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
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.
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.
19 WITNESS: PAUL DAVIES [Resumed]
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
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. Is it correct that he was in Dubrovnik for a while in 1991 during
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]
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
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
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
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
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
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.
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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?
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?
1 A. Not for a long time. I've only been back to Dubrovnik once since
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
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,
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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,
1 civilian positions, military positions, and operations from those
2 positions or near the positions where there were any civilians in
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
1 we run the first 30 seconds and the last 30 seconds of that tape, please.
2 [Videotape played]
3 MR. WEINER:
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
8 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
9 THE REGISTRAR: And that will be Prosecution Exhibit P92, Your
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
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
24 THE REGISTRAR: That statement will be Exhibit P91, Your Honours.
25 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
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
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
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.
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
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
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?
9 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
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
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
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.