
7 to the probability of hitting people, in relation to those who were
8 further away and in relation to those who were at elevated positions.
9 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you. Thank you,
11 My second question concerns the existence of aluminium in the
12 shells, the issue of whether this material existed in the shells or not.
13 If I have understood your testimony, you said that the fuse was surrounded
14 by aluminium. Isn't that correct?
15 A. Yes. Because the fuse is a dead weight, so to speak. So one
16 tries to make it as light as possible in order to have as much explosives
17 and steel as possible in the projectile. The fuse is an additional
18 element. It's not the key part. It has not got any key importance for
19 the functioning of the projectile, the effectiveness of the projectile.
20 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Did you speak about a shell that
21 you called M-78? Is this general knowledge? Is this a matter of general
22 knowledge that Serbia produced shells -- M-78 shells? Are these the same
23 shells, do they have the same characteristics?
24 A. Yes. An M-78 fuse is produced --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I didn't want
2 to interrupt, but I thought that in the language used by Judge El Mahdi
3 M-78 -- 77, and in the transcript, and in the translation it says "M-78."
4 So my question has to do with the transcript, which is not quite exact,
6 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] The witness understood the
7 question quite well, and he was answering the question.
8 So please continue.
9 A. Yes. M-78 fuse was produced in the former Yugoslavia. The main
10 producer of fuses was in a factory in Bugojno, the Slavko Rodic factory.
11 But this was in Krusik Valjevo. This fuse was also made in Krusik Valjevo
12 in Serbia now. And for 82-millimetre shells which are produced by Krusik
13 Valjevo you have modern fuses --
14 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] No, I was talking about
15 120-millimetre shells but of 77 -- of 77 shells. I'm talking to you as a
16 layman and on the basis of general knowledge. The M-77 model isn't
17 produced in Serbia.
18 A. 78.
19 JUDGE EL MAHDI: No, 77.
20 A. [In English] 77?
21 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Yes.
22 A. [Interpretation] I don't know what projectile an M-77 is, a
23 120-millimetre one. We don't have such a projectile. Our projectiles are
24 120-millimetre projectiles, instantaneous ones. The 56 model I think it's
25 designated as P1 and the 120-millimetre ones, the fuse can be of various
1 kinds. You can have UTUM 62, it can be UTUM 78.
2 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Very well, sir, you say you are
3 not familiar with the projectile ATN 77 produced in Serbia. Very well.
4 Your answer is no; isn't that correct?
5 A. No. I'm not familiar with such a projectile.
6 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Thank you. If you don't mind,
7 I'd like to move on to another subject.
8 On page 56 of the English version of your report, after the table,
9 you say: [In English] "There is no mortar of such ballistics."
10 [Interpretation] Are you following me? It's in the middle of the page.
11 A. [No audible response]
12 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] My question is: I think that you
13 came to your conclusions on the basis of the various methods in existence,
14 the various methods for measuring, which are based on, if I may call it
15 like this, military functioning. The tables that you used, their purpose
16 was to test the effectiveness and the means of defence -- both of the
17 means of defence and -- well, isn't that correct? You were asked some
18 questions about the terrain. It was said that there was a 2-centimetre
19 layer of asphalt, and then that there was stones, small stones. I think I
20 understood that the results were not effective as such in order to come to
21 the conclusion that you provided by basing yourself on research which had
22 a military interest, which was a military nature and was carried out in
23 other fields and its purpose was different, it was to be applied in
24 different ways. That is to say, given the nature of the ground, do you
25 stand by the conclusions you reached to the extent that you yourself -- in
1 that you yourself said that the results obtained were calculated by taking
2 into consideration a layer which was greater, a layer of hard material
3 that was greater?
4 A. Your Honours, as I've explained it to here and having looked at
5 all the additional tables, apart from what is already in the expert
6 report, this gave us the results to conclude that 120-millimetre mortar
7 shell under that angle, the drop velocity that it has cannot give such a
8 result in terms of depth of penetration. Another conclusion was that a
9 mortar shell was --
10 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] No, no. I apologise. Let us
11 pass by the question of the angle, this angle or a different angle.
12 A. Yes. The angle here is just a reference value given here for our
13 conclusion that we reached. This is based on a multifaceted assessment,
14 on the calculation measurements for the depth of penetration, and they
15 didn't show that this was possible, also the calculation of an
16 effectiveness of a 120-millimetre mortar shell, and also considering our
17 experience in this, so that had it not been an accident, if somebody with
18 120-millimetre mortar, if that person had hit this Markale target at such
19 a distance that would have been somebody who would need a prize. Now,
20 what we've checked for 120-millimetre mortar shells made in Yugoslavia,
21 they do not have such effectiveness.
22 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Now, effectiveness, do you mean
23 firing precision? What do you mean by that?
24 A. No, no, no, no, no. What I mean is the effectiveness --
25 effectiveness of the projectile itself, the number of people who were hit
1 on a given area.
2 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] No, no. It's another thing. My
3 first question was the possibility or impossibility for a shell gets to
4 that depth and the stabiliser becomes embedded in the soil. You said that
5 that would necessitate a velocity that is impossible, that doesn't exist,
6 that is not known, and you rule out categorically the possibility that the
7 incident could have occurred in the way that it was described. And my
8 question was in relation to your conclusion. Your conclusion is
9 multilayered, in the sense that you have used methods that were for
10 military objectives for hitting shelter targets rather than a surface
11 which consisted of a relatively thin asphalt-layered surface and then of
12 stone. Now, do you understand what I mean by this?
13 A. Yes, I understand it, but we used those coefficients - and that's
14 why we've used several methods - we used the Berezansky's formula as a
15 base and the Sandian laboratory formula that we used --
16 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] But Berezansky's for instance is
17 adapted but however, you've added an element which was a subjective
18 element, that is such -- you did not apply one specific method. You've
19 modified the result according to your assessment. And on the basis of
20 what? On the basis of what did you make this difference, did you make
21 this change?
22 A. Your Honours, the Berezansky, Sandia, and Gabeaud methods, we
23 didn't modify them. We only used the coefficients and the data that are
24 given officially. Here I have original copies of Gabeaud, Berezansky
25 formula I also have, and the coefficient for such surfaces. What was
1 contested here was the Sandian laboratory method. In my answers I was not
2 really ready to answer that. I was not prepared that there would be
3 discussion about details. In the meantime I have this report. I read it,
4 and my conclusion is that if we have made a mistake in translation of the
5 English expression may not be -- for us should not be used. I apologise
6 to the interpreters, for us, the English term cannot be used. Literally
7 we meant "must not be used." For Sandian method, it says "may not be
8 used," so we as engineers, we could take that with reservations that such
9 a result would not have a high probability. With the Sandian laboratory
10 method, it says clearly that when we apply it for light projectiles, then
11 there are mistakes. This mistake could be to the highest 20 per cent.
12 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Mistake in what sense?
13 A. In the calculated depth of the penetration of stabiliser. It
14 would be 20 per cent would be maximum mistake. Then the coefficient of
15 the form that is calculating. By comparing the examination results on
16 ice. Specifically, Your Honours, let me explain. The Sandian laboratory
17 is worked out for the needs of the federal government, and they've also
18 measured the depth of penetration of projectiles in bombs of various
19 projectiles for various grounds, for various surfaces. There was rock
20 surface --
21 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] I apologise for interrupting. My
22 question was very simply: Do you maintain your conclusion that there
23 isn't a shell that could reach this velocity at impact point so that it
24 could become embedded in the surface, the stabiliser could get embedded?
25 This is what the point of my question is:
1 A. A mortar -- a mortar projectile, 120-millimetre shell, there isn't
2 a classical 120-millimetre mortar shell that could penetrate so deeply in
3 such a type of surface, the way that it was presented that happened at
4 Markale market, we used that as macadam.
5 Q. What do you mean in classical 120-millimetre mortar? Are you
6 trying to say that they could exist, that it does exist?
7 A. No. There are other projectiles. There are active and reactive
9 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Still 120?
10 A. Yes, still 120. Yes, there is active and reactive 120-millimetre
11 mortar shell with -- the very same. This is model 75 Yugoslav.
12 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] So -- so that I understand --
13 A. However, this projectile, active reactive, does not have this type
14 of stabiliser as was shown here. An active reactive 120-millimetre mortar
15 shell of Yugoslav production which could have been found in that theatre
16 of operations, in its structure is completely different from
17 120-millimetre mortar shell which is ordinary. It has a different
18 stabiliser, tail fins open when the shell is fired, and the diameter is
19 3. So there are about 400 millimetres diameter. That's how much they --
20 their span is when they open but then it cannot be this stabiliser. This
21 shell has higher velocity and higher impact velocity. That shell, not the
22 stabiliser, but that shell could have hit or does hit -- hits the surface
23 faster than standard classical 120-millimetre shells.
24 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Very well. Now, in your report
25 on page 52, and you mentioned that the two fragments where there is the B,
1 what you are saying is there is a difference here, that these fragments do
2 not belong to the same shell. You said something like that.
3 A. Your Honours, asked by Mr. Stamp that we made some mistake, that
4 when a shell explodes that there is a longer traces from the direction
5 from where the shell has come compared to the one at the front trace.
6 What I said was that this figure 313, only shows the parameters of the
7 traces that are left in the surface from the -- from the fuse detonation
8 in the frontal cosine.
9 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] I apologise. It's page 52, but
10 I'm speaking about the fragments.
11 A. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes.
12 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] The fragments, the fragments on
13 the top of the page.
14 A. Yes.
15 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Where we can see B, there are two
16 fragments marked "B."
17 A. Yes, I can see that. As I said, 120-millimetre mortar shell has a
18 thread, a filetage. This thread goes around the body of the shell
19 so -- or has on top of the body of the shell so that we can have the fuse
20 fitted in with a thread of 2 millimetres, but that would depend on the
21 diameter of the fuse. When we have a light 120-millimetre shell, the
22 thread to fit the stabiliser is 1.5 millimetres. It's a heavy shell.
23 It's also 2 millimetres. The thread is 2 millimetres. On these pictures,
24 in both cases the height --
25 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] But what you're saying is that
1 there is a difference. What I want to know simply is to be certain that
2 I'm following you. Can you tell us what is the difference. Where is the
3 difference between the two fragments? Because you're saying that the two
4 fragments do not come from the same shell. Is that what your testimony
6 A. Yes. This -- all this selection of fragments, so to speak, that
7 were shown, in my assessment these fragments do not all belong to one
8 projectile. Why not? Because when we have a mortar projectile, there are
9 threads, the threads that are of 2 millimetres. And when we have a light
10 shell, it's 1.5 millimetre, the thread. Here we have a thread which if
11 this is 2 millimetres, that you can see these traces here, not just
12 according to the thread but also according to the length of the coil of
13 the thread in relation to the body of the shell. They do not correspond
14 to the shell. They're not consistent with the shell.
15 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] But the two fragments marked "B,"
16 what you're saying is that they are -- what they're showing to be is that
17 they do not come from the same shell. Is that what you're saying? Do you
18 see a difference between these two except that one is larger than the
20 A. As far as the size is concerned, these -- in these two fragments
21 there's not much of a difference. However, these two fragments marked
22 with "B," according to our assessment, they do belong to the same type of
23 projectile but not mortar projectile. We assess that according to the
24 length of the thread, it could be a rocket projectile. It could be a
25 question of a rocket projectile.
1 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] But what can you tell by the
3 A. Well, according to the photograph, roughly assessed they belong to
4 the same projectile but they are not one in the same -- they do not belong
5 to these other fragments. That is, there is a mix of fragments here.
6 Unfortunately, we did ask the Defence and we were told that this was
7 impossible to obtain, the proper result would be obtained if you did a
8 mechanical and a graphical examination, analysis, of these fragments to
9 find the exact structure of the fragments, to find out whether these
10 fragments belonged to the same material belonging to the same projectile.
11 This is just on the basis of geometry and the appearance of these
12 fragments that we came to our conclusion. However, we came to a
13 conclusion by comparing these fragments, or rather, this fragment with
14 this fragment, and the thread which can be seen on these fragments, we've
15 concluded that this cannot come -- originate from a mortar projectile
16 because the mortar projectile doesn't have such a fine thread, such fine
17 lines of its thread.
18 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Very well. Now, I don't want to
19 take up too much time. You speak on page 41: [In English]
20 "120-millimetres light mortar." [Interpretation] M-75. This is the
21 third -- it's in the third paragraph from the bottom of the page.
22 Yes. So what did you want to say by 120-millimetre light mortar?
23 A. We called it -- this mortar like this because we used the firing
24 table for this mortar. That's what we used, used the firing tables for
25 120 mortar shell, model -- type M-75. This is official name, a light
1 mortar 120-millimetre M-75, which according to the UNPROFOR report we saw,
2 Your Honours, that these mortars were on both sides.
3 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] But if I understand correctly,
4 M-75, this is to do with an artillery shell but not with a mortar. I
5 mean, you have M-78. You have --
6 A. No, no, no. I apologise. This is a mortar shell-type M-75, so
7 this was -- this is what it is -- no, it's not an artillery shell. It's a
8 mortar shell. It's a mortar shell.
9 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yeah, it's a mortar shell --
10 A. No, it's not a shell. It's a mortar of 120 millimetres.
11 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes, 120-millimetre mortar shell,
12 yes, which uses a shell M-75, just that there are shells M-78.
13 A. No, no, no, no, no. No, I'm sorry. 120-millimetre mortar M-75
14 can use a shell -- a mortar shell 120-millimetre model M -- P61. It can
15 use different types of projectiles, from different years.
16 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Is there any consequence? Why
17 did you specify here that this was a light mortar M-75? Is there a
18 difference, firing precision, force of firing? Is there any difference?
19 A. Yes, there are differences between mortars. The weapons included
20 four 120-millimetre shells. There was a Russian 120 millimetre, M-38 in
21 the Yugoslav army. Then there was the universal mortar M-52 --
22 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] But for the stabiliser that you
23 saw, say that the stabiliser that was -- that was apparently found on the
24 market, is that a stabiliser belonging to the light mortar or to some
25 other mortar?
1 A. It's a universal stabiliser which can be fitted on different types
2 of shells, classical, typical -- when I say "classical," I mean of typical
3 120-millimetre mortar shells of Yugoslav manufacturers.
4 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] To all shells.
5 A. Yes, for all types of manufacture.
6 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you.
7 [In English] Thank you, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Professor Vilicic, I've got a few questions for you
9 as well. Is my understanding correct that you use slightly different
10 data, as far as 120-millimetre mortar shells are concerned if compared
11 with the data given by Professor Zecevic? Perhaps you'd look at page 5 of
12 your report. You give, for example, the --
13 A. Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. For example, if I look at Professor Zecevic's
15 report, he says, I think, that the explosive mass and type is 2.500 grams,
16 whereas you take 2.250.
17 A. 120-millimetre shell was made in the institute, and this is our
18 official data.
19 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... stop me. I
20 am just asking please listen carefully to my questions, Professor
21 Vilicic. I'm asking you whether you and Dr. Zecevic are using different
22 data in respect of these shells. Where they were made might be of
23 interest to me, I'll then ask you.
24 A. I don't know.
25 JUDGE ORIE: You studied the report of Dr. Zecevic, didn't you?
1 A. Yes, yes. Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Do you use different data, or do you not? For
3 example, as far as the explosive mass or the shell case mass is
5 A. Your Honours, if the professor knows less than the pupil, then
6 enough said. We've used those results that we officially have in our
7 documentation for projectiles that we made projects for, that we measured.
8 If we have 2 kilos 500 for a heavy mortar shell, a 120-millimetre calibre,
9 which has more explosive than a light mortar, a light mortar shell, that
10 is listed here, has this average mass of explosive.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just asking you whether you are using different
12 data. I'm not asking for any explanation at this moment.
13 A. There is an obvious difference in knowing the problem, in the
14 knowledge of the problem.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Would there be a possibility that shells were made in
16 a different way under war circumstances or that shells were taken from
17 somewhere else or -- I mean, what -- the easiest way of an expert to be
18 not credible would be that he would use wrong data. That would be true
19 for you and that would be true for Dr. Zecevic. Now, apart from that, you
20 have explained to us that you are -- your knowledge seems to be superior
21 to that of Dr. Zecevic. Do you have any other explanation for the
22 difference in data?
23 A. You've asked me a question whether in wartime conditions, if there
24 are circumstances to make a different projectile. Yes, it would have a
25 thicker casing if it was not tasked, if it wasn't used according to
1 standard terminology. It would have to be thicker casing so that there
2 would be no premature explosion.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although, the shell case mass given by
4 Dr. Zecevic is smaller, rather than bigger. Would you have any other
5 explanation for the difference in data you are using and Dr. Zecevic is
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Not cast but forged.
8 A. Your Honours, Professor Stamatovic, Dr. Vukasinovic, and myself,
9 we worked on making these projectiles. I have to say that Professor
10 Zecevic never worked on 120-millimetre calibre shells. He was working
11 with rocket technology, mostly with propellant for rockets, and that's why
12 there are differences in his data and ours. These are official data that
13 you can obtain and that you can see on documents for light high explosive
14 120-millimetre mortar shell.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say our figures are the official ones, so
16 you have apart from that only that he might have made a mistake since he
17 used to work in a different field. Is that ...?
18 A. That's correct.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 A. I checked this. According to all the information that we have
21 from 1958 to date, he didn't work on the mortar programme. He wasn't
22 involved in that programme. Other people, unfortunately, are dead now,
23 people from Sarajevo, they were involved in this project. They died
24 before the war, after the war, not during the war, and we cooperated with
25 them, we worked with them and carried out tests and so on and so on. I
1 went to India with them, et cetera.
2 JUDGE ORIE: You confirmed what I asked you, I think, that I
3 understood your answer well.
4 May I take you to page 29 of your English version of the report.
5 You write at the penultimate line: "If this doubt is justified, the shell
6 had come from the north-eastern direction." Do you see that?
7 A. The last sentence, [In English] "Stationed in that direction
8 either in the zone -- either in the zone between the territory under
9 UNPROFOR controlled in Sarajevo airport or in the zone further to the
10 north, controlled by Muslim ..."
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just -- did you just find the place I just
12 quoted to you in your report. You say "if this doubt is justified --"
13 A. Yes. I found the place.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I then take you to your conclusion.
15 A. Yes. The shell had come from --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You --
17 A. If this doubt is --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I take you to your conclusion. And you
19 say in your conclusion that without any -- it's page 33. You say "The
20 firing position of the mortar that had fired the shell was situated at the
21 range between three and four hundred metres in a north-eastern direction."
22 A. [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Is that the same shell of which you said that if the
24 doubt would be justified, it would then have come from the north-eastern
1 A. Yes, it concerns the same projectile. In fact, it concerns both
2 projectiles. There were two projectiles which were fired at that
4 JUDGE ORIE: And so in your report you say "If the doubt is
5 justified, it would have come from the north-eastern direction." And in
6 your final conclusion, you say, "It came from the north-eastern
7 direction." If the doubt would not be justified, would it then have
8 come from another direction?
9 A. We define that term in that manner because of the fact that the
10 stabilisers weren't found. And on the basis of that fact, on the basis of
11 the conclusions of the measurements in the field, we came to the
12 assumption that the mortar shell in question was an 82-millimetre one.
13 Having carried out a detailed analysis of this picture --
14 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not --
15 A. -- The conclusion would remain the same.
16 JUDGE ORIE: What I draw your attention to is that on page 29, you
17 put a certain condition for the conclusion that the shell had come from
18 the north-eastern direction, namely if the doubt you expressed was
19 justified. I do not find a similar condition in your conclusion on page
21 A. Your Honour, I understand you now. And there is a difference
22 in -- as far as the terms are concerned. When it says "If doubt is
23 justified," well, this phrase does not appear in the conclusion. We
24 didn't include it in the conclusion. We said that after careful analysis
25 of the ballistics evidence, this led to -- [In English] [Previous
1 interpretation continues] ... if doubt is justified, we use other term,
2 "lead to." In our language, it's similar.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I take you to page 31 of the English
4 version of your report. You write the following: "Most probably firing
5 position was at a distance of 300 to 400 metres. The range of 300 metres
6 corresponds to the drop angle of 63 degrees. The range of 400 has a drop
7 angle of 71 degrees." I have some difficulties in understanding this line
8 because I took it from the other pictures used that a firing range of 300
9 metres, you would have a higher drop angle than at a firing range of 400
10 metres. Nevertheless, you give for 300 metres a drop angle of 63 per cent
11 and for 400 metres, 71 per cent. Could you explain why here the smaller
12 range would result in a smaller drop angle rather than in a higher drop
14 A. Your Honour, the analysis on the basis of the depth of
15 penetration, the depths of the craters which were measured on the site.
16 So we came to the conclusion that the main charge was used. It has a
17 72-millimetre initial velocity. And on that basis, with no charges, if
18 you fire at a range of 300 metres, the drop angle is 63 degrees. And if
19 you fire at a range of 400 metres, the initial angle has to be greater in
20 order to have a greater range. And then the drop angle - and I'm talking
21 about the drop angle - is 71 degrees.
22 JUDGE ORIE: 71 is the steeper angle, isn't it? Shouldn't you in
23 order to make a -- no, that's -- I'm afraid that I made a mistake. It's
24 good that you explained to me that for a longer distance, that you need --
25 for the longer distance -- let me just -- if this is 63, would that bring
1 a longer range than on 71? A steeper firing angle, would that produce a
2 shorter trajectory, as far as distance is concerned, or would it result in
3 a longer trajectory as far as distance is concerned?
4 I'll just ask you --
5 A. Your Honour, these are the drop angles. The drop angle is
6 greater, the greater the range is. So with the main charge you have a
7 drop angle -- if the firing angle is 45 --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the drop angle,
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat -- but perhaps I'll stop you
11 for one second. Could I please ask you --
12 A. The greatest range is obtained if you have a firing angle of 45
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Just -- could you please look at this small
15 sketch. And before doing so, may I ask you that -- whether a higher
16 firing angle produces a higher drop angle or is there any misunderstanding
17 on my side?
18 A. Yes. Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please explain to me --
20 A. Yes, a higher firing angle --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, produces a high drop --
22 A. -- Produces a high drop angle.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you now please look at this, without changing
24 it. I have tried to sketch approximately a 70 degree firing angle, and I
25 assumed that that would result also in a higher drop angle. And I have
1 done this same for a lower firing angle. And I have some difficulties in
2 understanding that with the higher angle you get the longer distance, the
3 longer trajectory. But perhaps I've taken the angles wrong or -- could
4 you explain why you come to the conclusion that a drop angle of 63 degrees
5 would correspond with a short trajectory and why a 60 per cent -- a 60
6 degrees drop angle would correspond with the longer distance. Could you
7 please -- could you please try to tell me what is wrong in my
8 understanding as it appears in this small sketch I made, because in the
9 small sketch the 70 degree, the steeper angle, produces a shorter
10 distance; whereas, in your report, it's just the opposite, isn't it?
11 A. Yes. Yes. You're right.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please explain me what is wrong in my understanding,
13 or did you make a mistake here on the ...?
14 A. Unfortunately I don't have the firing table here, but I have to
15 say that if you have a higher angle, a higher firing angle, the ranges are
16 greater. When you drew this diagram, you assumed that the trajectories
17 were more or less the same, but there are greater differences. I have to
18 say that I can't answer your question precisely. I agree with you that
19 the drop angle is greater, that if you have a greater firing angle, the
20 drop angle is greater. But it seems that a smaller distance corresponds
21 to a greater drop angle and a greater distance to a smaller drop angle.
22 Obviously there is a mistake here. But in order to be 100 per cent
23 precise and to confirm this - I don't have a firing table here - and 71
24 and 63 are angles which according to this -- these graphic tables that I
25 have here, they would correspond to the main charge, to the basic charge.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The witness mentioned
2 that the peak of the trajectory is not being the same.
3 A. A greater drop angle corresponds to a smaller range. Your
4 conclusion is correct.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So the conclusion in your report is not --
6 A. It's a mistake.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 A. It's a mistake. These numbers were changed. Instead of 300
9 metres -- I can see 300 metres here in the tables. That would correspond
10 to an angle between 65 -- 60 and 65 degrees, and 470 metres would
11 correspond to --
12 JUDGE ORIE: I just want to see whether I understood your report
13 well, and I see that here perhaps the figures might have been
14 interchanged. It's not of great relevance at this very moment to see
15 exactly what it is.
16 May I ask your attention for the following part of your report.
17 May I take you to page 46. If I take you to page 46. Approximately in
18 the middle of the page you say, "If at the distance of about 100 metres
19 from this locality barracks of Muslim forces are situated, it is possible
20 that they were the target to weapons located in different positions at
21 different ranges from the barracks." What is the basis -- the factual
22 basis of this observation you make? You see, if at a distance of --
23 A. [In English] Yes. Yes. Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: What makes you take it for your opinion as relevant?
25 What is the source of Muslim forces' barracks at a distance of about 100
2 A. [Interpretation] We came to this conclusion because of the fact
3 that the firing between the first and second projectile, the interval was
4 between two and three minutes. And on the other hand, the magnitude of
5 the dispersion, if the same elements had been used to fire, the dispersion
6 would not have been as significant.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I'll stop you again and ask you again to listen
8 carefully to my question. My question was: On the basis of what did you
9 make an assumption here of the presence of barracks of Muslim forces at a
10 distance of about 100 metres? That's the only thing. Did someone tell
11 you? Did you read it somewhere? Are you personally aware of -- what is
12 the basis of knowledge of this fact?
13 A. Witness number 1, mentioned in the report on page 44, he said
14 that --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Now, just, if you say that you have --
16 A. We saw this in his statement and we mentioned this here.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 A. Since statement number 1, the material that was provided to us by
19 the Defence, in the records that we were given which contained witness
20 statements, the witness Zahida Kadric stated this, and we linked this up.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The only thing I'm interested in: You say the source
22 is the statement of Mr. Kadric. That's what I'd like to know.
23 Then could I take you to page -- now, first of all, perhaps, I'll
24 take you to a question put by -- I think by Judge Nieto-Navia, who asked
25 you whether on the basis of methodology you would agree with Professor
1 Zecevic. And you explained that you did not agree, and one of the reasons
2 you gave is that Professor Zecevic would have said that 60 metres per
3 second would not be sufficient for a projectile to penetrate into the
4 ground. Do you remember that?
5 A. I said that Professor Zecevic said that 60 metres was a speed
6 which was sufficient for the ground to be penetrated.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then we have at least this to be -- this clarified,
8 because in the transcript it reads different. So you say because he said
9 that the penetration of, I think, 25 centimetres was possible at a speed
10 of 30 metres per second, you disagree with that and you would -- in your
11 opinion, you would require a higher speed.
12 A. Yes. Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 A. He said that it was 60 metres, give or take 10 metres.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. 10 per cent, or 10 metres. Apart from that, is
16 there any other -- because this is perhaps not a methodological difference
17 between you and Professor Zecevic but, rather, the tables or the
18 coefficients you used that distinguishes your opinions. Is there any
19 fundamental difference of view in respect of speed of arrival of the
20 projectile compensating the back-pushing power of the detonation and then
21 remaining sufficient speed to embed into the ground? I see quite some
22 similarity in your methodology and the methodology of Professor Zecevic,
23 apart from the difference in outcome. Is this perception correct?
24 A. Your Honour, we stated that the most complete analysis in
25 technical terms was carried out for the Markale case, and Professor
1 Zecevic participated in this. This was the report on the massacre at the
2 Markale market.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Professor Vilicic, I'm just asking you whether the
4 basics of your methodology, if you compare it with the one of Dr. Zecevic,
5 whether the basis of your methodology is the same.
6 A. On the whole, yes. But not with regard to all issues.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand that. There are differences.
8 That also explains why you come to different conclusions.
9 My next question is: You made a calculation of the Markale
10 market -- but perhaps I would -- I have three more questions for you.
11 Perhaps I'll leave them for after the break, because tapes -- we are
12 running out of tapes and we'll not be able to finish in two or three
14 We'll adjourn until 6.30.
15 --- Recess taken at 6.11 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 6.34 p.m.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into
18 the courtroom.
19 Mr. Vilicic, may I take you to page 53 of your report, English
20 version. You are writing, "If the expression for theta C is used to
21 calculate elliptical impressions ..." Have you found that part? Could
22 you explain to me what these four lines exactly are about, because my
23 problem in understanding is the following: You say "if the expression for
24 theta C is used to calculate elliptical impressions on the ground --" I
25 take it on the ground, "recorded at Markale market after explosion of
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 calibre 120-millimetre mortar shell." And then you say, "A is 56, B is
2 26, and theta C is 41 degrees." What I do not understand is you say that
3 you are calculating something where theta C is known or unknown, it's not
4 quite clear, whereas theta C is given as 41 degrees, and then you say for
5 the first increment charge theta C is 65 and for the sixth increment
6 charge theta C is 56. I have some difficulties in understanding what
7 exactly you are calculating on the basis of what? Or is it your view that
8 it's not well written down in English and could therefore create
10 A. If -- just a moment. Let me have a look. What I mean is that is
11 true, yes, considering the drop angle. To determine a drop angle, you
12 take the starting point as being that with the first increment, if the
13 shell landed by calculations that there was an angle of 41 degrees, it
14 would be consistent with the projectile fired with the first increment
15 charge and then with the sixth increment charge, because as you know, the
16 size of the image -- of the impression would depend on the drop angle if
17 it went down with the first increment charge, then the coordinates of
18 the elliptical form 56 and 26, that would correspond to the 41 degree
19 angle. And if it was fired with a sixth increment charge, then these
20 coordinates, 56 and 26, would be corresponding to a drop angle of 62.5
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Should I then read these lines as follows, that
23 if you want to deduce from the elliptical impressions on the ground
24 recorded at Markale market after explosion of a calibre 120-millimetre
25 mortar shell which gives A as 56 and B as 26, that on a first increment,
1 that would mean that the drop angle would have been 41 degrees and that
2 for the first increment charge it would be 62 degrees and for the sixth
3 increment charge --
4 A. Half.
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- It would be 55.6? Is that the right
7 A. Yes. Yes, yes, that's correct. Just like what you said.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could you now explain that if the increment charges
9 are increasing, if I do understand you correctly -- although, in your
10 testimony you just said that 41 degrees corresponded with the first
11 increment charge; is that correct?
12 A. That I said it was 41 degrees is corresponding to the first
13 increment charge? I don't think so. I don't think that's what I said.
14 The first increment charge is corresponding to the angle of 62.5 degrees,
15 while the sixth increment charge would be of a lower angle.
16 JUDGE ORIE: What you said is --
17 A. It's a mistake.
18 JUDGE ORIE: That's a mistake. Could you then please --
19 A. Yes, I can see that now. The first increment charge for the
20 impression with values 56 and 26, the semi-axis of the elliptical form,
21 and the frontal swathe of the shell dispersion, the first increment charge
22 is corresponding to the 62.5 degrees, and the sixth increment would be
23 corresponding to 55.6 degrees. That's what should be in the text.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I now better understand. And you made most of
25 your calculations on the basis of 55.6 degree drop angle; is that
1 correct? Very often you used this figure of 55.6, which also corresponds
2 with your -- yes. Then --
3 A. Yes. That is the drop angle which corresponds to the longest
4 range and to the highest impact velocity for the lower category of
5 angles. 86.2 degrees, that is the maximum range of -- or maximum category
6 of angles. These are the two values, corresponding.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
8 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I'm sorry, I could not follow. Where is the
9 mistake? Because you repeated the same figures.
10 A. No. The mistake was that it was written that I said for the first
11 increment charge the angle was 41 degrees.
12 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: The mistake is in the transcript, not in your
14 A. If you please. Pay attention to the figure 313. Theta 1 is the
15 angle that is formed by the triangle OCB. That is theta 1 angle. Theta 1
16 is --
17 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I understand. In the transcript, not to your
19 A. Yes. Yes. Yes. Theta 1 is 41 degrees. That corresponds to
20 theta 1. That is corresponding to the triangle, the axis of the
21 projectile that forms the triangle with the back part. That is OCB
23 JUDGE ORIE: So what you did, as a matter of fact, is you
24 mentioned theta C to be 41 degrees where you intended to say that it was
25 theta 1.
1 A. Theta 1 is 41 degrees. And for theta 1 being 41 degrees, that's
2 what you get the angle of being 62.5, that is 55.6 degrees.
3 JUDGE ORIE: No. Because the report says "theta C, 41." So
4 that's a mistake in the report.
5 Let me just see whether I have -- yes. I have --
6 A. Theta 1? I'm sorry, theta 1, it says also in the report, it says
7 theta 1.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But on your -- in the middle of the line I just
9 read to you, that says theta C.
10 A. You can have a look.
11 [In English] Oh, yes. Mistakes. Serbian, Serbian.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That happens.
13 Yes. You made a calculation for the hit probability for the
14 Markale market and you said that the dimension of the target was 36 by 30
15 metres. Am I right in understanding that you limited your calculation to
16 the marketplace itself without the adjacent street to be included, so not
17 the whole open area but just a limited part of it? If you look at page 48
18 of your report, I find an open space which seems to be measured as 41
19 metres by 35 metres, page 48. And now, I do include the street as part of
20 an open space. Is my understanding correct that -- I do not know exactly
21 what figures you used, because 36 by 30 does not appear.
22 A. [Interpretation] The distance from this building, which is 3.65
23 metres tall, up to the street in Markale, the distance is 30 metres from
24 that point. And the width of the street was taken to be roughly 5
25 metres. That's why it says "35 metres" here. We didn't have the exact
1 dimensions for this area. So for an area of 30 times 35 -- 30 by 35, we
2 assumed that there was one person on each square metre, in other words,
3 that there were 1.152 persons.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's the -- how people would be hit by the --
5 the total area, do you agree with me that the total area --
6 A. Yes, in that --
7 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... would be
8 approximately one-third, if you express it in the surface?
9 A. Yes. If we had used the dimensions provided on the sketch, the
10 area would be even greater and there would have been even more people in
11 that area, in other words.
12 JUDGE ORIE: A greater area, would that mean easier to hit and
13 more people there as potential people to be injured or ...?
14 A. Yes. If we take the figure 40 by 30, there would have been 1.200
15 people. We took the dimensions 30 by 35, and that was 1152 people. We
16 eliminated a surface of 250 square centimetres, so there were no obstacles
17 that would have protected those people who were there in Markale, those
18 metal stalls, we eliminated that in order to obtain the maximum number of
19 people hit.
20 Secondly, we didn't take into consideration the fact that when one
21 person is hit by a fragment, energy is lost and the person in the vicinity
22 is not wounded or is only lightly wounded. We assumed that the fragment
23 did not encounter any kind of resistance, in other words, that the
24 resistance -- we assumed that the resistance provided by the people who
25 were there was zero. The fragments were assumed to be able to continue
1 their trajectory without encountering obstacles of any kind.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And of course a resistance of zero is
3 unrealistic. In fact, it is presumed to have been higher?
4 A. No, it's impossible. Because the lethal energy is 100 jules.
5 So any fragment that hits someone with such energy it loses energy when
6 inflicting a wound as I said.
7 JUDGE ORIE: These are my questions for you, Professor Vilicic.
8 Are there any questions arising from the questions of the Judges?
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I don't
10 know if the Prosecution also has questions to put.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I am aware that the Chamber took a lot of
12 time. Nevertheless, I would like the parties to try to be as concise as
13 possible. And I'm inviting you as well, Professor Vilicic, to give as
14 precise answers as possible.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Willingly. We'll just follow
16 your example, Mr. President.
17 Further examination by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:
18 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, in regards to a question put to you by
19 Judge El Mahdi, you spoke about two types of mortars -- mortar shells,
20 120-millimetre light mortar and 120-millimetre heavy mortar. Could you
21 briefly tell us what the difference is between the two types of these
22 mortar shells is. And secondly, if I have understood you correctly, could
23 you tell us why it is not possible to confuse these two types in relation
24 to the Markale incident or in relation to the other incidents?
25 A. Well, there can be no confusion in our analysis because we took
1 the least favourable mortar. A light mortar has an initial velocity of
2 322 metres.
3 Q. Professor, I'll stop you there. But what's the difference between
4 a heavy 120-millimetre mortar and a light 120-millimetre mortar? The
5 Defence is not quite clear about this?
6 A. Well, the only difference is in the total mass of those mortars.
7 Q. Thank you. Please carry on.
8 A. Well, I said that 120-millimetre M-75 mortar was the most modern
9 mortar type and it can fire with a greater charge, it can have a greater
10 weight, and then the shell can have a greater initial speed when fired.
11 Its initial speed is 322 metres, whereas an M-38 mortar can't -- it can't
12 be fired from because there are certain obstacles with regard to the
13 maximum pressure that the barrel of the mortar can put up with. So you
14 can only use a maximum of five charges for such mortars, and this includes
15 using new shells.
16 Q. I'm going to return to the subject of 120-millimetre assisted
17 mortars, what we call assisted mortars. You said that on the basis of the
18 stabiliser you could make a distinction. My question is as follows: In
19 what respects are these stabilisers different? How is it possible to
20 avoid confusing the two types of stabilisers?
21 A. Well, first of all, the appearance. These stabilisers with an
22 active reactive projectile, the stabiliser, when it comes out of the
23 barrel it opens its fins, so it has fins over the calibres. When the fins
24 open up, then the diameter of the fins is greater. There are four fins.
25 It has four fins, whereas, the other mortar has a fixed stabiliser and the
1 stabiliser is the same as that of the shell, 120 millimetres. But in this
2 case, it's different.
3 Q. Thank you, Professor. I'd like to take you back to what you
4 mentioned on page 42 of your report. I'm talking about the English
5 version -- on page 52 of your report. Do you have this document in front
6 of you?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Thank you. Could you have a look at fragment B, in the upper
9 part. Have you found that?
10 A. Yes. Yes, I have.
11 Q. And you wanted to say something in relation to the length of this
12 fragment and in relation to the thread, I think, but your answer wasn't
13 complete. What did you want to say at that point?
14 A. Well, I said that the body of a mortar shell has engraved grooves
15 for the fuse and the diameter is 2 millimetres. So if B has a
16 2-millimetre diameter, then the other fragments that you can see -- well,
17 you can see certain grooves -- these fragments don't correspond to this.
18 Q. Thank you. Witness, with regard to this matter, you said that
19 there was a mixture involved here. And I think that you added other
20 information. I think that you said something with regard to the origin
21 itself of these fragments. Could you please provide this additional
22 information. At the time, I was listening to the Serbian channel, that's
23 why I'm drawing your attention to this now.
24 A. I said that the fragments marked by the letter "B" at the top of
25 the figure and down below - and the Judge asked me about this - I said
1 that these fragments belonged to the same type of projectile, given the
2 grooves that you can see on them. If you want me to continue commenting
3 on this -- well, if this belongs to a projectile, but our conclusion was
4 that it isn't -- it wasn't part of one projectile, it didn't belong to one
5 projectile -- these are facts noted by the expert Higgs too. The colour
6 of the material is different. The two semicircular fragments were
7 designated as parts of the shell's reductor by the expert Higgs.
8 Q. Professor, you said that that didn't form part of one projectile.
9 I think that that's what I heard when listening to the Serbian booth. But
10 did you mean to say that it formed part -- that it belonged to several
12 A. Yes. When we came to this conclusion, we didn't have information
13 from UNPROFOR's report in which it is stated that the official
14 representative of BH, of Bosnia-Herzegovina, gave up the evidence on these
15 fragments. He didn't take this into consideration because he -- he
16 decided to say that they didn't belong to the same projectile.
17 Q. My last question, Professor: Since you said that these
18 photographs represented fragments which according to your testimony
19 belonged to several projectiles, what do you deduce from this
20 scientifically speaking?
21 A. Well, as I said, we came to the conclusion that in order to assert
22 that this belonged to one projectile, it would be necessary to carry out a
23 mechanical examination and it wasn't possible to do this because the
24 Defence team said that these samples weren't available. And after this
25 conclusion - that's why we didn't change it later on - Mr. Jamakovic
1 agreed. It's page 303, 8409 of the UNPROFOR report. Mr. Jamakovic agreed
2 to provide us with the fins taken from the crater and to provide the team
3 with shrapnel, which was apparently taken from the market. Since they
4 were not in a position to prove that it was really shrapnel from the 5th
5 of February explosion, they agreed that this would not be of much
6 assistance to them.
7 Q. Thank you, Professor.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I have no further questions,
9 Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, it is three minutes past 7.00. If you
11 would have a number of questions, we should adjourn until tomorrow. If
12 there would be only one, two, or three questions, then we could ask the
13 interpreters and the technicians whether we could finish today.
14 MR. STAMP: Three questions, three or four.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Three questions.
16 MR. STAMP: Or four.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Three or four.
18 MR. STAMP: Can I just proceed quickly?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May --
20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, could we finish today as far as the
22 interpreters and the technicians are concerned? And of course the
23 registry also has to verify whether the transportation of -- are the
24 interpreters --
25 THE INTERPRETER: It's not a problem for the interpreters,
1 Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you again for your great flexibility.
3 And if you proceed quickly, Mr. Stamp, and if you, Professor
4 Vilicic, give precise answers, then we might finish within a couple of
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much.
8 Further cross-examination by Mr. Stamp:
9 Q. You said in answer to a question by His Honour Judge Nieto-Navia
10 that all your calculations show that it is not possible for the stabiliser
11 fin to penetrate as far as Professor Zecevic saw it. And further in
12 answer to His Honour El Mahdi, you said "taking into account --" you said
13 that you did your analysis taking into account the layer of 2 centimetres
14 asphalt. I wish to suggest to you, sir, that --
15 A. [In English] No, no. I didn't say that we use in account 2
16 centimetres of asphalt.
17 Q. Very well. You were asked a question in relation to an upper
18 layer of concrete or asphalt and you took that into account. I would like
19 to suggest to you that if one applies the Berezansky formula, using the
20 same values that you used in the table that you presented entitled "Impact
21 velocity VP of the stabiliser of a mortar shell 120-millimetre for
22 penetration LP in various targets theta 0 equals 65.6 degrees," the
23 results obtained on a proper application of that formula to the values in
24 these tables would be different from the ones that you have presented to
25 the Court in these tables. Do you agree or do you disagree?
1 A. [Interpretation] I can't just agree with such a statement without
2 precise information.
3 Q. Very well. I suggest to you that if one applies the Berezansky
4 formula to the same values that you have in the first column, then the
5 penetration or the results in respect of the depth of penetration would
6 be higher than what you have presented to the Court. And I suggest to you
7 the same would be true if you applied the other formulas, the Panka
8 [phoen] formula and the Petry [phoen] formula, that all of them would
9 result in higher levels of penetration. Do you agree or disagree?
10 A. Which other methods? If computers are coming up with the wrong
11 results, then we came up with the wrong results too. You have the
12 calculators here which were done with a -- with a Mac, these are the
13 values obtained.
14 Q. Therefore, you disagree with my suggestion to you.
15 A. No, I don't agree that we had taken 2 centimetres of asphalt into
16 consideration, into account. I never say that. I said the asphalt could
17 be even harder than concrete.
18 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... is that you had misapplied
19 the Berezansky formula and the results presented in the table for depth of
20 penetration are not correct for the various impact velocities. Do you
21 disagree or agree? Please, yes or no.
22 A. I don't agree with that. I don't agree with you at all. That
23 would mean that we're not able to do mathematical calculations.
24 Q. Second question --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Fourth question, Mr. Stamp. As a matter of fact, I
1 do understand that perhaps from your common law background that you find
2 this do you agree, do you disagree absolutely necessary. It does not add
3 much to the testimony given until now. Please proceed.
4 MR. STAMP: Very well.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let's really try to finish now.
6 MR. STAMP:
7 Q. In respect to the same answers which you gave, I suggest to you
8 that in respect to the Markale incident, the mortar round exploded on
9 contact and therefore the tail fin did not penetrate the asphalt as the
10 explosion, the blast of the explosion, had created a 9-centimetre deep
11 crater before the stabiliser continued into the ground and therefore the
12 only surface to measure in respect to stabiliser penetration was the soil
13 beneath the asphalt.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Do you understand the question, Professor Vilicic?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm reading the transcript because
16 in the translation some surface that was penetrated was mentioned. That
17 doesn't appear anywhere. That has to do with the surface of the diameter
18 of the projectile, according to the Berezansky formula, cross-section.
19 [In English] It is written that only surface to measure in respect
20 to stabiliser penetration was the soil beneath the asphalt. Maybe it's
21 material in question you'd like to say, material in question after --
22 MR. STAMP:
23 Q. Yes, yes, material in question after the surface has been blasted
24 away to create the crater. The material was soil.
25 A. [Interpretation] That the explosion would only have made a hole, a
1 crater, no. For there to be an explosion without the projectile to become
2 embedded, no, it couldn't create a 9-centimetre deep crater. That sort of
3 a crater can be made been an explosive device but not by a projectile.
4 Q. And lastly, in answer to a question from the President of the
5 Chamber, you said that your analysis was on the basis of the depth of
6 penetration, the depth of the crater's. And that is your analysis that
7 you have made in your report at section 2.4, and you have used the tables
8 7 and 8. I suggest to you that that entire section of your report and
9 those tables do not apply to fuses or to rounds with fuses set to impact
10 on contact. That is a modern impact fuses of super quick action which
11 are tested to activate before they penetrate 24.5 millimetres. It relates
12 to slower fuses, and therefore all your conclusions in respect to impact
13 velocity, drop angles, range, which precedes from section 2.4, do not
14 apply to faster impact fuses.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] The question doesn't seem to
17 arise from the questions put to the witness by the Trial Chamber.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whether it greatly assists or not. But
19 Professor Vilicic, could you just say whether you would agree or if you
20 would not agree with what just has been suggested to you by Mr. Stamp.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't agree because the mechanics
22 would all come to nothing. Mechanics would all come to nothing in such a
24 MR. STAMP: And to the Court, I have copies of all statements of
25 Derida Tadic [phoen] and if the Court so pleases we can show them to the
2 JUDGE ORIE: But as such, these statements are not in evidence.
3 And I think it's quite clear that the Defence has presented material that
4 was not in evidence, and the Chamber I think earlier has made clear that
5 an expert witness is not an instrument through which you introduce new
6 evidence that has not been subject to cross-examination by the other
7 party. So the Chamber as such --
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ORIE: No, the Chamber does not seek this evidence to be
11 MR. STAMP: Very well, Mr. President. Although, may I just
12 indicate that what we would have sought to show is separate and apart from
13 the issue of whether she testified or not but what she said in her
14 statement and whether or not there would have been a basis for --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The --
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber does not alter its position in respect of
18 seeking access to this statement.
19 MR. STAMP: That will be all, Mr. President. Thank you very
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Professor Vilicic, it has been a couple of very
22 long days for you, and it's certainly asked the utmost of your
23 concentration. We thank you very much for having come to The Hague and to
24 testify in this court. It was not the first time that we saw you, so you
25 travelled several times, and that's -- of course the most important thing
1 is you answered the questions of both parties and the questions of the
2 Judges. You even now and then gave more than answers to the questions of
3 the parties and the Judges. We thank you very much for having come to
4 testify in this court, and we wish you a safe trip home again.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. It was an honour for me
6 to present our results, our analysis.
7 I'll only take a minute. You said that I would be able to address
8 you at the end.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That I would be able to say a few
11 things. Could I just say this: With regard to Mr. Stamp's claim that an
12 82-millimetre mortar shell, that its stabiliser never remains on the site,
13 I'd like to say that the calculations show and practice also bears this
14 out, that with a projectile that has 50 per cent of TNT and hexogen
15 substance, the ejection speed is 158 metres and if it just has TNT, it's
16 148 metres. So with the main charge, the stabiliser is always in the
17 vicinity of the point of impact of the projectile. Thank you, and I
18 apologise for taking up additional minutes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: This is a bit of a problem, Professor Vilicic,
20 because you as a matter of fact gave additional information without being
21 asked about it.
22 Mr. Stamp, is it really necessary to give you an opportunity to --
23 if you say no, I'll not do it. If you say no -- because it's an issue you
24 raised, and now unexpectedly the witness comes up. So if it's something
25 you'd like to deal with, then I think I should allow you to.
1 MR. STAMP: It is something I'd like to deal with.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Would you then do that extremely briefly.
3 MR. STAMP: Your Honour, I don't know if that could be dealt with
4 within half an hour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Not within half an hour. Then I would say that this
6 is --
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: You caused us a little problem, Professor Vilicic.
9 No, I do understand that you're a technical expert and --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. I'm sorry. But
11 yesterday such a categorical claim that we were not right --
12 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... yes. The
13 matter is that yesterday we stopped that. Now you raised the issue again,
14 and therefore the Chamber considers that although we have not sought this,
15 that Mr. Stamp should be able to put additional questions. If -- are you
16 still available tomorrow early in the afternoon for, let's say, 15
17 minutes, 20 minutes?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, my plane is tomorrow morning
19 for Belgrade, 10.40 or 10.30 hours.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Stamp.
22 MR. STAMP: In which case I could be very short. I'll just put
23 the position to him and --
24 JUDGE ORIE: And then he may agree or not agree. Let's keep it to
25 that. Otherwise, another solution would be that we just say that this is
1 not evidence but a remark made by the witness, because we can't just
2 continue for -- if it just --
3 MR. STAMP: Quickly.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Put your position to the witness, then see whether
5 he agrees or disagrees so that it has been put from your side, and then --
6 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We will accept this,
8 Mr. President, hoping this will be of exemplary decision, thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: You are aware that the Chamber is not happy to choose
10 this path at this very moment, but to keep the witness for another day
11 would perhaps be too much.
12 Mr. Stamp.
13 Further cross-examination by Mr. Stamp:
14 Q. Witness, Professor, is it correct that the weapons -- that the
15 ejection of the stabiliser fin by Dr. Vukasinovic et al., is based on the
16 Duval formula, that is, the --
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] The interpreter in the Serbian
18 booth did not hear the name of the expert.
19 MR. STAMP: All right.
20 Q. I suggest to you that the detachment velocity, that is, the
21 velocity that push back the 82-millimetre stabiliser by all standard
22 recognised tests is much faster than any possible approach speed of the
23 82-millimetre round.
24 A. Which shell? Whose shell? Whose manufacture shell would that
25 be? A Yugoslav shell has a steel stabiliser and weight of 400 grams. You
1 can make the calculation and find out that it is impossible for it to have
2 a velocity higher than the drop velocity.
3 JUDGE ORIE: No. The question was whether the detonation effect
4 of an exploding 82-millimetre mortar shell, detonation effect that would
5 push backwards the tail fin, would be such that the tail fin will always
6 be stopped and will never penetrate into the ground because its speed of
7 impact will be too low to overcome that detonation effect. Do you agree
8 with that or do you disagree with that?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree that the stabiliser of an
10 82-millimetre shell will not penetrate the surface, the ground. The only
11 question was whether the push-back velocity is higher than the drop
12 velocity. We are saying that it is not higher than the drop velocity of
13 the highest increments, third or fourth increment charges of an
14 82-millimetre shell, which is why the stabiliser remains close to the
15 impact site. At the football match you saw that the stabilisers were not
16 found because they were pushed back, they were rejected, because the
17 velocity of the projectile wasn't very high.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is that --
19 MR. STAMP: Finally.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. STAMP:
22 Q. I suggest to you that there are aluminium stabilisers for
23 the 82-millimetre weighing 0.165 [Realtime transcript read in error
24 "0.65"] grams and there are stabilisers weighing 0.45 grams. Are you
25 aware that there are aluminium stabilisers for the 82-millimetre mortar?
1 A. Yes, there are such things as aluminium stabilisers, and the
2 calculation I gave you was for an aluminium stabiliser. But not here.
3 Here in the text it's wrong, that it is only 0.61 grams and 0.45. No,
4 that's probably wrong. It's 0.61 pounds and 0.45 pounds, not grams.
5 Because that's 250 to 200 grams.
6 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that you do not have any --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The metric system.
8 JUDGE ORIE: The witness said pounds, instead of grams.
9 MR. STAMP:
10 Q. You have -- not below a gram, below a kilogramme.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you are far below a gram. And I think the
12 witness rectified that where you said 0.61 grams, that it should be 0.61
13 pounds, and that is still far under 1 kilogramme.
14 MR. STAMP: The figures are 0.165 kilogrammes and 0.450
15 kilogrammes for the steel stabiliser.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Would that be correct, Professor Vilicic? Same
17 figures but then kilogrammes rather than pounds?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The other way around.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The other way around. Your Honours,
21 if we're speak about the steel stabiliser, it can be 610 grams. And if
22 it's aluminium, 450 grams. Stabilisers that are heavier than 400 grams
23 regularly remain or, that is, they have such energy and such impulse that
24 with higher charges will remain at the site of the impact. If they are
25 less than 400 grams, it would fly back, you would never find it on the
1 site of the impact. That's why I've asked you whose shell. Yugoslav
2 shells have these stabilisers, heavier than 400 grams.
3 JUDGE ORIE: But I take it that the matter has been sufficiently
4 clarified. Is there any additional questions? No further questions.
5 Then Professor Vilicic, I'll make it very brief to you. I'll
6 repeat whatever I said ten minutes ago to you. I wish you a safe trip
7 home again.
8 We'll adjourn until tomorrow afternoon, quarter past 2.00 in the
9 same courtroom.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
11 at 7.29 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday,
12 the 4th day of March, 2003, at 2.15 p.m.