1 Thursday, 22
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- On resuming at 9.50 a.m.
6 JUDGE MAY: Yes, let the witness take the
8 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will
9 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
11 JUDGE MAY: If you'd like to take a seat.
12 There is difficulty with the translation. Let me see.
13 Yes, everything is all right in the English. Let us
14 try the French. Right, we'll see how things go. Yes,
15 Mr. Sayers.
16 MR. SAYERS: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Just one brief point. The chart that I
18 prepared regarding the rebuttal time taken in the Lasva
19 Valley cases I have distributed for the Court today.
20 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Sayers, we see that. Thank
21 you for your industry but it's a little premature.
23 WITNESS: SLOBODAN JANKOVIC
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 Examined by Mr. Sayers:
1 Q. Sir, would you please state your full name
2 for the Court?
3 A. Slobodan Jankovic.
4 Q. And you are -- you have a doctorate in
5 aerospace from the University of Belgrade in 1967?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Dr. Jankovic, your report dated May 29th of
8 this year has already been filed with the Court and
9 it -- unless the Court wishes, you've already set forth
10 your academic credentials and academic background.
11 There appears to be no point to go through it unless
12 the Court wishes.
13 JUDGE MAY: Yes, there's no need.
14 MR. SAYERS: Thank you.
15 Q. During the course of your extensive academic
16 career and military career, Dr. Jankovic, have you had
17 occasion to familiarise yourself with the full range of
18 artillery weapons used in the armed forces of the
19 former Yugoslavia?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Among the calibres of weapons with which you
22 are familiar, are you familiar with the
23 characteristics, flight characteristics and fusing
24 characteristics of projectiles used in 122-millimetre,
25 130-millimetre, and 152-millimetre calibre weapons?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. I believe, sir, that your first languages, if
3 I may say, are French and Croatian; you are fluent in
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you are fluent in written English and can
7 speak the language but would prefer to testify in one
8 of your two native languages?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Who prepared the report to which I have just
11 referred, the one dated May 29th of this year?
12 A. I wrote the first draft part in Croatian and
13 part in English. Then I was given the translation and
14 the amended text was then delivered to me, and then I
15 went through it once again amending it because, of
16 course, there are technical terms and they need to be
17 translated correctly.
18 Q. Did you receive any input or suggestions
19 regarding the factual basis of this report or the
20 expert opinions which you have rendered from us, the
21 people who represent Mr. Kordic in this case?
22 A. No, the other way around. The technical part
23 is all mine. The only instructions I received
24 concerned the format in which they should be presented.
25 Q. Very well. Now, sir, you have, I believe,
1 read the testimony of Mr. Hamill who is in court today,
2 I notice, the expert witness used by the Prosecution.
3 A. Yes, I read several things by him.
4 Q. One of the opinions that Mr. Hamill rendered
5 was based upon the fragments of two RGM-2 shell fuses
6 handed to him by representatives of the intelligence
7 services in the armed forces based in Zenica. Based
8 upon the identification of those two fuse fragments as
9 fragments from RGM-2 type fragments, Mr. Hamill opines
10 that the calibre of weapon used during the shelling of
11 Zenica on the 19th of April 1993 was 122-millimetre.
12 Would you provide the Trial Chamber with your
13 assessment of the validity of that conclusion,
14 Dr. Jankovic.
15 A. That fuse, RGM-2 is used for three calibres,
16 122, 130, and 152. I have here the firing tables for
17 these weapons and I can show them to you. Therefore,
18 if that fuse was found, any of these three calibres
19 could be involved.
20 Q. The RGM-2 fuse is also manufactured under
21 licence, I believe, in the former Yugoslavia and bears
22 the designation UTIU M-72; is that fair to say?
23 A. No, that is not a licence. UTIU was designed
24 in Yugoslavia but it was modelled on RGM-2. On the
25 outside, yes, they are quite identical and they are
1 interchangeable. I can show you the picture.
2 MR. SAYERS: Actually I have a picture here
3 and I'd like to have it marked as a Defence exhibit, if
4 I may.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Document D280/1.
6 MR. SAYERS:
7 Q. Dr. Jankovic, we've had put on the electronic
8 monitor a photograph of these two fuses that I have
9 just mentioned: the RGM-2 fuse, the UTIU M-72 fuse.
10 Are these two fuses practically interchangeable in the
11 calibres of weapon that you have mentioned or not?
12 A. Indeed, they are quite interchangeable.
13 Their functions are exactly alike, and also as far as
14 their dimensions are concerned, they are exactly alike,
15 so that they are quite interchangeable.
16 Q. Based upon the presence of fragments of
17 either one of these two fuses at a shelling site, sir,
18 would it be possible to ascertain with any degree of
19 scientific reliability the precise calibre of weapon
20 used to fire the shell on which this fuse was located,
21 or on which either of these two fuses were located?
22 A. I repeat: It could be any one of the three
23 calibres: 122, 130, or 152. It is impossible to say
24 a priori which calibre was involved.
25 MR. SAYERS: All right. Turning to paragraph
1 10 of Dr. Jankovic's report, Your Honours, on page 5.
2 Mr. Hamill also stated that some "very small pieces" of
3 the shell were given to him, or the shells were given
4 to him, for the purposes of trying to ascertain the
5 calibre. And for the Court's reference, I'm referring
6 to page 16.233 of the transcript.
7 Q. Is it possible to ascertain the calibre of a
8 particular shell, Dr. Jankovic, based solely upon
9 visual inspection of very small pieces, such as those
10 which were given to Mr. Hamill in 1997, I believe?
11 A. As a rule, we establish if a piece belongs to
12 a particular shell only if it is big enough, so that we
13 can recognise it, recognise its geometrical shape.
14 Small pieces are practically impossible to deal, all
15 the more so since shells are made of special material
16 which is special shell steel, so that -- and all are
17 made of it so that not even the chemical analysis can
18 be of any help.
19 Q. All right. Turning to paragraph 12 of your
20 report, Dr. Jankovic, you give some range data derived
21 from the firing tables that are attached as four
22 appendices to your expert report. There's only one
23 question I would like to ask to you. You say that the
24 maximum range or the normal range of a D-30J howitzer,
25 the model which is of 122-millimetre calibre, is 15.3
1 kilometres. There's been some suggestion, and even
2 some documents, I think, produced in this case that
3 suggest that the range of that weapon is as high as
4 17.3 kilometres. Could you give the Court your views
5 on the maximum range of that D-30J weapon and the basis
6 for your views on that subject, sir.
7 A. I can say that the range of that weapon is 20
8 kilometres, because I personally designed a projectile
9 in 1997 with a 20-kilometre range. It was presented in
10 Abu Dhabi and it's well-known. So it simply depends.
11 At the time that we are concerned with, that is under
12 consideration by this august Court, such projectiles
13 did not exist. We know that in Serbia, on the eve of
14 the war, a projectile was designed and built with this
15 range of 17.8 kilometres; however, I did not see that
16 projectile. Croats, however, had two such specimens.
17 One of them was taken a picture of so that it could be
18 shown at the exhibition in Abu Dhabi.
19 Q. Other than these enhanced weapons --
20 actually, let me just ask you a background question.
21 Is that an enhancement in the actual firing mechanism
22 of the howitzer itself or is that extended range the
23 result of an enhancement either in propellant or
24 configuration of the projectile itself?
25 A. It is no kind of improvement of weapon,
1 because the weapon is the same. The gun, the howitzer,
2 is the same. There's nothing there. So the changes
3 concern the projectile. There are different types of
4 modifications: the base bleed, aerodynamic ones. We
5 made the base bleed. The Serb side made aerodynamical
6 constructions, and we did base bleed and the
7 reconstruction of the projectile base in order to
8 increase the -- to enlarge the chamber powder so as to
9 increase the space available for powder. So if there
10 is more powder and a better aerodynamical shape, that
11 enables the Serb projectile to reach longer ranges.
12 And we also redesigned the base, but that is not
13 interesting because that was all in 1997, and I do not
14 really want to tax your patience with it.
15 Q. Let me turn your attention to 1993,
16 Dr. Jankovic. Did these enhanced range projectiles
17 exist for D-30J 122-millimetre-calibre weapons in April
19 A. The Croatian side didn't have it. I know
21 MR. SAYERS: All right. One minor detail.
22 If I could ask the usher to put a previously marked
23 Exhibit on the ELMO, D90/1, Your Honours, an ECMM daily
24 report dated May 9th, 1993.
25 Q. Dr. Jankovic, I believe that you have seen
1 this European Community Monitor Mission report before.
2 This is dated two or three weeks after the incident at
3 issue and it concerns an investigation performed by the
4 ECMM, specifically by Stavros Kinigopoulos and Major
5 Lars Baggesen, into the firing point of artillery fire
6 that fell on Zenica and Vitez on the 8th of May, 1993.
7 Insofar as the Zenica shelling was concerned, the
8 conclusion is that the artillery fire probably
9 originated from a hilly area north of Travnik, an area
10 controlled by the Bosnian Serb army.
11 What conclusions can you reach from this
12 report, sir, regarding whether or not Zenica was in
13 range of artillery controlled by the Bosnian Serb
14 artillery as of May 9th, 1993?
15 A. Yes. I did the measurements when I studied
16 the material, and I believe that two weapons could have
17 been used to shell Zenica: the one with 130
18 millimetres and one with 152. The 152 at the maximum
19 range, and 130 has even a longer range. I believe the
20 distance is something 24, because 130 has a
21 27-kilometre range.
22 Q. Do you conclude from that, then, that the
23 Bosnian Serb artillery actually had the range to hit
24 Zenica, or not?
25 A. I think that is self-evident.
1 Q. All right. If I might turn to the last
2 subject covered in your report, the crater analysis or
3 so-called crater analysis performed by the European
4 Community Monitor Mission. You have an extensive
5 career Dr. Jankovic, both academically and
6 practically. Have you ever seen any technical
7 literature that deals with this so-called crater
8 analysis, any academic treatises, any technical manuals
9 on how to go about doing it?
10 A. In the sense that to envisage the crater of a
11 particular calibre, yes, but not the other way around,
12 that the crater can tell you what calibre was used.
13 These are two completely different things.
14 Q. Similarly, there have been a number of
15 photographs that were used taken on April 19, 1993 and
16 conclusions were drawn in various ways by various
17 witnesses. Could you tell the Trial Chamber whether,
18 in your view, any useful or reliable scientific
19 conclusions concerning the calibre of weapon, the range
20 from which the projectile was fired, or the direction
21 of fire can be drawn from photographs?
22 A. Well, I tend to agree with what was said that
23 it is evident that we are dealing with the contact
24 action fuse, because it is evident that the explosion
25 was not delayed so that is the first conclusion.
1 Secondly, it is also evident that these
2 medium calibres as we call them, so 122, 130, 152, and
3 that can also be concluded it is also possible to
4 approximately, but I repeat the word "approximately",
5 one can approximately determine the direction from
6 which the projectile came but nothing else.
7 Q. All right. Now, could you tell the Court
8 what are the major factors that affect ballistic
9 trajectory of projectiles, unguided projectiles in
11 A. The range, the range is initial velocity,
12 muzzle velocity. So there is also one question when it
13 comes to weaponry whether this initial velocity drops
14 because of the fatigue or the age of the weapons and we
15 had that problem in -- because if you have large guns
16 which are very old, then there may be a significant
17 decline in velocity.
18 Then, of course, barrel elevation and so on
19 and so forth. All that has to be calculated in case
20 we're dealing with one weapon and in that case, the
21 wind is very important because it can significantly
22 affect the direction and the range, it plays the
23 crucial role.
24 It is then followed by air density, that is,
25 the temperature and the pressure, the air pressure.
1 Then the spin will also play a certain role and
2 Mr. Hamill, I suppose, will understand this.
3 In this war there was no normal logistics so
4 the projectiles were all mixed up in terms of their
5 weight. There were not classified gunmen --
6 practically should have their projectiles classified as
7 to weight. However, in this war it was not the case.
8 So that sometimes a projectile would fall several
9 hundred metres short because in the same firing group
10 -- because during the same turn of fire, people would
11 use larger projectiles and smaller, the lighter and
12 heavier projectiles. So these are all the things that
13 have to be taken into account.
14 Q. Let me see if we can break these variables
15 down into three categories. I think that there is one
16 that affects range, one that affects direction of
17 incoming fire or -- and one that affects both.
18 In terms of the effect upon range, ambient
19 air temperature and ambient air pressure affect the
20 actual distance over which a projectile can fly; is
21 that fair to say? In terms of the drift or the
22 direction of incoming fire, if you like, winds aloft
23 are a critical consideration, are they not?
24 A. Yes, it affects both the range and the
25 direction because we have crosswind and a drift. But
1 if we talk about a drift, one has to bear in mind that
2 it is always the same. There is always declination
3 towards the right whereas the other factors are
4 scattered so to speak, unless they were being
5 measured. And in the -- in this war, the Croatian army
6 did not have the necessary equipment, instruments for
7 that kind of measurement.
8 Q. The drift measurements that you identified
9 were crosswind and gyroscopic precession causes a drift
10 to the right as a result of the rotation of the shell?
11 A. Yes, this is a well-established fact.
12 Q. Did you see any evidence that any of the
13 people who have testified regarding the Zenica shelling
14 in this case considered any of these factors, sir? Let
15 me just enumerate them: Winds aloft, ambient air
16 temperature, barometric pressure, Coriolis force that
17 results from the force of the earth, the gyroscopic
18 precision effect as a result of the rotation of the
19 shell in flight, tube life of guns used, the quality
20 and consistency of the propellant, level of training of
21 the actual people firing these weapons, and then the
22 accuracy of the firing tables and maps available to the
24 Were any of those factors considered in the
25 conclusions reached and offered to this Court, as far
1 as you are aware?
2 A. In the documents which I reviewed, these data
3 are mentioned and there were even some figures provided
4 but some of them were quite mistaken. It was said, for
5 instance, that if the artillerymen were well-trained,
6 it would be about 50 metres off the mark. But if you
7 do not take into account the wind, it can account for a
8 couple of hundred metres. So it is very important to
9 know what the logistics were. It was fairly primitive
10 at the time, fairly poor, and not as it was supposed to
12 Q. Did you see any others that Mr. Hamill or any
13 of the other people who have reached conclusions
14 regarding the direction of fire and the range and
15 calibre considered the meteorological data,
16 Dr. Jankovic, or any meteorological data to which you
17 have referred?
18 A. I did not see. I would only like to add that
19 Colonel Lausten, I don't know exactly the name, he
20 offered an opinion which would be close to reality as
21 far as these ranges are concerned.
22 Q. Based upon the materials that you have
23 reviewed, do you -- can you state in your opinion, sir,
24 whether it is possible or not to ascertain the calibre,
25 the precise calibre of the shells used in the Zenica
1 shelling on April 19th, 1993?
2 A. Absolutely and categorically I concert that
3 it is not possible to conclude which of the three
4 calibres was used based on the fuse and based on the
5 fragments found on site.
6 Q. Based upon the fuse and based upon the
7 fragment and based upon photographs of the crater, is
8 it possible to determine the distance over which the
9 projectiles were fired, in your opinion?
10 A. No, it is not possible, because if it was one
11 type of projectile, then it would have been one
12 distance, and even if we knew which projectile was
13 used, I think it is absolutely impossible to ascertain,
14 on the basis of the crater, the distance from which
15 this projectile was fired.
16 Q. Based upon those same factors, sir,
17 fragments, fragments of fuses, and pictures of the
18 crater, is it possible, in your opinion, to determine
19 the precise direction of incoming fire, the firing
20 location or the putative target?
21 A. The set direction is not possible to -- you
22 can again determine a range. I tried to simulate the
23 situation on the computer and tried to find out this
24 range. If there was a strong crosswind, it would have
25 highly affected the trajectory, and then that would not
1 be the right direction. It would have been sort of the
2 end direction.
3 My calculation showed that I first took the
4 122-millimetre calibre because that is what was mostly
5 considered. That first deviation is 1.5 degrees
6 between -- for the drift, and the crosswind was -- is a
7 very large factor. You can find that in the
8 meteorological data so you can find those data for our
9 own country for that time.
10 So that would increase the angle to about 3.5
11 degrees, but it is very dangerous to calculate that
12 simply while 1.5 degrees is a fixed component. The
13 other one is more variable. So it is very hard to make
14 a clear simple calculation of the two.
15 Q. Without having accurate meteorological data,
16 can you make any conclusions about those three things
17 that I enumerated; the direction of fire, firing
18 location or the supposed target?
19 A. Without such data, it is impossible to give
20 an accurate answer because for any simulated test, you
21 need the accurate data.
22 MR. SAYERS: Thank you, Dr. Jankovic. No
23 further questions.
24 Questioned by the Court:
25 JUDGE MAY: Dr. Jankovic, I want to be sure
1 that I have your evidence. The first matter is this:
2 That you gave evidence about the range of the D-30J
3 howitzer and you said that it was 20 kilometres. But
4 that, as I understand it, was in 1997. You said that
5 in Serbia, on the eve of the conflict, a projectile
6 with a range of 17.8 kilometres was designed, but as I
7 understood you to say the Croats didn't have one.
8 So the question is this: What was the
9 maximum range available to the Croats of this howitzer
10 in 1993?
11 A. 15.3 kilometres. I can add that the Croats
12 used the Soviet projectile UF -- I think it's 486,
13 right, and they had their own copy of that projectile.
14 In other words, the same type of projectile was being
15 manufactured in Croatia.
16 JUDGE MAY: Now, the next matter is this,
17 that you were referred to the ECMM report of the 9th of
18 May which concluded that the projectile could have come
19 from the area controlled by the Bosnian Serb army north
20 of Travnik. And as I understood your evidence, you say
21 that you, yourself, did the measurements, and you
22 concluded that two weapons could have been used to
23 shell Zenica, that is, the 130 and the 152. The 152 at
24 maximum range and the 130, you said, had an even longer
25 range. And then you said you believed the distance was
1 24 kilometres, and I didn't follow your evidence from
2 then on.
3 When you said you did the measurements, what
4 measurements were you referring to in this connection?
5 A. This was in the previous case. I was also
6 called here to give my opinion in the case of
7 Mr. Blaskic, and I studied the documents, and among the
8 documents there were dispositions of the Serbian troops
9 on Mount Vlasic which is due north of Travnik. I
10 measured the distance on the map and concluded that it
11 was possible to fire for Zenica from that location
12 using these two weapons. That was on the basis of a
13 statement by a witness whose name I cannot recall right
14 now, but I can provide it at a later time.
15 JUDGE MAY: So the distance to Mount Vlasic
16 was 24 kilometres, is that right?
17 A. I am not sure whether it was Mount Vlasic.
18 Mount Vlasic is also due north of Travnik. But the
19 location was pinpointed for me. I am not exactly sure
20 whether it was on Mount Vlasic or not. I cannot
21 confirm that now.
22 JUDGE MAY: But so we have the point, it
23 was -- the area controlled by the Bosnian Serb army was
24 24 kilometres?
25 A. Yes.
1 JUDGE MAY: And the range of the 152 was 25,
2 or is 25 kilometres; is that right?
3 A. If you will allow me to look. Twenty-four.
4 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
5 Mr. Kovacic, have you any questions?
6 MR. KOVACIC: No, Your Honours, I don't.
7 Thank you.
8 Cross-examined by Mr. Nice:
9 Q. Dr. Jankovic, the scientific method, I think
10 you can help us, the scientific method sometimes
11 involves seeking a conclusion by one route and then
12 seeing whether it's confirmed in a wholly independent
13 way; correct?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. And of course wherever that happens, where
16 conclusion 1 is confirmed by entirely independent
17 conclusion 2, it's proper scientifically to add those
18 two conclusions together and to strengthen your first
19 conclusion; correct?
20 A. Yes. Can we move on? I don't know what to
21 say to that.
22 JUDGE MAY: You don't argue with counsel.
23 MR. NICE: I wonder if we could put the front
24 line map on the board, please. Make sure we've got the
25 right one.
1 Q. While that's going on the board and just
2 being straightened out, one other detail, Dr. Jankovic,
3 please. I think in the Blaskic trial you gave a great
4 deal of evidence about angle of elevation of firing and
5 landing. Is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. It, of course, has absolutely nothing to do
8 with the issue in hand, does it, and never did, for the
9 various weapons and the various locations that may
10 explain the Zenica shelling, where all possible,
11 notwithstanding the intervening hills, because the
12 intervening hills were so low; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Was it, as a matter of fact, your decision to
15 give that evidence on angles of elevation and angles of
16 landing of shells, or was it the decision of the
17 lawyers in that case?
18 A. The lawyer gave me documents. I read them.
19 The documents of the Prosecution. And there were
20 witnesses who spoke about those angles, and I then
21 explained that the witness in that respect was not
23 Q. Now, you may not have seen this map, and it's
24 always difficult to work with maps, even for people
25 with your experience, so by all means, with the Court's
1 leave, take as much time as you need to familiarise
2 yourself with it. And I shall simply be asking you
3 about the location of Zenica, the area known as
4 Puticevo, and the Vlasic feature. So if you can just
5 take your time, find those areas, and indeed, when
6 you've found them, point them out to us, please. And
7 there's a pointer on the desk if you want to use it.
8 There it is.
9 MR. SAYERS: Mr. President, not to interrupt,
10 but I wonder if we could have an identification of the
11 exhibit number, because I can't see the map.
12 MR. NICE: I'm sorry. It's 2612.2A.
13 JUDGE MAY: If the witness has trouble
14 finding the places, he should say so and then somebody
15 can help.
16 THE INTERPRETER: The witness should also be
17 given a microphone, please.
18 A. I do not know exactly where Puticevo is. I
19 can't find it here. I know it should be somewhere
20 here, but --
21 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice --
22 MR. NICE: Due west of Zenica, and just
23 before you come to the front line, red line marking, is
24 the area of Puticevo. It's just off the road between
25 Vitez and Travnik. Even if it's not marked there,
1 that's where it is. I should have checked.
2 JUDGE MAY: Well, why don't you go and check
3 now, Mr. Nice, and point it out to the witness, because
4 otherwise we could spend some time.
5 MR. NICE: It is marked on this map. It's
6 actually very difficult to read because of the
7 enlargement of the map, but we've pointed it out to
8 Dr. Jankovic.
9 Q. And if you've seen those three places,
10 Dr. Jankovic --
11 JUDGE MAY: Dr. Jankovic, are you happy with
12 that, as happy as you can be with that plan? You can
13 find your way around?
14 A. I saw a similar map. Now I know where
15 Puticevo is. That is one locality. I do not know what
16 the other two localities are.
17 MR. NICE:
18 Q. Vlasic you know. You've referred to Vlasic
19 for us. Vlasic is, of course, in Serb-held territory.
20 JUDGE MAY: Well, again, I think, Mr. Nice,
21 go and point it out. It would be much easier.
22 MR. NICE:
23 Q. Thank you very much, Doctor. That's all I
24 want you to do standing up. If you'd be good enough
25 perhaps to take your seat again, then we can press on.
1 The position is actually quite
2 straightforward, if not simple. Puticevo is pretty
3 well due west of Zenica and is within Croat-held
4 territory; Vlasic is pretty well north-west of Zenica
5 and within Serb-held territory. Correct?
6 A. I cannot really say whether all that you are
7 saying is correct or not. If I may, I'm a technical
8 man and I'm a scientist. If these are facts, then they
9 are facts. That is not the question that should be
10 addressed to me, please.
11 Q. I'm sorry to have to address them to you, but
12 you've told us that you did calculations about the
13 possibility of shells coming from Vlasic, and I assume
14 that that included your being familiar with the maps of
15 Vlasic. When you did your calculations about Vlasic,
16 did you not look at a map?
17 A. I had a map like this. It was clearer than
18 this one.
19 Q. Well, then, please confirm: Vlasic is
20 approximately --
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Thank you. And shall we now just deal with
23 the last little bit of evidence that you were giving in
24 answer to His Honour, the Presiding Judge, His Honour
25 Judge May.
1 The incident in the May shelling where you
2 were saying, as the report suggests, that there could
3 have been shelling coming from Mount Vlasic and from
4 Serb-held territory related, of course, to a shelling
5 in the month of May and did not relate to a shelling in
6 the month of April; that's correct, isn't it?
7 A. The report which I wrote concerns April, and
8 I did not say anything about Vlasic. In this report I
9 only spoke about these things. And this report -- I
10 did not comment on this in my report, on this report.
11 Q. No, but you've been asked a question about it
12 this morning, and I don't want there to be any
13 confusion. So perhaps you'd take D90/1 at tab 11,
14 which is what you were asked to look at, which is the
15 daily report for the 9th of May.
16 Now, you've got it in English, and we're
17 fortunate that you read English. This document, the
18 9th of May, relates to yesterday, the 8th of May,
19 Zenica being shelled. And then the conclusion is that
20 the direction of shelling against Vitez and Zenica
21 shows -- I hope I'm not going too fast, because it's
22 not on the ELMO -- that the firing position was
23 probably on the hilly area six kilometres north of
24 Travnik -- [Microphone not activated] the Vlasic
25 feature, couldn't it?
1 A. Quite.
2 Q. So whatever it may have to do with this case,
3 it doesn't relate to the shelling on the 19th of April,
4 does it?
5 Can we now, please -- I don't know if you're
6 going to answer that question, but can we now please go
7 to your expert's statement, and it would help me if
8 you'd have it before you. I have a few questions to
9 ask on most pages, but only a few, because we're not in
10 much disagreement, Dr. Jankovic, you'll be pleased to
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Page 1 -- sorry, page 2, as it is, but
14 paragraphs 1 and 2 set out the history of your
15 qualification, and very impressive they are, if I
16 respectfully say so, but they're basically to do with
17 aerodynamics of projectiles; correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Which is distinct from working with shells
20 and with artillery. Projectiles of this kind are
21 different from artillery projectiles; correct?
22 A. I worked as a ballistics expert; that is,
23 aerodynamics is my basic field of research. But I was
24 the ballistic expert in the military institute and I
25 studied the projectiles, and I also told you that I
1 designed artillery projectiles myself. I told you so.
2 Q. Let's go to page 3, because we then move from
3 what's set out on page 2 to what's set out on page 3.
4 And then on line 2 you do say:
5 "I worked from 1991 to 1995 at the Zagreb
6 Maritime and Defence Institute on the problem of
7 developing fire control and firing tables."
8 Now, I don't want to take any time on this,
9 but just explain to me --
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. -- was it a practical problem or a
12 theoretical problem? Was it about new weapons? I
13 don't know. Just tell us.
14 A. Fire control means developing software for
15 gunmen which helps them to calculate various elements
16 needed for targeting and firing, and firing tables, and
17 I can show you the ones that I calculated.
18 Q. It may not be necessary. By all means do, if
19 you think it's important, but it may not be necessary.
20 Then we come to the --
21 A. These are firing tables for Nora 152 with the
22 Russian projectile, or OF 540.
23 THE INTERPRETER: And the interpreter is
24 sorry. Didn't get the second mark.
25 A. But that was done after these events.
1 MR. NICE:
2 Q. You see at the end of this paragraph, in the
3 middle of the page, that your published articles and
4 books include exterior ballistics, missile
5 aerodynamics, and the mechanics of projectile flight.
6 This would appear to be -- I don't say just
7 theoretical, but it would appear to be perhaps theory,
8 and high theory at that, and would appear to be
9 concerned mostly with missiles. Would that be
11 A. I also dealt with guided missiles and at
12 present I teach the flight mechanics of aircraft.
13 Q. Now, thus far, unless I have missed it, you
14 haven't identified any experience as an artillery
15 officer, as a person regularly firing or supervising
16 the firing of guns; correct?
17 A. I did really fire at the firing range, but
18 not with units and I did not work with the army, with
20 Q. And you haven't identified any experience
21 then or since of the types spoken of by Mr. Hamill
22 where post facto analysis of shelling is done by
23 artillery officers. You haven't spoken of that type of
25 A. No.
1 Q. You don't have that sort of experience at
3 A. Except at a firing range when we engineers go
4 to see the craters made by projectiles because that is
5 rather important.
6 Q. Before I move on, just a couple of things,
7 really. Are you aware that Mr. Hamill's work on that
8 dreadful Markale market shelling was incorporated in an
9 United Nations report?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Because I must suggest to you that it was,
12 and that it included his analysis of direction built on
13 crater analysis. Would you accept that that may have,
14 indeed, happened?
15 A. I accept it.
16 Q. So far as one of the witnesses who we've had
17 reference to, a man, Baggesen, would you accept that
18 when Vitez was shelled, along with Zenica, on the 8th
19 of May, his conclusions were accepted by all sides
20 based though they were, in part, on crater analysis.
21 Would you accept that? It's in his war diary.
22 A. Well, I have -- I do not object to any of
23 these things, but I did not read these things and I
24 cannot comment on them. I cannot say yes or no.
25 Q. Let's move back to your report. I have no
1 challenge to your paragraph three. And when you come
2 to paragraph four, you say this, you have been asked by
3 the Kordic Defence to provide an expert opinion
4 regarding the shelling of Zenica on April 19th. It
5 must have been a slip of the pen, but you can't provide
6 any opinion on the shelling of Zenica itself, can you?
7 A. We can always theoretically simulate events,
8 that is how we analyse events, and that is what I
9 understood was asked of me to do.
10 Q. I may have not been clear but let me make
11 myself clearer. You haven't examined the craters left
12 by the shells yourself, have you?
13 A. No.
14 JUDGE MAY: [Microphone not activated]
15 MR. NICE:
16 Q. And you do not offer an opinion one way or
17 another as to where the shells that fell on Zenica may
18 have come from.
19 A. I said that within a certain interval, one
20 can accept that they may have come from, and I tried to
21 measure that interval, and I said here that it was
22 difficult and it was only with a certain -- that with a
23 certain degree of probability, one could say what the
24 interval was.
25 For instance, for 122, I concluded that if
1 these measurements were accurate, absolutely accurate,
2 and then again probably an error is included there
3 because there are errors in any kind of measurements,
4 that that interval could be at least plus or minus five
5 degrees. That was said roughly by Colonel Lausten
6 or --
7 Q. I'll come back to five degrees, and I'm only
8 going to press you once more. What you've provided to
9 the Court is some expert opinion on various topics
10 including fuses, and your opinion on accuracies of
11 certain types of measurements, but you do not provide
12 on opinion on where Zenica was shelled from on the 19th
13 of April because you don't have an opinion on that
14 topic, do you?
15 A. I did not give my opinion.
16 Q. And you don't have an opinion.
17 A. I don't know.
18 Q. I'm sorry, I don't understand that. Either
19 you do or you don't have an opinion on where it was
20 shelled from.
21 A. I repeat once again, if all those
22 measurements were correct, according to the document
23 that I write, I concluded that the most probable, the
24 most likely but only the most likely was that it had
25 come from the direction plus minus five degrees from
1 the direction that was measured. So it could be plus
2 five or minus five to the other side, so that was
3 within that interval. That is my opinion. But it only
4 applies to 122 millimetres and that is the most
5 probable so it can be more, it can be less, but in all
6 likelihood, that is five.
7 I did not compute it for calibres because one
8 would have to perform simulation.
9 Q. We don't have to deal with it later, we can
10 deal with it straight away. Now, that we understand
11 the map and, of course, look at it if you need to, but
12 the Judges have seen it. If the calculation made by
13 Mr. Hamill is honourably and properly made, to the
14 effect came from due west and if you are allowing for a
15 five degree maximum error or allowance, what is quite
16 clear is that the shelling cannot have come from the
17 Vlasic feature which is 45 degrees away; correct?
18 A. No, not maximum error, but the most probable
19 error at the maximum, that is the maximum can be
20 infinite. But in practice, we take it for Gauss
21 distribution that the maximum error is four times the
22 most probable one.
23 Q. But just so that I can understand that, and I
24 was troubled by your narrative of the number of factors
25 to be taken into account. If you multiply 5 by 4,
1 that's 20. You are you really saying that firing of a
2 major artillery piece involves a scatter of plus or
3 minus 20, a total of 40 degrees of error? You can't
4 seriously be saying that, can you, Doctor?
5 A. No, no, no, that is not what I said. I
6 repeat, I know it is very difficult technical matters,
7 so may I have some more time to explain it.
8 We do not know what the wind was. In those
9 areas of our country winds can be very strong at high
10 altitudes even though there are none perhaps close to
11 the ground. As these reports say that there was no
12 wind, that the weather was nice, it does not mean that
13 there was no wind up there, quite the reverse. It
14 could have been very strong wind up there.
15 And at these altitudes at which these
16 projectiles fly, these are 5, 6, 7 kilometres or more,
17 the wind there is 50, 60, 70 metres as a rule, 50
18 metres, but it can be faster or slower. And with these
19 weather tables, I also have them with me, I can show
20 you. Now if we have a wind of that order of magnitude,
21 lateral wind, that angle can curve the path by 3.5
22 degrees. And then if you add that 1.5, that is five.
23 But this wind can be even stronger and that
24 was a very -- that is very likely. It could have been
25 very strong, of course it needn't have been but it
1 could have been very strong.
2 So if it was twice as strong, then it will be
3 a deviation of 7 degrees. If it was even stronger then
4 the deviation would be even higher. So the 2.5 degrees
5 are always the same, but the deviation caused by wind
6 can be much more than that because of this high
7 altitude wind, and that is what I said.
8 Q. You said something about maximum error being
9 4 times the most probable error. I hadn't understood
10 how you could get 5 degrees from 3.5 and 1.5 and I must
11 have made the -- an error somewhere in multiplying 5 by
13 What are saying, please, Doctor --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. -- is the maximum error?
16 A. No, I am talking about the most probable
17 error, and the most probable error is about 3.5
18 degrees, and you said "maximum." If you want to talk
19 about the maximum one, then we must multiply the most
20 probable one by four times, that is, the Gauss
21 distribution, that is the probability. And to this
22 one, one has to add 1.5 because that is a constant
23 value. It's always the time it doesn't scatter.
24 Q. Well, so that we are now up to a possible
25 maximum error, 15.5 degrees, is that really what you're
1 suggesting is the accuracy of these heavy artillery
3 A. No, no, no, no, don't. The accuracy of
4 artillery weapons is a completely different matter.
5 The accuracy of artillery weapons is not what you are
6 saying. All I said, because we do not know what the
7 wind was. We need to assume -- we need to hypothesise
8 a certain value of the wind and hence the error,
9 because we are hypothesising the strength of the wind.
10 And the maximum error which you calculated correct, but
11 it is very unlikely. The most likely is the one that I
12 spoke about, 3.5 plus 1.5 equals 5.
13 Q. I come back to my first proposition. If
14 Mr. Hamill is right, if he was honorable and honest and
15 careful and calculating from the craters, the shells
16 originated apparently due west, making all allowances
17 for wind and everything else even on your own analysis,
18 there's no way those shells could have come from the
19 Vlasic feature which is 45 degrees away.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Thank you. Would you accept, in general, for
22 rounds being fired, since you raised the question of
23 statistics -- Your Honour, just give me a minute.
24 Would you accept and I'm sorry not to be able
25 to use the proper terminology of statisticians, I'll
1 have to use layman's talk, would you accept that
2 artillery rounds will fall as to 68 per cent of them
3 within 2.5 per cent either way of their target and that
4 95 per cent of them will fall within 5 per cent either
5 way of their target? Do you accept those statistics?
6 A. Excuse me, could you repeat it slowly? I
7 didn't get all the figures. I suppose these are common
8 artillery facts, but I should like, before I say yes or
9 no, I'd like to know what it's about.
10 Q. Of course I'll repeat them in a tabular form
11 and I'd note one last figure as well. 68 per cent
12 within 2.5 degrees either way, 95 per cent within 5
13 degrees either way, and 99.5 per cent within 7.5
14 degrees either way.
15 A. I think these are the normal scattering
16 characteristics of these weapons, that is what it is.
17 We know those well-known artillery scattering
18 intervals, that is well-known, that is correct. I
19 don't know exactly these scattering figures.
20 Mr. Hamill will know these figures by heart but, yes,
21 that is correct.
22 However, if you wish, I do have firing tables
23 and I can look at them and then I can give you an
24 accurate answer to your question.
25 Q. Finally, can I suggest -- well, we will be
1 having a break at some stage and it may be, although we
2 shouldn't impose on you over a break, but that would be
3 a useful use of your time.
4 But finally, may I suggest to you that
5 however strong the wind may be, the maximum deviation
6 that the wind is going to cause for this type of shell
7 would be about 3 degrees and no more.
8 A. That is not true.
9 Q. Well, what do you say is the maximum
10 deviation a wind could achieve for a shell of this
11 general magnitude?
12 A. For 122 millimetres, I have tables here, and
13 one knows what the deviation is for a particular wind.
14 If the wind is twice stronger, then it's twice as big;
15 three times, three times. It is -- mostly the linear
16 correlation depends on the strength of the wind. I can
17 give you the figures if you wish.
18 JUDGE MAY: It may be convenient to deal it
19 during the break. We are going to have a break about
20 this time.
21 Is that a convenient moment, Mr. Nice?
22 MR. NICE: Probably as convenient as any,
23 Your Honour, yes.
24 JUDGE MAY: Have you got much more for the
1 MR. NICE: I have got quite a lot. I'm
2 confident that I will be able to deal with both
3 witnesses in the course of today, but this is evidence
4 clearly to be taken carefully.
5 JUDGE MAY: Dr. Jankovic, if you'd like to
6 look at your tables for those points about which you
7 were asked, and then you can refer to them afterwards.
8 Don't speak to anybody, please, about your evidence
9 until it's over. We'll break for half an hour.
10 --- Recess taken at 11.04 a.m.
11 --- On resuming at 11.37 a.m.
12 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
13 MR. NICE:
14 Q. Dr. Jankovic, can you help us with any
15 researches made over the short adjournment?
16 A. Yes, I can. This is a sketch and it is not
17 done to scale. The angles are smaller. I enlarged
18 them only to facilitate their understanding.
19 Look here. This is the effect of the wind.
20 This is the crosswind. The projectile will deviate
21 like this. And let's say it had fallen here. In the
22 firing tables, what the artillery people are using is
23 this angle here. For instance, for the crosswind of 10
24 metres per second, the tables show that this is 20
25 millimetre. When you translate that into the Russian
1 tables, it's 1.2 degree. But the level of the crater
2 is this. This is the plane.
3 And as you see, this angle does not appear in
4 any firing tables. The artillerymen have no use for
5 it. But I created a computer simulation, and in this
6 case the angle most probably was 3.5 degrees. I
7 assumed that the crosswind at the ground level was near
8 zero and that at 6.000 metres was most probably 16
9 metre per second, and the computer gave me the result
10 of 3.5 degrees. So one should not confuse that angle
11 with this angle.
12 Q. We haven't, of course, seen these workings,
13 but are you still saying that the maximum deviation for
14 reasons of wind at the end of the projectile's path is
15 3.5 degrees from whatever was intended?
16 A. Not the maximum. Most probable. And I serve
17 that with full responsibility. I can also give you a
18 demonstration. I have a computer. I have a NATO
19 model, MPMM, modified point materiel model.
20 Q. This assumes a 10-metre-per-second wind, does
22 A. No. No. The 3.5 degrees was a result for
23 the wind at zero -- at the ground level, because the
24 witnesses testified that there was no wind at the
25 time. But I don't know what the wind was in the higher
1 altitude. So I took just a value from the tables,
2 which means that even though there was no wind at the
3 ground level, that does not mean that it was not there
4 at the higher altitudes, and I just assumed that it
5 increased as you went higher up.
6 Q. Of course you're -- and the last point I'm
7 going to ask on this, because we haven't been served
8 with advanced detail of all this. But the last point
9 I'm going to ask on this is as follows. Perhaps you'll
10 look at my spectacles. They'll do. I'm holding
11 something up, Dr. Jankovic. It's the easiest way of
12 dealing with something. Dr. Jankovic, could you look
13 at me, please. If this is a projectile going through
14 the air and there's a wind coming from your direction,
15 it's not necessarily going to be turned around as if by
16 the front wheel of a car; the wind is going to move the
17 thing across laterally, isn't it?
18 A. There are two factors to be considered. It's
19 pretty difficult. First, we assume here the so-called
20 Didion principle; that is, the area with this -- with
21 the wind, there is -- and as the space moves, the
22 projectile moves with it. But the projectile changes
23 its speed, its velocity. It slows down going up and
24 then again increases going down.
25 The wind will have the most effect where the
1 velocity is at its lowest, and the effect of the wind
2 is going to be the highest there. And whether it
3 spins, gyrates, it's more of a scientific point. I can
4 discuss it with you here, but I don't think that we
5 should go into that.
6 Q. A very quick point on the short diagram. I'm
7 going to ask you to look at -- I've only got one point
8 at the moment -- on the ELMO. This is a diagram
9 dealing with statistics built entirely on the
10 observations you have made this morning, and therefore
11 taking them, which we don't accept, but taking them on
12 the figures you assert.
13 And if we could have the bottom right-hand
14 corner of the picture in as well. Thank you very
16 This is a -- you'd accept, would you not,
17 that if your 5 per cent is accurate, what this shows --
18 I'm sorry it's not very clear.
19 MR. NICE: See if we can get it clearer.
20 It's very light at the moment. Well, if it's not going
21 to work, I'll have to have it back and I'll put it to
22 you in verbal form. It's too light. Can I have it
23 back? We can't afford the time, I'm afraid. No, I'll
24 have it back and I'll deal with it. My mistake. I'll
25 take it back. Perhaps we can get it copied, if we
1 can. I'll come back to it.
2 Q. I return, please, to your report, and I want
3 to deal with some things quickly. Have you got your
4 report open at page 4, paragraph 6? Mr. Hamill's
5 conclusion, as you know, that the calibre was 122
6 millimetres, was built on the firing tables available
7 to him at the time, and there's nothing wrong with him
8 making that conclusion if those were the only tables
9 available to him; correct?
10 A. That may be correct, but that is not all.
11 Q. Since I'm not going to challenge, probably,
12 the firing tables you produce, what it amounts to is:
13 From the firing tables provided to him, he found one
14 calibre shell; you show that there were two others that
15 had the same fuse, and we don't challenge that, all
17 Paragraph 7, just as a matter of detail, line
18 2, Mr. Hamill never said anything about the thing being
19 of Russian origin. The word "Russian" doesn't appear
20 in his evidence, I don't think. Do you accept that?
21 A. I may have read it in another witness'
22 finding that there were Russian Cyrillic letters there.
23 Q. Paragraph 8 we don't challenge. Just
24 summarise it because it's helpful and important. It's
25 a little hard to find. You've got three possible
1 projectiles, three possible weapons. In fact, I don't
2 think there's anything else I do need to say on that,
3 but I do need to look at your footnote. "The
4 Prosecution's witnesses are not unanimous on this
5 conclusion." The conclusion that you're referring to
6 here as to the calibre of the shell. "The Zenica
7 investigating judge, who conducted a contemporaneous
8 investigation of the shelling, wrote in his report, and
9 testified, that the calibre of shells used in the
10 shelling was 155 millimetres," and you refer to the
11 Blaskic testimony of the witness Veseljak.
12 I think it's correct, as you will recall,
13 that Veseljak actually first led -- reached the
14 conclusion 155 on a day when he said it was very
15 difficult to do tests, because everything was in the
16 state of crisis, accepted that he was subsequently
17 given reports to suggest that it was 122 but,
18 nevertheless, stuck to his original report because he'd
19 already drafted it as instructed or as commissioned on
20 the first day and stuck to 155.
21 Do you remember that?
22 A. Yes, I remember, and 155 was not mentioned by
23 Veseljak but rather by the expert who was part of the
24 commission together with Veseljak.
25 Q. Exhibit 1019.2 is indeed the other report
1 that was available to Veseljak which was prepared with
2 just a little more time and a little less crisis and,
3 of course, you are in the happy position of being able
4 to read the original or the English version, but in
5 English, it reads, from Husein Hadzimejlic on the 5th
6 of June, and this was an expert opinion on the shelling
7 of Zenica that, "On the 19th of April between 12.00 and
8 1.00, the centre of the town was shelled." Next
9 sentence, "Carried out by HV Croatian units from a
10 122-millimetre howitzer from their position in the
11 Puticevo section on the right-hand side of Nova
12 Bila-Travnik road. Information gleaned from pieces of
13 shrapnel and artillery hits that were noticed spread
14 out on the ground. Contact fuse, high explosives,
15 OX-462Z, six shells in total."
16 No doubt, if you're going to refer to
17 Veseljak's opinion, you'd accept that it's fair to take
18 into account, if we are to take into account at all,
19 the contrary opinion prepared a few days later.
20 A. We discussed that during the previous trial
21 of Mr. Blaskic. If it was 122 millimetre calibre, it
22 does not have the range, it cannot reach from Puticevo
23 to the centre of Zenica. It cannot reach Zenica from
25 Q. I'll come over that as we turn over the page
1 to page five, paragraphs 9 and onwards. I have nothing
2 to say about paragraphs 9 or 10 now that the Russian
3 word has become irrelevant. Paragraph 12, your
4 conclusions, the RGM fuse can be used on each of the
5 projectiles, 122-millimetre howitzer with a range of
6 15.3 kilometres would, in fact, cover the distance from
7 Puticevo to Zenica. There's a map there if you want to
8 check it.
9 A. I checked it if -- on the map where -- which
10 I consulted, I did not see Puticevo, so I cannot say
11 what the distance is between Puticevo and Zenica. My
12 understanding is that it was out of range, but somebody
13 has to determine exactly where this Puticevo is so that
14 we can measure the exact distance from the centre of
15 Zenica, and from the map which I used, it was 16
16 kilometres from this Puticevo to the centre of town.
17 Q. Dr. Jankovic, you've just told us that in
18 Blaskic, you told the Court that it was out of range
19 and now you tell us you've never measured the
20 distance. How can that be?
21 A. I did not measure the distance on the ground,
22 I measured it on the map. And on the map, I showed 16
23 kilometres. And -- but someone has to know the exact
24 distance. I don't know the exact distance. I only
25 showed it on the map. From what I was able to
1 determine by reading the map, it was 16 kilometres.
2 Q. You know, of course, Mr. Hamill, unlike you,
3 visited the area, and I'm going to come to this right
4 at the end and, indeed, found an area in Puticevo
5 suitable for firing in the direction of Zenica. Now,
6 if he measured it and found it could be within range,
7 you've got no reason to challenge him on that, have
9 A. I have no reason, no.
10 Q. Because Puticevo is an area probably itself 2
11 kilometres in extent.
12 If we stay with paragraph 12, the position, I
13 think, is this, that the Croats at that time had
14 122-millimetre howitzers. What weapons of either of
15 these two gauges did they have, to your knowledge?
16 A. So far as I know, the Croats in Central
17 Bosnia had the 152-millimetre calibres. I'm not aware
18 of them having the other calibres.
19 Q. So of course the 152-millimetre howitzer
20 would have no trouble reaching Zenica from Puticevo.
21 It would be well within range.
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. If we look at the three weapons, that's
24 looking at it from the Croat's point of view, they had
25 two weapons, assuming Mr. Hamill is right, the 122 and
1 the 152, which could easily have reached Zenica from
3 If we now look at the Serb side, and you may
4 want to have another look at the map which, I'm so
5 sorry, is inconveniencing the interpreters, and perhaps
6 I'll take it down after this exercise and have it
7 moved, if you look due west from Zenica, and think of
8 the three weapons that could have carried this fuse and
9 asked yourself the question: Could the Serbs have
10 fired from due west? The answer comes as follows: 122
11 millimetre would have had insufficient range, couldn't
12 have done it.
13 Likewise, the 130 millimetre one which we've
14 just been referring to at 27.5 kilometres would have
15 had range from the left of that red line, that red
16 front line would have had range to reach Zenica. The
17 third one, the 152 millimetre one which has a range of
18 only 24.4 kilometres would not reach; do you accept
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And even so, the one with the longest range
22 of 27.5 kilometres would only just be able to reach
23 from Serb-held territory, and the problem there is that
24 out west of Zenica at that point of the map, and we can
25 all see straight left, there's no suitable territory
1 there for firing this type of artillery piece; would
2 you accept that?
3 A. I don't know. I was not there.
4 Q. Thank you. Can we turn over then please
5 to --
6 JUDGE MAY: Can we take that down now?
7 MR. NICE: Yes, certainly.
8 JUDGE MAY: And Mr. Nice, if you'd have
9 regard to the clock.
10 MR. SAYERS: Mr. President, if I may, I will
11 actually have one question about that map so if --
12 JUDGE MAY: Why don't you ask it now?
13 MR. SAYERS: Very well. To do that now, may
14 I have leave just to approach?
15 JUDGE MAY: Yes, of course.
16 Re-examined by Mr. Sayers:
17 Q. Dr. Jankovic, it's been put to you --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Sayers,
20 MR. SAYERS:
21 Q. Dr. Jankovic, it's been put to you that it's
22 a 45 degree angle from Mount Vlasic to the centre of
23 Zenica, but Mount Vlasic, if you take a look at the
24 map, is actually an extremely large area, it's a
25 tabletop mountain that lies to the north of Travnik and
1 covers a very large area in here; isn't that right?
2 A. I was not on that mountain, but that is my
3 impression just by observing the map. [In English] I
4 think so. I wasn't there but I think so looking at the
6 Q. Topographically, you can see that the map has
7 a tabletop fairly even surface that stretches over a
8 wide area which is why it's such a commanding,
9 strategically important feature?
10 A. [Interpretation] It may -- it could be.
11 Q. Puticevo is this little feature here that was
12 outlined by Mr. Nice, and I believe Vlasic comes down
13 to this point and comes up to this point at the
14 north --
15 MR. NICE: I believe we're now getting --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice.
17 MR. NICE: We're now getting to the stage of
18 Mr. Sayers giving evidence. There's no evidence to
19 this effect at all, the evidence about where Vlasic is
20 has all been to the contrary effect.
21 JUDGE MAY: It may be that we are going to
22 need some further evidence on this particular topic.
23 In any event, the witness really can't give evidence
24 about it but your point is that -- go on about
25 Puticevo, Mr. Sayers.
1 MR. SAYERS: The point is, Your Honour, that
2 Puticevo is here where I'm indicating. The southerly
3 point of Vlasic, the Vlasic plateau is here. Puticevo
4 here, southerly point of the Vlasic plateau here. And
5 if you measure the angle from the southern point of the
6 Vlasic plateau to Zenica, you get a completely
7 different angle at the southern point than you do from
8 the northern point which was using the 45 degree point
9 that Mr. Nice referred to.
10 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
11 MR. SAYERS: And that's just a matter of
12 cartography, but we're more than happy to produce the
13 one who's familiar with the --
14 JUDGE MAY: Whether we need that or not, it
15 doesn't matter. That sounds like a matter for
16 argument. Is that all?
17 MR. SAYERS: And the second question is
18 simply a matter of measurement.
19 Q. We viewed a map, the Zenica 4 series,
20 yesterday and measured the distance from the Puticevo
21 feature to the centre of Zenica, where the shells fell,
22 and I think you've said that that distance was 16
23 kilometres. Was that within or outside the range of a
24 D-30J 122-millimetre artillery weapon?
25 A. Yes. I said so. I measured 16 kilometres,
1 and that is out of the 122-millimetre howitzer's range.
2 JUDGE MAY: And what is the range of the 122,
3 then, Dr. Jankovic?
4 A. It is really dangerous to answer that
5 question, because there are two standards whereby the
6 range is determined: There is the NATO standard and
7 the Russian standard. Usually one uses the Russian
8 standard because it being a Russian weapon, and its
9 range is about 15 kilometres, 300 metres, perhaps a few
10 metres less. That is according to the Russian
12 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Can we take the map
13 down now, please?
14 MR. NICE: Yes.
15 MR. SAYERS: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Cross-examined by Mr. Nice [Cont'd]:
17 Q. Dr. Jankovic, just help me, please. I asked
18 you before this adjournment whether we could eliminate
19 Vlasic as of relevance because it was too far away.
20 You're now being reminded of what you looked at
21 yesterday at the map and you give a different answer.
22 How? How can that come, please?
23 A. If I may, it all depends on where those
24 weapons are and what is Vlasic. It is known exactly
25 what is the range of weapons. If any of their
1 positions were within that range, then they could have
2 fired; if not, then, naturally, not.
3 Q. Equally, when you return to what the position
4 was in May and the conclusions were of shellings coming
5 from an area six kilometres north of Travnik, that was
6 a part of Vlasic well outside any parameters of error
7 on the part of shells for these purposes; it was far
8 too far away, wasn't it?
9 A. I don't know. I have to look exactly at
10 where the position is, where are these 24 kilometres --
11 for 152, that's 24 kilometres -- and if so, if it's
12 possible, then it's possible; if it's not possible,
13 then it's not possible. That's all I can say.
14 Q. And finally, when I explain to you that
15 Mr. Hamill, who had about there, found the area and
16 measured it and said it was within range, you accepted
17 it. Can you help me, please, with how you then change
18 your answer?
19 A. I do not know where the weapon was. If
20 Mr. Hamill says that it was within the range, then it
21 is so. If it was outside that range, then it is not
22 so. I cannot say whether it was within or not, because
23 I do not know where the weapon was.
24 Q. Thank you. May we now, then, look, please,
25 at the same exhibit, that is, the general Exhibit
1 D202.1. But may we look at tab 15, which is actually
2 Exhibit D164.1. Sorry, D164/1.
3 First of all, then, if we look at -- sorry.
4 If we look at D164/1, a milinfosum, that's a military
5 information summary, for the 6th of June, a little
6 later, it says this of the location of weapons, so far
7 as the BSA is concerned. Under D -- do you see that?
8 -- it gives there 122- and 155-millimetre howitzers
9 and it gives the reference points, which we can all
10 see, all in the Vlasic feature and all quite close
11 together. And they're all far to the north. Do you
12 accept that?
13 MR. SAYERS: I just object to the form of
14 that question, Your Honour, because it's quite clear
15 that this milinfosum refers to artillery dispositions
16 of the BSA in the Tuzla area.
17 JUDGE MAY: I don't think the witness can
18 help us with this.
19 MR. NICE: It may have to turn up in
20 argument. But can we then turn to the next exhibit in
21 the bundle, which is Z1044, one of the Defence
22 exhibits. I can always make mine available if it would
23 help. It's part of, and I'll just -- I'll hand it all
24 to the usher, but open at the one line I want. It's a
25 milinfosum for the 11th of June, and it's that sheet.
1 Lay it on the ELMO, please.
2 Q. This is again a military information
3 document, and what it says, in relation now to the
4 Croat disposition of forces, we can see, in the Vitez
5 area, under paragraph 11, is that there were 255 Nora
6 howitzers in the Mosunj quarry. Well, do you know
7 this: The Mosunj quarry is not only not on Puticevo;
8 it's a little bit south of Puticevo, but well within
9 range of Zenica. Would you accept that?
10 A. I do not know anything about it. I do not
11 know. But Nora is 152-millimetre calibre, so this has
12 to be corrected.
13 Q. Well, for the want of time, I'm going to pass
14 over that particular point, although I could deal with
15 it. And can we return, please, now to your report.
16 And we are on to the last page -- no, not the last
17 page -- page 6, where you deal first with crater
18 analysis to ascertain calibre of shells. And I'm not
19 going to deal with that, because what you're saying is
20 it's an inaccurate method, isn't that correct,
21 imprecise method?
22 A. It's not, no.
23 Q. I'm not going to debate that issue with you.
24 The Court has heard some witnesses who rely on it, but
25 I'm not challenging in substance what you say about its
2 If we go to paragraph 15, you make some
3 references there to the sort of ground that these
4 craters fell on. Asphalt is a very good surface, would
5 you accept, for what we find on the following page,
6 page 7, at paragraph 17, which is the only analysis of
7 craters done by Mr. Hamill?
8 A. I do not know what term I'm supposed to
10 Q. Well, let's deal with this in stages. First
11 of all, your report, it happens, doesn't deal with
12 Mr. Hamill's evidence really at all on the use he made
13 of crater analysis. You don't comment on it at all, do
15 A. I did not.
16 Q. Was that your choice or the lawyer's?
17 A. It was my choice, because my approach is as
18 I've written it down here.
19 Q. Mr. Hamill made no attempt to gauge the type
20 of shell from the crater; he used the crater only to
21 deal with the direction of incoming fire. You accept
22 that, don't you?
23 A. I do for an approximate determination of the
24 direction. That is what we talked about.
25 Q. He did not do it by photographs, as seems to
1 be being implied at some stage in the evidence. As you
2 must know from his evidence, he visited the area,
3 looked at the existing craters, and was able to confirm
4 what they were by reference to photographs taken at the
5 time. Do you accept that?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. NICE: May we now, please, look at the
8 document that was earlier not visible on the ELMO, and
9 which can be distributed as Exhibit 2822.
10 Q. I repeat, Doctor, that I'm not a
11 statistician, and my understanding of terms you were
12 referring to is therefore untutored. But I think what
13 you talked about when you spoke of the Gaussian
14 distribution is something we can reduce to
15 understandable terminology with which I hope you will
17 This little diagram is built on your own
18 calculations of a standard 5 per cent deviation, and
19 what it shows is that on the basis of your figures of 5
20 per cent -- which we don't necessarily accept, but 5
21 per cent -- 68 per cent of firings would land within 5
22 per cent either side; 95 per cent would land within 10
23 degrees of either side; 99.5 per cent would land within
24 15 degrees of either side; and the remaining half per
25 cent would lie outside that range. Converted into
1 something that the layman can easily understand, would
2 you accept that there is a 1 in 200 chance of an error
3 more than 15 degrees, a 1 in 20 chance of an error more
4 than 10 degrees, a 2 to 1 chance of an error more than
5 5 degrees, and a 1 to 2 chance of an error less than 5
7 A. Artillerymen, gunmen, they call this one
8 probable deviation, and this area, plus/minus so much,
9 is 50 per cent, which means that 50 per cent is within
10 and 50 per cent without, and that is the most probable
11 value that I used. So when I said that the angle was
12 most probably 5 degrees, it means that the chances --
13 that the odds are 50 per cent that it will be within
14 these 5 per cent and 50 per cent that it will be
15 without. And then the probability goes more or less as
16 you described it. There is a very low probability that
17 it could be as large as that. That is correct.
18 Q. Now these probabilities, thank you for that.
19 If we can put that on --
20 A. Just one thing more. May I add something?
21 Q. Of course.
22 A. So the most probable value here, if we're
23 talking about the maximum, the word that you used then
24 we mean this one here, four times.
25 Q. Now, that distribution of variation is, as it
1 were theoretical, built on your factual assumption
2 about five per cent. Of course, theoretical
3 determinations have to be modulated by real experience
4 of a particular event.
5 MR. NICE: May I hand in Exhibit 2260 which I
6 have lightly highlighted, 2260.3, which I have lightly
7 highlighted, to assist the witness and if it can go on
8 the ELMO. I hope the highlighted colours will show
9 up. I don't think they do very satisfactorily but to
10 some degree they do.
11 Q. I've tried to highlight the shell position
12 landing in yellow and green, but the green shows up,
13 the yellow doesn't very well.
14 The evidence has been, Dr. Jankovic, if you
15 look at the bottom of the two pairs of colours, that
16 there was a yellow and green shell landing in that
17 southern position. Further up the page, there was a
18 yellow one more significantly to the left, and then the
19 green one near the apex of the little triangle that's
20 formed there, and then at the top, and again the yellow
21 one isn't very easy to see, there was two more shells,
22 one yellow one green close together. That's what was
23 found on the ground.
24 Do you accept that?
25 A. Yes, yes, yes.
1 Q. All right. Dealing with the one that's a
2 little further to the left or west, that is the one in
3 the middle, the shortfall of that shell could easily be
4 explained, could it not, by what you were saying about
5 some shells being of different weight in times of war?
6 A. Different weight markings, as we call that.
7 Q. That can easily explain that. But the
8 general extreme close proximity of these shells one to
9 another shows, does it not, that they fall within -- on
10 our statistical diagram, well within the central area
11 of the five per cent error and, frankly, they show a
12 pretty high level of accuracy. You would accept that,
13 wouldn't you?
14 A. I calculated that and that is a difficult
15 question to answer. The statistical scattering of
16 these shells can mean that they belong to the same --
17 to one and the same group but it does not have to mean
18 that. That is both answers are possible.
19 Q. If we accept the evidence for the time being,
20 that the order in which the shells landed was as
21 follows: The bottom two first, the middle two next,
22 the top two last. With your knowledge of the army,
23 that is entirely consistent with there being somebody
24 providing information of where shells are landing and
25 that information being reported back to the
1 artillerymen, and then making appropriate adjustments
2 to their firing in order to better reach their
4 A. No. Other explanations are also feasible.
5 Q. Well, all right. Let's deal with that in two
6 stages. First of all, what I propose to do which is
7 what Mr. Hamill gave in evidence is one explanation and
8 I'd like it correct and then please tell us what the
9 other explanations are.
10 A. What Mr. Hamill said is correct, either
11 explanations are. I know from the rules of firing of
12 the Yugo army when you fire at a target with a certain
13 area, then the firing direction changes over time, and
14 this could have been the case of firing at a surface
15 target, that is, as Mr. Hamill said. I could agree
16 that there were two weapons which were firing, that one
17 projectile and then they changed the direction, again,
18 they fired one projectile each, then they slightly
19 shifted direction and then again takes turns. So that
20 is another possible explanation.
21 Q. If these shots were fired in the way
22 suggested, moving first once and then the second time
23 in a northerly direction, and if the firing then
24 stopped, that would again, as Mr. Hamill has suggested,
25 fit with there being an intended object and with that
1 object having been effectively hit; correct?
2 A. Perhaps, but again, there may be other
4 Q. And it's always possible that everything is
5 entirely at random, but there's no reason to believe
6 that these firings were entirely at random, is there?
7 A. I wouldn't know.
8 Q. Mr. Hamill told us, although you haven't
9 dealt with this in your report, that his experience of
10 crater analysis for the purpose of finding direction of
11 incoming fire is that it is accurate within a degree or
12 so, a couple of degrees. You don't challenge that, do
14 A. We just talked about it, and I said that in
15 my view, with the probability of 50 per cent that
16 measurement error would be about five degrees.
17 Q. But you have no experience to base that on
18 because you've never done it yourself.
19 A. When I said that it was five degrees, the
20 probable error -- I hypothesised that the
21 measurement -- excuse me for a moment -- so my
22 hypothesis is this angle was measured accurately. I
23 did not calculate any error into my measurement. So it
24 is measured accurately. But between that direction and
25 this direction, there is this big one and it -- I'm
1 talking about this value that it is most probably about
2 3.5 degrees so -- and people say, and I also consulted
3 other people how accurate could the measurement be of
4 the crater symmetry and everybody said it's about two
5 degrees and I believe Mr. Hamill has said the same
6 thing, and I accept it. But then this error has to be
7 added to these 3.5 degrees, and I didn't even take that
8 into account.
9 The thing is, this direction could have been
10 determined accurately, but it is not the direction
11 where the weapons was. The weapon is here, and this
12 measurement direction is here. This is exaggerated,
13 isn't it?
14 Q. Let me just see if I understand this, having
15 none of your special expertise. I have to use my arm.
16 If you look at my arm, please. My arm indicates the
17 incoming fire, and if my elbow is Mr. Hamill standing
18 to check on what angle it's coming from, and your
19 method of identifying the incoming line of fire may be
20 inaccurate by a couple of degrees on either side;
21 that's the point, isn't it?
22 A. The measurement of that angle, the
23 measurement of that angle, the angle of your arm is one
24 to two degrees probably, I wouldn't know. But I
25 accepted that it was measured accurately.
1 However, your arm shows points at the plane
2 of the crater symmetry whereas the gun could have been
3 here and then because of the wind, its path was curved
4 and it landed there. That is what I'm repeating and
5 that tolerance is 3.5 degrees, or rather one has to add
6 to it 1.5 degrees and so on.
7 Q. And I don't know where the figure of 3.5
8 comes from, we don't have time to explore it, but can I
9 just make this point if we go back to the plan that --
10 A. From computer simulations, from computer
11 simulations, exactly for 122-millimetre for the maximum
13 Q. Doctor, the material --
14 JUDGE MAY: Let's not go --
15 MR. NICE:
16 Q. But if we go back please to the diagram, if
17 you move your book off the ELMO and just look at the
18 diagram again. Where we see the cluster where the
19 shells landed, whatever may have been the accuracy or
20 inaccuracy of the calculation of the incoming shell,
21 the cluster of these shell craters shows that there was
22 no significant or affecting variation at the point of
23 discharge of the guns. They were slowly and
24 methodically moving comparative short distances to
25 their target. That's correct, isn't it?
1 A. I don't know.
2 Q. They certainly -- this is my last point on
3 this. The clustering of those shells and the direction
4 in which they moved as a series points towards accuracy
5 and points towards any unforecast deviation by wind at
6 the point of firing.
7 A. I don't know.
8 Q. One point on your tables, just a matter of
9 detail, if you'd look, please, over a couple of pages
10 in your report to the very first of the firing tables,
11 just a little oddity in this document that I wonder if
12 you could clear up for me.
13 The document is dated 1984 at the bottom.
14 We've only got a photocopy and yet at the top it's got
15 the symbol of the Croatian chequerboard which I think
16 would have been unacceptable in 1984 on a national
17 document of this kind. The table you looked at, was it
18 in this form or is this some form of composite heading
19 that's been put on this table?
20 A. In original, there was a five-point star in
21 that location, and as the HVO used these tables, they
22 put on top of the five-point star the chequerboard
23 which is the Croatian symbol.
24 Q. A small point, but that symbol is the
25 Republic of Croatia at the top, isn't it?
1 JUDGE MAY: No, but you can see it's at an
2 angle. Do let's move on.
3 A. Correct.
4 JUDGE MAY: Look, it's a very -- Mr. Nice,
5 it's a very small point. The time of this Trial
6 Chamber is being taken up by unnecessary
7 cross-examination. Now let us bring this
8 cross-examination to a conclusion.
9 MR. NICE: With respect, not on this topic,
10 it is very important.
11 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, we will be the judges
12 of what is important and what isn't, and as far as this
13 cross-examination is concerned, it's gone on long
14 enough in my view.
15 MR. NICE: Well, I'm sorry that Your Honour
16 takes that view.
17 JUDGE MAY: Don't interrupt. Now please
18 let's get on.
19 MR. NICE: I'm afraid that I have to make our
20 position clear on these important topics and this is an
21 important topic. This evidence will be the subject of
22 considerable argument at the end of the day.
23 The witness is providing important and
24 helpful answers and I've come actually to the end, I
25 think, subject to checking my notes but the last point
1 I want to make is an important one.
2 Q. Now, Dr. Jankovic, you agreed with me at the
3 beginning that scientific method involves reaching a
4 conclusion by one area and confirming it in another; do
5 you remember?
6 A. Yes, that happens.
7 Q. You accept that Mr. Hamill worked back from
8 his crater analysis, toured the area, and located a
9 suitable firing position in flatlands in the Puticevo
11 A. Those are facts. I have nothing to add.
12 Q. We now know from a Defence witness of
13 considerable seniority in the HVO, transcript 17225,
14 that in April 1993, there were howitzers of both 122
15 and 152 calibre west of Zenica at Puticevo in the broad
16 area of Puticevo. That independent evidence, would you
17 accept, that there were such weapons there, is bound to
18 confirm the scientific findings of Mr. Hamill. Would
19 you accept that?
20 A. I don't know. I would need to know which
21 things were there, have to analyse it, and then give
22 you an answer. Otherwise it's too dangerous to just
23 say yes or no, tell you yes or no because I could be
25 Q. My last question on that answer and my last
1 question of you is that subject only to the possible
2 issue of range of 122-millimetre weapons, subject only
3 to that, each of these weapons, the 122 and the 152
4 calibre weapons held by the HVO in Puticevo, could have
5 sent these shells to Zenica, and there is nothing in
6 what you have seen to make that an improbable
8 A. If there was a Nora 152-millimetre artillery
9 weapon, it certainly could have sent the shell to
10 Zenica. I was not in Central Bosnia. I cannot speak
11 to -- as to who had what at the time there, but as an
12 engineer, as a person who worked in the logistics, my
13 knowledge is that the Croatian army did not have
14 ammunition for 152-millimetre at that time. I made
15 tables for 152 but how the projectiles were OF 540 and
16 530 which are used for the Nora weapons were only
17 acquired a year later.
18 We regretted that we did not have projectiles
19 for these weapons which by myself and other experts
20 were considered very good weapons.
21 MR. NICE: Thank you.
22 MR. SAYERS: No redirect examination, Your
24 JUDGE MAY: Thank you, Dr. Jankovic, for
25 coming to give your evidence. It's now concluded. You
1 are free to go.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, it
3 was an honour for me.
4 [The witness withdrew]
5 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Next witness, please.
6 MR. SAYERS: Your Honour, based upon the
7 estimate of cross-examination, we've asked the witness
8 to be available after lunch. Would it be possible to
9 take a somewhat early lunch break and maybe come back
10 20 minutes earlier than normal?
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.
13 MR. NICE: Could we have private session for
14 just a couple of minutes, please?
15 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
16 [Private session]
13 page 21354 redacted – private session
5 [Open session]
6 JUDGE MAY: But continuing with the matter,
7 you yourself raised the issue of when this trial was to
8 finish and have suggested that you might have an
9 extensive rebuttal case.
10 It is far too early to determine the scope of
11 that case, but it's going to be very much within your
12 hands as to whether this case does finish in November
13 or not. And speaking for myself, I regard the amount
14 of detail which the Prosecution has thought necessary
15 to bring forward as a serious matter, and one we shall
16 have to review in due course as to whether it was
17 necessary. But for the moment, of course, I have in
18 mind your duty to present your case as you think right,
19 but I do ask you to have in mind our duty to try the
20 case expeditiously and the fact that we determine what
21 is relevant and what isn't and what significance we
22 wish to be placed on evidence.
23 Having regard to the length of the evidence
24 in chief, it is my view that more than enough time has
25 been devoted to cross-examination. I would not
1 consider putting counsel under any sort of pressure,
2 and would indeed make no comment unless I thought it
3 was really necessary. For the moment, I think we can
4 leave it at that.
5 MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes, but I would
6 desire just to say, I think, one thing, or perhaps two
7 of importance, and I think they are important. I'm
8 only mentioning them in private session -- I'm quite
9 happy to be in public session -- because --
10 JUDGE MAY: I think we are in public session.
11 MR. NICE: I'm quite happy to mention them
12 all. The thing that is concerning me, and has
13 concerned me for some time, arises in this way really:
14 First of all, we are being blamed from time to time for
15 the length of the case, but I have to remind the
16 Chamber that there was nothing agreed, despite every
17 effort, nothing at all, and the Chamber is now faced
18 with the reality that the Defence cases are simply
19 neither continuing to challenge nor calling evidence on
20 very large areas of evidence that we said from the
21 beginning should not have been the subject of live
22 evidence. So I'm afraid I simply, on behalf of the
23 Prosecution, cannot accept that we were over long,
24 because we did what we were compelled to do by
25 circumstances that arose.
1 And on the second point, so far as
2 cross-examination is concerned --
3 JUDGE BENNOUNA: Please, can you wait a
4 second, please. I have to consult with the President.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] I would like
7 to tell you, Mr. Nice, my personal opinion with regard
8 to what goes on in this Chamber. In this Chamber the
9 two parties to the case that we are hearing now have
10 both right to express their concerns. The Presiding
11 Judge, at a given moment, gives the view of the
12 Chamber. But we are not conducting a permanent
13 dialogue. Once the opinion of the Chamber has been
14 given, one needs to stop the dialogue at a given
15 moment. We are not here in a permanent discussion.
16 We're not involved in an ongoing dialogue. This is not
17 the place for a dialogue; this is a place for a
18 judgement. So that I'm saying I express my opinion,
19 but I should like to ask you to observe that
20 procedure. The President has given you the opinion of
21 the Chamber on the manner in which this case is
22 conducted, and I think that that is where one must put
23 an end to it.
24 MR. NICE: I quite accept that, save that
25 where criticism is mounted, I'm entitled to answer,
2 And my only other point, and I was going to
3 make this directly in answer to one of the points
4 raised by His Honour Judge May is this: In the Defence
5 case, let it be remembered, we have been provided with
6 material, typically, at the last moment within the
7 timetable, a timetable has been set, and we have met
8 that timetable without stretching into a second day on
9 all, save, I think, one witness. We have always cut
10 our cross-examination down, and we will today. There
11 are two witnesses for today. They will both be
12 finished today. And we have, I have to say, with
13 respect, honoured our duty, indeed gone beyond it, in
14 ensuring that the timetable set by the Defence, not by
15 us, is not broken. And it's been hard work to do
16 that. And I have to say that, for example, with this
17 last witness, it may be there was a lot of potential
18 for obfuscation in what was adduced, and what I have
19 asked him has, I hope, made it quite possible for
20 matters to be clear and succinct in closing arguments.
21 And I'm grateful for the opportunity of being able to
22 make that point in answer to Judge May's observations.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: A general comment I'd like
24 to make on cross-examination by both parties is that
25 some of the cross-examination could be avoided and
1 could be appropriately left to submissions. And I say
2 this even taking into account that when you make your
3 submissions, you obviously must have a background in
4 the evidence, but I would still conclude that some of
5 it could properly be left to submissions at the end of
6 the case, and that would shorten the cross-examination
7 appreciably. And this relates to cross-examination by
8 both parties.
9 MR. NICE: We'll do our best further to
11 JUDGE MAY: Very well. It's now 10 to 1.00.
12 We'll take a slightly longer than usual -- no. On
13 reflection, perhaps we could come back at 20 past 2.00
14 and start the witness then. Twenty past 2.00.
15 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.51 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 2.25 p.m.
2 [The witness entered court]
3 JUDGE MAY: Yes, let the witness take the
5 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will
6 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
8 JUDGE MAY: If you'd like to take a seat.
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 WITNESS: JURE CAVARA
11 MR. SAYERS: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Examined by Mr. Sayers:
13 Q. Mr. Cavara, just for purposes of the record
14 will you please state your full name for the record?
15 A. My name is Jure Cavara. I was born on 14
16 March 1948 in the village of Solakovici in the
17 municipality of Busovaca. I am married and I have
18 three children. I live in the village of Donji
19 Solakovici in the municipality of Busovaca.
20 Q. Now, Mr. Cavara, you have signed an affidavit
21 that was dated May 19th, 2000; correct?
22 A. That is correct.
23 Q. And everything in that affidavit, is it true
24 or is it not?
25 A. It is correct and true, and I stand by it.
1 Q. All right. Mr. Cavara, there's only one
2 other subject that I would like to raise since you are
3 here that's beyond, specifically, what's contained in
4 your affidavit. We can all read your affidavit so
5 there's no point in going over that. Let me just ask
6 you this: Do you know a man named Anto Juric?
7 A. I know him. This was in 1993. He was the
8 commander of the 1st Battalion.
9 Q. The 1st Battalion of the Nikola
10 Subic-Zrinjski Brigade?
11 A. 1st Battalion of the Nikola Subic-Zrinjski
12 Brigade of Busovaca.
13 Q. All right. Mr. Cavara, let me draw your
14 attention to an event that occurred in August of 1992,
15 a line up of HVO soldiers. Were you present at that
17 A. Yes, I was.
18 Q. And was Mr. Juric present at that lineup as
19 far as you're aware?
20 A. Yes, Mr. Juric was also there as commander of
21 the 1st Battalion of the HVO Busovaca municipal staff.
22 Q. All right. And this was actually, I believe,
23 sir, a little bit before the Nikola Subic-Zrinjski
24 Brigade was formally established.
25 A. No, that was the first lineup of the HVO in
1 Busovaca which was held in August 1992.
2 Q. And what did Mr. Juric do at this lineup, if
3 you can recall?
4 A. Mr. Juric reported to the chief of municipal
5 HVO Busovaca staff, Mr. Niko Cosic.
6 Q. Are you sure that this lineup was in August
7 of 1992 as opposed to June or July of 1992?
8 A. I'm 100 per cent sure because this lineup was
9 on the 20th of August, 1992.
10 Q. All right. Now, you've just said that
11 Mr. Juric presented a report to Mr. Cosic.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Are you sure that it was Mr. Cosic and not
14 Mr. Kordic that the report was presented to?
15 A. I'm 100 per cent certain.
16 Q. The final question sir is when exactly was
17 the Nikola Subic-Zrinjski Brigade actually formed?
18 A. The Nikola Subic-Zrinjski Brigade was formed
19 on 19 December 1992 when it was formally brought into
20 existence at the football field in Busovaca.
21 MR. SAYERS: Thank you very much. No further
22 questions, sir.
23 MR. KOVACIC: No, thank you, Your Honour, we
24 don't have any questions.
25 Cross-examined by Mr. Nice:
1 Q. Mr. Cavara, you are here to give evidence
2 about various topics. Do you know what topics you are
3 expected to cover today?
4 A. I came in respect of the defence of Mr. Dario
5 Kordic and the topics are that Dario Kordic never had
6 any military power or any commanding position.
7 MR. NICE: Thank you. May the witness
8 therefore please see Exhibit 243.
9 Q. While that's being brought to you,
10 Mr. Cavara, you would accept, would you not, that the
11 people most likely to know whether Kordic had power
12 over and authority over or with Blaskic is Kordic and
13 Blaskic themselves; would you accept that?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Why not?
16 A. Because Mr. Kordic had no power over the
17 Nikola Subic-Zrinjski Brigade nor did he have any
18 commanding authority either over myself or my
19 predecessor, Mr. Dusko Grubesic.
20 Q. Or over any military matters, would that be
22 A. Over no military matters because Mr. Kordic
23 was only a political figure.
24 Q. Thank you. I come back to my question. The
25 people most likely to know, would be able to help us
1 with who -- whether Kordic had military power, and
2 particularly whether he had military power with or over
3 Blaskic would be Kordic and Blaskic themselves.
4 A. Yes. I was the commander of the brigade
5 before, and before that I was the assistant for
6 training of the brigade, so I was able to see all the
7 orders coming to the brigade.
8 Q. Can you just have a look at this document,
9 please, in the original version. You may not have seen
10 it before. And it's the last page of it. It's a
11 document that's dated 21st of October, 1992. It deals
12 with things in Novi Travnik. And if you turn over the
13 pages, it deals with the HVO. And if you come to
14 paragraph 10, you'll find that the following is
15 written. I read it in the English version. Perhaps
16 you would be good enough to follow it in the version
17 you have.
18 "While defence operations are being
19 conducted, the vice-president of the HZ HB, Dario
20 Kordic, and I are in Novi Travnik, continuously leading
21 the military operations, through deep knowledge of the
22 situation and by keeping all forces under our
24 You'll then see at the end of that is the
25 place for signatures of Blaskic and Kordic, and a
1 handwritten receipt. You were first involved in
2 matters in the middle of 1992, were you?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Can you explain how this man who you say has
5 no military authority should be described in that way
6 by Blaskic, the passage I've just read to you?
7 A. Will you please let me read the document
8 which I just received.
9 Q. Paragraph 10 is what I want you to read.
10 A. I read that document, that is, paragraph 10,
11 and according to this, I see nothing from which one
12 could glean that Dario Kordic had any commanding duty.
13 He was there only as a political figure.
14 Q. Very well. Let's turn from that to 1993.
15 You were involved in the Nikola Subic-Zrinjski Brigade
16 from January; correct?
17 A. I was involved in it before, with the HVO
18 Busovaca Municipal Staff, and after January I was in a
19 different position.
20 Q. You were in the brigade, and the person in
21 charge of the brigade for most of 1993 was Dusko
23 A. Yes. From the beginning of January 1993 I
24 was in a duty of the chief of training, until August
1 Q. So that Dusko Grubesic is --
2 A. And from August 1993 until 11 October 1993, I
3 was in -- I had the duty of the chief of brigade. On
4 the 11th October, 1993, I was appointed the commander
5 of the brigade, and I was in that duty until 1st
6 October, 1997. That is --
7 Q. Thank you.
8 A. -- from the beginning until then, the
9 commander of the brigade was Dusko Grubesic.
10 Q. So for that period, the period of 1993, the
11 person who best knows by whom he was ordered, from whom
12 he received orders, is Dusko Grubesic; correct?
13 A. Yes. Dusko Grubesic received orders from the
14 commander of Central Bosnia Operative Zone, Colonel --
15 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
16 otherwise we take too much time. The person who best
17 knows from whom he receives orders is Dusko Grubesic;
18 just yes or no?
19 A. Yes. But I can add that all orders had to
20 first come to the training centre of the brigade, where
21 I was on duty, and this is where they were processed
22 and then forwarded to the subordinate units.
23 Q. Where is Dusko Grubesic at the moment?
24 A. Dusko Grubesic, I think, is still with the
25 Federation army.
1 Q. So far as you know, alive and well?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You cannot speak, even on the basis of your
4 evidence, of what instructions Grubesic received
5 informally, and other than by written orders, passing
6 through the system you described, can you?
7 A. Duties which I carried out all together and
8 all orders had to go through the training department,
9 because Dusko Grubesic could not command outside of the
10 command and control duties.
11 Q. I don't understand that, I'm afraid. I don't
12 understand that: "Dusko Grubesic could not command
13 outside of the command and control duties." My
14 question was --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. My question was: If somebody in authority
17 gave him an order or instruction verbally, for example,
18 he would be in no position to know one way or another
19 whether that instruction had been given and who gave
21 A. Such orders could not have been issued,
22 because oral orders were not being taken; only the
23 written ones.
24 Q. Very well. The written orders to which you
25 refer, where are they now?
1 A. The written orders were delivered to the
2 district command.
3 Q. They still exist in some archive, do they?
4 A. Yes, they must exist in some archive, because
5 all the orders of the commander of the Vitez
6 headquarters had to be turned over.
7 Q. You haven't looked at or tried to look at any
8 written orders before coming to give evidence here?
9 A. No, because I had no need to.
10 Q. You can remember everything, can you?
11 A. Yes, every event and every date.
12 Q. I want a picture, please, of Busovaca -- just
13 let me go back on that. Every event and every date.
14 Have you gone through these events recently or written
15 them down or made notes?
16 A. No, I didn't have access to any notes or any
17 documents. It is true that at home I have some notes
18 which I kept.
19 Q. I want a picture of Busovaca, please. It's a
20 very small town, isn't it?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Just a few hundred metres across.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So that the Judges can have a picture of it,
25 does it have a cinema? How small is it? Does it have
1 a cinema? Does it have one petrol station or two
2 petrol stations? Give us a picture.
3 A. In 1992, 1993, there was only one petrol
4 station and now there are two, and there is no cinema.
5 Q. Your brigade was based there. Was there any
6 other brigade based there?
7 A. No, it wasn't. Only the Nikola
8 Subic-Zrinjski Brigade of Busovaca. No other unit was
9 deployed in the territory of Busovaca.
10 Q. What about police units?
11 A. The police units only existed insofar as the
12 civilian police is concerned and small military police
13 presence, the strength of a platoon.
14 Q. So that just in 1993, give a figure, if you
15 can, an approximation will do, for the total number of
16 civilian police and the total number of military
18 A. The civilian police at first were about 40
19 and the military only 15.
20 Q. When people in Busovaca in 1993 or since
21 spoke of the HVO, who would they be speaking of, the
23 A. They were referring to the brigade. At
24 first, the brigades were established on a territorial
25 principle in 1992 and they were part of the Busovaca
1 municipal staff, and in December 1992, the brigade was
2 established and then it was referred to as the brigade
4 Q. Thank you. In referring to the HVO, people
5 would not be referring to the civilian police or even
6 to the military police, would they?
7 A. No, because both the civilian and the
8 military police only had authority to maintain peace
9 and control over the territory.
10 Q. So when, in the beginning of January of 1993,
11 just in the start of the beginning, although I'm not
12 going through everything in detail for want of time,
13 but in the beginning of 1993 when the HVO restricted
14 the movement of people, it was your unit that did it.
16 A. I didn't understand the question.
17 Q. Peoples' freedom of movement in Busovaca,
18 according to witnesses we've heard, was restricted
19 right in January of 1993. It was restricted by the
20 HVO, that means it was restricted by your unit. Why?
21 A. That is not correct.
22 Q. There's no truth in that at all? People were
23 free to move around, were they?
24 A. They could go wherever they wanted to.
25 Q. Very well. The Judges have heard the
1 evidence. If we move on to the 20th of January of
2 1993, what orders, if you've seen all the orders, what
3 orders was it that --
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. -- the HVO gave to destroy the Muslim
6 businesses, please?
7 A. Such an order never existed. That means that
8 it could happen in a situation when there was certain
9 disorganisation that certain incidents could occur
10 which were outside of the chain of command.
11 Q. Please explain that. We've heard that it was
12 the HVO who destroyed these buildings. How did that
13 come about?
14 A. HVO could not have destroyed that and no
15 members of the HVO units could have done so.
16 Q. What about the murder of the person Mirsad
17 Delija. You, as an important person in the brigade,
18 must know how that came about.
19 A. I don't know anything about that incident.
20 Q. We've heard that prominent Muslims on the
21 20th of January and thereabouts were arrested and
22 taken -- rounded up by the HVO. Can you tell us,
23 please, about the written order that led to that
25 A. Such an order was never issued and never
2 Q. Can you explain how the rounding up of people
3 then by the HVO happened? We have evidence about it
4 being heard by the Judges, you see.
5 A. Yes, but it is certain that I don't know
6 anything certain about this event, nor about under what
7 circumstances it took place.
8 Q. Well, you knew and know about all the written
9 orders. If these things happened, then they happened
10 without orders, didn't they?
11 A. Without orders issued, that means no order
12 was issued to any individual or group to commit such an
14 Q. But the HVO was under the control and no
15 doubt the firm control of Dusko Grubesic?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Therefore, if members of the HVO were doing
18 the things I've suggested to you, it was Dusko Grubesic
19 who was running them, who was having them done;
21 A. I think he couldn't have done that without
22 having issued a written order.
23 Q. He could have done it, couldn't he, if he'd
24 been instructed to do so by some other superior and
25 been instructed verbally?
1 A. I personally think that Dusko Grubesic would
2 never have ordered such a thing, nor any other person.
3 Q. Dario Kordic was based in the village or the
4 town, wasn't he?
5 A. No. He had his office in a location in a
6 facility called Tisovac.
7 Q. In the beginning he did. Did you go there?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Subsequently, he based himself in the PTT
10 building. Did you see him there?
11 A. Yes, I saw him only once. He came by briefly
12 to inquire about the situation on the ground.
13 Q. We'll come to that later, not long later
14 because I don't have that much to ask you. I'm not
15 going to take this witness through all the evidence
16 that's been given about what happened in Busovaca in
17 light of his answers on the first topics, so I hope I
18 won't be criticised for not doing so.
19 As early as the 3rd of February of 1993 and
20 also on the 5th of February of 1993, officers of the
21 British battalion met Kordic in the PTT building in the
22 basement there in a bunker. Your headquarters, I
23 think, were in a similar place; is that right?
24 A. The forward command post of the brigade
25 command was -- that is on the 25th of January, 1993,
1 when the ABiH attacked the HVO units. And as far as
2 the meeting with the British battalion, I don't know
3 much about that. That is with the British battalion
5 Q. But can you help us, please, with why
6 Mr. Kordic had moved his base, if he had done, from
7 Tisovac down to the centre of the town? Was it because
8 he was assuming more military responsibility?
9 A. As I said, the forward command post, command
10 post of the brigade command was in the PTT building.
11 His offices, his proper offices continued to be in --
12 at Tisovac.
13 JUDGE MAY: My recollection was that he was
14 in PTT at the beginning and Tisovac afterwards, but
15 that may be the wrong way around.
16 MR. NICE: Or it may be one sandwiched the
17 other. Perhaps the witness can help us.
18 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
19 Can you help us with that, Mr. Cavara?
20 Mr. Kordic's headquarters, we've heard, was in Tisovac
21 and we've had evidence about that and now also of
22 course we know about the PTT building. Can you help us
23 as to when his headquarters was in each? Did one
24 follow the other or did he, in fact, have both
25 headquarters at the same time?
1 A. Mr. Kordic had a permanent office at Tisovac,
2 and the forward command post of the brigade command
3 only from the 25th January, 1993 until the end of March
4 1993 was there. And the permanent office of Mr. Kordic
5 continued to be at Tisovac.
6 JUDGE MAY: So he was in the PTT, or he had a
7 headquarters in the PTT between January and March 1993;
8 is that right?
9 A. Correct as only that that was the forward
10 command post of the brigade command, and Mr. Dario
11 Kordic was not part of the command staff.
12 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.
13 MR. NICE:
14 Q. Can you give any reason why he should present
15 himself to British battalion officers as having
16 authority over military matters at that time?
17 A. I can only comment that he could have
18 represented himself as a political figure because of
19 certain negotiations and requests for assistance, given
20 the situation that Busovaca municipality was in.
21 Q. Your brigade obviously covered Busovaca, and
22 what part of the surrounding territory did it cover,
23 typically? Merdani?
24 A. No, it didn't cover Merdani.
25 Q. Which unit would have covered Merdani?
1 A. That's where ABiH army units were.
2 Q. Well, if the HVO was represented at Merdani
3 -- for the Court's benefit, this is the 5th or 6th of
4 February, and it's document Z862 -- the HVO were
5 appearing at Merdani. Would they have come from your
7 A. Our units never entered the village of
9 Q. Very well. Can you explain, on the basis of
10 your evidence so far, how, on the 11th of February of
11 1993, Kordic would be making ceasefire agreements if he
12 was just a politician? The document is Z459. I'm not
13 going to turn to it.
14 A. As far as I know, the ceasefire was signed
15 earlier, 31st January, 1993, and this is the ceasefire
16 signed by Petkovic and Sefer Halilovic.
17 Q. Because to negotiate over the ceasefire, on
18 your own evidence, would be outside Kordic's
19 responsibility, wouldn't it?
20 A. I don't think there was any need to negotiate
21 about the ceasefire, because the ceasefire had been
23 Q. The road to Merdani, I think, has a little
24 bridge on it somewhere, doesn't it, going over the
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. On the 12th of February, do you know what HVO
3 soldiers were doing laying mines there, evidence of
4 Philip Jennings, 89065 transcript page reference?
5 A. That bridge is not in the village of Merdani;
6 it is in Katici.
7 Q. What were HVO soldiers doing putting mines
8 there? Or explosives, probably, not mines; something
9 to blow the bridge up. What were they doing?
10 A. I am not aware of that incident.
11 Q. You see, if it be the case -- it's for the
12 Court in due course to decide -- that they were doing
13 something with explosives on the instructions of
14 Kordic, that would be further evidence that the written
15 orders of which you speak were an incomplete record of
16 the orders being given to the brigade, wouldn't it?
17 A. Well, I can answer this question concretely.
18 Since the territory of the municipality of Busovaca was
19 attacked as early as the 25th of January, 1993, at that
20 time, no doubt for security's sake, orders were issued
21 for the defence, engineering services, and the front
22 line. I can explain the front line which was held by
23 the brigade Nikola Subic-Zrinjski in Busovaca.
24 Q. Mr. Cavara, are you now saying that orders
25 may have been given to blow up that bridge?
1 A. There was no order on the destruction of the
2 bridge. That is, it is possible that mines were placed
3 to ensure the security of crossing the bridge.
4 MR. NICE: Can the witness please have
5 Exhibit 2801. May the usher please place on the ELMO
6 the appropriate pages of 2801.3. I've marked 2801 with
7 the pages I want the witness to look at, it being in
8 the original script, to save time.
9 Q. Mr. Cavara, there are tape recordings of
10 conversations. It is for the Judges to decide what to
11 make of them in due course. But included on them are
12 conversations between you and other people. I want
13 your comment on them, please.
14 MR. NICE: If the witness could have the
15 original, at the first tabbed marking, which is I think
16 pages 3 and 4. If the witness could have those and if
17 we could put an English version on the ELMO, because
18 the Judges don't have a copy each. Sorry. 2801A, I
19 think, for the exhibit. And the English page number is
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
22 MR. NICE: The English page number is 3 for
23 the English. It may be that it's 2801A that we need.
24 That's correct. Thank you very much.
25 Q. Mr. Cavara, it's right, isn't it --
1 Mr. Cavara, it's right, isn't it, that there was for a
2 time a telephone communication between a telephone in
3 the PTT building in Busovaca and Kiseljak?
4 A. Yes, there was a telephone communication.
5 Q. This was the time when Blaskic was isolated
6 in Kiseljak because he couldn't get back?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, if you look at, in your hands, pages 3
9 and 4, and if the usher very kindly places on the ELMO
10 page 3, we see this conversation. It exists on a
11 tape. For time reasons, I'll deal with it this way.
12 You say, "Hello." Blaskic says, "Yes." You say, "Hi,
13 Colonel. This is Grubesic." And he says, "This is
14 TO." The conversation goes on. And if we can turn
15 over --
16 JUDGE MAY: I'm sorry, Mr. Nice. This is
18 MR. NICE: Yes. I'm so sorry. This is
19 Grubesic talking. I'm so sorry. It's not this
20 witness. Yes, of course. Yes, my mistake.
21 Q. But if we turn over the page to page 4, we
22 see Grubesic talking and speaking at line 25 about
23 Colonel Dario having gone to a conference and saying
24 something about put Caritas stickers on something.
25 Now, I'm sorry that I suggested it was your
1 conversation. Of course it wasn't and never -- I
2 couldn't have suggested it was. But this is a Grubesic
3 conversation. Do you remember Grubesic having
4 conversations with Blaskic from that phone in the
6 A. I do.
7 Q. And this is just a small example where
8 there's reference to Colonel Dario giving instructions
9 about putting Caritas stickers on something. Do you
10 accept that that's the sort of thing that Dario Kordic
11 would have been saying?
12 A. I don't, because I don't see any conversation
13 with Dario Kordic here.
14 Q. No, this is a conversation between Blaskic
15 and Grubesic but the point is --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. -- the topic of the conversation includes
18 Kordic saying that certain stickers should be put on,
19 no doubt, certain transports. Do you accept that
20 Kordic would have been saying things like that to
22 A. I don't think he said it.
23 Q. Very well. The English page five and in your
24 version page five, we see at line 15, somebody called
25 Arapovic on the phone and asks of the other person:
1 "Who would you like to speak to? Would you like to
2 speak to Mr. Dario?" And the colonel, may well be
3 Blaskic at the other end, says, "Either to Dusko or to
4 Dario. It's all the same to me."
5 Now, the suggestion is that this conversation
6 occurred on the 24th of February. By the 24th of
7 February 1993, was Kordic effectively sharing authority
8 with Dusko Grubesic in Busovaca?
9 A. No, he had no authority. And as for this
10 conversation here, Arapovic was simply Mr. Kordic's
12 Q. Yes. Very well. The next passage I'd like
13 you to look at and I think probably the last is at page
14 11 on the English and indeed page 11 in your version.
15 If you would be good enough to go to that.
16 This, it is suggested, is the 25th of
17 February, and if we look at page 11, this is a
18 conversation or part of a conversation between Grubesic
19 and Blaskic, and we can see at line 18 Blaskic giving
20 the topic saying he "... sent a request last night for
21 me and the chief to come down there to you, you know.
22 Well, UNPROFOR rejected it all again, and the 22 tonnes
23 of potatoes are going to freeze and rot."
24 Now, further down at line 29, Grubesic says,
25 "Now, Colonel Kordic is here. He would like to talk
1 to you." Then we turn over the page to page 12 at
3 The record shows Kordic saying, line ten,
4 "Very well then, the people will go out again today.
5 Blaskic replies: "Well, the people should be informed
6 about that, and they should go out and block
7 everything, altogether, because those potatoes, if
8 they're not used today, we can throw them away.
9 Twenty-two tonnes of potatoes." And Kordic says:
10 "Listen, call those people in Kiseljak now and tell
11 them that the traffic will be blocked in Central Bosnia
12 unless the potatoes arrive by 1200 hours."
13 Do you remember that sort of instruction
14 being given by Kordic?
15 A. I do not remember those instructions.
16 Q. Do you accept that such instructions for
17 interference with convoys was given?
18 A. I don't accept that.
19 Q. Two things: You tell us you know all the
20 orders. Was there any written order covering such
21 interference with convoys?
22 A. There was no order bearing on the
23 interference with convoys.
24 Q. So if the HVO interfered with convoys in the
25 way described or anticipate or forecast in that
1 conversation, it was an order given but not in
2 writing. Do you accept that?
3 A. An order which was not issued in writing.
4 Q. Yes. Do you accept that there must have been
5 orders, other than in writing, given for things like
6 the blocking of convoys?
7 A. All orders had to go through the operative
8 training centre which means that there was never such
9 an order.
10 Q. In which case I'm going to move on very
11 swiftly. Where were you on the night of the 15th, 16th
12 of April, please?
13 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness hand back the
15 A. The 15th -- between the 15th and 16th of
16 April, I was in my command, the command of the
18 MR. NICE:
19 Q. In Busovaca?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. When were you first deployed anywhere after
22 the 15th, 16th of April?
23 A. Our units were not deployed anywhere outside
24 the area of responsibility of the brigade.
25 Q. When were you first deployed, what did you
1 first do after the rising of the sun on the 16th of
2 April of 1993?
3 A. On the 16th of March [sic], I am not aware of
4 that date.
5 Q. I'm sorry if it's been translated as March,
6 I've asked you about April and it's, of course, the
7 date when the Ahmici massacre occurred.
8 Can you help us, please, with what you were
9 doing on that day?
10 A. On the 16th of March [sic] I was in my
11 brigade's command and --
12 JUDGE MAY: I don't know what the reason for
13 this is. The question is clearly related to April and
14 the transcript should reflect that.
15 Mr. Cavara, you're being asked about the 15th
16 and 16th of April. That is the day at which the -- or
17 the evening of the previous day and the day of the
18 conflict in Ahmici. You tell us that you were in your
19 command that day. Where was your brigade deployed at
20 that time?
21 A. The command of the brigade was in the
22 Sumarija building, and the brigade units were deployed
23 along the front line in the area of the responsibility
24 of the brigade Nikola Subic-Zrinjski in Busovaca. And
25 Ahmici, the village of Ahmici itself, is not within the
1 area of responsibility of the Busovaca Nikola
2 Subic-Zrinjski Brigade.
3 JUDGE MAY: And where was the front line on
4 which the units were deployed?
5 A. They were, I can show it on the map if need
6 be, from Kuber to Gornja Rovna.
7 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
8 MR. NICE:
9 Q. How many kilometres from Ahmici is that?
10 A. It's about four kilometres.
11 Q. So what did you hear of what was going on in
13 A. I only heard some gunfire but there was
14 gunfire all over the place that day. I didn't hear
15 anything special. We did not know anything about the
16 event which took place there on that same day.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 MR. NICE:
19 Q. Were you engaged in active duty at all on the
20 15th or 16th?
21 A. No.
22 Q. When were you next engaged in active duty,
23 firing things at people?
24 A. On the 17th of April, 1993 when the BH forces
25 attacked the units of the Nikola Subic-Zrinjski Brigade
1 of Busovaca across the facility of Kuber in the
2 direction of Kaonik.
3 Q. Did you find yourself in Loncari at one
5 A. No.
6 Q. Do you know which HVO soldiers were in
8 A. I wouldn't know that. Our front line was at
9 the Kuber facility, not at Loncari.
10 Q. When did you first learn of the massacre at
12 A. I heard it a day or two later, but I didn't
13 know how it happened.
14 Q. What was the explanation given to you at that
15 time, and by whom was the explanation given?
16 A. Those were rumours, rather, that one could
18 Q. What were the rumours? What did they say had
20 A. Only that there was an attack from Zenica via
21 Ahmici because the BH army wanted to come together with
22 Vranjsko but there are also army units.
23 Q. Nothing to do with the HVO attacking Ahmici
24 at all; is that right?
25 A. There were no rumours.
1 Q. Did you ever hear a rumour or a suggestion
2 that the HVO forces had committed a massacre in Ahmici
3 or anywhere else?
4 A. I did not hear it with my own ears.
5 Q. When did you first hear it at all?
6 A. Well, I heard it from the media, but that was
7 after the war or, rather, after the conclusion of the
8 Washington Accords.
9 Q. Well, I'm going to turn to one detailed
10 matter that you deal with in paragraph seven of your
11 affidavit. On the 28th of April, according to evidence
12 we have heard from half a dozen or more witnesses, a
13 convoy of food supplies was hijacked at Busovaca. The
14 hijacking of a convoy of food supplies at Busovaca
15 could not have gone unnoticed by the inhabitants of
16 Busovaca, could it?
17 A. It did not exist at all. You know that's
18 April 1993 which you mention. Nobody ever knew
19 anything about that convoy at the time.
20 Q. Let's just deal with your position. Were you
21 in Busovaca at the time?
22 A. I was in the brigade command doing my duty.
23 Q. So we've had evidence from international
24 observers called Wesley, Witness AA, other
25 international observers called Anderson, McLeod,
1 Watters, and Landry and also a man called Beese. As I
2 say, six international observers have described this
3 event; are you saying they are all wrong?
4 A. To begin with, I'm not familiar with the
5 incident. I simply know nothing about this event. I
6 do not know that any convoy was abducted on that day or
7 any other day. Had it been abducted, I mean all this
8 quantity of food, we would know about it.
9 Q. What your statement, your affidavit says, at
10 paragraph 7, is that you understand -- that's you,
11 Mr. Cavara -- understand that a witness called Landry
12 has testified that on that day Dusko Grubesic
13 supposedly received orders from Kordic in relation to a
14 humanitarian convoy. You then go on to assert that Mr.
15 Grubesic never received any orders or instructions from
16 Kordic relating to any convoy on that date or any
18 A. That is in the statement and that is
20 Q. Before I move on from this topic, I have two
21 more questions. First, I want you to just take your
22 time and think carefully. We've had six witnesses,
23 soldiers and observers from the International
24 Community, who say this happened. Is it possible it
25 happened and you didn't know about it, or are you
1 really saying to this Court that it simply didn't
2 happen? Which is it?
3 A. I'm not aware of that event. I told you, I
4 knew nothing about that event. And even if all these
5 people may claim that this event happened, but
6 Mr. Kordic couldn't have issued such an order to
7 Mr. Dusko Grubesic; and likewise, Dusko Grubesic
8 couldn't have issued a written order before having such
9 an order analysed at the operative training department
10 where I worked.
11 Q. My only other question on this topic, from
12 which I will now pass, is this: Some of the evidence
13 about this incident suggests that the soldiers
14 concerned, the HVO people concerned, were wearing black
15 uniforms. Can you help us, please, with who would be
16 wearing black uniforms in Busovaca on the 28th of April
17 of 1993?
18 A. I never set my eyes on soldiers like that.
19 Q. Just to eliminate them, in case the
20 suggestion is made that it was the police or anything
21 like that who were interfering with this convoy, it
22 couldn't be the police wearing black uniforms, could
24 A. No, it couldn't, because they had their
25 uniforms and they had to wear them.
1 Q. Was there any paramilitary group near to
2 Busovaca that wore black uniforms?
3 A. There were no such paramilitary groups.
4 Q. Paragraph 4 of your affidavit says that in
5 this period of time you held the position as chief of
6 the operations and training department. May we take it
7 that operations includes military operations?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. So that if your brigade was engaged in
10 military or quasi-military, near military activities,
11 you would have been involved and may even have been in
13 A. I only analysed orders and sent them on to
14 subordinate units which were assigned by the brigade
15 commander. And the Nikola Subic-Zrinjski Brigade of
16 Busovaca was only providing the defence, the decisive
17 defence, at that.
18 MR. NICE: I've only got a few more
19 questions, I think, on a couple of documents. But
20 let's -- I'm sorry not to have given notice to the
21 registrar of this one: 861, please, and it may be
23 Q. Would you say that by May of 1993 there was
24 any harassment of citizens of Busovaca by members of
25 the HVO?
1 A. There were no such cases. And we can talk
2 about that in a different way. Those who wanted to
3 leave the territory did it of their own free will.
4 Q. Are you really saying, so that I can
5 understand this, in the middle of 1993, in Busovaca,
6 the HVO behaved in a blameless way? Is that really
7 what you're saying?
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. NICE: This is a document, if we can put
10 the English on the ELMO --
11 THE REGISTRAR: This document was marked as
13 MR. NICE: I'm sorry. In which case, don't
14 put it on the ELMO, but can the witness just see the
15 original? We will not read out the name of the person
16 referred to. And I'm very grateful to the registrar
17 for her advice.
18 Q. This is a document that, in English, dated
19 the 1st of May, signed by Grubesic, Maric, and Kordic,
21 "Pursuant to demonstrated need, after finding
22 that certain members of Busovaca HVO units whose
23 residential buildings had been destroyed in combat
24 operations in the area of Busovaca municipality were
25 trying to solve their existential problems by force,
1 and with the aim of preventing such occurrences and
2 protecting the safety of persons and property for all
3 citizens, regardless of their political, religious, and
4 national affiliation, I hereby issue to ..." We won't
5 read the name, "... a certificate whereby it is
6 forbidden to Busovaca HVO members to harass ..." that
8 The HVO, as you have explained to us, was
9 your brigade. Why was Blaskic, with Grubesic and one
10 other, having to sign this document?
11 A. This document must have been signed for the
12 sake of cooperation with civilian authorities so that
13 all the authorities in the municipality could take part
14 in activities like this.
15 Q. Yes. Page 103, line 11, has omitted the name
16 "Kordic" as one of the signatories. The question is,
17 Mr. Cavara, what was the HVO doing? What were your men
18 doing harassing civilians in the summer of 1993?
19 A. 1993? There could not have been any
20 harassment of civilians. There is such a possibility
21 when many refugees arrived in 1993 from the area of
22 Zenica and then Travnik. So it is possible that there
23 was harassment by displaced persons who were looking
24 for their accommodation, and that is why it was
25 necessary to issue such a document.
1 Q. That apart, are you still maintaining -- and
2 this is my last question on this topic -- are you still
3 maintaining that the HVO was blameless in its
4 activities in the summer of 1993?
5 A. It behaved in an organised and disciplined
7 MR. NICE: Your Honour, just give me a
8 minute. I'm afraid I've overlooked something that I
9 wanted to put to the witness.
10 Q. You took over from Grubesic. Why?
11 A. Because Mr. Grubesic had to take over another
12 duty in the Vitez command headquarters.
13 MR. NICE: I'm just seeing if the exhibit
14 that I want the witness to look at has been exhibited
15 already, because, by my oversight, I haven't had it
16 copied, if it needs to be copied. But there's a very
17 small part of it to look at.
18 May I place the first page of this document,
19 which is all I want for a few lines, on the ELMO, and
20 we'll sort out the evidential position in a second.
21 It's a milinfosum dated the 30th of November, and it's
22 consistent with my practice of giving witnesses an
23 opportunity to consider what observers say about them.
24 Q. If we look at the first page, Mr. Cavara,
25 this is a document from a military information summary
1 of the Coldstream Guards from Great Britain of the 30th
2 of November. And it says in relation to Vitez that the
3 liaison officer had spoken to Ivan Sarac. And when the
4 liaison officer asked about Dusko Grubesic and asked if
5 he was about to be replaced, he received no answer.
6 And then can we turn -- and there's a comment there
7 about the sensitivity of his replacement.
8 Can we turn to the next page, please. And it
9 then reports on Busovaca as follows: The liaison
10 officer reported that the new commander of your brigade
11 was indeed you, Mr. Cavara. The liaison officer had
12 seen you on previous visits. It was stated that Dusko
13 was replaced due to health reasons. It then goes on to
14 say the replacement of Dusko had been rumoured from
15 both the BiH and the HVO over the last couple of
16 weeks. Health reasons appears to be the easy
17 explanation for this appointment change, but it could
18 possibly be that Dusko was not as extreme as the HVO
19 would have liked.
20 I'd like your comment on that, please.
21 MR. NICE: And I can tell the Chamber that
22 this has in fact been tendered as 1320.2.
23 Q. Your comment, please, on the rumours that
24 were circulating, or may have been circulating, that
25 Dusko was not as extreme as was wanted by HVO.
1 A. Dusko Grubesic was replaced not because he
2 was extreme or he was not extreme but because he had
3 health problems and he could not carry on his duties as
4 the brigade commander, and this is why commander
5 Tihomir Blaskic assigned him to another duty in the
6 Vitez command. Later on in 1993, he went to Croatia
7 for further medical treatment.
8 Q. You took over and you stayed in charge until
9 1997, didn't you?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. But only a short time between your taking
12 over and the Washington Agreement. Please tell me
13 this, from your period both under Grubesic and in
14 charge, who was the politician in Central Bosnia who
15 had the most authority and to whom military men would
16 refer? Who was that politician?
17 A. In Central Bosnia, one can say that the
18 person with most authority was Mr. Dario Kordic.
19 Q. Do you accept that wars may be run on a
20 practical and local basis by military men but they were
21 usually, if not always, commanded by politicians; do
22 you accept that?
23 A. I don't.
24 Q. I'm suggesting to you that you know full well
25 from your proximity to Kordic in Busovaca that he had a
1 great deal more authority than you, in this affidavit,
2 have sought to say. Isn't that the reality?
3 A. No. Because Mr. Dario Kordic never wanted to
4 meddle in the military power and command.
5 Q. Finally, on a different topic, so far as the
6 affidavit of Anto Juric is concerned, what you've been
7 telling the Court about the ceremony in Busovaca in
8 1992, what's your recollection of that? When was it?
9 A. That was held in August of 1992.
10 Q. What was your role in it?
11 A. At that time, I was the commander of the 2nd
12 Battalion and the operations officer in the Busovaca
14 Q. What was Kordic's role there then?
15 A. Kordic only came to the parade as a political
16 figure to give a speech.
17 Q. He gave a speech?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did he give a salute? Did he take a salute?
20 A. No.
21 Q. And who do you say it was that Dusko Grubesic
22 gave his report to?
23 A. Dusko Grubesic was not there at all. He was
24 in the Travnik hospital because he had health problems.
25 Q. I'm not in a position to accept what you say
1 and I'm not going to take it any further.
2 MR. NICE: Thank you.
3 Re-examined by Mr. Sayers:
4 Q. Mr. Cavara, just a few questions. You were
5 interrupted from identifying the Central Bosnia
6 Operative Zone commander, the military person that was
7 in charge of the HVO in Central Bosnia. Who was that
9 A. It was Colonel Blaskic.
10 Q. You were asked some questions about the
11 military police, Mr. Cavara, and as I understand it,
12 you testified that there was one platoon of military
13 police stationed in the Busovaca municipality?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The military policemen reported up their
16 chain of command to whom, as far as you know?
17 A. Reporting to the commander of the 4th
18 military police battalion which was in Vitez.
19 Q. And you were also asked some questions about
20 orders ordered to certain people in Busovaca in
21 January. Do you, yourself, have any knowledge of
22 orders, the nature of the orders written or otherwise
23 issued to the military police in Busovaca in that
24 month, sir, in January of 1993?
25 A. There were no such orders.
1 Q. You were asked some questions by the
2 Prosecution about a period of time in January of 1993
3 and February of 1993 when Mr. Kordic was seen in the
4 PTT building. Did Mr. Kordic ever move his office from
5 Tisovac to the PTT building at any time?
6 A. He never moved it there. He remained there
7 until the end of the war even following the Washington
9 Q. Just so the point is clear, do I understand
10 it that what you're saying is that the brigade had its
11 headquarters in the PTT building for a period of time
12 up to March of 1993, I think you said, and then it
13 moved subsequently?
14 A. The brigade had a forward command post at the
15 time, the period of around 25 January 1993 when the
16 ABiH carried out an attack on the Busovaca
18 Q. And the forward command post remained there
19 for how long?
20 A. It remained there until the end of March
22 Q. You've identified, I think, the Sumarija
23 building as the location of the headquarters of the
24 brigade. At what time was the Sumarija building the
25 brigade headquarters, Mr. Cavara?
1 A. The Sumarija building was the permanent
2 headquarters of the brigade command.
3 Q. Thank you. Now, you were asked some
4 questions in relation to a transcript of an audiotaped
5 conversation that supposedly occurred in January or
6 February of 1993, and specifically you were asked some
7 questions about comments assertedly made by Mr. Kordic
8 about blocking convoys in February.
9 Were there any convoys blocked in February as
10 far as you are aware?
11 A. No there were not.
12 Q. And just my final question, sir. It was put
13 to you anyway that six people have testified from the
14 International Community, six international observers in
15 connection with a convoy incident that occurred on the
16 28th of April 1993.
17 Now, none of these people were in Busovaca;
18 you were. Did you ever hear of such a convoy, a large
19 convoy, 40 trucks and escorted by military armed
20 personnel carrier, armoured personnel carriers? Did
21 you ever hear of any convoy being abducted or detained
22 in Busovaca in April, towards the end of April of 1993
23 at any time, sir?
24 A. Never. No convoy was held or abducted in the
25 month of April.
1 MR. SAYERS: Thank you very much. No further
2 questions, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Cavara, that concludes your
4 evidence. Thank you for coming to the International
5 Tribunal to give it. You are free to go.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 JUDGE MAY: Now, unless there's anything that
8 anybody wants to raise, we'll adjourn.
9 MR. NICE: The only thing I have raised in
10 correspondence is the question of the outstanding
11 witnesses in the Defence of Kordic. I think a copy of
12 the letter has been circulated. The position is as I
13 have stated it on a couple of previous occasions. We
14 provided extensive lists of witnesses, of course they
15 had to change from time to time, we all understand
16 that. But it makes our preparation very difficult to
17 just have two weeks at a time. We have a lot to do
18 with each witness.
19 There would seem to be no reason why we
20 shouldn't have a longer list, probably a complete list
21 of the remaining Kordic witnesses. And under the
22 policy of equality of means, sometimes called equality
23 of arms, there is no reason why we shouldn't have that
24 list provided to us in our respectful submission.
25 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Sayers, what's the up-to-date
2 MR. SAYERS: Well, I'm sure the Court doesn't
3 want to be burdened with any forensic discussion of the
4 nature of, dare I say, gamesmanship that was played
5 with respect to witness lists in the Prosecution case.
6 It is not tit for tat.
7 Let me point this out, Your Honour. At the
8 very beginning of our case, we gave the Court a
9 good-faith estimate and an assurance that we will be
10 finished before the August recess, and we will. We
11 have been ordered by the Court, I believe, to provide
12 two weeks' notice and we have done so scrupulously.
13 Every two weeks, we believe we've scrupulously complied
14 with that obligation.
15 In the week of July 10th, I think the
16 Prosecution has already been provided essentially with
17 our witness list. That's videolink week. There are
18 two days, I think there will be three days of testimony
19 that week. We are trying to line up a witness to fill
20 the Monday, but the Prosecution already knows the
21 position with respect to the last two days of that
22 week. We've identified the witnesses. I believe they
23 are all testifying in open session; Ivica Kristo,
24 Srecko Kristo, and Ilija Zuljevic, and if we can get
25 him and he's healthy enough, Anto Stipac. And then
1 with respect to the very last week of evidence,
2 obviously we're still contemplating that, and we do not
3 have a final decision with respect to the last week.
4 I will, as soon as we've got the position
5 made certain for us, as soon as we know exactly who our
6 witnesses are going to be for the final week, I see no
7 reason why we should not let the Prosecution know. And
8 anticipating the rebuttal case, I assume that we will
9 be entitled to the same concrete courtesy of knowing
10 exactly who the witnesses are going to be for the
11 Prosecution's rebuttal case, not a guessing game, not a
12 shell game, and not having people switched at the last
13 minute as was repeatedly the case before the --
14 JUDGE MAY: Let us not go into that.
15 So apart from one day in which your answer
16 and the final week, the witnesses have been disclosed.
17 MR. SAYERS: They have. There is one matter
18 that I would like to raise, Your Honour. I don't want
19 to let it slip through the cracks. I don't think it's
20 necessary to belabour the point.
21 We have submitted papers on this. We have
22 made a written request for access to the closed session
23 transcripts of the Lasva Valley cases, and I appreciate
24 that that provides some logistical problems for the
25 Court, but it also provides some considerable
1 logistical problems for us when it comes to considering
2 the transcripts of witness' testimony in other cases
3 which we should designate. We simply do not know and
4 cannot make an informed decision of all of the
5 transcripts that we would like to designate because we
6 have not been made privy to those transcripts. Of
7 course the position is completely different from the
8 Prosecution, the Prosecution's perspective. They've
9 always known who these witnesses were and they made
10 their selection knowing full well who all of these
11 witnesses were and the full knowledge of their
13 I don't want to belabour the point. We've
14 made the point in our papers, but we have been trying
15 hard for two years to try to get access to all of these
16 transcripts and we still don't have them.
17 JUDGE MAY: We'll see what the position is
18 about those transcripts. It's right that you have been
19 making application and also right that there are
20 logistical problems. I think the position may be that
21 we have done what we can, and you will remember the
22 upshot of our previous endeavors, and it may be the
23 position will remain the same but we'll make further
25 MR. SAYERS: Very well, thank you, Your
2 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We're starting then on
3 Monday with Dr. Almond; is that right?
4 MR. SAYERS: I believe so. I think that
5 Dr. Pavlovic might be coming in over the weekend. He
6 has expressed a desire to go first, if that won't
7 create undue difficulties for the Prosecution. If it
8 does cause undue difficulties, then we'll stay with the
9 order has been given.
10 MR. NICE: I think it may create
11 difficulties. I'll try and get around them but I think
12 it may create difficulties. I'll do the best.
13 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll adjourn now to
14 Monday morning at half past nine.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
16 at 3.52 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday
17 the 26th day of June, 2000, at
18 9.30 a.m.