1 Friday, 27 June 2014
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.31 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
8 This is case IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 While we are waiting for the witness to be brought into the
11 courtroom, I would like to remind the parties that the Chamber asked
12 them, on the 24th of June, to provide the scale of the maps which were
13 admitted as D526 and P6599. And we refer you to transcript pages 22904,
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 JUDGE ORIE: And, therefore, if the parties have been able to
17 verify it, and if there's any agreement on it, the Chamber would like to
18 hear from them.
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
20 Let me just inform you that and Mr. Shin and I met yesterday and
21 we agreed that we would do it within the next week. After that, we will
22 submit our joint answer to you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And apart from scales, then it's mainly also
24 the grid to be found on those maps, because if you enlarge a map, you
25 need something on that map that enlarges with the map or is reduced in
1 size with the map because, otherwise, you'll not be able to draw any
3 Good morning, Mr. Radojcic.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I would like to remind you again that you are still
6 bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your
7 testimony, that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
8 the truth.
9 And Mr. Groome will now continue his cross-examination.
10 Mr. Groome.
11 WITNESS: VLADIMIR RADOJCIC [Resumed]
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Groome: [Continued]
14 Q. Good morning, Colonel.
15 A. Good morning.
16 Q. Now yesterday -- I want to begin with going back to something
17 that was raised yesterday.
18 Yesterday, at your request, I promised you an opportunity to
19 review your Karadzic statement to find when you used the term
20 "encirclement" or "semi-encirclement," and just to remind ourselves what
21 you said in this regard, you said at transcript page 23108:
22 "As for that problem that we had with the terms of encirclement
23 and semi-encirclement, if you can find my statement given to
24 President Karadzic, I think it is the term 'semi-encirclement' that is
25 used there. I would kindly ask you to do that in order to resolve this
1 dilemma. I was in -- at the Military Academy I was a professor of
2 tactics and I really doubt that I could have used the word 'encirclement'
3 instead of 'semi-encirclement.' So I can only attribute this to an
4 unintentional mistake."
5 Now, yesterday I provided with you a copy of your Karadzic
6 statement and can I ask you first: Did you have an opportunity to review
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And were you able to find any instance in which you used the term
11 A. No.
12 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that the statement be brought to our
13 screens. It's 1D02128.
14 Q. Now when can you see it on your screen, I want to first draw your
15 attention to paragraph 4. Now, in paragraph 4, you make a reference to
16 ABiH troops being deployed in an outer ring; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now, if we look at paragraph 6, in the first sentence we can see
19 that you describe the SRK being "inside an outer encirclement." If we
20 look at the second sentence, you refer to "the outer encirclement ring."
21 MR. IVETIC: If I could be of assistance, the B/C/S appears to
22 have those paragraphs in different order. 5 and 6 are interposed.
23 MR. GROOME:
24 Q. Okay. So with Mr. Ivetic's comment in mind, it appears that it's
25 a different paragraph, so paragraph 5 for you and paragraph 6 for us.
1 The third sentence of that paragraph reads:
2 "My brigade was encircled throughout the war."
3 And finally, in the fourth sentence we see you say:
4 "The BHA corps that held the SRK in [sic] encirclement had more
5 manpower than necessary."
6 Am I correct in thinking that in light of your testimony
7 yesterday, each of these references to encirclement is incorrect?
8 A. Yes. And could this be corrected and made to read
9 "semi-encirclement." I don't know how this mistake came about. If you
10 look at a map, you will see that we were not encircled. My brigade
11 wasn't, nor was my corps.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radojcic, nothing can be changed in a statement
13 you gave to other persons. It is on the record here now, and your
14 testimony what your testimony in this case is.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. GROOME:
17 Q. Now, yesterday in reference to this issue, you said:
18 "I was in -- at the Military Academy I was a professor of tactics
19 and I really doubt that I could have used the word 'encirclement' instead
20 of 'semi-encirclement.'"
21 And frankly, Colonel, I wondered the same thing. How could an
22 instructor of tactics at the Military Academy misuse the term
23 "encirclement" repeatedly, when it is obvious, as you have just said,
24 looking at a map that was not possible and to misuse that term
25 "encirclement" before two Trial Chambers of this Tribunal.
1 Are you able to explain to us how that happened?
2 A. I have no explanation. Not a logical one. During the first time
3 I testified nobody noticed that. I didn't either. I can see it now. I
4 don't have a logical explanation. In my view, it could be a typo, and it
5 is my mistake that I didn't notice that earlier.
6 Q. Did anyone suggest to you that you used the term "encirclement"
7 to describe the -- the location of troops in the Sarajevo area?
8 A. I claim categorically that that was not the case.
9 Q. Now, I'm happy enough to leave it there, but I will give you an
10 opportunity if there's anything else you want to say about this issue
11 before I move on. Is there anything else that you wish to, in fairness,
12 say about this issue?
13 A. It is very embarrassing for me to find myself in a situation like
14 this. I -- that in my statement it reads "encirclement," whereas one can
15 see clearly that that was not the case. This must be a mistake obviously
16 because all the other documents, all the maps show that we were not
17 encircled. So for me to claim that we were would not make much sense.
18 Q. Okay. So I want now to return where we left off yesterday.
19 MR. GROOME: And could I ask that P6616 be brought to our
20 screens, and this is the collection of several photographs. And could I
21 ask that we go to the last page.
22 Q. Now, you -- I'll wait till it comes up on the screen.
23 You agreed with me yesterday that a turret could not be seen on
24 the modified air bomb launcher which is the larger of the pictures that
25 we now see. Do you agree with me that if, in fact, this launcher does
1 not have a turret to move the rails laterally on a horizontal axis to
2 change the bearing or the azimuth, that to change the bearing of the
3 tubes or the rails that could only be done by adjusting or turning the
4 wheels of the truck and moving the truck slightly backwards or slightly
6 A. I can only speak from my experience, i.e., from the experience of
7 the technical solution of my launcher. Even without a turret we could
8 move the aerial bomb and change the azimuth of its trajectory.
9 Q. Okay. It seems that you are saying that your -- the error -- the
10 launcher that was made by your brigade, it did not have a turret; is that
11 correct? Do I understand you correctly?
12 A. Not the kind of turret that we saw on Plamen, but we had a
13 different technical solution. There was a rail and the aerial bomb could
14 be moved laterally on a horizontal axis, even without a turret. Our
15 engineers saw to that.
16 Q. And could I ask then maybe to -- to help us understand this with
17 an example. Let's say when the truck is parked, the rails are facing so
18 that the launcher is facing due north. Now, if you want to fire those
19 modified air bombs due east, how would the launcher be adjusted to do
21 A. The launcher was not supposed to move that much, from due north
22 to due east, for example. The vehicle had to be aimed towards the target
23 and then the crew would make a fine-tuning or, rather, fine adjustments
24 with a lever in order to aim the bomb straight at the target.
25 Q. And so as I understand you, the truck is pointed in the general
1 direction and then there is some type of lever which can be used to make
2 finer adjustments to the exact direction of the rails.
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Now, is there anything on the vehicle which allows the lever to
5 be adjusted in a way that you know the precise bearing that the rocket is
6 being fired, or is it done simply with a compass?
7 A. I can't answer your question precisely because really ...
8 Q. Okay. And just to be clear, the movement that you're talking
9 about now with the lever would be a side-to-side movement; correct?
10 A. Yes. And vice versa; i.e., from right to left or from left to
11 right, depending on how you actually move the lever.
12 Q. Now, when I asked you the vehicle -- was there any specific
13 vehicle that you were to use, you said, no, but that it should have some
14 type of hydraulics to change the incline of the back of the vehicle. Do
15 you remember giving that evidence?
16 A. Yes, this is what I said.
17 Q. Now, the most common vehicle that I'm aware of that has that type
18 of hydraulic piston would be a dump truck, you know, something used to
19 transport gravel and then used to dump that gravel out by extending the
20 piston. Is that the type of vehicle that was used for the brigade's
22 A. I think so.
23 Q. Okay. Now, I want to stay with aiming these modified air bombs.
24 The launcher did not have tubes; correct? It was simply fired from
25 rails; correct?
1 A. Yes, that's correct.
2 Q. Now, let's put the modified air bomb to the side for a moment.
3 The rocket itself, it could not be fired accurately outside of the tube
4 that was supplied by the manufacturer; correct?
5 MR. IVETIC: Objection. Calls for expert testimony and
6 speculation. I'm getting the wrong translation. I don't know why.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
8 MR. GROOME: Mr. Ivetic led substantial evidence from this
9 witness on the operation of an air bomb. I'm simply exploring it. I
10 think he is certainly entitled to talk about his knowledge of the weapon
11 and how he used it.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Objection is denied.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. GROOME:
15 Q. Sir, in your view, could a Plamen rocket be fired accurately
16 without using the tube?
17 A. I'm afraid I can't answer your question. Not in a very precise
19 JUDGE ORIE: And in a non-very precise way, what could you tell
20 us about it?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that I couldn't give a
22 precise answer because my knowledge does not allow me to present relevant
23 evidence on this issue.
24 JUDGE ORIE: If you say: My knowledge doesn't allow me to say
25 anything about it, that is what I understand. But to present anything
1 which is relevant, you can leave it to the Chamber whether your answers
2 are considered to be relevant, yes or no.
3 Can you say anything about it or can't you say anything about it?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I came here to testify, I
5 wanted to testify about the things that I know well and on which I can
6 tell you something without any problem and discuss them fully.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you are here to answer to the best of your
8 abilities, give answers to questions that are put to you, and whether
9 it's good enough or not good enough, tell us what your answer could be.
10 If you say, I can't say anything about it; fine. Then we'll just move
11 on. If, however, you have anything to say in response to the question
12 that was put to you, please do so. And we'll then consider whether the
13 quality or the relevance is such that we would give weight to it.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted to be fair and I wanted to
15 assist everybody in clarifying the mystery of this aerial bomb. However,
16 now we're talking about construction, about expert issues, so you have
17 put me in a situation where I am invited to give an answer for which I'm
18 not sure that it would be 100 per cent correct. Bear in mind that I was
19 a brigade commander. I was never an engineer or a constructor in charge
20 of crafting aerial bombs.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Just tell us whatever you want to tell us and if you
22 say: I'm not completely sure but this is what I think it is on the basis
23 of my experience, on the basis of my knowledge, please tell us. Don't
24 enter into a debate with the Chamber. Just focus on what Mr. Groome asks
1 Can you say anything about it, or can't you? And if you can say
2 something about it, please do so.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can only say that an aerial bomb
4 launcher is similar to a Kacusa [phoen] launcher. It didn't have a
5 barrel, it only had rails on which the aerial bomb moved. Kacusa was
6 reputed as a precise asset.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Just to be fair to you, this Chamber heard evidence
8 that it was very imprecise. Any explanation as to why others considered
9 it very imprecise?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I heard from my colleagues about
11 this bomb. Some of them were not competent. Still, they talked about
12 the bomb. They did not have it in their catalogue of armaments. Still,
13 they talked about it. And I heard them talk about the hole that it made
14 as being 3- to 400 metres deep, which is absurd. I heard a lot of things
15 that were not correct. I wanted to be a bit more precise because I had
16 an aerial bomb and I gave you as much detail as I could, in order to help
17 the Trial Chamber to resolve the mystery of the tactical use of that
18 asset. I didn't want to dwell on the details of construction and some
19 other expert details. I really wanted to help with you the use of that
20 bomb. I wanted to tell you whether we used it, and if we did, why we
21 used it.
22 JUDGE ORIE: So your explanation is that others didn't have the
23 knowledge and didn't have the experience to -- were therefore not
24 qualified to say anything about the precision. That's, in short, what
25 I -- is your answer.
1 Mr. Groome, you may proceed.
2 MR. GROOME:
3 Q. Colonel Radojcic, if I can return to my question and, if you
4 recall, my question really wasn't about the modified air bomb, it was
5 about the Plamen rocket system. So let me ask my question in a different
7 During your tenure as commander of the Ilidza Brigade, did you
8 ever issue an order for someone to fire a Plamen rocket without using the
9 tubed rocket-launcher equipment?
10 A. Not a single brigade of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps had the
11 Plamen multi-rocket-launcher.
12 Q. Did you have any rocket-launcher system?
13 A. My brigade didn't, and I say that categorically. The
14 Plamen rocket system, according to the establishment of the JNA, could
15 only be found in operative units in the corps and in the land forces.
16 Not as part of the equipment of tactical units.
17 Q. Let me put the question this way. Based upon your experience as
18 a brigade commander and your experience as an instructor, did you ever
19 hear of any rocket system being used, Plamen, the Orkan, the Grom, being
20 used without the tubes. Just taking a rocket somehow and igniting the
21 engine and letting it go. Did you ever hear of that as an appropriate
22 use of a rocket system?
23 A. No, I never heard that.
24 Q. Now yesterday you likened the purpose of the rocket tube to a
25 mortar. Did you ever give an order for a mortar to be fired without
1 using the tube?
2 A. This would be technically impossible.
3 Q. And am I right in thinking that it is technically impossible
4 because it's simply incapable of being aimed if the charge is ignited
5 without the fuse -- without the tube?
6 A. To put it simply, it is an entirely different technical solution.
7 The principal of mortar is that you drop the shell into the barrel or
8 into inertia. It falls, it activates the charge, and it is projected
9 towards -- through the tube towards the target. The rocket-launcher tube
10 follows a different principle. The tube functions as a guiding system
11 that propels the rocket towards the target.
12 Q. Okay. Now, the -- the rocket-launcher, am I correct in thinking
13 that the weight of the modified air bomb kept it on the launcher until
14 such time as the rockets ignited and overcame gravity and off it went?
15 Am I correct in -- in that?
16 A. No comment.
17 Q. You don't know?
18 A. I don't.
19 Q. okay. Now if we can shift -- as you remember now from yesterday,
20 I want to go -- focus on particular aspects of this. I want to now talk
21 about the temporary firing tables that you have spoken about. And it's
22 your evidence that they were temporary or provisional firing tables for
23 the modified air bombs? Is that your evidence?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now just to make sure I understand the concept of firing tables,
1 am I correct that the firing tables for a Plamen rocket system would be
2 different from an Orkan rocket system?
3 A. I believe that the tables are different for the two.
4 Q. So every weapon system, every weapon that uses a ballistic
5 trajectory will have its own unique firing table; correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So if an expert technician were to create firing tables for a
8 modified air bomb, he or she would have to make separate firing tables
9 for the 100-kilogram bomb and separate -- and different tables for the
10 250-kilogram bomb; correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And then separate tables would then have to be made for each
13 configuration in use. For example, we would need three sets of firing
14 tables for a 100-kilogram bomb that used the Plamen rocket, an Orkan
15 rocket, or a Grom rocket. Each of those would require a separate firing
17 A. Since these are different rockets with different ranges and
18 charges, it would only be logical that each would have its own firing
20 Q. And would it also be logical - and perhaps this is an obvious
21 question - that if one configuration of a 250-kilogram bomb used three
22 rockets, three Plamen rockets, and another used four Plamen rockets, each
23 of those two bombs would have to have its own unique firing table?
24 A. I said yesterday that we had the kind of launcher who could
25 launch rockets with three engines. In the previous proceedings, I was
1 mistaken when I said four engines. So I can only discuss my experience
2 with the launchers launching rockets which had three engines.
3 Q. And my question is: If there was another system in use with a
4 different number of rockets, that system would have to have its own
5 unique set of tables; correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, to create a firing table, expert technicians fired dozens of
8 a particular munition until they can establish with a high degree of
9 reliability its ballistics trajectory; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, is it your evidence that given the severe shortages of
12 munitions that the VRS experienced during this latter period of the war,
13 that significant amounts of munitions needed to create firing tables were
14 expended in order to create them?
15 A. It is a question to be put to an expert.
16 Q. Okay. Well, last -- the last witness before you, Mr. Veljovic,
17 just this week, at transcript page T-22949, asserted unequivocally that
18 this were in fact no firing tables, temporary or otherwise, for the
19 modified air bomb. Obviously you both cannot be correct on this issue.
20 Is it possible that no temporary firing tables were ever sent to
21 the brigade?
22 A. I don't know what Mr. Veljovic stated. But it is absurd to say
23 that firing is carried out without any initial elements whatsoever. I
24 claim responsibly that we did have temporary firing tables. They were
25 temporary because the asset was not an establishment asset. The rest are
1 my assumptions. I assume that no one would provide such firing tables
2 unless test firings were carried out. What Mr. Veljovic said could
3 probably be explained by his lack of knowledge of launchers and bombs.
4 As far as I know, he didn't have one.
5 Q. Let me ask you -- I want to read you something -- a question that
6 you were asked by Mr. Edgerton in the Karadzic case about the test firing
7 of these air bombs.
8 MR. GROOME: And this is at transcript page 31250 and that can be
9 brought up in 65 ter 30850 at e-court page 43.
10 Q. So the question you were asked was:
11 "Q. How many times was it fired?
12 "A. If you mean in the area of responsibility of my brigade --
13 "Q. No. In testing. How many times was it fired?
14 "A. Unfortunately I can't tell you that. However, if we
15 received the so-called temporary firing tables, that means that those who
16 delivered the firing tables to us had some relevant information based on
17 which he was of the opinion that launching the bombs from launchers was
19 So my question is: Do you stand behind this evidence?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In your answer in the Karadzic case, you used the phrase "if we
22 received" when referring to firing tables. While I accept that you
23 believe that you must have received firing tables, am I correct that you
24 do not have a specific recollection of having actually seen with your own
25 eyes a firing table for a modified air bomb?
1 A. I saw the firing table pinned on the launcher, and I asked the
2 chief of artillery about it. He told me that these were firing --
3 temporary firing tables that they used to direct the bomb and insert
4 initial elements for firing. That is what I referred to.
5 When I said "if we received it," it doesn't mean perhaps we had
6 received it. I wanted to say "when we received it."
7 Q. Can you tell me who the -- the name of the chief of artillery who
8 showed you these temporary firing tables and explained them to you?
9 A. I think his name was Predrag Bosiljcic.
10 Q. Could I ask you to please spell that last name.
11 A. B-o-s-i-l-j-c-i-c. There's no E between the last two Cs.
12 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, you didn't have temporary firing tables
13 for mortars, did you?
14 A. For mortars, we had standing firing tables in the form of a
15 manual, and the firing tables or an excerpt was always attached to the
16 tube of each mortar. It was a small piece of metal attached to the tube.
17 It enabled the operator to enter the necessary elements in order to
18 direct the tube adequately. It was simply done for practical reasons.
19 Q. Now you've mentioned a manual. Am I correct that each specific
20 type of mortar had a manual that provided information to soldiers about
21 how to maintain the weapon, how to load the weapon, how to aim the
22 weapon, how to fire the weapon? Is that correct?
23 A. Yes. Each mortar had its rules. No instruction but rules, the
24 rules of 120-millimetre mortars, 82-millimetre mortars, or 60-millimetre
25 mortars, which contained all information about that particular type of
1 mortar. At the end of such manuals were the firing tables, and as I said
2 already, excerpts from those firing tables were also attached to the
3 tubes themselves.
4 Q. Did these rules include information about which type of targets a
5 particular mortar was effective against?
6 A. Yes. The rules also contained information on what type of shell
7 is used by the mortar and one could target different kinds of targets
8 with different shells. I can explain it in detail because when I was a
9 very young lieutenant I commanded one such unit.
10 Q. I think for now this is probably a sufficient amount of detail.
11 Did these rule-books also identify targets that a particular
12 weapon should not be used against; in other words, say, do not use in
13 this particular instance. Did it provide information of that nature?
14 A. No, there was no such information. What it read, approximately,
15 was there are three types of shells for a mortars. Direct impact shell,
16 which is used for open areas. It meant they exploded immediately upon
17 touching the ground, dispersing and destroying an enemy force by
18 shrapnel. Next, there were smoke shells, which could screen a certain
19 area in order to camouflage our movement. For example, when approaching
20 the enemy during an attack, then we used the so-called smoke shells. And
21 there was a third kind. They were called marking shells because in the
22 downward part of the trajectory, it actually had a small parachute come
23 out and it would light up and show the area where the enemy was so that
24 we could target more precisely.
25 Q. Am I correct in thinking that you had a standard rule-book
1 including firing tables for each piece of equipment that you had in the
2 brigade? So for your Howitzers, for your other artillery pieces, for
3 each of them had you a rule-book with a specific unique firing table?
4 A. You are correct. We had all those rules at our disposal, and
5 anyone interested in the brigade could rely on them.
6 Q. Now you said there were temporary firing tables for the modified
7 air bomb. Am I correct that there was no such manual for their use or
8 operation? That had not been written?
9 A. No, it had not been written. Because it was not a standard
10 establishment asset. You yourself said it was modified. It was modified
11 in the process, and in order to be used, it required temporary firing
12 tables. We discussed what temporary meant. What I wanted to say was
13 that such temporary firing tables were to be used until such time when
14 there are permanent rules in place, but the parameters included therein
15 are nonetheless relevant.
16 Q. Okay. Now --
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could I --
18 MR. GROOME: Yes.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: At this point in time talking about the firing
20 tables for modified air bombs. You said previously, and I quote:
21 "I saw the firing table pinned on the launcher."
22 Can you explain how it looked like?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not in detail. I don't think it
24 was metal, though. I think it was glued on a piece of cardboard and
25 attached to the launcher. I don't remember exactly, but I was really not
1 interested in it at that point in time so much.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You have been interested at that time because you
3 said: "I asked the chief of artillery about it."
4 Therefore, I'm asking you: What was the size of this firing
5 table? You assume it was on a metal ground.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it was an A4-sized format.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I have some further questions for you. Was is it
9 handwritten, typewritten, or printed?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Printed.
11 JUDGE ORIE: How many lines, approximately, on this A4? Was it
12 ten lines, 20 lines?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think I can provide an
14 accurate answer. But the necessary elements were there --
15 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- in order to operate the range
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Now tell me what the necessary elements were.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In order to operate any asset such
20 as mortar or, in this case, air bomb launcher precisely, one needs to
21 determine the exact distance to target. Unless you have that kind of
22 range finder, no precision can be guaranteed.
23 The next element requires the application of an artillery
25 JUDGE ORIE: What did you see on that piece of paper or metal,
1 whatever it was? What did you see? Just tell me what you saw there and
2 you are familiar --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I discussed it with the chief of
4 artillery. We were some 20 metres away from the asset. I didn't
5 approach it and check. We were talking about it, and I was observing
6 their activity. I didn't go into any further details. I apologise, but
7 I really can't be precise.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Would you agree with me that in order to have an
9 accurate firing table, even if only temporary, that you need at least a
10 full list of angles of firing and the corresponding distances?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly. One must know or have a
12 table and depending on the distance from the minimum to maximum distance.
13 Between these two extremes, there is information in, say, 2:15-metre
14 scale. The parameters changed every 10 to 15 metres, I guess, although
15 I'm not certain. So the principle was minimum distance, maximum
16 distance, and between them graded information. It included different
18 If one is targeting directly and the distance had been measured
19 accurately, then the asset was very precise. If an asset is used
20 indirectly, when you can't see your target, the angle and the azimuth, as
21 we say, is increasingly important. We use artillery protractors to
22 determine that and we need to rely on a compass, making it that much less
23 precise. In any case, what we used was a laser range finder and we were
24 precise in achieving the goal.
25 JUDGE ORIE: The times you fired was direct fire?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: What was the -- more or less the range covered by
3 the modified aerial bombs? What was the minimum, what was the maximum
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't answer precisely. I know
6 that there was a minimum and a maximum. I can suppose that the minimum
7 range was between 5- and 600 metres and the maximum one was between 3 and
8 4 kilometres, perhaps. And I speak from experience. Although I can't be
9 any more precise than this.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm just trying to understand what you mean by
11 that. So the whole range was, in your estimate, and let's take the
12 highest, 600 metres as minimum range, and the shortest, 3 kilometres,
13 maximum range, that is 2400 metres difference.
14 Now you say a firing table would be for every 10 or 20 metres.
15 Let's take the most, the largest one, that is, 20 metres. That is, you
16 need at least well over 100 lines of tables, and that all on one A4? Is
17 that what you're telling us? Let's be --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Wishing to explain to you as best I
19 can how such assets are used, I relied on these figures. But as I said,
20 we don't know what was the minimum and the maximum range determined. I
21 was just trying to explain to you how it was graded in between. I said,
22 conditionally speaking, that the minimum value was 600 metres and the
23 maximum value may have been 3 kilometres. But I repeat: I'm not certain
24 of it.
25 JUDGE ORIE: But then, of course, I must say that I have seen in
1 my life, in my present job, I've seen firing tables which are very
2 complex and long documents. No way to get it on one A4. Therefore, I'm
3 wondering, with your experience, whether you have ever seen a firing
4 table for a -- such a weapons system just on one A4. That's what I'm
5 putting to you and I'm starting with what you said from your experience
6 you would expect, that is, 600 metres to 3 to 4 kilometres. I took the
7 better side, 3 kilometres. I didn't take the 500 metres but the
8 600 metres. And I put it to you that you would then need -- that would
9 result in a firing table which would take far more than one A4.
10 I'm asking you whether -- you say it was just a guess, my
11 600 metres to 3 to 4 kilometres or ...
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you take, for example, the rules
13 of use of 82-millimetre mortars, you will see there that the firing
14 tables contain several pages. But an excerpt of those firing tables is
15 always attached to the tube. And it is not an A4 even. It is an A5,
16 half the size. So the list is certainly incomplete. It is but an
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would you agree that if you work exclusively
19 on the basis of an excerpt, where there is no complete firing table
20 available, that it impacts hugely on the precision of that weapons
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With a well-trained crew, the
23 answer is no. Because, for example, they have the piece of information
24 2500 metres and 2600 metres, they use the protractors, and they can
25 operate it to come up with a median value which would be the closest
1 approximation to the exact distance.
2 JUDGE ORIE: You said if you have a well-trained crew. You also
3 told us that you were aware of modified air bombs being fired three
4 times. Where did the crew get its training in firing modified air bombs?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They probably took an active part,
6 that is to say, their commander took an active part with working with the
7 engineers who devised the contraption based on sketches, designs,
8 et cetera.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's the production of the system. But you
10 would say working in a work-shop in constructing these is -- equals to
11 the training in the field of the use of those systems when firing?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that's not what I wanted to
13 say. I wanted to say that since it was done in the area of the brigade,
14 the commander must have taken an active part in the making of it. So
15 from the start, he was familiar with the details.
16 As for the crew required for launching, it would have been an
17 experienced crew with previous experience with Howitzers and other
18 artillery assets. It wasn't a problem for them to engage successfully,
19 provided they had tables.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What happened with -- you were talking about
21 three aerial bombs, modified aerial bombs, being fired. Did you have any
22 others; and what happened with those?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To the best of my recollection,
24 since it was in the department of my logistics assistant, I think we had
25 about ten such air bombs. We used three, and the rest were not. After
1 the Dayton Accords were signed, together with the rest of the arsenal,
2 they were transferred to Mount Romanija, in Sokolac, to the location
3 designated by the corps command as the place where the arsenal would be
5 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Fluegge has one or more questions for you.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I have one follow-up question.
7 You -- just a moment. You said in response to Judge Orie -- one
8 moment. In relation to the A4 temporary firing table.
9 "I discussed it with the chief of the artillery. We were some
10 20 metres away from the asset. I didn't approach it and check. We were
11 talking about it ..."
12 Earlier you said:
13 "I saw the firing table pinned on the launcher."
14 From a distance of 20 metres, what could you see what was -- what
15 kind of metal was pinned on the launcher?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, before the crew prepared
17 the air bomb for launching, I walked around the asset. I saw it for the
18 first time and I was curious. Among other things, I noticed the firing
19 table. Later on, I moved away, and while the crew was working, I
20 discussed it with the chief of artillery. So it wasn't that I simply
21 observed from 20 metres away. I had approached it before it was used. I
22 wanted to see what it looked like because it was a novel thing, and then
23 I moved away.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Why did you say: I didn't approach it, if you
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was around 20 metres away when
2 the bomb was launched, that's what I said. And before that, I had walked
3 around the asset. It's logical when you received something new, you go
4 and see it, and then you move away and let the crew do their work.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm really not asking about logic. I'm asking
6 what happened on the ground. On one hand, you said you saw it; on the
7 other hand, you say: I didn't approach it. Now you say you approached
8 it and but later on you discussed it 20 metres away. Did you approach it
9 or not?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said, I went close to it and
11 then moved away. Everything I said is true.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
13 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, if I may point out, temporary
14 transcript page 18, lines 21 through 25, the witness never said it was
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If I look at page 18, line 23, Mr. Ivetic, it
17 seems that you are right. I heard it in a different way.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 MR. GROOME:
20 Q. Colonel, in that last exchange, I think --
21 MR. GROOME: Well, I see that we're at the time for a break,
22 Your Honour. I'll make the correction -- well, Your Honour, it might be
23 wise for me just to make -- I think there's been a mistake on the
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If so --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I would like to go to the point that is raised by
2 Mr. --
3 JUDGE ORIE: For the witness?
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, for the witness.
5 Now, at page 16, lines 15 to 20 -- to 19, this is the answer you
6 gave, sir:
7 "For mortars we had standard firing tables in the form of a
8 manual and the firing tables or an excerpt was always attached to the
9 tube on each mortar. It was a small piece of metal attached to the
11 JUDGE ORIE: I do see that the witness, I think -- let me try to
12 summarise it.
13 You referred to the excerpts of the firing tables on mortars
14 being a piece of metal which was attached to the mortar. Whereas you
15 said -- I think you -- you do not know exactly how it was attached to the
16 launching system when it concerned modified aerial bombs. You guessed
17 that it may have been something glued, cardboard glued on, et cetera.
18 That's -- that's how I think your evidence in total now looks like.
19 Mr. Groome, is there any matter you would like to raise in the
20 presence of the witness or can the witness be released --
21 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour, I think the witness has been
22 mis-recorded and I think it might sense to do to it before the break
23 while it's fresh in his memory, if that's --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please.
25 MR. GROOME:
1 Q. Colonel, I think there's been some misunderstanding on the record
2 so I'll read Judge Orie's question to you and your answer, and then ask
3 you to confirm or correct. So at transcript page 23, Judge Orie asked:
4 "Yes, that's the production of the system. But would -- but you
5 would say working in a work-shop in constructing these is equal to the
6 training in the field of the use of those systems when firing?
7 Your answer, the record records you as saying:
8 "No, that's not what I want to say. I wanted to say that since
9 it was done in the area of the brigade, the commander must have taken an
10 active part in the making of it. So from the start, he was familiar with
11 the details."
12 A. I said that, but I didn't say "commander." I didn't mean myself.
13 I meant the chief of the artillery and the commander of the artillery
14 from the ground. That's what I meant.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. GROOME: That's clarified now. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then could the witness be escorted out of the
19 We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes, Witness.
20 [The witness stands down]
21 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break, and we resume at five minutes to
23 --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.
25 [The witness takes the stand]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radojcic, we'll continue.
2 Mr. Groome.
3 MR. GROOME: Thank you.
4 Q. Now, Colonel, yesterday you were -- you made a kind offer to
5 provide or make -- make it possible for me to see this book that this
6 French officer gave you, this memento. I'm wondering, given the novelty
7 of the rocket launcher, is there any possibility that among your
8 belongings you may have a photograph of the brigade's launcher or perhaps
9 even a video of the brigade's launcher in operation?
10 A. Unfortunately, no. Now that we're on the subject of the book,
11 though, now that we're on the subject of the book, I wanted to say
12 something, if you allow me. Maybe it's faster if I bring it while I'm
13 still here, so then we do this through Mr. Ivetic, that I instruct him so
14 that you would get it as soon as possible. I would really like you to
15 see it while I'm still here.
16 Q. Since you are a sworn witness now, you're not allowed to have
17 contact with anyone in the Defence, anyone in the Prosecution. So we may
18 just have to wait until you're discharged and I'm happy enough to wait
19 until that time to see it, okay? But thank you for the offer.
20 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time, Mr. Groome, if it could be
21 realised through simple, practical instructions through the Victims and
22 Witness Section, then, of course -- but you cannot have any contact
23 either with the Defence team or the Prosecution. But, for example, if
24 some of your relatives would know where it is, in what desk, in what
25 room, then, of course, you could ask through VWS to ask them whether they
1 could send the book with title so-and-so, located there and there, to VWS
2 or to you here in The Hague. That is still a possibility. The Chamber
3 has no opinion about how important it is or how -- whether it is
4 important at all that we see it.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. GROOME:
7 Q. Now, sir, before I continue on, I just believe there may be
8 something else in the record that you may wish to correct and you
9 commendably have admitted where you have perhaps said something that is
10 less than fully accurate.
11 At today's transcript at page 11, you are recorded as saying:
12 "Not a single brigade of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps had the
13 Plamen multi-rocket-launcher."
14 Now the Chamber has heard evidence from members of other brigades
15 or one other brigade about Plamen rocket. The Chamber --
16 MR. GROOME: And I refer the Chamber to transcript page 21204.
17 Q. And the Chamber also has an exhibit, P4404, which records the
18 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps as having used 390 Plamen rockets in the year
19 1995. So I want to give you this opportunity, are you -- are you
20 confident in your assertion that the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps did not have
21 a single Plamen rocket-launcher? Or did you mean just your brigade
23 A. When I stated that my brigade did not have this, I know that with
24 100 per cent certainty the adjacent brigades, they didn't either,
25 according to establishment. Quite simply, a Plamen is not supposed to be
1 in brigades, according to establishment. It should be in operative
2 units. As far as I know, even the corps did not have it. Maybe they got
3 it from the Main Staff for temporary use for a certain period of time.
4 But according to establishment, we did not have it. So that is an
5 accurate answer. That is a precise answer, and I stand by it.
6 Q. Okay. Fair enough. Now I want to -- I believe there's a
7 contradiction between some evidence you gave in the Karadzic case and
8 some evidence that you gave here this week. I'm going to read you both
9 portions and then ask you to explain the apparent contradiction.
10 Now during your Karadzic testimony, and let me just get the --
11 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Ms. Stewart.
12 Q. During your Karadzic testimony at transcript page 31250, and this
13 is 65 ter 30850, e-court page 43 --
14 JUDGE ORIE: If could you pronounce the numbers at such speed
15 that --
16 MR. GROOME: I apologise --
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- that our transcriber is able to put them on the
19 MR. GROOME: So it's transcript page --
20 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not saying that she did not perform
21 surprisingly well, but just for future --
22 MR. GROOME: Future reference.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- reference.
24 MR. GROOME:
25 Q. So you were asked the following question and gave the following
2 "Q. So you have no information as to any testing that was done
3 to the same exigencies as would have been the case in the normal arms
4 industry of the former Yugoslavia? You don't know? Or to the same
5 exigencies, pardon me.
6 "A. Unfortunately, I cannot answer your question because I don't
8 Now this week at transcript 23040, you said in response to a
9 question Mr. Ivetic asked you:
10 "Q. Did you ascertain if the launchers for the modified aerial
11 bombs had been tested?
12 "A. Of course. Not a single piece of armament or weaponry that
13 is introduced into a military is introduced without previously being
14 tested by the manufacturer. In this specific case, as far as I know,
15 that testing was done at Kalinovik, which is an old artillery shooting
16 range intended for such testings. And the firing tables we received were
17 based and crafted based upon those testings."
18 Do you see that there is a contradiction between those answers,
19 and can you explain -- do you have an explanation for it?
20 A. Certainly, I can explain. I think, as a matter of fact, that in
21 giving an answer to the lady who put questions to me in the Karadzic
22 case, there is a reference to Kalinovik precisely in terms of this
23 explanation as to whether it had been tested or not, that's for sure.
24 Please try to find it. I think there's a reference to Kalinovik
25 because I gave a similar explanation there. It is illogical, it defies
1 common sense to have something used without having been tested
2 beforehand. I agree with you that the entire procedure was not followed
3 here, as was the case in the former JNA, but it was certainly done
4 because this air bomb was used across the heads of one's own troops, if
5 you will. So any mistake would have affected our own people as well.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
7 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honours. I direct everyone's attention to
8 line 1 on the document on the screen, which is Mr. Groome's 65 ter
9 number, where indeed this Kalinovik testimony is located in Karadzic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: But then we would need the previous page as well,
11 because what now exactly was done in Kalinovik.
12 MR. GROOME:
13 Q. So Mr. Ivetic and yourself are correct. You did mention
14 Kalinovik in Karadzic. So do you know this from your personal knowledge
15 that there was testing, or are you drawing a conclusion because based
16 upon your experience as a military officer, all equipment is tested
17 before it is put into theatre.
18 A. The second thing you said is correct. That is to say, I did not
19 talk to these people directly, whether this had been done, where, how,
20 et cetera. I'm just saying on the basis of my knowledge as an officer, I
21 know that nothing can be used without going through a testing stage. In
22 this case, I mentioned Kalinovik.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Can we move to the next page in the transcript. Let
24 me see. Yes, I've read it.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. GROOME:
2 Q. Okay. The launcher that was manufactured in your brigade, was
3 that ever sent to Kalinovik for testing?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Did anyone ever come from Kalinovik to look at the launcher and
6 verify that it had been built properly, according to the plans you say
7 you were provided?
8 A. Kalinovik is just a testing ground. It doesn't really have
9 people who deal with this subject matter. The institute that constructed
10 this, they did the experiments and then they made firing tables on that
11 basis. And, also, they established the rules and instructions for
12 building this asset. Probably my engineers from my brigade who worked on
13 this asset, they probably contacted people from Pretis. So everything I
14 know is based on that.
15 Q. Now, what institute are you referring to?
16 A. When I used the word "institute," I meant a proper institution
17 that deals with this. In this case, it was the Pretis ammunition
18 factory. They were the ones who constructed this.
19 Q. Did anyone from Pretis come to the Ilidza Brigade after the
20 launcher was manufactured to examine it and to verify that it had been
21 built properly?
22 A. I don't have any precise knowledge, but I know that they were in
23 contact and that they co-operated in the building of this asset.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
25 Could you tell us something about what series of products, in
1 terms of bombs and in terms of launchers, if you would know, in what
2 series were they produced? I mean, you told us you had all together ten.
3 You fired three. Have you any knowledge about the total production being
4 100, 50, 2.000, whatever would it have been? If you know.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are questions for the
6 Main Staff. What the reserves were and --
7 JUDGE ORIE: If you know, tell us. If you don't know --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.
9 JUDGE ORIE: -- tell us that you don't know. And that would be
10 true both for the launchers and for the bombs?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for bombs and launchers in the
12 Army of Republika Srpska, their exact levels, I really don't have that
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
15 MR. GROOME:
16 Q. Sir, I now want to focus on the accuracy of the modified air
17 bombs. And you state in your statement at paragraph 55, the average
18 range of deviation for these weapons was up to 10 metres per 1.000 metres
19 of distance.
20 Am I correct in thinking that your evidence regarding the
21 accuracy of these modified air bombs is limited to the three that you
22 personally were involved in launching and that's from where you -- you've
23 derived this deviation figure; correct?
24 A. Precisely.
25 Q. And am I correct in thinking that these rule-books or manuals
1 that come with other weapons, that in those manuals there would be
2 information about the deviation of the -- of the particular weapon?
3 A. I cannot give a precise answer. I do not remember.
4 Q. About suffice to say, the figure of 10 metres per 1 kilometre
5 is -- is not information you received from Pretis or from any -- any
6 other outside source. It's your personal assessment having seen three of
7 these things go off.
8 A. Precisely. The experience of my brigade.
9 Q. Now, we -- we briefly talked about Mr. Veljovic, that's
10 Major Stevan Veljovic, and it appeared that you were unsure what position
11 he may have had. Were you aware that he was an operations officer in the
12 operations and training department of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?
13 A. Yes, I knew that.
14 Q. So in terms of the structure of the army, he was at the corps
15 level, one level above your level, brigade level?
16 A. Yes. He was in the corps command, in the operations and teaching
17 department. As far as I know, he wasn't the chief of that department.
18 He was just a desk officer there.
19 Q. Now, this week at transcript page 22949, Major Veljovic gave
20 evidence regarding the accuracy of these modified air bombs and he
21 testified that they could be off target by as much 2 kilometres.
22 My first question to you is: You do recognise that this is a
23 very significant difference from your evidence of 10 metres; do you
24 accept that?
25 A. Yes, the difference is striking. And I wouldn't want to comment
1 upon it because I don't know on the basis of what he said that. Maybe it
2 happened in the case of some launches and there were such deviations. I
3 don't know. I always say that in my brigade and during those launchings,
4 that didn't happen.
5 Q. He further gave evidence that this range of deviation of
6 2 kilometres was known throughout the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps. Is it
7 your evidence, as a member of that corps, that you were not aware of this
8 large range of deviation?
9 A. No, I did not know that. To be quite frank, I wasn't interested
10 in that. I dealt with the problems of my brigade. And if that is his
11 statement, I mean, well, you know, that we all knew, I don't know how he
12 could have thought that, that we all knew that. Maybe he meant the corps
14 Q. He also testified that because of this range of deviation,
15 modified air bombs were not supposed to be used in urban areas.
16 Were you aware that such devices were considered inappropriate
17 for use in built-up areas?
18 A. The air bomb itself is something that is used in all armies of
19 the world in built-up areas as well for engaging military targets.
20 Please don't hold it against me if I give this example. During the NATO
21 bombing of Serbia, these contact-fuse shells were used even in the very
22 centre of the city of Belgrade, Novi Sad, so indeed built-up areas, and I
23 don't see why this wouldn't be used in other built-up areas.
24 Q. I'm not going to debate the particular NATO example with you.
25 Let me ask my next question --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, I would like to ask one question.
2 Were the Belgrade projectiles, the shells, were they guided
3 projectiles; or were they just ordinary air bombs as were modified in the
4 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, of course, those were the
6 most up-to-date bombs with television guidance, state-of-the-art
7 equipment, different kinds of guidance, and its tens of centimetres that
8 are the standard there.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I -- thank you.
10 Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
11 MR. GROOME:
12 Q. Sir, isn't it a fact that on one occasion - maybe this is a
13 fourth bomb that was launched - that an air bomb fell on your positions
14 but luckily did not explode; didn't that happen?
15 A. Maybe you confused it with the first one that we launched that I
16 talked about. The first one that did not explode, and I attended its
17 launching. If that is what you have in mind, then the answer is yes.
18 Q. So the first one that you mentioned, it actually landed on
19 positions held by your men. Is that how I should understand your
21 A. No, it didn't fall on our positions. It fell between our
22 positions and the cooling plant; that is to say, outside our positions.
23 And just in case, for the sake of safety, I moved our people left and
24 right. Because this was the first launching, I wanted to be 100 per cent
25 sure that it would be efficient and safe.
1 Q. Let me read to you evidence that Major Veljovic gave two days ago
2 from this very place where are you now and that's at transcript
3 page T-22956.
4 "Q. Okay. I'm going to return to the question I asked you at
5 the outset of today. Yesterday at transcript page 22956, you stated that
6 Mr. Radojcic knows of one instance when a modified air bomb fell on his
7 own positions but went unexploded. How do you know that
8 Vladimir Radojcic knows of this one instance?"
9 Major Veljovic's answer:
10 "Well, I know because I was operations officer in the corps and
11 he told me about it.
12 "Q. When did he tell you about it?
13 "A. 1995."
14 Does this refresh your recollection of having told Major Veljovic
15 in 1995 that a modified air bomb fell on your positions but did not
17 A. It is certain that I did not say that to him. Perhaps he
18 confused things. This bomb that I launched, if I talked about its
19 launching and that it fell close to our positions, maybe it remained in
20 his memory as a bomb that fell on our positions. So it is more likely
21 that this is a misunderstanding or his poor memory.
22 This had not happened. Had this happened, I would have mentioned
23 this in the daily report, and you have all the daily reports and it's
24 easy for you to check that.
25 Q. So it seems that you disagree with his recounting of the
1 conversation. Do I take from your last answer that you confirm that
2 yourself and Major Veljovic did speak about an unexploded modified air
4 A. I don't remember that. That was 20 years ago, 19 years ago. I
5 certainly don't remember that.
6 Q. Colonel Radojcic, in April 1995, can you tell us approximately
7 how many modified air bombs did you have available for use in the
9 A. I cannot remember exactly how many I had in April, but I know
10 that I had a total of ten. I know that I got ten air bombs and that out
11 of these ten, I used three. That's what I know for sure.
12 Now, how they arrived, I mean, they certainly didn't all come at
13 the same time. They did not arrive in the brigade at the same time. It
14 is only my chief of logistics that give could give a precise answer to
15 that because he is the one who dealt with this directly. I only received
16 indirect information about this. When I would receive a report, I would
17 see what the ammunitions levels were and then I would notice that they
18 were coming in. But as for the actual dynamics at a given point in time,
19 I really cannot say.
20 Q. Are you able to say, was there ever an occasion when you
21 contemplated using an air bomb around this period but you were told by
22 your logistics officer: Sorry, we don't have any in stock?
23 A. No, no, never.
24 Q. I now want to address the -- the air bomb that fell on Hrasnica
25 on the 7th of April, 1995 --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Before we move to that, Mr. Groome --
2 The air bomb that didn't explode, it was intended not to explode?
3 Or was it by mistake that it doesn't explode?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Our intention was not for it not to
5 explode. It was an error on my part and the crew.
6 JUDGE ORIE: You've answered my question.
7 From where was it fired, the exact position? Where was the
8 launcher located when you fired that bomb that didn't explode?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was on the road between Ilidza
10 and Sarajevo. For your information, it had been closed for traffic and
11 it had not been used from the beginning of the war. So as soon as you
12 leave Ilidza, the street forks towards Kasindolska Street and it is from
13 that area that we launched this air bomb.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And where did it land?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was supposed to hit a facility
16 that is called Hladnjaca, a cooling plant. On some military maps it is
17 marked. It is made of concrete, reinforced concrete, and before the war
18 it was used for cooling meat. It's very big. It's dominant in that
19 neighbourhood. There weren't any civilians around it because this is a
20 place where there were only troops. And they were targeting us from
21 there, and then I thought that we should do that first test by targeting
22 that cooling plant. And if you're interested in details, perhaps I can
23 repeat some of the things I said yesterday.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I'll re-read it. Would be able on a map to
25 locate exactly where you fired from and where the cooling plant was? And
1 could you already now give me some idea as to the size of that cooling
2 plant in -- was it 100 by 100 metres or was it 200 by 100 metres? Could
3 you give us any indication as to the size?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly I can. I think it's
5 about 50 to 70 metres basically. But maybe 50 by 70. And then it's
6 about 50 or 60 metres high.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And it was approximately at what distance from
8 the firing position?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I think about 600 metres;
10 perhaps a bit more, perhaps a bit less. But around 600.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And it missed the target by how many metres?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Never reached the target. That is
13 to say, in order to be certain that it would hit the cooling plant, I
14 asked the crew for them to opt for a lower elevation than the minimum one
15 that is allowed because I was afraid that if it would fly over the
16 cooling plant, that it would hit the inhabited part of Stupska Petlja.
17 So I asked them to reduce the elevation so that they would be sure to hit
18 the target. However, precisely because of this small elevation, the bomb
19 set out and about 300, 400 metres later it fell on the side to the land,
20 and then it did not explode because the fuse was not activated. But it
21 was directly targeted, the cooling plant. That was good. It was sighted
22 properly, but it never reached the cooling plant.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And that was the experienced crew you told us about?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The crew was good. The commander
25 was experienced. It was I who asked for them to reduce the elevation.
1 It was my mistake. I admit it was much -- much of it was my doing, so it
2 was not their fault at all.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And this was one of the three occasions where you're
4 able to form your opinion about the precision of the weapon system?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that was my first experience
6 with an aerial bomb. Unfortunately, it was negative because it did not
7 hit the target. Based on that experience, later we corrected our actions
8 and parameters.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sorry, before you proceed, I really didn't get
11 from your answer where this bomb fell. How far away from the target of
12 the cooling plant?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The bearing was good, but it fell
14 before it reached the cooling plant, perhaps 100 to 150 metres before,
15 but not on the positions where my soldiers had been deployed. It flew
16 over and it fell so far away from the cooling plant that we could not
17 come closer to it to inspect what had happened because we would have
18 already found ourselves near the positions of the Muslim army.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
21 MR. GROOME:
22 Q. What's your best recollection of when this happened?
23 A. It happened before the second and the third launches. That was
24 the first launch. I can't remember the date. But it was certainly our
25 first aerial bomb launch. So if the other one happened in April, this
1 first one must have been a few days before that.
2 Q. So your best recollection is it's a few days before the Hrasnica
3 aerial bomb?
4 A. Yes. If the date that you mentioned was in April and it
5 concerned Hrasnica, then it was a few days before, a couple of days, or
6 five days, I don't know exactly.
7 Q. Let me ask you what is perhaps too obvious a question, but if
8 you -- if you did, in fact, have temporary firing tables that, according
9 to you, allowed you with your laser measuring device to calculate the
10 distance, look on the firing table, know precisely where the bomb is
11 going, if you really did have that, why are you deciding to adjust the
12 elevation down? It doesn't make any sense.
13 A. Well, in hindsight, no. However, at that moment, I wanted to see
14 the effect of that bomb. I had not seen it before. And I wanted to do
15 it at a distance where I could see it myself. That's why I ordered that
16 to be the first target, but obviously the distance was shorter than
17 necessary. The elevation was very low, and as a result of the earth's
18 gravity, the bomb fell short. It was a small elevation. There is a
19 maximum elevation and a minimum elevation, and obviously I actually
20 decided to reduce the evaluation below the allowed minimum, if you know
21 what I'm saying.
22 Q. So your evidence is that the first time you deploy this weapon,
23 you take it upon yourself to ignore the firing tables that have been
24 provided and to essentially guess at an elevation to hit that target.
25 That's what happened?
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Okay. Now let's go to Hrasnica.
3 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that P592 be brought to our screens.
4 Q. Am I right in thinking that between the time you let off this air
5 bomb and then, a few days later, the Hrasnica bomb, you didn't receive
6 any additional information from Pretis or you didn't receive any updated
7 tables, you didn't receive anything additional regarding the use of this
8 weapon, did you?
9 A. No, not from them. But I analysed the situation with my men. We
10 analysed the mistake. We established what its cause was. And we did not
11 really need any other instructions.
12 Q. Okay. Now, I believe this is -- this is an order by
13 General Dragomir Milosevic. I believe you're fully familiar with it and
14 you speak about it in paragraph 107 in your statement. And in it,
15 General Milosevic gives an order that:
16 "The most profitable target must be selected in Hrasnica or
17 Sokolovic colony where the greatest casualties and material damage would
18 be inflicted."
19 Now in paragraph 107 of your statement we see that you say:
20 "The brigade to which this order was sent and I myself as its
21 commander understood this order as an order to open fire at military
23 Have I restated your evidence correctly? No need to repeat all
24 your evidence, but that's a correct assessment or a correct recounting of
25 your evidence; right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now I want to test your evidence on this point but I want to get
3 some details about what happened on the 7th of April.
4 Now, under order, paragraph 1, sentence 1, we read:
5 "The Ilidza Brigade will immediately prepare a launcher with an
6 aerial bomb and transport the bomb for launching."
7 Now, you as the brigade commander, you implemented this order;
9 A. I implemented this order. Just for your information, every
10 aerial bomb launched was within the charge of the corps commander. I did
11 not have the right to make such decisions independently.
12 Q. Okay. Understood. It was a 250-kilogram bomb; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. It had three Plamen rockets attached; correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Each of those rockets had its warhead; correct?
17 A. No. The engines -- there were three engines, but there was just
18 one bomb.
19 Q. You gave evidence yesterday that the warhead could not be removed
20 from the rocket, did you not? Do you recall that?
21 MR. IVETIC: Objection, Your Honour. Misstates the evidence.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, could you take the witness to his
23 evidence yesterday.
24 MR. GROOME: Well, let me move on and I'll have one my colleagues
25 give the precise reference to that, Your Honour.
1 MR. IVETIC: I can give you the reference: Transcript
2 page 23143.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you would pronounce the numbers --
4 MR. IVETIC: Sorry --
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- as slowly as Mr. Groome does --
6 MR. IVETIC: Transcript page 23143. Mr. Groome never asked about
7 the rockets. He talked about the bomb and the rockets and then used the
8 [indiscernible] there.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's have a look.
10 [Prosecution counsel confer]
11 JUDGE ORIE: The question was:
12 "Do you know if when they were attached" -- and we are talking at
13 this moment about rockets being attached to air bombs for propelling
14 purposes. The question that was put to you is:
15 "Do you know if when they were attached that they were attached
16 with their warheads intact?"
17 Your answer was:
18 "Yes. You can't touch it. It's full of TNT. You can't remove
19 it and then return it. It's impossible."
20 That is apparently what you were referring to, Mr. Groome.
21 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you for that assistance.
22 Q. So, sir, you've heard your -- Judge Orie read the -- how the
23 transcript has recorded your evidence yesterday. Have I misunderstood
24 your evidence on this point?
25 A. I believe that we were talking at cross-purposes. Namely, when
1 you asked me whether explosive could be removed, I meant the aerial bomb,
2 because it's TNT. It cannot be removed. However, when it comes to the
3 multiple rocket-launcher, its rocket consists of two parts. It has the
4 casing with the gunpowder which can be removed and the mobile part which
5 is the part of the bomb on the rocket of the multiple rocket-launcher.
6 That part had been removed because it was not needed to launch an aerial
8 Q. Okay. You ordered only one air bomb be fired that day at
9 Hrasnica; correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And now your statement also says that they were legitimate
12 military targets in Hrasnica and the two you mention were the
13 Aleksa Santic school and the Hrasnica post office; correct?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Which -- my light is on but I'm -- now I'm audible.
16 Was one of these your intended target? Was one of these the
17 targets that you ordered your men to aim for?
18 A. Yes. I ordered my men to target either the post office or the
19 school because the two were close to each other. I believed that they
20 targeted the school because that school was the training centre for the
21 special units of the 1st Corps of the BiH army.
22 Q. Now is it your evidence that you believed that one bomb could
23 destroy both of those targets or is it simply you left it to your
24 subordinates to pick which one they wanted to fire at?
25 A. My artillery officers were locals. They'd always lived there and
1 they were familiar with the terrain and the situation. They knew what
2 would be easier to target, and they told me that the school was an easier
3 target because the effect would be better and that's what they did. They
4 targeted the school.
5 Q. I'm sorry, why was the school a better target?
6 A. Because the post office building housed the command of the
7 104th Mechanised Brigade. Since at that moment, on that day, there was a
8 combat ongoing, it meant that most of the command staff were engaged in
9 combat, i.e., that they were not in the building itself. That's why we
10 considered that we would achieve a better effect if we destroyed the
11 centre for the training of special units. That's the explanation.
12 Q. Now --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, could I ask one clarification.
14 You earlier said that you ordered your men to target either the
15 post office or the school because the two were close to each other.
16 What's the relevance of the nearness? I mean, if the school would have
17 been at a distance of 500 metres from -- from -- from the other target,
18 what's -- what's the -- what's the relevance of saying that they were
19 close to each other?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that the two were close and
21 they were of an equal importance for us. So I left it to themselves to
22 choose what they targeted. Whichever of the two targets we had hit, the
23 effect would be big. And I left it to my chief of artillery to choose
24 the target, and he told me that he had chosen the training centre for a
25 better effect, and he told me that it would have fulfilled
1 General Milosevic's order better. And I agreed with him.
2 JUDGE ORIE: It was a long answer, but I have to establish that
3 you have not given the explanation of the relevance I asked for.
4 Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
5 MR. GROOME:
6 Q. Colonel Radojcic, although the bomb came close, it in fact did
7 not strike either the post office or the school; is that correct?
8 A. Correct.
9 MR. GROOME: Can we -- can we -- again I'm having problems with
10 the audio. I can hear myself now.
11 Can we please see Exhibit P591 on our screens, and this is a
12 report for -- the report from the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps to the
13 Main Staff on the 7th of April, 1995, the same day the modified air bomb
15 Q. I believe you've seen this already, but I'll give you a moment to
16 orient yourself with the front page.
17 MR. GROOME: And then I'll ask that we go to page 2.
18 If we could go to page 2, I'll -- I'll read it to you, the part
19 I'm interested in.
20 "In Ilidza pbr, one 120-millimetre mine was fired and one
21 250-kilogram AB was launched at the centre of Hrasnica. According to the
22 interception centre, the Muslims claim that the Luna rocket has landed."
23 This report by General Milosevic to the Main Staff contains
24 information about this air bomb that would have been provided by you to
25 Milosevic; correct?
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. This would have been based on the daily written, or perhaps oral
3 in this case, reports that you would have made to your superior,
4 General Milosevic; correct?
5 A. I believe that we communicated directly, so I could convey the
6 information immediately. That was subsequently followed up by a regular
7 daily report which was sent sometime in the evening.
8 Q. I want to remind you of something you said yesterday and then ask
9 you a question.
10 This is from transcript pages 23120 to 21.
11 "Q. Apart from misrepresenting, did you have to report on
12 unsuccessful tasks; that is, you were asked to do something and your
13 brigade was unable to achieve success in the task? Were you obliged to
14 report that to your superiors as well?"
15 Your answer: "Yes, of course.
16 A few questions later I asked:
17 "Well, let me ask you the question theoretically. Let's say
18 there was a lesser commander than yourself who did fail in a task, would
19 that commander be obliged to report the missed target or the failure to
20 his superiors in his daily report?"
21 Your answer: "Yes."
22 So now my question is the following: Your evidence about
23 targeting the school and the post office, I suggest, is not truthful.
24 Because if those were your intended targets, given the fact that you
25 missed them, you were obliged to report to your superiors that you had,
1 in fact, missed the targets. Is that not correct?
2 A. After the rocket was launched, I received information what we had
3 hit, from my observers, then from the international military observers,
4 and UNPROFOR. I reported back to General Milosevic where the bomb had
5 fallen. He told me: Okay, be on a standby. If there's anything else to
6 do, I am happy with what you did. And that was the end of our
7 conversation, which obviously I can only paraphrase. I can't remember
8 word for word how it transpired, but this is more or less the gist of
9 that conversation.
10 Q. As you've already just indicated a few moments ago, we have a
11 awful lot of daily reports from the brigade. I'm not aware of you ever
12 recording that you missed the intended target. Do you recall putting in
13 a written report that you missed the target?
14 A. I'm sure that it had to have been in the regular combat report.
15 However, since the bomb fell some 20 metres away from the target, we
16 believed that the effect had been achieved. Shortly after that, the
17 Muslim attacks subsided, and there was no need to launch any more bombs.
18 So it was only a relative failure. If a bomb like that misses the target
19 by no more than 20 metres, the effect is still achieved.
20 Q. Let's look at this from a slightly different perspective and to
21 do that I need to remind about your answers to several questions posed to
22 you by Judge Orie. And this was recorded on yesterday's transcript at
23 T-23122 to 23.
24 "Judge Orie: Now, if -- and you hinted at the lack of precision
25 of mortars, for example, then even if the first projectile didn't hit the
1 target, then, as you told us, you would perform the task anyhow, so I
2 take it that you would then do that by the second or third or the fourth
3 shot. Is that correctly understood?"
4 Your answer: "Certainly."
5 "Judge Orie: Would --
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. -- "that also mean that if an artillery projectile falls at a
8 certain location, which is -- well, let's say, near, yes, which is
9 near ... to what you considered to be a military target and if there is
10 no follow-up hitting that military target, that then apparently was --
11 what was hit must have been the target. You understand what I mean?
12 Because if where the projectile landed was not the target, you told us
13 that you never failed to perform your task and then hit the target with
14 one of the next projectiles."
15 Your answer: "Yes."
16 Sir, I put it to that you the reason you only fired one air bomb
17 was that you were not aiming at either the school or the post office, but
18 simply at the centre of Hrasnica, and the bomb exploded in the general
19 area where it was intended. Isn't that the truth?
20 A. Absolutely not true.
21 Q. Sir, according to your own sworn testimony, if you had been
22 aiming at the school or the post office and missed your target, you would
23 have sent additional projectiles until you succeeded in hitting the
24 target; correct?
25 MR. IVETIC: Again, Your Honours, misstates the evidence. As
1 Mr. Groome testified -- and Mr. Groome read back the question, it was in
2 relation to mortars.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome. The question --
4 MR. GROOME: I'll await the Chamber's ruling on the -- I have
5 nothing to say, Your Honour. This is happening now very frequently. I
6 will rely on my question and the Chamber's ability to deliberate on the
8 JUDGE ORIE: You may put the question to the witness. The
9 objection is denied.
10 Please proceed. Or let the witness answer the question.
11 MR. GROOME:
12 Q. And just so it's clear, Judge Orie, the first sentence:
13 "Would that also mean that if an artillery projectile," not
14 limited to mortar, and you said that you would send -- continue to send
15 projectiles until you succeeded in hitting the target.
16 Now, I put my question again. According to your own sworn
17 testimony, if you had been aiming at the school or the post office and
18 missed your target, you would have sent additional projectiles until you
19 succeeded in hitting the target. Is that not correct?
20 A. It is absolutely wrong to compare an artillery projectile and an
21 air bomb -- aerial bomb. When I answered Judge Orie, I had in mind a
22 cannon or a Howitzer and an artillery projectile. An aerial bomb is an
23 entirely different story. As soon as the launch was over, as soon as my
24 subordinate told me where the bomb had fallen, I conveyed the message to
25 my superior, who said: Fine, okay, I'm happy. Abort until my further
1 order. And this is what I did. My superior gave me a direct order, and
2 I continued to wait for his further instructions.
3 Q. So, sir, what we're dealing with here is General Milosevic tells
4 you he is happy. You've -- aren't we talking about mission accomplished
5 here? Your report to General Milosevic records a successful
6 implementation of Milosevic's order. He ordered an air bomb be launched
7 into the centre of Hrasnica. You did that. It landed in the centre of
8 Hrasnica, mission accomplished. He was happy. You didn't need to do
9 anything else. Correct?
10 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, objection. Mr. Groome is again
11 misstating the contents of General Milosevic's order. It is said to set
12 it to a target in the centre of Hrasnica --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic --
14 MR. IVETIC: -- not the centre of Hrasnica. He is doing this
15 time and time again.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, Mr. Ivetic, what are you doing time and
17 time again is to intervene in the questioning, giving clear clues and
18 hints for the witness what your concerns apparently are with the
19 questions, matters which you could have dealt with in re-examination of
20 the witness.
21 MR. IVETIC: I take exception when a counsel misrepresents the
22 contents of a document that objection is appropriate. I'm entitled to
23 make a record of my objections. I'm entitled to have the Chamber rule on
24 those objections.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic --
1 MR. IVETIC: I've made an objection, please rule on it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic. You can make an objection. First of
3 all, I gave you instructions about the objections yesterday. You didn't
4 follow them. True or not?
5 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, when it comes to documents --
6 JUDGE ORIE: My question is whether I gave you instructions on
7 objections yesterday and whether you did not follow them at this very
9 MR. IVETIC: I believe this objection is in concordance with your
10 guidance yesterday --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay --
12 MR. IVETIC: -- because I don't believe this adds anything to the
13 witness. I'm talking about documents that exist, words that exist on
14 paper, prior testimony. Those are not giving aid to a witness.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic -- Mr. Ivetic, you answered my question.
16 You believe it was in accordance with the instruction I gave yesterday.
17 That's on the record.
18 Any objection you make from now on, you'll have to announce that
19 you make an objection. We'll then take the appropriate measures as far
20 as the circumstances are concerned under which we'll hear your
21 objections, and that's how we will proceed.
22 We have heard the answers of the witness. Now --
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: But ...
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, would you please repeat your last
2 question and that would include the -- well, it was a relatively long
3 question. Please proceed.
4 MR. GROOME: I think Colonel Radojcic remembers the question.
5 Q. Sir, wasn't this the case that the task, the order that
6 General Milosevic gave to you was successfully carried out, and he was
7 happy with that? He was happy with the result. Isn't that what has
8 happened here?
9 A. Yes, he was satisfied with the precision. He said: It's fine.
10 Sit and wait for further instruction.
11 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I believe it is time for the break.
12 JUDGE ORIE: It is time for the break.
13 We'll take a break, and we resume in 20 minutes from now.
14 The witness may follow the usher.
15 [The witness stands down]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Before we take that break, could the parties try to
17 agree on what portion of a clear map we would need in order to invite the
18 witness to make -- to mark the position from where the first aerial bomb
19 was fired and where it landed, and where the cooling plant exactly is
20 located. If you could find the most suitable map for that purpose
21 together, and I wouldn't even mind if either of the parties would invite
22 the witness to make the markings as I consider them to be relevant.
23 MR. GROOME: Mr. Weber has some proposals and we'll remain here
24 during the break to discuss that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll take a break, and we'll resume at
1 20 minutes past 12.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 12.03 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 12.22 p.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Any agreement among -- Mr. Mladic, Mr. Mladic, I can
5 hear you. You're supposed not to speak aloud.
6 Have the parties agreed on a --
7 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, we will work with page 32 of P3. I'm
8 happy to do it after I finish this section related Hrasnica, if that's
9 okay with the Chamber.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that there's no objection to that,
11 Mr. Ivetic?
12 MR. IVETIC: No, Your Honours. Mr. Weber and I had looked
13 through the map book, and we believe that that is perhaps the best choice
14 that allows us to manoeuvre the map so as to get to the precise location.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radojcic, Mr. Groome will now continue his
19 Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
20 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that P582 be brought to our screens. It
21 is a handwritten UNPROFOR report regarding the air bomb that landed in
23 Q. Now, Colonel, while that is being called up, Captain Overgard, a
24 witness in this case, was present immediately after the modified air bomb
25 landed in Hrasnica, and I want to show you a report about the
1 investigation that was done by UNPROFOR members after -- in response to
2 this -- this event.
3 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we go to page 4 in both documents.
4 Q. Now, sir, I'm interested in the diagrams that were drawn, and
5 they were not obviously translated so I will ask you to look at the
6 pictures that I describe on the English version. So here we see a
7 drawing of what they believed fell on Hrasnica that day. Now we have
8 your evidence that the -- the modified air bomb only had three rockets
9 attached. But with that in mind, am I correct in thinking that the
10 diagram that they've drawn approximates the way the air bomb would have
11 looked that day?
12 A. I think that this drawing is neither precise nor does it reflect
13 what it actually looked like. It looked differently. I do know that
14 there were three carrying rockets, rather than -- rather than four. The
15 drawing of the vehicle with the launcher does include some of the main
16 elements but no detail whatsoever.
17 Q. If I were or the Chamber were to permit to you have a piece of
18 paper, a blank piece of paper during the next break, would you be
19 prepared to draw a picture of what the air bomb that landed in Hrasnica
20 looked like, a better depiction than what we have here?
21 A. I'm very bad at drawing. I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to do
22 much. I am more than ready to describe it in words rather than make
24 Q. Okay. I won't ask you to do anything that you don't think you
25 can do well --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
2 Witness, you told us that there were three rockets attached to
3 the bomb. Now that's clear. Mr. Groome hinted at that already.
4 So let's just imagine this sketch not to have four but three
5 rockets attached. Then you said:
6 "The drawing of the vehicle with the launcher does include some
7 of the main elements but no detail whatsoever."
8 Okay. Now, could you tell us what is really wrong about it, as
9 far as the main elements are concerned?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that here -- I think it
11 shows the armed 128-millimetre rockets, as can you see in the upper
12 right-hand side portion. We can see some pellets at the top of the
13 casing but in real life it was not so. They had been taken out. And all
14 that was left was the rocket with its powder charge.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. You say the warheads were removed from it, as
16 we discussed earlier. What else is -- apart from there being four
17 instead of three, what else is basically wrong in this sketch?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The engines are too close to the
19 warhead. The length of the rocket was bigger. Actually, the size of the
20 modified air bomb was bigger.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Which means that, relatively, the length of the
22 rockets is a bit too long here in relation to the size of the aerial
23 bomb. Is that well understood?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I wanted to say that the
25 rockets shown here are placed around the body of the bomb, and the
1 impression is that it is all one large chunk, but in real life, they were
2 removed. They were further away, and the air bomb itself and the entire
3 device looked longer.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you say they were further away from the
5 aerial bomb, what was approximately the distance between the rockets and
6 the body of the aerial bomb? Was it 2 centimetres? Was it
7 10 centimetres? Was it 50 centimetres? Could you give us an indication?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. We see the rockets here
9 placed on the bomb itself, around it. In real life, they were drawn
10 back, and the -- they were fixed onto the bomb near the tail fins. This
11 thing wouldn't even fly, as shown here, because the aerodynamics of it
12 are zero.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, apart from your expertise on that matter, you
14 say they were positioned differently. They were shorter, the rockets.
15 Apart from that, they were with the warheads. What else is wrong on this
16 sketch? On the basics, not on details.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, basically the air bomb
18 launcher is shown here with the railings alone, without any additions.
19 But, as I testified before, there were levers which could move the
20 launcher to the left or right in order achieve the right azimuth, as
21 Mr. Prosecutor said. And they could also change elevation, depending on
22 what was needed.
23 As a whole, you can see the basic elements in the drawings,
24 however, without these very important details. And I didn't even begin
25 to explain the electronic system which was attached to it all.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Electronics was attached to what exactly? And
2 electronics for what purpose?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In order to activate the rockets,
4 the charge.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ignition. That's what you're talking about.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. Ignition had to be
7 simultaneous because otherwise there was a problem.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And the trigger was electronically done.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
11 Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
12 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we go to page 2 in the B/C/S and
13 page 3 in the English. And I want to direct the witness's attention to
14 paragraph 4.
15 Q. Let me read you the -- or summarise the portion that I am seeking
16 your comment on.
17 [Prosecution counsel confer]
18 MR. GROOME: Ms. Stewart thinks it might be on page 1, e-court
19 page 1. I apologise. So 1 of the B/C/S and 2 of the English. Okay. So
20 paragraph 4 in the English is up, and -- okay. There we go.
21 Q. Now, in paragraph 4 it states that the time of flight of the bomb
22 was approximately 20 seconds and it left a trail of black smoke.
23 Do you agree -- you observed this. Do you agree with that
24 characterisation of the flight of the bomb?
25 A. I did not observe this launch because I was at the command at the
1 moment. When ignited, there is a trail of smoke, although I wouldn't
2 call it black smoke. The flight time, well, it should be around that.
3 Perhaps a bit faster, not 20 seconds, but ten.
4 Q. The report goes on to characterise the projectile being slow in
5 flight. Would you agree that a modified air bomb travelled slower than
6 mortars, rockets unencumbered by air bombs, and artillery shells?
7 A. Certainly.
8 Q. And does it make or did it make a noise as it travelled through
9 the -- through the sky?
10 A. Yes. It created quite a terrifying sound because during its
11 flight and due to the emission of powder gases, one could hear a very
12 strong hiss. That sound was not at all pleasant to the ear.
13 Q. And are you able to estimate how far away this sound would
15 A. It could be heard at least 500 metres away, maybe more. My
16 command was some 500 metres away from the place of launch, and I did hear
18 Q. The first projectile that you sent up, or first air bomb, that
19 did you see, how far away was the distance between where it was fired and
20 where it landed?
21 A. Perhaps 450 to 500 metres. If you have in mind the one which
22 fell near the refrigeration facility.
23 Q. So it's your evidence that this hissing, terrifying sound could
24 be heard approximately a half kilometre away from the path of the air
25 bomb; is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. GROOME: Now, can we go to page 5 in both versions and I
3 apologise in advance --
4 [Prosecution counsel confer]
5 MR. GROOME: Sorry, it's 4 in B/C/S and 5 in English.
6 Q. Now, the report says based on fragments that were found, the
7 people investigating this said:
8 "We believe that the MBRL mortars had warheads."
9 Now you have given evidence that they did not have warheads, so
10 can I ask you to take a look at the -- their report as well as the
11 fragments they have drawn and perhaps offer an alternative explanation to
12 them regarding whether or not -- what they perceived indicated there were
13 warheads attached?
14 A. Certainly. If it had a warhead where the powder charge was, it
15 would not be preserved like this. It would have been completely
16 destroyed. However, we see it rather intact here, given the fact that
17 there was no warhead.
18 Q. Okay. Thank you for that. I'm going to now move to a somewhat
19 different, although related, topic, so I'm finished with this exhibit.
20 Now, Colonel Radojcic, in paragraphs 107, as we've already seen,
21 and now in paragraph 88 of your statement, you assert that when
22 General Milosevic issued an order to attack the town without specifying
23 particular targets, brigade commanders knew that this meant only military
24 targets. In fact, you say in paragraph 88:
25 "All brigade commanders were trained officers who knew which
1 targets could be fired upon."
2 I want to now test this evidence of yours.
3 MR. GROOME: And could I ask that P923 be brought to our screens.
4 Q. And this is the document that you use in paragraph 88 to make
5 this point. This is an order from General Milosevic in response to
6 information that the ABiH is preparing some action against the VRS.
7 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we go to page 2 in the B/C/S and 1
8 in the English.
9 Q. Now, as part of this particular order, there is a long list of
10 tasks to be undertaken, and we can see one of them is underlined in the
11 original and the English, which says:
12 "Have launching pads and aerial bombs ready for firing on the
13 town ..."
14 Now, my question to you, as you point out in paragraph 88, is
15 that he does not specify a target in this order; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And it's your evidence to this Chamber that this reference to
18 preparing to send modified air bombs into the town should be understood
19 by the Chamber to mean only known military targets; is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, this document is classified as strictly confidential. This
22 is a high level of security; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And the SRK Command had the act to provide brigade commanders
25 with information confidentially; correct? You had secure communications.
1 A. We had secured and non-secured communication. We had telephone
2 lines going across the airport runway and they were not safe. There were
3 such lines also which went through our territory and they were not
4 mounted to repeaters and, thus, they were much more secure.
5 Q. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that General Milosevic
6 had the ability to send you information in a secure way and be quite
7 confident that the enemy would not get that information.
8 A. Yes, he did.
9 Q. Now, the first sentence of this order is quite vague and in
10 contrast to other orders the Chamber has seen. It simply indicates that
11 there is information that the enemy is planning something, some action
12 against the SRK, without any indication of where or what type of action.
13 Does this indicate that the corps command had limited knowledge
14 about the specifics of the operation that was being planned by the enemy?
15 A. This is merely a preparatory order. Detailed orders came as a
16 follow-up. This is just in terms of preparation, so that we should
17 undertake all measures, raise combat readiness, and, later on, a new
18 order would arrive that was more precise. If you have one such order,
19 you will see for yourself that I'm telling you the truth.
20 Q. Let's take a look at another order and this order is just a
21 matter of days after this one.
22 MR. GROOME: And could I ask that 65 ter 18618 be brought to our
23 screens. It is an order from Major-General Dragomir Milosevic dated the
24 30th of April, 1995.
25 Q. I'm going to give you a moment to study the first page to
1 familiarize yourself with the basics of the document. Let me know when
2 you've had a chance to read that.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. Now I'm interested in particular in number 10.
5 MR. GROOME: And if we could please advance the English copy to
6 the second page.
7 Q. Now item number 10 reads:
8 "Locations with buildup of enemy forces (the tunnel, Igman,
9 Pazaric and so on) must be constantly monitored and targets observed
10 attacked with precise fire."
11 My first question is: Here, General Milosevic indicates the type
12 of target to be engaged, locations with buildups of enemy forces;
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And in addition to the type, he indicates three specific
16 locations: The tunnel, Igman, and Pazaric. Were these locations where
17 were there buildup of forces as you recall?
18 A. Yes. And I can explain, if you're interested.
19 Q. I'm more interested in the procedure than the actual events
20 underneath this order so hold the more detailed description for a bit.
21 So, in this order, he not only gives the type of locations, he
22 gives specific examples to make clear his intention. Am I correct in
23 saying that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, let's focus on the phrase "targets observed." This means
1 that before firing on the target, that is, the group of enemy forces, it
2 had to be observed; correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. So according to this order, if you can't see the enemy, you're
5 not to fire?
6 A. Certainly.
7 Q. Now let's focus on the phrase "with precise fire."
8 By using this phrase, "with precise fire," General Milosevic left
9 it to his subordinate brigade and battalion commanders to determine what
10 weapon to use. In other words, he left it to subordinates to decide
11 whether to use a cannon, a Howitzer, a mortar, or perhaps even rifle
12 fire; is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And he doesn't want a weapon used with a large deviation, a
15 weapon which may miss the buildup of troops; correct?
16 A. When one says "precise fire," it is understood that we are
17 expected to target precisely.
18 Q. And would that mean if you are -- if you have a choice of
19 weapons, that you are to choose the one with which the greatest precision
20 can be achieved?
21 A. Yes. The best possible precision and effect.
22 MR. GROOME: Can I ask that we move the English back to the first
24 Q. And I want to draw your attention to item 1. In fact, he also
25 orders that:
1 "Artillery pieces must be prepared for night-time action."
2 So, sir, this included making sure that artillery pieces
3 contemplated by this order would be -- were to be prepared so as to allow
4 them to be accurately aimed even in the dark of night; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. So I want to give you my understanding of the logic of this order
7 and see if you agree. The logic of this order is as follows: There is a
8 buildup of enemy troops and efforts should be made to neutralise them or
9 at least disperse them by targeting them precisely. Correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 MR. GROOME: So could I ask that we now go back to P923, and
12 while that is being brought I want to recap what we know from this order.
13 Q. On the 30th of April, Milosevic gives the type of location to be
14 targeted; two, several examples of the type of target to be engaged;
15 three, leaves it to subordinate commanders to select the weapon; four,
16 requires that the target can be seen; and, five, requires artillery
17 pieces to be prepared so that they can be aimed at night and requires the
18 attack to be done with precision.
19 Do you agree with my characterisation of this -- that last order
20 that we looked at?
21 A. Yes, completely.
22 Q. Now 923 is back up on the screen. This is the order from the
23 19th of April. Now, it's your evidence that the phrase "firing on the
24 town" means military targets known to the brigade commanders; correct?
25 Where he uses that phrase here.
1 A. Exactly.
2 Q. Unlike the 30th of April order, in this 19th of April order,
3 General Milosevic does not leave it to the brigade commander to choose
4 the appropriate weapon for the target. In fact, he gives an explicit
5 order that you prepare an air bomb, which, it is the Prosecution's case,
6 is the most imprecise weapon at your disposal.
7 But do you agree that in this 19th of April order, General
8 Milosevic is dictating in the order itself -- you don't have a choice
9 about the weapon to use. You must use the aerial bomb; correct?
10 A. No, he just said that we should prepare air bombs for activity.
11 That meant to prepare air bombs, to take up positions from where
12 targeting is the most favourable, and this order does not exclude the
13 possibility of using other artillery pieces for targeting different
14 objectives in town in line with that explanation of yours. Selected
15 targets, targets selected in advance, civilian ones -- no, sorry, not
16 civilian ones, military ones.
17 Q. Of the military targets that you were aware of, would you agree
18 with me that a modified air bomb would be inappropriate for use with
19 respect to some of them?
20 A. Yes. Certainly I could not hit all the targets that I had with
21 that air bomb.
22 Q. Now --
23 A. In order to be sure.
24 Q. -- in this 19th of April order, there is not only no mention of a
25 specific target but there is no mention of even a type of target. I'm
1 correct in that, am I not?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. So now let me characterise what I see the logic in this order and
4 let me ask you whether you agree.
5 The logic of this order is as follows: We have non-specific
6 information that the enemy is preparing for an action against the VRS.
7 It's unclear what that is. One of the options to repel this action is to
8 use a modified air bomb somewhere in the city. Is that the logic of this
10 A. My understanding of this order was that it was a preparatory
11 order to raise combat readiness, to inform all officers down to the
12 lowest level about the possible consequences in terms of what would
13 happen if we did not do that. Then to prepare for night action. Then
14 also to get ammunition. Quite simply to prepare for possible combat. So
15 I understood this as a preparatory order. It is rather imprecise, I must
16 admit. And without that additional sentence, military targets. Which
17 certainly does not mean that when receiving this order I would have fired
18 an air bomb or would have used artillery to fire at different targets
19 without any kind of selection. And I'll explain later on - we'll
20 probably get to that - how I would do the targeting.
21 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution tenders 65 ter 18618.
22 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Document 18618 receives number P6617,
25 Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: P6617 is admitted.
2 MR. GROOME: Now I want to return to the air bomb that was
3 launched against Hrasnica. Can I ask that we bring up P1048 and this is
4 a report from the VRS Main Staff to the RS president dated the
5 7th of April, 1995, the same day.
6 Q. Now keeping the differences between the two orders that we've
7 just looked at, the 19th of April and the 30th of April, okay, now, the
8 portion -- I'll give you a moment to look at the -- the heading. There's
9 a lot in this particular report that I'm not interested in at the moment.
10 Once have you oriented yourself to the -- the date and nature of the
11 report generally, let me know and I'll go to the page that I want to draw
12 your attention to specifically.
13 A. You can move on because this is --
14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did not hear the end of
15 the sentence.
16 MR. GROOME: I think --
17 Q. It's okay to move on, I believe, is what you're indicating.
18 MR. GROOME: Can we go to page 3 in the B/C/S and page 5 in the
20 Q. And if I can ask you to draw your attention to where the bombing
21 of Hrasnica is reported to Karadzic.
22 Okay. And for the -- it's (b). It's 3(b). Hopefully that helps
23 you find it. Have you found out?
24 MR. GROOME: And for the Chamber's benefit, it's at the top of
25 the page.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
2 MR. GROOME:
3 Q. So it's reported:
4 "(B), situation in the corps: The enemy activity was adequately
5 responded to whereby an air bomb (250 kilogram) was launched on the
6 centre of Hrasnica."
7 Now, General Milovanovic, who authored this report, is informing
8 President Karadzic that the enemy activity was adequately responded to;
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. The bombing of Hrasnica was a decision that was taken in response
12 to something that the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina had done; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So now let's go back to Milosevic's order to bomb Hrasnica and
15 see what the enemy had done that had to be responded to.
16 MR. GROOME: Can we please have P592 on our screen again.
17 Q. And this time I want to focus on not the actual orders but the
18 situation that Milosevic seeks to respond to.
19 So this order to bomb Hrasnica, Sokolovic, where the greatest
20 casualties and material damage can be inflicted is in response to:
21 "For the past three days, Muslim forces have been attacking the
22 positions of the 2nd Sarajevo Light Infantry Brigade, and the attacks are
23 particularly pronounced in the sector of the Famos factory. Several of
24 our soldiers and a large number of civilians had [sic] been wounded."
25 Colonel Radojcic, I put to you that the logic and the motivation
1 of this order, which I submit you fully appreciated at the time you
2 implemented this order, was that the ABiH had injured a large number of
3 Serb civilians, and the VRS was going to respond by firing a modified air
4 bomb into middle of a built-up area with many civilians with the intent
5 to injure a similarly large number of civilians.
6 Isn't that the truth of what happened on the 7th of April, 1995?
7 A. In order to give a precise answer to this question of yours,
8 allow me to say that, according to international law of war, the
9 commander of a unit in whose zone activity is taking place is duty-bound
10 to evacuate the civilian population in order to avoid civilian
11 casualties. So the commander of 104th Brigade, Mr. Fikret Prevljak, if
12 he intended to attack the 2nd Sarajevo Brigade, he also had to inform the
13 civilian population that they should be evacuated. Or at least that they
14 should seek shelter, in shelters, because of the forthcoming combat. He
15 had not done that. That is the first thing that I wish to say.
16 Secondly, I, as a trained officer, if I would receive an order to
17 target civilians, especially with an air bomb, I would know that that
18 order constitutes a crime and I would not have carried it out.
19 This order, I must admit, is written very unskillfully. I doubt
20 that it was General Milosevic who wrote that. It must have been one of
21 his duty operations officers on his instructions. So when I am told to
22 hit a target, for me there are only military targets. Anything else
23 would constitute a crime, as far as I'm concerned. And trust me when I
24 say that I would not have carried out such an order.
25 Q. But, sir, earlier today you told us that Milosevic was happy with
1 the result of the air bomb. You didn't hit a military target. You hit a
2 civilian target, did you not?
3 A. No, I did not hit a civilian target. I did not hit exactly the
4 facility that I had targeted. Now why was General Milosevic satisfied?
5 Because of the effect that this fired air bomb had caused. It's not the
6 losses that were inflicted. They probably concluded: If you do not
7 stop, we will go on. So they did stop. So claiming that we wanted to
8 target civilians, that can only be viewed in the context of the answer
9 that I provided about the obligations of the commander of the Muslim side
10 and my understanding of the order, no other way.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask for -- you say he was happy about the
12 effect. Now, when did he tell you that he was happy with that result of
13 your action?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After carrying out his order to
15 launch the air bomb and when I received the exact information as to where
16 it had fallen. I used radio communication and ...
17 JUDGE ORIE: Was it one hour after it was fired, two hours after
18 it was fired?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Less. Less. I think about 30 or
20 40 minutes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Now, what did you report to him as being the effect?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I knew at that moment. So I
23 did not know about the effects in terms of possible casualties. I knew
24 where it had fallen and I said that we had carried out his order. The
25 target was not hit, but it fell close to the target. And I asked for
1 further instructions.
2 JUDGE ORIE: You were apparently informed in detail about where
3 the shell had fallen, or where the bomb had fallen?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that moment, not in detail.
5 Because my observers from the observation posts saw where the bomb had
6 fallen, and I knew the location as to where it had fallen, but I did not
7 know of the possible casualties or losses that had been inflicted by the
8 bomb. It was only later that I learned about that from the members of
10 JUDGE ORIE: Did you know what the -- that the school was located
11 in the centre of a village or town, whatever you call it?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not a village. It's an
13 integral part of Sarajevo, it's just on the periphery, and it is
14 inhabited and it consists of -- yes, I knew what I was targeting. And I
15 understood that, at that point in time, at that place there should be no
17 JUDGE ORIE: Because they should have been evacuated, is that
18 what you're telling us?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I expected the commander of
20 the 104th Brigade to observe international law too.
21 JUDGE ORIE: So you considered that there should be no civilians
22 but did you verify whether there were any civilians?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I knew that there were civilians in
24 Hrasnica and in Sokolovic Kolonija, which is an integral part of
25 Hrasnica, a newer part, closer to the river. I knew that, but I also
1 that I was targeting a facility where there were no civilians. So this
2 was the centre for training the special forces of the BH army.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And you missed that target.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I've said "yes" several
5 times. But it wasn't that much of a miss, so it's not that civilians
6 outside that zone were affected.
7 JUDGE ORIE: You told us about the destructive power of an aerial
8 bomb and this was a 250-kilogram one. Have you considered, when
9 reporting about the effect, what the effect would have been on the houses
10 and constructions next to what you told us the target was?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I considered that, and I knew
12 that an air bomb directly destroys a target. But it falls outside of
13 that, most of its force is spent beyond. For example, I received
14 information to the effect that if it falls 50 metres away or 30 metres
15 away from a human being, the worst thing that can happen is that that
16 person's eardrum bursts. So that is what I learned from people who are
17 better versed in this subject matter.
18 So the air bomb caused a crater there. The dimensions I already
19 mentioned to you. It was 5 metres deep and it was about 15 metres wide,
20 which speaks in itself that it was intended to destroy a building, not
21 kill civilians.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I may have a further question for you later, but I
23 have to verify part of your testimony of yesterday.
24 Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
25 MR. GROOME:
1 Q. Colonel Radojcic, maybe it will help if we remind ourselves of
2 what happened when your aerial bomb fell.
3 MR. GROOME: I'm going to ask Ms. Stewart now to play P839. It's
4 a report of the BBC correspondent Martin Bell, dated the 7th of April,
5 1995. I'm playing at 17 seconds of the exhibit.
6 [Video-clip played]
7 "The cease-fire appears to be crumbling rapidly. Today there was
8 offensives on at least two fronts in Bosnia and south of Sarajevo. The
9 suburb of Hrasnica came under Serbian attack for the third successive
10 day. A rocket levelled five houses, killed one person, and injured
11 several more."
12 MR. GROOME:
13 Q. So, sir, from your earlier evidence that you expected the ABiH
14 commander to remove civilians, does that indicate that you knew this
15 contraption was being fired into an area densely populated by civilians?
16 You just expected them to have been moved?
17 A. First of all, I had expected that because, in similar situations,
18 when I received information or if activity of this kind would start, I
19 would order people to move to shelters. So I expected -- since fighting
20 had been going on for three days, I expected the population to have been
21 removed to shelters, and it is only commonsensical. These are distances
22 that are not measured in terms of kilometres but the distance between our
23 lines is in the hundreds of metres. So, of course, I expected that next
24 to the centre for training special forces there wouldn't be any civilians
25 living there and it's only natural that I would have expected that. This
1 just shows a fragment. I see that this was filmed at 2114; that is to
2 say, almost 12 hours after the explosion. Now, whether that is that
3 place, whether those are the actual affects, I don't know.
4 Q. So is it your evidence now that what we've seen here you believe
5 to be false evidence or concocted evidence; is that what you're saying?
6 A. That is too grave a word. I did not say "false" or "concocted."
7 I am just saying that he hasn't convinced me that these are the affects
8 of an air bomb. Don't forget that area of Sokolovic Kolonija, Hrasnica,
9 and Ilidza, during the many years of war -- this is 1995. All of it had
10 been destroyed completely. There were very few buildings that hadn't
11 been damaged. On the basis of what can I know that this is an air bomb?
12 Are there any remnants of those fragments that you showed me? Can we see
13 any of that in this? When you show me that, I can believe this.
14 Q. Perhaps it's time to move from air bombs for a time.
15 I'm going to go through some miscellaneous questions I have about
16 your statement and your associated exhibits --
17 MR. GROOME: I'm sorry, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before we move. I notice that you -- you do
19 say that this video is at 21 hours 14 minutes and you say there were many
20 destructions happening during that year. But this video is dated the
21 7th of April. Were there many such incidents on the 7th of April?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for my command, the command of
23 the Ilidza Brigade, there weren't any other incidents. There was
24 shooting there all the time. We don't count that as incidents. There
25 was always small-arms fire even when there was a cease-fire on, let alone
1 when there wasn't. However, the thrust of this activity was on the
2 opposite side from me. The 4th Brigade was between us. There was this
3 corridor that leads from the airport runway towards Igman, so Hrasnica
4 and Sokolovic Kolonija was between the two brigades of ours. On my side
5 there wasn't any activity, and on the other side there had been intensive
6 activity going on for already three days.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you for that long answer. Can you please
8 answer my question. My question simply is: Were there incidents -- many
9 incidents on the 7th of April of similar magnitude; yes or no?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
12 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that 65 ter 07625 be brought to our
14 Q. Now, sir, paragraph 113 of your statement begins:
15 "I was shown document 65 ter 07625. There was a meeting of the
16 commanders of brigades or regiments and the independent battalions with
17 the commander of the SRK."
18 Now when I call up -- when I call up 65 ter 07625, I see that it
19 is the shorthand notes of the 58th Supreme Defence Council meeting held
20 on the 21st of November, 1996. It is clearly not a meeting of the SRK
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Groome, we have documents on the screen which
23 don't correspond.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Madam Registrar tells me that there's no B/C/S
25 version of this document and --
1 MR. GROOME: So --
2 JUDGE ORIE: -- from what I see in my e-court system, there seems
3 to be only an English translation.
4 MR. GROOME: So, Your Honour --
5 JUDGE ORIE: I see that there are two -- as a matter of fact, it
6 seems that two times the English version is uploaded.
7 MR. GROOME: So this is a document that's being tendered by the
8 Defence as an associated exhibit. I believe there's a mistake. So what
9 I want to ask the witness is the following --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If it is uploaded by the Defence, then I would
11 invite the Defence to also upload the B/C/S version if there's --
12 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour, I think --
13 MR. IVETIC: It's a Prosecution document, Your Honours.
14 MR. GROOME: It is a Prosecution document, but as I said, the
15 paragraph 113 says that it's a document related to a meeting of brigade
16 commanders and we can clearly that this is a meeting of the
17 Supreme Defence Council.
18 Q. Sir, just to be clear, you've never attended a meeting of the
19 Supreme Defence Council, have you? General Perisic ever ask you to come
20 to a meeting up in Belgrade at the Supreme Defence Council?
21 A. No, no. No. I was too small a person for that kind of meeting.
22 Q. So I believe this is an error. So take a look at paragraph 113
23 of your statement and my question to you is: The document that you were
24 referring to, can you tell us what was the approximate date of that
25 document so we can try to figure out what is the document that you
1 describe in paragraph 113 of your statement. Again, what you say is
2 there was a meeting of the commanders of brigades or regiments and
3 independent battalions with the commander of the SRK.
4 A. You really have to familiarize me with this a bit more. I really
5 don't know. There were so many meetings. I really cannot remember.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we have D535 on the screen, especially
7 paragraph 113.
8 MR. GROOME:
9 Q. So perhaps the best question for me to ask you is: Do you recall
10 now what the document is that you were shown and for which paragraph 113
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Can you tell us the approximate date of that document?
14 A. I think it was approximately 1994, but I don't know the exact
16 Q. Can you give us a month?
17 A. No.
18 Q. No. Do you know who the author was of the document?
19 A. I think that this document was probably written by one of the
20 operations officers from the corps command.
21 Q. And can you tell us, in substance, what the document said?
22 A. I can. As I've already said, within my brigade there weren't any
23 professional officers. In addition to myself, there was only one more
24 professional officer. All the rest were reserve officers who had
25 completed reserve training, reserve officers' schools before the war, and
1 that is where they were taught about carrying out high positions in the
2 army. In addition to that, many persons figured prominently in fighting,
3 and they were appointed commanders although they had not had proper
4 training. I mean, I didn't have a single commander who had even
5 completed reserve officer school.
6 Would you please allow me to finish what I started?
7 From that point of view, I asked the corps command that at that
8 time of cease-fire, measures be taken for such officers to enrol in
9 courses so that the duties that they carry out would be carried out in
10 the best possible way. So that order has to do with that.
11 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I may be able to assist. The similar
12 text from the Karadzic witness statement refers to a Karadzic document
13 which I have been able to locate, which is in our case Defence exhibit
14 D00094, which had the Prosecution 65 ter number of 28501.
15 MR. GROOME: I think the most appropriate thing at this stage
16 is -- and I certainly have no objection to Mr. Ivetic re-opening his
17 direct examination once I finish my cross-examination to -- to show that
18 document to the witness to confirm. But certainly, as an associated
19 exhibit, 07625 fails to meet the test.
20 MR. IVETIC: It's already been admitted.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, Mr. Ivetic, may I then take it that you
22 withdraw it as an associated exhibit, it already being in evidence?
23 MR. IVETIC: Correct.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, maybe my memory is failing me, but I
1 thought we agreed that we would postpone the discussion of associated
2 exhibit until after the witness --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but if an associated exhibit by mistake is
4 presented as such, where that same document is already in evidence, then
5 what still is relevant, Mr. Ivetic, is to establish that what is by
6 mistake referred to as associated exhibit number so-and-so, that in
7 reality is a reference to a document which is already in evidence, and I
8 take it that you will take care of that during re-examination.
9 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
11 MR. GROOME: There's one more similar document. Can we please
12 call up 1D02129.
13 Q. Now at paragraph 116 of your statement it begins:
14 "I was shown a document, 65 ter 1D02129. The corps and brigade
15 intelligence organs reported to us that Muslim forces were preparing a
16 major offensive from the inner and outer ring in order to lift the
17 blockade of Sarajevo."
18 Now when I look at this document, it appears to a gazette entry
19 recording President Karadzic's appointment of a War Presidency in Ilidza.
20 It's on the screen before you. This is not the document you're referring
21 to in paragraph 116, is it?
22 A. Paragraph 116 certainly doesn't speak about this.
23 Q. Okay. So rather than me ask you any more questions about it,
24 I'll leave it to Mr. Ivetic in his reopened direct examination to see if
25 he can sort that out.
1 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I see that it's time for the break.
2 JUDGE ORIE: It is time for the break.
3 We'll ask for the witness to be escorted out of the courtroom.
4 [The witness stands down]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, I think that yesterday we established
6 already that there was no real chance to conclude the testimony of this
7 witness today, but could you tell us how much time you would still need.
8 MR. GROOME: I believe I'll still use the full six hours,
9 Your Honour. I'm not sure how much time -- they tell me I've used about
10 five hours so far.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that means that we'll also most likely not even
12 conclude the cross-examination today. Since the Chamber has taken quite
13 some time as well, we're the last ones to blame you for that situation.
14 We take a break, and we resume at 20 minutes to 2.00.
15 --- Recess taken at 1.23 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 1.43 p.m.
17 JUDGE ORIE: While we are waiting for the witness to be brought
18 in, the Chamber would very much like the Defence to clear -- to
19 thoroughly verify whether there are any other clerical errors, or
20 whatever, in associated or non-associated exhibits. And, Mr. Groome, if
21 you find some -- something that really makes no sense at all, because the
22 document doesn't relate to anything the witness said, to already inform
23 the Defence in advance so that they are still in a position to correct
25 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I can provide some additional
1 information as to the document that was dealt with before the break.
2 Although I still have not been able to locate the document, in my binder
3 I have the same document that Mr. Groome pulled up. But that evidence in
4 the Karadzic statement related to Karadzic 65 ter number 1D6414. But
5 again, I don't have that document to know where it is our system. I'll
6 still have to look.
7 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time, if you present this as evidence
8 and then apparently not even knowing what it is about, let alone that the
9 witness would have known about it, that, of course, is a mistake which
10 certainly is not any less than not attaching a translation to a
11 65 ter document.
12 [The witness takes the stand]
13 MR. IVETIC: I agree.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Let that be clear because it goes to content and not
15 to form.
16 Mr. Groome.
17 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just on this point before we leave it.
18 There's a voluminous number of documents with this witness so I haven't
19 been able to check them all, although I have tried to check many. One
20 other error that I see, which I would ask, encourage, Mr. Ivetic to
21 examine over the break, for example, I think there are several documents,
22 and one is in paragraph 103, where it refers -- the witness says
23 something along the lines: "I have the same comment as I did to 1D8390."
24 As far as I have been able to determine, that is not a document that's
25 referred to in this witness statement. It is not a 65 ter number in this
1 case, in the Karadzic case. I'm not sure where it comes from, but it
2 might be useful to reexamine all of those cross-references because
3 obviously when the witness is saying, "My evidence is the same about
4 this," if we can't find the "this," we have no idea what his evidence is
6 JUDGE ORIE: And I would like to add, Mr. Ivetic, that, of
7 course, if the Defence wants the Chamber to carefully consider all the
8 evidence, then this kind of error should be avoided to the extent
9 possible because we usually go through all those documents attached to
10 statements, et cetera. If we can't find them, that might become an
12 Mr. Groome, you may proceed.
13 MR. GROOME:
14 Q. Sir, I want to draw your attention to paragraph 28 of your
16 MR. GROOME: And perhaps we could bring that up. It's D535 and
17 paragraph 28.
18 Q. In it you say that fire could only be opened on identified
19 military targets and firing positions. You say:
20 "We did not even return fire until we received permission from
21 the superior command."
22 My question to you is -- is very limited and very simply: Was
23 this true throughout the conflict?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And your reference to superior command, you're referring to the
1 corps level -- the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps; correct?
2 A. Yes, that's right.
3 Q. When you say you sought permission before you fired, was this
4 true for munitions of all calibres or only for munitions of a particular
5 size and above or ...?
6 A. Sarajevo, as a part of the Bosnia-Herzegovina theatre of war, was
7 specific because often truce was fined [as interpreted] and even more
8 often it was not -- the agreement was not honoured. So there were
9 intermittent periods of truce and combat. Perhaps I can explain, if you
11 Q. Well, my question is very specific now so -- and it relates to
12 paragraph 28, where you say did you not return fire unless you received
13 permission. So my question is limited to: Did that -- does your
14 evidence apply to all calibres of weapons or just to some?
15 A. Only calibres larger than 20 millimetres.
16 Q. So that calibres smaller than that, you did not and your
17 subordinates did not seek permission to fire; is that correct?
18 A. There was standard procedure in place. If the forces of the ABiH
19 army set out on a direct attack, it would have been absurd for me to ask
20 permission to open fire. However, if there was sporadic fire which did
21 not place our entire firing positions in danger, I would be informed what
22 to do, and then the procedure was different.
23 Q. So, in essence, the procedure was where you can safely obtain
24 advance permission, you should do so?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. I now want to deal with another one of your associated exhibits
2 and this is 1D02179. That's 1D2179.
3 Now I want to deal with two documents that you give evidence
4 about in paragraph 136 of your statement which reads:
5 "These are documents of the Ilidza Brigade Military Police which
6 obtained the necessary information in this case about our enemies in
7 Hrasnica from Serbian civilians who had escaped."
8 Before we look at the -- the documents in detail, I have a
9 general question. These two documents you refer to in this paragraph,
10 are they typical of the types of intelligence information which you had
11 access to?
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could we have the statement on the screen, please.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was one of the ways for me to
14 obtain enemy information. It was only one way from those Serbs who had
15 fled from the other side and from some captured Muslims. I received such
16 information from the organ for intelligence and security.
17 MR. GROOME:
18 Q. Okay. And my question at this moment is: Do these two examples
19 that have now been tendered through you as a witness, do they fairly
20 represent the type of intelligence that you received about military
22 A. It was just one or perhaps the first kind of gathering
23 intelligence information and that information was then included into the
24 puzzle I was putting together. The rule of thumb in an army is if you
25 have two or three sources corroborating the same information, then it was
1 safe to conclude that it was so. If there was only one or two, they had
2 to be checked additionally.
3 So we took all such single-source information with a grain of
4 salt and carried out additional checks, as I've already explained.
5 Q. Let's take closer look now at 1D02179. In paragraph 136 of this
6 report -- sorry, you now say in paragraph 136 that this report is from a
7 Serbian civilian who escaped.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can you repeat the document number, please?
9 MR. GROOME: It's 1D02179.
10 Let's take a look at what the document itself says.
11 Q. In the first paragraph summarising the interview of
12 Ilija Mocevic, it says:
13 "His best man, Mensur Tenzo, persuaded him to join the so-called
14 ARBiH where he stayed from 19 July 1992 until 5 December 1992. He left
15 the so-called ABiH because, according to him, there were no Serbs in it
16 or very few."
17 So --
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And the document number is 1D02179.
19 MR. GROOME: I'm perhaps starting to think that maybe it's not,
20 Your Honour. Ms. Stewart does confirm that it is --
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It was not recorded properly.
22 MR. GROOME:
23 Q. So I guess my question is your assertion in your statement that
24 this person has escaped is simply not true. He didn't escape. He joined
25 the ABiH, decided he didn't want to stay, and he left. That's the truth
1 of what happened with this person; right?
2 A. Based on this statement, I can conclude that this man before the
3 war lived in Hrasnica or Sokolovic Kolonija. When the roads were
4 blocked, he remained there with his family. This best man of his, or a
5 friend, probably with good intentions to keep him safe, advised him to
6 join the ABiH. He left it after a while for the reasons he stated
7 therein. It was not a unique case. There were many such cases in the
8 1st Corps of the ABiH. Those people were then later mobilised into
9 so-called work platoons and used to dig trenches and carry out
10 engineering works in risky areas.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you there. I'd like to know about your
12 source of knowledge. Do you know this person, this person which gave
13 this statement, Mr. Mocevic? Do you know him personally and his personal
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
16 JUDGE ORIE: So what you're telling us is your interpretation of
17 this document?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Based on this document you
19 can see, more or less, how things developed.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the Chamber can read the document and see what
21 is stated in there, and if you have no personal knowledge about the
22 circumstances, then is that what you add as information from, until now,
23 rather general and unknown sources.
24 Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
25 MR. GROOME:
1 Q. Let's take a look at the other document that you referred to in
2 this -- in this paragraph. And this is 1D02180.
3 Now, here we have another typical intelligence report. It
4 reports to record [sic] information provided by Ognjen Damjanac. Now, I
5 want to draw your attention to just below the middle of the
6 paragraph containing Damjanac's information and read you a particular
7 line from this quote -- from this:
8 "The interviewee has not provided any information of interest
9 except that he confirmed what we already know."
10 So the person that interviewed Mr. Damjanac had the view that he
11 did not provide information of interest; correct?
12 A. If you keep reading, you will get to an interesting part of what
13 he said.
14 Q. Perhaps you read the part that you found interesting.
15 A. I'll start reading from where you left it off. I lost the image.
16 Perhaps it can be zoomed in.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Don't touch the screen.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well. Except that he
19 confirmed what we already know. Meaning information.
20 "The only thing he mentioned was that recently a work platoon
21 from Hrasnica has been clearing up the area on Mount Igman, repairing
22 communication trenches, and constructing the so-called grill covers.
23 (Made of two layers of wooden logs with a layer of earth in between). So
24 far they have built a cover about 300 metres long. He also confirmed
25 that the command of the 4th Motorised Brigade had moved from Hrasnica to
1 Sokolovic Kolonija and occupied the ground floor business premises
2 opposite the Enker-Sokotrans warehouse."
3 So there were pieces of information that we had not been able to
4 corroborate before.
5 Q. Now, sir, this report is less than a month before the Hrasnica
6 bombing. Were you aware that the command of the 4th Motorised Brigade
7 had moved out of Hrasnica before you launched the air bomb into it?
8 A. Had I known that, my intelligence officer would not have flagged
9 this as new information. He did say he only mentioned something we know
10 but then he added the information about communication trenches and the
11 moving of the command. They probably moved their command post because of
12 the air bomb.
13 Q. Well, sir, this is -- this is before the air bomb. And now just
14 to be clear, the command of the 4th Motorised Brigade was what you were
15 referring to when you talked about the post office; correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So --
18 A. And I still think --
19 Q. So here we have intelligence, which you've said you used in
20 determining where military targets were, that you had possession of
21 intelligence three weeks before you fired the air bomb that the military
22 target at the post office, the command, had moved; correct?
23 A. I have to say this. A brigade command is not the commander alone
24 but everyone else and everyone -- everything else that accompanies him,
25 including the communications centre of the 104th Motorised Brigade. A
1 communication centre is a key element of command and control. The postal
2 building made it possible for the commander to have it in place.
3 Secondly, as a commander, I do not have only one command post. I
4 have the main command post, a fake command post, and so on. This witness
5 statement can be only relevant to the extent of indicating one such place
6 where the brigade command may have been.
7 Q. And it seems to indicate that at least as the post office is
8 concerned, it was an empty command post. They had left.
9 A. Never during the war was it empty. The communications centre was
10 there throughout the war, and the other organs of the command were there
11 throughout. I know that.
12 Q. Okay. I want to switch to a different topic and explore one of
13 the targeting decisions that you made.
14 Can we --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask the witness. Have you not now changed
16 the military target the post office would have been from a command post
17 to a communications centre? I think we earlier heard that it was because
18 there was a command there and after being -- now having looked at
19 documents which says that the command may not have been there any
20 further, that you are saying: Well, it's still a communications centre,
21 so that makes it a military target. Is that the shift from the one to
22 the other?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no shift. The postal building
24 was the basic, the main command post of the 104th Motorised Brigade
25 throughout the war. In addition to that location, the commander had
1 several forward command posts. In this specific case, he probably moved
2 closer to the 2nd Sarajevo Brigade because of the forthcoming offensive.
3 So perhaps he went to his forward command post number one, two or three.
4 It is crystal-clear. I remain with my position. The postal building was
5 the command post of the 104th Motorised Brigade throughout the war. The
6 commander alone does not amount to an entire command post.
7 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, I would direct your attention to
8 transcript 47, lines 2 through 8.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Witness, that sentence in this document which is
10 on the screen says:
11 "The command of the 4th Motorised Brigade ..."
12 The command, not the commander. It doesn't say anything about a
13 forward command post but "the command."
14 Can you comment on that?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can. A fleeing Serb cannot be
16 familiar with military tactics and what is contained as part of a single
17 command. To him as a layperson, where the commander is is the command
18 post. But to me who is familiar with it, that simply isn't true. I had
19 three or four brigade command posts, depending on the focus of our
20 activity, and the command post is not where the commander is only.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I have -- and I thank Mr. Ivetic for that.
22 You earlier talked about the post office housing the command of
23 the 104th Mechanised Brigade. Is that -- that's different from the
24 command of the 4th Motorised Brigade, or is it ...
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In 2004, there was a change of name
1 for the units. The 4th became the 104th. The 2nd at Stup became the
2 102nd, and the 5th in the -- in Dobrinja, became the 155th. Hence, the
3 difference in the statements. In any case, it is the same brigade.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is that in 2004 you said there was a change of
5 name, or was it a different year?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I must have misspoken. 1994.
7 JUDGE ORIE: So the 4th and the 104th is actually the same.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Commanded by Fikret Prevljak.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. GROOME: Can I ask that we now have 1D02087 on our screens.
12 It is an interim report authored by Colonel Radojcic dated the
13 14th of July, 1995.
14 Q. And you deal with this in paragraph 86 of your statement. It's a
15 relatively short report. Now, in this report, it states:
16 "At 1850 hours today, we started an artillery attack on an
17 unannounced convoy of lorries travelling along the so-called Igman road
18 in the direction of ... and," you can't read it, "and escorted by
19 UNPROFOR combat vehicles."
20 My first question is: Did you give the order to fire upon this
21 convoy? A simple yes or no, if that's possible.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. The lorries that you fired upon, you had no intelligence
24 information regarding what they contained, did you?
25 A. No.
1 Q. They could have contained flour to feed the people of Sarajevo
2 but you just didn't know at the time; correct?
3 A. Yes. But they could have contained ammunition too.
4 Q. And they also could have contained children being brought to the
5 hospital; correct? You just didn't know.
6 A. Yes, I didn't know. They could have contained ABiH fighters.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Before we start repeating from the one side that it
8 could all be food, children, elderly people, and you saying it could be
9 rifles, mortars, let's move on because that doesn't bring us that far.
10 You didn't know what it was. And let's proceed from there.
11 MR. GROOME:
12 Q. Sir, in paragraph 86 you say:
13 "What is more, there were vehicles of the BiH army 1st Corps in
14 the convoy because we saw when we hit the vehicle that the trucks of the
15 Muslim forces were also lit up."
16 So according to your own account, the first information that you
17 had that there may have been a military vehicle in the convoy only came
18 after you fire and that fire illuminated the convoy; correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. The fact is that you fired on this UNPROFOR convoy because you
21 had not been informed of it in advance; correct?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. So absent any information about the convoy, you gave the order to
24 fire upon it.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Did you consider the possibility that the VRS had been informed
2 of the convoy and that somehow there'd been some breakdown in
3 communication that the information had not been passed down to you? Is
4 that something you considered?
5 A. In this case there was no possibility of a mistake. Before I
6 ordered that fire be opened, I called Lieutenant-Colonel Indjic, liaison
7 officer, and asked him whether were any announced convoys to be moving at
8 6.30 p.m. across Igman. He said no, and to me it was a clear sign that
9 there was some foul play. I have to mention that at 6.30 p.m., it is not
10 as if one were in The Hague, where it -- it is still day-time. At
11 6.30 p.m. at Igman, it is already dark and one cannot see very well. The
12 distance from my positions was perhaps between 2 and a half and
13 3 kilometres, so between my positions and the convoy itself.
14 Q. We have heard earlier today that you had night-vision equipment;
15 isn't that correct?
16 A. Certainly. That is how we noticed it. We had such equipment and
17 a T-12 cannon, which is provided with an optical device. That is why we
18 were successful in hitting it. Without it, we would not have been able
19 to do so during the night.
20 Q. So you took the decision that it was to be attacked, irrespective
21 of whether it was a military target or not, because no one told you about
22 it in advance. Is that how I am to understand your testimony?
23 A. You did understand some of it well, but I have to clarify.
24 It was a war zone. Anything that was not announced was
25 potentially an enemy. As a commander, I have no right to make a mistake
1 because it would come very dear to us. In order -- that is why I had to
2 open fire, and that is the context you have to view it in.
3 I hope later I will be able or allowed to explain my agreement
4 with UNPROFOR with regards to using the Igman road and the movement of
5 humanitarian convoys.
6 Q. Before that, let me just ask that we pull up P11 and this is the
7 UNPROFOR report prepared by David Harland on the 15th of July, 1995.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Before we look at it, could I ask the witness --
9 Did I understand you well that you could fire -- could engage any
10 target which was potentially a military target? You said ...
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And you -- there was no need to verify first?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Verify how? It is night-time. You
14 see vehicles moving in your direction. You cannot use IC equipment to
15 detect whether it was an UNPROFOR or ABiH vehicle. With IC equipment,
16 that is to say, infrared equipment, you cannot tell with any certainty
17 what kind of vehicle it is. When the first vehicle was set on fire, we
18 saw then that there were other vehicles moving alongside it as well.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Other than what? Other than UNPROFOR?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said to Mr. Prosecutor, in the
21 convoy, save for UNPROFOR vehicles there were also ABiH vehicles. One
22 could clearly see them.
23 JUDGE ORIE: You said: "We only then saw that there were
24 other ..."
25 So it was then that you found out that there were other than
1 UNPROFOR vehicles.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correctly.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Since we have it on our screen, I suggest that we
4 take two or three more minutes and then adjourn for the day.
5 MR. GROOME: Can we go to e-court page 4 in both versions. I'll
6 read the relevant part to accelerate this process. It says:
7 "On Friday evening, (14th July), an UNPROFOR UNHCR convoy of four
8 vehicles carrying flour over Mount Igman was attacked from Serb-held flat
9 below the mountain."
10 And it goes on to describe the attack in more detail.
11 Now you ordered the attack on this convoy, and you've expressed
12 your concerns about a war-time situation. What do you think UNPROFOR
13 would have done had you fired a warning shot that safely missed the
14 convoy but clearly gave the indication you knew they were and there's a
15 real problem. What do you think UNPROFOR would have done?
16 A. I would continue movement because we had fired that shot and with
17 the second shot we hit the vehicle. But that is a section where it is
18 possible to target UNPROFOR. It's a couple of hundred metres. If we had
19 a map I could show it to you. If you let it pass during those few
20 hundred metres, then you can no longer target them because there is a
21 this mask, if you will, consisting of trees and you can no longer see it.
22 Q. So rather than fire a warning shot and take the risk that you
23 might not be able to reacquire the target, you fired on a convoy that you
24 really had no certainty or any kind of reliable information was a
25 military target?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
2 MR. IVETIC: Objection.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I suggest that we adjourn for the day,
4 Mr. Groome, and that you either again put this question to the witness
5 when we have resumed on Wednesday and that we now hear the objection by
6 Mr. Ivetic, but after the witness has left the courtroom.
7 MR. GROOME: Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, I again instruct you that you should not --
9 you hear me now?
10 I again instruct you that you should not speak or communicate --
11 no. One second. There's more to be said. But the instruction is the
12 same as I gave yesterday, not to speak, not to communicate in any way
13 about your testimony. We will, however, resume only on Wednesday,
14 because on Monday and Tuesday, two of the Judges of this Chamber have
15 duties elsewhere, so we can't continue. Otherwise we would not have to
16 wait for -- we had not to make you wait for such a long time. But,
17 unfortunately, we'll have to ask you to stay until Wednesday.
18 Does that cause any serious problems to you?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It will not because I have already
20 taken certain measures. I had assumed that this might happen, so no
21 problem whatsoever. I'm prepared to stay for as long as you think is
23 JUDGE ORIE: That's appreciated. I think we will conclude on
24 next Wednesday.
25 You may now follow the usher.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
3 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, in this regard, if -- can I ask the
4 Chamber to pass on an instruction to VWS that if it's their intention to
5 send him home and bring him back, which I think is probably likely given
6 the length of delay, that --
7 JUDGE ORIE: I think, as a matter of fact, that it's not --
8 MR. GROOME: No? Okay, then [overlapping speakers] --
9 JUDGE ORIE: My information is that a scheduled flight back is
11 MR. GROOME: Okay. Thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, they wouldn't have done that even if
13 he would have returned.
14 Mr. Ivetic, we'd like to hear your objection.
15 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Mr. Groome's question misstates the witness's prior evidence at
17 temporary transcript page 96, lines 21 through 25, where he says: "...
18 because we had fired that shot and with the second shot we hit the
19 vehicle," so it's not true that the warning shot was not fired. At least
20 not from the evidence that is of record.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, there's more evidence. I think the -- the
22 report is there in evidence as well. So therefore -- but let's -- let me
23 see exactly where the question appear on the transcript.
24 MR. IVETIC: Question is on line number 17 of page 96.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see.
1 MR. IVETIC: In the middle of that line.
2 JUDGE ORIE: No, but the question last put by -- the witness
3 to --
4 MR. IVETIC: Oh, I see. Page 97, line 2.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, one second, please. I did not see any
6 reference in that question to the evidence of this witness. I see that a
7 position, apparently based on the totality of the evidence on this matter
8 we have until now, is put to the witness in order for him to give his
9 comment on it. I do not see that -- so rather than fire a warning shot,
10 I do understand that the witness says that he did. However, the report
11 doesn't say anything about that. They just say that "we were attacked,"
12 not "we were warned and then attacked."
13 So if you say that this does not fully reflect the evidence of
14 the witness, I think you're right. Whether that makes it an
15 impermissible question is a different matter and whether it misstates the
16 evidence we'd have to analyse the evidence and the evidence certainly
17 contains elements which are more in line with this than perhaps with the
18 testimony of this witness.
19 MR. IVETIC: But, Your Honour, if it comes as the second question
20 right after the witness has said: "I did fire a warning shot," it seems
21 to imply that it is representing the answer of the witness in a different
23 MR. GROOME: I'm missing something. Where did the witness say:
24 "I fired a warning shot"? I guess that's --
25 MR. IVETIC: I gave the citation earlier, the prior page, lines
1 21 through 25, Mr. Groome.
2 JUDGE ORIE: It was not very explicit there --
3 MR. IVETIC: Agreed.
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- but he hinted at --
5 MR. GROOME: He hinted.
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- at their firing a shot and then whether that's a
7 warning shot and how long he gave an opportunity to stop moving is all
8 still relatively unclear but certainly is a matter which we could further
9 clarify. But the objection to the question should be clearly
10 distinguished from further matters to be clarified. That in the question
11 the witness's evidence was misstated, where no reference was made to the
12 evidence he gave, seems not to be a good basis for an objection. Mr. --
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, could I find out where in the document
15 it says that a warning shot was not fired?
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: If it is not mentioned, it won't be in the
18 JUDGE ORIE: I think on the reasons I -- let me just se what
19 Mr. Ivetic said because I haven't seen that. One second.
20 Well, if you want to revisit the matter, as matters stand now,
21 the objection is denied, Mr. Ivetic. If there's any reason to revisit
22 the matter on issues we have overlooked at this moment, we'll hear
23 further from you.
24 We adjourn for the day, and I apologise to all those assisting us
25 for our late adjournment.
1 We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume on Wednesday, the
2 2nd of July, in this same courtroom, I, at 9.30 in the morning.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.25 p.m.,
4 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 2nd day of July,
5 2014, at 9.30 a.m.