1 Wednesday, 12 May 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. Colonel Poje, if I could remind you
7 of the affirmation which you took at the commencement of your evidence
8 which still applies.
9 Mr. Petrovic.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 WITNESS: JOZEF POJE [Resumed]
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 Cross-examined by Mr. Petrovic: [Continued]
14 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Poje.
15 A. Good morning.
16 Q. First I would like to go back briefly to a topic that we discussed
17 yesterday, so could we please give to the witness P132.
18 Mr. Poje, could you please -- I would like you to do two things:
19 Could you please take your ruler - we know you have one and we're very
20 grateful that you do have one. What I would like you to do is the
21 following: When we discussed yesterday the position of the 3rd Battalion
22 of the 472nd Brigade from the Dubac-Zarkovica sector to the
23 Komolac-Rijeka-Dubrovacka sector, so I would like you to measure the
24 length of that position from the south-east, Dubac-Zarkovica sector, via
25 Bosanka, Strincjera, to Rijeka Dubrovacka where you can exactly see it.
1 The position goes down to Rijeka Dubrovacka at Cajkovici. So could you
2 please tell us the length of that position to the extent that that's
4 A. Could you please tell me again the location up to which I am to
6 Q. From the southern side we're talking about the Dubac-Zarkovica
7 sector; Dubac-Zarkovica. Then you go to the north-west through Bosanka,
8 Strincjera. You see that's the position of the 3rd Company. And then you
9 go north-east, and at Rijeka Dubrovacka you see the position at Cajkovici
10 north-east of the position of the 3rd Company. You're going north-west,
11 but we want you to go north-east. North-east on the southern bank of
12 Rijeka Dubrovacka, east. Go to the east and now to the southern position,
13 that position. From that position through the Strincjera position up to
14 the Zarkovica position. These are positions of the 3rd Battalion. So
15 please could you measure the entire length of the position. Do you
16 understand, Mr. Poje?
17 A. Are you telling me to follow the actual curve of the position, the
18 curved line?
19 Q. Yes, also the depth of the deployment of the battalion.
20 A. Very well. If we follow the deployment line of the units, the
21 defence units, from Zarkovica where the forward post would be to the last
22 position, the length of that position would total 5 kilometres.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 A. It's also possible that there is a percentage of error, but it's
25 approximately 5 kilometres.
1 Q. Could we look at the next document now. This arose from
2 yesterday's cross-examination. We don't have the translation, but it's a
3 very short segment that we would like to look at. We will have the
4 document translated as soon as possible.
5 What I would like to ask you, Mr. Poje, is to look at item 321 in
6 the document to tell us and to confirm it -- to compare it to your rules
7 of the battalion, if possible, and to tell us --
8 MR. WEINER: Your Honour.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.
10 MR. WEINER: Yes. Good morning. Since this is not in English and
11 we've just been handed the document, could someone please identify what
12 this is.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Of course. Yes. I was just about
14 to do that.
15 Q. Mr. Poje, is this a document that we looked at yesterday, a
16 document from the rules of the battalion, item 321, or paragraph 321?
17 A. The photocopy of pages 164 and 165 is a copy of a page from the
18 rules of battalion rule book. So that is that document.
19 Q. So that is that -- a page from that document? Could you please
20 answer by saying yes or no.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In that document, in paragraph 321, there is this first sentence
23 which states --
24 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters do not have the text.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. "The width of the Defence of the battalion can range from 3 to 5
3 A. Yes, that is what it states.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to tender
6 this document as a Defence exhibit, and once again I apologise because the
7 English translation has not been done yet, but we will do the translation
8 as soon as possible.
9 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, could that be -- could that remain as an
10 exhibit for identification until we receive the English translation?
11 JUDGE PARKER: For what reason, Mr. Weiner?
12 MR. WEINER: So we can take a look at it, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE PARKER: You can take a look at it after it's an exhibit.
14 It's been identified. We know what it is. Your only worry is you can't
15 read it.
16 MR. WEINER: That's correct.
17 JUDGE PARKER: I think it should be received.
18 THE REGISTRAR: This document is D85.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we also please distribute
20 document -- the next document. It is the same -- this document has the
21 same origin. We discussed it yesterday. The witness responded to
22 questions based on this document. It is page 100 and 101, paragraph 200
23 of the rules of the battalion, and I would like Mr. Poje to just confirm
24 whether this is a document from the rules of the battalion and if this is
25 indeed paragraph 200.
1 Q. Did we not discuss that yesterday when we talked about the rules
2 of attack?
3 A. The photocopy of the page given to me is from the rules of
4 battalion book, and in paragraph 200 it is -- paragraph 200 does mention
5 the topics that we covered yesterday.
6 Q. And this paragraph 200, or a part of it that refers to the
7 battalion firing group, is something that you also used in drafting your
8 own report?
9 A. Yes, that is true.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
11 tender this document also as a Defence exhibit.
12 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
13 THE REGISTRAR: This document is D85 -- I mean D86. Excuse me.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Poje, I would now like to go back to your report. I would
16 just like to cover some part of your report -- some parts of your report
17 very briefly. First, could we look at page -- page 23 in the B/C/S
18 version, and to explain to us this second sentence on that page, where it
19 says: "The commander of the battalion has the sole right of command over
20 the battalion and all the attached units."
21 What does that mean in practice?
22 A. Since I have also the addendum attached to the report, could you
23 please tell me the paragraph title.
24 Q. The title is "Command and control," and then we're talking about
25 the doctrine of the use of the battalion, and then in bold we have the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 sentence which states: "The battalion commander has the sole right of
2 command over the battalion and all units attached to it in order to carry
3 out attacks." So could you please explain the rights and the duties of
4 the commander of the battalion pursuant to this rule, very briefly.
5 A. The commander of the unit, in this case the commander of the
6 battalion, commands the battalion and all the units which comprise that
7 battalion and all the units which were attached to that battalion in order
8 to carry out its combat tasks. And that is why I stated what the
9 commander is specifically responsible for; the correct work of the
10 battalion command and all subordinate officers, the moral and political
11 situation, security, combat readiness, level of training, correct use of
12 the unit and completion of the given task.
13 Q. All these tasks that you mentioned, as it is stated in your
14 report, are the exclusive right and duty of the battalion commander?
15 A. As far as -- if we're talking about the battalion, then yes, the
16 commander of the battalion.
17 Q. I would now like to move to question 17 in your report. This is
18 on page 27 of the B/C/S version. This is the part that refers to the use
19 of fire support and support for an attack on a populated area. Have you
20 found it?
21 A. Yes, I have.
22 Q. First I would like you to tell us if in this part you deal with
23 regulations regulating attacks on a populated area.
24 A. Yes. Theoretically -- theoretically, it deals with support for an
25 attack on a populated area.
1 Q. On page 27 and the next page, 28, you talk about the factors which
2 affect attacks on a populated area, and you mention from the factors that
3 influence it, the size of the populated area, the difficulty in
4 discovering targets in this populated place, limited visibility, greater
5 possibility of greater enemy activities. All these factors are mentioned
6 in your report.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Could you please tell us, Mr. Poje, how do these factors influence
9 combat operations that we're talking about? How do these practical
10 difficulties that you mention affect the combat operations? For example,
11 limited, restricted visibility, what is the effect of that factor on the
12 attacking forces in a certain situation?
13 A. If a unit is attacking a populated area, the choice of targets is
14 relatively difficult because targets can be behind buildings, they can be
15 in parks. Depending on the configuration of the populated area, it's very
16 difficult to find targets, because it can be anywhere in that area. And
17 if we take into account the configuration of the area, the size of the
18 area, the buildings in the area, whether they're large or high buildings,
19 this makes observation more difficult. So in any case, combat operations,
20 and if we're talking about an attack here, would precede under difficulty
21 than they would in normal manoeuvring terrain.
22 Q. All these factors that you're talking about -- for example, when
23 we talk about mortar fire, do all of these factors increase the
24 possibility of error in mortar fire? Do they have an effect on that
1 A. The effectiveness of mortar fire to a large degree depends on
2 whether we see or do not see the target that we're firing at from the
3 observation post. So we must pay a lot of attention to our choice of
4 observation posts so that we are able to see where the target is and so
5 that we can direct the fire of the mortar units.
6 Q. So if I understand you correctly, the use of mortar fire in such
7 situations as one of its consequences can have a larger expenditure of
8 ammunition in order to neutralise the target. If we're talking about
9 targets that are under cover or are between or behind buildings or in a
10 park or similar circumstances; is this correct?
11 A. The ammunition expenditure tables also provide for cases when
12 we're talking about a covered or a partially covered target, and in
13 principle we always kept to those values. Also, group firing can be
14 stopped before all the shells are fired if we conclude that a target is
15 neutralised. Also, if a target is not neutralised, it's possible to
16 prolong firing on that target.
17 Q. So if a target, a covered target, in a populated area is not
18 neutralised but continues to fire on the units, does that mean that the
19 value of ammunition expenditure can exceed the ones given in the tables in
20 your reports as the values given for ammunition expenditure in order to
21 neutralise a fire position to a certain degree?
22 A. The number of shells or projectiles required to neutralise a
23 target is taken from the tables that we looked at yesterday. The unit
24 commander, the battalion commander can decide to neutralise that target
25 with a fewer number of projectiles than stated in the tables, but in that
1 case, the commander of the mortar battery must warn that reduction in the
2 number of shells can reduce the effectiveness of the firing.
3 Q. You didn't understand my question. If the spent ammunition,
4 according to the tables required to neutralise a certain target in certain
5 percentages, for example, up to 25 per cent, and this target is not
6 neutralised but continues to fire on the units of the other side, does
7 that mean that the commander or the commandant must use additional
8 quantities in order to achieve his original objective which he did not
9 manage to fulfil because the target was not neutralised to the extent or
10 percentage planned and ordered?
11 A. If the target is not neutralised, meaning that it continues to
12 operate, the battalion commander can decide to repeat group firing on that
13 target until the desired effect is achieved, or a decision can be made to
14 neutralise the target in some other way.
15 Q. In addendum 1 and in addendum 2 to your report -- the question is
16 a general one, so you don't really need to look at the document right now
17 -- when you did your calculations, did you take into account the fact
18 that these are objectives, targets that are within a populated area, a
19 built-up area, that fire was being opened at JNA positions from firing
20 positions within a populated area?
21 MR. WEINER: I object.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.
23 MR. WEINER: There is no factual basis for the statement he just
25 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, do you allow me --
2 JUDGE PARKER: Are you posing --
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Your Honour, at the
4 very outset, as can be seen in line 9 or, rather, page 9, line 12, I
5 mentioned addendum 1 and addendum 2. In addendum 1 and in addendum 2.
6 And the entire list of potential targets, the Prosecutor provided a
7 potential list of targets that can be firing positions fired at from the
8 -- at the JNA from the town of Dubrovnik. In addition to that, I am
9 totally surprised by this objection. It would suffice for my learned
10 friend to look at his own exhibits. Let him look at 159, 160 -- P159,
12 The other day we talked about so many potential fire targets
13 within a built-up or populated area. The positions of the Croatian side
14 in the town of Dubrovnik. I am truly surprised by this objection.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, if you'd listened to my few words at
16 the beginning of what you've just submitted, you would have answered me
17 yes and we would have gone straight on with your question. I asked
18 whether you were posing this as a theoretical question, and that is the
19 answer is: Yes. Just as all the Prosecution evidence on this point was
20 theoretical. So please carry on with your question.
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE PARKER: It's not dealing with fact but with postulating a
23 theoretical possibility, Mr. Weiner.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. So can you answer my question, Mr. Poje?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. I would kindly ask you to repeat your question.
2 Q. Just a moment, please. My question is the following: When you
3 did your calculations, those provided in addendum 1 and in addendum 2, did
4 you take into account the fact that these are targets that are within a
5 populated area, and did you take into account the needs and difficulties
6 that those firing from a firing position would have when trying to
7 neutralise the targets that are mentioned in your report, all of which are
8 in a populated area?
9 A. In my report, I looked at possible positions around the Old Town;
10 Ploce, Bogisica Park, et cetera. And also when I looked at the dispersion
11 patterns, I bore in mind the fact that we are talking about a populated or
12 built-up area, that observation is made more difficult, and therefore the
13 fire executor, the one directing the fire and controlling the fire, one
14 would have to look at the broader area and to take all of that into
15 account, namely, the place from which he can see that target the best, or
16 he would have to locate the closest visible point, the one that is closest
17 to that target, so then he can use that for orientation if that is close
18 to the unit that is operating against them.
19 For example, if I do not see a mortar that is firing, I can locate
20 it by being, say, ten metres away from that tall tree, for instance.
21 Q. If an observer or a gunner from a firing position cannot see and
22 if there is no way for him to see the target engaged, did you take into
23 account the fact that in that case imprecision goes up as well as
24 ammunition expenditure? If you took into account -- if you did take this
25 into account, where can we see it in your report?
1 A. In my report, I calculated the dispersion pattern. I would have
2 to point out once again that when looking at the initial elements of
3 targeting, they contain accidental errors, systematic errors, flagrant
4 errors I do not take into account now, and all these other conditions of
5 firing if we did not take them into account initially.
6 In that case, the first hit can significantly deflect from the
7 desired target. Once the projectile falls, all these errors can be
8 ignored. Now we have one single mistake; the vector from the target to
9 the actual point of impact.
10 Q. We'll get to that later.
11 A. When calculating the dispersion pattern at 2.500 metres, the
12 dispersion pattern is always the same, no matter whether it's in a
13 populated area or in a meadow.
14 Q. All right. We'll get to that later. On page 28 of your report,
15 there's another assertion about the necessity of partially destroying
16 buildings and other facilities. Please tell us what that means, very
18 A. Would you just guide me.
19 Q. Page 28, the fourth line from the top of the page.
20 A. I have a problem. If you could give me --
21 Q. It is 17(a), and it says: "Indirect fire --"
22 A. Oh, I see. I see. I can find it now.
23 Q. What does this mean, very briefly?
24 A. If a building or another facility makes it impossible to open fire
25 and if there is an important target behind it, in that case if such a
1 building is fired from, that kind of building can be destroyed.
2 Q. Please move on to page 29. It is Provisions of the International
3 Law of War.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Towards the end of this paragraph, under (B), you mention the
6 topic of an open city. When is a town proclaimed to be an open city?
7 A. I don't know exactly. I would be telling a lie if I would say
8 what place is considered to be an open city. I believe that that is a
9 city against which no combat operations would be taken, but I'm not making
10 any claims because I really am not sure.
11 Q. So as for this section -- Provisions of the International Law of
12 War, that is something that is contained in your report but you cannot
13 tell us anything about this?
14 A. I'm not a lawyer. When I wrote my report, I used the literature I
15 mentioned here, that is to say, regulations on the application of rules of
16 international law of war in the armed forces of the SFRY. So the
17 application of humanitarian law, and that is when I explained this, that
18 -- that such buildings can be destroyed or partially destroyed only if the
19 situation is the way I described it.
20 Q. Since this is not your own line of work, why did you put it in
21 your report?
22 A. One of the questions that I got was that, and that is why I dealt
23 with it very briefly, just a little. I simply wanted to say that the
24 Yugoslav People's Army observed rules that are contained in international
25 law of war, that's all, and that cadets and all attendees of courses were
1 taught to observe the international law of war and humanitarian law.
2 Q. The point is contained in the last paragraph of section (b), that
3 is to say that cultural heritage, if it is used for military purposes,
4 will not be considered protected and may be attacked and used for -- if it
5 is being used for military purposes.
6 A. Well, I said that in some other way an attempt should be made to
7 stop operations from such buildings, but I think that if this cannot be
8 stopped, then anybody would have the right to engage such a target.
9 Q. For example, a building where the staff of defence or attack is,
10 is that also a military objective? For example, a building where the
11 headquarters of a brigade are, for instance, is that a military objective?
12 A. In view of the fact that from such a building one does not open
13 fire, I would not include it as a target for military engagement or
15 Q. What would you do with a building where the communications centre
16 of the other side is? Would that building be a military objective, a
17 military target?
18 A. On the one hand we could say yes because communications function
19 with the assistance of that centre. On the other hand, if it is a
20 protected city and if there is no military activity coming from it and if
21 there is no direct jeopardy for the other side, then I would not consider
22 that building to be a military target.
23 Q. That's not what I'm asking you. I'm not asking you about a
24 protected city, I'm asking you about a building in which the
25 communications centre of the enemy is. So is that building a military
1 target, a legitimate military objective?
2 A. In my opinion, a building that is used as the communications
3 centre is --
4 MR. WEINER: I object, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.
6 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, he was asked what the JNA regulations
7 are. He quoted the JNA regulations. We're getting into legal issues. In
8 fact, right now NATO is being sued over the issue as to whether or not the
9 communications centre or the radio centre in Belgrade was in fact a
10 military objective, and that hasn't even been litigated. That hasn't been
11 litigated yet at this time, and to ask a military artillery expert these
12 legal issues I think is beyond the scope of cross-examination.
13 JUDGE PARKER: It may be beyond the scope of any of us,
14 Mr. Petrovic, but the legal issue has a relevance to your case. The
15 regulations of the JNA has a relevance to your case. I think this witness
16 can deal with the latter but not the former.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Mr. Poje, my question is the following: According to the military
19 regulations of the JNA, a building in which a communications centre is of
20 the enemy side, is that a legitimate military objective?
21 A. In my opinion, yes.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness's other
23 microphone please be turned on and could he be asked to speak into the
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. According to JNA regulations, the building in which the enemy
2 headquarters are where the commander of the operations is, is that a
3 legitimate military objective?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Is it correct that according to JNA regulations it is forbidden to
6 use cultural monuments for military purposes; not only the monuments
7 themselves but also the area in their immediate vicinity?
8 A. In principle, cultural monuments, humanitarian facilities, et
9 cetera, are not used for military purposes, and targets are selected in
10 such a way so as to be as far away as possible from such cultural
11 monuments and humanitarian facilities lest such facilities or buildings be
13 Q. Let us try to summarise this now. Is it forbidden to use the
14 building itself and the area in its immediate vicinity in view of the fact
15 that in such a way the mentioned building can be endangered?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. WEINER: Objection. Once again we're really outside of JNA
18 regulations. JNA regulations does not deal with the use of cultural
19 buildings for -- the use of cultural or religious buildings or scientific
20 buildings for military targets. That's more of the issues of
21 proportionality and we're into international humanitarian law.
22 JUDGE PARKER: My reaction, Mr. Petrovic is that you're now at the
23 point of the content of what you would be submitting this Trial Chamber
24 ought to hold rather than it being in any way relevant to learn what this
25 witness might think. The issue will be what this Trial Chamber will come
1 to hold having heard your submissions on the law in light of the facts.
2 So if the facts are that a protected building was being used for a
3 particular purpose, there will be a legal question whether that purpose
4 was a military purpose, and then the question, if it was, will be whether
5 or not it was a permitted target or a violation, et cetera. Those are all
6 legal issues, and the opinion of one artillery officer about them is not
7 going to help the Tribunal. We look forward to your submissions on it.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the reason why I
9 mentioned this is that that subject was dealt with in the report that is
10 under discussion. Secondly, all the questions that I put I did put about
11 JNA rules. The third reason is, for example, document P116 that the
12 Prosecutor tendered during Jokic's testimony precisely deals with this
13 subject that we are discussing now, so my colleague Mr. Weiner can see
14 this for himself if he wishes, but I fully abide by what you said, Your
15 Honour, so I share your view that an artillery officer was not supposed to
16 deal with matters related to international law of war, so I will move on
17 to the core of his report.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Can I make it clear that if you want to learn from
19 the witness whether there were regulations of the JNA dealing with the
20 topic and what they were, please do that.
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, then I'm going to put
22 another question.
23 Q. Mr. Poje, do you know that an integral part of the regulations in
24 the JNA which deal with this question of the protection of cultural
25 monuments is -- are documents that are contained in the rules on the
1 application of international law of war in the armed forces of the SFRY?
2 These rules are from 1988, and that this contains all the instruments that
3 we have referred to just now, that they are an integral part of the legal
4 system that was applied in the JNA forces?
5 A. Since I'm not a lawyer and since there was such a question that
6 had been put, I looked at these rules and regulations. I looked at the
7 regulations of the application of international law of war and the SFRY in
8 1988, and as a matter of fact, I quoted that, and I quoted the order on
9 the application of these rules. Since I am not a lawyer, I did not go
10 into this issue in great depth or in great detail. I dealt with it
11 approximately on a page or so, I just gave some facts. And I wish to
12 confirm in this way that the Yugoslav People's Army did observe
13 international regulations contained in the law of war, nothing more than
15 Q. Mr. Poje, thank you. Let's move on to page 30 of the B/C/S
16 version, paragraph 18. So it is page 30 in the B/C/S version, question 18
17 or paragraph 18(b), "Weapons used to attack Dubrovnik." Do you see that?
18 A. Yes, I can, under (b), yes.
19 Q. Your conclusion is that as far as firing at targets in the Old
20 Town of Dubrovnik is concerned, that targets that are on Stradun were
21 supposed to be fired at with 9K11 rockets; is that right?
22 A. No.
23 Q. The first sentence is: "Bearing in mind that the Old Town of
24 Dubrovnik is very densely populated, that it has narrow streets and
25 squares, the widest street being Stradun, and that it is surrounded by
1 ramparts, weapons that can be seen from the weapon emplacements would be
2 targeted directly with 9K11 anti-tank rockets and 20-millimetre cannon."
3 Isn't that written in your report, Mr. Poje?
4 A. It does not say that Stradun can be seen from the firing position.
5 I just said that Stradun is the widest street in the Old Town of
6 Dubrovnik, and I wanted to say that basically the town has only one bigger
7 open space and that all the rest are tiny, narrow streets. I did not say
8 that there was anything on Stradun that should be targeted by Maljutkas or
9 that Maljutkas should be used to fire at Stradun for any reason. I just
10 said that Stradun was the widest area in Dubrovnik.
11 Q. Mr. Poje, that is simply not correct, because what you say here
12 when referring to the Old Town, saying that targets in the Old Town can be
13 observed only in Stradun, these targets that are visible in the Old Town
14 would be engaged by direct fire.
15 A. If they could be seen from the place where the artillery pieces
16 are. I can read what I read once again.
17 Q. So let us summarise. If there were a target on Stradun and if
18 that target could be seen from the observation post, that target should be
19 engaged by a 9K11.
20 A. No, not from the observation post, from the position of the
21 artillery piece itself.
22 Q. So if there is a target on Stradun and if the target on Stradun
23 can be seen from the place where the artillery weapon is, then a Maljutka
24 9K11 should be used to fire at it?
25 A. If from the place where a Maljutka rocket is fired you can see the
1 target, then this rocket would be used. Otherwise, I have no way of using
2 it and engaging any such target.
3 Q. If there was a target in Stradun visible from the 20-millimetre
4 gun emplacement, then this gun should be used to neutralise this visible
5 target on Stradun?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You said also that if a target cannot be seen from the weapon
8 emplacement and it is in Stradun, then 82- and 120-millimetre mortars
9 should be used.
10 A. They would be used for indirect fire, also under an assumption
11 that the target was on Stradun, which is not what I claim.
12 Q. I'm not claiming anything either. I am just discussing your
13 report. Therefore, if a target is in a part of the Old Town that you
14 cannot see from the observation post or from the weapons emplacement, then
15 this target should be engaged by 82- and 120-millimetre mortars.
16 A. In principle, one should secure that there is a visible target
17 from the observation point.
18 Q. However, if you cannot see a target in the Old Town from an
19 observation post and it's not in Stradun street, then in that case, 82-
20 and 120-millimetre mortars should be used.
21 A. If the location from which fire is being opened at the unit is
22 known, then it is possible to use them in order to neutralise this target.
23 I refer to 120- and 82-millimetre targets. If fire is coming from any
24 other part of the town - a park or any other street - and this location is
25 known, then one should first attempt to find an observation post from
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 which you can see and you can be more effective by firing at such target
2 from 120- and 82-millimetre mortars.
3 Q. Just to make it short, the answer to -- your answer to my question
4 is yes?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Item (c), "Control of fire support." So we are still talking
7 about question number 18. Here you say that the battalion commander is
8 responsible for control of fire support. Could you please look at your
9 report and confirm that this is what you said and that this is your
10 viewpoint on this issue.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Your answer was yes?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Could you please look at paragraph (d) concerning with --
15 concerning the situation in which you assume that if there was no order to
16 attack the Old City, then that means that the whole system of command or
17 chain of command at the level of battalion has broken up. We understand
18 what is the battalion command, but we don't know what a higher level is
19 that you refer here.
20 A. As far as I know, the 3rd Battalion was part of the 3rd Operations
22 Q. Do you know that the 3rd Battalion and that its higher level
23 command should be at the level of the corps within the 9th Naval Sector
24 and that the higher command, as to the 9th Naval -- the 2nd Operation
1 A. It is irrelevant which command is superior to the battalion. I
2 was talking to the next level of command.
3 Q. You're talking about immediate higher command?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Could you please look at paragraph (e), possible firing position
6 and deployment of the JNA forces. We're also talking about question
7 number 18.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Here you say specifically, speaking about mortars, that there are
10 three or, rather, two potential firing positions of mortars relevant for
11 the time that we are discussing.
12 A. I cited those positions that were marked on the map and that refer
13 on the 2nd of December, 1991.
14 Q. Therefore, you are talking about mortar positions in Uskoplje
15 sector and about mortar positions or, rather, 82-millimetre platoon --
16 mortar platoon in the sector of Ivanica. Why when you made your addendum
17 number 2, why did you choose completely different positions of the JNA
18 with regard to the ones that you concluded in your main report that were
19 the positions of JNA mortars?
20 A. When I prepared my main report, I used the map that we mentioned
21 here, and in that map these positions were marked that I mentioned in my
22 main report. Later, when I tried to make a calculation, and we
23 established yesterday that 82 millimetres of infantry companies of the
24 3rd Battalion were not entered into the map but they were an integral part
25 of this motorised company, I decided, without knowing whether they were in
1 the map or not - because according to the map they were not marked there -
2 I just started from an assumption that 82-millimetre mortars were with the
3 company, and just in case and theoretically, I calculated the scenario in
4 which -- scenario of what the dispersal pattern would be had they acted or
5 operated from that area, because this addendum was drawn up after I
6 finished my main report and after I had analysed. For instance, the
7 battalion that we mentioned yesterday, and that is the 5th Battalion, we
8 have company firing positions marked on the map, and so I assumed that the
9 3rd Battalion also had such companies.
10 Q. Why didn't you analyse this position at Ivanica? Why there were
11 no calculations referring to this position?
12 A. If you look at the symbol of a mortar platoon, we can see that
13 it's not directed towards the city of Dubrovnik but, rather, to the west.
14 Q. As I understand, under question 18 you talk about the targets that
15 could have been inside the town of Dubrovnik or, rather, the positions
16 from which they could be targeted.
17 A. Around the Old City of Dubrovnik.
18 Q. But in your main report, you mention the mortar platoon in the
19 sector of Ivanica. Why are you telling us different today? Why did you
20 mention a mortar platoon in the village of Ivanica at all if they were not
21 aiming at the Old Town or the town of Dubrovnik?
22 A. I mentioned these mortars because they were in the defence area of
23 the 3rd Battalion, and they were located between the front defence line
24 and the command post or the battalion fire group.
25 Q. What do you mean mortars? How can they be aiming at another
1 direction than the one where the company is deployed that they are part
2 of? How is that possible?
3 A. Can I look at the map, please.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be given evidence
5 -- Exhibit P132.
6 Q. Could you please look at mortar positions in the area of Ivanica
7 village. Can you see them?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Can you see that these mortars -- how do you interpret the
10 position of these mortars?
11 A. At first I thought that these could have been 3rd Battalion
12 mortars. Later, by looking at the symbols that signify the platoon firing
13 positions, one could even say that this mortar platoon was part of
14 defence. Later, when I started my calculations of dispersals, I believe
15 that from this particular position there was no fire open at the general
16 or -- area of the town of Dubrovnik.
17 Q. Yet you put this in your report.
18 A. I repeat, once I had analysed the map, at first it seemed to me
19 that this 3rd Battalion mortar platoon was there. However, when I looked
20 more closely at the symbol of the mortar platoon, I saw that symbol
21 indicated that it was aiming outside the area of Dubrovnik, which means
22 that most probably it did not engage targets around Dubrovnik and the town
23 of Dubrovnik itself. That is why later I did not take that into account.
24 Q. So that is a mistake in your basic report?
25 A. I think that my initial assessment was wrong.
1 Q. Your basic assessment on which you compiled and wrote your report.
2 A. I don't think it essentially affects my report, the fact that
3 these particular mortars were not used to target the area of Dubrovnik.
4 Q. And now let's move to the conclusion of your report. These are
5 questions 20 and 21. In the first paragraph, the first item about
6 120-millimetre mortars, first of all, let's clarify. Yesterday, we agreed
7 that 120-millimetre mortars with active-reactive shells for the most part
8 were not located in the area that we're talking about; is that correct?
9 A. Yes, most probably that is correct. I'd never had access to
10 firing tables dealing with active-reactive shells, so probably these types
11 were not used.
12 Q. Very well. The second type of shell that you talk about is the
13 light contact shell.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. When we're talking about 120-millimetre mortars?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. When we take into account this paragraph where you talk about
18 120-millimetre mortars and -- and your definitions of possible firing
19 positions from section (e) of question 18, can we conclude, based on that,
20 that it was possible to launch 120-millimetre mortar fire from the
21 position of Uskoplje?
22 A. Yes, because I think yesterday we concluded that the firing
23 distance from Uskoplje to the closest possible facility on the map is
24 5.600 or 700 metres, the range of the light artillery is up to 6.000 or --
25 6.400 or 6.500 metres. So it's possible.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Can we conclude that the only possible position of the
2 120-millimetre mortar in your report is the position of the 120-millimetre
3 mortars from the firing group at Uskoplje?
4 A. Yes. I'm speaking exclusively about the positions at Uskoplje.
5 Q. The answer is yes then?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. When we're talking about 82-millimetre mortars, you state here
8 that 82-millimetre mortars could reach half of the Old City of Dubrovnik,
9 including Stradun. So in your report, you note that 82-millimetre mortars
10 had a range in the northern part of the Old City and -- they had that
11 within range and that the lower boundary was Stradun, which goes from east
12 to west. Is it correct that this is stated in your report?
13 A. Yes, it is correct.
14 Q. And that is your conclusion on the lowest boundary of the range of
15 the 82-millimetre mortars in view of the JNA positions at that time; is
16 that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Mr. Poje, could we now go back to something which is in the
19 addendum -- addenda 1 and 2 to your report where we are quantifying or
20 clarifying the values for Vd and Vp.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In your report, in addendum 1 -- excuse me for just a moment.
23 This is something in paragraph 12, question 12, and it refers to the
24 different factors in the effective firing range. So in 12, you note --
25 the last paragraph of question 12 is that the least favourable conditions
1 for firing are when the target is on the backward slope; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. So now could you please look at P10, Exhibit P10, please.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] In the meantime, could the witness
5 please have a piece of paper, and could he draw the example of a backward
6 slope of a firing -- of a firing target.
7 A. The -- the configuration of the terrain where the weapon is where
8 I have drawn it. Let's assume that here, with a triangle, we mark the
9 observation point. The target can be on the facing slope at the top or at
10 the rear slope. That is the target. I have marked it a little more in
11 bold. And then we have the direction of the weapon.
12 Q. Mr. Poje, could you please mark the mortar position with the
13 letter A.
14 A. [Marks]
15 Q. With B, could you indicate the observation form.
16 A. [Marks]
17 Q. And with a C can you mark the target on the rear slope.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What is the effect of the target being on the rear slope on the
20 dispersion ellipsis from a projectile fired from position A?
21 A. The dispersion increases with the increasing slope of the terrain.
22 So the greater the slope, the greater the dispersion.
23 Q. Could you please tell us how the cluster goes, the direction, and
24 how it spreads.
25 A. I could draw a dispersion ellipse now for you.
1 Q. What is the difference between an ellipse on flat ground where the
2 target is or of the dispersion ellipse of a target which is on a backward
3 -- back slope or rear slope?
4 A. The dispersion pattern is greater if we have a rear slope. The
5 dispersion pattern will increase with the increase in the slope degree,
6 but the dispersion will not be changed by the type of weapon that is being
7 used. For example, 105-millimetre or 122-millimetre. It is affected,
8 though, by the slope.
9 Q. So when we're firing on a target on a rear slope, the dispersion
10 pattern is much greater than an ellipse of dispersion of an artillery
12 A. No, no, no. You misunderstood the answer. You have it the other
13 way around. I didn't say that. I said that the dispersion pattern on a
14 rear slope, when we use mortars, due to the characteristic of the
15 trajectory in vertical firing, the dispersion pattern on a back slope is
16 smaller than when we fire at the same target at the same slope with a
17 122-millimetre Howitzer, for example, because the angle of impact with a
18 mortar is very high, and that is why the dispersion pattern, if we confirm
19 -- compare 122 Howitzer and a 120-millimetre mortar. The dispersion
20 pattern will not really vary that much.
21 Q. I'm only asking you about the mortar.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. So the dispersion pattern with a mortar will increase if the
24 target is on a rear slope. So is the answer yes or no?
25 A. Yes, it will increase.
1 Q. If the ellipse decreases if the target that we're talking about is
2 at the end of the ultimate range of the mortar, would in that situation
3 the dispersion ellipse increase since the trajectory has a lower angle of
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. So it will increase more?
7 A. The dispersion ellipse at the end of the range, as represented by
8 Vd and Vp, will increase.
9 Q. Very well. Now, look at this map that the usher is holding.
10 We're now looking at Prosecution Exhibit P10. Could you look at the
11 following: On this map, Srdj is at 412 metres. The altitude of the Old
12 City is 0.
13 A. Or up to 50 metres, the highest parts of the Old City.
14 Q. So the altitude difference is that much. What is the height
15 difference between that and the Old Town? It's about 800 metres, isn't
16 it? So the slope from Srdj towards the Old City amounts to about 350
17 metres, a little bit over 350 metres, to the overall length of 800 metres;
18 is that correct?
19 A. Yes. If you permit me, none of the targets in the sector of
20 Dubrovnik is on a rear slope in the way that I drew it, because it is on a
21 front slope both for weapons and for observation posts.
22 Q. Could you please try to answer my questions. Is the altitude
23 difference between Srdj and the Old City 112 metres and 50 metres
24 altitude? So the Old City is at 0. If we take this total length of 850
25 metres, is the difference in height about 400 metres?
1 All the targets that you are mentioning in your addendum 1 and 2
2 and which are, as you say, from 300 to 350 metres north of the Old Town or
3 100 or 150 metres west of the Old Town, are they all on a rear slope?
4 A. No, they are not on a rear slope.
5 Q. Mr. Poje, do you have this map in front of you?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. What do these horizontal lines mean marked by 400, 300, 100? What
8 do these lines represent?
9 A. These lines represent the altitude of the terrain.
10 Q. Do you see in this area in which you are talking about 350 --
11 first of all tell us, since you are familiar with maps, what is the slope
12 of the ground between two -- between two contours?
13 A. It depends on the density of the contours.
14 Q. Well, you are an experienced gunner, so could you please count
15 between 200 and 300, and you can see there are five contours and each one
16 corresponds to 20 metres.
17 A. The terrain towards Srdj is very steep, and I think it is at least
18 40 -- at an angle of 45 degrees.
19 Q. So each line represents a 20 metre drop in the terrain. Each
20 contour represents a 20 metre drop.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. This upper road, which is the Adriatic highway, it is the most
23 northern road that we see to the north of the Old Town up to the Old Town,
24 you can see four contour lines. So that is a drop in the terrain of 80
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. So if those targets that you are talking about in the area between
3 the northern walls of the Old City and the northern road, the Adriatic
4 Highway, according to the map those targets are at a slope of 80 metres
5 for the entire length between the northern walls of the Old City and the
6 Adriatic Highway.
7 A. I agree.
8 Q. In other words, the targets which are 300 to 350 metres north of
9 the Old City, or 100 to 150 metres away from the Old Town are at a rear
11 A. Those targets are primarily on flat terrain. You can very
12 slightly speak about a rear slope. I've drawn what a rear slope is, and
13 I've also toured those areas, and we cannot really take that to be as a
14 rear slope from the point of view of the position of the weapons.
15 Q. Mr. Poje, please take your ruler and measure how many metres it is
16 from the northern walls of the Old City to the Adriatic Highway. At the
17 end of the map, you have the scale.
18 A. It's about 12.500.
19 Q. No, please measure it.
20 A. We can talk about 100 or 150 -- 150 to 180 metres.
21 Q. So on those 150 metres we have a slope, a drop of 80 metres, a
22 descent angle of 80 metres.
23 A. Well, it's very difficult to see here if it is a descent angle,
24 because we cannot see the end of the contour lines.
25 Q. Mr. Poje, as an experienced gunner and a cartographer, as a person
1 who toured that terrain a couple of weeks ago, please don't tell us that
2 there are some -- there are no elevations there and that the ground does
3 not slope from the top towards the Old City. Where do you see that?
4 MR. WEINER: Objection. This is a speech. This is a speech or
5 argument, that's all it is.
6 JUDGE PARKER: It is descending into an argument. You put your
7 questions, you get your answers, Mr. Petrovic.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I agree. I
10 Q. Mr. Poje, at -- in the area from the Northern Adriatic to the
11 northern walls of the Old City is there a descent of 30 per cent or is
12 there not such a descent there? If you feel that the descent is not to
13 such a degree, say so.
14 A. That area is on a slope, but it's not as much as you say. It's a
15 little bit undulating. You have an elevation and then you have a slope
16 and then you have the highway. It's not a straight slope like I drew it,
17 it's more of a curving surface. These are small areas, and overall we can
18 say that it is a small back slope, but there is a large number of smaller
19 features on that ground which are not represented on the map.
20 Q. Mr. Poje, does this map have any elevation drawn into it between
21 the northern walls of the Old City and the Adriatic Highway?
22 A. No, not on that map.
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I suggest
24 that we go on our first break now.
25 JUDGE PARKER: We will have the first morning break now.
1 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. First of
5 all, Your Honour, I would like to ask for a clarification and a correction
6 in relation to my question. When we talked about paragraphs 20 and 21 of
7 the basic report of Mr. Poje, this is page 26, line 10 of the transcript
8 today, the transcript says is Mr. Poje's conclusion that Stradun
9 constitutes a boundary of the lower range of the mortar, and the question
10 was supposed to read as follows -- that's what the transcript was supposed
11 to say, whether Stradun is the upper end of the range of the mortar. So
12 could that please be clarified now for the sake of the transcript. Thank
14 JUDGE PARKER: I must say I had rather understood you and the
15 witness each to be speaking of the furthest range of the mortar, and I see
16 the witness acknowledging the correctness of that. So the transcript is
17 in error at that point. Thank you.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. Mr. Poje, we're going back to the question that we talked about a
20 short while ago. So do you agree that in the area to the north of the Old
21 Town there is a slope from the Adriatic road, which is the northernmost
22 road from the Old Town before Srdj, and then all the way to the ramparts?
23 A. Yes. There is a slope, a relatively small one, but there is a
24 slope which ascends from the Adriatic road towards Srdj.
25 Q. Thank you. When calculating the dispersion ellipsis in addendum 1
1 and in addendum 2, did you place in that area two potential targets, as it
2 says anti-aircraft gun to the north of the Old Town and the starting point
3 of the cable car?
4 A. I gave these --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please not speak at the same
6 time, interpreter's note.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Is it correct, Mr. Poje, that for these two objectives you did not
9 calculate the real increase in dispersion in view of the rear slope of the
10 terrain? Yes or no.
11 A. I did not because the rear slope is very small, and in that area
12 dispersion is decreased rather than increased because the target is below
13 the horizon of the weapon.
14 Q. My question is, since you said to us awhile ago that if the target
15 is on the rear slope, did you take into account the fact that dispersion
16 is increased when the target is on the rear slope? Yes or no.
17 A. Specifically, I did not.
18 Q. Does that mean that the dispersion ellipsis that you gave and that
19 pertain to the PA gun to the north of the Old Town and again to the north
20 of the Old Town the cable car, that the -- in real terms, the values are
21 higher than what you gave in addendum 1 or 2?
22 A. If I look at the slope only, then I did not take it into account.
23 Q. Or, rather, the dispersion pattern which is realistically higher
24 than the dispersion pattern shown in addendum 1 and 2.
25 A. The dispersion pattern is not bigger in real terms, although I did
1 not take into account the slope of the terrain.
2 Q. If the slope of the terrain or, rather, the rear slope, as you
3 said to us half an hour ago --
4 MR. WEINER: Objection.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.
6 MR. WEINER: There's a difference. Counsel is saying rear slope.
7 He's saying there isn't a slope or it's very minor. Counsel keeps on
8 saying rear slope and he's saying there isn't. We have to some agreement
9 here. He keeps on saying, "As you've just said a half hour ago rear
10 slope." It's misquote from the record.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, there is a difference in degree
12 between you and the witness. He will accept that there is a slight rear
13 slope in the area. You want to put to him questions that seem to assume
14 that there is a much greater slope. Your proposition, though, that there
15 is a slope seems to be accepted by him, and your proposition that there is
16 necessarily a greater dispersion pattern when it's falling on a backward
17 slope is accepted by him. It's merely a question of degree as to how
18 steep the slope is or not. So I think you can leave out your statement
19 that it's -- by expressly or by implication suggesting it's a steep slope
20 and just deal with the question of what is the effect of the slope that
21 you both agree is there, whatever its degree.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm very grateful for
23 your instructions.
24 Q. Mr. Poje, let us disregard the question of how big the slope is.
25 That question can be resolved very easily by looking at the map, and there
1 will be opportunity to discuss that.
2 We agreed that there is a slope; is that right?
3 A. There is a mild slope.
4 Q. We agreed that dispersion ellipsis at the rear slope is increased
5 in relation to the horizontal ellipsis.
6 A. There is an increase but a very small one.
7 Q. We agreed that you in your report did not take into account the
8 fact that targets are on the rear slope.
9 A. I did not.
10 Q. Thank you. As far as the rear slope is concerned, is there a
11 border value in terms of whether a terrain can be considered to be one
12 that can be described as a rear slope or another one as not being on a
13 rear slope? Is there a definition; and if so, what is the definition?
14 A. As far as rear slope is concerned, I don't know what the
15 definition would be. I don't know what the border would be either when,
16 for example, a flat land would be considered as a rear slope at some
17 point. We usually considered rear slope in relation to targets that are
18 right behind a target as I described on that improvised sketch, something
19 along those lines.
20 This example that we are looking at now, after the Adriatic road,
21 the terrain is a bit hilly. It goes a bit up and a bit down, but roughly
22 speaking, from the Adriatic road towards the Old Town the terrain does
23 descend a bit.
24 Q. The sketch that you drew, could you please sign it and could you
25 please put the date on it, today's date.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] And, Your Honour, I would like to
2 tender it into evidence, please, as a Defence exhibit.
3 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
4 THE REGISTRAR: This exhibit is D87.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. I am just going to show you a calculation according to which the
7 dispersion ellipsis is increased by 7 per cent in terms of length in the
8 situation that we are discussing here. Do you agree with that assertion
9 or not?
10 A. Well, it can be calculated. Well, I don't know. I cannot say
11 anything just off-the-cuff, whether this 7 per cent figure is right or
13 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, must not the degree of increase
14 depend on the slope? If the dispersion pattern is measured in the
15 horizontal plane, we know what it is. Simply because the shot is falling
16 on a slope, the same dispersion pattern on the ground has a bigger area.
17 That's what we're talking about.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Precisely, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE PARKER: A slope like that, the dispersion pattern on the
20 ground will be much bigger than if the slope is like that rather than
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Precisely, Your Honour. I'm glad
23 that we managed to explain that.
24 JUDGE PARKER: You explained that a long time ago. The problem I
25 had is with your last question. You were putting it as though there was a
1 figure, 7 per cent. That would only be true at one particular angle of
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Yes, Your
4 Honour, yes.
5 JUDGE PARKER: I was getting worried that I had misunderstood what
6 this was all about. That's all right. Carry on.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. That is
8 something that will be dealt with during our proceedings in the future, so
9 you will have the opportunity of hearing more about this.
10 Has the witness been given --
11 JUDGE PARKER: I see from the transcript that my role has been
12 taken over by Judge Robinson.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could this exhibit
14 please be given a number. If a number has already been assigned and I was
15 not aware of it, I do apologise. The sketch, the witness's sketch, was it
16 assigned a number?
17 JUDGE PARKER: D87.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I beg your
19 pardon, I'm sorry.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Mr. Poje, we're now moving on to addendum 1 and addendum 2 to your
22 report, and I remind you of what we said yesterday, what we established
23 yesterday, and that is that platoons of company mortars are at Zarkovica,
24 Dubac, and Strincjera. Is it correct that in your report you did not
25 calculate dispersion from Dubac and from Strincjera?
1 A. No. I calculated it from Zarkovica, Bosanka, and Srdj, the ones
2 contained in the addenda.
3 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that from Strincjera, Bosanka and Dubac,
4 in view of the geographic characteristics of the terrain and the position
5 of the targets in relation to which you gave your opinion, is it true that
6 it is only indirect firing that is possible?
7 A. As far as these targets are concerned, it is only possible to
8 engage in indirect fire.
9 Q. Did you say to us yesterday that as far as indirect fire is
10 concerned, the dispersion pattern is increased, that is to say of the
11 shells vis-a-vis the target?
12 A. I said that the dispersion pattern in the case of indirect fire is
13 certainly greater than that in the case of direct fire. How big the
14 dispersion is is what columns 11 and 12 of the firing tables tell us,
15 depending on the charge and depending on the targeting.
16 I would like to add something to this because we did not actually
17 finish a question yesterday. We did not deal with it completely. The
18 difference in altitude between the firing position and the target is very
20 Q. Mr. Poje, that is precisely one of the topics that we will be
21 discussing today, the last one that you mentioned just now, and I am
22 grateful to you for having brought it up yourself.
23 So let us summarise this part. You did not take into account the
24 positions of Bosanka, Strincjera, and Dubac as positions from which there
25 is indirect firing.
1 MR. WEINER: Objection. He did take into account Bosanka. It's
2 right in the supplements.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] My colleague is unfortunately
4 impatient. I was just about to ask the question that he did not take into
5 account Bosanka, Strincjera, and Dubac as the ones from which indirect
6 fire was opened. That was my question.
7 MR. WEINER: If you're firing mortars, mortars are indirect fire
8 weapons, so if he's looked at Bosanka as firing mortars from there, it's
9 an indirect weapon, so he had to have taken it into account.
10 JUDGE PARKER: I'll leave that to you, Mr. Petrovic, to sort that
11 out. I won't start giving my theories.
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. First of all, I would kindly ask the witness to respond to the
14 assertion from the Prosecution that it is correct that with mortars you
15 can only fire indirectly.
16 A. Semi-indirectly is also possible.
17 Q. Is it possible to open direct fire from mortars?
18 A. No.
19 Q. What do you mean by indirect and semi-indirect firing?
20 A. Indirect firing is done from weapons and from the positions from
21 which you cannot see the target, and you aim at an auxiliary point, like
22 surveyor poles, from where you observe the impact from an observation
23 point or for any reason whatsoever there is no observation at all.
24 Q. How do you name firing from weapons from the position that you
25 can't see the target and how do you define the semi-indirect firing?
1 A. If you turned the barrel in that direction.
2 Q. So any Howitzer can open indirect fire?
3 A. It can open direct, indirect, and semi-indirect fire.
4 Q. Concerning Howitzer, is it possible with a Howitzer also that are
5 similar to the ones applying to mortars?
6 A. Of course there are.
7 Q. Okay. Of course there are. In any case, whether we are talking
8 about artillery weapons or mortars, the barrel is aiming towards the
10 A. Yes, it is.
11 Q. Then how do you make a distinction between mortars by saying that
12 allegedly its barrel is not turned towards the target and that that makes
13 it a weapon that opens semi-direct fire?
14 A. If you allow me, I would quote the artillery rule of firing, and I
15 also included in my report what are the definitions of direct,
16 semi-direct, or indirect firing. That is what I wrote in my report.
17 Q. Let's not waste any more time.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you agree, I will
19 move to another question.
20 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, twice he's asked him what indirect and
21 semi-direct fire was, twice he's stopped him from answering the question.
22 Now the witness wants to explain and now they're stopping him again. The
23 witness should be allowed to answer his question.
24 JUDGE PARKER: I think there is clearly some confusion of
25 terminology. Mr. Petrovic, it would certainly help the record and the
1 proceedings if the witness went over it again.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, allow me to do it in
3 this way --
4 JUDGE PARKER: It may be that a mortar is a weapon with an
5 indirect fire capacity, but that doesn't mean it can't be used to target a
6 weapon that can be seen from the firing position.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if we accept what you
8 say, then I think that we can wrap up this matter altogether as far as we
9 are concerned.
10 JUDGE PARKER: You'll be in the witness box and cross-examine me,
11 next. I was merely reflecting what I had understood from the witness.
12 And does that help you, Mr. Weiner?
13 MR. WEINER: It does, but I think further elucidation would be
15 JUDGE PARKER: Well, the trouble is that the witness is using his
16 terms in the strictly defined sense, and I think each of those that are
17 listening may be listening to them in other senses, if you can understand
18 that. I understand his evidence when I keep in mind his definitions.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe then we can
20 move on.
21 Q. Mr. Poje, in addendums 1 and 2 to your report, let us identify the
22 targets for which you made calculations of dispersion. First of all, in
23 addendum 2, you are talking about anti-aircraft guns situated 100 -- 150
24 to 200 metres to the north from the Old Town. Asked the question posed by
25 my learned colleagues on the 10th of May in this court, that is what you
1 said exactly at 1726 hours; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Then you calculated the target marked as the starting point of the
4 cable car structure. You said that it was 300 to 350 metres to the north
5 from the Old Town. That is what you said in this court on the 10th of May
6 at 1802 hours. Is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Tell us, the anti-aircraft gun and the cable car approximately in
9 the same direction vis-a-vis the Old Town.
10 A. Approximately, yes.
11 Q. Furthermore, in addendum 1 to your report, you mentioned the
12 targets marked as Vrata Od Ploca. How far is that target Vrata Od Ploca
13 from the Old Town?
14 A. Perhaps a map would be helpful, but I think it's about 500 metres.
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be given Exhibit
16 P10, please.
17 Q. Mr. Poje, could you please look at the map that I have given you,
18 and you will have an opportunity to answer my colleague's questions later.
19 Let me just say that the map marked P10 is the map tendered by the
20 Prosecution, and it had been prepared by the defence mapping agency of the
21 government of the United States, and as such it has been tendered into
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could you please zoom the map a
24 little bit, because we can't see the Old Town.
25 Q. So 500 metres to the east from the Old Town, can you please show
1 us approximately where that would be?
2 A. [Indicates]
3 Q. Very well. You say that that is the area called Vrata Od Ploca.
4 A. I said that the firing position was there, the one which was
5 marked on the map prepared by the command -- defence command of the town
6 of Dubrovnik, and we looked at those targets, and this firing position or
7 mortar unit was marked, and that refers to the general area of Ploce.
8 Q. Could you please look at this map, Exhibit P10, and you say that
9 it's 500 metres to the east. These are the numbers - 53, 14, 127 -
10 signifying streets. There is another feature, 147 -- 143. And can you
11 please tell us at which of these locations would be this target that you
12 made the calculation for?
13 A. It is difficult, because the scale of the map is different. I
14 made calculation for this area that I'm just pointing.
15 Q. Does -- is there a street marked 53 in this area?
16 A. 53, 14, 127. Yes, in that area.
17 Q. Just for the record, for on the map P10 to the east of the Old
18 Town, the witness pointed streets marked 53, 14, and 127.
19 Do you know which part of the town of Dubrovnik is called Vrata Od
21 A. No.
22 Q. Do you know that Vrata Od Ploca in Dubrovnik is situated directly
23 adjacent to the Revelin fortress to the east, marked by number 170 in this
24 map, and that Vrata Od Ploca are on the road which runs directly before
25 the Revelin fortress, and the name of the street is Frano Supilo? Do you
1 know that?
2 A. No, I don't. I took Vrata Od Ploca as a potential target, not
3 Ploce in general.
4 Q. Mr. Poje, in your report or, rather, addendum to your report, in
5 answer to the question 11(c), you did not say the area of Ploce, but,
6 rather, you said very precisely in the area of Vrata Od Ploca. Do you
7 agree that this is what your report says?
8 A. If you allow me, I would like to take a look at it. Are we
9 talking about addendum 1 or 2?
10 Q. Addendum 1, question 11(c). It speaks about dispersal pattern,
11 Zarkovica firing position, target Ploce, range 300 metres. Mr. Poje, in
12 B/C/S version that's the question 11(c), paragraph 3, and the question is
13 11(c) on page 1 of your addendum number 1.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in an English version,
15 it's addendum dated 31st of March, page 2A. Mortar -- this is page 2 of
16 the addendum 1, just at the top of page 2 in English version.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this addendum, after possibly a
18 deflection for the fourth, fifth, and sixth charge, there is a dispersal
19 pattern for specific cases.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Mr. Poje, please listen to my question. Does it say on page 2 of
22 the English version of the addendum dated 31st of March, and on page 1 of
23 the B/C/S version of your addendum, that you have calculated the values
24 vis-a-vis the Vrata Od Ploca or Ploce gate?
25 A. In my report, it just says Ploce target.
1 Q. Mr. Poje, please look at addendum 1 to your report. Page 1 of
2 addendum 1 to your report.
3 A. Page 1 says -- speaks about theoretical aspects of dispersion
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Just one moment, please.
6 Q. Page 1 of your addendum to the report, it says: "Based on the
7 foregoing calculations, determine the average dispersion zone for the
8 examples cited below. Determine whether that zone covers parts of the Old
9 Town or the entire Old Town of Dubrovnik or not." Then we have item
10 (a) the mortar position at Zarkovica firing at the Ploce gate area, and
11 (b) the mortar position at Bosanka firing at the Ploce gate area, and (c)
12 the mortar position at Srdj firing at the Ploce gate or Vrata Od Ploca.
13 Is that what it says in answer to the questions asked of you?
14 A. I don't have the specific questions in front of me, I just have
15 answers to these questions.
16 Q. Do you have this text before you, Mr. Poje?
17 A. I just have the report. I don't have the questions.
18 Q. So what does it say on page 1 of the addendum to your report?
19 A. It says the firing position on Zarkovica, target Ploce, firing
20 range 3 -- 2.300 metres.
21 Q. Mr. Poje, would you please listen to my question. On page 1 of
22 the addendum to your report, ERN 03540263 -- can you find it?
23 A. No, I can't.
24 Q. Page 1 of the addendum to your report, addendum 1 dated 31 March
25 2004. Could you go back, please, Mr. Poje. Look at the top right corner,
1 ERN number is --
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could you please show him my copy
3 and then give it back to me.
4 Q. Look at this page, Mr. Poje. Did you find it, Mr. Poje?
5 A. I have found number 22.
6 Q. Could you please give the document back to me.
7 MR. WEINER: I think the problem is he has answers. He doesn't
8 have the questions, the explanation questions. If we can just read it
9 out, or for the record I can -- I will accept that it says "Ploce gate
10 area." Not "Ploce gate," but "Ploce gate area."
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first of all, the
12 original of this report says: "In the area of Vrata Ploce, or Ploce
13 gate." This is what it says on page 1 of the addendum. I'm really
14 surprised the witness doesn't have it in front of him. I would like to
15 ask the registry to give the witness the copy of the document that is part
16 of evidence because it seems that the witness's report is different from
17 the exhibit entered into evidence.
18 Q. Mr. Poje, do you have a complete report that you submitted?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. And have you found the page that I'm talking about?
21 A. Yes, and I read it from that page of the report.
22 Q. I'm asking you about page 1 of the addendum of your report. Do
23 you have that or not?
24 A. In my report, it does not say anywhere Vrata Od Ploca, Ploce gate.
25 Q. Did anybody maybe make additions to your report?
1 A. No. As far as I know, they did not. All the addenda I did
2 myself, and I signed them, and I also made all the changes and initialed
4 Q. Look at the report, please. Is this a page of your report? Is
5 that page 1 of the addendum of your report?
6 A. Yes, it is.
7 Q. Does it state there the Ploce gate area?
8 A. It does not say that in the report. When I was making the
9 dispersion calculations, I used a map in which the place of the firing
10 position of the mortar unit is drawn east of the Ploce gate, because the
11 position was not drawn near the Ploce gate, but it was indicated to the
12 east. And for that area, for that sector, the sector where the mortar
13 position was drawn, calculated the dispersion pattern.
14 Q. So you did not respond to the request of the Prosecution to
15 calculate the dispersion in the region of the Ploce gate, the potential
16 dispersion in firing at that target; is that correct?
17 A. Well, it depends on what you consider to be the area of the Ploce
19 Q. Very well. Let us move on, Mr. Poje. That is all clear.
20 Do you know that the Revelin fortress is a composite part of the
21 Old Town?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Where is the Ploce gate? Are they immediately in front of the
24 Revelin fortress?
25 A. As far as I remember, yes.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could you please show the witness
3 P159, Prosecution Exhibit P159.
4 Q. Mr. Poje, do you see the mortar position east of the Old City?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. Could you please take your ruler and measure how far the position
7 is from the eastern walls of the Old City.
8 A. Five hundred metres, about 500 metres.
9 Q. Could you kindly tell us what the distance is between the Tricavla
10 cape and the Sveti Jakov cape. The Sveti Jakov cape, in order that you
11 can orient yourself as to these 500 metres.
12 I withdraw that question.
13 Could you please measure how broad the Old Town is along the
14 east-west axis if the mortar was positioned 500 metres from the Old Town
15 to the east.
16 A. Four hundred metres.
17 Q. About 400 metres. And from the eastern ramparts of the Old Town
18 to the mortar positions, you claim that the distance is 500 metres?
19 A. Correction. I have a marking on the ruler, and yesterday when I
20 was using the other map, which was not to scale, that's what I got, but I
21 will recalculate it now. It's about 300 metres.
22 Q. Very well. Could you please look at that firing position which
23 you say is at 300 metres. I would like to say before that, the witness
24 through whom this map was introduced on the 22nd of April of 2004 - the
25 name of the witness is Negodic - this witness told the Trial Chamber that
1 that was the position of the Lazareti mortar.
2 MR. WEINER: Objection, Your Honour. I'm sorry. I thought he was
3 going to start with distances. Sorry. Withdrawn.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Carry on, Mr. Petrovic.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness, Witness
6 Negodic, said that this was at a distance of 100 to 120 metres east of the
7 Old Town and that the position was Lazareti.
8 MR. WEINER: [Previous translation continues]... you're asking one
9 witness to comment on the testimony of another. You can argue one bit of
10 testimony against each other, not ask one witness to --
11 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner, you're addressing counsel not the
13 Mr. Petrovic, can I suggest that you might put to the witness
14 whether the position would be different if the target was located at the
15 distance that you have just mentioned from the gate rather than at 300
16 metres, without relating that distance back to the evidence of a
17 particular witness, and we can get what you want that way.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you. I was
19 just about to do that, but my learned friend interrupted me.
20 Q. So if the position of this mortar or these mortars is at 100 to
21 120 metres from the eastern ramparts of the Old Town, does that change the
22 dispersion pattern that you gave in your report for that position?
23 A. The dispersion pattern, if the target was in the position that you
24 have just now stated in which the firing distance is increased by about
25 100 to 150 metres would not considerably affect the size of the dispersion
1 pattern, because the dispersion pattern, depending on the charge and the
2 firing distance, would change approximately from one to one odd-point
3 metre for every 100 metres of distance.
4 Q. If the firing position was 100 to 150 metres from the Old Town,
5 would the dispersion ellipse then include the eastern part of the Old Town
6 in this specific case?
7 A. No, because the ellipse or the semi-ellipse of dispersion, we have
8 to look at the median hit which should go through the centre of the
9 target, meaning that one-half of the dispersion ellipse faces the weapon
10 and the other faces away from the weapon viewing from the centre of the
11 target, I think that in all calculation I calculated that all the
12 semi-axes were up to 100 metres, and I do not rule out the possibility of
13 some undershots, but this would be very, very slight.
14 Q. If we move 200 metres to the west, that means that the axis of
15 dispersion would also move 200 metres to the west. In that case, would
16 the semi-axis include the eastern part of the Old Town?
17 A. No, it would not, because like I said, the dispersion ellipse
18 depends on the distance, on the firing distance, and it would increase
19 only slightly because of those 200 metres. If we change the distance by
20 200 metres, the actual dispersion would change by only one or two metres.
21 Q. The target, Mr. Poje, has moved 200 metres to the west in relation
22 to your calculation. Please wait till I pose the question. If the target
23 is moved by 200 metres to the west, even if the ellipse itself didn't
24 change, would it not encompass an eastern part of the Old Town?
25 A. No, because the average trajectory of the ellipsis would go
1 through the centre of the target, which is in the east of the -- to the
2 town. I said that we had to look at the semi-ellipse, and it would not
3 include the town.
4 Q. Very well, Mr. Poje. Could you please look at this map which is
5 in front of you. From the position that you see here, is -- on this map,
6 and we're talking about positions east to the town, do we have 17
7 different targets that are noted here going to the south from Dubac
8 through Zarkovica, Bosanka?
9 A. Probably they are.
10 Q. These markings, these squares, do they indicate targets for the
11 firing position on which we are speaking of east of the Old Town?
12 A. Yes. These are possible or eventual targets for which initial
13 firing elements were prepared in advance.
14 Q. This target east of the Old Town -- this firing position, excuse
15 me, east of the Old Town had the firing prepared in advance, the elements
16 for Zarkovica, Bosanka, and Dubac east of the Old Town;
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. If we're talking about a covered target which you cannot see from
19 the Zarkovica observation point, do you believe that this -- that you
20 could successfully fire at Zarkovica, Bosanka, and Dubac successfully as
21 this was given?
22 A. Yes, it's possible. With indirect firing, fire is directed from
23 the observation post, not from the weapon's location. You can have
24 elements which are calculated to get the target. So the firing is
25 directed from the observation post. It does not have to be -- the post
1 doesn't even have to be close to the firing position. The communications
2 will ensure communication between the firing and the command or the
3 reconnaissance posts. So between the firing executors and the weapon.
4 Q. Did you use that firing position -- would you use it to act
5 against yourself from Zarkovica, Bosanka, Dubac? Speaking in principle.
6 A. I don't think that we would do that, generally speaking, because
7 from a tactical point of view, that position is pretty forward.
8 Q. What does that mean?
9 A. It means that you could -- well, you could hit it pretty easily.
10 Q. And how would you fire then at the given targets? Why was it
11 placed there in the first place?
12 A. It doesn't mean that you cannot fire from those firing positions;
13 you can. But you asked me whether this was a good position in view of the
14 fact that I would be exposed to fire of the other side. Perhaps I
15 wouldn't pick those positions. It's just a question of the situation at
16 the time and whether the terrain can provide cover for the -- for the
17 firing position.
18 Q. If we're talking about a well-covered firing position which you
19 cannot see from any of the observation posts of the other side, which is
20 in a small park or it's covered by a -- or screened by a large building,
21 would that be an adequate position in such conditions to use it as a
22 firing position and to fire from it?
23 A. Like I said, a firing position must be picked so that it can
24 assure the execution of firing tasks. So that means that you need to pick
25 a location where the obstacles which are around the firing position do not
1 prevent it from operation.
2 Q. So if it's picked in a way that it is well covered and that the
3 environment does not prevent it from being operational; it's very well
4 covered, cannot be observed from the observation post, it's behind a tall
5 building and can be used for firing, in those circumstances would you use
6 such a position?
7 A. Well, in those situations -- in that -- in those circumstances, I
8 would. I'm not saying I would or that I wouldn't. It depends on the
9 specific situation. I wasn't there so I don't know. I didn't fire from
10 that position, and I simply -- when somebody decided to place mortars in
11 that position, probably they took into account all of those things that
12 you mentioned, that the position can execute successful fire on the drawn
13 or visible targets. These are possible targets. It doesn't mean that
14 these targets were actually fired at, because in the preparation for
15 operations, we determine in advance the most probable enemy locations and
16 then we calculate the elements for those locations in advance so that very
17 quickly if they are there or nearby, we can open fire as quickly as
18 possible at the enemy.
19 Q. With all of those assumptions, the person who picked this
20 position, if they had taken into account all of those things, then your
21 answer would be yes?
22 Could you please repeat your answer. It's not in the transcript.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What kind of procedure is followed if the target of a mortar goes
25 3 per cent in or out of the trajectory? What does that imply in terms of
1 the positioning of the mortar?
2 A. If the direction of the objective is plus/minus 3 per cent, that
3 is to say according to an azimuth which goes beyond the value that you
4 mentioned, then the mortar is moved by moving the bi-pod.
5 Q. Does a significant number of preparations for firing have to be
6 repeated then?
7 A. Just like the first time. Again, the levels have to be adjusted.
8 Q. How long does this procedure take?
9 A. When crew members are highly trained, then it moves very fast.
10 Q. How long?
11 A. Let's say up to three minutes.
12 Q. And what about crews that are not trained?
13 A. I don't know. I never measured time in that sense, so I don't
14 know how long untrained crew members would take. That's not something
15 that one looks at in principle. One looks at trained personnel only.
16 Q. And what about if the position of the base plate is changed?
17 A. I don't know. Anything I'd say would be just off the top of my
18 head, but it's relatively fast.
19 Q. Give us an estimate.
20 A. We have to say that if we are expected to take long time from a
21 particular firing position, preparations in terms of the surface take
22 place beforehand. I never really measured time, the time that is needed
23 for preparing a surface. We would have a break because a mortar would be
24 moved five or six metres left or right, but to tell you the truth, I don't
25 know how long it would take.
1 Q. Type of ammunition. You mentioned smoke shells and compact --
2 contact shells.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. I would like to hear your definition. I would like to hear
5 whether you will agree with what I will put to you, and that is to say
6 that incendiary shells are those that are filled with Napalm and other
7 such material. Do you agree with that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Do you agree that such an inflammable shell does not exist for a
10 120-millimetre mortar?
11 A. In the literature that I have always used and that I am still
12 using, there is no mention for that.
13 Q. Tell us just one more thing in relation to that: The difference
14 between the specific temperature of the burning of wood and the burning of
15 dry grass.
16 A. There must be a difference, but I don't know how big it is. It is
17 much harder to set wood on fire than it is to set dry grass on fire. Now,
18 what temperature is needed I really cannot say. When we used tracers, I
19 remember that we would set it on fire.
20 Q. We've understood this. Tell us, please, smoke shells, are
21 smokescreens -- they're actually smoke -- smoke shells are used for
22 creating a smokescreen; isn't that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Isn't it right that a smoke shell is used, for instance, for
25 getting a unit out of a particular area where it is?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. If the intention of -- we're talking about a movable target. Does
3 it require a greater expenditure of ammunition?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Does it considerably increase the expenditure of ammunition?
6 A. As far as movable targets are concerned, a special kind of fire is
7 required which can be along one line or several lines, and then firing has
8 to take place along these lines that are calculated beforehand. And there
9 is not a significant increase in ammunition expenditure, because if we are
10 talking about personnel and if the personnel is out in the open, then
11 within the shortest span of time possible, the strongest fire should be
13 Q. You mentioned tracer bullets yesterday.
14 A. I'm sorry, it's not tracer bullets. Rather, you did not use the
15 right word in B/C/S.
16 Q. Is it correct that a tracer can be seen only from the position of
17 a person at a firing position, that a tracer cannot be seen from the
19 A. A tracer can be seen from the emplacement and also from the
21 Q. But not from the target?
22 A. Well, in principle I wouldn't know because nobody ever fired that
23 kind of ammunition in my direction, so I cannot say whether a tracer can
24 be seen from a target. But I am sure that from the flanks it can be seen
25 because usually we do watch targeting from the flanks, don't we, so that's
1 how we can see these tracers.
2 Q. Do you know M42 ZIS 76 millimetre guns?
3 A. Yes, I've seen one.
4 Q. Do you know what the intention of this is?
5 A. Like any other; to neutralise armoured vehicles, bunkers,
6 fortified buildings too, and perhaps even machine-gun nests and the like.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could P132 be placed before the
8 witness again, please.
9 Q. If we look at a ZIS cannon in the area of Uskoplje, we said
10 yesterday that the altitude is about 500 metres.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And if the target engaged is on Srdj, if it is the fort of Srdj at
13 400 metres.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In view of the trajectory of the projectile from a ZIS cannon, can
16 you tell us, if the projectile misses Fort Srdj, where is it going to
17 fall? From Uskoplje to Srdj.
18 A. Yes, yes, I'm looking at it, but I'm just trying to locate Srdj.
19 It would go north or north-east of the Old Town of Dubrovnik.
20 Q. You mean north-west?
21 A. Yes, north-west of the Old Town of Dubrovnik.
22 Q. That projectile would not fall into town, and it would most
23 probably fall into the sea, in view of its trajectory.
24 A. Quite possibly.
25 Q. Thank you. In your report, you made reference to -- just a
1 moment, please. There is reference made to full preparations, shortened
2 preparations, and simple preparations. Why is one or the other or the
3 third type of preparations carried out under certain circumstances?
4 A. Depending on the accuracy and quantity of information for
5 targeting. So there is either full preparation, shortened preparation, or
6 simple preparation.
7 Q. When it is necessary to open fire urgently, is there enough time
8 to carry out full preparation? And what are all the things that have to
9 be done in order to carry out full preparation for targeting?
10 A. First I'm going to answer your first question. Meteorological and
11 ballistic corrections are made beforehand. If we have the appropriate
12 bulletin and if we have the ballistic conditions of targeting that are
13 gathered at the firing position, then the meteorological and ballistic
14 corrections are calculated and the graph of these corrections is drawn,
15 and when the target appears, then its topographical range is established,
16 and then from the graph, according to the topographical elements, we see
17 how big the meteorological ballistic corrections are, and then these
18 corrections are included in topographic elements, and then targeting can
19 start, or firing can start.
20 Q. If the target is changed, then all of that you referred to just
21 now has to be done yet again.
22 A. I'm sorry, but it's not. It's not necessary to do it all again.
23 Meteorological and ballistic corrections are calculated for an area, not
24 for a specific objective or target. This can be calculated in general
25 terms. So that is the pattern also for three directions. So, for
1 example, two ranges, three directions, and then one direction, three
2 ranges. So when the topographical distance or range is determined, it is
3 possible very quickly, within 15 seconds or so, to look at the graph and
4 to see what the meteorological and ballistic corrections are.
5 Q. If there is no meteorological bulletin, what do you do in that
6 situation? If you do not have one, if the unit concerned does not have
8 A. If we do not have a meteorological bulletin, if we do not have the
9 meteorological conditions and data for targeting that were compiled by a
10 meteorological station, then we can start shortened procedure which does
11 not specifically differ in the basic method. However, the meteorological
12 and ballistic corrections for the same directions and the same ranges or
13 distances are calculated on the basis of ballistic elements of targeting,
14 which are usually accessible, and also the meteorological conditions for
15 targeting on the ground.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please stop before the question --
17 the answer ends.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. When are simple preparations carried out?
20 A. When we do not use meteorological, ballistic corrections. Then
21 targeting or firing takes place only on the basis of topographical
22 information, and then it is possible to determine the range or distance
23 merely by sight. We simply look at it. May I just finish?
24 Our rules say that if it is possible, then the decrease in initial
25 velocity has to be taken into account because that is in the firing
1 tables. But that does not change things essentially.
2 So I would like to conclude by saying that simple preparations
3 means targeting only with topographical elements.
4 Q. All right. What does -- I mean, we're now going to move on to the
5 firing tables for a 120-millimetre mortar, so could you please look at
6 column 18. What does that mean?
7 A. Column 18 is a table correction due to a lateral wind, Vy.
8 Q. What is the value because of this lateral wind?
9 A. For ten metres per second.
10 MR. WEINER: Excuse me, Your Honour. Are they referring to the
11 120-millimetre booklet, table booklet; and if they are, could that be
12 placed on the ELMO so we can all see what they're referring to.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we can use the exhibit
14 that my colleague Mr. Weiner tendered yesterday, and I thought that he
15 understood, of course, that that is what this was all about. It is P182.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, I have that, but on the ELMO is a later page.
17 106 to 107.
18 MR. WEINER: This is for a charge 3.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm asking about
20 firing tables in principle, in general. The page doesn't matter. The
21 witness explained to us that column 18 is invariably the same, so it
22 really doesn't matter at this point.
23 JUDGE PARKER: It's just that we now have Exhibit P182 on the
24 ELMO, and that will minimise confusion.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honour. Thank you.
1 Q. Mr. Poje --
2 A. Table corrections because of lateral wind, in terms of metres per
4 Q. Mr. Poje, please look at 18 very carefully, column 18. It says
5 correction of direction because of lateral wind, and it says -- and it
6 says in thousandths of a second.
7 A. I thought of the lateral component of wind. The values are in the
8 column. It is 1:6.000, actually.
9 Q. So it is -- we are talking about thousandths?
10 A. Yes, we are.
11 Q. In all calculations in addendum 1 and addendum 2, when calculating
12 the dispersion ellipsis, did you take into account correction in the
13 direction due to lateral wind, correction of distance because of winds
14 across the length? Yes or no.
15 A. No.
16 Q. Did you take into account deviations because of temperature, air
17 pressure, and the temperature of gunpowder?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Please take the firing tables that are before you now and
20 calculate the following for us: One projectile from your example, which
21 from 5.600 metres is fired at a target which is 150 metres away from the
22 Old Town and where there is a lateral wind of 5 to 10 metres per second,
23 how much does that projectile move away from its trajectory? Please take
24 5.600 into account, 5 to 10 metres per second. Please calculate the
25 deviation of this projectile in terms of its direction from its
2 A. If we are talking about the sixth charge at a distance of 5.600
3 metres and if the lateral component of ballistic wind is 10 metres per
4 seconds --
5 Q. From 5 to 10.
6 A. Well, it's not the same thing. Five is 5 and 10 is 10. For 10 it
7 is 24 thousandths, and obviously it is that in half for 10 [as
9 Q. All right. Do the calculation on the basis of 10.
10 A. 25 thousandths, if we're looking at the lateral wind in terms of
11 the direction, not to complicate matters further.
12 Q. All right. Could you please calculate the deviation of the
13 projectile in such a situation. Could you please multiply it?
14 A. 20 times -- 25 times 5.6, approximately.
15 Q. 140 metres per direction. Now, could you please look at the
16 deflection of this trajectory under -- with lateral wind coming from the
17 left. In other words, the shell will deviate by 140 metres to the left.
18 Is that correct?
19 A. Probably if the wind is coming from the left then it will turn to
20 the right.
21 Q. Yes. Thank you. Can we take the same example. If we have a
22 longitudinal wind 10 metres per second, could you please calculate where
23 this projectile will land.
24 A. It will deviate by 223 metres from the direction.
25 Q. Thank you. If we have a situation with a changeable wind with
1 different values, what will happen with the dispersion?
2 A. Probably the dispersion will change, too. Depending on the
3 direction, speeds of the wind, the dispersion pattern will also change.
4 Q. You mean by increasing?
5 A. If the wind is not so strong, then it will decrease. Therefore,
6 the pattern changes given the change in firing conditions.
7 Q. The dispersal pattern, therefore, increases; is that correct?
8 A. Yes, it does.
9 Q. All your calculations were made taking specific conditions for one
10 specific mortar. Tell us, what will happen with the value of dispersion
11 of a projectile in terms of range and direction if at the same time more
12 than one weapons are being fired from?
13 A. If we use multiple weapons, then we have a complex dispersion
14 pattern, and the space is bigger than the one when you have -- when you
15 are using a single weapon.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I suggest that we take
17 now another break, if you agree.
18 JUDGE PARKER: I think that would be a good idea, Mr. Petrovic.
19 Perhaps you could assist us with our future planning. How do you see your
20 time at the moment?
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I will need another half a -- Your
22 Honour, I will need another half hour to complete my interrogation.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much.
24 --- Recess taken at 12.25 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 12.50 p.m.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Could you please give the witness map P160.
4 Q. Mr. Poje, can you tell us based on which document did you
5 establish that an aircraft gun was at 150 to 200 metres north from the Old
7 A. I took the map, and there was a symbol of an anti-aircraft gun
8 marked there.
9 Q. Could you please tell us, did you do that based on this map marked
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. Could you please now take your ruler and measure the distance
13 between the top of the arrow to the Old Town wall. What is the distance
14 between the two? I repeat, from the top of the arrow up to the wall, not
15 up to the lower end.
16 A. About six millimetres, given the fact that there is no scale
17 indicated on the map and having some knowledge of the area where there's
18 an entrance to the city and a parking lot, I estimate that the distance
19 would be about 150 metres.
20 Q. I didn't ask you that. I asked you according to the map, what is
21 the distance between the top of the arrow and the Old Town wall as the map
23 A. About 100 metres.
24 Q. How far is the lower end of the arrow since it crosses the wall?
25 So how far is the lower end of the arrow from the wall of the Old Town?
1 A. About 50 metres.
2 Q. Could you please measure it.
3 A. About three millimetres.
4 Q. So that means that the arrow, the lower -- lower part of the arrow
5 is about 50 metres inside the Old Town. Based on this map, can you tell
6 us, what is the distance between the northern part of the wall of the Old
7 Town and the Adriatic Highway to the north in the direction of Srdj? Can
8 you please measure that.
9 A. About 28 millimetres.
10 Q. How much is that in metres?
11 A. I don't have the scale on the map, but I can say that it's
12 approximately 500 metres.
13 Q. If you worked with this map and if there's no scale indicated on
14 it, how did you arrive at the conclusion that this anti-aircraft gun was
15 at 150 metres to the north from the wall of the Old Town?
16 A. That was my estimate. Bearing in mind and knowing a little this
17 region, I just assumed where the gun would be.
18 Q. So you did not make your estimate based on the map but, rather,
19 based on your assumption which is then again based on your knowledge of
20 the terrain.
21 A. But I also used the map. I used this auxiliary ruler, and I made
22 comparison between two maps. One had the scale; the other one didn't. I
23 made this kind of makeshift ruler and I measured the distance. How
24 accurate that is, I cannot say. I said yesterday that symbols in
25 principle just signify the region or the area where the position is, not
1 the exact point of the position. So it's a relative matter whether the
2 distance is 100 or 130 metres.
3 Q. Could that have been 150 metres to the south, in Stradun, if this
4 is just approximate and in principle?
5 A. In principle, it could have been anywhere.
6 Q. So it could have been 150 metres to the south from the northern
7 wall, in principle, by interpreting the symbols?
8 A. I believe that it was in the area around the symbol, and that's
9 what I took as a basis, the top of the arrow as a kind of benchmark there
10 where the position could have been.
11 Q. In principle and by construing only the symbol, that could have
12 been either 150 metres to the north from the symbol or, rather, from the
13 wall, and it could have been 150 metres to the south of the wall if you
14 take only a symbol as the benchmark.
15 A. Yes, if we take the symbol as the only benchmark, and
16 theoretically, yes.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be given
18 now the map P10, and I would kindly ask the witness to take the ruler
20 Q. Mr. Poje, could you please look at the starting point of the cable
21 car leading to Srdj, and it is directly under the letter O of the word
22 "Ploce." Can you see it?
23 A. Yes, I can.
24 Q. The starting point of the cable car structure directly above the
25 letter O, can you measure the distance between this point and the northern
1 wall of the Old Town? Please, sir, not like that. Put it vertically.
2 Measure it vertically, Mr. Poje.
3 A. Between 130 and 140 metres.
4 Q. Could you please measure, since you say that the map symbols
5 indicate areas, can you please measure the distance from where it says
6 Ploce as the central part of the area and the northern wall of the Old
8 A. About 100 metres.
9 Q. Can you see Bogisica Park in this P10 map?
10 Can you see it, Mr. Poje?
11 A. To tell you the truth, I can't see it.
12 Q. Which map did you use, Mr. Poje, to calculate the distance between
13 Bogisica Park and the wall?
14 A. The map that we just saw a short while ago.
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could you please give the witness
16 the other map, and could the witness please keep the first one before him
17 him. Please place the map. Just a little bit to the top so that we can
18 see the Old Town. A little bit further up, please.
19 Q. Mr. Poje, where is Bogisica Park?
20 A. [Indicates]
21 Q. And can you please measure the distance.
22 A. Twenty-three millimetres.
23 Q. Which point did you start your measurement?
24 A. From the walls.
25 Q. From which point did you start?
1 A. [Indicates]
2 Q. So from this point that you have just indicated --
3 A. The centre of this almost circular road up to the wall is 19
5 Q. How much is that?
6 A. As far as I can tell, it's between 250 and 300 metres.
7 Q. Thank you. I don't need the map P10 [as interpreted] any more.
8 Could you please take a look at this map. Can you see it?
9 A. Yes. That's this area.
10 Q. To the east from the area?
11 A. You mean this crossroad?
12 Q. Yes, from this crossroads.
13 JUDGE PARKER: So that the record is clear, I think you put aside
14 Exhibit P160 and are now using Exhibit P10. The transcript would suggest
15 the opposite.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. From the eastern part, where it begins, to the walls of the Old
18 Town, could you please measure the distance between those two points.
19 A. About 300 metres.
20 Q. Could you please tell us why twice, once during the
21 examination-in-chief and again today in answer to my questions, you've
22 said that you calculated the values as at the base of the cable car as 300
23 to 350 metres?
24 A. The map that I used, which is at a scale of 25.000, it means that
25 one millimetre is 25 metres. The map was a little bit damaged, it was a
1 photocopy, so based on the measurements that I did, I calculated that
3 Q. Did you calculate it -- did you measure it correctly now?
4 A. It's probably not any more precise than the first or the second
5 time that I did it, because I'm measuring it now for the third or the
6 fourth time.
7 Q. The base of the cable car at 130 to 140 metres, as you measured it
8 now, or is it at 300 to 350 metres as you said during the
9 examination-in-chief? This is a difference of three times as much. One
10 measurement is three times greater than the second one.
11 A. I think that the distances average between those. It's the
12 average of those two values, so it's about 300 metres.
13 Q. Once you said 130, so this range of the cable car goes from 130 to
14 350 metres, according to your measurements.
15 A. Yes, that is correct.
16 Q. Thank you. Could you please measure on map P10 the distance from
17 the northern walls of the Old City to the Adriatic Highway using the
18 vertical line from Minceta.
19 A. About 330 metres.
20 Q. So according to your calculations today, the Adriatic Highway,
21 which is the last road before Srdj, is 330 metres -- is at 330 metres,
22 while you said to us during the examination-in-chief that the cable is at
23 330 metres, and according to what you said, the beginning of the cable car
24 is above the Adriatic Highway, Mr. Poje. Is that correct?
25 A. Yes, that is what I said.
1 Q. Mr. Poje, your calculations are not correct. Your calculations
2 are so different that it's impossible to determine where the point is from
3 which you are measuring the distance to the Old Town walls.
4 MR. WEINER: Objection. Argumentative.
5 JUDGE PARKER: I think it's fair to put that proposition to the
6 witness, and I'll treat it as a proposition being put to the witness, in
7 fairness to you, Mr. Weiner, given what has preceded. Yes.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Could you please respond, Mr. Poje.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. When we're talking about Croatian forces, what does the
12 information mean to you that there was just one site for three mortars?
13 What would be the precision of such firing?
14 A. Very poor.
15 Q. What does it mean to you if mortars are fired without using a
16 sight device? What would be the precision of such firing?
17 A. I have never heard it being fired from a mortar without using the
18 sighting devices.
19 Q. Well, I believe that you've never heard of anything like that, but
20 if I were to claim that -- if I were to tell you that firing was executed
21 without the sighting device, what would you say about the precision of
22 such firing?
23 A. For elevation you can take the quadrants. According to the
24 direction, you would probably need to target with the barrel, and such
25 targeting would be very imprecise.
1 Q. What would you say if I said that the ZIS gun was being fired
2 without a sighting device? What would you say about the precision of such
4 A. It would be very poor, but this may not be the case if we're
5 talking about direct firing, because if the distance was not very great
6 and the target was in a clearing, then the precision would be higher.
7 However, at larger distances, the precision would be reduced.
8 Q. In view of the characteristics of the ZIS gun, if we're talking
9 about a target at 3.500 metres away, what would you say about such firing?
10 A. With such a weapon, without a sighting device is something that I
11 would never fire from, because the precision of firing from such a weapon
12 at 3.500 metres from a place from which I do not have direct line of sight
13 of the target is wrong.
14 Q. If the ZIS firing position was 300 metres below the target that is
15 being fired at, and if the target is at 3.500 metres, and if the
16 trajectory crosses the Old Town, is there a possibility that the
17 projectile would hit the Old Town area?
18 A. First of all, it depends on where the weapon was located. If it
19 was -- if the town was in the upward part of the trajectory, and even if
20 theoretically crosses above the town, still the chances would be very
21 slight of the projectile hitting it.
22 Q. What do you base that statement on? If you're firing without a
23 sighting device in circumstances or conditions for which you said that you
24 would never fire in, why do you say that?
25 A. I said the following: Even though I do not have a sighting
1 device, I can take the proper elevation by using a quadrant. The
2 elevation can be determined based on the firing distance. So the firing
3 distance is something that can be quite correctly gauged. We can assume
4 that, and that the elevation is appropriate to that distance.
5 Q. If you don't have anything of the firing equipment, such as a
6 quadrant, if you have nothing, what would you say would be the precision
7 of such firing in such conditions?
8 A. It's imprecise, and I would never execute such fire.
9 Q. Do you know what the maximum elevation angle is of the ZIS 75 gun?
10 A. No, I don't know.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have no
12 more questions.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Petrovic.
14 Mr. Weiner.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, at the end of this
16 part of the questioning, would it be possible to give two explanations,
17 even though I prepared more, so that some things could be clearer? They
18 refer to the errors in the preparation of initial elements and the
19 dispersion pattern. Also, the impact dispersion if the target is below
20 the horizon of the weapon.
21 JUDGE PARKER: They will be matters, Mr. Poje, which Mr. Weiner
22 will take into account, and if he thinks it necessary, he will ask
23 questions about them. That's his role now.
24 Re-examined by Mr. Weiner:
25 Q. Colonel Poje, could you please explain those two answers now and
1 then we'll go to some of my questions.
2 A. Your Honours, first of all I would like to try to clarify the size
3 of the dispersion pattern, which we discussed yesterday and today, and the
4 effect of certain elements on the dispersion, impact dispersion.
5 The preparation of initial elements is a phase during which
6 correct firing elements are determined in the shortest possible time in
7 order to start firing and group firing. The initial firing elements
8 contain a relatively large number of errors; accidental errors, systemic
9 errors. I'm ruling out the gross errors. They also contain those errors
10 in the conditions of firing. If we did not take into account the
11 meteorological and ballistical firing conditions in the beginning, then
12 those initial elements would contain those errors. If we did take the
13 meteorological and ballistic errors into account, or corrections into
14 account, then those -- we would rule out those amongst the accidental
16 I would like to also represent what I am saying in a -- in the
17 form of a graph. This represents the target. The line that I am drawing
18 is the azimuth or the direction of fire. Let's assume that the
19 observation point is on the -- along the hypothetical firing-line. This
20 is not always so, but it's possible.
21 The initial -- with the initial elements, we have fired the first
22 projectile. I have marked that first hit with the letter P. From that
23 point onwards, all errors in the meteorological and ballistic conditions
24 of firing are contained in this vector. We establish that vector by
25 reading the deflections by direction, and we also determine the deflection
1 by distance, and that is that P which contains all the errors in the
2 preparation of initial elements.
3 As the firing continues, those errors -- perhaps I should also say
4 that in that vector, errors - and a deflection indicates that there was
5 some error that occurred - we don't know how much of that is accounted for
6 by topographical, ballistic, or meteorological errors, which all have
7 their role in the firing and in the execution of fire.
8 In order to hit the centre of the target, we must perform the
9 appropriate corrections, and the correction, as you can see, has to be
10 made to the right, and it has to be closer. I will mark that with a
11 minus, that correction to the right.
12 In the continued process of firing, we correct the measuring and
13 rounding up errors, and we possibly determine new elements or we use
14 elements that were used before.
15 When I have managed to achieve a median shot into the centre of
16 the target according to the rules of operation, then the dispersion
17 pattern can be increased if the firing conditions from one projectile to
18 the next change substantially. If the firing conditions are relatively
19 the same from one projectile to the next, then the dispersion is usual,
20 it's normal, and it corresponds to the probability theory for dispersion.
21 That means that later, an error in the initial firing speed no longer
22 plays a role, or the lateral or longitudinal winds play a role, because
23 this is already contained in this vector which shows us the degree of the
25 It does have a role if from one projectile to the next the wind
1 blew at 2 metres per second and then 10 metres per second for the next
2 projectile. I said I didn't know what the circumstances were, the
3 conditions were at that particular time, but this is just a theoretical
4 representation by which I want to say that all the errors which I have
5 named, except some accidental errors or measuring errors, can be ruled
7 So once again, this vector would contain the initial velocity and
8 the wind. So if I did not take into account the initial velocity, then
9 the vector would account it. If I did include it, then that would be an
10 initial element -- accidental error in the initial velocity. That would
11 be the first part.
12 Q. Let me ask you a few questions and we'll get back to your second
13 part. I just want to clarify this. What you're saying is calculations or
14 your ellipses are not based on the initial shots with the errors but
15 they're based on the shots after the adjustments have been made; after the
16 weather and temperature and all those adjustments have been made; is that
18 A. The dispersion ellipse is determined on the basis of the median
19 shot. The objective of each firing, as a rule, is to have the median hit
20 the centre of the target. It's possible that I did not mention the median
21 -- the first hit in the explanation. The first hit can deflect to a
22 greater or lesser degree, depending on the conditions of firing and so on.
23 Q. We have very little time and we're trying to finish you up today,
24 and I know the Court wants you to be finished today so they can start a
25 new witness tomorrow. So I only have 20 minutes, so...
1 So once again, the median shot, the ellipses or your median shot,
2 those are based on the shots fired after the corrections have been made?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Very briefly, sir, you were shown different calculations as -- in
5 relation to distances when you used map P10 and P160. Are these original
6 maps or are those photocopies?
7 A. I had photocopies of maps.
8 Q. And are photocopies more difficult to use than originals?
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we please
10 clarify the time. When did he have these photocopies? I understood the
11 witness to have had the photocopies at the time when he was preparing his
13 JUDGE PARKER: I think that's what his evidence has been just now,
14 Mr. Petrovic.
15 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
16 Q. Are photocopies more difficult to use than regular -- than
17 original maps?
18 A. It's very difficult to work on photocopies. It's more difficult
19 to work with copies than with originals, especially in conditions when the
20 photocopies were made without giving the scale. Then there are certain
21 deviations or distortions that you get, even if you copy on the scale 1:1.
22 Q. And the ones that you used in court, are those also photocopies?
23 The maps that you were shown in court.
24 A. I think that they were photocopies except for the last map. I'm
25 not sure, but I think that I also had photocopies here in the courtroom.
1 Q. Okay. I would like to move, sir, to the 120-millimetre mortars.
2 There were a number of questions about 120-millimetre mortars, and
3 yesterday Defence counsel asked you why you used 120-millimetre mortars in
4 your hypotheticals, and Defence counsel told you at page 74 that Admiral
5 Jokic had testified at page 3980 that they had 82-millimetre mortars at
6 the fire support group of the 3rd Battalion of the 472nd Brigade at
7 Uskoplje. In examining -- I'll -- yes?
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, no. On page 3980,
9 we're talking about the 120-millimetre mortars in Uskoplje. I never
10 said --
11 MR. WEINER: For the record, I will read the transcript. On page
12 3980 of the transcript Admiral Jokic describes the composition of a
13 battalion fire support group, the 3rd Battalion of the 472nd Brigade, at
14 Uskoplje and gives -- and states there that "as part of the battalion
15 firing group, we have 82-millimetre mortars."
16 That's what you said yesterday. An examination of the transcript
17 reveals that Admiral Jokic did not mention 82-millimetre mortars at that
18 location and that he was discussing the month of November, which you'll
19 notice on page 3975. And I will read what Admiral Jokic says: "However,
20 as regards artillery or, rather, mortars, 120-millimetre mortars that were
21 within the circle, that was the artillery of the 3rd Battalion in the area
22 of Uskoplje. From there, the Old Town could be targeted including the
23 city harbour and part of the New Town of Dubrovnik outside the old walls."
24 Admiral Jokic further testifies -- we can put this on the ELMO if
25 you have any questions, Counsel, and you can read it too.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
2 JUDGE PARKER: You haven't finished, Mr. Weiner, and then I'll
3 hear Mr. Petrovic.
4 MR. WEINER: Thank you. Admiral Jokic further testified about the
5 same position in December of 1991, which they mentioned the December map
6 on page 4011, and on page 4020, Admiral Jokic says the following:
7 Q. Could you discuss those positions and what the
8 symbols mean.
9 A. This is a firing group belonging to the battalion.
10 This is only its short name.
11 Q. Of what battalion?
12 A. Of the 3rd Battalion. This is the battalion firing
13 group of the 3rd Battalion providing support for other units of the 3rd
14 Battalion. It's 120-millimetre mortar battery containing six mortars.
15 Q. And what is the 3rd Battalion of the 472nd Brigade?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Were the weapons that you've just discussed in the
18 range of the Old Town?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. From that position it is possible to target the Old
21 Town. The range is 6 kilometres and the distance is between 5 and 6
22 kilometers and that's the edge of the firing range so to speak.
23 My question to you is --
24 JUDGE PARKER: No. If you'd pause there.
25 MR. WEINER: Sorry.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Now Mr. Petrovic.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I did not check
3 yesterday's transcript, so I do not know what was interpreted into English
4 yesterday, but I do know what I said, and I know what my colleague is
5 reading out now is all correct. Yesterday, not at a single point in time
6 did I mention or did I ask whether there were any 82-millimetre mortars at
7 Uskoplje or did I ever claim that 82-millimetre mortars are at Uskoplje.
8 On the contrary. Precisely what my learned friend Mr. Weiner has been
9 saying. It was precisely that. In November and December at Uskoplje
10 there were 120-millimetre mortars.
11 So I would like the witness to say whether I ever mentioned
12 yesterday 82-millimetre mortars at Uskoplje or whether I made any kind of
13 proposition of that kind to the witness.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've been thinking now. As far as I
15 can remember, yesterday we only discussed 120-millimetre mortars in the
16 area of Uskoplje and at the command post of the battalion, not other units
17 in the area of Uskoplje.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Now, do you want to go on with your question based
21 on the transcript, Mr. Weiner.
22 MR. WEINER: Yes.
23 Q. Based on the transcripts I've just read to you, do you agree with
24 Admiral Jokic's testimony that Uskoplje, with 120-millimetre mortars, is
25 within the firing range of the Old Town?
1 A. Yes. The range of this mortar with a light shell is about 6.400.
2 Q. So is it within the range of the Old Town, those 120-millimetre
4 JUDGE PARKER: I think you mean to ask is the Old Town within the
5 range of the mortar at Uskoplje, but --
6 MR. WEINER: Sorry.
7 Q. We'll use the Judge's question. Is --
8 A. From the firing position of the mortar in Uskoplje, it is possible
9 to fire at the Old Town, to target the Old Town.
10 Q. Now, today as well as yesterday -- no. Today you were asked about
11 some of your conclusions to questions 20 and 21 in your first report and
12 as to what could be struck by the 82- and 120-millimetre mortars. And my
13 question is: Did you take into account in that question the additional
14 positions on Srdj and Bosanka mentioned in the supplements and the
16 A. In principle, I did, but I did not take the front end into
17 account. I looked at the mortars as if being withdrawn a bit in terms of
18 the infantry.
19 Q. And by including those mortars in Srdj and Bosanka, are those
20 mortars, the 82-millimetre mortars, within the range of the Old Town? I'm
21 sorry, is the Old Town within the range of those mortars?
22 A. If they are directly at Srdj or if they are on the edge of
23 Bosanka, they do fall within the range of the Old Town. They would be
24 able to reach the Old Town anyway.
25 Q. Now, could you exclude the possibility that there were other
1 weapons not depicted by the symbols on the map?
2 A. As for this particular subject matter, whether there were any
3 other weapons, where they could have been or things like that, I have not
4 dealt with it.
5 Q. But can you exclude the possibility that there were no other
6 weapons -- that there were other weapons?
7 A. Well, it's possible. It's not that I can claim that it's not
8 possible, but on the basis of the maps I saw, obviously that was not the
9 case, although we mentioned yesterday mortar units, for instance, of the
10 5th Battalion.
11 Q. Now, you testified today that targets are selected in such a way
12 so as to be away -- to be as far away as possible from cultural monuments
13 and humanitarian facilities. What factors must be considered prior to
14 deciding to fire at a target in a civilian populated area?
15 A. A target is where it is. We cannot change that. What we can
16 change is the point from which we will start firing. In principle, in
17 front of the target, if we look from the weapon. We choose a point which
18 is far away, far enough, and then at the beginning of the firing, we are
19 not going to hit a building that is a cultural building or a housing
20 building or anything like that. So when shooting at targets that are
21 close to such buildings, the beginning of the targeting, the beginning of
22 the corrections due to the mistakes, the errors that I referred to
23 originally, we choose another point from which we start the correction and
24 then, simply, we get closer and closer, and I go all the way to the centre
25 of the target.
1 Q. And is this precaution used to limit collateral damage?
2 A. Yes. I explained a few minutes ago that the preparation of
3 initial elements includes a relatively large number of errors.
4 Accidental, systematic errors due to a lack of consideration for
5 meteorological and ballistic information. We don't know whether that
6 error is going to cause an overreach or a shortfall in terms of the
7 target, but the probability of this is that even if the target is not hit
8 but if there is an overreach, the shell will not fall on the protected
10 Q. Well, if you observe a weapon firing from a building in a
11 populated area where neutralisation would cause heavy or extensive
12 collateral damage to civilian objects, what is the appropriate response,
14 A. I think I've already answered that question once. First an
15 attempt is made to make sure that there is no firing from that building
16 through some kind of command and control, mutual communication. It should
17 be said that there is firing from a protected building, and if this is not
18 dealt with, then that building will have to be shot at. I think I wrote
19 it in the report. If there is shooting coming from a building, regardless
20 of whether it is protected or not, it should be expected that the enemy is
21 going to target that building in return. Of course, trying to damage it,
22 that is to say the building, as little as possible. So if possible, the
23 kind of weapon that should be used is a high precision one with a very
24 small dispersion, and I would say, if possible, use a weapon for direct
1 Q. Now, there was some discussion today about rear slope, and you
2 indicated that there was a mild slope. Could you please explain what you
3 meant by a "mild slope."
4 A. The slope between the Old Town or the ramparts of the Old Town and
5 the Adriatic road is a variegated one. That means that it's a bit hilly.
6 It goes up and down and then up and down. That is to say if we were to
7 draw a tangent from the buildings in the Old Town to the Adriatic road,
8 yes, there is a small, mild slope there, yes.
9 Q. And what --
10 A. Sorry. This does not significantly affect the dispersion pattern.
11 Again, I say that the firing is vertical and the descent angles are very
12 big. That is to say that the effect of the slope on the terrain is not
13 that great. It is always a factor of influence, but not to a very
14 considerable degree.
15 Q. Now, the fact that it's a mild slope in relation to being viewed
16 from Uskoplje, does that also mean that it's a mild slope in relation --
17 or a mild rear slope in relation to Zarkovica?
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my colleague is
19 imprecisely quoting what has been said. It was never said in this
20 courtroom that this target or objective can be seen from Uskoplje. The
21 witness said that several times, that that target cannot be seen from
23 MR. WEINER: I'm talking about direction, Your Honour.
24 Q. If it is a mild slope from the direction of Uskoplje, does that
25 also mean it's a mild slope from the direction of Zarkovica?
1 A. The terrain in the area of the target looked from the point of
2 view of the weapon is the same regardless of whether we observe it from
3 Zarkovica or Srdj or some other location. For the weapon, it's the same
4 thing, if we are talking about the weapon emplacement. At Uskoplje that
5 is the same.
6 Q. From Zarkovica, is it a rear slope?
7 A. If we observe from Zarkovica. Now let us say that the weapons are
8 at Zarkovica and that the observation post is at Zarkovica. Perhaps we
9 could say that it is a mild lateral slope from Uskoplje, a mild rear
11 Q. All right.
12 MR. WEINER: Sir -- if the Court would give him a minute or so,
13 could he please briefly explain that other issue he had and I'll limit my
14 redirect examination to that?
15 JUDGE PARKER: You did have a tight time, and there have been
16 interruptions, so if you need a little longer, Mr. Weiner.
17 You're asked, Mr. Poje, about the second matter you wanted to
18 discuss or explain. Do you remember that matter?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That is the dispersion of hits
20 when the target is below the horizon of the weapon. If you give me a
21 minute or two or three, if you permit me, I'll try to deal with it in the
22 briefest possible terms because I've prepared it, and I'm going to use the
23 same graphic tables that we saw yesterday. So I'm not going to take up
24 too much time.
25 What you have before you are the same graphic tables for the sixth
1 charge. Yesterday we talked about 6 kilometre ranges topographically. The
2 topographical distance of the target is actually the horizontal distance
3 from the firing position to the projection of the target C prim, as I have
4 marked it, in terms of the horizon of the weapon. That is the topographic
5 distance of the target.
6 Yesterday we established that if we were to fire a shell that
7 corresponds to this distance, that this is where the impact would be, at
8 P1. That's where it would fall. That is to say there would be an
9 overreach of the target. The point of targeting is not to miss a target
10 but to hit it. That means that I have to find an elevation that will hit
11 point C, not point B1 -- P1, rather. So I have to correct things; correct
12 the distance. And now how much? Yesterday I said it was 230 metres. So
13 by 230 metres. And how can this be seen in terms of the elevation?
14 The cotangent and then the 230 value will give us this correction,
15 when I now find the trajectory that will hit point C. So I tried to
16 improvise it. Here it is. That's the trajectory. We see that actually
17 the distance of targeting at the horizon has been decreased, and we see
18 that the dispersion pattern is decreased with the decrease of this
19 distance. Not too much, either in a positive or in a negative sense. I
20 have already said that at every 100 or 150 metres of the distance, the Vd
21 and Vp are changed 1 or 2 metres which ultimately, if we take into account
22 these 200 metres, as I already mentioned today, would not contribute to a
23 significant increase or decrease of the dispersion ellipsis.
24 Bearing that in mind that all the targets, if the firing came from
25 that ridge, if I can put it that way, Zarkovica, Srdj, if all the targets
1 around town were lower, underneath, they were below the horizon of
2 targeting. And then taking into account this mild rear slope, we can say
3 that these two elements quite simply preclude the possibility of a
4 significant change. On the one hand, the dispersion was increased a bit.
5 On the other hand, it was increased a little bit, so practically, the
6 dispersion pattern that I gave in the report is what it boils down to.
7 Thank you.
8 MR. WEINER:
9 Q. Thank you. Let me just ask two quick question areas and we'll be
10 finished within a couple minutes, sir.
11 Sir, there was a lot of talk yesterday concerning mortars being
12 artillery versus infantry-type weapons. In approximately 1985 they were
13 switched to being infantry weapons. Even though that change did occur in
14 1985, which combat arm or branch of the military trained mortar operators?
15 A. From my experience, from 1985 when the mortars became infantry
16 weapons, up to 1991 when I did my last firing exercise with the cadets
17 from mortars at the school centre, the school centre was served by regular
18 army units, mortar units, because our centre did not have its own units.
19 However, the commanding over these mortar units that served the school
20 centre was done by officers and junior officers that had been students at
21 the centre and to whom I -- whose teacher I had been.
22 Q. And are those people who were part of the artillery unit? Or were
23 trained by the artillery units, or the artillery branch, probably? Better
25 A. The majority of those officers that I met at these firing
1 exercises who worked for the centre had finished secondary artillery
2 school in Zadar, and the military academy with a major in artillery in
3 Zadar too. I even suppose that some of the units --
4 Q. Sir, that's not the question. That's not the question. Which
5 academy in Zadar? Was it the artillery academy or one of the other
6 academies that they were trained?
7 A. Those officers and junior officers attended the artillery school
8 centre according to plans and programmes for such training for artillery
10 Q. All right. And then the last quick area. Yesterday you were
11 asked about the placement of a gun 15 metres from a wall, that if you had
12 a barrel of an elevation of 45 degrees, you can move a gun 15 metres away
13 from the wall and fire if it was a 15-metre high wall. So the distance
14 and the height would be the same. And then counsel asked you if the
15 elevation was over 45 degrees, could you move closer to the wall?
16 Although it's possible to move closer than 15 metres to the wall, is it
17 safe and practical to do so?
18 A. Although I don't quite understand your question, could you please
19 repeat it for me.
20 Q. If you have a 15-metre high wall and you have a mortar at 45
21 degrees facing the wall, the earliest that you can move the mortar back --
22 farthest back you can move the mortar would be 15 metres -- or the closest
23 to the wall the mortar could be would be 15 metres so that it could still
24 fire over the wall. And then counsel said could you raise the barrel and
25 move the mortar closer? And you said yes. Is that safe and practical to
1 do, moving closer to the wall with the mortar?
2 A. The firing position of a mortar is not being selected to target
3 only one target. It's being, rather, selected for multiple targets in an
4 area. Today we looked at the map which showed 15, 16, or 17 targets,
5 planned targets, and then the firing position selected is such that
6 enables to engage all these targets from one firing position. For that
7 reason, the minimal elevation is calculated and the minimal distance also
8 to the obstacle that is facing the mortar.
9 Q. All right. Last question: If you were less than 15 metres from
10 the wall and due to a sighting error in the elevation you fire into the
11 wall, what happens to that mortar crew?
12 A. I think that the conclusion is quite clear; that they would hit
14 Q. And how would you determine the minimum distance?
15 A. In the firing tables and instructions for setting up firing
16 positions describe the procedure for determining the lowest possible
17 elevation and for the elevation of a cover. In this case, a building can
18 serve for that purpose. And the firing even can be affected by an
19 obstacle which is even lower than the one which is close to the weapon and
20 is farther away. So you have to calculate this distance and I cannot tell
21 you now offhand what the formula to be applied is. The deputy commander
22 of a mortar battery or platoon is the one to determine that, by using an
23 instrument which is called sitometer with which he can calculate the
24 minimum distance from the edge of the cover or from an obstacle which is
25 in front of a weapon.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 JUDGE PARKER: May I thank you for your assistance to the
3 Tribunal, and I'm pleased to tell you that the evidence you are to give is
4 now at an end and you are free to return to your home. So thank you
6 We will now adjourn for the day.
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.57 p.m.,
8 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 13th day of May,
9 2004, at 9.00 a.m.