1 Tuesday, 15 April 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
7 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, the
8 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
10 I have one procedural matter which I'd like to discuss with the
11 parties which is the following: 23rd of April, we cannot sit in this
12 courtroom in the morning. The Appeals Chamber needs this courtroom.
13 There is however a possibility to sit in the afternoon and the Chamber
14 would like to hear if there is any major obstacle to sitting in the
15 afternoon, that is from quarter past 2.00 until 7.00 p.m. on the 23rd of
17 Not the Prosecution side. Defence?
18 MR. KEHOE: No, Your Honour, no problem.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay.
20 MR. KAY: No problem.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic. I see three times no problems. Then
22 the parties are put on notice that we'll sit 23rd in the afternoon.
23 Is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness?
24 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Your Honour. Edward Russo for the Office of the
25 Prosecutor. We are prepared to call our next witness. It is my
1 understanding, however, that the Court wishes to address some procedural
2 matters regarding some exhibits marked for identification beforehand and
3 we're ready to proceed.
4 JUDGE ORIE: No, we're not going to go through the MFI list at
5 this very moment. We might do it later today, it depends on how we
6 proceed, but we are not going through the MFI list now.
7 Mr. Russo, there is, however, there is one item in the
8 application for the submission of a Rule 92 ter statement that was also
9 requested to have two witness-related exhibits added to the Rule 65 ter
10 list. These are the form, the data collection form and the instruction
11 to conduct damage survey.
12 Was there any objection against?
13 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour, I think my learned colleague was
14 talking about my objections to some of these other exhibits as well.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. KEHOE: The --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, then I misunderstood him. Yes.
18 MR. KEHOE: I do believe that's what Mr. Russo was referring to.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Were you referring to the MFI list which is not
20 clean yet?
21 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I was referring to the MFI list.
22 However, I am aware that the Defence does --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, so all confusion has now been put aside and
24 everyone knows now who is talking about what.
25 Mr. Kehoe.
1 MR. KEHOE: Yes, I -- with regard to the two exhibits that were
2 being added on, and I think that's 65 ter 4777, which is the survey in
3 your AOR, that is there was no objection to that. The -- with regard to
4 the next 65 ter 4778, there is an objection to that.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We'd -- Mr. Kehoe, we -- I have ERN numbers in the
6 application. I have no 65 ter numbers. If you just tell me what kind of
7 document it is. They are all named in the application.
8 MR. KEHOE: Yes. The first document, Your Honour, is instruction
9 to conduct damage survey.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. KEHOE: That document we have no objection to.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's one of the new ones. The other one is
13 the data collection form. Any problems with that?
14 MR. KEHOE: The data collection form, yes, Your Honour, simply
15 because this is not a record that was either produced -- it certainly
16 wasn't produced by this particular witness. My understanding is this was
17 produced and recorded by somebody else, that this is just one of any
18 number of documents and with this particular witness, there is no
19 foundation for this document.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Any further observations?
21 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
22 With regard to -- if we go back to the 65 ter list, the document
23 that is reflected as summary of human rights violations from headquarter
24 Sector South, the first base is daily sitreps, 07 August 95, 04 September
25 '95, that of course goes through, I do believe, November. This is simply
1 not a UN form. This is something that was plucked out of a series of
2 sitreps and put together by another witness, not this particular witness,
3 so on that basis, we object to that.
4 JUDGE ORIE: But part of the witness's work is in that report,
5 isn't it?
6 MR. KEHOE: Part of it, yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So to that extent, it's related.
8 MR. KEHOE: So to that extent, it does, part of the witness.
9 The last exhibit to which we object at this juncture is the
10 document that is referred in the list as data on population left in
11 Sector South and destroyed houses after Operation Storm date, 4 --
12 October the 4th, 1995.
13 This, again, was not a document that was produced by this
14 witness, it was produced by another witness that is on the witness list
15 for the OTP. So with regard to this particular witness list, and it's
16 signed on the bottom by that witness, by Mr. Anttila, so with regard to
17 this particular document, doesn't even have any bearing with this
18 witness, although I will concede --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but of course we have two matters. First,
20 whether it should be on the 65 ter list and second whether it could be
21 admitted through this witness. You're now referring to this long list,
22 population so many.
23 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Having had a glance at this, doesn't that
25 document at least give some indications that even in villages where no
1 Serbs were living, nevertheless a lot of houses were destroyed and is
2 that information you would rather keep out of this case?
3 MR. KEHOE: No, Your Honour, I am fully aware that that took
4 place. My issue with regard to that document is the accuracy of that
5 information and frankly, Your Honour, and I will tell you, we will prove
6 this, that the numbers were inflated. So the only way to get behind the
7 inflation of those numbers --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. KEHOE: -- is to go through those numbers with the people
10 that did them in conjunction with documents such as the one-page sheet
11 that we talked about previously which is the data collection form.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. KEHOE: I do not --
14 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just -- I was just asking myself, for example,
15 this one page, I see that on the population of 130 Serbs approximately,
16 that damage believed due to Operation Storm, 207 with damage.
17 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: That means that far beyond Serb houses, even if --
19 if you were to assume that there was one Serb living in one house, which
20 is perhaps not very realistic, even then, apart from damage to Serb
21 houses or Serb households, there would have been substantial damage to
22 other households as well. Is that information you would, at this moment,
23 want to block from this case.
24 MR. KEHOE: I don't, Judge, I think with the appropriate witness,
25 Mr. Anttila. I mean he is the one who did this compilation. But --
1 JUDGE ORIE: We'll see what the witness can add. It's just -- so
2 your opposition is not against adding it to the 65 ter list but rather
3 than to have it introduced through this witness.
4 MR. KEHOE: Absolutely, Judge.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The application, however, is to add it to the
6 65 ter list.
7 MR. KEHOE: Yes, sir.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yeah?
9 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Fine. Then we'll see how we deal with it, if
11 it is put to the witness, what the witness could tell us about it and
12 then if this witness is not the suitable vehicle through which this
13 evidence could be introduced then still, some options are open, being
14 tendered from the bar table, introduced through other witnesses. That's
15 still to be seen.
16 I therefore -- am I right in understanding that finally, you do
17 not oppose the application as far as adding to the 65 ter list is
18 concerned, but you are mainly concerned about having them introduced
19 through this witness.
20 MR. KEHOE: That's right.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 Mr. Russo, were there submissions in this respect?
23 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Mr. President and Your Honours. I
24 understand the objection to the admissibility of the documents with
25 respect to this witness. I will have answers for those at the
1 appropriate time. I'm not sure if the Court wishes me to address that
2 specific objection now. It seems as thought it's --
3 JUDGE ORIE: No, I think we're dealing at this moment with the
4 application to have the 92 ter statements admitted into evidence and to
5 have these two documents added to the 65 ter list where there seem to be
6 no further objections against that last. So therefore ...
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: The request to add two documents to the 65 ter list,
9 that is data collection form and instruction to conduct damage survey
10 with the ERN numbers as we find them on page 7647 on the record, is
12 Mr. Russo, are you ready to call your next witness?
13 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Mr. President. The Office of the Prosecutor
14 calls Witness 168, Tor Munkelien.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
16 Mr. Usher, could you please escort the witness into the
18 [The witness entered court]
19 JUDGE ORIE: On the basis of the assumption that the witness
20 would make the attestation as provided for in 92 ter, will there be any
21 objections against admission of the 92 ter statement?
22 MR. KEHOE: No, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, any objections?
24 MR. CAYLEY: No, Your Honour, there's no objection from Cermak.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic.
1 MR. MIKULICIC: No objections, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
3 Good morning, Mr. Munkelien.
4 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence in this court, the Rules of
6 Procedure and Evidence require you to make the solemn declaration that
7 you will speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. May
8 I invite you to stand and make that solemn declaration. The text will be
9 handed out to you by the usher.
10 WITNESS: TOR MUNKELIEN
11 THE WITNESS: I solemnly swear that I will speak the truth, the
12 whole truth and nothing but the truth.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, please be seated.
14 Mr. Munkelien, I take it that your knowledge of the English
15 language is sufficient for you to testify in that language.
16 THE WITNESS: It is.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. If you have ever any problem with the
18 English language used by either some other non-native speakers, please
19 let us know.
20 Mr. Russo.
21 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Mr. President and Your Honours.
22 Examination by Mr. Russo:
23 Q. Mr. Munkelien, can you please state your full name for the
24 record, please?
25 A. My name is Tor Munkelien.
1 Q. And do you recall giving two statements to the Office of the
2 Prosecutor, one dated 18 December, 1995, and the other dated 10 January,
4 A. I do.
5 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I'd like to present the witness with
6 hard copies of the statements, if that's possible.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's possible. At the same time, they will
8 be put on the screen. Could you tell the registrar what 65 ter numbers
9 they are.
10 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Mr. President, that would be for witness
11 statement 18 December 1995, that is 65 ter number 4774. And for witness
12 statement dated 10 January 2008, that is 65 ter number 4775.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's start with the first one, that's the
14 18th of December, 1995 statement.
15 MR. RUSSO: If we could have that marked for identification.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would be ...
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit P60 marked for
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And since I heard that there are no objections
20 against the 92 ter statements, P60 is admitted into evidence, after --
21 under the condition that the witness attests as provided for in 92 per
23 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Mr. President. I would also like to have
24 marked for identification witness statement 10 January 2008.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Registrar, that would be ...
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes P61 marked for
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. We have at this moment P60 on our
4 screen. If we proceed with that first and then continue with P61.
5 MR. RUSSO: Of course. Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Q. Mr. Munkelien, if you could take a look at P60 and.
7 Tell me if that is your statement that you made on 18 December
9 A. It is.
10 Q. And did you have a chance to review that statement before you
11 came to court today?
12 A. I did.
13 Q. Is the information contained in that statement accurate to the
14 best of your knowledge?
15 A. It is.
16 Q. And is the information -- does that statement accurately reflect
17 what you said regarding the matters covered in that statement?
18 A. It is.
19 Q. And if --
20 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel and witness kindly make
21 pauses between questions and answers for interpretation.
22 MR. RUSSO: Yes, I apologise.
23 Q. If examined with respect to those same matters here today, would
24 your answers be the same?
25 A. It will.
1 Q. Thank you. Moving to your 10 January 2008 statement.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then now I establish that the attestation has
3 been given so P60 is now admitted into evidence. Please proceed.
4 MR. RUSSO: Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: P61 to be produced on the screen, please.
6 MR. RUSSO:
7 Q. Mr. Munkelien, taking a look at P61, is that the statement you
8 made to the ICTY on 10 January 2008?
9 A. It is.
10 Q. And does the information contained in that statement accurately
11 reflect what you said regarding the matters covered in there?
12 A. It does.
13 Q. And is it accurate to the best of your knowledge?
14 A. It is.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Mr. Russo, looking at my papers,
16 I see a kind of a cover page saying witness statement 7643, which is
17 about Mr. Munkelien. Then I have a similar also unsigned 7642 for
18 Mr. Anttila. Then we have the substance of the statement in 7641. And
19 then we have at 7640, we have the witness acknowledgment signed,
20 apparently by Mr. Anttila where I would expect to have a same witness
21 acknowledgment for Mr. Munkelien.
22 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Your Honour. That's correct. Mr. Munkelien's
23 signature appears as you can see from -- on the substance of the
24 voluntary statement itself.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so does Mr. Anttila's.
1 MR. RUSSO: That's correct, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Signature.
3 MR. RUSSO: And in the follow-up supplemental statement of 10
4 January, 2008, Mr. Munkelien makes reference to the statement and by
5 operation adopts and acknowledges it in the acknowledgment of the further
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Then that's explained why we have only
8 one witness acknowledgment. Please proceed.
9 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. With respect to Exhibit P61, is the information contained in
11 there accurate to the best of your knowledge?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. If examined on the same matters in that statement here today,
14 would your answers be the same?
15 A. It will be.
16 MR. RUSSO: Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then having heard the attestation, P61 is admitted
18 into evidence. Please proceed.
19 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 If I could have, Mr. President and Your Honours, the exhibits
21 marked for identification in advance so that we can proceed a bit more
22 efficiently with the examination.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but then of course you'll have to give the 65
24 ter numbers to Mr. Registrar.
25 MR. RUSSO: Yes, thank you. First, the aerial photograph of
1 Knin, that is 65 ter 4769.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Registrar, that would be ...
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit P62 marked for
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. RUSSO: The next exhibit, the instruction to conduct damage
7 survey, 65 ter 4777.
8 JUDGE ORIE: That was the one added to the list, and I think the
9 instruction did not need any objection to be introduced through this
10 witness so that is P63, I assume, Mr. Registrar.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, that's correct. This becomes
12 Exhibit P63 marked for identification.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
14 MR. RUSSO: Thank you. The next document would be the one
15 entitled provisional assessment of damage caused by HV operations 04 to
16 06 August 1995 at Knin, 65 ter number 4709.
17 JUDGE ORIE: That, Mr. Registrar, would be ...
18 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P64 marked for identification, Your
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. RUSSO: The next document, Your Honours, is the data
22 collection form to which I do understand there is an objection. The 65
23 ter number 4778.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Registrar that would become ...
25 THE REGISTRAR: P65, Your Honours, marked for identification.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
2 MR. RUSSO: Thank you. The following document, data on
3 population left in Sector South and destroyed houses after operation
4 storm 4-10, 1995, 65 ter number 4745.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And that would be, Mr. Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes P66 marked for
8 MR. RUSSO: Thank you. The following document entitled human
9 rights violations since the start of operation storm 6 to 27 August 1995,
10 65 ter number 2134.
11 JUDGE ORIE: That would be, Mr. Registrar ...
12 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P67 marked for identification, Your
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
15 MR. RUSSO: Thank you. The following document entitled UNMO
16 summary of humanitarian violations from HQ Sector South daily sitreps, 65
17 ter number 4190.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would be ...
19 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P68 marked for identification, Your
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
22 MR. RUSSO: Thank you. And the final exhibit, Your Honours,
23 photographs of deceased Sava Babic, 65 ter number 159.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. This would be, Mr. Registrar ...
25 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P69 marked for identification, Your
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
3 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honours. With respect to the
4 exhibits to which there is no objection, I would move for the admission
5 of those exhibits based on the 92 ter statements now in evidence. That
6 would be P62, P63, P64, P67, and P69.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Is that well understood that as attached to the 92
8 ter statement that there is no objections against these?
9 MR. KEHOE: I'm not following the sequence, Judge, I'm just
10 trying to follow them back through.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it would mean that P65, P66 and P68, there's no
12 yet request to have them admitted.
13 MR. KEHOE: That's correct, yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. KEHOE: Those are the documents.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then being attached to the 92 ter statement,
17 P62, P63, P64, P67, and P69 are admitted into evidence. Decisions on the
18 other exhibits still to be taken.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Mr. President. And Your Honours, with
21 your permission, I would like now to read a brief summary of the 92 ter
22 statements now in evidence. Thank you.
23 Mr. Munkelien was a United Nations military observer in Sector
24 South from 14 August until 1 December 1995. He was assigned to team
25 Podkonje which after operation storm was renamed Team Knin. Part of the
1 responsibilities of the UNMOs following Operation Storm was to report on
2 human rights violations in Sector South. Along with his fellow UNMOs,
3 Mr. Munkelien conducted daily patrols throughout his team's area of
4 responsibility, and reported on his observations of human rights
5 violations committed against the Serb civilians who remained after
6 Operation Storm. The violations witnessed by Mr. Munkelien included the
7 murder of elderly civilians, the extensive burning and looting of many
8 hamlets and villages, and the killing of livestock.
9 On some occasions, Mr. Munkelien witnessed looting and acts of
10 destruction by HV soldiers as well as by civilians. During some of these
11 patrols, Mr. Munkelien and his fellow UNMOs were restricted in their
12 movements by HV soldiers or civilian police who had set up checkpoints on
13 the main roads leading into Knin.
14 Mr. Munkelien participated in a comprehensive survey conducted by
15 all UNMO teams in Sector South of the damage done to civilian houses in
16 over 400 villages during and after Operation Storm. He also took part in
17 assessing the damage caused to civilian houses by shelling in Knin and
18 conducted a crater analysis of 6 impacts from a 128-millimetre
19 multiple-barrel rocket launcher system in a residential area of Knin.
20 Thank you, Your Honours.
21 Q. Mr. Munkelien, if I could please draw your attention to your
22 first statement and that is P60. In that statement you discuss a crater
23 analysis performed by yourself and another UNMO by the name of Kari
24 Anttila on 17 August 1995. Can you please explain to the Court how that
25 assignment to conduct the crater analysis came about?
1 A. Since we were Team Knin or team Podkonje, we were part of the
2 Sector South headquarter teams, so we got the assignment from the senior
3 UNMO at that time, Lieutenant-Colonel Steinar Hjertnes who said, go out,
4 do the survey and report back to Sector South.
5 Q. Thank you. In that statement, you indicated that you found 6
6 impacts from a 128-millimetre multiple-rocket launcher system in a
7 residential area approximately 350 metres from the northern barracks.
8 Mr. Registrar, if we would please show the aerial photo of Knin,
9 that being P62.
10 MR. RUSSO: Your Honours, if I could please have, please, the
11 assistance of the court usher.
12 Mr. Munkelien, when the Exhibit P62 comes on the screen, I'm
13 going to ask you to locate the area where you conducted this crater
14 analysis, to circle it and place an A next to it.
15 JUDGE ORIE: You might just remind me about the colours. Marking
16 at the request of the Prosecution was --
17 MR. RUSSO: In red, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: In red. Yes. So could the red pen be given to --
19 and is this zoomed in sufficiently for the witness to do the marking
20 or -- because once marking is done, there's no further zooming possible.
21 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I am going to be asking the witness to
22 mark several areas in Knin so I believe this is the shot that we need.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The witness has marked.
24 MR. RUSSO:
25 Q. Mr. Munkelien, can you please place an A next to that circle.
1 A. [Marks].
2 MR. RUSSO: Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
4 MR. KEHOE: I don't mean to interrupt, Judge, but I just -- one
5 point of clarification. I asked counsel last week at various times what
6 areas were going to be marked by the witness and I was informed of this,
7 but I was not informed of any other locations that were going to be
9 JUDGE ORIE: We do not know what he's going to mark, whether he
10 says where the garrison was or something like that but we're now talking
11 about marking -- this first marking is about impact of rockets. Yes.
12 Are the others of a different kind, Mr. Russo?
13 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then we'll hear from you. Please continue.
15 MR. RUSSO:
16 Q. Mr. Munkelien, can you tell the Court, to be clear, in judging
17 the distance of 350 metres between the closest impact and the northern
18 barracks as you stated in your first statement, were you measuring to the
19 centre of the northern barracks or to some other point?
20 A. We were measuring to the fence of the northern barracks.
21 Q. And can you tell the Court approximately how far the furthest
22 impact was from the fence of the northern barracks?
23 A. The furthest was 500 metres and then down to 350 metres.
24 Q. Thank you. Now referring again to P60, your first statement, you
25 assessed in that statement that the weapon, the multiple barrel rocket
1 launcher system should not be used in areas where civilian population can
2 be in danger. Can you please explain the basis for that assessment?
3 A. The accuracy of these rocket system due to the fact when they are
4 fired, the turbulence make it unstable, and the flight also make it not a
5 good weapon to use against specific targets. It's more an area weapon.
6 Q. Thank you. In that statement, you also assess that the time of
7 the impacts to be recent based on visible fragmentation on objects close
8 by such as cars and buildings. Can you describe for the Court what you
9 mean by fragmentation?
10 A. That means it's shrapnels, pieces from the rocket that has hit
11 the buildings and the cars in the area.
12 Q. Can you please tell the Court what kind of buildings in that area
13 were damaged by shrapnel?
14 A. That was houses used by the people in the area.
15 MR. RUSSO: Mr. President, Your Honours, I apologise, I don't
16 mean to make the court usher stand by the witness. It will be a few
17 questions into it before I ask him to re-mark the exhibit.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I am going to be asking the witness to
20 take a look at other documents in the meantime. I don't know if this
21 image can be kept and we can make further markings upon it.
22 JUDGE ORIE: No. It has to be stored. A possibility is that
23 this will receive a number and then later, this one will be on the screen
24 again and then further marking can take place but it cannot be stored
25 under the same number. So if there is a possibility to finish the
1 marking of this document, that would be preferable. If not, we'll find a
2 solution for it.
3 MR. RUSSO: Well, I will simply jump around to different portions
4 of the witness's statement to have him complete the marking on this
6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
7 JUDGE ORIE: We can find a technical solution. Please proceed as
8 you intended.
9 MR. RUSSO: Thank you.
10 Q. Mr. Munkelien, referring to your second statement, that is P61,
11 if you could refer to paragraph 16 where you reference an instruction to
12 conduct a damage survey.
13 Mr. Registrar, if we could please pull up P63.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, the present marked document will be
15 stored and perhaps as number ...
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit P70 marked for
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
19 MR. RUSSO:
20 Q. Mr. Munkelien, do you recognise this document P63?
21 A. Do.
22 Q. Can you please tell the Court what it is?
23 A. This is an order to all teams in Sector South to go out and
24 report back the damage on buildings after Operation Storm, that means not
25 damaged, minor damage, looted with broken windows and doors, and damaged
2 Q. Did you participate in the damage survey ordered in this
4 A. I did.
5 Q. Now, specifically, did you conduct an assessment pursuant to this
6 instruction in Knin on 17 August 1995?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And in at that assessment, what type of damage were you looking
10 A. We were looking for damage at houses, according to the order
11 given by classification of the damage.
12 Q. And did the rest of your UNMO team participate on that afternoon
13 as well?
14 A. They did.
15 Q. And did your team report on its findings from the damage
16 assessment on that date?
17 A. I'm not sure if the date of the report sitrep was in by any
18 specific timing. I'm not sure if we reported them on the 17th or the
20 Q. And how were those findings reported?
21 A. They were reported either in the daily sitrep or in the special
22 report. I suppose since this one was a special order, it was given in a
23 special report.
24 Q. Do you know to whom it was given?
25 A. That was given back to the headquarters south and I suppose
1 directly to the senior military observer.
2 Q. Thank you. Can you please refer to your second statement, that's
3 P61 at paragraphs 40 and 41 where you discuss a report by the senior
4 military observer Mr. Steiner Hjertnes entitled provisional assessment of
5 damage caused by HV ops 04 to 06, August, 1995 in Knin.
6 Mr. Registrar, if we could pull up the provisional assessment,
7 that is P64. I apologise, Your Honour, but to Mr. Registrar, to save him
8 a bit of time, I gave the witness some hard copies of his witness
9 statement so that he could refer to the paragraphs in his statements that
10 I'm referring and I will simply ask which documents to be brought up on
11 the screen to save us a bit of time if that's all right.
12 JUDGE ORIE: If there are no objections, it's all right with us.
13 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. Now, looking, Mr. Munkelien, at P64, is this the document which
15 you reference in paragraphs 40 and 41 of your second statement?
16 A. That's the one that ended up after our report, yes, and that
17 Sector South sent forward.
18 Q. Thank you. Is it the document that you reference in paragraphs
19 40 and 41 of your second statement?
20 A. It is.
21 Q. Thank you. And is it the result of the damage assessment
22 conducted by your UNMO team on 17 August 1995?
23 A. It is.
24 Q. Thank you. And I'd like to talk a bit about how that provisional
25 assessment of damage was conducted. At paragraph 41 of your second
1 statement, you indicate that this provisional assessment cannot be
2 regarded as an accurate description as the information was collected in
3 just a few hours on 17 August 1995. Can you please explain to the Court
4 exactly how your team conducted this provisional assessment?
5 A. We were given the task and we were normally divided into teams
6 and then we were driving around in the area in Knin and looking at
7 buildings, but according to timing and the necessity to report back, it
8 was a more or less overall survey of the Knin city at that time.
9 Q. And also at paragraph 41, you indicated that this survey was very
10 much a quick assessment and only a brief view of some of the areas of
12 Mr. Registrar, at this time, if I could ask to have the aerial
13 photograph pulled up again?
14 JUDGE ORIE: P70.
15 MR. RUSSO: If I could, Your Honours, ask for the assistance of
16 the court usher once more, I would ask Mr. Munkelien to circle the areas
17 where his UNMO team searched for the shelling damage on those few hours
18 of 17 August 1995.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
20 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, this is precisely what I was talking
21 about. I mean we're trying to ascertain additional shelling damage
22 researching, and I's ask for those areas that he was going to mark and
23 the only area that I was given any indication of was A.
24 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
1 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Your Honour, it was my understanding - and I
2 apologise if there was a misunderstanding - that the only area that the
3 defence was interested in locating specifically was where the crater
4 damages were. I think it's pretty clear from the statement that the
5 Court and certainly Defence counsel is going to want to know where
6 exactly team Podkonje searched for the shelling damage on that date. I
7 didn't realise that that was going to be an issue which was going to be
8 disputed, at least having the witness identify that for the Court.
9 MR. KEHOE: Well, Your Honour, the areas -- with all due respect
10 to counsel, the areas where the witness searched for shelling damage,
11 that's not located in his statement where I would be able to track the
12 areas that he looked for. With all due respect to the witness, it's not
13 included in that.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
15 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I'm fine if --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Just misunderstanding, that's the only explanation?
17 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Your Honour. I believe that's correct.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now ...
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, the objection is denied. The -- we have
21 now the information but in very general terms, and if we leave it to
22 that, we might miss an opportunity if, at the same time, Mr. Russo would
23 come with new elements which you would need more time to prepare for
24 cross-examination or to further investigate, you may apply for additional
25 time. Yes?
1 Please proceed, Mr. Russo.
2 MR. RUSSO: Thank you.
3 Q. Mr. Munkelien, if you could please mark the areas where your UNMO
4 team searched for the shelling damage on 17 August 1995.
5 A. [Marks]. I think that is it.
6 Q. Thank you. Now, if we could have this image saved as well, Your
7 Honour, I will ask to have it brought up after another two documents.
8 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine, but then we need some kind of letter or
9 number given to these markings, otherwise we get confused at a later
11 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, in that case I would suggest that each
12 of those circles, that the witness place a PA for provisional assessment
13 next to those circles.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please do so, Mr. Munkelien.
15 MR. RUSSO: Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: This -- temporarily, this new version of the marked
17 map will replace the P70 as it was stored before and this procedure will
18 be repeated, I understand.
19 So this now, then, the map with the four markings on it now
20 replaces P70. Please proceed.
21 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Now, if we could look back at the provisional assessment of
23 damage that is P64. I would ask you to look specifically at paragraph 2,
24 Mr. Munkelien, of that report where it indicates, and I'll quote, "The
25 damages caused by shelling to civilian establishments is concentrate to
1 the close vicinity of military objectives. Only few (3-5) impacts is
2 observed in other urban areas."
3 Can you recall, Mr. Munkelien, whether as part of your damage
4 assessment on that afternoon of 17 August 1995, you were directed to
5 measure the distance between any of the damage you found to any military
6 target in the area?
7 A. No, I cannot remember that, apart from the one that we were doing
8 crater analysis on.
9 Q. I understand. And that, to be clear, is a different assessment
10 than the one we're discussing now; correct?
11 MR. KEHOE: Objection. I would ask Mr. Russo not to lead the
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
14 MR. RUSSO: I apologise, Your Honour.
15 Q. Is the crater analysis, Mr. Munkelien, different from the damage
16 assessment we were talking about just now?
17 A. It is.
18 MR. RUSSO: Thank you.
19 If we could again pull up P63.
20 Q. Mr. Munkelien, I will ask you looking at this document and if you
21 could tell me in your reading of this document if there is anything that
22 directs you to collect information on the proximity of any damage to
23 military targets.
24 A. It doesn't.
25 Q. Thank you. And at the time that you conducted this provisional
1 assessment of damage on the 17th of August, what did you understand the
2 military targets in Knin to be?
3 A. I understand the military targets to be where the UN buildings
4 now were situated, that means southern barracks, northern barracks, and
5 the castle.
6 MR. RUSSO: Thank you. If we could once again, Your Honour,
7 please have the assistance of the court usher and pull up P70.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please assist.
9 MR. RUSSO:
10 Q. Now, Mr. Munkelien, I will ask you to please circle the locations
11 of what you understood the military targets in Knin to be and to place
12 the initials MT next to those circles.
13 A. [Marks].
14 MR. RUSSO: Thank you. Your Honour, at this time I'm finished
15 with the aerial photograph, we can keep it as it is, as Exhibit P70.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Now, may I take it that the MT marking most to the
17 right are the UN facilities, that the MT marking in the middle of the
18 photograph is a reference to the castle, and that the MT marking to the
19 left is northern barracks.
20 THE WITNESS: That is correct, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed. Mr. Registrar, the now newly
22 marked -- oh, suddenly -- can we get P70 on our screen. P70 now marked 7
23 times replaces the earlier P70 that was marked four times.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, we've saved all the markings on
25 the image as P70.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, please proceed.
2 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Mr. President and Your Honours.
3 Q. Mr. Munkelien, what was the basis for your understanding that
4 those were the military targets in Knin?
5 A. It was according to the briefing that I got from the team when I
6 arrived on the mid of August, 1995.
7 Q. And to be clear, whose military facilities did you understand
8 those to be?
9 A. That was former RSK garrisons and now occupied by HV soldiers.
10 Q. And prior to conducting the assessment of damage to Knin on 17
11 August 1995, were you ever told all of the facilities or buildings which
12 were used by the Serb army prior to Operation Storm?
13 A. Not that I can memorise now.
14 Q. And can you tell the Court when was the first time you saw the
15 provisional assessment of damage report that we've just been looking at?
16 A. That report was first shown to me on 10 January this year.
17 Q. And in your second statement at paragraph 41, it indicates that,
18 later patrols conducted by your UNMO team found more shelling damage than
19 was originally reported on the 17th of August 1995. Can you tell the
20 court whether or not the information concerning that additional shelling
21 damage in Knin was reported to your senior military observer?
22 A. All the things that we discovered that I mention in this point 41
23 was taken into the daily sitreps and reported to the higher headquarter,
24 that means Sector South headquarter and the senior military observer was
25 aware of it as well.
1 Q. Thank you. And can you tell us whether or not you have ever seen
2 a follow-up report by Mr. Hjertnes indicating that the findings of this
3 provisional assessment were subsequently found to be inaccurate?
4 A. I have not.
5 Q. Thank you. We've discussed the surveys of shelling damage in
6 Knin. I'd like now to turn your attention to the full damage survey
7 ordered by Mr. Hjertnes on the 17th of August. If we could once again
8 pull up the instruction to conduct the damage survey, that's P63.
9 Mr. Munkelien, you indicated earlier that you participated in the
10 survey which was ordered in this document. Can you please explain to the
11 Court over what period of time did the full survey continue?
12 A. Can I have that question again, please?
13 Q. Yes. How long did this -- did it take to conduct the full
15 A. The full survey means the one that was taken that day, I suppose?
16 Q. No, I'm asking the wider survey of your entire area of
18 A. That continued as -- I think as long as we were in Knin, as long
19 as we were doing the patrolling like until I left in December.
20 Q. And can you please explain to the Court exactly how it is that
21 you and your fellow UNMOs went about collecting the information according
22 to this instruction?
23 A. Normally in the team's meeting in the afternoon or in the
24 morning, we were divided into different areas and we went around with
25 cars, two UNMOs in each car, and if you lacked car, even more UNMOs in
1 each, and reporting back was during the end of the day, either on the
2 radio to the radio man that was in the team site at all times, or in
3 written statement and that was taken together and given as the team daily
4 sitrep to the higher headquarter.
5 Q. And how exactly did you record the damage which you observed?
6 A. We put it into the sitrep and I think we covered most of the
7 areas. We were all over the area during the period that I was there.
8 Q. I do understand that the information made its way into the
9 sitrep. What I'm trying to determine is when you are actually out in the
10 patrol, how do you record the damage which you are observing?
11 A. We recorded it on to paper in special report scheme, and that was
12 part of the one that was attached to the daily sitrep later on.
13 MR. RUSSO: Okay. And if we could please pull up the data
14 collection form which has been marked for identification as P65.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. RUSSO:
17 Q. Mr. Munkelien, let me refer you to paragraph 14 of your second
18 statement where you reference a data collection form used by the UNMOs in
19 conducting the damage surveys. I will ask you to look at Exhibit P65
20 which is now on your screen and please tell the Court whether P65 is the
21 kind of form that you used and which you reference in paragraph 14 of
22 your second statement.
23 A. As the top says, to the UNMO humanitarian rights section, we were
24 using this form to report in damages, yes.
25 Q. To be clear, this exact form you did not use; is that right?
1 Meaning -- I apologise, meaning the markings on these particular form,
2 the entries for the damage and locations are not your own, is that
4 A. This is not my writing, no.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, at this time, I would move for the
7 admission of the data collection form, P65.
8 JUDGE ORIE: For the purpose of establishing that this was the
9 kind of form used or for the accuracy of the content filled in by another
11 MR. RUSSO: No, Your Honour, simply to demonstrate that this is
12 the type of form on which the information was collected and not for the
13 accuracy of the information contained within it.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
15 MR. KEHOE: Well, Judge, we're talking about a blank form. I
16 mean I certainly don't have an objection generally speaking. I was
17 objecting to the content of this as not being his, as I said initially.
18 JUDGE ORIE: So as a matter of fact, what could have been done,
19 Mr. Russo, but it might have created other problems is that to just take
20 out all the entries here, because you are interested in the form as such,
21 nothing else, from what I understand. At least at this moment with this
23 MR. RUSSO: That is correct, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: If this is clear on the record, Mr. Kehoe.
25 MR. KEHOE: At this point, Judge, I would just as soon, given the
1 fact that it's before the Chamber, just to leave it as is it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then this data collection form P65 is admitted
3 into evidence.
4 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honours.
5 Q. Now, if, Mr. Munkelien, if I could please refer you to paragraph
6 15 of your second statement in which you reference a report of the UNMO
7 damage surveys.
8 And if I could ask Mr. Registrar, please, to pull up document P66
9 which has been marked for identification.
10 Looking at P66, Mr. Munkelien, can you tell me if that is the
11 document which you reference in paragraph 15 of your second statement?
12 A. Yeah, that's the one.
13 Q. And can you tell the Court whether or not this is the report
14 which results or resulted from the damage survey which was ordered by
15 Mr. Hjertnes and the information collected used in the kind of form we've
16 just discussed?
17 A. It is.
18 MR. RUSSO: Thank you. Your Honour, on that basis, I would move
19 for the admission of P66 into evidence.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
21 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour, there is no foundation with regard
22 to this document. This witness didn't prepare this document. He has no
23 idea what the accuracy of this document. It seems to be just a document
24 that he's referring to that he was showed during the course of an
25 interview. The document was done by -- my understanding was composed by
1 Mr. Anttila, not by Mr. Munkelien.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Let's perhaps verify whether the witness --
3 Witness, having looked at this document on the cover page, do you
4 recognise the handwriting there?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, I recognise this as Kari
6 Anttila's signature and he was given the task to make all like you see on
7 the screen now, this is Sector South, all Sector South, so this is for
8 Sibenik. If you going through it then you will see that Knin is also
9 coming up or the area that Knin -- Team Knin was covering.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, in response to Mr. Kehoe's objection ...
11 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Your Honour, the witness's supplemental
12 statement, that is P61 which is now a matter of evidence before the
13 Court, indicates at paragraphs 9 through 13 the procedure by which UNMOs
14 collected evidence. The witness has already testified to the manner in
15 which the evidence regarding this particular damage survey was collected
16 and reported. The uniformity of the procedure outlined in those
17 paragraphs, the standardisation of it, the fact that observations as
18 indicated in those paragraphs do not get recorded unless two UNMOs from
19 different nationalities confirm the information, I believe, suffices to
20 establish at least the admissibility of the document. It seems to me
21 that Mr. Kehoe's objection goes more to the weight to be accorded any
22 particular entry in the document and not necessarily its admissibility.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
24 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, this document is being admitted for the
25 accuracy of this particular -- the records compiled here. Your Honour
1 mentioned this this morning. This witness has got no idea of the methods
2 employed by Mr. Anttila to specifically record this information on this
3 document. The proper person to answer those questions is the person who
4 put his designation on the bottom, Mr. Anttila. With all due respect to
5 Mr. Munkelien, he's not the right person to attest to the accuracy of
6 this document.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Munkelien, you participated in collecting the
8 data which you find reflected or not reflected in this report?
9 THE WITNESS: During the period, we collected the -- this
10 information, and it was my roommate and my -- actually bed mate, at that
11 time, Kari Anttila who put this into report. He was taken out of the
12 team and was working directly in Sector South but we still shared the
13 same room in Team Knin and he told me during the day what he was doing
14 and how he did it by looking at the different reports that came to Sector
15 South headquarter. That means from Team Knin, from Team Sibenik and
16 whatever, and that was put into the report that you see on the screen
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Kehoe please speak into the mike
20 somehow. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
22 MR. KEHOE: Yeah, just one last point, Judge. I'm not certain if
23 Mr. Anttila is coming or not. He's on the witness list I believe for the
24 week after next. If that is in fact the case, he is the witness to
25 attest to the accuracy of this document, not this witness. If A tells B
1 how they did a particular document, that does not elevate that -- the
2 accuracy of that document simply because I explained to for instance
3 Mr. Misetic how I did it.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, whether every single letter of this
5 document is -- accurately reflects the situation, that's one. Second, if
6 it reflects the reports, the reports not necessarily the situation, is a
7 matter still to be seen but it's not an issue of admissibility, it's a
8 matter of weight to be given to this document, P66 is admitted into
10 Please proceed, Mr. Russo.
11 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Q. If you, Mr. Munkelien, could please refer again to your second
13 statement, this time to paragraph 23 where you reference an UNMO document
14 entitled "Human rights violations since the start of Operation Storm."
15 MR. RUSSO: I will ask please for Mr. Registrar to pull up the
16 document marked for identification P67. Thank you.
17 Q. Mr. Munkelien, looking at P67, can you please tell the Court
18 whether this is the document which you reference in paragraph 23 of your
19 second statement?
20 A. It is.
21 Q. And I understand from your statement that there are entries on
22 this document which you, in fact, personally observed as indicated on the
23 document itself. With respect to the entries on the document which you
24 did not personally observe, do you know how that information was
25 collected by the other UNMOs and how it was reported?
1 A. You are talking about the thing we see on the screen that
2 happened on the 6th of August, the 7th of August, the 8th of August, the
3 12th of August?
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. That was done in the same matter as I have testified to where
6 more UNMOs went out, observed, and reported back either on radio or in
7 written when they came back to the team site. Then that was made on the
8 daily sitrep from the team and sent to the higher headquarter.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I would move also for the admission of
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, P67 was already not objected and admitted
13 into evidence so let's not do it twice. Please proceed.
14 MR. RUSSO: I apologise, thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. If I could refer you now, Mr. Munkelien, to paragraph 31 of your
16 second statement and ask Mr. Registrar to please pull up document which
17 has been marked for identification as P68.
18 Mr. Munkelien, looking at P68, can you please tell us whether or
19 not that is the document to which you reference in paragraph 31 of your
20 second statement?
21 A. It is the document.
22 Q. And again, as to the entries on this document, which you did not
23 personally observe, do you know how that information was collected? I
24 think you've already explained how the information in the last document
25 was collected. Was this collected in the same way?
1 A. That was collected in the same way, but this is a summary of the
2 humanitarian relation from whole Sector South.
3 Q. And the document itself indicates that it is a summary of the
4 humanitarian violations from the HQ Sector South daily sitreps. Now, not
5 considering the title of the document, are you able to tell simply from
6 looking at the entries, whether or not they are taken from UNMO sitreps?
7 A. It's taken from UNMO sitreps, according to how the writing is
8 and, to my knowledge, whatever we reported as our sitrep, I suppose, the
9 Team Korenica did it the same way as we did.
10 Q. Do you know who authored this particular document?
11 A. Say again, please.
12 Q. Do you know who authored this particular document? Do you know
13 who created it?
14 A. That was Sector South headquarter.
15 MR. RUSSO: Thank you.
16 Your Honour, I would now move for the admission of P68.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
18 MR. KEHOE: If I may, Judge. This is a document that according
19 to the statement of Kari Anttila that he plucked individual provisions
20 from sitreps going from August, when this witness and Mr. Anttila were
21 not even there, they didn't get to the area until the 14th of August, and
22 took them from sitreps and somehow collected them in this particular
23 document. So these are not the sitreps, these are Mr. Anttila's
24 individual items taken from sitreps.
25 Again, and at the risk of repeating myself, Judge, but this
1 particular witness doesn't know how Mr. Anttila did it and what was his
2 thesis behind putting this document together, nor is -- can he attest to
3 the accuracy of the work that was performed by Mr. Anttila.
4 Frankly, Judge, the person to attest to this is Mr. Anttila.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
6 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honour. This is essentially the same
7 objection which was raised to the previous document. It's clear from the
8 witness's 92 ter statement as well as his oral testimony here today that
9 the information collected in these documents was collected according to a
10 uniform and standardised procedure that was "UNMO confirmed" by at least
11 two UNMOs in order to make it into the team sitrep. It seems that this
12 is an objection more to the, if you will, chain of custody of the
13 information collected rather than to the reliability of the information
14 itself, whether Anttila took it out of a sitrep, placed into this
15 document by some cut-and-paste method, I don't believe affects the
16 admissibility of the document but rather goes to a consideration of
17 whether it was altered in the meantime or whether or not it can be truly
18 relied upon, in which case is it an objection merely to the weight to be
19 accorded to the document and not to whether the court should have it in
21 JUDGE ORIE: Are all these sitreps available from this period of
23 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, we have made available, disclosed to the
24 Defence and will present to the Court through another witness all of the
25 sitreps which we have for this period of time.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And is there anything in this compilation which does
2 not appear in the sitreps?
3 MR. RUSSO: There are some entries which do appear in this
4 compilation which cannot be found in the sitreps which we have which --
5 JUDGE ORIE: You do not have a complete set, is that --
6 MR. RUSSO: That's correct, Your Honour. We do not have a
7 complete set and to make the Court very clear based on what this witness
8 has said, based on what is also in his statement, there is two levels of
9 sitreps. The team itself creates their own sitrep as he's indicated.
10 That sitrep is then communicated to the Sector South headquarters. We
11 have the Sector South headquarters sitreps which are taken from all
12 teams, and collected into one document. We do not have all of those but
13 those are the ones we have. We do not have the first level team sitrep
14 which underlies these particular documents.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Will Mr. Anttila appear to testify?
16 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, Mr. Anttila will appear as well as the
17 deputy senior military observer who will also testify regarding the
18 procedure by which this evidence was collected and reported.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Munkelien has given information about his
21 knowledge as to how this document was prepared and the Chamber does
22 understand from Mr. Russo that there will be an ample opportunity to
23 further test the content of this document through later witnesses.
24 Therefore, P68 is admitted into evidence.
25 Please proceed, Mr. Russo.
1 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. Mr. Munkelien, referring now to paragraphs 45 and 46 of your
3 second statement where you discuss your discovery of the body of Sava
5 And if we could, Mr. Registrar, please pull up document marked
6 for identification and already admitted, I'm sorry, as P69.
7 MR. RUSSO: I apologise, Your Honour, but the document doesn't
8 seem to correspond to the photographs which we've indicated. It seems to
9 be just the index of the photos. If we could move to --
10 JUDGE ORIE: What about 06067531 and 32, would that be better?
11 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I'm talking now about ...
13 MR. RUSSO: I apologise, I'm sorry I didn't hear Your Honour on
14 that last comment.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I said I'm referring to ERN numbers and not to 65
16 ter numbers which --
17 MR. RUSSO: Yes, that's correct, Your Honour. The photographs
18 which we wish to show to Mr. Munkelien appear at 06067531 to 06067532.
19 Your Honour, if I could have these -- those two pages 751 -- 7531
20 and 7532 marked separately, actually to replace P69.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Apparently there's a reason to separate them.
22 Then 7531 will be P69 and then 7532, Mr. Registrar, would be ...
23 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar shares my feeling of why should they
25 be separated? Is there any specific reason why they should be two
1 different exhibit numbers instead of the two under one number?
2 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I apologise, I didn't mean to suggest
3 that we should have two separate exhibit numbers for these two pages but
4 rather the Exhibit P69 is actually an index plus an album of a number of
5 photographs which will come in through -- which will be referenced
6 through the statement of another witness. Mr. Munkelien can only provide
7 testimony with respect to these two pictures.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, yes. Therefore these two pictures should be
10 MR. RUSSO: Correct, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: So whatever you've put under that number at any
12 earlier stage from now on, P69, two photographs with text added to it,
13 same text for the both the photographs ERN numbers 06067531 and same
14 number, last digit, last two digits 32.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Q. Mr. Munkelien, looking at P69 on the screen, can you please tell
18 us whether or not those are the photographs referenced at paragraphs 45
19 and 46 of your statement?
20 A. Yes, that is.
21 Q. And do those photographs fairly and accurately represent the
22 condition in which you found Ms. Babic on 4 September 1995?
23 A. Yes, it does.
24 Q. Were you on UNMO patrol on that day?
25 A. We were on an UNMO patrol in the area of Knin and it was the
1 hamlet of Babici.
2 Q. And were your findings on that day reported through the UNMO
3 reporting chain?
4 A. That was reported in the daily sitrep and reported on the radio
5 when we left. We didn't take the photos. As you see, that was taken the
6 day after.
7 Q. And what is the procedure that UNMOs undertook when discovering a
8 dead body?
9 A. Reporting to the headquarter.
10 Q. Did you conduct any investigation regarding the circumstances of
11 Ms. Babic's death?
12 A. No, we did not.
13 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I have no further questions for
14 Mr. Munkelien. However, I would like to make sure that Exhibit P70 which
15 I believe at this point has only been marked for identification, I would
16 move that into evidence at this time.
17 JUDGE ORIE: P70 with seven separate markings done in three
19 MR. KEHOE: I do object to that at this point, Judge, because I
20 would like some additional time to go through those areas that he's
21 talking about. I of course don't object to the first portion where he
22 had the letter A because that of course was what I was told about. But
23 at this juncture, I do object to the balance until I have had time to do
24 some additional analysis on that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So still to be seen whether that objection
1 stands for a longer period of time.
2 We'll then delay the decision of admission into evidence of this
4 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honour. I just wanted to be clear
5 the Court already made it quite clear that P69 was being replaced with
6 the two photographs. I just want to make sure that that's replaced in
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's -- Mr. Registrar, you can confirm that,
9 take it.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours, I confirm that P69 will only
11 reflect the two photographs 06067531 and 06067532.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Kehoe, coming back to our earlier, the
13 military targets as defined by this witness, the TM markings, is that
14 also something that bothers you?
15 MR. KEHOE: Well, those are the markings that I would want to
16 cross on additionally, not the A mark. He had the --
17 JUDGE ORIE: No, we have three different markings. The first
18 one, the location approximately where the shell impact was found.
19 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: The second one was what areas the witness searched
21 for -- well, for damage to be observed. And the third one was the
22 military targets as the witness understood them, that is UN facilities,
23 castle, and northern barracks. Is that something you'd need further to
24 investigate as well?
25 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour. The only item of that exhibit that
1 I do not object about is the point A.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But is there any dispute about -- apart from
3 whether the witness is right in his perception that these were the three
4 military targets, is there any dispute about where the UN facilities
5 were, where the castle was and where the northern barracks were?
6 MR. KEHOE: No, of course.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, that's what he marked, nothing else.
8 MR. KEHOE: That is true, Judge. My objection was allowing that
9 to go in without some additional time to just prepare some questions for
10 this witness on that score.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Only for the provisional assessment, the areas where
12 he made the provisional assessment.
13 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's at least clear.
15 Then I take it that you will come back to this to tell us what --
16 once you have had sufficient time to further explore this matter.
17 Mr. Russo, this concludes your examination in chief?
18 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the order agreed or not agreed by Defence
20 teams. Who is first?
21 MR. KEHOE: I do believe, Your Honour, that the -- we have agreed
22 that counsel for General Gotovina will proceed first.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then Mr. Munkelien, you will now first be examined
24 by Mr. Kehoe and counsel for Mr. Gotovina or by Mr. Misetic. No.
25 Mr. Kehoe.
1 Oh, yes, yes. You rightly draw my attention to the clock.
2 Before Mr. Kehoe starts, we'll first have a break.
3 We will resume at five minutes to 11.00.
4 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, are you ready? Then the witness is not
7 here yet. This gives me an opportunity to inform the parties that you
8 will receive further guidance as at what moment to ask numbers to be
9 assigned to exhibits, the procedure for that. We'll change it slightly
10 at the suggestions of Mr. Registrar.
11 You will receive that either today or tomorrow. I'll not change
12 the system at this very moment.
13 Mr. Kehoe.
14 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe:
16 Q. Good morning, Mr. Munkelien.
17 A. Good morning.
18 Q. Mr. Munkelien, I just want to ask you some questions about some
19 of your information in your statement, certainly that's not going to be
20 everything but just a few topics.
21 The first topic I'd like to talk to you about is your service in
22 the Norwegian army or armed forces. Now, you came in in the medical
23 area, did you not?
24 A. Yeah.
25 Q. And what did you do in the medical area of the Norwegian army?
1 A. I was in the medical service support, that means I'm an all arms
2 officer but serving in the medical corps not as a doctor, not as a nurse,
3 but as an administrator or, more general terms, educating soldiers and
4 being officer in the armed forces as any officer in the armed forces.
5 Q. Did you spend your entire armed forces career in the medical area
6 of the Norwegian armed forces?
7 A. Yeah, I was in the army medical corps and then I was in the joint
8 medical services, and then apart from that, I was -- and that was my
9 first experience with the UN, that was UNIFIL in 1980 where I was hygiene
10 officer in UNIFIL and stay there for half a year in, as I said, 1980.
11 Q. So how many years did you spend in the Norwegian armed forces in
12 the medical area?
13 A. More or less from my entered in 1967 until I ended in 2006 I was
14 a medical officer, but as I said with an overall role to administration
15 and 62 months of that was with the UN or NATO assignments abroad.
16 Q. Now, I think you noted in one of your statements that you came to
17 Zagreb, I believe it was on August the 1st of 1995?
18 A. Yeah.
19 MR. KEHOE: If I can just bring up ID 10-0251 to ID 10-0328.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, under the existing system we ask for a number
21 but that will change tomorrow.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes D79 marked for
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
25 MR. KEHOE: As this was being brought up, Judge, this is a large
1 document. I don't intend to use the entire document, naturally. I leave
2 it in there for contextual purposes, so ...
3 JUDGE ORIE: Usually if the parties could agree what is needed to
4 contextualise certain elements, it saves a lot of paper and a lot of
6 MR. KEHOE: I understand, Judge.
7 If we could turn to ID 10-0258 which is several pages in.
8 Q. Now, in the -- if I may, Mr. Munkelien, this is a peacekeeping
9 training manual for the United Nations military observer course, the
10 curriculum and it is from 1995.
11 At this particular introduction is the background and it notes,
12 and I'll read it slowly: "The United Nations military observers (UNMOs)
13 are military officers assigned to serve within the United Nations on a
14 loan basis by governments of member states at the request of the
16 "Military engineers and medical personnel may be administered as
17 military observers for administrative and financial purposes."
18 I'm just waiting for the translation to catch up. One second,
20 Now, sir, were you sent to the UN as a United Nations Military
21 Observer as medical personnel?
22 A. No, I was sent as a military observer, as a general officer.
23 Q. So you were not sent for any administrative or financial
25 A. No.
1 Q. Now, you mentioned to us -- or you didn't mention to us. It's
2 set forth in your witness statements that you have experience in both
3 identifying weapons systems as well as crater analysis; is that right?
4 A. Yeah.
5 Q. And where did you receive that training in the Norwegian army?
6 A. We received it in the -- I was in the cadet school in medical
7 corps and then I attended one year of all arms cadet school, that means
8 war college, more or less, it's mentioned war college now. It's one year
10 Q. Now, the first school that you went to is a basic school that has
11 a -- that trains medical personnel and lawyers and people of that level,
12 doesn't it?
13 A. It trains the medical personnel, yes.
14 Q. And you mentioned going to the medical -- the military college.
15 Now, that was in 1972, wasn't it?
16 A. Yeah, 1971, 1972.
17 Q. And that was obviously, just the simple math, some 23 years prior
18 to your entry into Sector South; is that right?
19 A. How many years did you say?
20 Q. I think 95 minus 72 is 23, isn't it?
21 A. Yeah. Yeah, I think so.
22 Q. Did you have any other training in the Norwegian Armed Forces in
23 addition to that training, last training in '71 and '72 concerning
24 weapons systems and crater analysis?
25 A. Apart from living up north when I was in Brigade North, we had a
1 medical company, we had artillery battalion, we had an infantry
2 battalion, so we served in the same area, more or less.
3 In addition, I was in, as I said, UNIFIL, and I was in the wrong
4 end of the mortars at that time when Hadat [phoen] forces shelled the
5 hospital in the spring 1980.
6 Q. So were you tasked at that time to do a crater analysis?
7 A. I never did that but we were definitely looking at the craters
8 that ruined all the barracks in the medical facility of UNIFIL.
9 Q. Were you also tasked to -- during that UNIFIL assignment tasked
10 to identify the weapons systems that were shooting in your area?
11 A. We were never given that specific task because others was doing
12 that one, but we were definitely looking at the weapons that was firing
13 at us and the Dutch battalion who made an end to the firing with their
14 120 mortars, we went to them as well as looking at how did they fire and
15 how did they exercise their firing.
16 Q. Well, taking what you've just said, Mr. Munkelien, it would be
17 fair to say that prior to being a United Nations Military Observer in
18 1995, the last formal training by the Norwegian Armed Forces in this area
19 was in 1972.
20 A. Yeah, and then the experience I had in 1980. The formal one was
21 the last one in '72, yes.
22 Q. Now, did you receive training at the UNMO school prior to going
23 to Sector South, or prior to going to Zagreb, excuse me, in August of
25 A. I was at that UNMO course in 1989 prior to my assignment to
1 UNTSO, United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation in the oldest UN
2 organisation on UNMOs in the Middle East.
3 Q. So I take it from your answer, Mr. Munkelien, that you did not
4 have any artillery training on weapons systems in the former Yugoslavia
5 prior to going to Zagreb on August the 1st, 1995?
6 A. We had non-specific [Realtime transcript read in error "none
7 specific"] education in Norway, and then we had in brief in Zagreb when
8 we came there.
9 JUDGE ORIE: For the record, this might be easily overlooked. If
10 you please, I don't know whether you can see the record, your last answer
11 was recorded as we had "none specific education in Norway" which is not
12 the same as we had "non-specific education in Norway" and I understood
13 your answer to be that you had non-specific education in Norway. That is
14 education that you had and not that you had none specific education.
15 THE WITNESS: Non-specific education prior to that.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But none is now written as n-o-n-e whereas I
17 understood your answer to be n-o-n dash specific.
18 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then this is now corrected for the transcript.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Mr. Munkelien, if at any point you don't understand one of my
23 questions, which I will tell you happens, please stop me and I'll re-ask
24 it. Okay?
25 A. I will.
1 Q. With regard to this briefing in Zagreb, if we can just stay with
2 that for one moment. Did that briefing in Zagreb include training on
3 weapons systems in the former Yugoslavia as well as crater analysis?
4 A. I can't remember any specific education on the crater analysis
5 but I can remember that we were given the briefing what weapons have been
6 used in this conflict.
7 Q. Were you given a UN pamphlet at the time identifying those
8 weapons systems?
9 A. Yes, we were.
10 Q. And did you use that during the period of time that you were in
11 Sector South?
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. And we will get to that in a bit, but let me just talk to you a
14 little bit and shift gears to your getting to the Sector South area on
15 August the 14th. I do believe from your statement that that is accurate
16 that you got there on August 14th.
17 Now, you noted for us that you were assigned to what was Team
18 Podkonje but then became Team Knin, is that right?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. And the senior military observer at the time was
21 Colonel Hjertnes; is that right?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. And he had been there for, if you know, approximately how long
24 prior to you?
25 A. No, I don't know, but he was definitely there when I came and he
1 was there when I left in December so ...
2 Q. You noted for the Prosecution, and if I may, if I can just turn
3 my attention to -- when you were preparing the provisional assessment
4 that the -- P63, if I could ask to bring that up.
5 You noted during the questioning by the Prosecution that P63 was
6 the order that was given to you for doing the crater analysis on the
7 17th; is that right?
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. If you can read for us the first sentence in that, and this says,
10 "This headquarters requires a survey of all teams and concerning number
11 of houses destroyed or looted, minority people left behind and HR," which
12 human rights, "violations, during HV Operation Storm or earlier."
13 This says nothing about an analysis of the artillery attack
14 during Operation Storm, does it?
15 A. No, it doesn't.
16 Q. In fact, sir, Colonel Hjertnes, he was a colonel at the time,
17 wasn't he?
18 A. Light Colonel.
19 Q. Light colonel, we'll call him light colonel. Mr. Hjertnes is
20 probably easier.
21 A. Yeah, that's okay.
22 Q. Mr. Hjertnes had actually begun an analysis of the shelling
23 before you arrived on August 14th, hadn't he?
24 A. I didn't get your question now. That he had ...
25 Q. Isn't it a fact, sir, that Lieutenant-Colonel Hjertnes had begun
1 an analysis of the shelling of Knin that had taken place during the 4th
2 and the 5th, that he had begun that analysis before you came to Sector
3 South on August 14th, 1995, hadn't he?
4 A. I don't know that as a fact, but I suppose he had.
5 Q. And you do know that lieutenant-colonel Hjertnes has advised the
6 Office of the Prosecutor that the exhibit that we have on the podium,
7 excuse me, on the screen, P63 was separate from the instruction to you on
8 the 17th of August to do an analysis or the analysis that you performed
9 in Knin. You do know that, don't you?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
11 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Your Honour. We would object to Mr. Kehoe
12 putting to the witness the statement of another witness who has yet to
13 testify in the case and in any case, identifying from whom this
14 information comes, if he wishes to confront him --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just try to verify. Is Mr. Hjertnes still to
16 testify or was he replaced by this witness? That's what my recollection
17 is but I might be wrong.
18 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, the Office of the Prosecutor will not be
19 calling Mr. Hjertnes. Mr. Munkelien was not called to replace the
20 testimony of Mr. Hjertnes he was called as part of the Prosecution's
21 examination in chief on additional matters to which Mr. Hjertnes'
22 testimony certainly overlaps but in any case we've already formally
23 removed Mr. Hjertnes from our witness list and he will not be called in
24 the Prosecution's case in chief.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But now let me then go back to what you just
1 said. "We would object to Mr. Kehoe putting to the witness the statement
2 of another witness who has yet to testify in the case," which it sounds a
3 bit different to me to what you just said, that he is not going to
5 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I apologise if I misspoke or misled the
6 Court by that particular use of the word. We are not certain to what
7 extent the Defence may wish to call Mr. Hjertnes, they certainly
8 indicated during their opening statement that the Court was going to have
9 to wait for the Defence case to see the report of Mr. Hjertnes, which at
10 least to my mind indicates that they intended to call him or we weren't
11 sure whether the Court would choose to call him on their own.
12 In any event, I want to be clear we are not calling him.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, could it be that by putting questions to
14 this witness you would receive information which is relevant for a
15 decision whether or not to call Mr. Hjertnes at a later stage as a
16 Defence witness if it ever comes to the presentation of a Defence case?
17 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, we certainly have no objection to a
18 witness being confronted with the substance of another witness's
19 statement. It is the identification to the witness on the stand of who
20 said the statement with which they are being confronted that I am
21 objecting to.
22 JUDGE ORIE: If you don't use the name of Mr. Hjertnes, would the
23 context -- the context would not be -- would that not be a bit ridiculous
24 to say -- the person who might have given you this instruction or the
25 person who was in charge there after you've put three or four questions
1 on whether he was there already before the witness -- no, Mr. Russo,
2 let's proceed.
3 MR. RUSSO: Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Your objection is denied.
5 MR. KEHOE:
6 Q. Mr. Munkelien, I don't recall if you recall the question.
7 A. No, I don't.
8 Q. That often happens with minutes going by so let me re-ask it,
9 with Your Honour's permission.
10 You do know that Mr. Hjertnes told the Office of the Prosecutor
11 that the exhibit that is on the screen before you --
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. -- the instruction to conduct damage survey was different from
14 the instruction that you received on the --
15 THE INTERPRETER: The counsel is kindly asked to speak into the
17 MR. KEHOE: I'm sorry, I apologise.
18 Q. Is different from the instruction that you received to go and
19 examine the crater analysis and the artillery impacts?
20 A. Yes, I am aware of that. As you see, this is to all teams, that
21 means all teams in Sector South, and we were given the order by our team
22 leader via the SMO, at that time Steinar Hjertnes, for the crater
24 Q. And you are aware that he has told the Office of the Prosecutor
25 that the order to do the crater analysis was different than the order
1 that we have on the screen, P63, which is the order for all teams to do
2 an analysis of burnings, lootings, et cetera?
3 A. Yes, I'm aware of that.
4 Q. And of course you would agree with me that Steinar Hjertnes would
5 know better what orders he gave and what he meant by those orders, would
6 he not?
7 A. Yeah, and I see no discrepance between giving two orders, this
8 one to all the teams and the specific orders to UNMOs in Team Knin, go
9 and do the crater analysis.
10 Q. Now, just by way of background, Mr. Munkelien, you when you got
11 to Knin, had no knowledge what Knin looked like as it concerned RSK
12 soldiers and RSK military positions during 4, 5 August of 1995, did you?
13 A. No.
14 Q. So for the sake of argument, if there were mortar positions at a
15 particular locale on either the 4th or the 5th manned by RSK soldiers,
16 you didn't know about it?
17 A. No, I didn't.
18 Q. Likewise, on the 4th or the 5th, if there were troop movements
19 through Knin on the 4th or the 5th, you wouldn't know about those either?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Now, if I could ask you a bit about this provisional assessment.
22 MR. KEHOE: And if we could pull that back on the screen and
23 pardon me for moving slowly, P64, if I may.
24 Q. Now, Mr. Munkelien, when you were tasked by Mr. Hjertnes to do
25 this analysis, you were aware, were you not, that this analysis was
1 extremely important, weren't you?
2 A. Yeah, like all the tasks that we got.
3 Q. Well, you were aware -- and if I can point to your statement, if
4 I may, the paragraph -- I'm sorry, do you have your statement before you,
5 the hard copy?
6 A. I do.
7 Q. It is Exhibit 61 and I'm looking at paragraph 41. And it looks
8 like it's -- one, two -- three or four lines down, five lines down. It
9 starts the sentence, "The survey undertaken," do you see that?
10 A. Yeah.
11 Q. It says, "The survey undertaken on that day was very much a quick
12 assessment because I suspect pressure was being applied for some report
13 to be submitted to some higher authority."
14 Who was giving that pressure to Sector South to conduct this
16 A. Like all army, you have always a higher headquarter that you feel
17 are pressing to have information, so I suppose Sector South reported, as
18 you see, directly to Zagreb. So I suppose they -- I got the feeling that
19 they wanted this update as soon as possible.
20 Q. And did Mr. Hjertnes at the time tell you that?
21 A. He was very eager to have this information as soon as possible.
22 Q. Now, this information -- by the way, at that particular time, and
23 this was the 17th of August, 1995, the Chief of Staff in Zagreb at that
24 time was Lieutenant-Colonel Leslie, wasn't it?
25 A. I can't recall his name but if you say so, you have the papers
1 ahead of you so I agree.
2 Q. Isn't it a fact, sir, that during this period of time, during
3 your meetings that Mr. Hjertnes and others believed that UN personnel who
4 had been present in Knin during Operation Storm had formed opinions
5 regarding the shelling which Lieutenant-Colonel Hjertnes felt were based
6 on assumptions not supported by facts? Is that an accurate assessment of
7 your understanding as to the position of Lieutenant-Colonel Hjertnes when
8 this assessment was being done?
9 A. No.
10 Q. You were never told that?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Were you told by the Office of the Prosecutor that Colonel
13 Hjertnes told that to them as early as January of this year?
14 A. No.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, looking at your last question --
16 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I'm really admiring the witness that he can answer
18 that question, which is: "Isn't it a fact that during this period of
19 time, during your meetings, Mr. Hjertnes and others believed," well, what
20 they believe is always very difficult to find out unless they tell you,
21 "that UN personnel who had been present in Knin during Operation Storm,"
22 which did a lot of assumptions ate least that they were present during
23 Operation Storm, all the others apart from Mr. Hjertnes had formed
24 opinions regarding the shelling which that particular person, Hjertnes
25 felt were based on assumption not supported by facts?
1 That's a whole world in one question, not only a whole world, but
2 the world in the minds of others where you have not asked one single
3 question about who told you what and break that down into acceptable
4 piece. But the answer was clear. The answer was no.
5 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour. I -- I do believe it was an
6 inaccurate use of the verb. I should not have used "believe," then said
7 "stated" or --
8 JUDGE ORIE: I would have reconsidered the whole of the question,
9 yes. Please proceed.
10 MR. KEHOE: Thank you.
11 Q. Now, your results of your examination on the 17th were verbally
12 reported to Colonel Hjertnes, weren't they?
13 A. They were verbally reported and written reported as you see it on
14 one of these hard copies that I have ahead of me.
15 Q. Are you saying that one of the exhibits that the Prosecution has
16 shown you?
17 A. I'm not sure about the document that refers to, but I have ahead
18 of me the report on the 17th signed by Kari Anttila and me on the crater
20 Q. The document that you have before you is P60.
21 A. Okay.
22 Q. If we can bring that up on the screen.
23 P60 is a document that you have told the Trial Chamber that you
24 signed in December of 1995. Is that correct, sir?
25 A. Yeah, yeah.
1 Q. Now I'm talking about your -- the results that you gave to
2 Colonel Hjertnes on 17-18 August of 1995?
3 A. Yeah.
4 Q. That report to Colonel Hjertnes was verbal, wasn't it?
5 A. Yeah.
6 Q. And then he took those results and sent them to Zagreb which
7 ended up in the provisional report?
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. Now, you knew at the time when you were doing this analysis that
10 the information that you were providing to Colonel Hjertnes was going to
11 be transmitted to a higher authority, didn't you?
12 A. Yeah. I -- it was part of a report so I suppose that he should
13 reported onwards. That was the system at that time and it still is.
14 Q. By the way, and on that score, it was -- the information that you
15 gave him was -- it was important to be accurate, wasn't it?
16 A. Yeah.
17 Q. Now, before we move into the subject of that, I want to just
18 inquire for one moment a few questions about this statement P60 that's on
19 the screen. And tell me who wrote this.
20 A. I can't recall who wrote it. I only know that I signed it
21 together with Kari Anttila.
22 Q. And -- well, tell us the circumstances under which you signed it.
23 A. I can't recall that either, sorry.
24 Q. Well, was it given to you typed up as it is here for you to sign?
25 A. No, it was definitely put together with the best of our
2 Q. And where were you when you did this?
3 A. I'm not sure.
4 Q. Well, it was in the 17th of December, I believe you told the
5 Trial Chamber, and that you were no -- you had left Sector South on 1
6 December 1995; isn't that right?
7 A. I left on the 1st of December, 1995, so if I signed this one, I
8 should have been close to Tuzla at that time.
9 Q. And when you signed this on December -- 17 December 1995, there
10 was no Sector South, was there?
11 A. No, it was more or less out by then. I left on 1st of December,
12 and I'm not sure about what happened to the rest, but I suppose by end of
13 1995, Sector South was out of history like all the other sectors.
14 Q. Sector South closed in November of 1995, didn't it?
15 A. Okay.
16 Q. Did it not?
17 A. I'm not sure.
18 Q. Okay. Well, clearly if you look at the heading on this, which
19 you say was signed as of 17 December 1995, and if you look at the logo on
20 top and the United Nations, it says it's an UNMO headquarters Sector
21 South, Knin. That's inaccurate, isn't it? Because there was no Sector
22 South when you signed this.
23 A. I can't see the point of making this one because definitely, it
24 was done in the time when you had the Sector South like you say and state
25 on the 17th of August, we did this crater analysis and at that time, you
1 had Sector South like you had all the other sectors.
2 Q. Well, sir, this information, is it based on any notes that you
3 have that -- what you set forth in this document?
4 A. It's based on the best of my knowledge. Either I had it written
5 down or it was my memory, I'm not sure, but definitely it was correct
6 what we wrote down on the date, if it was on the 17th of August or if it
7 was in December.
8 Q. And you're just saying that when you wrote this down, it was
9 correct when you wrote it?
10 A. It was correct then, and it was correct when we wrote it down.
11 Q. Well, let's explore that for one moment.
12 If you take a look at this particular document, and you have the
13 grid reference here for these impacts as WJ9778. Is that right?
14 A. That's very correct.
15 MR. KEHOE: If I may, if I could bring up 1D13-0004. Excuse me,
16 I take that -- if you could bring -- I'm sorry 1D13-0107, I apologise. I
17 apologise, Your Honour, I'm misreading these lists, if you bear with me
18 for one moment as to this. 1D13-0005.
19 Q. Now, sir, I set before you a map with the grid reference WJ9778.
20 Now, this is the grid reference that you say was accurate when you did
21 this statement in December of 1995?
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. Now, that grid reference is not the grid reference that you
24 identified previously today, did you?
25 A. No, actually it's 9678.
1 Q. Okay. Who selected -- who was at this interview with Mr. Anttila
2 and you?
3 A. Say again.
4 Q. Who from the -- any other investigator or anybody else, who was
5 at this interview with you in December of 1995 when you identified grid
6 reference WJ99 -- excuse me, WJ9778?
7 A. Sorry, I can't recall that.
8 Q. Well, in that grid reference, you do know that the hospital is in
9 that grid reference, isn't it?
10 A. Yeah.
11 Q. So were you shown a map at the time in December of 1995 where you
12 picked out this area in which the map was located?
13 A. No, I can't --
14 Q. Excuse me, the hospital was located?
15 A. No, I can't remember that, but we were very aware of where the
16 hospital were in the area.
17 Q. So I think we testified previously that -- you would agree with
18 me that analysing artillery impacts and crater analysis and direction,
19 its precision is important?
20 A. Its very important.
21 Q. And this is at least a mistake on the grid reference?
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. In fact, it is one grid reference over, isn't it?
24 A. Yeah, it's the next square.
25 Q. And in fact that next square that we talk about is significantly
1 closer to the northern barracks, isn't it?
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. Now, let's go back to P70, if we can. I'm being reminded of my
4 frailties, Your Honour, on that particular map, which is -- which is
5 1D13-0005. If we could have a D number and a number assigned to that.
6 JUDGE ORIE: It's not P70?
7 MR. KEHOE: No, no. The map that I just had before us is a
8 Defence Exhibit.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now I do understand you better, the previous
10 map we saw with the crater reference on it, Mr. Registrar, that would
11 be ...
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D80 marked for
14 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, at this time, I'll offer Defence Exhibit
15 D80 into evidence.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No objections, Mr. Russo.
17 MR. RUSSO: No, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: D80 is admitted into evidence. Please proceed.
19 MR. KEHOE:
20 Q. Now, looking at P70, sir, the area that you had identified as
21 Exhibit A, that is the area in which you said that the impacts were made?
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. And you noted for us in your direct examination and your
24 statement that the closest impact was 350 metres from the northern gate
25 entrance; right?
1 A. Northern fence.
2 Q. Northern fence?
3 A. Yeah. Northern barrack fence.
4 Q. Northern barrack fence.
5 MR. KEHOE: If we could move to our next exhibit on this level.
6 If I may, first is 1D13-0004. And if I could have -- is that --
7 Q. Now, you see what we have there is an indication of the fence
8 around the northern barracks and I submit to you that the line out to the
9 red circle is 350 metres.
10 Now, the area that you pointed out in P70 is well within that
11 350-metre circle, isn't it?
12 A. Yeah, and as I said, 300 to 500 metres in the populated area.
13 Q. Sir, what you said was that the closest --
14 A. The closest was 350, yes.
15 Q. So the closest was 350. It would be, from the fence of the
16 northern barracks, it would be where the line comes out from the barracks
17 to the red line, and 500 would be yet more north, wouldn't it?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. So the area that you pointed out in P70 was significantly less
20 than 350 metres from the fence of the northern barracks, wasn't it?
21 A. Yeah, but I mean I was given the map and I marked as to my best
22 knowledge maybe the centre of where the grenades had landed. You had
23 made it more artificial like this one, and I haven't had the time to make
24 it more accurate than I could do on the screen.
25 Q. Well, I think we pointed out previously that artillery analysis
1 and crater analysis in those specialties, it's important to be precise,
2 isn't it?
3 A. Yeah.
4 Q. And if you have the artillery taking place well outside the 300
5 to 500 area, it's not in the location of the houses that you identify for
6 the Prosecution, is it?
7 A. It's close to the houses and you see shrapnels at the houses and
8 the cars, so maybe you can mark out 500 metres from the fence for me.
9 Q. Well, sir, 500 metres would yet be further north of that area,
10 isn't it? Another 150 metres.
11 A. Yeah.
12 MR. KEHOE: Now, if I could just get a D number for that, please.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes D81 marked for
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
17 MR. RUSSO: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I didn't mean to be
18 premature, we will be objecting to the admission of this evidence on
19 certain grounds if this Exhibit gets moved for admission.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, this map on which the -- is there -- I mean it
21 seems to be an aerial photograph that unless there is any reason to
22 assume that there's any manipulation in that, but apart from that, it
23 just gives a grid reference. Is there anything wrong with the northern
24 barracks fence?
25 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, what we take exception to is the
1 testimony from Mr. Kehoe that the red line indicates a radius of 350
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, I asked already yesterday to get a map
4 with a scale on it. This Chamber is not inclined to go on struggling
5 with not knowing distances for the weeks to come.
6 Why do we not get, by the first map of Knin at the nearest book
7 shop in Knin, so that we have a scale where we can orient ourselves? I
8 take it that Mr. Kehoe was so much emphasising precision would not make
9 any mistake here in the red line saying that this is 300 metres but we
10 will check it as soon as we have a map which allows us to verify these
11 kind of things.
12 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, if I could direct the Court's attention
13 to map number 29 in the court binder is a map of Knin. It, in fact, does
14 indicate the location of the northern barracks. There is a scale on that
15 map which I believe would encompass --
16 JUDGE ORIE: It's not in evidence, but let's -- map 29. I'll
17 give you an answer whether there is any variation. Please proceed.
18 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I could tell you -- we left where this
20 came from on the lower right-hand corner, it's a Google map search.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. KEHOE: That's frankly where we took it from and --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No, I'm not criticising that you take it from
24 there but I'm saying that if we have no scale, that we can't verify any
1 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: That's what I point at yesterday, that's what I
3 point at again today. Please proceed.
4 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour. So let's turn our attention to the
5 next map which is 1D13-0004. Excuse me, then it's got to be this one,
6 0003, excuse me.
7 Q. So looking at this particular map, Mr. Munkelien, we have the
8 correct grid reference as well as the 350 metres. So looking at this,
9 you would agree with me that you had the grid reference wrong and
10 certainly the distance from the front gate, the northern gate of the
11 barracks; is that correct?
12 A. But as you see on the fence marked with the black here, the fence
13 doesn't run regularly around and I didn't talk about the gate, I was
14 talking about the fence. And the area that was hit by the 6 rockets is
15 within 350 to 500 metres from northern barracks.
16 Q. And you still maintain that that area that you identified in P70
17 is the area where it was hit?
18 A. Yeah, close to where it hit, yeah.
19 Q. And you can see from this particular map that's well within 350
20 metres from the northern fence, isn't it?
21 A. Yeah.
22 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, if we could have this marked, with the
23 Court's permission, this particular map.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Which map are we now talking about?
25 MR. KEHOE: We're now talking about 1D --
1 JUDGE ORIE: The new map. Yes. Mr. Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D82 marked for identification, Your
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
5 MR. KEHOE: And Your Honour, we will offer into evidence D81 and
7 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, we have the same objection with respect
8 to the distances, the accuracy of the distances, I understand the Court's
9 position on that.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I used my time to verify it on the basis of map 29
11 and apart from that it could be 20 or 30 or 40 metres but certainly not
12 more, is there any reason to -- have you done that?
13 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Your Honour, personally, I have.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. RUSSO: However, my exception is to --
16 JUDGE ORIE: But are we talking about 10 metres or are we talking
17 about 100 or 200 metres difference.
18 MR. RUSSO: I don't believe we're talking about several hundred
19 metres, Your Honour, how in the interest of accuracy, I think it's
20 important that we have this as a matter of evidence, not to be assumed
21 that it is within a certain range.
22 JUDGE ORIE: We are talking about the precision of weapons,
23 anything between 350 and 500 and the only thing we're talking about now
24 is about whether the area located by the witness is, well, let's say,
25 close to -- within 350 metres which can be easily verified on the basis
1 of map 29 which you are so kind to draw my attention to, and I really do
2 not understand -- again, it could be 10 or 20 metres, but 10 or 20 metres
3 may be very important if you are drafting the scale of a house, but not
4 if you are talking in terms of 350 to 300 -- to 500 metres whether that's
5 10 metres more or less and then only, and that's the only thing we are
6 doing is the -- considering the accuracy of what the witness said,
7 nothing more, nothing less, then I still do not understand it. I'll
8 discuss it with my colleagues and we'll decide on admission.
9 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 MR. KEHOE: [Microphone not activated].
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the two of them, I think, because on both of
12 them, these measurements appear.
13 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour, so pending admission, yes.
14 Q. Now, sir, let's just move on for a bit on the analysis that you
15 did, and you would agree, would you not, sir, that within that 300 --
16 well, within that particular grid, 9678, the northern barracks is a
17 legitimate military target whoever is trying to take it, whatever army is
18 trying to take it; isn't that right?
19 A. It's a legitimate --
20 Q. Legitimate, I understand.
21 A. -- legitimate target, but that doesn't necessarily give you the
22 permission to fire either artillery or rocket artillery into area that's
23 built up like this.
24 Q. And of course that depends when in fact it was fired in as well,
25 doesn't it?
1 A. Yeah, of course.
2 Q. Now, let us talk a little bit about the actual shells that were
3 fired in there.
4 If I could bring up 1D13-0001.
5 Now, before we talk about this particular photograph,
6 Mr. Munkelien, did you take any photographs of the area on the 17th of
8 A. I did not.
9 Q. Did anybody?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Well, who were you with besides Mr. Anttila?
12 A. I can't recall anybody else than me and Anttila on this one.
13 Q. And you don't recall if anybody took photographs?
14 A. No, we didn't take any photos.
15 Q. Do you recognise anybody in this particular photograph that's on
16 the screen?
17 A. Yeah, I think that I at least know the British officer to the
19 Q. And who is to the left?
20 A. I'm not sure.
21 Q. Now, this was provided by Mr. Anttila and he maintains this is
22 one of the shells, is it?
23 A. It can be, yes, I suppose if he said it, it is one of the shells.
24 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, at this time, we'll offer into evidence
25 what I think would be now D83.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, is the numbering ...
2 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit D83
3 marked for identification.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
5 MR. RUSSO: No objection, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: D83 is admitted into evidence.
7 MR. KEHOE:
8 Q. This is a British officer to the right?
9 A. Yeah, I suppose so.
10 Q. No, no, I'm just asking you.
11 A. Yeah, yeah.
12 Q. Do you recall his name?
13 A. No, I don't.
14 Q. And the gentleman to the left?
15 A. No, I don't -- I see -- I've seen the face before but I can't
16 give you the name or ...
17 Q. I understand it's been a long time.
18 You note in your statement P60 that when you took this, and I'm
19 referring to the voluntary statement, Your Honours, you took this shell
20 out of the ground. Was it in soft terrain or where was it that you took
22 A. It was in the area and I suppose between the house, it was some
23 soft terrain as well.
24 Q. And you say in your statement that you could determine definitely
25 the calibre of the weapon; is that right?
1 A. Yeah.
2 Q. And the calibre of the weapon is determined by measuring the
3 diameter of the base of the shell, isn't it?
4 A. Yeah.
5 Q. And based on that, you came to the conclusion that this was an
6 M-63 128-millimetre MRL -- 128-millimetre MRL multi-barrel rocket
7 launcher; is that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, when you took this out, and we want to refer back to what we
10 referred to before as your manual, you went back to the headquarters and
11 you went to the manual that you had, didn't you?
12 A. Well, of course we always looked into the manual as well.
13 MR. KEHOE: Can we bring up 1D13-0097 to 0098. This is a
14 two-page document, Your Honour. I think we can just put one number on
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would be ...
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D84 marked for
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
20 MR. KEHOE:
21 Q. Now, if you could just look at this cover and then if we could go
22 to the next page. Is there any way we can -- can you blow that up a bit?
23 Now, does that appear to be the book and also the photograph that
24 was the UN manual that was issued that describes the M-63 multiple-rocket
25 launcher with the 32 barrels?
1 A. Yeah, this could be the book.
2 Q. This could be the book.
3 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, at this time we'll offer into evidence
5 MR. RUSSO: No objection, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: D84 is admitted into evidence.
7 MR. KEHOE:
8 Q. Now, Mr. Munkelien, did you do any additional research on the
9 particular shell that you had in order to make the determination that it
10 was from an M-63 128 other than looking at this book?
11 A. I can't recall, but I suppose if you saw on the last photo that
12 went into evidence, you could measure at the bottom of that one and see,
13 yes, it was definitely a rocket like this.
14 Q. Okay. And you could measure the end of it to come up with the
15 calibre, the 128; right?
16 A. Yeah.
17 Q. And you did that?
18 A. I can't recall I did it with a ruler or something like that, but
19 I suppose we did that.
20 Q. But you said in your statement you would -- it was definitely the
21 calibre --
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. -- so you are sure it was a 128?
24 A. Yeah.
25 Q. Now, let us talk a little bit about 128s. In your training and
1 prior to getting there, did you have instruction as to how many 128s,
2 128-millimetre multi-barrel rocket launchers were available in the area?
3 Did you know that?
4 A. No, I can't recall that we were given any figures saying that
5 side had that and the other side had so many.
6 Q. Well, it's important to know when you're looking at a weapons
7 system what side had what weapon as opposed to the other side, isn't it?
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. Because that allows you to determine who fired or who possibly
10 fired this particular rocket?
11 A. Yeah.
12 MR. KEHOE: Well, let us go to, if we can -- now, if we can just
13 go back to the photograph of D63 for a moment -- excuse me, D83, I
14 apologise. If we can spin that and blow it up a little bit, please.
15 Q. Now, this particular shell, Mr. Munkelien, if you see the bottom
16 part of it, it's got little long lines throughout. That's where the
17 stabilisation wings were for this weapons system, weren't they?
18 A. Yeah, I suppose so.
19 Q. Okay. And they are important when you fire a 128, you have the
20 wings on there when it's spinning and it stabilises and it goes in the
21 right direction; right?
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. Is that right?
24 A. Yeah.
25 MR. KEHOE: Let us turn our attention to 1D13-0107.
1 If I could have this marked, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: May I seek one clarification of one answer.
3 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: You earlier said when Mr. Kehoe asked you about
5 stabiliser fins, you said, "I suppose so," that they were where the lines
6 were. What do you know about it and what is just your supposition?
7 THE WITNESS: I never seen the rocket in the firing position, I
8 only seen it after it landed. So I can't tell if they have any wings, I
9 just took it for granted that what the defender said, that was the wings
10 or rest of the wings.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I insist that you do not take anything for
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, I see that.
14 JUDGE ORIE: If you don't understand a question, would you please
15 tell us what you know, what you observed, what you heard, and not take
16 for granted what counsel from whatever party tells you.
17 Please proceed.
18 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
20 MR. KEHOE: I'm sorry. If we can turn to this particular
21 document, if we can have this marked.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D85 marked for identification, Your
25 MR. KEHOE: Now, just sourcing this, Your Honour, this is a
1 weapons systems chart from a JNA manual setting forth the M-63 128
2 32-barrel. The lower right-hand corner is from a Croatian Army weapons
3 system with the 12 barrel which is also a 128 but it's known as the MLR
5 Q. Now looking at this particular weapon system and on the left-hand
6 side, this is the piece of artillery that went with the weapons system
7 that you looked at from the UN manual, isn't it?
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. And if we look at this particular shell, this is a -- the
10 propulsion system at the bottom of this shell is at the bottom, isn't it?
11 A. What did you say now?
12 Q. The propulsion system and the stabilization --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, you said, your question was: The
14 propulsion system at the bottom of this shell is at the bottom, isn't
15 it," which is a question which, especially if a witness now then takes
16 matters for granted is not a very --
17 MR. KEHOE: I agree Judge.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
19 MR. KEHOE:
20 Q. Well, the propulsion and the stabilization system in this shell
21 is at the bottom, isn't it?
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. And this particular shell has no wings, no stabilization wings,
24 does it?
25 A. No, I don't see any wings so I suppose it doesn't have.
1 Q. So you would agree with me that unlike the photograph you viewed,
2 this M-63 does not have stabilization wings?
3 A. No, it does not have any stabilisation wings according to this
5 Q. Now, the bottom that was in this photograph shows a 32-barrel
6 multiple-rocket launcher, do you see that?
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. And this entire system, this 32-barrel M-63 128 was a system that
9 was in the JNA, wasn't it?
10 A. That was in the Yugoslavian army, yes.
11 Q. And the Army of Republika Srpska had that weapons system as well,
12 didn't they?
13 A. The both parties had it, yes.
14 Q. Well, at the time that -- in August of --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Just to clarify that, both parties had that, we have
16 heard reference to the JNA, we have heard reference to the Republika
17 Srpska army and the parties to the conflict apparently we are talking
18 about is the Croatian army and the Serb RSK army, so if you are talking
19 about both where the JNA was mentioned one second before that, I would
20 like to know, you're referring to the --
21 THE WITNESS: HVO.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, HVO.
23 THE WITNESS: RSK.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's then clear. Please proceed.
25 MR. KEHOE: I think just to correct the record, Judge, it says
1 HVO. The HVO was the Bosnian-Croat army, the HV is the --
2 JUDGE ORIE: I do agree. Let's say the Croatian army, yes.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: You said HVO.
5 THE WITNESS: I said HV.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then I misunderstood you and then it's also not
7 reflected correctly on the record. Please proceed. We are talking about
8 the Hrvatska Vojska, if I do understand.
9 MR. KEHOE: That's correct, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
11 MR. KEHOE:
12 Q. Now, so both the Croatian army and the army of the Republika
13 Srpska had a 128-millimetre weapons system?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. But one was the M-128 and the other, for the Croatian army, was
16 the MLR rack 128, did you know that?
17 A. I didn't know that but I thought that both parties had the M-63
18 128 and maybe they both sides had the rack system as well.
19 Q. Okay. But when you use the 128 as we see in this photograph, it
20 doesn't reflect the wings on it?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Now, let us turn to ...
23 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, at this time, we'll offer D85 into
25 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I would just like to seek some
1 clarification. It appears from the transcript Mr. Kehoe's explanation of
2 the source of the document at page 24, lines 4 through 8 -- I'm sorry,
3 74, lines 4 through 8, he indicates that this is a weapons system chart
4 from a JNA manual setting forth the M-63 128-32 barrel, the lower
5 right-hand corner is from a Croatian army weapons system with the
6 12-barrel which is about -- which is also a 128 but it's known as the MLR
7 rack. I just want to be clear whether or not is this a document which
8 was created half from a JNA manual and the picture taken from a Croatian
9 army manual. I'm not clear about that.
10 MR. KEHOE: That is correct, Judge, and I've sourced it
11 underneath as exactly where it came from. If you see the writing
12 underneath the legend on the right-hand side, this was from a JNA manual,
13 this particular description of the 128 weapons system where the 128
14 photograph is from a private collection from the Croatian army. Suffice
15 it to say that the 128 on both the rack and the M-63 is the same exact
16 shell without any wings to it. It's the same shell.
17 The Croatian army was firing at a 12-barrel, the RSK was firing
18 the old JNA in a 32.
19 JUDGE ORIE: That's at least, I take it you're not giving
20 evidence at this point.
21 MR. KEHOE: No.
22 JUDGE ORIE: But the evidence which you are indicating that you
23 will soon offer evidence, that's well understood.
24 Mr. Russo.
25 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I have no objection.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then what is D85 is admitted into evidence. Please
3 MR. KEHOE: Now, if we could move ahead and turn our attention to
5 Your Honour, if I could have this marked for identification at
6 this time.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
8 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D86 marked for identification, Your
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
11 MR. KEHOE:
12 Q. Now, Mr. Munkelien, in addition to the M-63 128, the army of the
13 Republika Srpska also had an M-77 Oganj system which also fired 128
14 millimetre, didn't they?
15 A. Yeah, according to this sketch ahead of me, this is the RSK
16 rocket system, multi-launcher rocket system,
17 Q. Well, based on your briefing at the time, you were aware that
18 they had this M-77 system, weren't you?
19 A. I was not aware that they had the M-77 system as well.
20 Q. Was there any discussion about the particular -- the other
21 systems that the army of the Republika Srpska had?
22 A. No, we -- I can't remember that we did any particular discussion
23 on this one or that one, but when we did the crater analysis, we landed
24 on this in my -- M-63, not M-77.
25 Q. And I was -- I've been reminded by my colleague that I said the
1 Republika Srpska and I meant the Republika Srpska Krajina --
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. -- and I just ask that question for the record again. Were you
4 aware that the Republika Srpska Krajina had the M-77 128?
5 A. I was not aware of that.
6 Q. Okay. Now, the M-77 128 is a different weapons system than the
7 M-63 128, isn't it?
8 A. It's a longer flying or had -- it has a definitely longer range.
9 It's the same calibre, 128 millimetre, but the range is 21 kilometres.
10 Q. And the actual way that it is fired is different in the sense
11 that the M-77 has wings on it where the M-63 is stabilised by the
12 propulsion at the bottom of the shell; correct?
13 A. That's correct.
14 MR. KEHOE: Let's us turn our attention --
15 JUDGE ORIE: If you're talking about stabilisers, do you have
16 specific knowledge on this or are you -- do you know about stabilisers
17 with this specific weapons system?
18 THE WITNESS: We have the MLRS in Norway as well so --
19 JUDGE ORIE: That's the reason --
20 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
21 JUDGE ORIE: -- why you are certain about these stabiliser --
22 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- fins or wings. Yes. Thank you. Please proceed.
24 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, at this time we would like to offer into
25 evidence D86.
1 MR. RUSSO: No objection, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: D86 is admitted into evidence.
3 MR. KEHOE: Now, let us turn our attention to 1D13-0099.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down for the interpreters. Thank
6 MR. KEHOE: I do apologise, sorry.
7 Can we have this photograph marked for identification.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
9 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D87 marked for identification, Your
11 MR. KEHOE:
12 Q. Now, do you see those photographs, Mr. Munkelien?
13 A. I do.
14 Q. And these are photographs of the entire shell of an M-63 in the
15 foreground and an M-77 in the rear; is that correct?
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. And the M-77, if we can look at it, has stabilisation wings as
18 you mentioned before towards the bottom of the shell, doesn't it?
19 A. It does.
20 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, at this time we'll offer D87 into
22 MR. RUSSO: No objection, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then just for my understanding, in the large
24 number of projectiles I see, you were referring to the ones --
25 MR. KEHOE: In the foreground.
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- horizontal in the foreground, the very short one
2 being the M-63, if I well understand, and then the long one being the
4 MR. KEHOE: Right, yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then we understood it. It's admitted into evidence.
6 MR. KEHOE:
7 Q. Now, sir, if we could just go back to looking at this photograph
8 with the wings, if we could go back to D83. Now, that shell in this
9 individual's hand, we mention has the wing places on there here broken
10 off; isn't that right?
11 A. That scars on the bottom can be from the wings, yes.
12 Q. And so if, in fact, these are wings on this particular weapon,
13 then you know now that the M-63 128 was not the weapon system that was
14 fired on Knin either the 4th or the 5th of August, 1995. Isn't that
16 A. Could I have that once again, please?
17 Q. Well, let me take it one step at a time.
18 You agree with me that the M-63 128 millimetre does not have any
19 wings, stabilizing wings on it?
20 A. That's very correct.
21 Q. And you would agree with me that the M-77 128 does have
22 stabilizing wings on it?
23 A. It does.
24 Q. Isn't that right?
25 A. It does, yeah.
1 Q. So if the shell that is in this photograph has stabilizing wings
2 on it, then you would agree with me that the shell that you picked up on
3 the 17th of August, 1995, was not an M-63 128, was it?
4 A. But I don't think I said that this particular grenade that you
5 see in the hand of this English gentleman was the one that we picked up
6 on 17th of August, did I?
7 Q. Well, would you take issue with the fact that Mr. Anttila has
8 informed the Office of the Prosecutor that it is?
9 A. So that is the photo of the same rocket that we picked up.
10 Q. That is what Mr. Anttila has informed the Office of the
12 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- let's -- this witness tells us at this
13 moment, Mr. Kehoe, that he cannot identify this projectile as the one he
14 saw at that moment, and if someone else can, then of course I think it
15 has been put to him now several times that others of which the knowledge
16 is still to be established, the basis of their knowledge is still to be
17 established, because I do understand that it's in the hands of an English
18 officer at this moment, it's still not clear to the Chamber at least at
19 this moment how to understand all this, but this witness has now clearly
20 said that on the assumption that this is the shell, that there might be a
21 problem but he is not aware of this shell in the hands on this photograph
22 is the same as the shell he has seen on that particular date.
24 MR. KEHOE: And Your Honour --
25 JUDGE ORIE: I think we leave it at that.
1 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
2 Q. And just going back and searching your memory, do you recall if
3 the shell that you took or that you seized and measured on the 17th of
4 August of 1995, did it in fact have wings down towards the barrel or
5 places where those wings were broken off?
6 A. I can't remember if it had wings or if the wings were broken off
7 but as I state here, we said it was an M-63 MLR, not the rocket, but the
8 M-63 128 MLR.
9 Q. Well, sir, you would agree with me that if in fact it had wings,
10 that you were incorrect; isn't that right?
11 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I'm going to object at this point. This
12 question has been asked and answered.
13 MR. KEHOE: This is the crux of the question. He is now saying
14 that he doesn't recall exactly what it is and the sum and substance of it
15 is if this weapons system has wings on the shell then it's not an M-63
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just reread it.
18 Yes, Mr. Kehoe is actually asking whether you are certain about
19 whether the projectile you found had wings or had no wings.
20 THE WITNESS: I'm not certain if it had wings or no wings.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
22 MR. KEHOE:
23 Q. Yes. And that particular fact is important to determine what
24 type of shell this is?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, that's apparent from the evidence which
1 you presented.
2 MR. KEHOE: Yes, sir.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So there's no reason to -- of course it's -- you
4 could even think about other matters such as the length of the
5 projectile, as you see it here, that's even far easier than the wings,
6 but ...
7 MR. KEHOE: We will go into that right now, Judge.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
9 MR. KEHOE:
10 Q. And taking that particular issue, you do know, sir, that when you
11 look at the remains of a shell, generally when you get the remains, you
12 get approximately one-third of the original shell given -- one-third
13 third of the original shell after impact, don't you?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now, looking at this -- well, let me ask you this --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Please speak into the microphone, thank you.
17 MR. KEHOE: Sorry.
18 Q. Do you know who the pre-impact length of an M-63 128 is?
19 A. You mean how far it goes into the ground?
20 Q. No. What I want to ask you the length of a 128. Because what
21 we're getting at is what's remaining, okay? Assuming that we have, as
22 you just said, we have one-third left after impact, do you know, starting
23 from the beginning, what the length of a M-63 128 shell is pre-impact?
24 A. I could guess one metre.
25 Q. Well, based on your training, if I said to you 81.4 centimetres,
1 is that about right?
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. And so the post-impact would be approximately 26 centimetres,
4 wouldn't it, if you go by the one-third figure?
5 A. It would.
6 Q. All right. Now, if we look at the 128, the long M-77 128 which
7 you identified.
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. And do you know what the length of that is, that long weapon that
10 we talked about, the M-77?
11 A. Close to one and a half to two metres, I suppose.
12 Q. So if I said to you that it was approximately 260 centimetres,
13 would you think that's about right?
14 A. Yeah.
15 Q. So then the post-impact length of that would be about 85 to --
16 about 85 centimetres; right?
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. Now, look at this photograph. Based on your training and being
19 in the armed forces for the period of time you were, can you give us an
20 approximate length of this particular shell --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, I think it's perfectly clear that you
22 made your point and we -- of course we could continue to find out that
23 82.4 divided by 3 is this and then ask the witness to give an estimate of
24 this length all based on the assumption that it is also, in this case,
25 you find one-third of the length and then to find out what we actually
1 mean by one-third is that the part of which is not split, which is still
2 more or less intact or -- but it appears clearly from this picture that
3 if you look at how it bends, that this is a considerable length and
4 without going to all kind of details on which we start guessing and
5 assuming, et cetera, et cetera, that your point has been taken, unless
6 you come up with some concrete evidence, that is, that it has been
7 retrieved, it has been measured, that -- but of course it is -- I take it
8 as you present this in support of the Defence position that if this would
9 be that shell, that then for two reasons, there is a likelihood that it
10 would not be the short -- the short one.
11 MR. KEHOE: The 128 M-63.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that point has been made. But of course there
13 are still a lot of assumptions there on the base of it. I don't know
14 whether it's of great use to explore this further with the witness.
15 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
17 MR. KEHOE:
18 Q. Were you aware, Mr. Munkelien, that the Croatian Army did not
19 have an M-77 Oganj rocket system?
20 A. I was not aware of that.
21 Q. When you took these measurements -- I don't know, Judge, how long
22 you want me to go. I'm about to take Your Honour's hint and move into
23 another area. I could --
24 JUDGE ORIE: What I'm saying that final conclusions on the basis
25 of a photograph where it's not sure that this is the same, but I do not
1 know whether you come with any evidence at a later stage that this was --
2 that there is a chain of custody such that we can assume that this is
3 the --
4 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, as an officer of the Court, what I can
5 tell you is that I take this from the statement by Kari Anttila that this
6 is the shell that Mr. Munkelien and Mr. Anttila retrieved on the 17th of
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is that challenged, Mr. Russo? Let's be very
10 MR. RUSSO: No, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: It's not challenged so whether true or not, but
12 the -- you do not challenge that Mr. Anttila has told you that what we
13 see on this photograph is the projectile which was found when a crater
14 analysis was made on the 17th of August on which Mr. Anttila and
15 Mr. Munkelien reported.
16 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, that is, I believe, what is contained
17 within Mr. Anttila's supplemental witness statement.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, I do understand. But -- well, of course,
19 he will come and testify. But for the time being, being very practical,
20 because to what extent we have to explore this in further detail, of
21 course depends on what the position of the Prosecution in this respect is
22 and the position is that this is a -- that this is what Mr. Anttila has
23 told you.
24 MR. RUSSO: That is correct, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And therefore, most likely, you are expecting to
1 confirm that at a later stage.
2 MR. RUSSO: That's correct, yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear.
4 So we have that settled. You have made your point that, as it
5 looks here, and comparing the size of ordinary persons with what we see,
6 the bended metal that there is a great likelihood that this comes from a
7 long rather than from a short projectile and it has not at this moment
8 been established which party had what kind of weapons systems. You are
9 very suggestive in that respect but --
10 MR. KEHOE: I'm not done with that yet, Judge.
11 JUDGE ORIE: We may hear evidence on that at a later stage or
12 not. Okay. That's where we stand at this moment.
13 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
15 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I'm about to go into another area. Do
16 you want to take a break now or just continue on?
17 JUDGE ORIE: A break now will be a good idea. We have a break
18 until 10 minutes to 1.00. Could you give us any indication as to --
19 MR. KEHOE: I think I will take the balance of the afternoon.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I beg your pardon?
21 MR. KEHOE: I do believe that I will take the balance of the
22 session, I believe.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And then could I ask the other parties ...
24 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, Your Honour. I would estimate one and a half
1 JUDGE ORIE: One and a half hours. Mr. Kuzmanovic.
2 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, depending on what happens before
3 me, anywhere between 45 minutes to an hour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. KEHOE: If I could just say, Judge, I seriously doubt that I
6 will finish within this afternoon on this issue.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we already give Mr. Munkelien his break.
8 Could you please escort Mr. Munkelien out of the courtroom.
9 We will resume in approximately 20 minutes, Mr. Munkelien.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I urge the parties to be as efficient as
12 possible in examination in chief and cross-examination. For example,
13 Mr. Kehoe, the issue that this witness mainly served in medical
14 positions, it would have taken me approximately 40 to 50, perhaps 60
15 seconds to find that out rather than to go through this whole matter in
16 five, six or seven minutes.
17 We have similar matters. You're seeking the witness to repeat
18 matters that are clearly in his statement, to have him repeat that again
19 even where I wonder whether you could ever even expect give another
20 answer, if there are any good reasons to believe that he might be
21 mistaken there. Similarly when we are talking about what a leading
22 question is, if Mr. Russo would not have asked the witness whether a
23 crater analysis is not the same as measuring a distance from an impact to
24 another place, I would not have thought -- it would not even have come to
25 my mind that it would be the same.
1 So therefore, to say they are leading is inadmissible or at least
2 you objected to that leading, I though would not have any impact on --
3 MR. KEHOE: My objection on that score, Judge, was it was
4 generally a pattern of leading. I let it go for a while until we start
5 getting into that, that then becomes the practice and that's when I
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's then understood. Then take the
8 strongest example next time to --
9 MR. KEHOE: Yes, sir, I will.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and not a weak one. Let's -- I urge,
11 therefore, the parties to be as concise in their examination in chief and
12 cross-examination. So Mr. Kehoe, you are encouraged --
13 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- to see -- I think you are -- you are convinced
15 that you can do it. So then we will see how you manage to do that.
16 MR. KEHOE: Yes, sir.
17 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a break, we'll resume at 10 minutes to
19 --- Recess taken at 12.32 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 12.55 p.m.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
23 Mr. Russo, no further news about distances on maps? It surprised
24 the Chamber, having checked this for the limited number of metres that
25 this would -- an objection.
1 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I want to be clear about that. What my
2 objection was is not to whether or not this is actually within 350
3 metres. What I'm trying to avoid is the situation where we have one
4 piece of evidence which comes in which purports to be by a certain scale
5 and then we have other evidence which comes in with a scale on a similar
6 map or on the same map and then we get into a battle of scales.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Don't worry about that. Don't worry about that. No
8 scale will escape my attention.
9 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed. The objection stands or doesn't
12 MR. RUSSO: It no longer stands, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I think it was D81 and D82 if I am correct,
14 Mr. Registrar.
15 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
17 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
18 Q. Now, going back to -- Mr. Munkelien, going back to P60. In P60,
19 your voluntary statement, if we could put that back up on the screen very
20 quickly. The actual -- I guess it's the third page. That's it.
21 In this statement, you say the shells had been fired from the
22 direction of approximately 20 degrees north by north-east. Now, you did
23 a crater analysis, did you not, or looked at where the impact was and
24 then made an analysis as to what direction it came from. Correct?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. And let me show you 1D13-0101.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would receive number ...
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D88 marked for
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
6 MR. KEHOE:
7 Q. Now, sir, I will tell you that this particular map, if we could
8 just -- can we just blow it up a little -- no, it's okay, it's fine. I'm
9 not sure you can get it, it will get outside the margins.
10 This particular map is from the area where you said the impact
11 was, so the grid reference there is WJ9678.
12 Now, from that grid reference on the point of impact, you said
13 that it was approximately 20 degrees north by north-east. And from this
14 map, sir, you would agree with me that that goes up into the area of
15 Strmica, isn't it?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. Now Strmica, well, you don't know whether or not this shell was
18 fired on the 4th of August or the 5th of August, do you?
19 A. No.
20 Q. And you do know that on the 5th of August that the RSK forces
21 were in control of Strmica, weren't they?
22 A. I don't know about that.
23 Q. Well, you do know that there was no -- virtually no Serb civilian
24 population in Knin on the 5th because they left or were in the UN camp;
1 A. Yeah, that's correct.
2 Q. Okay. But this is an accurate assessment of the direction that
3 the weapon was fired from; right?
4 A. Yeah.
5 Q. Okay. Let me turn your attention --
6 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, at this time I'll offer it into
7 evidence, D88. I'm not sure if there was an objection or I'll proffer it
9 MR. RUSSO: There was no objection, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then D88 is admitted into evidence.
11 MR. KEHOE: May I bring up a sitrep for 5 August 1995, that would
12 be 1D10-0367 to 1D10-0376.
13 Your Honour, this is a sitrep from -- an UNCRO sitrep from 5
14 August, 1995, if we can just mark it and I will move it into evidence.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D89 marked for
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
19 MR. KEHOE: And if we can turn to page -- it's like four pages
20 in, Shaun, it's 1D10-0370, I don't know if that's easier than taking
21 three pages or ...
22 If we can go to the third paragraph at about 051500 hours, if we
23 could blow that up. No, up, up. I'm sorry. Yes, that one. Actually,
24 that's great.
25 Q. Now, sir, Mr. Munkelien, can you read that, it says at about
1 05 -- "on the 5th of August, at 1500 hours, Arsk soldiers of unknown
2 strength were seen occupying defensive positions in general area of
3 Strmica," and the grid reference is XJ 0091. "Tanks and mortars were
4 seen in the same positions. At 051815, they fired 12 rounds of artillery
5 from Strmica towards Knin."
6 Now, when you were doing your analysis, were you aware of this
7 fact from a UN sitrep report?
8 A. I haven't seen this report before.
9 Q. Because you weren't there and --
10 A. No.
11 Q. -- and you didn't go back and read it?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Okay. Fair enough. When you were doing this crater analysis, do
14 you know where these 12 rounds of artillery that the RSK soldiers fired
15 from the Strmica area into Knin, do you know where they landed?
16 A. No.
17 Q. But Strmica is the direction that the shells came from that you
18 picked out of the ground?
19 A. Yeah, on 20 degrees, that means north north-east so according to
20 the map that you showed us ahead of this one, it should be from Strmica,
22 Q. Based on all of the analysis that you've done, Mr. Munkelien, you
23 don't know who fired that --
24 A. No.
25 Q. -- weapon system --
1 A. No, we don't.
2 Q. Now, when this information was presented, it was I think you told
3 us previously, provided to Colonel Hjertnes?
4 A. Yeah. As I said, we reported to the headquarter as such, not to
5 the Colonel but to the headquarter. On special occasion when he had
6 given the specific order, it went directly back to him and reported to
7 the person and not to the headquarter.
8 Q. And this particular item was then, if we could pull up -- well,
9 in the provisional assessment, the provisional assessment basically - and
10 I don't want to quote it exactly - said there was concentrated fire on
11 military targets. That's what the provisional assessment said; right?
12 A. Hmm.
13 Q. Is that correct?
14 A. Yeah.
15 Q. Now, the information that you provided in -- to the -- up the
16 line to Colonel Hjertnes and others was then incorporated into that
17 report that was then sent up to the UN, wasn't it?
18 A. Yeah, I mean we reported and they, like you saw on the reports,
19 was taken away some minor things and then this special issue was reported
21 Q. And then it was -- were you aware of -- well let me go to
22 1D10-0239 to 1D10-0248. This is a report of the Secretary-General
23 submitted pursuant to the Security Council Resolution 1009 dated 23
24 August 1995.
25 Your Honour, can we have this marked and we move it into
2 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections?
3 MR. RUSSO: No objection, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then it is admitted into evidence.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D90, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you.
7 And going back to the previous one, I can it was D81 and D82,
8 where the distance -- where you objected initially, Mr. Russo.
9 MR. RUSSO: That's correct, Your Honour, I did withdraw that
11 JUDGE ORIE: D81 and D82 are admitted into evidence as well.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. KEHOE:
14 Q. Going to the second page of this document on paragraph 5. And
15 looking at that first sentence on paragraph 5, it notes that: "On 4
16 August 1995, the Croatian Army launched the attack in Sectors North and
17 South and Knin fell on 5 August, following concentrated shelling."
18 Were you aware of this report, Mr. Munkelien?
19 A. No, it's the first time I see it here now.
20 Q. Did you ever see a report published in the UN through the
21 Secretary-General or anybody else that specifically criticised, just take
22 the Secretary-General, that specifically criticised the Croatian Army for
23 indiscriminate shelling of Knin on 4 and 5 August of 1995?
24 A. Can you get that again, did I ever see any document.
25 Q. Any report going to the Secretary-General, any media -- any
1 report going to the Secretary-General, let's start with that, that stated
2 that the Croatian Army engaged in indiscriminate fire on the 4th --
3 indiscriminate artillery fire on the 4th and 5th of August, 1995?
4 A. No, I can't recall any things that I've -- on this one.
5 Q. Now, you maintain that the provisional assessment was not
6 accurate; is that right?
7 A. What do you mean?
8 Q. Well, let's just go back up to the provisional assessment. It
9 might be easier just to look from the document and we're looking at P64.
10 Now, the provisional assessment that's been received into
11 evidence, if we can just pull that up a little -- sorry.
12 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
13 MR. KEHOE: If we can just push that up a little bit. Okay.
14 Q. In paragraph 2, it notes that, "In general, shelling was
15 concentrated against military objectives. The damages caused by shelling
16 to civilian establishments is concentrated to the close vicinity of
17 military objectives. Only a few, three to five impacts, is observed in
18 other urban areas."
19 In paragraph 1, it notes that the report is based on a rundown of
20 70 per cent of Knin town and gives only a brief overview of the
22 Now, it's your position that that assessment is inaccurate; is
23 that right?
24 A. That's true, because later, it turned out on the days that it was
25 more shelling or more damage caused by shelling that we found out on the
2 Q. Well, let's talk about that. And let us go to paragraph 41 of
3 your statement.
4 A. Yeah.
5 Q. The statement that I'm referring to is P61.
6 In your statement, sir, you point to several incidents and if you
7 look at your statement paragraph 41, the first statement that you refer
8 to you say that it was inaccurate, said, "On 19 August," and this is
9 midway through paragraph 41.
10 "For example, on 19 August, the patrols concentrating on
11 north-west Knin town have observed 6 houses destroyed by shelling."
12 Now, let's go back to P67 which you use to assess this and let's
13 look at that particular date.
14 On the 19th of August, in P67 in paragraph B where you point to 6
15 houses destroyed by shelling --
16 A. Yeah.
17 Q. -- you were not even on that patrol, were you?
18 A. What point are you referring to now?
19 Q. Okay, sir. Let me take you to this. In your paragraph 31, you
20 say, "The patrols that were conducted after that date indicated that this
21 early assessment was flawed. The UNMO periodical report 27 August
22 confirms that in -- it contains details of shelling damage observed
23 during the patrols. For example, on August 19th, the patrols
24 concentrating on north-west of Knin have observed 6 houses destroyed by
1 Now, I go back to your document dated the 27th of August which is
2 P67 and I turn to the entry on the 19th of August that mentions 6 houses
3 destroyed by shelling, and it also has the individuals who were on that
4 patrol and you are not one of them, are you?
5 A. No, but it doesn't show here the last one is on the 12th so --
6 Q. Just if you could answer my question. What you highlight in your
7 statement is this entry on the 19th of August where 6 houses are
8 destroyed by shelling and you use that entry to argue that the
9 provisional assessment was inaccurate, don't you?
10 A. Yes, and to my knowledge, either I was on the patrol that was out
11 that day, or I was the man who got the report and reported it back like
12 you see it here.
13 Q. There are the list of the individuals that are in that patrol
14 under the entry, isn't there?
15 A. Yeah, but as you see under C, during the same day, the team also
16 observed the following.
17 Q. Sir, there's a -- the patrol names are there and your name isn't
18 there, isn't it?
19 A. No, that's very correct. But as I also say, there may be a
20 patrol earlier that day that I was part of.
21 Q. Now, that particular patrol that says the 6 houses destroyed --
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. -- there's no grid reference for those particular houses to
24 determine whether or not those houses were in any proximity to military
25 targets, is there?
1 A. No, there is not. It's only said six north-west of Knin town 94
2 houses slightly damaged and looted and 6 houses destroyed by shelling
3 and/or burning.
4 Q. Now, this information was then given to the chain of command and
5 they made an assessment, excuse me, they made an assessment that the
6 shelling was, for lack of a better term, not indiscriminate and proper;
8 MR. RUSSO: Objection, Your Honour. Objection.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
10 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I'm going to object to the
11 characterisation of what was reported.
12 MR. KEHOE: I will withdraw the question, Judge, and move on.
13 Q. Let's go down to your next entry. Going back to your statement,
14 your 2008 statement. If you move down to the next entry, "On the next
15 day," and this is again at paragraph 41.
16 A. Yeah.
17 Q. "On the next day, 20 August in the south-west of Knin, 16 houses
18 fully destroyed and another 16 partly destroyed by shelling."
19 If we look again at the entry in P67, do you see the entry in
20 P67, sir?
21 A. Yeah, for the 20th.
22 Q. Okay. Again, sir, your name is not in that patrol.
23 A. If you could lower it a little bit, I could see the rest of --
24 MR. KEHOE: If you could do that, all the way down to the bottom.
25 A. No, that's correct, my name is not there, but then I was either
1 on the earlier patrol than this one, or I was the man who was the
2 signaller and got the report directly on radio or in written and made the
3 report to higher headquarter.
4 Q. And you remember this specific instance when you were interviewed
5 on the 9th and 10th of January, 2008; is that right?
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. Now, not only are you not on that patrol, there are no grid
8 references for that location either, are there?
9 A. No, there is general area. I think that was south-west of Knin.
10 Q. There are no grid references for us to determine whether or not
11 there are military targets in that area?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Do you know, in these particular entries, do you know if there
14 was any fighting going on in those areas?
15 A. No, I don't know since I was not present at that time.
16 Q. Yet did you check, did you check any UN reports or anything to
17 determine before you made this statement in 2008 whether or not there had
18 been fighting taking place in these locations?
19 A. No, I did not.
20 Q. You just concluded that the fact that houses had been damaged
21 resulted in your conclusion -- excuse me. Let me withdraw that. You
22 just concluded based on the fact that the houses were damaged that the
23 provisional assessment from Steinar Hjertnes was incorrect?
24 A. Yeah, I saw that some of these houses was not added in in the
25 list and that's why we said that was inaccurate when I was there in
1 January 2008.
2 Q. Well, you say it was not in the list. Isn't it a fact, sir, that
3 another report after the provisional assessment was sent to the UN by
4 Colonel Hjertnes approximately a week later and he told the OTP that the
5 conclusion in that report was consistent with the provisional assessment?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo. Are you asking whether it's a fact
7 that --
8 MR. KEHOE: Does he know it.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but part of your question was also whether
10 Colonel Hjertnes told the OTP something, and unless there's any reason to
11 assume that this witness would know what Colonel Hjertnes has told the
13 MR. KEHOE: Well, he does know some of the things that Colonel
14 Hjertnes told the OTP.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but your question was, you say it was not on
16 the list, isn't it a fact, sir, that another report after the provisional
17 assessment was sent to the UN by Colonel Hjertnes approximately one week
18 later and he told the OTP that the conclusions in that report were
19 consistent with the -- provisional assessment.
20 So you're asking this witness without laying any foundation
21 whether he learned what Mr. Hjertnes told you.
22 MR. KEHOE: In the spirit of precision, Judge, it was a terrible
23 question and I will re-ask the question.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. KEHOE:
1 Q. Do you know that Colonel Hjertnes in January of 2008 told the OTP
2 that there was a final assessment, that it was done a week later, and
3 that it was consistent with the provisional assessment? Do you know
5 A. No, I did not.
6 Q. Okay. Were you told at the time that there was is a final
7 assessment done? And I'm talking about back in August of 1995. Were you
8 told at the time that there was a final assessment done?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Other than the document that we see in P60, which is your
11 statement, did you file any -- which is your statement from December of
12 1995, did you file any other reports indicating specifically that you
13 concluded that the shelling was indiscriminate?
14 A. No, I haven't made any other reports, as far as I can remember.
15 Q. Now, let us change subjects just a bit, sir, and I want to
16 mention just a few items to you. One of the items that I mention to you
17 is the statement in your 1999 statement -- excuse me.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, I have to ask you, you said, and I'm
19 really asking you to keep in full control of the details of your
20 questions as well. You asked the witness, "Other than the document that
21 we see in P60, did you file any other reports indicating specifically
22 that you concluded that the shelling was indiscriminate?"
23 Where do I find in P60 that the witness specifically indicates as
24 a conclusion that the shelling was indiscriminate? I do not read that in
1 MR. KEHOE: It doesn't say that, but what I --
2 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, but therefore just as you are insisting on
3 precision, it's very suggestive and it's the kind of suggestions which we
4 can do without. I mean the points you are making are important enough
5 without --
6 MR. KEHOE: The -- if I may, Judge. The words indiscriminate
7 aren't used but if you look at the last sentence in that statement, and I
8 did paraphrase this, "Accuracy for this weapon is considered rather poor,
9 300 to 500 metres, it is an aerial weapon and not designed to be used
10 against specific targets and should not be used in areas where civilian
11 populations can be put in danger."
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but it's still to be established whether this
13 was an area where civilian population was put in danger, whether it was
14 not targeting, as you say, a military target.
15 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: That's at least your suggestion at a distance of 300
17 or 320 or 330 metres.
18 Let's control our language.
19 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: If we stick to the facts including the text of this
21 report, I think the matters are already important enough and I'm not
22 saying that you're not drawing our attention to important matters but I'm
23 just asking you to be very precise in the language you use.
24 MR. KEHOE: I understand, Judge, and I will be guided by that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
1 MR. KEHOE: If we can direct our attention to 1D13-0089 to
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would be number ...
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit D91 marked for
6 MR. KEHOE: I apologise, Mr. Munkelien, I don't have a hard copy
7 for this.
8 THE WITNESS: No, I don't have but it's okay on the screen.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
10 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I do have hard copies if any of the
11 parties ...
12 JUDGE ORIE: If that would -- I don't know how extensive your
13 questioning will be.
14 MR. KEHOE: It's not very extensive, but it's a lot easier for
15 the witness.
16 JUDGE ORIE: But you know it's there available for the witness.
17 MR. KEHOE: If I may, Judge, with all due respect, Mr. Russo,
18 could you be kind enough to give it to the witness because I think it
19 would just be easier for him.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. KEHOE: It would certainly be faster, Judge.
22 Q. This particular document is a statement that you gave on 4
23 September 1999 to the Office of the Prosecutor; is it not, sir?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. And carries your signature and initials, initials at the bottom
1 of the pages and your attestation at page 3; is that right?
2 A. Yeah.
3 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, we'll offer into evidence Exhibit D91.
4 MR. RUSSO: No objection, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: D91 is admitted into evidence.
6 MR. KEHOE:
7 Q. Mr. Munkelien, on page 2 of this document, there was a -- and if
8 we can turn to -- yeah, that's the page. If we can turn to that second
9 paragraph, Shaun, please, if we can turn to that 17th of August, in that
10 last sentence of that second paragraph you say "I do not know whether
11 Mr. Anttila completed his assessment of the damages of the buildings in
12 Knin." Do you see that, sir?
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. Mr. Anttila was an engineer, wasn't he?
15 A. He was --like I said, I was medical corps, he was in army
16 engineer areas, not necessarily from the engineering corps, not being an
17 engineer himself but being from the engineering corps of the army of
19 Q. Did he have that assignment to assess the damages of buildings in
21 A. He got that assignment as an UNMO or he could have been picked --
22 any of the other UNMOs could have been picked for that one as well.
23 Q. Okay. But you don't know if he completed it?
24 A. No, but now I see that one of the evidences, the thick that one
25 you showed me earlier starting with Sibenek , I know that he was
1 completing the whole Sector South area concerning this damages to
3 Q. So these aren't two reports, there's just one?
4 A. No. I think it's the same one.
5 Q. Okay. Now, let's just shift gears a little bit going into some
6 of the items that you -- were not discussed on direct examination but are
7 in your statement.
8 MR. KEHOE: My apologies to the interpreters, Your Honour.
9 Q. In your 2008 statement, sir, which is P61, when you are talking
10 about lootings and burnings, at the bottom of that -- the last
11 paragraph -- paragraph 37, that would be P60, or P61, excuse me, P61. If
12 we can just blow up paragraph 37 a little bit. That's what we're going
13 to be talking about.
14 The last couple of sentences in that paragraph, Mr. Munkelien,
15 say, "Because of the ways in which the properties were damaged, I formed
16 the view that there was an element of revenge by the people doing the
17 damage. This was also suggested by some of the Serbian civilians that I
19 Now, tell me about that, sir, this element of revenge. What kind
20 of damage was in there that people were coming back to exact revenge?
21 A. If you are --
22 MR. RUSSO: Objection, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
24 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I'm going to object to the form of the
25 question. The question was, "People coming back for revenge." I don't
1 believe that's a correct characterisation of what the witness indicated.
2 He indicated that there was an element of revenge to the destruction in
3 general, I don't see any indication of people coming back.
4 MR. KEHOE: The indication is that the Croats came back into the
5 area --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- if -- perhaps it's best to put to the
7 witness exactly the words.
8 MR. KEHOE: Yes. If we can just go to this.
9 Q. What did you mean by these two sentences?
10 A. I mean that it was definitely looting going on the whole time,
11 and if you start with the rings and the gold, if they had any, and the
12 money that they started to loot in the beginning, then they came back and
13 took the inside furniture, and then, as I say, they ended up with taking
14 the doors and the door frames and the windows. It looks like nobody
15 should ever go back to inhabit this house again from that particular part
16 of the population that had been living there before.
17 Q. When you use the word "revenge" when you put that in this
18 statement, were you aware of what happened to the Croatian population
19 from 1991 to 1995 in the Krajina?
20 A. I was definitely knowing that I think no sides were without guilt
21 in this one.
22 Q. So these people that -- when you use the word "revenge" were you
23 using that word in -- knowing what had happened to the Croats between
24 1991 to 1995?
25 A. I didn't use it for discriminating or anything like that. I was
1 just using it as a description of what I felt was happening. It was
2 definite that they didn't want people to come back to that house again.
3 Q. Now, in the lootings themselves -- by the way, you note in your
4 statement at paragraph 34 of that same statement that, "As far as
5 identifying soldiers who were looting by their unit, although I can say
6 that I saw Croatian soldiers looting, I saw Croatian soldiers who had the
7 insignia of the 4th Guards Brigade on their arm. I cannot recall that I
8 witnessed members of the 4th Guards Brigade looting."
9 Now, what is the time frame of this paragraph?
10 A. I can't just recall, but remember, I was there from the 14th of
11 August until the 1st of December. So during that period, and it --
12 towards October-November, it diminished in frequency.
13 Q. Now, in August and in September, were you aware of where the 4th
14 Guards Brigade was fighting?
15 A. No, I was not aware where they were fighting. I only saw
16 insignias and uniforms from HV soldiers in the area.
17 Q. So you had regular briefings in UN headquarters, didn't you?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. And you were aware, when you got there, that the fighting between
20 the Croatian Army and the Serbs, be it the Krajina Serbs or the Bosnian
21 Serbs was now [Realtime transcript read in error "not"] taking place up
22 in the Bosnian-Croatian border?
23 A. I know.
24 Q. And that started -- was going on when you got there on the 14th,
25 wasn't it?
1 A. Yeah.
2 Q. Okay. And the regular soldiers of the Croatian army, of course,
3 you knew from the debriefings were up there fighting, weren't they?
4 A. Yeah, they were up there fighting.
5 Q. And that fighting continued through almost your entire tour in
6 Sector South, didn't it?
7 A. Yes, it did.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
9 MR. MISETIC: I apologise for interrupting Your Honour but I
10 believe the transcript incorrectly, at line 19, page 108 says the
11 fighting was not taking place up in the Bosnian-Croatian border.
12 JUDGE ORIE: That apparently is a mistake.
13 MR. KEHOE:
14 Q. Now, going back to this looting issue, if we can go back to D91.
15 Now, in D91 if we can move in the last paragraph, "In particular, I
16 remember ..."
17 It says, "In particular, I remember one incident when I was on
18 patrol to Plavno valley together with one more officer. I do not
19 remember his name. And a female Serbian interpreter in the end of
20 August, beginning of September 1995. Moving along the small road into
21 one of the hamlets, we noticed some military vehicles, trucks and vans,
22 on the road and several HV soldiers entering and exiting the houses. We
23 left our interpreter in the car and came up to the soldiers. They were
24 definitely the Croatian soldiers wearing military uniforms and guns. We
25 explained to them that we were trying to help the people and that they
1 were not supposed to be there and asked them not to make things" it says
2 worth but I believe means worse, "make things worse."
3 It was a very difficult situation. We were not armed. I noticed
4 that there was some electronic equipment in the cars. So those soldiers
5 were definitely in the process of looting. After we spoke to them, they
6 left. We went to speak to local Serbs. There were only three elderly
7 people left. They told us that the looters were coming to the area very
8 often. As I understood on that day, those Serbs were not visited by the
9 looters. The soldiers looted only abandoned houses."
10 Mr. Munkelien, I want to address your attention to this line
11 here, "So after we spoke to them, they left." You had a conversation
12 with these -- in uniform, and told them not to do it and they went away,
13 didn't they?
14 A. They did.
15 Q. They didn't tell you that they had orders to do this, did they?
16 A. No, they didn't tell us that they had orders. It was a private
17 initiative, I think.
18 Q. So private initiative, these guys were doing it on their own?
19 A. Yeah, but they were still in uniform, still using military
20 vehicles, still using military weapons.
21 Q. They never told you that anybody gave them permission to do that,
22 did they?
23 A. No.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, nevertheless, you said you think it was
25 private initiative. On what was that thought based?
1 THE WITNESS: I don't think it was an overall order from any
2 parties to do the looting.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now that's clear. That's as a matter of fact
4 are the two ends of a long scale, private initiative or an overall order.
5 That's one extremely to the one side and the other one to the other side.
6 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
7 JUDGE ORIE: What was it based or was it just an impression that
8 you saw a couple of people not in any way organised going into the houses
9 and is that on the basis of that impression that you say, "I think it was
10 a private initiative"?
11 THE WITNESS: No, but since they gave in so easily when the
12 unarmed UNMOs spoke to them, I think it was something like that that they
13 felt, okay, we are on the wrong place.
14 JUDGE ORIE: So that's your conclusion on the basis of their
16 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
17 JUDGE ORIE: On what you told them.
18 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. Please proceed.
20 MR. KEHOE:
21 Q. Now, I want to go back to some of the documents that were
22 received in evidence during the Prosecution case concerning burnings and
23 damage to houses and I believe what we were talking about was the -- bear
24 with me one moment -- it is P66, if we could bring that up on the screen.
25 Now, this is the document that you said was prepared by Kari
1 Anttila; is that right?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. Okay. And that you noted for us that -- and if we can just shift
4 back to P65, that this is the type of form that was used among other --
5 was this the only form used to put this document together?
6 A. That was one of the forms and in addition, it was the daily
7 sitreps, of course.
8 Q. Sitreps that you did all the time?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. In this particular form, in line 1, if we can blow up line 1. It
11 notes that this is the Plavno Valley including Jovici, Basinac, Torbice,
12 Grmusa, Stojakovici and this is by the Podkonje team, right?
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. Okay. Let's go back to this document and we go back -- the
15 document I want to take you back to is 66. Mine says 200 -- it says 207
16 damaged with these villages there.
17 And on the -- now, if we turn to the one, two, three, four -- on
18 the fifth page, I believe Team Podkonje starts. Do you see that, sir?
19 A. Yeah.
20 Q. Now, I see on this document that we have the villages of Torbice,
21 Grmusa and Stojakovici. Where are the villages of Jovici and Basinac,
22 B-a-s-i-n-a-c? Could you take a look for me please.
23 A. Yes, I have been looking and --
24 Q. They're not there?
25 A. They are not there.
1 Q. Okay. Well, if -- and there are entries for this document in
2 some villages where there is no damage whatsoever; right? Like Grmusa
3 and Torbice right?
4 A. At least no figures there, so ...
5 Q. Well, I mean, there is not even any name for the two villages for
6 Jovici and Basinac, is there?
7 A. No. Maybe that was small so it was added into the neighbour's
8 village or something like that.
9 Q. Well, sir, all of these villages that are here Basinac, Trice and
10 I'm reading through the villages in P65 Grmusa and Stojakovici, they were
11 all little tiny villages, aren't they?
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. So they are no bigger or no smaller than Jovici or Basinac?
14 A. No, and there is nothing on the next page either.
15 Q. So you would say at this point that P66 is inaccurate?
16 A. No, I wouldn't say that because it's -- according to what they
17 had for information, it's good enough.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
19 MR. KEHOE: Sir, sir.
20 JUDGE ORIE: The witness asked whether there was anything on the
21 next page. Perhaps you answered that question. Of course we can see it.
22 MR. KEHOE: We can go to the next page, I'm sorry. I think he
23 looked at the next page and said there was nothing there either but we
24 can certainly go --
25 JUDGE ORIE: I thought he was asking whether there was anything
1 on the next page.
2 THE WITNESS: I did.
3 MR. KEHOE: I apologise. I do apologise. I thought he said if
4 we can turn to the next page.
5 THE WITNESS: The last -- on the top page is also Plavno valley
6 but according to, as I said, the information he had, he has made a list
7 and if he slipped some, that's okay. It's not on the list so ...
8 MR. KEHOE:
9 Q. So it's okay.
10 Now, the other matter here was data that was -- the document
11 maintains data on population left in Sector South destroyed houses after
12 Operation Storm.
13 Did you know that, if I may, for instance, on page -- one, two,
14 three -- four, beginning with Donji Lapac. Now, there's a whole listing
15 of Donji Lapac there, right?
16 A. Yeah.
17 Q. And you are aware that this particular area -- well, that the
18 area in Knin in any event, was in the Split military district under
19 the -- generally in the Split military district, you are aware of that,
20 are you not?
21 A. Now you're telling me so now I know it.
22 Q. So were you aware, for instance, that Donji Lapac was not in the
23 Split military district?
24 A. No, I didn't know that.
25 Q. Likewise if you can turn to -- would it be best to give you the
1 page number which is at the bottom, 0054-8199. Should be Otocac.
2 Otocac, that was likewise not -- do you know, that was not in the
3 Split military district?
4 A. No, I didn't -- you tell me, so yes, I said?
5 Q. Now, sir -- so you don't know?
6 A. No, I don't know.
7 Q. Now, sir, you said that this P65 which is the type of form that
8 was used to list some of damages to buildings was used in conjunction
9 with the sitreps; right?
10 A. Yeah.
11 Q. And do you know where any of these documents are?
12 A. No, I don't know. I mean some of the sitreps from the different
13 teams is taken care of, some is not, as far as I read this court earlier
14 because this from Otocac, that was given in to Sector South like Donji
15 Lapac, like Podkonje or Knin Team, they all went in like a normal sitrep
16 with attachments or something like that and that was then the basic for
17 the report that you have as evidence in front of me on the screen.
18 Q. I mean when you're putting these documents together, obviously
19 it's important to be as accurate as possible, right?
20 A. Yeah.
21 Q. And we've obviously maintained in P65 at least two villages that
22 were in one of these reports didn't make it to Mr. Anttila's final
23 report; right?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. And by the way, if we look at what the Prosecution has put in,
1 and if I can just get the correct number, P68, which is the summary. In
2 this summary that you put into evidence is a listing of sitreps that
3 detail humanitarian violations from August to September; right?
4 A. Yeah.
5 Q. And the sitreps should, in fact, incorporate as many of them do,
6 the number of houses that are burnt; isn't that right?
7 A. Yeah, it should mirror the one that given in that report, because
8 then you have the sitreps from the different teams, then you have the
9 sector headquarter, and then the humanitarian part of these reports is
10 taken out on this one because this is humanitarian sitreps. And then you
11 have other things, military transport, movements of troops like
12 everything that we reported in the teams.
13 Q. If we move back to P66 and go to the last page. Mr. Anttila has
14 concluded that with the number of 21.744 buildings, approximately 18.000
15 are partially or completely damaged; right?
16 A. Yeah, I see the figures. There is a total down there so ...
17 Q. Right. So my question to you, sir, is: Do you know that the
18 amount of houses that were damaged and destroyed that is set forth in the
19 summary of humanitarian violations, which is P68, amounts to
20 approximately 1.350?
21 A. Okay.
22 Q. Now, that's a discrepancy of almost 15.000 between the sitreps
23 where this information is going to be contained, and the information that
24 Mr. Anttila put together, isn't it?
25 A. Yeah. And I suppose this is the right figures because definitely
1 we were the, and I quote, "the eyes and the ears of the Security Council"
2 so if somebody is reliable, we definitely United Nations Military
4 Q. But the information that is set forth in Mr. Anttila's statistics
5 are not set forth in this summary of humanitarian violations, is it?
6 A. I suppose I don't need to answer that one.
7 Q. Well the answer is no, isn't it?
8 A. I think you are putting me into words and I didn't say no, so
9 could you repeat the question?
10 Q. Well, the information that was in this statistical compilation by
11 Mr. Anttila, that information on the number of houses is not contained in
12 the sitreps that you produced into evidence previous today --
13 A. But the --
14 Q. Excuse me, that are supposed to list the number of partially
15 destroyed and destroyed houses; isn't that a fact?
16 A. The list that's there is definitely the right figures for houses
17 looted, burned, damaged during this period.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
19 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: When the witness was hesitant to answer your
21 question and when he asked you to repeat the question, you came up with a
22 rather different question.
23 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: You're aware of that. The second time you refer to
25 sitreps where the first time you refer to something totally different.
1 MR. KEHOE: It's all the same document, Judge, it's the same
2 document. The humanitarian summary is the sitreps that were put together
3 in P68. It sitreps and it's called the summary of humanitarian
4 violations but it's the same document that the Prosecution put into
6 JUDGE ORIE: The first time your question was, "But the
7 indication that is set forth in Mr. Anttila's statistics are not set
8 forth in this summary of humanitarian violations."
9 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And the summary then is what?
11 MR. KEHOE: Is the sitreps. Is what the Prosecution put in that
12 I objected to, which is the sitreps that were taken out and just put into
13 this summary that --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Well then at least this question is quite confusing
15 and quite differently phrased from what you did later where you
16 specifically referred to the sitreps.
17 MR. KEHOE: In an effort to clarify exactly what I was talking
18 about, Judge, because the document, while it says summary, is, in fact, a
19 summary of sitreps.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 I'm looking at the clock. We are already far beyond where we
22 should be.
23 Mr. Munkelien, apart from your testimony, as you are aware of, we
24 would like to see you back tomorrow at 9.00 in the same courtroom. You
25 could perhaps already follow Mr. Usher but not until I have instructed
1 you that you should not speak with anyone about your testimony, whether
2 the testimony already given or still to be given. Yes? Is that clear?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please go out with the usher.
5 [The witness stands down]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, even though we took six minutes extra,
7 you didn't manage. How much time do you still need?
8 MR. KEHOE: 15, 20 minutes, I can just wrap up.
9 JUDGE ORIE: 15, 20 minutes, okay, then I'll keep to you 15
10 minutes for tomorrow as matters stand now.
11 Mr. Cayley.
12 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, what I can do between now and
13 tomorrow is I'll speak with Mr. Mikulicic about trying to at least agree
14 that we're not going to cover the same areas and if they are going to
15 cover areas that I may have covered, then we will drop those so we will
16 try and shrink the time that is needed.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And again, Mr. Kuzmanovic or Mr. Mikulicic, what --
18 I've forgotten what your early indication was.
19 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I had said 45 minutes to an hour.
20 Some of the ground has been covered already, we will speak with
21 Mr. Cayley and we will try to reduce. I will try not to be more than
22 half an hour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Let's then try to see whether we can finish
24 cross-examination by 10.00 tomorrow morning. And then we'll see --
25 Mr. Russo, do you have any idea on how much time you would need
1 in re-examination?
2 MR. RUSSO: Very brief, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Very brief. So then -- if we give it some effort.
4 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, sorry to interrupt. You said finished
5 by 10.00 tomorrow. If Mr. Mr. Kehoe takes 15 minutes, is that 45 minutes
6 for the other two Defence teams?
7 JUDGE ORIE: I did understand that but --
8 MR. CAYLEY: I said originally I would take an hour and a half.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. Kuzmanovic said half an hour. I said I would
11 try and reduce that but I don't think I can reduce an hour and a half to
12 sort of 20 minutes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. No. Then I misunderstood you. Yes. Let's
14 then -- that will take us beyond the first break then considerably.
15 Then at least the next witness we could expect to start giving
16 testimony somewhere in the second session tomorrow morning and the time
17 scheduled for the next witness was ... are you aware of that?
18 MR. RUSSO: I believe it was two hours, Judge.
19 MR. KEHOE: That's correct, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm just looking ahead, whether we would sit
21 during all the remaining days in full because I received some information
22 that you might -- that the -- that the Prosecution might run out of
23 witnesses later this week.
24 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, there is a possibility, depending on the
25 length of the cross-examination of our next witness, that we could have a
1 bit of a gap on Friday.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear.
3 Mr. Kuzmanovic, anything else?
4 MR. KUZMANOVIC: No, Your Honour, I was just going to say that I
5 had originally estimated anywhere between 45 minutes to an hour and I
6 think I can be done in half an hour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber would like to receive your new
8 estimates then after you have discussed the matters among yourselves
9 tomorrow before the -- before we start.
10 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I just wanted to make clear that our
13 estimate was two hours for Mr. Dreyer, our next witness, but I don't
14 believe it's actually going to take that long so we are going to have a
15 bit of a -- some more time left over.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do the other parties have already any idea on
17 whether the next witness would take relatively long or relatively short
18 in cross-examination?
19 MR. KEHOE: I think I will be a little while with this gentleman.
20 I will be a little while, just because it's a 92 ter statement, he's got
21 three or four statements, four trips on the 4th of August. There could
22 be some detail there.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. A little while means what?
24 MR. KEHOE: At least a couple of hours, I would say at least. I
25 don't want to say just two hours at this point. Depending on how it
1 goes. The problem with this witness, and I will be very candid with
2 this, I did talk to Mr. Tieger about this, that he makes some very global
3 statements that frankly I've tried to get behind and I have not been able
5 JUDGE ORIE: You would say a little while, I understand.
6 MR. KEHOE: Correct.
7 JUDGE ORIE: We, with apologies to the Chamber that follows in
8 this courtroom for our late finish, we'll adjourn and resume tomorrow
9 9.00 same courtroom.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.58 p.m.
11 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 16th of April,
12 2008, at 9.00 a.m.