Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 3548

1 Thursday, 4 March 2004

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. Mr. Weiner.

6 MR. WEINER: Good morning, Your Honour. Today we have the return

7 of Paul Davies. As the Court recalls, Paul Davies was the ITN reporter

8 who came early in the case and, because of a change in schedule, had to

9 leave during the middle of cross-examination. The Defence will continue

10 cross-examining.

11 However, during the examination the issue was raised as to the

12 providence of the videotape that was in the possession of the Prosecutor.

13 That's at page 638 and again at 655. We have received a report from Ellen

14 Gardner, who is from the director of operations from the Linden Production

15 Company out of Los Angeles, the former director of operations of that

16 company who provided that tape, and we have a copy of that report which

17 provides the providence of that film.

18 In addition, we've been notified that, through the Victims and

19 Witnesses a few weeks ago, that the witness has a copy, a full copy, with

20 those additional seconds from the beginning and the end of the tape.

21 Where we can't speak with him directly, we don't know if he has it with

22 him today. Could we request the Court to inquire if he does have that and

23 could he turn it over to the Court.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

25 Could the witness be brought in, please.

Page 3549

1 [The witness entered court]

2 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning, Mr. Davies.

3 THE WITNESS: Good morning.

4 JUDGE PARKER: May I first remind you of the affirmation you made

5 before the Tribunal to tell the truth, which is still applicable, and

6 thank you for being able to return. I gather that you may have secured a

7 copy of the original recording without deletions. Is that correct?

8 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, that's correct.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Is that with you?

10 THE WITNESS: It is. It's in the witness room.

11 JUDGE PARKER: I wonder perhaps if you are still being

12 cross-examined at the first break, which is probable, if you would be able

13 to bring that with you when you come back after the break.

14 THE WITNESS: Yes, I can do that very easily.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much.

16 Now, I think it's a matter of continuing the cross-examination.

17 Mr. Rodic.

18 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.


20 Cross-examined by Mr. Rodic: [Continued]

21 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Davies. We will continue from

22 where we stopped. Tell me: Do you know Phil Davison, a British freelance

23 journalist?

24 A. Yes, I do.

25 Q. Is it correct that he was in Dubrovnik for a while in 1991 during

Page 3550

1 the period that you were in Dubrovnik?

2 A. Yes, that's true. Yes, I met him there.

3 Q. Phil Davison was in Dubrovnik from mid-October until around the

4 14th of November, 1991. Did you find him there because he was staying at

5 the Argentina Hotel?

6 A. Yes, I met him at the Argentina Hotel and talked to him on a

7 number of occasions. I do know him.

8 Q. Do you have a high regard for him as a colleague, a journalist,

9 and do you think highly of his professional work?

10 A. He's a respected newspaper journalist, yes.

11 Q. Since he came to Dubrovnik before you, did Phil Davison

12 familiarise you with the situation in Dubrovnik when you arrived there?

13 Did he have things to tell you?

14 A. We would have spoken, I'm sure, because I know him. We would

15 certainly have spoken. He was there a little time before me.

16 Q. I assume that he provided you with the first information you

17 received concerning Dubrovnik.

18 A. No. No. The first information I received about Dubrovnik would

19 have been on the -- when we arrived at the port and there were some other

20 journalists there at the time who I knew -- who I'd met on previous

21 assignments who I spoke to. I think they were the people who gave me the

22 first information about their experience in Dubrovnik. But certainly at

23 some stage later I would have spoken to Mr. Davison, certainly.

24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

25 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]

Page 3551

1 Q. Sir, last time you told us that you came to Dubrovnik with a crew

2 that consisted of the producer of the -- sound editor, film editor, and

3 Nigel Thomson, cameraman. Is that correct?

4 A. That is correct, yes.

5 Q. However, Mr. Phil Davison says that in mid-October he came to

6 Dubrovnik with John Jones and Nigel Thomson in order to work for

7 Independent.

8 A. Yes. At that -- there's obviously a mix-up of information there

9 because Nigel Thomson is the cameraman who is employed by my company. In

10 fact, he was my partner for a number of years and we travelled together,

11 so there's obviously some confusion about the date when people arrived

12 there. Certainly Phil Davison and Nigel Thomson would have been there

13 together for a long period of the assignment, but they didn't arrive

14 together.

15 Q. In your statement when you mentioned a colleague of yours, a

16 journalist who was wounded by sniper fire near the Argentina Hotel, I

17 presume that you meant the journalist Phil Davison. Is that correct?

18 A. I did, yes. He received a wound -- I think it was to his ankle in

19 the -- I can't remember the exact date, but it was in that period of time

20 around the 9th, 10th of November.

21 Q. Was Phil Davison treated at the Dubrovnik hospital?

22 A. I believe so, but I wasn't -- I wasn't there. I didn't see it. I

23 know he received some treatment and he was med-evac'd, taken out of

24 Dubrovnik at the first opportunity, which I think was on the 13th of

25 November when the ferry was allowed to leave the port. This is just my

Page 3552

1 memory. I certainly didn't witness him receiving any treatment.

2 Q. You testified in the Milosevic trial, didn't you?

3 A. I did, sir, yes.

4 Q. While giving evidence in the Milosevic trial, you mentioned a

5 colleague of yours who had been in hospital for a longer period of time.

6 Is that Phil Davison?

7 A. No, I don't think it is.

8 Q. Can you tell us then who this was.

9 A. I'm not certain. The only -- two of my colleagues needed --

10 that's of the journalists, needed medical treatment. One would have been

11 Phil Davison. Another colleague, a gentleman called Sandy McIntyre, was

12 also at the hospital for a brief time. I may have mentioned him.

13 Certainly none of my colleagues were badly hurt and nobody needed to stay

14 in hospital for any length of time.

15 Q. All right. So both Phil Davison and your other colleague, Sandy

16 McIntyre, were in hospital in Dubrovnik in that period from October to

17 December 1991. Is that right?

18 A. Well, it's difficult for me to answer exact yes or no answers to

19 that. Certainly I believe Phil Davison received treatment at the

20 hospital. And the other gentleman, Sandy McIntyre, was at the hospital.

21 There was an incident, I think it was some shelling, around the hospital,

22 and he hurt his leg. He wasn't wounded by the actual shelling; he hurt

23 his leg, I think falling, and received some treatment there. I don't

24 think either of them were actually kept in hospital for any length of

25 time. By any length of time, I don't think either of them actually sort

Page 3553












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 3554

1 of went into a bed, I think they were just treated there.

2 Q. Also in the Milosevic trial during your testimony, you said that

3 this colleague of yours who was in hospital saw a mobile mortar position

4 and fire being opened from that position, which is in the immediate

5 vicinity of the hospital. Is that right?

6 A. No. I don't recollect saying that. No, I don't remember saying

7 that somebody in the hospital witnessed mortars being fired.

8 Q. Did Phil Davison ever tell you that on the ramparts and within the

9 Old City walls, the Croats had mortars and that the JNA targeted them with

10 missiles, wired missiles?

11 A. No, he didn't tell me that. And he wouldn't -- he wouldn't have

12 been in a position to do that because at the time that he was -- at the

13 time that the wire missiles were fired, he had been injured and he was

14 restricted to the hotel. He didn't -- he stopped roaming the city after

15 he was wounded, and certainly -- the day the wire missiles were fired was

16 the 12th of November, and he was not mobile at that time. So I don't

17 believe he would have been on the walls of the Old City or been in a

18 position to see that there were mortars on the walls of the Old City.

19 Q. Did Phil Davison tell you or did you see or hear for yourself that

20 Croat soldiers had a machine-gun nest in the attic of the Argentina Hotel

21 and that they were firing from there, and that Phil Davison complained to

22 the hotel management on account of that?

23 A. Phil Davison didn't tell me that at that time, no. I have spoken

24 to him in the 12 years or so since then, and he has told me that he did

25 complain about gun positions being placed very briefly around the hotel.

Page 3555

1 I believe this was possibly at the time when he was restricted to the

2 hotel and was spending his day there. I think he -- if I recollect that

3 conversation, he also said that the monitors, the European Union monitors,

4 were also concerned that this should not happen. And my understanding was

5 that the situation changed. I don't know whether the gun position that he

6 was talking about was one that was being used, or whether he'd just seen

7 some military activity there. It seemed to be a brief position that -- a

8 brief situation that disappeared after complaints were made. This isn't

9 anything that I witnessed or my team witnessed at all, it was something

10 that I believe Phil Davison saw when he was restricted to the Hotel

11 Argentina.

12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

13 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Mr. Davies, then that is a mortar position near the Argentina

15 Hotel. And Phil Davison said that it was visible to all, that is to say

16 that it was not concealed. That's the position you referred to a short

17 while ago. Isn't that right?

18 A. I don't think so. I think what I was referring to was whether or

19 not a -- I forget the words you used, a machine-gun nest was being placed,

20 or something like that. I wasn't aware you were talking about a mortar

21 position. On the subject of mortar positions near the Argentina Hotel,

22 this is something that you and I discussed last time and I told you that,

23 yes, I was aware, as indeed most of the journalists who were staying in

24 the hotel were aware, that at certain times mortars were fired from

25 positions near the Argentina Hotel. This appeared to be a mobile mortar

Page 3556

1 unit that was firing from a position as close as it could get to the

2 surrounding military and then moving very quickly to another location or

3 to a safer location, having exposed itself. This seemed to be pretty much

4 the main military tactic of the people who were defending the city of

5 Dubrovnik, using a very limited number of mortars and, I believe, a

6 limited number of small artillery pieces to fire and then to move to new

7 positions and to try not to be hit by returning fire.

8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Davies.

9 Tell me, please, during your stay in Dubrovnik, did you witness

10 any situations of unnecessary provocations coming from town, provocations

11 that were intended to cause the JNA to fire? Can you remember any such

12 thing?

13 A. No, I can't. Again, that's not to say that it didn't happen, but

14 I didn't witness anything that I thought was provocative action. But

15 quite often the first indication that you would get that the peace was

16 being broken again was the sound of distant gunfire or shelling. And then

17 it either came closer to you or you went to look where was being hit. You

18 wouldn't necessarily be in a position to judge what had provoked what or

19 who had fired the first shot. The best you could do is judge what you

20 saw, and in every case what you saw was a very one-sided conflict with one

21 side having far more weapons and inflicting far more damage than the

22 other.

23 Q. In the Milosevic case, you said that the JNA targeted the Croatian

24 artillery, which was hidden in the town park from where they were shooting

25 at the JNA. Is that right?

Page 3557

1 A. Yes, I did say that.

2 Q. Could you please tell me where the park is.

3 A. Well, the park I'm referring to is in the area north of the Old

4 City. It's a -- the area I'm referring to is a wooded area that is

5 alongside the coast and between the Old City and - I'm just trying to

6 think about the landmarks - the hospital, say. But not directly alongside

7 either of those two that I've mentioned or indeed in the grounds of them.

8 Q. While you were in Dubrovnik, did you hear about a park called

9 Gradac and Boskovicev Park or some other park?

10 A. I don't recall the names of the parks, unfortunately.

11 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] May I ask the usher to show the

12 witness Exhibit D28, please, Defence exhibit.

13 Q. Mr. Davies, this is a picture from Boskovicev Park from the film

14 that has been introduced into evidence. This is a still from that

15 footage. Were you ever a witness of any similar situation while you were

16 in Dubrovnik? Did you ever see anything like this? Or perhaps you know

17 this man?

18 A. No, I certainly don't know the man, but I witnessed something

19 similar with a small team that had a mortar that looked similar to this

20 that were moving around. And I know of journalists who witnessed mortars

21 being fired from wooded areas. So, yes, I've seen something similar to

22 this, not -- I don't know where this particular park is. I wouldn't be

23 able to say I saw anything like this happening in this park, but I saw

24 generally similar things happening.

25 Q. Thank you. During the examination-in-chief you said that the

Page 3558

1 Croats had cannons of smaller calibres, smaller calibre weapons and they

2 were on wheels, that you saw these mobile cannons.

3 MR. WEINER: Your Honour.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Weiner.

5 MR. WEINER: I have no objection, but as a point of assistance, if

6 we can call it, when counsel refers to the Milosevic trial or our own

7 trial here and the prior testimony, could they please refer to a certain

8 page so we could follow along. We have the transcripts here.

9 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Well, we're not talking about the

10 Milosevic trial at the moment. I'm referring to this witness's

11 examination-in-chief. As to the testimony in the Milosevic case, my

12 previous two questions were based on that, Your Honours. But perhaps

13 after the break I will return to that because I didn't comment the

14 witness's negative answer or response to my question that referred to the

15 Milosevic case, because I do indeed have the transcript from that trial

16 before me.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Well, thank you, Mr. Rodic. It would be useful to

18 everybody, when you're referring to particular passages, to give a page

19 reference. Thank you.

20 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you, Your Honour.

21 Q. That means, Mr. Davies, as I was saying a moment ago -- I asked

22 you a question, but I'll repeat. And it was this: During the

23 examination-in-chief in this case, you testified that the Croats had

24 cannons of a smaller calibre and that they were on wheels, mounted on

25 wheels, and this made them mobile. Now, I should like to ask you to take

Page 3559












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 3560

1 a look at a photograph and tell me whether those are the types of cannon

2 that you mentioned. And it is Exhibit P32.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.

4 MR. WEINER: Yes, once again, could he please refer us to which

5 page he is discussing.

6 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] It was testimony during the

7 examination-in-chief, Mr. Weiner. I can't give you a page number for

8 every question of mine. The examination-in-chief was conducted by

9 Ms. Somers. She is absent, and I understand why.

10 MR. WEINER: Your Honour.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.

12 MR. WEINER: I understand that this is more of a generalised

13 question, so I won't object to that. But if he's planning to impeach a

14 witness with any prior statement or question him about some certain

15 statement, I think he should refer to a certain page so we know that the

16 language is ...

17 JUDGE PARKER: That would be desirable, Mr. Rodic, as you go

18 along. Thank you.

19 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think we've put things

20 upside down. It is not my intention to discredit the witness through my

21 question, to impeach him, but I mentioned something that the witness

22 himself said during the examination-in-chief, and all I'm asking him to do

23 now is to compare that part of his testimony with the piece of evidence

24 that we're going to put to him.

25 JUDGE PARKER: The point being made is a simple one, Mr. Rodic:

Page 3561

1 It would be of considerable convenience to the Chamber and to the

2 Prosecution if when you say, You said this in your examination-in-chief,

3 if you could say, That appeared at, and give the reference to the

4 transcript. Now, if you haven't prepared to do that at the moment, if you

5 could try to do that as you progress.

6 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

7 I apologise to the usher, but may we have D32, Exhibit D32, and it

8 is the cannon in Gradac Park, and that's what it says on the still.

9 Q. Can you see the wheels on this photograph through the bushes, the

10 wheels of this cannon?

11 A. I can't see them, but I can -- I can imagine where they are and

12 with the sort of piece that it appears to be. But I can't actually see

13 them.

14 Q. Can you see a cannon on this picture?

15 A. Certainly, yes.

16 Q. Does that roughly correspond to a small-calibre cannon of the type

17 that you yourself saw? Would you say that the one you saw was similar to

18 this one here?

19 A. I don't -- I don't think I could in honesty judge it just from

20 being able to see this. I mean, it might have been something similar to

21 this but it's difficult to judge the scale of this particular weapon

22 without seeing something to judge it with.

23 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to thank the usher.

24 Q. Mr. Davies, when you spoke about the warehouse of the JNA, the

25 ammunitions warehouse at Zarkovica - and we can see that from the footage

Page 3562

1 we saw - you noted that there had been a major explosion. Is that right?

2 A. Yes, certainly there was an explosion that we could witness from

3 the Old City.

4 Q. Was there any ricochetting, or rather, were any projectiles flying

5 to and from town, parts of the exploded projectiles from the area and

6 mines?

7 A. I don't believe so. It is possible that some may have exploded

8 towards Dubrovnik, but it was quite some distance away, a distance that

9 only on this one occasion, which was the significance of the explosion,

10 had the Croatian forces manage to hit the top of Zarkovica. And in order

11 to do so, they appeared to have moved their weaponry as close as they

12 possibly could, which was somewhere in the region of the Belvedere Hotel.

13 And even then, most of what they'd been firing at the JNA position was

14 falling short. Then there was this one explosion that was obviously a

15 hit, and it was more than just an impact. It was bigger than that and

16 seemed to be one or two smaller explosions afterwards, which is why we

17 judged it to have hit munitions or something of this type.

18 I don't believe that what was fired, what exploded on Zarkovica

19 could have reached the centre of Dubrovnik and certainly not caused lots

20 of damage. But it is possible that something might have exploded in the

21 Dubrovnik direction. Certainly, as witnesses, we weren't thinking that we

22 were in danger from anything that was exploding up there.

23 Q. As I've said, in your report we can see the actual point when the

24 ammunition at Zarkovica was hit, that particular moment. Now, before that

25 hit, did you know that that was the target of the Croatian forces, of the

Page 3563

1 Croatian army?

2 A. I probably had an idea that it might be the target because, first

3 of all, fire was coming into Dubrovnik from that position. It was a

4 position we were watching because there were big guns on top of it that

5 were firing into Dubrovnik. And secondly, because we had already

6 witnessed explosions on the hillside below the JNA position, as the

7 Croatians were returning fire. So it was an area that was obviously of

8 interest to us, and that's why we were filming it. We weren't aware that

9 there was any specific military operation that was going to target the top

10 of the position at Zarkovica. In fact, we weren't even -- we weren't with

11 -- we weren't with anybody at that stage, we were just on the ramparts,

12 filming what we could see from there. And most of the action, if you

13 like, that was happening at that time seemed to be centred on the gun

14 positions on the top of Zarkovica that were firing into Dubrovnik and then

15 the attempts to return fire on them, one of which succeeded.

16 Q. That means that you were in the Old Town, since you managed to

17 tape that hit?

18 A. Yes. We were in the -- on the walls and on the walls that were

19 closest to Zarkovica.

20 Q. In your film, several seconds later -- several seconds after that

21 hit at Zarkovica, we can see five people in the Old Town up by the wall,

22 and of that two men are wearing uniforms and carrying weapons. Did you

23 film that?

24 A. If it's in the footage in that film, yes, we did film it.

25 Q. You also said that on the 13th of November, that is to say after

Page 3564

1 those three or four days of fighting that you describe, that you toured

2 the Old Town and that you had the opportunity of seeing a projectile

3 embedded in the wall in the port which had not exploded. Is that right?

4 A. Yes, that's correct.

5 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I should now like to ask the usher

6 once again to show the witness Exhibit P69. It is Prosecution Exhibit

7 Number 69.

8 Q. This is the Old Town, the part by the port. Can you recognise the

9 projectile embedded in the wall towards the bottom of this photograph?

10 A. I can see a projectile. I wouldn't say that I could recognise it.

11 I don't know if it's one that I've seen before or -- but there is what

12 appears to be -- it is a very grainy picture, but there is something that

13 appears to be sticking in the stone.

14 Q. Well, do you allow for the possibility, according to your

15 recollections, that what you testified about, about embedded projectiles

16 sticking into the wall and not having exploded in the port, that this

17 could be that situation or a similar one?

18 MR. WEINER: I object.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.

20 MR. WEINER: He's asking if he allows for the possibility that

21 this could be the embedded projectile that he mentioned, and that's just

22 asking the witness to speculate or to assume.

23 JUDGE PARKER: I think not, Mr. Weiner. Thank you.

24 Carry on, Mr. Rodic.

25 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 3565

1 Q. Mr. Davies, can you answer my question, please.

2 A. I can't say that that is the one that I saw. My memory is that

3 there was more than one in any case. Is it something similar? It may be

4 something similar. We saw pieces of missiles that hadn't exploded, some

5 of which were embedded in stone, and that appears to be something embedded

6 in stone. So if that makes it similar, then possibly it's similar.

7 Q. Thank you, Mr. Davies.

8 Also, when you toured the Old Town on that day, the 13th of

9 November, you said that the damage to the Old Town was concentrated in the

10 southern sections mostly, the southern part of the Old Town. Can you

11 explain why that was?

12 A. I can offer an opinion or I could speculate. The damage that we

13 saw appeared to be concentrated on that day on the area of the Old Town

14 that appeared to have taken the greater part of the bombardment. And that

15 was the southern side of Dubrovnik, and in particular, around the small

16 old port.

17 Q. When we talk about the south side, could that also relate to the

18 ramparts, the walls around the Old Town, the southern section facing the

19 sea and that part of town from the south closest to the sea? I'm

20 referring to the Old Town, of course, that section of the Old Town.

21 A. Yes. The section of the walls that we're talking about are the --

22 is the side of the Old Town that is closest to Zarkovica, closest to the

23 Hotel Argentina, that side, and that was the side of Dubrovnik from which

24 we witnessed the missiles being fired over the water and against the

25 walls. And we witnessed so many impacts against the walls, so I -- some

Page 3566

1 fell short and hit boats and what have you outside the walls, some went

2 over and caused explosions inside. But that would appear to be the reason

3 why a lot of the damage was concentrated on that particular area at the

4 south side.

5 Q. Mr. Davies, a witness from Dubrovnik who testified before this

6 Honourable Trial Chamber said that he saw a position of the Croatian army,

7 positions up above the Adriatic motorway, the main road, and the northern

8 ramparts of the Old Town. Were you aware of that? That means between the

9 northern walls of the Old Town and the motorway, that the Croatian army

10 had its positions there. Since you moved around the ramparts in that

11 general walled-in area, did you happen to notice any positions of that

12 type?

13 A. I didn't, and I spent a lot of time there, but I wasn't there all

14 the time, obviously. But no, I didn't. If we had spotted military

15 positions on the walls or within the Old City, it would have been a major

16 part of the report that we put together. And we didn't see it and we were

17 there many days and we didn't see it and it wasn't a part of the report.

18 That's -- the reason it wasn't in the report is we didn't see it.

19 Q. Sir -- Mr. Davies, I don't think you understood me. Your answer

20 to my question seems to imply that I asked you about the inner portions of

21 the Old Town, about the area within the Old Town. That's not what I was

22 actually asking you. The ramparts, the wall around the Old Town, from the

23 north, on the north side, looking towards the hill. And there we have the

24 main road. So my witness -- my question was that the witness before you

25 saw between the walls and the main road, which doesn't mean the inner

Page 3567

1 parts of the town, it means outside, between the outside walls on one side

2 and the hill on the other and the road, that there were Croatian army

3 positions in between.

4 A. I understand the question. I didn't see those positions, and

5 again the answer would apply that had I seen those positions, we would

6 have filmed them and they would have been in the report.

7 Q. When you mentioned mortars on trucks that were moving in order to

8 get close to the targets and JNA positions, could you tell me what part of

9 town you saw that in?

10 A. I saw it -- I can remember two occasions, though it's a long time

11 ago now, but I can remember two occasions. One occasion was close to the

12 new port, the Gruz area. And another occasion was in the region of -- I

13 can't remember the hotel's name now, but it's the hotel that is between

14 the Old City and the Hotel Argentina, there is a hotel. It was in

15 disrepair at the time; nobody was in it. And I saw a truck with what

16 appeared to be mobile mortars close to that.

17 Q. Is this perhaps the Excelsior Hotel?

18 A. It -- I think it probably is.

19 Q. With this truck and mortars, they were moving about. As soon as

20 they would fire, they would move from those positions; is that right?

21 A. That was my understanding.

22 Q. You also mentioned that the Croats had a mortar position near the

23 Belvedere Hotel and that they were shooting towards Zarkovica and that

24 more than one time they engaged a mortar near the Hotel Argentina and that

25 they would move positions as they moved rapidly along the coast. Is that

Page 3568

1 right?

2 A. Again, yes, that was my understanding. We weren't able to follow

3 them and to track down their movements precisely, but that seemed to be

4 the tactic they were using and that was also the understanding that other

5 journalists who saw things from time to time had.

6 Q. I think that I already asked you this last time, but do you

7 perhaps have such scenes recorded on camera?

8 A. You did ask me, and the answer is no. I haven't any scenes

9 recorded on camera of the mortars being moved or indeed fired. I do have

10 -- I did film the effects of them being fired, but we were never able to

11 be in a position to film the actual firing of the weapons. It was quite

12 secretive and also very, very brief. You heard the noise, it had

13 happened, and then they moved. My understanding from talking to some of

14 the Croatian military was that it was for two reasons, one being that they

15 exposed themselves to return fire, the other that they had so few mortars

16 that that was the way that they could best use them, by firing them from

17 one position and then moving very quickly on.

18 Q. Then, if I understood this correctly, in terms of assessing the

19 situation itself, this has to do with a description of the truck that is

20 mobile, it has a mortar mounted on it; once it fires, it moves away. So

21 the same tactics like with the mortars that are on land, and then they are

22 moved away soon after they're fired. Right?

23 A. Yes. Yes, I think so.

24 Q. In the statement you gave to the investigators, on page 8 in the

25 last paragraph of the statement, you say: "I remember that an

Page 3569

1 anti-aircraft gun was mounted on a truck and moved from one place to

2 another. I assume that they were moving it about from one place to

3 another so that the enemy would not hit it. The Croats tried to make an

4 armoured vehicle by themselves by welding some metal sheets on a truck,

5 but obviously this was not very successful."

6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note that they do not have the

7 original text.

8 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] That is D35. Could the usher please

9 assist us with that. Could the witness please see this exhibit.

10 Q. Is this the anti-aircraft gun mounted on a truck, the one that you

11 talked about in your statement to the investigator?

12 A. It could be.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I would now like to ask for P24,

15 please.

16 Q. Mr. Davies, can you see on the lower photograph this armoured

17 vehicle. Is that it? Is that the armoured vehicle, the one they called

18 Majsan?

19 A. It could be. My memory was of the front not being quite as

20 professional looking as that. I think possibly that it's not. The one

21 that I saw was a cruder machine with the -- with the metal welded I think

22 at the front. It was straight up as opposed to on a slant. That looks a

23 little bit more sophisticated than the one that I saw. It also appears to

24 be going, which the one that I saw was having huge difficulty in

25 functioning.

Page 3570

1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Davies. When you mentioned a short while ago the

2 photograph I showed you, the anti-aircraft gun mounted on a truck, can you

3 tell us where you actually had the opportunity of seeing that, at which

4 positions? So which positions in terms of the town itself, where did you

5 notice this truck with mounted anti-aircraft guns?

6 A. I can't tell you with 100 per cent accuracy. I believe that it

7 was somewhere in the new part of Dubrovnik. It might have been by a

8 police station, because it was certainly by a police station I saw the

9 armoured vehicle that I referred to. When I saw the vehicle that appeared

10 to have an anti-aircraft gun on top of it, it wasn't being fired. And I

11 think that's about as much as I can tell you about it. I also think I saw

12 it once or twice in different places, but I didn't see it being fired.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon, Your Honour.

15 The accused is complaining that he cannot hear the interpretation

16 coming from the booth, so could I please ask the interpreters of the booth

17 to say something so that he could check this.

18 Thank you. It seems to be working now.

19 Q. Also, this anti-aircraft gun mounted on a truck, I assume that it

20 was fired like the weapons that you described to us a short while ago,

21 that is to say that they would open fire and then move away quickly. I

22 assume that this also pertained to the anti-aircraft gun, right, this one?

23 A. Well, you're assuming and I would assume as well, but it is only

24 an assumption. All I can add is that I can recall at a time when

25 Dubrovnik was being bombed from the air that we heard what sounded like

Page 3571

1 anti-aircraft fire being directed towards the planes that were bombing.

2 But we didn't actually see the weapon that was firing at the time.

3 Q. Thank you. If I'm not mistaken, you've repeated several times

4 already that it was impossible to catch the Croats in action because they

5 were moving from one place to another very quickly. Is that right?

6 A. That would be one reason why we couldn't film them in action.

7 Another would be that it was much easier to film the attack that was

8 coming from the other side because there was so much more of it. There

9 was a lot of the attack that was coming from the other side that we also

10 couldn't film because people were doing things very quickly. But because

11 there was so much more of it, we were able to record it. So those would

12 be the two reasons, I would say, we weren't able to film the Croats in

13 action other than to see, on occasions, the impacts from mortars and

14 artillery that they were firing.

15 Q. You also said several times that you did not manage to film the

16 moment when the Croat artillery would fire, but you did have the

17 opportunity of filming their action in terms of the effects of that

18 firing. Isn't that right?

19 A. That is right. And to explain that, the first time usually that

20 you would realise that there was fire coming out of the city was when you

21 saw the impact, and that was the time that you pointed the camera in that

22 direction, and if it happened again, then you filmed it.

23 Q. Tell me, please, you mentioned that at your hotel there were some

24 people from UNESCO, too. Do you know any of their names, perhaps, or do

25 you remember what they looked like?

Page 3572

1 A. I certainly don't remember their names, and as far as what they

2 looked like, if they appeared on the reports that we made, then it would

3 be easy to recognise them. But other than that, no, I don't memorise the

4 faces of these people. We were just aware that some of them had been

5 staying there and that there were various flags flying over the hotel,

6 which also indicated the nationalities and roles of some of the people

7 that were staying there.

8 Q. Mr. Davies, do you remember how many representatives there were

9 from UNESCO at the time when you were there?

10 A. No, I don't.

11 Q. One of the representatives of UNESCO, Dr. Colin Kaiser, who

12 testified before this Honourable Trial Chamber, mentioned that on his way

13 to Dubrovnik, that is to say before he arrived, already in Zagreb he saw

14 some ITN footage. And on it he saw the UNESCO flag on the fort on Srdj.

15 Did you actually film that? Are you aware of this situation?

16 A. I don't think so. I'm not aware of -- of that particular flag.

17 There was very large UNESCO flags over the Old City. I'm not sure that I

18 recall a flag on top of Srdj.

19 Q. Was there a flag perhaps that was up there and that was removed

20 later while the ones in town stayed on?

21 A. I wouldn't know. I wouldn't know.

22 Q. You were in Dubrovnik from the 31st of October until the 21st of

23 November, 1991, if I'm not mistaken. Right?

24 A. That's right.

25 Q. And after that you did not go back to Dubrovnik?

Page 3573

1 A. Not for a long time. I've only been back to Dubrovnik once since

2 1991.

3 Q. Mr. Davies, how come there were people from UNESCO at the hotel,

4 then, in view of the fact that they first came to Dubrovnik only on the

5 28th and 29th of November, 1991?

6 A. I don't know. As I said, my understanding was that the hotel was

7 used as a base for the monitoring gentlemen and UNESCO and also some

8 nationalities as a temporary consulate. That was my understanding.

9 Q. Mr. Davies, you also said in your statement given to the

10 investigators, on page 10 in the first paragraph, the last sentence, you

11 say: "I know that UNESCO representatives were also in town, but I don't

12 know anything about them."

13 That is your statement made on the 18th and 19th of January, 2001.

14 Do you remember having stated that?

15 A. Yes. It sounds familiar. And it was my understanding that UNESCO

16 representatives were in town and, as you can see, I said I don't know

17 anything about them, which explains why, when you asked me if I remembered

18 any names or remembered any faces, I don't.

19 Q. And do you know what their role was and what the point of their

20 stay was in Dubrovnik and in the Old Town, of these people from UNESCO,

21 that is?

22 A. No, I don't. I mean, obviously if I don't remember meeting them,

23 I wouldn't necessarily know what the business was. My understanding,

24 again, was that there were UNESCO representatives, and I was aware of the

25 UNESCO link with Dubrovnik from the flags that were flying. That was

Page 3574

1 really the sum of my knowledge of the UNESCO side of this.

2 Q. Can you tell me what kind of flags these were.

3 A. These were large blue and white UNESCO flags.

4 Q. Where were they placed?

5 A. I can't be specific about that. They were placed very, very

6 prominently on high positions over the Old City, but I can't tell you

7 which building or which rampart or whatever they were flown from, but they

8 were very, very visible.

9 Q. With all due respect, Mr. Davies, it seems to me that you are now

10 circumventing the issue, because if I say that Dr. Colin Kaiser came with

11 his colleagues and then placed UNESCO flags, is it possible that you saw

12 UNESCO flags before he had actually come and put them there?

13 A. I can't have seen the specific flags that he placed before he

14 placed them there. All I can tell you is that I recall seeing the UNESCO

15 flags, blue and white flags, and even made references to the fact that

16 Dubrovnik was a protected site in the reports that I was making at the

17 time, and that isn't knowledge I would have gone to Dubrovnik with.

18 Q. All right. Let's move on. During the examination-in-chief, you

19 also described your own movements about the Old Town, and you said that

20 the Old City walls were a place with a good view of the surrounding area.

21 Did you say something to that effect?

22 A. I did, yes.

23 Q. Do you know whether it was precisely for that reason that there

24 were observation points on the old walls?

25 A. I would imagine that it would be an obvious place to observe,

Page 3575

1 certainly to observe to the south. But again, I do have to say that I

2 didn't witness military activity on those walls.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, would this be a good

5 moment to take the break?

6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Rodic. Yes.

7 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.

8 --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Rodic -- I'm sorry, I didn't see you

10 there, Mr. Weiner.

11 MR. WEINER: No problem. Just a matter of logistics. The witness

12 brought two tapes with him. He has one in his possession and one has been

13 given to the audio/video room. They have to convert it to our system,

14 which they say can be done very quickly.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Hopefully that may occur in the course

16 of the evidence. There is every sign that it will, judging from the nod

17 of the head from the video booth. Thank you.

18 Mr. Rodic.

19 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

20 Q. Mr. Davies, you also mentioned the fact that with you in the Hotel

21 Argentina there were also some observers from the European Community. Is

22 that right?

23 A. That is right. They had their office in the hotel and they were

24 staying in the hotel.

25 Q. You also said that you socialised with them. Is that right?

Page 3576

1 A. To a degree. I mean, we didn't have close friendships, but they

2 would be -- at the end of the day they might be in the bar as well and we

3 would talk occasionally, yes.

4 Q. Do you happen to remember any of those observers? Could you tell

5 us their names, perhaps, where they were from.

6 A. No, I couldn't. They -- it was a multinational team. I think I

7 can remember an Italian and that's as far as it goes, I fear. I certainly

8 don't recall any of their names.

9 Q. Tell me, please: When the shelling took place and there was an

10 exchange of fire, did the observers use the shelters?

11 A. I can't recall seeing the observers in the shelters at the times

12 that we visited them. They had their own duties, tasks, to perform during

13 the day, observing, monitoring what was happening, and at times I believe

14 trying to assist with any cease-fire arrangements. So it wasn't that they

15 were just in one place and therefore would quite clearly have to go to a

16 particular shelter when the firing started. But in answer to your

17 question, no, I don't recall seeing them in the underground shelters. I

18 do recall seeing them taking a much cruder form of shelter at times when

19 the shelling was in and around the Hotel Argentina when people were going

20 down to the basement of the hotel, and I can visualise some pictures that

21 we took of some of the observers sheltering under the tables and still

22 continuing whatever work it was that they were doing at that time. But

23 again, in reply to your first question, I don't recall seeing them in the

24 official underground shelters, no.

25 Q. Unless I'm mistaken, during the shelling you at certain moments

Page 3577

1 were outside the hotel. That means you were moving round the town of

2 Dubrovnik, or round the Old Town; is that right?

3 A. That's right. We learned that there were three or four places

4 that gave good views of different areas, and we would spend quite a lot of

5 our time in those areas if we didn't have a specific other job to do.

6 Q. On those occasions, did you ever happen to see any of the

7 observers from the European Community moving around those parts of town,

8 of the town of Dubrovnik, the broader Dubrovnik area or in the narrower

9 Old Town part that you were able to see?

10 A. I don't remember doing so. No, I don't remember seeing them. I'm

11 not sure that we would do a lot of the time, because from some of these

12 vantage positions they were deliberately chosen as being places where a

13 camera would get a very good top view of things that were happening and

14 you wouldn't necessarily see all the movement on the ground of what was

15 happening. But no, I don't recall seeing them in and around the town

16 while the shelling was going on.

17 Q. Do you remember where the best vantage point, as you said, was;

18 the best in terms of seeing a lot from that position?

19 A. It would depend on where the fighting was concentrated or where

20 the shelling was concentrated, and the two main positions were either on

21 the ramparts of the Old City or, particularly in the earlier stages of our

22 stay there, on one of the roads that ran at the top of Dubrovnik and was

23 almost into the side of Srdj so that you were looking down -- you could

24 look down and see the Old Town, but you could also see the new areas which

25 took most of the attack in the early days before the 11th and 12th of

Page 3578

1 November.

2 Q. Tell me, please, were you ever in a position to see or to film any

3 large explosions in the warehouse in the port of Gruz?

4 A. We filmed the immediate aftermath of the explosions. I don't

5 think we actually filmed the impacts. I think we were doing something

6 else or filming the shelling in a different area, became aware that the

7 port of Gruz had been hit, and went there. And on a number of occasions

8 we arrived there while warehouses were burning, ships were burning, and

9 damage of that sort, which we filmed and broadcast.

10 Q. So that means you didn't have the opportunity of seeing this

11 directly, an explosion itself, in the warehouses in the port of Gruz in

12 November 1991.

13 A. No, I didn't see the moment that a shell exploded and started an

14 explosion and fire. As I say, I did film the immediate aftermath but not

15 the actual impact.

16 Q. Did you perhaps happen to hear that in one of those warehouses

17 there was ammunition stored, which the Croats procured for their own

18 purposes?

19 A. I didn't hear that, and I wouldn't know whether it's true or

20 false. I saw a lot of wood burning. Some of the warehouses contained

21 wood and I was able to actually see for myself what was burning there, but

22 I didn't either see or hear that any munitions had been hit in the port.

23 Q. Tell me, please, with the European observers, did you exchange

24 information, were you able to receive information from them about what was

25 going on or could you give them any information? Was there this exchange

Page 3579

1 of information as to what each of you saw while moving around town?

2 A. On an unofficial basis there was some exchange of information.

3 There wasn't -- there was no official format for either reporting to them

4 what we'd seen or indeed learning from them what they'd seen.

5 Occasionally, if there was any involvement in cease-fire talk or -- we'd

6 be told something about it, but most of what we learned from them was talk

7 at the end of the day, possibly in the restaurant or the bar, but nothing

8 official.

9 Q. I'm not insisting, nor do I think that there were any official

10 exchanges. I'm asking you about your unofficial conversations, because I

11 assume that, as a journalist yourself, you use observers as a source of

12 information.

13 A. If they're willing to become that source of information, yes. And

14 there was an exchange some days, usually in the hotel at the end of the

15 day.

16 Q. Did you perhaps know how they came by their information about what

17 was going on in the Dubrovnik region?

18 A. No. No, I didn't.

19 Q. Did you hear about the Crisis Staff in Dubrovnik during the time

20 you spent there?

21 A. Not by that name. So perhaps if you wanted to explain what it was

22 they did, then possibly I was aware of it, but I wasn't aware of anything

23 called the Crisis Staff.

24 Q. The Crisis Staff in Dubrovnik dealt with the care of citizens, the

25 citizens of the town, ensuring supplies, dealing with entrances and exits

Page 3580

1 from Dubrovnik, related to defence matters; all this came within their

2 work. And they also took part in negotiations with the JNA. Does that

3 ring a bell?

4 A. Well, yes, certainly all of those things happened and people were

5 involved in organising it. I didn't know they went by the name Crisis

6 Staff, but yes, those activities happened and we were sufficiently aware

7 of most of them to be involved in filming distribution of food and things

8 like that around the town. So yes, there were people doing that sort of

9 work.

10 Q. And in the Argentina Hotel, for example, were there any

11 representatives of Dubrovnik who would be informing the observers directly

12 about some matter?

13 A. There was a -- an information office, I suppose you would call it,

14 which was manned by local Croatian people who would give the journalists

15 and the observers their views or information on what was happening.

16 Q. Did you use them, too, as a source of information?

17 A. We would listen to what they had to say, but it was a very biased

18 source of information. And we were aware of that from the start.

19 Sometimes it could be useful; for instance, in knowing when food, water,

20 distribution was happening and that sort of thing, or even if you were to

21 be reporting that one side in the conflict is claiming that it's running

22 short of whatever essential supplies. But we were always aware -- it was

23 very, very plain to see that it was a service set up to put across the

24 Croatian side and it had to be treated accordingly.

25 Q. When you say "bias," this Croatian office in the Argentina Hotel

Page 3581

1 which gave out information, when you use the word "biased" I don't assume

2 that related to the information you received with respect to the

3 distribution of food, water, bread, et cetera. I assume that when you

4 talk about bias you refer to something else in some other area. Is that

5 right?

6 A. I'm talking primarily of other areas where you would suspect or at

7 least need to treat the information you were being given knowing that it

8 was coming from one particular side and one particular view. But in areas

9 like food distribution, water, et cetera, obviously that was happening and

10 you could see that, and that made it easier.

11 Q. I don't know whether I was clear enough. The distribution of

12 water and food, the locations, the time and place this was done, this

13 distribution, I personally don't see that there is any great scope for

14 manipulation in that particular area. And since you mentioned biased, I

15 would like to ask you what information that referred to, how did you come

16 to conclude at certain points in time that there might have been a bias on

17 the part of the side giving out the information?

18 A. It was basic common sense that when you are a journalist covering

19 a conflict and you are getting a view of the conflict from one side, that

20 that information has to be treated knowing that it can't be verified and

21 that the persons giving it to you have good reason to possibly manipulate,

22 exaggerate. These are things that we experience all the time. In fact,

23 that was the very early stages of the conflict in the Balkans and it was

24 quite unsophisticated, but it was later to become quite an art form,

25 trying to get a particular view of what was happening portrayed in the

Page 3582

1 international press.

2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Davies.

3 I'm asking you this because when mentioning the events that took

4 place in November, among other things, you said that the information that

5 was put out by the Croats was sometimes correct and other times not. And

6 you spoke about the occasion when the Old Town was attacked. You heard

7 the explosion of a shell, and they told you that before that three shells

8 had fallen on the town. Do you recall that particular situation?

9 A. I believe so.

10 Q. You also mentioned the damage done to the monastery in the Old

11 Town on that occasion. Do you happen to remember what extent the damage

12 was in November 1991, what damage was incurred?

13 A. I saw some damage, and it's my non-expert view -- it wasn't so bad

14 that it couldn't be restored. That's not an area that I'm an expert in.

15 It's much easier to say that something has been hit by a shell or a mortar

16 and you have seen this and it's -- it is true. If something's been

17 levelled to the ground, then that's easy to -- or wrecked, then that's

18 easy to describe and verify. But a lot of the damage to monuments in

19 Dubrovnik didn't appear to be of a type that couldn't be repaired. The

20 old walls and some of the buildings appeared to stand up very well to

21 weapons of the 21st century.

22 Q. Well, can we agree then that in the course of November, that is to

23 say after the fighting that you described in the month of November, that

24 when you toured the Old Town - on the 13th of November, in actual

25 fact, in 1991 - that you were able to see a considerable number of

Page 3583

1 damages, but you say that they weren't serious in the sense of not being

2 able to repair them.

3 A. I don't really think that I'm qualified to make that judgement,

4 particularly dealing with buildings as old as that. But I could say, as

5 an observer, that the damage to the buildings and monuments wasn't as bad

6 as I had thought it might be during the assault itself.

7 Q. That means that in November, let's say, in the Old Town, no

8 building had been destroyed or burnt, is that what you mean, completely?

9 A. I don't recall seeing any building levelled to the ground or

10 destroyed to the point that it couldn't be rebuilt, repaired. But there

11 was considerable damage. And fires had been caused and very old buildings

12 and monuments had been damaged, but again, I don't recall seeing anything

13 that was so badly damaged that it couldn't be restored.

14 Q. When you say that many old buildings and monuments were damaged,

15 does that refer to November 1991 in the Old Town itself?

16 A. Yes, it does. I wasn't there in December.

17 Q. Thank you.

18 You also mentioned having seen Croatian forces on the ground and

19 that on the sea you saw speedboats breaking through the blockade, taking

20 away the wounded, and bringing in ammunition. Is that right?

21 A. We saw speedboats and we saw them leaving in order to do those

22 things that you've just described. We didn't actually see them doing it,

23 but we did -- we saw them leaving with that intent, and we also used them

24 on occasions to take out pictures, tapes, when the television transmitter

25 in the television station had been destroyed, badly damaged, and we could

Page 3584

1 no longer send out pictures from Dubrovnik itself.

2 Q. And tell me, please, the tapes, your report, the footage, who did

3 you hand that over to, or rather, the speedboats taking things outside

4 Dubrovnik?

5 A. The speedboats travelled up the coast, landing at pre-arranged

6 places that were still in Croatian hands. And the representative of my

7 company would go to that area and collect the tapes and then would take

8 them back to an office that he had established in Split where he would put

9 together the pictures and the words that we had sent out. It's a crude

10 way of putting together news reports, where you send out the pictures and

11 the words separately with a guide as to what pictures should be placed

12 with what words, but it's a way of getting around problems like the TV

13 transmitter being bombed.

14 Q. Mr. Davies, I completely understand the problem that you were

15 faced with, and I'm sure that wasn't the first time, in view of the fact

16 that you have reported from many battlefields. But the problem I'm

17 concerned with is Dubrovnik and that whole area, 1991. So my question to

18 you was: Who and where did you hand over this material to? If it was in

19 the Dubrovnik region, who did you hand your tapes over to, your films, for

20 them to be taken out of Dubrovnik in the speedboats?

21 A. My producer, whose name is Sandy McIntyre, took the tapes down to

22 the port and gave them to a Croatian person who was on the speedboat. And

23 when the boat left, we got a message through to our man in Split to go to

24 wherever it was the speedboat was heading for, and it wasn't always the

25 same place, to meet the boat and collect the tape from the person to whom

Page 3585

1 we had given it.

2 Q. Very well. Now, just tell me this: When you say that you handed

3 them over to a Croatian person in the port, in the speedboat, could you

4 tell me which port you mean. The port in the Old Town, the port of Gruz,

5 or some third port perhaps?

6 A. I think - and it is only think - that it was the port of Gruz. I

7 never did the handing over myself, so I can't be 100 per cent sure. I

8 believe it was Gruz, but that's not to say that it certainly was.

9 Q. Since you're not certain, can you tell me whether those speedboats

10 were to be seen in the port of the Old Town? Did they go there too to

11 perform certain things? Did they operate from the port in the Old Town at

12 all?

13 A. I don't think so, but I do not know for sure. These were very

14 specific, easy-to-recognise boats. They were high-powered speedboats. I

15 don't know, technically they call them "pencil" or something like that,

16 but they have very, very long front ends; they are very, very fast, and

17 the hope was that they could use speed to get through any naval blockade.

18 Q. Were they the very fast speedboats of the type - you've just

19 reminded me of this - of the type which were mostly used for trafficking

20 clandestine goods along the seas. The power of the motors and what they

21 looked like, the general speed and power of them, was it the black

22 marketeering type?

23 A. Quite possibly, but I've also seen similar sort of boats used in

24 high-power boat racing.

25 Q. Thank you.

Page 3586

1 During your stay in Dubrovnik, did you ever happen to hear about a

2 formation, a detachment of armed ships, in fact, to which these speedboats

3 belonged, the ones you've just mentioned?

4 A. Not really. We used to jokingly refer to these speedboats as the

5 Croatian navy. I wasn't aware of ships of any sort with guns on them

6 being used by the Croatians, but that isn't to say it didn't happen. I

7 wasn't aware of that, only these speedboats and the use they were being

8 put to.

9 Q. Have you perhaps heard of the first such speedboat, called Sveti

10 Vlaho, St. Blaise, Ladislav Merkas was commander of that speedboat

11 throughout the war in the Dubrovnik area.

12 A. I wasn't aware of that, either the name of the boat or the name of

13 the commander, no.

14 Q. Are you familiar with the names of the other speedboats; Jim, Bom,

15 Lude Gude, Dezerter, Formula 4, and so on? Do you know of any of these

16 names?

17 A. No. Those -- this is the first time that I've heard those names.

18 Q. During your stay in Dubrovnik, did you hear of the existence of

19 special police units?

20 A. Not really. We heard talk of various units that might have

21 existed on either side, but nothing any more detailed than that. We

22 didn't see any evidence of it.

23 Q. During the last session, I did not quote the exact page of the

24 Milosevic case transcript. I managed to obtain this during the break,

25 though, so I would like to repeat this in connection with my question that

Page 3587

1 had to do with your colleague's stay in hospital. On page 16830 in the

2 Milosevic case, the question was: "Is it correct, Mr. Davies, that in the

3 immediate vicinity of the Dubrovnik hospital there were Croatian forces

4 and that they opened fire at the JNA from those positions?"

5 16831 is the page of your response. You say: "I don't know about

6 that for sure. I did not see that. Everything I can say is that there

7 was quite a bit of fire from the surrounding area -- from the area around

8 the hospital. I did not see whether this was outgoing fire, but I did

9 hear that there was a mobile mortar positioned there and that it operated

10 very close to that particular place and that it was perhaps involved in

11 this fire. My colleague spent a great deal of time in hospital and he was

12 quite certain that the area around the hospital was under fire for a few

13 days."

14 Does this jog your memory?

15 A. Yes, it does and it also shows me why there was confusion before.

16 The colleague who spent a great deal of time at the hospital was -- wasn't

17 injured or bed-bound or whatever. He used to go to the hospital to check

18 on numbers of casualties and that sort of thing. And he did tell us that

19 he -- there'd been a lot of fire around the hospital. In fact, he was, as

20 I mentioned earlier today, he was injured during one of these exchanges

21 where he was trying to run from the roof of the hospital and damaged his

22 -- damaged his foot.

23 And yes, as I said before, although I didn't witness any of this,

24 my colleague who was there did say that there seemed to be a lot of fire

25 being exchanged around the hospital; not from the hospital but around the

Page 3588

1 hospital. And like some of the other instances we've discussed, that was

2 partly explained by us, though some of it was more conjecture than fact,

3 as being the mobile mortar units and attempts to hit them.

4 Q. Thank you. Tell me: Since you spent a considerable amount of

5 time in Dubrovnik, did you come across Croatian soldiers in different

6 localities, people who were engaged in war operations in the Dubrovnik

7 area?

8 A. We came across armed Croatians in different areas. I wasn't aware

9 that very many of the people we saw were anything more than militia, if

10 you like, of people who had been armed because of what was happening

11 around Dubrovnik -- as in civilians who had been armed. But yes, I came

12 across them in a number of positions, as I have intimated before; and in

13 particular, the fort on top of Srdj, there were armed Croatians up there;

14 there were armed Croatians just beyond the port of Gruz at the point where

15 the Croats' control ceased; and we saw them, again as we've discussed

16 several times, moving around and being involved in operations to fire

17 their weapons and move again. So yes, we were aware that there were armed

18 Croatians in various different parts of Dubrovnik.

19 Q. So we can agree then that you saw people in uniform and also

20 people who were wearing civilian clothing but who nevertheless bore

21 weapons. Is that right?

22 A. Yes. Simple answer, yes. Most of the time, though, people with

23 weapons, even the civilians who had been enlisted to this defensive

24 militia, if you like, wore uniforms most of the time. But you did also

25 see people not wearing uniforms who had weapons, small arms.

Page 3589

1 Q. Am I right if I say to you in relation to the photograph from

2 Boskovicev Park, the man who is putting a shell into the mortar, who is

3 loading the mortar, so to speak, he is wearing civilian clothes, isn't he?

4 A. I would have to see that again to give you a definite yes or no

5 answer on that.

6 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] D28, please.

7 Q. Can you tell the kind of clothing he's wearing? Can you recognise

8 it?

9 A. Looking closely at it, it appears to be denim jeans and some sort

10 of a jumper or sweatshirt that is not military camouflage, it appears. It

11 might be clearer on the photograph itself. No, it's actually deceptive.

12 If you look closer at it, I thought that was something like a rugby shirt

13 that he was wearing, but in fact if you look closer, that's probably some

14 sort of body armour protection. It looks rather like a blue flak jacket

15 that he's wearing. I would agree that it is not obvious military uniform,

16 but that does look like some sort of a flak jacket.

17 Q. At any rate, you would say that this man was dressed like a

18 civilian. Right? This is civilian clothing, isn't it? You wouldn't say

19 that he was wearing a military uniform or that he had any military

20 insignia.

21 A. That's correct. It's civilian clothing, not military uniform.

22 Q. Last time -- excuse me. Last time you mentioned to us a man by

23 the name of Mario Peci who got killed in November, if I'm not mistaken, in

24 the area of Dubrovnik.

25 A. Yes, that's correct.

Page 3590

1 Q. You mentioned that you knew him personally and that he was a

2 member of the Croatian army. Right?

3 A. Well, I knew him because I met him and I talked to him for quite

4 some time. And I met him on Srdj, in the fort, but I didn't know him

5 beyond having met him on that particular day. As for whether he was a

6 member of the Croatian army, he was a member of the Croatian defence, but

7 he wasn't any form of regular army. The reason I remember him so well is

8 that he owned a restaurant and a discotheque in Dubrovnik and spoke

9 excellent English because of his work with tourists and was quite a -- he

10 was different. He was quite a jovial character and we talked to him quite

11 a lot. We interviewed him as part of one of the films that we were

12 making. But he wasn't a -- he wasn't regular army. He, like most of the

13 other people we met, were -- was a civilian involved in the tourist trade,

14 really, who had been enlisted in a defence force, had been given weapons,

15 and the last time we saw him alive he had a mortar, a single mortar, and

16 was moving it from the side of Mount Srdj to somewhere where it was going

17 to be used. And he was killed that night.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 Tell me, please, while watching the film that was shown during the

20 first day of your testimony in this courtroom, the narrator, the reporter

21 who was actually following the images and explaining what was happening,

22 was that you in that specific situation, in that particular footage?

23 A. Yes, it was.

24 Q. I am going to refer to the transcript of your report, that is to

25 say what you were actually saying in the report. You say, when talking

Page 3591

1 about the bombing of the Napoleonic fort: "The exchange of gunfire was

2 not completely one way because mortar shells were fired from town, those

3 that could not reach the federal artillery batteries hidden amongst the

4 trees on the top of Mount Zarkovica."

5 On the basis of what do you infer that, that these shells could

6 not reach the positions of the federal army?

7 A. Simply that they were falling short of that position and I didn't

8 believe, and it was only my presumption, but I didn't believe that they

9 could have been deliberately targeted at the mountainside just below, gun

10 positions that I could quite clearly see were firing into Dubrovnik.

11 Q. Where were they firing from, from Dubrovnik itself?

12 A. On that occasion, I didn't know. From subsequent experience, it

13 would make sense that they were being fired from somewhere near the

14 Belvedere Hotel, because that is the closest that you can get to those

15 positions. And it did seem that the only chance of hitting those

16 positions was to get about as close as it was possible for the Croatians

17 to get, which was near the coast alongside the Belvedere Hotel.

18 Q. Mr. Davies, I'm going to phrase my question this way: Do you

19 agree with me that at the moment when you were giving this description

20 that actually followed the images on the film, you did not know the exact

21 positions that the Croatian artillery was shooting from. You don't know

22 whether it's a mortar or a gun. You don't know the calibre of the weapon

23 involved. You don't know the parameters of that artillery piece. You

24 don't know what the charges were, what kind of ordnance was used. You

25 don't know the exact range of the artillery pieces involved. You don't

Page 3592

1 know whether the sights are in proper order on these weapons that were

2 used to fire at the JNA. Do you agree with that?

3 A. I would agree that that was the situation a lot of the time. It

4 would be impossible to know that long list of things that you have just

5 set out there.

6 Q. Do you agree with me then that your statement they could not reach

7 the positions of the other side, are simply -- is simply an assumption,

8 since you do not have all the knowledge required for a qualified

9 statement, all the things I referred to in my previous question?

10 A. I would agree with you that it is an assumption, but I think it's

11 a pretty fair assumption to make.

12 Q. In your view, then, would it also be reasonable to presume that

13 those who were actually doing the firing, that is to say the Croatian

14 artillery, could make a mistake, like anybody can make a mistake? Also,

15 as you put it yourself, when they often change positions while firing -

16 that is to say once they fire they immediately move the mortar away, take

17 it to another position - perhaps there is not enough time for the sights

18 to be put in order. Perhaps that could be reason to assume that, just

19 like you assumed that they did not have the proper range to reach the

20 positions on top. Would you agree with that?

21 JUDGE PARKER: Could you pause.

22 Yes, Mr. Weiner.

23 MR. WEINER: I would object. The question doesn't seem to make

24 any sense.

25 JUDGE PARKER: I think what is apparent from the question is the

Page 3593

1 proposition is being posed for your comment, Mr. Davies: Could the

2 mortars have been not properly sighted because they had just been recently

3 moved, or could those sighting them have made a mistake?

4 THE WITNESS: Well, the answer to that would be that, yes, it is

5 possible that the sights could not have been properly set because of what

6 was happening; yes, it is possible that they made a mistake; and yes, if

7 we're going down that road, it is possible that they could have been

8 deliberately targeting a bit of barren hillside below where gun positions

9 were firing at them. It is possible but it seemed unlikely.

10 If I'm being asked to put an opinion, as I appear to be, then if

11 I, day after day, watch exchanges - because there were exchanges,

12 one-sided though they were - where one side seems not able, for various

13 reasons, to hit the other side's positions, then I -- with what I do see

14 with my own eyes that these weapons they have are not particularly high

15 calibre, I think it's a fair conclusion to reach that they are not able to

16 reach those positions. But all of those possibilities that have been

17 raised could be true.

18 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

19 Q. Mr. Davies, in relation to this, I did not ask you about the most

20 important thing, perhaps. Do you know about how well trained the mortar

21 operators were on the Croatian side, those who were firing the mortar

22 shells from the Croatian side? You will agree with me that this is a very

23 important thing.

24 A. Well, the answer to your question is no, I don't know how well

25 trained the mortar operators were.

Page 3594

1 Q. And do you agree that along with the other elements that you did

2 not know about and that we referred to just now, this was yet another very

3 relevant element, the degree of training, that is, when we are talking

4 about precision of targeting?

5 A. It is relevant, but it won't change my opinion and the opinion

6 that I voiced in the report that I made, that they simply weren't able to

7 reach the targets they were firing at.

8 Q. Do you agree with me, Mr. Davies, in terms of this last matter,

9 the degree of training that the mortar operators had, and all the other

10 elements we referred to earlier on that you did not know about, that if we

11 look at all of this together, these are very important matters in order to

12 make a realistic assessment as to why shells in a particular case did not

13 reach their target? They fell before the actual target that was being

14 engaged.

15 A. Again, they may be relevant factors. Of course training to use a

16 weapon is extremely important, but when you've witnessed something

17 happening over a period of days again and again and you've had an

18 opportunity to at least gauge the sort of fire power that exists on both

19 sides, I think it's still fair to come to the conclusion that these things

20 were not hitting their targets because most of the time they weren't able

21 to.

22 Q. I'm going to give you yet another element in terms of food for

23 thought. Do you believe that there is a distinction between the two

24 following things: A protected dug-in artillery piece of the JNA, which is

25 dug-in according to all military rules; and on the other hand the Croatian

Page 3595

1 artillery pieces that you described, that is to say firing fast, moving

2 away fast, shooting yet again from this other locality? Are these

3 important elements when we talk about the exchange of fire, when we talk

4 about precision and so on and so forth? Would you agree with that?

5 A. Yes, they ought to be factors. If you're asking if a professional

6 military properly dug-in, properly trained, with powerful weapons ought to

7 perform better than a militia with less powerful weapons, not properly

8 dug-in, then yes, the JNA ought to outperform the Croatian defenders of

9 Dubrovnik every time.

10 Q. You've gone a little further in your answer from my actual

11 question. But don't you think that I gave you a lot of elements which

12 were unknown categories? But you draw the conclusion in your report that

13 can be called a simple one, and that is that the Croatian artillery at a

14 given point in time was not able to reach the position, the JNA positions

15 because they had -- didn't have the kind of weapons the JNA had. They had

16 weaker weapons. That is your conclusion?

17 A. Yes, that was my conclusion, but you can add to it the list of

18 things that you were putting forward, the being properly trained and

19 dug-in and professional, that would all add to the same conclusion.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic, don't you think you've rather dealt with

21 this point more than adequately?

22 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just one more question,

23 with the Court's indulgence, on this matter, and then I'll move on to

24 another topic and I think I'll be able to complete the cross-examination

25 quickly after that.

Page 3596

1 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

2 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

3 Q. Mr. Davies, I've been asking you all this for us to be able to

4 compare a situation in which you have a very effective image of the

5 Croatian artillery hitting the munitions warehouse at Zarkovica and that

6 this led to a great explosion, a big explosion. Do you agree that that

7 was very effective, an effective image from the journalistic point of

8 view, from the aspect of your profession, in fact?

9 A. Yes, it was very effective. And -- because it was so unusual,

10 that made it even more an effective tool to, if you like, show that,

11 although one-sided, this wasn't just one side bombarding another with the

12 other not defending at all; there were occasional successes on the other

13 side.

14 Q. Yes, I respect that explanation of yours, because it stands.

15 However, what I'm interested in with respect to the previous questions and

16 the topic we were discussing, it is this: If they managed to hit the

17 warehouse at Zarkovica, do you know exactly from what position the hits

18 were made in order to hit the warehouse at Zarkovica? Where were they

19 shooting from? Or let me be more specific: What were the positions from

20 which, the exact positions, from which the Croatian artillery was able to

21 have a range reaching that target, the JNA targets? So what positions did

22 they have giving them a range in which they were able to hit their target?

23 Do you have any information or facts and figures about that?

24 A. No. No. Not at all. I didn't know the position that those --

25 that that particular shot, the one that hit the JNA position, I couldn't

Page 3597

1 tell where it was fired from. And I wouldn't know what the range of the

2 weapon that fired that shell, what its range was.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 When in your report you filmed the Belvedere Hotel, you as the

5 reporter say that the -- it seems that the guns were targeting the gun

6 nest, Croatian gun nest, at the Belvedere Hotel along the coast. You said

7 that refugees had been put up at the Belvedere Hotel. Is that right?

8 A. That is correct, yes.

9 Q. So in the Belvedere Hotel, were there soldiers of the Croatian

10 army, apart from this gun nest that you mention? So were there any

11 soldiers there accommodated in and around the Belvedere Hotel?

12 A. I don't know whether there were -- the Belvedere Hotel was,

13 because of its position, was very difficult to get to. I think we visited

14 it once or twice. We didn't see Croatian military there on the occasions

15 that we visited it. But because we heard either mortars or artillery

16 being used from there on at least one occasion, we know that they were

17 operating from there. I don't know -- I mean, when you say "gun nest,"

18 that's your phrase. I don't know that it wasn't necessarily one or two

19 mortars that had been moved into that position, fired, and moved again. I

20 don't know if it was a permanent military presence there. We didn't see

21 Croatian soldiers when we visited the Belvedere Hotel. It could be we

22 only visited it once during the entire period we were there, possibly

23 twice.

24 Q. During your stay in Dubrovnik, did you happen to see any other

25 places, any other positions, where the civilian and the army mixed,

Page 3598

1 civilian positions, military positions, and operations from those

2 positions or near the positions where there were any civilians in

3 Dubrovnik?

4 A. Well, it -- Dubrovnik's a relatively small place. The use of

5 weapons almost anywhere in the region would mean that civilians would be

6 not very far away. The simple answer to your question is: We were aware

7 of guns being fired or mortars being fired from alongside our hotel, which

8 had civilians in it, alongside the Belvedere Hotel on occasion, and there

9 were refugees in there. I didn't see anything cruder than that. I didn't

10 see any what we now describe as human shield type operations, where you

11 deliberately put weapons in the middle of a civilian target so that nobody

12 will fire at it. But the instances that I've told you about certainly

13 happened.

14 Q. I do believe you. But I didn't mention any human shield either,

15 and if we're talking about a human shield then that implies the direct

16 positioning of humans in front of artillery pieces. But I don't think

17 either of us mentioned human shields in actual fact. Isn't that right?

18 A. Yeah.

19 Q. However, what you just talked about and something that was brought

20 up on several occasions, that in the hotel that you were accommodated in,

21 there were civilians put up, too, and the observer European mission as

22 well, and that the Croats were quite nearby the hotel and firing from

23 there, does that mean that they would be attracting fire from the opposite

24 side as well? And for that reason, because the opposite side was firing

25 at the fire power positions of the Croatian side, that there could have

Page 3599

1 been mistakes or movement in the shots where innocent people would have

2 been casualties? Is that a realistic situation, too?

3 A. That's always a possibility.

4 Q. Tell me, please: When you described the 6th of November and say

5 that the main target of attack was Srdj, you also said that the town was

6 patrolled by, or rather, that cannons, gunboats around Dubrovnik also

7 opened fire, the ones that were patrolling the area around Dubrovnik, that

8 there was gunfire coming from gunboats. Is that right?

9 A. I -- without looking at notes, I'd find that difficult to give you

10 a straight yes or no answer to that on November the 6th. I do remember

11 days when gunboats and other boats fired, but I couldn't definitively say

12 that November the 6th was one of those days. I do remember that November

13 the 11th was a day when the gunboats and other boats were particularly

14 active in firing at Dubrovnik. I would have to look back at some of my

15 work to see what happened on the 6th.

16 Q. Let me remind you. The last sentence of your statement given to

17 the investigators, speaking about the 6th of November reads as follows:

18 "The town was shelled by gunboats, which were patrolling around town, and

19 there were many shells that fell close to the Dubrovnik hospital."

20 Is that true?

21 A. That sounds -- that sounds true, and at the time I made that

22 statement I would have been able to -- just before then, to look at the

23 relevant notes made at the time. But I can now start to envisage the

24 report that we sent out at that time which did show shells dropping

25 relatively close to the hospital.

Page 3600

1 Q. That's precisely what I wanted to hear from you, and let me

2 continue from my previous question with respect to the abuse of locations

3 populated by civilians, and the hospital is precisely one such facility

4 and location. So would it be true to say, then, that the firing of

5 Croatian artillery from positions in the immediate vicinity of a hospital

6 or the Argentina Hotel, for example, would be along those lines, that this

7 kind of operation represents a real danger and jeopardises those

8 facilities and the people in them? Would you agree with me there?

9 A. I would agree with you inasmuch as if you're saying that firing

10 weapons from relatively close to civilian populations and a building like

11 a hospital raises the possibility of those being hit, then yes, that is an

12 obvious danger.

13 Q. That's precisely what I was asking you about. Thank you.

14 Is it true and correct that, according to your report, the first

15 shell during November, as you said, fell on the Old Town on the 10th of

16 November, in fact?

17 A. I believe so.

18 Q. According to you - and you say you remember that because of your

19 own birthday - that the strongest shelling during November was on the

20 11th. Is that right?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And on that particular day you yourself -- on the day of the

23 shelling, and operations from both sides you followed from the walls of

24 the Old Town. Is that right?

25 A. For a good part of that day, yes.

Page 3601

1 Q. Tell me now, please -- tell me, when moving around the Old Town

2 during those days, that is to say the days there was no shelling, did you

3 happen to come across any armed persons?

4 A. I believe that there were people with small arms around the Old

5 Town. I didn't see anything larger than small arms, and I don't recall

6 seeing anything that you would associate with some sort of military

7 activity inasmuch as you might see one or two people wandering and they

8 had small arms. But I didn't see gun positions or any preparations being

9 made or anything involving firearms. But on occasions, I did see people

10 in uniform, and some of those people would be carrying small arms.

11 Q. When you say that some of those people carried small arms or

12 personal weapons, would an automatic rifle rank among those, a pistol; is

13 that the kind of weaponry you saw them with?

14 A. A pistol would be what I'm referring to. It's possible that

15 somebody might have a rifle, but that's not the image that comes to my

16 mind. That would have been a rare site. I'm really referring to, as you

17 say, personal weapons, a pistol.

18 Q. However, at the beginning today I asked you, based on your film

19 and the situation when you filmed the hit at Zarkovica and you were in the

20 Old Town yourself, I asked you about the five men who were to be seen

21 behind a wall in the Old Town, and I said that two of them were wearing

22 uniforms and that you could see an automatic rifle that one of them had.

23 And this is on your own footage. Now, do you allow for the fact that

24 there might have been people with other kinds of weapons, or rather,

25 rifles and not just pistols moving around the Old Town? Would that jog

Page 3602

1 your memory?

2 A. It's -- of course it's possible, but again I would have to say we

3 spent a lot of time in and around the Old Town. And we would have -- if

4 there had been any significant weaponry on the walls and certainly anybody

5 using them, whether it was small arms or anything larger, I believe we

6 would have been aware of it, we would have seen it, and we would have

7 filmed it.

8 Q. Thank you. I'm asking you this because on page 9, paragraph 1, of

9 your statement you say that: "I would see every day a Croatian defender

10 because they worked in the Argentina Hotel," or words to that effect, and

11 they didn't have any special clothing because they weren't regular

12 soldiers. They were ordinary people who dealt in tourism. They would be

13 given weapons from the police station and they were small, old rifles and

14 pistols.

15 I think that paragraph contains quite a bit of what I asked you

16 previously. You say they were ordinary people, very ordinary people, with

17 tourism background, and they came to the hotel as Croatian defenders. Is

18 that right?

19 A. No, not really. What I meant was that we would see people working

20 at the hotel, and later in the day they would leave to go and do whatever

21 military role they had been given. I can remember instances of seeing the

22 man who served coffee at breakfast wearing a dark jacket and a dickey bow

23 tie, later in the day with a camouflage jacket - no other uniform I don't

24 think than a camouflage jacket - and a not very impressive rifle up on

25 Srdj. And he would live his life with doing his shift at work and then

Page 3603

1 going to do his shift with the militia or defence or whatever we call it.

2 I wouldn't want to give the impression that what I saw at the hotel was

3 people with military roles doing military jobs at the hotel. These were

4 just people who worked at the hotel that also had a military life.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, would this be a good

7 moment to break?

8 JUDGE PARKER: I thought that you were at the end of your

9 cross-examination.

10 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I forgot to say previously that I

11 promise to finish very soon after the break, after we resume.

12 JUDGE PARKER: That's what you said at about five to midday.

13 We will adjourn now for 20 minutes.

14 --- Recess taken at 12.26 p.m.

15 --- On resuming at 12.53 p.m.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic.

17 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

18 Q. Mr. Davies, I assume that this film that you brought along to The

19 Hague this time is the original, the original that you took then in

20 Dubrovnik.

21 A. Yeah, it's the original that was recorded in London as it was fed

22 in to my company's headquarters on the 14th of November. It's the version

23 that they recorded and then later broadcast on that same day.

24 Q. So if I understood you correctly, this is a recording that your

25 company made on the basis of the material that you sent from Dubrovnik.

Page 3604

1 Your company made this film, they edited it, played it as such, and the

2 material of your company that was telecast in this form was then handed

3 over to the OTP. Right? Is that correct?

4 A. It's partly correct. This is the recording that was made in

5 London of material that was fed in from somewhere in Serbia where it was

6 being sent via satellite. It wasn't edited in London. They simply

7 recorded the broadcast intact and then later broadcast it on television.

8 So it hasn't been edited or interfered with, it has simply been recorded

9 in from the satellite and then broadcast on television, and it still has

10 the original clock on it, which is the way that we would have started the

11 material as we put it together in Dubrovnik. That is something that was

12 missing from the copy that we saw last time, which I still don't know how

13 it was acquired. I think you would have to ask the Prosecution that. But

14 that didn't have the first few seconds, the clock that comes first, and

15 then the first few seconds of the first shot, and it was also curtailed

16 rather abruptly a few seconds before the actual report had finished. But

17 in every other aspect other quality, they are the same. The version I

18 brought to the Court is simply the perfect one with the extra few seconds

19 at either end.

20 Q. Thank you. Tell me, this film that you brought in, is that film

21 from the boxes with the notes that you referred to last time?

22 A. No. This is film from the archives of my company, which keeps a

23 recording of every report that it takes in from the satellite and later

24 broadcasts. The relevance of the boxes and the notes, these are the

25 details that would have helped me put together the script for the film

Page 3605

1 that I have here.

2 Q. Tell me something else in relation to this film: If we look at

3 this version that you brought in now where this clock can be seen at the

4 outset and the material that you sent from Dubrovnik, is this identical or

5 is there something missing?

6 A. No. This is identical.

7 Q. I asked you last time, if you remember, apart from this film do

8 you have any other recordings or films from the time you reported from the

9 Dubrovnik area? If I'm not mistaken, you said that you had four or five

10 such films, and you said that you kept them in the boxes with the notes.

11 That is to say the boxes that are marked and it probably says which are

12 the films involved.

13 A. All right. That's a little bit complicated. Yes, I told you that

14 this long report wasn't the only report that we sent out of Dubrovnik;

15 there were several others. And I also told you that in putting together

16 the words, the script that you hear, the narration is probably the better

17 word, on these reports, that I would have used my memory, notes that I

18 made on the day, and also notes that appeared on the boxes of the tapes.

19 And again, to try and make that more easy to understand, each tape like

20 this one which is the 11-, 12-minute report that we saw, or very similar

21 to the one we saw when I was here last, this is put together from, it

22 could be 10, 12 other tapes that are filmed over a period of days. You

23 take out the -- use the pictures you want to use and put together a report

24 that all comes together on tape.

25 On many of the boxes there would have been a sheet of white paper

Page 3606

1 here with lines and room for you to write down notes of what's on it, the

2 people you talked to, perhaps a rough summary of what happened on it. And

3 it's just another form of notebook. You use it along with your notes in

4 putting together the narration.

5 I hope that's helpful.

6 Q. Tell me just one more thing in relation to the actual film you

7 brought in today. Is that the way it was made, as you mentioned, from

8 these 10 or 12 cassettes: Material was chosen, selected, edited, and then

9 sent as a comprehensive report from Dubrovnik; is that right?

10 A. That's exactly right. Yes.

11 Q. Did you perhaps bring in any of those cassettes today out of which

12 you extracted this footage that is contained in this report, this original

13 cassette that you brought in today? Did you bring any of those 10 or 12

14 cassettes with that material? Did you bring any of that with you today?

15 A. No, I didn't. It's not normal practice to keep -- the technical

16 phrase for those tapes is "rushes." And it's not normal practice to keep

17 rushes for a long time after an event. As you can imagine, we're talking

18 about 12 boxes like this, maybe, to make one piece. And during the course

19 of an assignment you might make -- send back 10 or 12, broadcast each one,

20 taking as many tapes, 10 or 12 tapes, to make each individual report. If

21 you start to do the sums, you end up with hundreds and hundreds of tapes.

22 And that's just one assignment of one reporter. So our archives, after a

23 period of time, only keep the reports that are broadcast as a record. And

24 there's a legal obligation that they should do so as well. It's quite

25 rare for them to keep the original rushes.

Page 3607

1 Q. Yes. Very well, Mr. Davies. I understand that.

2 If this report that you brought in here today, if it contains 11

3 minutes of material, tell me, approximately how much material do these 10

4 or 12 cassettes contain, the rushes as you call them? How much material

5 do they contain, approximately?

6 A. 150 minutes, 200 minutes. You must understand that something like

7 filming artillery firing and the few seconds that you see on the news

8 where there's an explosion and the damage that's caused, quite often the

9 camera will have been trained on that spot for 10, 15 minutes just to get

10 that one image. And if you multiply that over and over again for every

11 single thing you see in the report, it's a lot of material. It's one of

12 the most time-consuming parts of our job is condensing it into a fair

13 reflection of what happened.

14 Q. I agree that the viewers of your television certainly would not

15 find it interesting to watch that abundance of material, as you described

16 it. But am I right if I say that if a report of about 11 minutes was

17 taken out of 150 or 200 minutes in total and if that is what we saw here,

18 would I be correct if I put it that way?

19 A. Yes. It would be something around that. Each of these tapes, if

20 they're full, can hold 20 to 30 minutes of material. And sometimes you

21 put a report together from as many as 10 tapes. So you can do the sums.

22 Some will only have a limited amount of material; some will be almost

23 full. So it's a lot of material.

24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Davies.

25 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have completed the

Page 3608

1 cross-examination. Thank you.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Rodic.

3 Mr. Weiner.

4 MR. WEINER: Thank you.

5 Re-examined by Mr. Weiner:

6 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Davies.

7 A. Good afternoon.

8 Q. We'll be brief.

9 Have you reviewed that tape you brought with you today?

10 A. I have, yes.

11 Q. And is that the complete tape you sent?

12 A. It is, even including the clock, which is the start of the piece

13 that we put together, but something that isn't broadcast.

14 Q. And is that a fair and accurate depiction of what you saw on those

15 days?

16 A. It is. Yes, I am very proud of being able to say that that's what

17 we saw. That was our interpretation of what was happening there.

18 Q. And the tape that you had previously seen when you were here to

19 testify approximately a month and a half ago, was all of the information

20 on that tape included on this tape which you brought today?

21 A. It is. There's -- the only difference is an extra few seconds at

22 the start and an extra few seconds at the end. It doesn't look truncated

23 or abruptly finished, and it is the way that it will have been both put

24 together and broadcast.

25 MR. WEINER: With the assistance of the audio/visual room, could

Page 3609

1 we run the first 30 seconds and the last 30 seconds of that tape, please.

2 [Videotape played]


4 Q. Mr. Davies, having just reviewed that, that is the complete tape?

5 A. That is the complete tape, yes.

6 MR. WEINER: We would like to offer that at this time, Your

7 Honour.

8 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

9 THE REGISTRAR: And that will be Prosecution Exhibit P92, Your

10 Honour.

11 MR. WEINER: In addition, as a matter of housekeeping, for the

12 record could we officially offer the statement of Ellen Gardner in

13 relation to the other tape which was tendered this morning?

14 JUDGE PARKER: It will be -- yes, Mr. Rodic.

15 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence has an

16 objection in relation to this statement. If the written statement is

17 being admitted into evidence, regardless of what it has to do with, if

18 there is no live testimony to that effect.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.

20 MR. WEINER: Yes. The Defence was the ones who, on page 638 and

21 655, made two requests for the provenance of the tape. They did it at

22 that portion in the cross-examination and then before we closed for the

23 day, they again requested the provenance of that tape. It's a -- we have

24 responded; we have filed a document. It does relate to their request, it

25 does relate to the tape. It's not a significant document, and we would

Page 3610

1 like to enter it at this time.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Do you maintain your objection, Mr. Rodic?

3 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. One question had to

4 do with the other question, which is only natural in this case.

5 Mr. Davies during the examination-in-chief and during the

6 cross-examination explained to us, and now he brought us yet another tape,

7 that there is a lack of material that he called -- that he referred to as

8 a few seconds at the beginning and a few seconds at the end. Mr. Davies

9 gave an explanation and he brought the original tape, which was played

10 here now, and it explains the lack of this material in the recording. The

11 Defence certainly did receive from Mr. Davies what it wanted to. This

12 film, which was introduced as P19, and this new film that was introduced

13 now includes the seconds that were missing. And all of this was taken out

14 of the 150 or 200 minutes that Mr. Davies recorded in Dubrovnik.

15 Therefore, we maintain our objection, that is that this kind of statement

16 should not be admitted into evidence. Thank you.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Rodic. I would normally see some

18 significance in what you are submitting, but on this occasion, as it has

19 been produced in response to your request and as it really does not

20 introduce anything of any significant difference from what we have heard

21 from Mr. Davies except to provide some of the background to his evidence,

22 I think it would be appropriate for it to be received. So we will admit

23 it.

24 THE REGISTRAR: That statement will be Exhibit P91, Your Honours.

25 MR. WEINER: Thank you.

Page 3611

1 Q. Just a few questions, Mr. Davies. You were questioned about the

2 explosion on Zarkovica, allegedly by Croatian fire. Are there any other

3 possibilities which could have caused that explosion? For example, can

4 you rule out sabotage? Can you rule out accident or some sort of mishap

5 with --

6 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Rodic.

8 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] What my colleague Mr. Weiner is asking

9 about now goes beyond speculation, because the film footage and also the

10 narration that explains the images, and also during the

11 examination-in-chief and several times during the cross-examination the

12 witness confirmed that he personally followed this and that the explosion

13 at Zarkovica was caused by Croatian artillery fire. Therefore, it is

14 inappropriate to deal with it in re-direct, especially to speculate in

15 this way with inaccurate information, because the witness unequivocally

16 said several times what caused the explosion at Zarkovica. Thank you.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner, I had occasion to suggest to Mr. Rodic

18 that this issue had been more than adequately covered in the course of his

19 cross-examination, and really I don't know that we would be helped by you

20 adding even more conjecture on to that which was put before us. So

21 perhaps you will move on.

22 MR. WEINER: I will move on.

23 Q. Now, sir, you were questioned about flags -- and you were

24 questioned about your statement and you were questioned about flags. In

25 your statement on page 7, the second full paragraph, the first sentence it

Page 3612

1 says: "The Croatians never thought that the Old Town would ever become a

2 target of attack, as it was an UNESCO protected site in its entirety and

3 The Hague Convention flags were flying over most of the buildings."

4 Do you recall Hague Convention flags?

5 A. I recall flags, blue and white flags, and that they depicted the

6 fact that it was a protected site. I probably would not have thought or

7 known that that was The Hague Convention flag at the time I saw it. The

8 first time that I saw it it was just a flag that indicated that it was a

9 protected site and it was hugely visible.

10 Q. And one more topic. You said that you could not recall any

11 provocative action coming from the town. That was part of an answer

12 during cross-examination. Were you referring to the Old Town in that

13 answer?

14 A. Certainly I was referring to the Old Town. I wasn't aware of

15 provocative action, and I believe that I would probably have been aware

16 had it happened, though I couldn't say that I would certainly have known.

17 But I was also talking in general terms. I wasn't aware of provocative

18 action that started the conflict of any individual day. To be fair, I'm

19 not sure that I would have been in a position to have known who started

20 what most of the time.

21 Q. But, sir, would you agree that you never observed any outgoing

22 fire from the Old Town?

23 A. I never observed any outgoing fire from the Old Town.

24 Q. Thank you.

25 MR. WEINER: No further questions, Your Honour.

Page 3613

1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Davies, the time has come when you are at the

2 end of your evidence. We must thank you very much for your two

3 attendances here and the assistance you've given and wish you well on your

4 journey. And you are free to go.

5 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.

6 [The witness withdrew]

7 JUDGE PARKER: That is it for the day, is it, Mr. Weiner?

8 MR. WEINER: I apologise that it seems that's it than more than

9 the day; today and tomorrow. We have a bit of a logistics problem with

10 the next witness, and due to that we don't feel it necessary -- we don't

11 feel we should be placing him on the witness stand tomorrow because of

12 some certain problems. If the Court would like, I can go into private

13 session on the matter.

14 JUDGE PARKER: What you're proposing then is that we adjourn until

15 Monday.

16 MR. WEINER: Yes. We're all set for next week. We have witnesses

17 Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, as required, but we have a bit of a

18 problem for tomorrow.

19 JUDGE PARKER: I think that is clearly understood by everybody.

20 Mr. Petrovic.

21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if that is what the

22 situation is, then the Defence would ask for the following: Could we know

23 already at this stage who will be called on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday

24 so that we could see how much time we need for examining these witnesses.

25 Because if it's Mr. Janicot on Tuesday, his evidence will probably be

Page 3614

1 lengthy and he has to testify only at a certain point in time because his

2 schedule is pretty tight. So we really don't want witnesses to be coming

3 in and not be heard over these three days that we have left for our work.

4 Thank you, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner, can you assist us with the witnesses?

6 (Redacted)

7 (Redacted)

8 (Redacted)


10 MR. WEINER: Witness A. And on Tuesday and Wednesday,

11 Mr. Janicot.

12 JUDGE PARKER: We will have to be very economical in time with

13 Mr. Janicot if Mr. Petrovic's concern is well based.

14 MR. WEINER: We accept his concerns and we'll do the best we can

15 to move him as quickly as possible.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic.

17 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to subscribe

18 what has been -- to what has been said so far, see we have a problem with

19 tomorrow, and the Defence would kindly ask our colleagues from the

20 Prosecution, in terms of next Wednesday, the 10th, because we will be

21 adjourned on the 11th onwards, could they please tell us who will be

22 testifying on the 18th and 19th of March? I mean the day when we finish,

23 could we please receive information on who the witnesses for the 18th and

24 19th will be. Thank you.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner, I'd ask that attention be given to that

Page 3615

1 so that we might know before we adjourn for the week next Wednesday

2 afternoon who it is that will be before us the following week when we

3 resume.

4 MR. WEINER: That shouldn't be any problem.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Just eliminating you from the record, Mr. Weiner.

6 We will adjourn now until Monday.

7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

8 at 1.35 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,

9 the 8th day of March, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.