1 Monday, 23 April 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Whiting.

7 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.

8 I wonder if I could just briefly raise a procedural matter before

9 we begin.

10 We have a witness, Witness 156, who is scheduled to testify on

11 Thursday. Last week we filed a Rule 70 motion with respect to this

12 witness for -- for certainly Rule 70 conditions, and we also filed a 92

13 ter motion with respect to this witness. Both could only be filed last

14 week because of the -- we only got the statement a short time ago.

15 In order to have the witness testify on Thursday, we would, of

16 course, need an expedited response from the Defence and a decision from

17 the Trial Chamber on those matters, and I wonder -- we just request that

18 that would be possible. Thank you.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, you can request that of the Chamber, but

20 I'm not -- I'm not aware of this practice where the Chamber makes these

21 requests of the Defence. I don't like it, and I was asked by my staff to

22 do it last week, and I didn't. I think you should find out from them

23 whether they will forgo their right to respond within a particular time.

24 That's a matter between you and the Defence. We will give an expedited

25 response.

1 But let me just ask: Do you know about this? I think your

2 response would be due -- when would their response be due?

3 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I can't say when the exact date is, but

4 it would be due -- if the 14 days were allowed then it would be obviously

5 sometime next week probably after the end of the Prosecution case.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Well, I -- Mr. Tapuskovic, I believe the

7 situation is a little understandable because the Prosecution only got word

8 from the particular government recently. This is a Rule 70 matter, and so

9 they wish to find out whether you would be able to provide a response

10 immediately, I suppose, because the witness is due to testify on -- on

11 Thursday.

12 If you need time to advise yourself, then say so.

13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, of course we don't

14 need any time. A witness from that country had already been here and we

15 are not opposed to having the same situation with regard to this witness

16 as well.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much. We'll -- the Chamber will

18 now -- give its decision later today.

19 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I think counsel addressed the Rule 70

20 conditions; we also filed a 92 ter motion. I don't know if Defence

21 counsel would be in a position to respond --

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, more is being asked of you, Mr. Tapuskovic.

23 What is your -- you also have to give a reply in relation to the 92 ter

24 motion. I think that reply is formally due on the 3rd of May.

25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm actually

1 focussed on what I'm about to do on during the next few minutes. So could

2 I please be given leave to respond after the first break?

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, certainly. Yes.

4 All right. We'll get the response later. So let us proceed now

5 with the cross-examination.

6 WITNESS: BERKO ZECEVIC [Resumed]

7 [Witness answered through interpreter]

8 Cross-examination by Mr. Tapuskovic: [Continued]

9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. And

10 I'll try to continue from where we broke off last time.

11 Q. Mr. Zecevic, could you first ask you something: In order to deal

12 with that document that I showed you last time, and we didn't manage to

13 deal with it fully, I would like to ask you once again about your

14 statement made on the 26th and 27th of February, 1996. That is D 170,

15 Defence exhibit D170.

16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] But before that, Your Honour,

17 Judge Robinson, could the court deputy please tell me how much time I have

18 left approximately from the time that you've already granted to me?

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: You have one hour and 12 minutes, and nothing

20 obliges you to use all of it.

21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, I hope, if need be, you may

22 even add a bit more time to that, if necessary, but I will do my best for

23 it not to be necessary.

24 So could we now please look at page 2.

25 Q. If you remember, you told me that after the first air bomb that

1 fell on Zuc in January, late January 1994, you spoke to General Arif

2 Pasalic - is that right? - and then you made an offer to elaborate a study

3 on air bombs for the interests of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, yes or

4 no?

5 A. No. It was not a study but it was a survey of the effects of

6 air-fuel bombs. There is a difference involved. And it wasn't for the

7 army. It was just by way of information which was done over a few days.

8 Q. But you spoke to this general and you did that?

9 A. After I saw the effects in January 1994, I thought that it was my

10 duty to inform them of the fact that this was a new type of weapon that

11 had been used in activities aimed against the city.

12 Q. In your statement here, somewhere in paragraph 4 on page 2, you

13 say the following. You say that you carried out an investigation in

14 relation to the shelling of Markale 1 on the 5th of February, 1994. Is

15 that right?

16 A. Yes, that's right.

17 Q. And in the next paragraph it says: "I volunteered to investigate

18 the shelling of the Markale market."

19 Is that right?

20 A. Yes, because I heard that it was improbable to establish where the

21 projectile had come from. I believe that it was possible to determine

22 where the projectile had been fired from on the basis of a proper

23 analysis. So that's the reason.

24 Q. What is written here is that you stated the following: "When I

25 heard that General Smith of UNPROFOR stated that it was impossible to

1 determine the origin of fire, I decided to contact the Security Service

2 and asked if it was possible for me to conduct an investigation on this

3 event."

4 Is that right?

5 A. Yes, that's right.

6 Q. They agreed, right?

7 A. That's what it says here, yes.

8 Q. And then you went to the actual site, as it says so here, and you

9 introduced yourself to the investigation judge and the investigating judge

10 agreed that you would be the expert?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And it's not only that you were an expert then at that point in

13 time, but you were an expert later at the trial of General Galic before

14 this Court?

15 A. Yes.

16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Just to be sure, Markale I, was that a mortar

17 grenade explosion or was that a modified air bomb? I think I recall it

18 was a mortar attack, but could you please check.

19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes. It was a mortar

20 shell, yes. Markale, the month of February.

21 Q. And this is what it says in the next paragraph, that you stated,

22 that is. "I did not agree with the opinion of General Smith because the

23 Chetniks and the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina used different shells. The

24 shells produced in Sarajevo were not made of wrought steel, but from

25 pieces of steel or cast steel. By examining the fragments of a shell one

1 can see what kind of steel was used to make the shell."

2 Is that right?

3 A. Well, the translation is not very accurate but that would be it,

4 roughly.

5 Q. As you stated on Friday you worked on the manufacture of weapons.

6 Therefore, thanks to your experience from arms manufacturing, on the basis

7 of the quality of the shells, did you make an assessment of your own as to

8 where this shell had been fired from?

9 A. No, no. On the basis of a dynamic analysis of what happened at

10 the target and when the stabilisers were found. That was the reason why I

11 reported. It doesn't have anything to do with my investigation. My

12 investigation was based on something completely different and was

13 presented to this Court here in the Galic case, and in the Slobodan

14 Milosevic case. In both cases, I analysed the situation in detail.

15 Giving indications where the possible firing sites were, and it was

16 established beyond any doubt that the projectile had been fired from a

17 minimum distance of 4.6 kilometres from the actual site.

18 If you look at this here, it is clearly stated what the reasons

19 were why I decided to report and, once I did, there was a clearly defined

20 procedure. My study is here in this court and I presented it several

21 times. If necessary, I can repeat it briefly.

22 Q. Thank you. Mr. Zecevic, can we say, in view of the fact that you

23 volunteered to do this, that your motives to do so were the same as when

24 you offered your services when the first bomb fell in January 1994? The

25 motives were that you should help the interests of the army of

1 Bosnia-Herzegovina and your people?

2 A. Excuse me, what's "the first bomb"? There is a bomb in 1994, a

3 modified bomb, and then in 1995 when I was appointed by the investigating

4 judge to be a member of the commission. So what exactly are you referring

5 to?

6 Q. I'm referring to the first bomb that was fired at Zuc on the 29th

7 or the 27th of January, 1994. That is to say, a year and a half before

8 the second bomb.

9 A. First of all, in my material in my study it says clearly that a

10 student of mine came to pick me up and he asked me to come and have a look

11 at the leftovers of a new piece of equipment that had been used. I came

12 there and I gave my opinion.

13 Let me just inform you of the following. My reporting on the 5th

14 of February, 1994, was an act of reporting to a legal judge. Not to the

15 army of Bosnia-Herzegovina but to a government organ of the government of

16 the Bosnia-Herzegovina, a normal state body. So a judge is a legal

17 investigating organ. I reported to him, not to any military organ, and I

18 worked within judicial instances.

19 Q. Yes, Mr. Zecevic. But first you were at the centre of the

20 Security Services Centre.

21 A. No. Oh, no, not at -- the centre is the centre of public

22 security, not security services, because an acquaintance of mine was in

23 charge of the Krajlic investigation service there and he was in charge of

24 that investigation.

25 Q. I know full well what public security is and I know even better

1 what state security is. So tell me what is correct, what is written here

2 or whatever?

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Whiting has an objection.

4 MR. WHITING: I think that is argumentative that -- the way that

5 question is phrased. "I know full well," and so forth. I think that's

6 arguing with the witness.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, let us just attend to the latter part of

8 the question, which is: "Tell me what is correct, what is written here or

9 whatever?"

10 What is the answer to that?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I want to the normal police where

12 the head of the crime investigation service who was a colleague who had

13 worked with me until 1993 in the centre for military industry. We were

14 then disbanded, this centre was, and he went there to the crime

15 investigation service to head that service. Since I had his telephone

16 number, I rang him up; that can be checked. It's in that study of mine

17 that was submitted here. This is imprecise. It should be the police, the

18 public security station, whatever the exact wording may be. But that's

19 what it was.

20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Thank you. It seems to me that you don't understand me.

22 A. I understand you excellently.

23 Q. Please let me finish my question, and let us bear in mind that I

24 should finish my question so that we do not overlap. So please hear me

25 out and then answer.

1 I have your report on air bombs here and when you spoke about the

2 first air bomb you said that one of your students came to see you and this

3 was in 1994. But here we're talking about Markale on the 5th of February.

4 Over there you do not mention at all any student of yours.

5 As for Markale, you never mentioned that. Could you explain that

6 to the Trial Chamber?

7 A. I didn't understand you. I did not mention a student for Markale.

8 You got the two mixed up, two different cases. Markale. When I heard on

9 television what it was that had happened and that the official position of

10 UNPROFOR was that it was not possible to identify what was necessary to

11 identify, I called a colleague of mine, not a student, with whom I had

12 worked until June 1993 in the same unit and he had become the head of the

13 crime investigation police in Sarajevo, and I told him then that it was

14 possible to determine precisely where the projectile had been fired from

15 and to assess the possible launch sites and then he called me.

16 Q. Thank you. You never stated that before and I categorically

17 assert that. I'm asking you: Was it the security service or was it the

18 public security?

19 A. I state clearly that it was the public service police.

20 Q. Thank you. Now, we're getting to the document that I showed you

21 last time, and it is for the Trial Chamber to see ultimately whether this

22 document can be taken into account as something that should be admitted

23 into evidence.

24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] So could the witness please be

25 shown D171 now, please, the last page of the document.

1 Q. As you can see on the document, and we have the version in the

2 B/C/S -- well, not yet, it seems. Last time I showed you the conclusions

3 of the document, and I do not want to read it out yet again. But

4 according to the conclusions the 5th of February Markale explosion was

5 most likely carried out in static conditions. That is one argument.

6 Another argument is that it could not have been fired from the Serb

7 positions for it would have detonated on the roof of the building in that

8 case. I wanted to show you the first sentence in that document whereby

9 you say: "Professor Zecevic handed the team a photocopied report by a

10 Serbian mortar expert scientist, Miroljub Vukasinovic."

11 Is it correct that you had that document in your possession, and

12 is it correct that you handed it over to the investigation team, the

13 people that you talked to?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. In the last sentence you say: "Professor Zecevic stated that

16 whilst of course the incidents are separate, the information contained

17 within the report is of relevance to the -- February the 5th, 1994,

18 incident."

19 Can you explain what was the significance of that information and

20 how did you assess them?

21 A. It doesn't say here that they were significant for my work. It

22 just says that the report was of relevance for the 5th of February

23 incident. It wasn't important for my study. It concerns the following.

24 My learned friend, Mr. Vukasinovic, in that document analysed an important

25 issue. Once we have a detonation of a projectile, a mortar projectile, it

1 has the casing and the stabilisers, which is rather heavy. The very

2 casing of the mortar round fragments into several thousand small pieces,

3 which have the speed of some 12 or 1300 metres per second or down to 800

4 in certain areas. The stabiliser cannot be destroyed. It separates from

5 the rest of the body. Depending on whether there is a stabiliser found at

6 the place of impact, if we find it, then the speed with which the

7 projectile hit the ground was approximately the same as at the firing. If

8 the stabiliser was not found, then the round speed was less than at the

9 moment when the stabiliser separates from the body.

10 If the stabiliser buries itself in the ground, we can state that

11 the minimum speed was far greater than the speed of separation of the

12 stabiliser. These are important data based on which it can be determined

13 where the firing occurred approximately. The deeper the stabiliser is in

14 the ground, the distance is greater, the distance where it was launched

15 from. In the case of Markale 1, the projectile was almost 200 millimetres

16 in the ground, which indicated that the place of firing was at least 4.6

17 kilometres or more, having in the mind the angle of descent registered.

18 As for Markale 2, the stabiliser found was next to the place of

19 incident, which means that the speed, when the stabiliser separated,

20 indicated that the projectile had been fired with a different charge for a

21 mortar round. Based on that, we can conclude as to the distance from

22 which the projectile was launched, and we also knew the angle of descent

23 and it was fairly easy to determine the distance --

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much.

25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

1 Q. This is what I wanted to ask you: Professor Vukasinovic is a well

2 known scientist. He is considered to be someone who knows his math and he

3 used mathematical formulae to reach his conclusions?

4 A. As I said, the theoretical approach he used was very correct;

5 however, some entry data wasn't. And you can see here I'm not saying

6 that --

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, let counsel put his question.

8 What's the question you are putting?

9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. So, if we look at what you said, that he presented a fair

11 argumentation, are there any grounds in this statement of his, based on

12 your assessment and conclusions, that the explosion of the 28th of August,

13 1995, was carried out in static conditions?

14 A. I would mike a distinction here. My learned friend,

15 Mr. Vukasinovic, is a good expert, and I have known him for a number of

16 years; however, I cannot discuss his code of ethics, i.e., whether someone

17 would intentionally use wrong data so as to manipulate the result. In the

18 Galic case, I was asked by the Prosecutor to provide my comment concerning

19 several mortar rounds that had previously been studied by Dr. Vukasinovic,

20 Dr. Stamatovic, and another doctor from Belgrade. In the part done by Mr.

21 Vukasinovic, there were many entry pieces of information that were wrong.

22 In the study you mentioned, there are several arguments that are

23 misconceived. If we calculate the height of the building and the distance

24 from the place of incident, we can determine that the angle of descent was

25 at least 70 degrees, whereas in Mr. Vukasinovic's study it says 50 to 60.

1 It changes the whole thing and, I underscore yet again, I want to stress

2 that Mr. Vukasinovic is excellent in theory; however, in his study, he

3 used data that did not reflect the accurate situation.

4 Q. We will soon get to your expert finding. In many cases, you also

5 made presumptions when analysing the incidents. You are never stated

6 things categorically?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I address you?

8 When I concluded working on the Galic case, the then Prosecutor, Chester,

9 asked me --

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute. The question was that in your

11 findings you made presumptions when analysing incidents. Just answer that

12 for me directly.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I used presumptions, but I used

14 correct entry data. I didn't try to manipulate as to the height of the

15 building and the distance from the incident. That is what I object to. I

16 do not object to the theoretical mathematical model, but I object to

17 specific things. We know exactly what the height of the building and what

18 the distance was between the place of incident and the building, and you

19 can determine the angle of descent. It is trigonometry. There are no

20 presumptions. It is clear.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

22 Mr. Tapuskovic.

23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will not dwell on

24 this any longer and I know what the OTP's position is. However, I wish to

25 tender a complete translation of this document, since this document was

1 provided by the expert himself, and I would like to have that admitted as

2 a Defence exhibit. It is DD00-2007. It seems that the expert is quite

3 knowledgeable concerning that and he mentioned several details from which

4 I gathered that he studied the document in detail.

5 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, we object. The witness -- this is a --

6 this -- the exhibit in question is a paper written by somebody else. The

7 witness has not endorsed the conclusions in the paper or the information

8 in the paper and, therefore, I don't see how it comes into evidence.

9 There's been no endorsement of it. It's a study of Markale 2. It -- I

10 think the only proper way to bring it into evidence is to have the person

11 who wrote it come in and be cross-examined, but not to kind of slip it in

12 the back door this way into evidence when it has not been endorsed by the

13 witness.

14 In fact, it's been -- just the opposite has occurred. The witness

15 has -- has said he cannot endorse it and that it's not reliable. So I

16 don't see how it comes into evidence that way.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber will admit the document. I dissent

19 in that decision.

20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be admitted as D175.

21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Counsel, excuse me. Now that we have accepted

22 your evidence, could you please tell us exactly what it is? Who drafted

23 that report and what is the date of it, and who was it addressed to?

24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It was drafted by the Military

25 Technical Institute in Belgrade. I don't see any date.

1 A. In 1997.

2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Yes, 1997. They used the data they had and they carried out their

4 mathematical calculations. It is a prominent institute, and I believe

5 this involved the person in charge of the institute. What they used were

6 the mathematical formulae to reach the conclusions they did. In any case,

7 I believe it deserves your attention. As to what weight and importance

8 you will give it, we'll see in the future, once you made your decision on

9 it.

10 I will now turn to the analysis of your findings. I will go to

11 page 62. In English, it is page 68.

12 You recall that I quoted something to you concerning a statement

13 and you said that you couldn't recall anything concerning that. We will

14 go back to that.

15 Under -- or below these photographs it is says the appearance of

16 this modified bomb in the theatre of operations around Sarajevo came after

17 a TV interview with Radovan Karadzic concerning a new secret weapon that

18 would supposedly radically alter the course of the war. Is that correct?

19 A. That's what it says, but have I a correction to make it. When you

20 asked me the first time I recalled it quite clearly and you are now

21 presenting your own statements rather than mine. It is incorrect that I

22 said that I couldn't recall it.

23 Q. I apologise if I misquoted you. However, can you tell me when

24 this statement was taken? Before the 19th of January, 1994?

25 A. In January, 1994.

1 Q. Before that, you had -- had the information we discussed last time

2 as to the use of -- that weapon being used in other places, in Bosnia, in

3 Krajina, and in Croatia?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Very well. I will have to go back to your statement yet again,

6 the statement of the 26th and the 27th of February to ask you about the

7 characteristics of the air bomb. It is D170. In the B/C/S it is page 5.

8 The last sentence of the penultimate paragraph as well as the last

9 paragraph. In the English, it is page 5, the last paragraph.

10 Could you please look at the last sentence of the penultimate

11 paragraph. "About ten metres from the point of impact were large steel

12 containers which showed no traces of fragments, except from a previous

13 82-millimetre mortar shell."

14 This is what it states. Is that correct? Perhaps we don't have

15 to read the whole thing.

16 A. That's what it says, yes.

17 Q. Then you say in the last paragraph: "I went then to the explosion

18 on the road and I saw a crater in the asphalt of two metres diameter and

19 two to 300 millimetres deep. Next to the road was a low concrete wall

20 which was broken and also two houses nearby the explosion and there were

21 no fragment traces on the wall. This confirmed my theory that it was a

22 blast effect weapon and an air-fuel projectile."

23 A. No, it should say that it had fuel, that it was a fuel-air bomb.

24 Q. But the rest is correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Let us go to page 71 of your report. In English, that is 77.

2 Here you talk about the effects of that air bomb, FAB-250; is that

3 correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And you state: "With the use of TNT and aircraft bombs, in

6 addition to the blast effect a powerful fragmentation effect occurs with

7 over 10.000 fragments against objects and personnel within a radius

8 extending tens of metres from the explosion."

9 Is that correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And then you go on to say: "However, with the large number of

12 cases when the FAB-250 aircraft bomb was used in Sarajevo in 1995, the

13 effects of fragments at the scene of the explosion were not strongly

14 evidenced and so a fuel air explosive was probably used."

15 Is that correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Can we say that this is where the misunderstanding was between you

18 and the representative of the security service?

19 A. I cannot try to interpret what caused their reaction, but I merely

20 presented my conclusions that they were not interested in the effects.

21 The people investigating were not qualified to discuss that. The very

22 idea of the use of TNT in an air bomb to them meant that it would have a

23 greater effect upon the target, but they didn't want to discuss the

24 characteristics of effects per se. Therefore, I do not agree with you

25 that this was the cause of the misunderstanding.

1 Q. Can we say that they insisted upon the idea that the TNT being

2 present presented a great danger for the civilians and the population of

3 Sarajevo. If there was some TNT explosive with 10.000 fragments, which

4 were absent here, their thesis would have been that they -- that they

5 couldn't -- this is what made them conclude that.

6 A. No.

7 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm not sure as to how who understand fully this

8 paragraph in the witness's report, because it seems to suggest that one

9 could have both TNT and air fuel in one and the same bomb. Is that

10 possible? Can you please verify this with the witness? Is it -- would it

11 be possible to -- to compose a bomb with both fuel air explosive and TNT

12 so as to get sort of the best or perhaps, rather, the worst of both

13 scenarios?

14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge Harhoff,

15 that's a good question. That is what I'm moving to, to the pages dealing

16 with that. But the underlying thesis of this entire paper was that there

17 was no TNT, that there was only fuel air material and that in fact this

18 bomb worked through air pressure. If I understand this properly, that is

19 the underlying thesis and the expert opinion involved.

20 Q. There is only fuel air material, no TNT, right?

21 A. I have to be more specific in terms of your concept. The concept

22 of fuel air bombs means that inside there is a small particle of solid

23 explosive, in this case TNT, so that the fuel air would get out that mixes

24 with the air. Every fuel air bomb contains in it a smaller quantity of

25 explosive, not 90 kilograms like the FAB-250 but, say, ten to 15

1 kilograms, and the point is that it should break the body, break the

2 casing, and carry out this change, and then secondary fuses act to

3 activate this new mix, and that can clearly be seen on page 65.

4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can I just, for the matter of the record, you were

5 quoted as saying that the FAB-250 would have 90 kilograms of TNT. I think

6 I recall that you said that this would be true for the FAB-100, would it

7 not? So that the FAB-100 would be the one that would carry TNT while the

8 FAB-250 would be the one that carried fuel air explosives, and then only

9 carried as much TNT as was necessary to break the shell, if I understood

10 you correctly. Could you please verify?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge Harhoff, the

12 customary usual FAB-250 air bomb, the one that is launched from an

13 aircraft, is filled with TNT. And as such it has 93 kilograms of

14 explosives, of TNT. In this case, that's not what happened. There was

15 less. Just to be break the body -- there was just enough to break the

16 body of the warhead, whereas the FAB-100 has considerably less TNT, 43

17 kilograms of TNT, and it is used without fuel air explosive.

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Even what you said now about these minimal quantities is not what

20 is stated in your findings, even if we were to look at the individual

21 incidents involved.

22 But now let us look at page 94. In English, it's 104. The

23 English version moves on to 105 as well.

24 You say here underneath a table: "The FAB-250 aircraft bomb

25 develops an overpressure sufficiently intense to cause the lungs to burst

1 if a person is 30 metres away from the centre of the explosion."

2 Is that right?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And then further on: "The FAB-250 aircraft bomb has over 7.000

5 fragments with a mass greater than five grammes. An effective individual

6 range greater than 150 metres."

7 Is that right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And now we're moving on to page 105 in the English version.

10 "This data is the basis for calculating whether an aircraft bomb

11 exploded with solid TNT explosive or a fuel air explosive. If the effect

12 of fragments is not intensive, then this is likely that the aircraft bomb

13 was filled with a fuel air explosive."

14 Is that right?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. First question: In this finding, you did not mention at all that

17 there was a single gram of TNT there.

18 A. Mr. Tapuskovic, in the description of the effect it is clearly

19 stated how the system functions, so it should not say here that there were

20 ten or 15 kilograms of TNT. If on the walls, if on the buildings there

21 are no traces of fragments and the body had been destroyed, the

22 destruction has to have been caused by something, and that something is

23 TNT. The actual effect of overpressure in fuel air bombs is that in

24 actual fact it migrates into all open spaces, that the process of the

25 activity or the fuel air bomb lasts 100 times longer than the effect of

1 the overpressure caused by TNT. That means that it kills all the people

2 in the area and destroys all light structures. If you look at the same

3 page that you quoted, if you look at the situation, if the overpressure of

4 150 kilopascals works in a millionth particle of a second, then there is

5 one hundred per cent lethal effect. However --

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute.

7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I know what you wrote.

8 JUDGE MINDUA: [No interpretation]

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: We're not getting.

10 THE INTERPRETER: We -- yes, the interpreters apologise. We

11 thought we were getting from the other booth.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Repeat the question.

13 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, you're talking about

14 fragments found on the walls, possibly in the event that a bomb contains

15 TNT. My question concerns the presence of metal fragments which would be

16 the case if the bombs were handmade, for example by terrorists, or were

17 they special fragments that were due to the presence of TNT?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No. Of course, there are

19 several types of air bombs. The air bomb that is filled with TNT, when it

20 explodes, the pressure of the explosive and the high temperature of the

21 gas within the body of the bomb destroy the metal body of the bomb. It

22 bursts into millions of pieces and their velocity is very high. But at

23 the same time there is overpressure too.

24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, distinguished

25 witness, after this there are just a few photographs.

1 Q. You spoke of individual incidents as well but this is your

2 conclusion. This is your conclusion, these are your findings, and you do

3 not mention a single gramme of TNT. Could you explain that?

4 A. It's a very simple matter. When you come to the site, the scene,

5 where a modified air bomb had exploded and when you see that a house had

6 been destroyed or several houses, or if the projectile hit a sky-scraper

7 then you will see that three storey were destroyed. You walk in and see

8 that there are very few fragments on the walls. And that is the objective

9 of my analysis, to say since there is a great deal of data about the

10 activity of bombs with fragments. That is to say, if on walls there are

11 many fragments, if surrounding buildings are damaged, then this leads to

12 the inevitable conclusion that the bomb had solid explosive. If there are

13 no fragments and there is a great deal of destruction involved, there are

14 remnants of the rocket motor and of the body, then what is the inevitable

15 conclusion is that instead of TNT there was fuel air explosive in the

16 body. This TNT which is used in fuel air bombs has only one function, to

17 destroy the body of the bomb and to have it -- the fuel air migrate into

18 the surrounding atmosphere, for it to mix with oxygen and in all

19 surrounding areas. So there is no need for me to mention this

20 specifically. My conclusion clearly says this data is a basis for the

21 assessment whether this was an air bomb with a solid or --

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. You have answered the question.

23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Please take a look at this. When you talk about the FAB-250 and

25 pressure you say that then there is such intensity that lungs burst for

1 all persons that are up to 30 metres away from where the bomb fell. That

2 is to say, that a large number of people would have been killed, right,

3 within that area?

4 A. One per cent. Can't you see that? It says -- I mean, if a

5 person's lungs burst he or she won't get killed. He or she will have a

6 breathing problem.

7 Please look at the table above.

8 Q. I think there's no need for me to look at the table.

9 Let me ask you the following: Did you have a single medical

10 document showing that somebody had lost their lives because their lungs

11 had burst?

12 A. On television, at least according to my information, there was a

13 man who was relatively nearby, near the site of the explosion, and he had

14 these characteristic effects due to the bursting of his lungs, but I'm not

15 an expert in this field and I don't want to go into that. I'm just

16 telling you what the definitions are and this table only refers to people,

17 whereas in the first part we only speak of buildings, how high the

18 overpressure should be in order to have a building destroyed.

19 Q. All right. But even more importantly, I'm not going to use the

20 fragment, the word fragment anymore, but I'm going to use another word for

21 fragment, "geller" [phoen]. It should act within a diameter of 150 metres

22 if it is TNT, right?

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, we didn't hear the word, the

24 other word which apparently is a synonym for fragment. What is it?

25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] "Geller" in the sense of

1 shrapnel, a metal particle, a bomb is broke down into five-gramme

2 particles. At one place he even speaks of 11.000 fragments or shrapnel

3 that can cause lethal effects or very serious injuries.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's apparently shrapnel. Yes, proceed.

5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Since, according to your own findings here, and I don't know if

7 I'll have the time to analyse a few more incidents. In some places there

8 is no reference to shrapnel. In some places there is very little

9 shrapnel. And if I may say so, in some places there aren't any

10 casualties. Is it possible for there not to be any classical injuries

11 such as the bursting of lungs? Is it possible that it was just an

12 ordinary explosion that was supposed to look as if an air bomb had

13 exploded, especially where there were no casualties involved?

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Indiscernible]

15 MR. WHITING: Yeah, I -- that the -- I don't know what -- maybe we

16 could have some precision about what the -- what the question pertains to.

17 Is he just talking about any explosion? Is he talking about a particular

18 explosion? I -- I'm not clear on what -- I think the question is

19 extraordinarily vague.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, you're asking whether it is

21 possible that it was just an ordinary explosion that was supposed to look

22 as if an air bomb had exploded. Is this in reference to a particular

23 explosion?

24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Especially for the explosions

25 where there were no casualties, in view of the fact that within a diameter

1 of 150 metres a lot of people would have had to get killed and within 30

2 metres a lot of people would have had to have injuries, such as

3 bursting -- lung bursting. I mean, I have to say that one casualty is one

4 casualty too many, so that is my reading of this. But I'm just saying,

5 suggesting that in most cases these explosions were just supposed to look

6 like explosions caused by air bombs, because there are no witnesses who

7 would testify that an air bomb actually fell there. Could the witness

8 just tell us whether --

9 MR. WHITING: That's just --

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you suggesting then that the explosion did

11 not take place?

12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there was an

13 explosion but the explosion was not caused by air bombs. Precisely in

14 view of that, I'm not going to analyse individual incidents now. I'm not

15 going to go from one incident to another because this should be done in

16 the Defence case, and I will do that. But if we were to count the

17 casualties due to these bombs, and please don't take my word at face value

18 counting, but we should look at the effects. The shrapnel, 150 metres,

19 and indeed this is dangerous. However both effects were simply not there,

20 so ...

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have evidence of parts of an air bomb being

22 embedded in the ground?

23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it still doesn't

24 prove anything. In the sense presented here that these were -- these

25 devices which appeared out of the blue, that there were -- very lethal

1 killing everything in the diameter of 150 metres.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: What you're asking the witness is this: There

3 was an explosion, Witness, but might the explosion not have been caused by

4 an air bomb? And I understand counsel to be alluding specifically to

5 instances in which he said there were no casualties.

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: It may be that I did not grasp correctly the

8 substance of counsel's question, so I'm going to ask him to put it again.

9 Put the question to the witness, and as clearly as possible.

10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Mr. Zecevic, I don't know whether I will be able to put all of

12 your analysis to you here, but at least in three incidents analysed there

13 were no casualties. Having in mind that, that there were no casualties in

14 certain incidents, and having in mind that the overpressure blast effects

15 are as stipulated, as opposed to the TNT effects, is it possible that one

16 can cause an explosion by some other means other than an air bomb?

17 A. I wanted to tell you this. Concerning the overpressure effects

18 and the shrapnel effects, those refer to the solid explosive; it is

19 clearly stated in my study. For me to be able to reply -- well,

20 Your Honour, I cannot reply unless I know whether the explosive was in a

21 casing or not. What was the type of explosive, what primer was used.

22 Therefore I cannot provide the answer the Defence attorney wants me to.

23 If he specifics the parameters, I can respond.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: You need some other postulates to support the

25 question and the witness is saying one of them is whether the explosive

1 that you had in mind, or that have you in mind, was in the casing or not.

2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge Robinson, my

3 question refers to any type of explosive.

4 Q. I have already put to you some documents showing that the army of

5 Bosnia-Herzegovina had explosives. I'm not trying to say that it wasn't

6 either the fuel air explosive or the TNT. It could have been anything

7 else, any other material which causes destruction on solid objects and

8 does not cause any injures and results in no casualties.

9 A. I cannot reply to your question because --

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you in a position to answer the question?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can reply to any question which

12 has technical sense. This one doesn't, however.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: And why not?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can tell you this:

15 There is a solid explosive in TNT in bags. It's not pressed. Since the

16 characteristics of the explosive depend on the type of processing, the

17 effects of such an explosive is important for the initiation points. It

18 is also important whether it is -- the explosive was buried in the ground

19 or simply put on the floor of a house. Therefore, there are a lot of

20 factors for me to hypothesise and to be able to tell you, you will have

21 this or that effect. In any case I studied, we always found pieces of the

22 rocket motor. There was also the penetration into a wall. A solid

23 explosive in a bag cannot penetrate a building. It cannot have rocket

24 motors. That's why this question strikes me as irrational.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much.

1 You have heard he is not in a position to answer the question in

2 the absence of your providing further information.

3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps this can be

4 some additional information.

5 Q. There is Sefer Halilovic's book, The Cunning Strategy. In that

6 book he states that his wife, together with her brother in uniform, was

7 killed on the terrace of their house in July 1993, and that they were

8 killed by a projectile which was guided. He said that he knew the people

9 who were to be blamed for that, and that this was a terrorist

10 organisation. Do you know of that incident?

11 A. I have heard of it, but it's got nothing to do with this.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's my view too. I don't understand the

13 question.

14 Let's have another question, Mr. Tapuskovic.

15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. The same way could have been used -- the same mode could have been

17 used in this case, to have it detonated remote, and then we have both the

18 remaining pieces of the bomb as well as the effects which, however, were

19 not dangerous for the population because the bomb contained neither the

20 shrapnel nor the substance that would cause the overpressure. Yes or no?

21 A. No. Because if you look at the high-rise or at the impact on the

22 top of the building of Safeta Hadzica, we see the rocket motor, we see

23 that one level was -- that the bomb went through one level, that three

24 floors were destroyed.

25 Q. How come you have a rocket motor on the roof of a building,

1 however no casualties?

2 A. Yes, there were. People were injured, one killed, as well as a

3 lot of fear due to the explosion. Apartments were destroyed. Well,

4 that's not a casualty, but still. I wish you were present during an

5 explosion of a mortar round near to you, let alone being close to a

6 hundred and -- kilo bomb.

7 MR. WHITING: Your Honour.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Whiting.

9 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, this is perhaps a bit belated but it's

10 still relevant. Unless I'm mistaken I believe that all of our air bomb

11 incidents have casualties. So I think it's a -- misstating the evidence

12 to say that there were incidents that contain no casualties. I could be

13 wrong, but I don't think -- I don't think I am in this case.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, what incidents are you referring

15 to in respect of which there were no casualties arising from an air bomb?

16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't think I'll

17 have time to go through it all, but when you read it, you'll see that at

18 least two incidents, according to expert findings, had no casualties. Not

19 a single one. There were several incidents without casualties, even as

20 the witness put it. But in his analysis, I can show you at least two

21 incidents without a single casualty, a single one.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: I would expect that -- you to have that

23 information at the tip of your fingers, because it's the basis on which

24 you have put the questions.

25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't have enough time. I will

1 be able to show you if you give me another 20 or 30 minutes.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute.

3 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, I think it's an important issue

5 as to the evidence in this case, so I'm going to take the adjournment now,

6 and when we return, you are to provide me with the information, and I

7 expect the Prosecutor to do the same.

8 We'll adjourn for 20 minutes.

9 --- Recess taken at 10.20 a.m.

10 --- On resuming at 10.44 a.m.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, do you have the information on

12 the matter that I spoke of?

13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I've skimmed through it and I

14 found information on four incidents. First and foremost, you asked me to

15 provide an example with no casualties. It is page 135 in the B/C/S, and,

16 in the English, 150.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, yes, go ahead, yes.

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] 135 in the B/C/S and 150 in -- in

19 the English. It is the incident of the 1st of July, 1995, no casualties.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: 1st of July, 1995. Is that in the -- we'd find

21 that in the indictment, would we?

22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It is in the expert finding.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Unscheduled?

1 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, this -- this pertains to scheduled --

2 if I may.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, let me just hear Mr. Whiting.

4 MR. WHITING: This pertains to scheduled incident 19.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: 19.

6 MR. WHITING: There are -- in that incident, there are casualties,

7 injuries, alleged, and that is clear at page -- if counsel just went a

8 little further, where there is further discussion about this incident,

9 page 154 of the English report, which is, in B/C/S, 138.

10 So this -- this -- this incident does have injuries and we have

11 led evidence on injuries. Either we have or we will, but -- there is no

12 air bomb incident that -- where there are no injuries.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic --

14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Does that go for scheduled as well as unscheduled

15 incidents?

16 MR. WHITING: No, I'm sorry. That is for all of the scheduled --

17 that is for all this -- and just to be even more clear, all the scheduled

18 incidents that we are proceeding on -- I believe that there were -- there

19 perhaps were scheduled incidents that we dropped at the beginning of the

20 case where there may -- maybe were no injuries, but all the scheduled

21 incidents that we're proceeding on, all of the ones that were analysed in

22 this report, we allege in the indictment and in our evidence had

23 casualties.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, in the indictment for the incident of the

25 1st of July, it is alleged that 13 people were injured. That one doesn't

1 appear to support your proposition, Mr. Tapuskovic.

2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] There were no casualties on the

3 26th of May, and I've been going through this report for a few days now.

4 In this report, on this given page, it -- it's where I found it. I'm

5 still dealing with the issue with the proposition I put to the witness

6 concerning this, situations where those explosive devices may have been

7 planted. That is the essence, the gist of my line of questioning.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Now are you talking about an incident that

9 took place on the 26th of May? Which one?

10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No, no. I am still talking about

11 the 1st of July, 1995. I wasn't in a position to get all the information

12 about all the specific situations where there were no injuries, but

13 according to the initial indictment there were at least four incidents

14 with no casualty, with explosions only. But could you please direct your

15 attention to the three incidents of the 16th of June. Three incidents in

16 the same day. There were some light injuries and, in the incident of the

17 16th of July, at page 132 in the English, there are no shrapnel traces,

18 according to the expert report.

19 So three days into the offensive. Let us have a look at those

20 three incidents of the 16th of June. It is page 139, no fragmentation --

21 fragment traces.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Sorry before you --

23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And I would kindly ask the expert

24 to clarify.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Before you come to the 16th of June, let's go

1 back to the 1st of July and clarify this once and for all. The indictment

2 alleges 13 people were injured.

3 Mr. Whiting, has evidence been led on this?

4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Not, Your Honour. No,

5 Your Honour. No evidence was presented.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Not yet or ...

7 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I know that some evidence is coming in

8 this week on this -- on this incident from an investigator. I believe

9 that we may have some victim evidence, but, in any event, it's -- it is

10 not the Prosecution's position in the indictment, in the expert report, or

11 in our evidence that there were no injuries.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, no, let me -- let me speak.

13 In relation to this incident of the 1st of July, the indictment

14 alleges 13 people were injured. Evidence has not yet been led on it. But

15 that doesn't entitle you to say that there were no injuries because

16 evidence has not yet been led.

17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge Robinson, I

18 have studied the material. There were injuries resulting from other

19 material, but it was because of burst glass, debris, but not the bombs

20 themselves, and we haven't heard any of it here still. When we analyse

21 this report, we cannot go back to telling the Bench that no evidence was

22 led as to that. Perhaps Mr. Whiting can confirm that those injuries were

23 from shards of glass and other material, like debris, in the -- in the --

24 not of the shrapnel.

25 In the incident of the 16th of June, there are no marks on the

1 walls --

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: What would have caused the shards and the glass

3 and the debris? Is it not the bomb, the explosion?

4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if it was a planted

5 explosion, if there are no fragments -- for example, at page 132 in the

6 English, there are no fragments on the incident of the 16th of June one

7 day into the offensive. There is not a single fragment in or on the

8 objects around the place of impact. How is it possible? Just look at

9 that page and the expert can tell me perhaps how is it possible that he

10 hasn't found a single fragment concerning this incident of the 16th of

11 June - page 132 in the English and 118 in the B/C/S - not on the walls or

12 anywhere. If it was an air bomb containing 11.000 pieces of shrapnel

13 killing everything within 150 metres in -- with its -- within its place of

14 impact.

15 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I -- the -- it doesn't say --

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Whiting.

18 MR. WHITING: I think precision matters here, and it does not say

19 that there wasn't a single fragment on the objects or the place of impact.

20 If you look at page 133 of the English it says there are no signs

21 of fragmentation effects in the area around the place of the explosion. I

22 think the witness both in his direct examination, in his report, and in

23 cross has explained, and he can explain again, why there wouldn't --

24 why -- what -- how he explains that, what his explanation is for the fact

25 that there were no signs of fragment from his analysis. I'm not saying

1 there wasn't any fragments. I'm saying from his review there were no

2 signs of fragments. That is, he didn't see any fragment signs. But he

3 can --

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: The report also says on page 132, Mr. Tapuskovic,

5 in English: "Parts of the motors and support structures were found in the

6 crater."

7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have it all here,

8 but it's difficult to find my way around with so little time.

9 118, right. The page is 118. I'm sorry, 118. 118. I am sorry,

10 118. 118. There. The English reference is 134. On the side walls of

11 sky-scraper there are no shrapnel marks. 119, just before that one. This

12 is 120 in B/C/S, and 134 in the English. And the previous page, 119, no

13 shrapnel marks around the explosion site. Two distinct references, 119

14 and 120, and the B/C/S is 134.

15 134 for B/C/S, or, rather, for English, and 134 for the English

16 or, rather, the B/C/S is 119 and 120. There are no shrapnel marks

17 anywhere in the area or on the walls for that matter. This is stated

18 quite categorically. Now, how is that possible if there was a bomb that

19 actually exploded there?

20 MR. WHITING: I'm confident that the witness can explain that, and

21 perhaps we should go back to the witness.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, you heard counsel's assertion that in

23 relation to this incident the report says there are no shrapnel marks

24 anywhere in the area or on the walls for that matter, and the question

25 is: How is that possible if there was a bomb that actually exploded?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is a feature of the aerosol

2 generator air bombs, fuel-air bombs, is that they have the -- a wave

3 effect their secondary effects is a fragmentation effect, and that's what

4 I've been trying to prove along. This is the whole point of this report.

5 The point of this report is to show in relation to all cases when an

6 explosion occurred that there were no obvious shrapnel marks, but instead

7 there were effects of destruction. In this particular incident dated the

8 16th of June, you have the photographs and they clearly show that the bomb

9 penetrated into the ground and exploded once it was embedded inside the

10 ground, and there was secondary fragments, secondary shrapnel which was

11 absorbed by the ground. All that was found were bits and pieces of the

12 rocket engine.

13 So my theory is that no solid explosive was used in this incident,

14 which has a significant fragmentation effect, and quite considerable blast

15 effect but the range remaining small though. My theory instead is that

16 this is an air-fuel bomb, fuel-air effect. This is a very dominant

17 weapon, and you can see that in all of these incidents, and the

18 fragmentation effect with the shrapnel being sprayed all over the place is

19 entirely secondary, which is perfectly consistent with the evidence

20 presented here.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Am I right then in saying that your explanation

22 is that this was an air-fuel bomb and not a solid explosive?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is accurate.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: That is your explanation?

25 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] In other words, Witness, what you

1 are saying is that when we're talking about modified air bombs, it is

2 possible that bombs may be made with, as their content merely fuel and

3 air, on the one hand, and that there are other bombs which contain a lot

4 of TNT, and that the first bombs may use maybe 15 kilos of TNT simply as a

5 primer, but that for such modified air bombs, it will -- there will not

6 necessarily be a lot of shrapnel, not necessarily a lot of fragments.

7 That's what you're saying? Because earlier counsel for the Defence said,

8 and he quoted a number of incidents in which he was wondering, if I

9 understood him right, whether since there were no fragments, not enough

10 shrapnel, and since there were not enough traces, then maybe they weren't

11 modified air bombs at all. But what you're say something that, in fact,

12 even without fragments, even without shrapnel, it is quite possible that

13 this is a modified air bomb, right?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is indisputable that this was an

15 air bomb, a fuel-air bomb, and it was driven by a motor engine and filled

16 with an explosive. There are SFOR photographs taken after the war and

17 these photographs are attached to this report. There is no dispute about

18 this. There are photographs of Russian missiles that were also found in

19 Bosnia-Herzegovina by SFOR and not by either of the warring parties, and

20 those too are attached to the present report.

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. Mr. Tapuskovic, now you have given us

23 two incidents in respect of the basic issue as to whether there were

24 casualties, the 1st of July and the 16th of June. What is the other one,

25 or the others, in which you allege there were no casualties?

1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would need to go

2 back to the statement that I showed. Before his help was ever enlisted as

3 an expert witness, he listed a couple of incidents where there was no

4 shrapnel and no casualties. I do have to remain adamant about this

5 though. The 16th of June, that particular incident, three missiles,

6 alleged missiles, air bombs. On the 16th of June. We have three missiles

7 on that day, that were subjected to analysis by Mr. Zecevic. With the

8 exception of slight injuries there wasn't a single casualty. These

9 incidents are described in his report. This is the 16th of June, three

10 separate incidents. Except for slight injuries, there wasn't a single

11 casualty. This was one day into the offensive. How can he possibly

12 explain this? Three bombs exploded and not a single death.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Whiting.

15 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, this -- counsel is obviously making

16 reference to scheduled incidents 11, 12, 13. In all cases injuries are

17 alleged, and in all cases evidence to that effect has been led. We're now

18 hearing a distinction between light injuries and injuries, but that wasn't

19 the premise of the question earlier. The premise of the question was no

20 casualties. These all -- that -- that there were casualties in all

21 instances.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Because for schedule -- scheduled incident number

23 11, it's alleged three persons were slightly injured. Mr. Tapuskovic, for

24 number 12, it's alleged seven persons were injured, and in shelling

25 incident 13, W -- witness W-104 and her daughter, who was in the apartment

1 as well, were both badly and permanently injured. And evidence has been

2 led in relation to these.

3 MR. WHITING: Yes, that's my understanding, yes.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, we have examined this matter

6 sufficiently. You are to proceed with the question but not on the basis

7 that there were no casualties, because have you not been able to

8 substantiate that from either the indictment or the evidence to our

9 satisfaction.

10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm not sure how much time

11 remains for me to bring up a couple of more incidents to ask the witness

12 about. How much time.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: How many more incidents do you have in mind?

14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, I'd like at least two or

15 three. No more than that, because all the other ones are pretty much

16 similar, really.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. You have another 12 minutes left and

18 let us see how far you get in 12 minutes. If you need more time, then we

19 will consider it.

20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there's one thing I

21 need to ask the witness --

22 Q. There was no incident where you took into account the medical

23 files, was there? A while ago you confirmed to me about the lungs

24 bursting. You never looked at any medical files in order to cross

25 reference those injuries with the possibility of injury, not merely by

1 shrapnel but also by bits and pieces of building material which was a

2 distinct possibility. You never cross referenced that, did you?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 A. No, no, I did look into that but I'm no expert in defining

6 injuries. I am an expert in determining how injuries come about. I'm a

7 designer of ammunition. My job is to create a weapon that will cause an

8 injury. It's not for me to assess the injury itself. This is the job of

9 a medical expert and no one else.

10 Q. At any rate, there was no medical expert for you to

11 cross-reference and to compare to your own findings, right?

12 A. In the material submitted to me, there were medical findings and

13 submissions by physicians. However, it was my belief that I myself was

14 not qualified to give an opinion about that.

15 Q. Fine. Let me try to tackle what I really believe is necessary.

16 Let's look at the 28th of June, 1995, the incident that occurred on that

17 day. This was when the TV building was hit; that's the incident that I'm

18 talking about.

19 If I'm not mistaken, and I must say this again, before you were

20 appointed as an expert, even then on the 28th, even ten days before then,

21 you observed the effects of those air bombs in an entirely unofficial

22 capacity, as you have confirmed, right?

23 A. What would you possibly consider to be an official capacity?

24 Q. Well, that's not necessarily the issue. But on the 28th you were

25 given the job, and by this time you had already formed a deep conviction

1 to which you stuck throughout the rest of your work, right?

2 A. No. What I always do is I approach the site of an explosion, the

3 scene of a crime. I photograph it, I record the marks, I record the

4 prevailing conditions, and that's what my report is based on. I would be

5 a very lousy expert indeed if I were to define the results of my own work

6 ahead of time or before I take the actual findings.

7 Q. If we look at page 125, B/C/S. The English reference is 140. But

8 before that -- my apologies. I do have to ask you several questions about

9 some general features in relation to the flight of missiles, of bombs,

10 while they're still in the air, I mean. You address that in paragraph 18,

11 19, 20, and 21, those paragraphs.

12 There the English page is 167 and the B/C/S is 148. Here you say

13 that: "The velocity of a missile is relatively low."

14 Is that right?

15 A. What do you mean "relatively low"? I was talking about FAB-100,

16 the velocity was 200 plus/minus per second, and the FAB-220, depending on

17 the angle at which it was fired.

18 Q. And then number 18, I'm talking about page 167. It has a large

19 mass and it's -- it's easy to observe in flight. It is very difficult --

20 it is very easy to spot and to monitor.

21 A. What is your reference for this?

22 Q. Page 148.

23 A. Excuse me, a missile can be observed, if you observe its motion

24 laterally from one of the sides. So this is how a missile flies and

25 whoever is observing it is at a certain distance. If it makes a sound,

1 then it's -- it's possible to observe it. However, if a missile is flying

2 towards the observer it is impossible to visually observe it.

3 Q. More about paragraph 19, page 152. That is the B/C/S reference,

4 171 in the English text where you say: "Given that the launching pads

5 were within urban communities or near forested ground, probably only a

6 small part of the population was near the places that the missiles were

7 fired from and probably very few observed the fact that the missiles were

8 fired."

9 A. Yes, but that's perfectly commonplace. If you look at image 128,

10 figure 128, you can see that. The acoustic spectrum is a function of time

11 of an artillery launch. These are an -- American images, and it wasn't

12 until ten years ago that devices were built to detect missiles by way of

13 using an acoustic spectrum in order to more accurately locate a missile.

14 Q. Let's look at the pages that are in relation to the incident

15 itself. 125 in B/C/S and the English is 140, or rather, 141, if you turn

16 the page. So 126 and 141.

17 You established here that it was the investigators' opinion that

18 the incoming direction of the missile was from the general area of

19 Dogladi?

20 A. I just copied what they had stated in their own report, and then I

21 provide my own comment further on.

22 Q. Yes, we're about to look at that. But let's please first go to

23 the next page, 127, and the English is 143. This is what you state here.

24 You talk about witness statements what various witnesses said. For

25 example, Rijalda Musaefendic heard a sound. Mehmed Kember heard a loud

1 blow. Fadila Serdarevic heard a loud thud. Witness Muhamed heard the

2 falling of concrete and glass, and then they heard a detonation, they

3 heard the projectile fly, and what do you say in relation to Igor Mocnaj?

4 He was outside the building. He heard the missile being fired. And then

5 he goes on to explain what exactly he heard, but he heard the actual

6 missile being fired. And then two paragraphs down you go on to say this:

7 "Two military observers saw the launching and the flight of the projectile

8 low velocity -- low altitude impacting into the north side of the

9 building, the explosion taking place several seconds after the impact."

10 My question: Given the fact that witness Igor Mocnaj heard the

11 missile being fired, does that not clearly show that the bomb or the

12 missile was fired from a nearby position within the area of responsibility

13 of the BH army, yes or no?

14 A. No. Why? We discussed about the features of sound. I said this

15 and you quoted it. If the place that the missile was launched from was in

16 a forested area, or if it was in a settled, built-up area, if you look at

17 the launching direction that I spoke about in my analysis, you will see

18 that there is a flat piece of land there with no settled or built-up

19 areas. It's perfectly flat. You could hear the rocket engines humming,

20 as I said, for about two seconds at least, and then up until 400 metres

21 from the place where the missile was launched from. So as far as the TV

22 building was concerned, yes, you could hear that. You could hear this,

23 you could hear that, but everything depends on specific conditions and

24 each of the incidents were unique. During the testing, I could hear

25 rocket missiles being fired at a distance of between 10 and 12 kilometres,

1 but that is over flat ground.

2 Q. Thank you very much. I have to interrupt you. You say that each

3 incident is unique. This is the only witness who actually heard a missile

4 being fired, not a missile flying. Does that mean that he was near the

5 place that the missile was fired from, which would seem to imply that it

6 was fired from a position under the control of the BH army?

7 A. No, I have just explained it to you, haven't I? This is about the

8 lie of the land; that's what it is about.

9 Q. Did you even try to assess what the two military observers

10 noticed? Or did you simply not take that into account at all?

11 A. I did provide a comment right here, didn't I? It's -- it's their

12 comment, actually. Low velocity. Low velocity, about 200 metres per

13 second. It might be low to you, might not be low to me. I told you about

14 those that have the speed of 1.000 metres per second. For me, this is a

15 low velocity and low altitude. An average missile can fly at 400 or 500

16 metres' altitude. 4.000 to 5.000 metres' altitude, and this one flew at

17 600 or 700 metre, so that is a low altitude for me, for my standards. You

18 need to define high and low.

19 Q. You say that it was located at 5.800 metres that it flew in from

20 the Butile. Could it possibly have had -- have followed that sort of

21 trajectory, given the hills that would have been in the way?

22 A. If you look at the photograph on page 131, you can see very

23 clearly that there is not a single hill in that area, not a single forest.

24 This is flat ground unsettled. This is what we normally refer to as the

25 Sarajevo field. This area was farmed. There are no obstacles there,

1 nothing in way of the sound, nothing to muffle the sound of a missile

2 flying through.

3 Q. I'm really sorry that I won't have sufficient time to -- to take

4 you back to each of the incidents, but can you please explain this to the

5 Chamber. Can you explain why you established something that was totally

6 different from what the investigators had established. They mentioned the

7 Dogladi area from the area where the missile was fired and you talked

8 about general Butile area. Is it not because you were looking for an

9 appropriate trajectory for the missile to follow precisely because there

10 no hills in that area?

11 A. Let me remind you. Go to page 126, the upper-left image on page.

12 One can see clearly on the roof of the TV building clear, severe damage,

13 caused by an impact of a bomb against the roof. If you use standard

14 American norms to establish the direction of impact, in the case of a

15 ricochet, and you can see that here, you can determine the direction. You

16 can see the marks that the bomb left on the roof and based on that, I

17 determined the direction, its angle of descent. I defined that.

18 Last Friday I said that the angle of descent was about 25 per cent

19 causing -- 25 degree, causing severe damage to the roof of the TV

20 building. It was also possible to establish the minimum range followed by

21 that particular missile, not the maximum range, the minimum range, and

22 this tallies fully with the result of my own analysis, which itself is

23 very accurate.

24 Q. Can you explain to the Chamber why there is this striking

25 discrepancy between the two, the place that it was fired from, Butile and

1 Dogladi. These are two different locations, right, especially in terms of

2 distance, aren't they?

3 A. I can only explain what I did myself. If you have any other

4 questions about that, I think I can tell you as to who -- why the

5 investigators wrote this or wrote that. Now, this is really not something

6 that I can be expected to comment on, is it?

7 Q. You took all of those photographs last year, didn't you?

8 A. I don't understand what you're saying.

9 Q. All these photographs, all these lines that you drew as potential

10 trajectories, you did that in your own office, didn't you?

11 A. Can you please be more specific? Which photographs?

12 Q. I hope we're not overlapping, are we?

13 The photographs in your report.

14 A. But which ones?

15 Q. All of them, the whole works. All of the photographs in this

16 expert report that are in relation to these incidents.

17 A. Can I remind you of this: Go back to page 126. Below the

18 photograph in the upper-left corner it says, "photograph from the

19 following document 0032392143." This is a document that I received from

20 the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor obtained this document from the

21 investigators. There are all these photographs. They're all clear, and

22 they all say exactly where they came from.

23 Q. If we could please just go to page 1 hundred. It's impossible for

24 me to deal with everything, isn't it? Page 100, which addresses the

25 incident that occurred on the 7th of April.

1 I'm about to provide the English reference. English reference is

2 112, page 112.

3 Allegedly there is a witness to this incident. That's what it

4 says. The witness who followed the launching of this modified air bomb

5 from the water protection area at the spring of the Bosna River near the

6 village of Dolac. Who is this witness?

7 A. He is in one of the OTP documents. I didn't care about that

8 witness's name it didn't matter to me. But in documents that I was given

9 there was a witness who watched a missile being launched from Igman and he

10 used his own binoculars to follow this.

11 Q. This is in on o the OTP document and the person's name is right

12 there.

13 Can you please explain how it is possible given the number of

14 incidents that there is no other eye-witness, not a single other

15 eye-witness throughout that summer with the exception of this one?

16 A. I don't see why I should be expected to explain that to you, why

17 things happened the way they did.

18 Q. Well, doesn't that show that many never flew at all, they were on

19 the ground before the explosion?

20 A. I don't understand what you're saying. There is absolutely no

21 physical meaning or possible sense to you're saying. Will someone

22 actually spot a missile over a 24-hour period at a location that is an

23 area covering ten kilometres at a given point in time. It's like looking

24 for a needle in a haystack. You need to know exactly where a missile was

25 launched from in order to be able to assess the probability of someone

1 actually seeing the missile fired and following the missile on its flight.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, just to clarify, your case is

3 that these bombs were actually planted by the -- by ABiH, by the ABiH?

4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] There is one thing that I can say

5 with certainty, and I won't try to explain all of it now. The majority of

6 those explosions, if one looks at their individual features, were

7 occurring on the ground. There is an absence of shrapnel or an absence of

8 a significant number of casualties, if those were the air bombs. It was

9 the air pressure which could have caused casualties within a 30-metre

10 radius, and the witness said that there would have been 10.000 bits of

11 shrapnel. There should have been a lot more casualties. Particularly

12 characteristic is what happened in July when the offensive began.

13 There -- there were no casualties at all --

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: I just want to understand your case, and it is

15 that so far from these bombs having been fired by the Serbs that modified

16 air bombs, they were in fact planted by the ABiH and exploded and you --

17 and, to support that, you say that if there were modified air bombs you

18 would have expected to find more shrapnel and more casualties?

19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And at least someone who saw

20 where the bomb came from. Only one witness was mentioned but he never

21 appeared here before us. At least some of the people would have seen the

22 bombs since it was daylight, but we have not heard a single witness who

23 said that he saw a bomb flying at a relatively low speed and fall -- hit

24 the ground. This witness says that that witness saw something and --

25 including the launching system mounted on a truck, and that then he saw

1 the launching truck leave for the factory. He mentions that witness, but

2 we haven't found a single witness in all these days who said that he saw

3 the projectile.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: But just -- we just confirm that your case is

5 that the -- these bombs were planted by personnel of the ABiH? Isn't that

6 your case?

7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I categorically state that in

8 most of the cases the answer is yes, absolutely so; it is my definite

9 position.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: I just want to the be clear about that.

11 Mr. Whiting.

12 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, it -- it misstates the evidence to stay

13 that there were no witnesses to these air bombs in flight. I can think of

14 one immediately, the witness who testified from -- having seen it from

15 a -- a OP4, and I believe that there are others who have talked about the

16 air bombs in flight. It's also --

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't think he's saying there were no

18 witnesses, but he said that you'd have expected to have more witnesses.

19 MR. WHITING: No. He said there were no other witnesses. He

20 stated it quite categorically. And it's also -- it's not -- there's been

21 no evidence that there were no witnesses to these air bombs in flight.

22 There -- there may be not witnesses who have been identified and come to

23 court, but that's a different thing from saying nobody saw these bombs

24 launched or flying, which is what counsel keeps saying. Well, if nobody

25 saw them, then how could they have been launched and fly? People -- it's

1 our case, of course, that people did see them. It's not -- just because

2 you haven't -- they haven't been identified and brought to court, that

3 doesn't mean that nobody saw them.

4 I -- I mean, it's one thing to argue but to misstate the evidence,

5 I think, is -- is not fair.

6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, so as not to

7 forget, in the case of one bomb, the Defence categorically states that it

8 was observed to have been fired from one of the positions of the army of

9 Bosnia-Herzegovina. What importance that attaches to the entire issue of

10 air bombs, well, I wouldn't go into that right now, but at least in one

11 case the Defence's position is that it was fired from one of the positions

12 of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

13 I wanted to ask the witness the following.

14 Q. When you worked on the case that had to do with the television,

15 did you have in mind of UN report in which it is clear that people from

16 the positions of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina fired at projectile that

17 we termed an air bomb?

18 A. I wasn't able to see such a report. What I saw were two

19 statements of military observers, if this is what you had in mind. Maybe

20 we are talking about two different incidents.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Another five minutes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Let us have a look at the incident of the 7th of April, in

24 addition to everything else I have put forth. Perhaps I can show you page

25 102, and, in English, it is 114. So in the B/C/S, it is 102.

1 There you state: "There are no traces of destruction from bomb

2 fragments on the remaining walls while they should have been there,

3 considering that the FAB-250 has a minimum of 11.000 fragments."

4 Isn't this case -- example which shows that that bomb did not have

5 the characteristics of a weapon which could cause catastrophic -- which

6 would have catastrophic consequences, as is stated in the indictment?

7 A. Let us make one thing clear, when I talk about the FAB-250, I'm

8 talking about the one with TNT. When I talk about the -- a modified

9 FAB-250 bomb, I'm talking about an air bomb with a fuel, fuel-air. If

10 confirms my concept. If you look at the second photograph to the right,

11 you will see that next to the house an air bomb exploded. On the walls

12 you see no marks of penetration by fragments which should have been there

13 had the bomb been filled with TNT. This is a typical example of a

14 fuel-air bomb explosion in which the pressure of the detonation is between

15 20 or 30 bar, rather than several 100.000 bars. This corroborates my

16 hypothesis that all of these projectiles were actually fuel-air

17 projectiles. And perhaps I could add something else.

18 Q. Sorry, but I'm short of time.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could you please look

20 at the upper picture in the right-hand side corner. It is a practical

21 example. You see that the inner wall in the house was preserved. Only

22 the outer walls were destroyed, whereas the inner wall remains. It is a

23 typical characteristic of a fuel-air bomb; when the fuel migrates through

24 or in the area it has such an impact. If there is a TNT explosion, the

25 pressure created hits the surface, knocking it down. When we have the

1 fuel-air, when it migrates in a -- in a space, the pressure is on both

2 sides. Therefore, the wall remains, and this is precisely what this

3 photograph shows, the photograph on page 102 in the upper hand --

4 right-hand corner. It is a very clear example of such a bomb impacting

5 against a building.

6 As you can see, there is not a single mark of -- any fragments.

7 There is a wooden door in the picture, and there are no fragment marks

8 there. The only thing that happened was the destruction of the planks.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Apart from the lack of fragmentation, which you

10 say indicates it was a fuel-air bomb, would one expect to find anything

11 else that would confirm your theory that it was a fuel-air bomb? Is there

12 anything tangible that one would expect to find consistent with the -- a

13 fuel-air bomb having been discharged and exploded.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, when a F-250 [as

15 interpreted] air bomb explodes on the ground, depending on whether it

16 impacts at the moment of hitting the ground or once it has penetrated the

17 ground, it forms as crater which is between seven and 12 metres in radius,

18 the depth of which is between 1.8 and 3.8 metres. I provided a reference

19 about a British Army report of such effects. A crater must be there. A

20 bomb cannot influence the surface only. In any case, it creates a crater

21 which is at least seven and as much as 12 metres in diameter, and it

22 uplifts enormous quantities of earth. And if we are talking about an

23 FAB-250, it has 93 kilos of TNT. In these incidents, such effects were

24 not present. It couldn't have happened that there were no fragments and

25 no craters of such dimensions.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic, finishing up now.

2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is an example

3 of the experts conduct. In the next paragraph on the same page, perhaps I

4 needn't read all the figures, but as for the estimated angle, it would

5 entail mounting a launching pad at the foot of Mount Igman which would

6 cause, or, rather, render the launching site vulnerable to infantry

7 attacks.

8 Q. Are you trying to deny that the launching site was as mentioned in

9 the reports of the investigators? It was on page 102.

10 A. Can you show me where the investigator states that the launching

11 site was there? Did they say it was in the village of Dolac, according to

12 a witness statement?

13 Q. Yes but you can read it for yourself. It is on page 102.

14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It seems that we are overlapping.

15 MR. WHITING: I'm wondering if we could have an English reference.

16 I think the 102 is a B/C/S reference.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Isn't it the same page, page 140, the paragraph

18 below?

19 MR. WHITING: I thought there was just another reference to the

20 village of --

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Oh, I see.

22 MR. WHITING: -- to what the investigator said, I don't know,

23 maybe --

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the English page for that other

25 reference, Mr. Tapuskovic?

1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Excuse me, 114.

3 A. I clearly delineated the way I determined the azimuth. If we look

4 at page 101 --

5 Q. Witness, did you change the location at which the investigators

6 stated the launching -- the launching pad was?

7 A. You can look at my methodology and the way I used to determine the

8 direction from which the projectile came. Did you read my entire report?

9 It is clearly stated there how I determined what the angle of impact was

10 as well as the direction azimuth. In cases such as this one, I can only

11 determine what the wider area was. I cannot be precise -- as precise to

12 say it was two degrees to the right or to the left.

13 Q. Let me conclude, here you state that that would imply that the

14 launcher had to be placed right under Mount Igman, which would make it

15 exposed to possible infantry fire.

16 Is this why you changed the degree values and now all of a sudden

17 you are talking about 320 degrees?

18 A. I said that it was most likely. This is the minimum position to

19 the left where the launching site could have been in order to be able to

20 hit that building. It doesn't preclude or exclude the previous concept.

21 I did not rely on the witness statement, since it was the witness who

22 mentioned the location.

23 Q. That's precisely what I tried to ask you. Thank you.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Any re-examination, Mr. ...

25 MR. WHITING: Very briefly, Your Honour.

1 Re-examination by Mr. Whiting:

2 Q. If we could just go to page 140 of your report in the English, and

3 I'll tell you in a second what it is in B/C/S. It would be 125. This is

4 in regard to the TV tower incident.

5 Now, do you see that we -- the section entitled "investigator's

6 opinion"?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And there it says that the -- it states that the incoming

9 direction was 280 degrees plus or ten -- plus or minus ten degrees. And

10 then if you could look -- turn a couple of pages and follow to where your

11 comment is. It's on page 143 of the English, where you start your

12 comment, and, on the B/C/S, I'm not sure where it is, but I'm sure you can

13 find it.

14 And in the third paragraph of your comment you state that the

15 incoming was 280 degrees. So is your -- my question is, is your opinion

16 about the direction of fire consistent with the investigator's?

17 A. Completely so.

18 Q. One other question. You were shown one of your prior statements,

19 and it's in evidence now as Exhibit D170. And the President of the Trial

20 Chamber asked you a question about this, but i just wanted to make sure it

21 was absolutely clear because I'm not sure whether it was completely clear

22 in the end.

23 On page 7 in the English of that statement, and I'm afraid I don't

24 know what it's going to be in B/C/S, but I think it's approximately the

25 same page. It's when you're talking about the effects and use of types of

1 bombs, in particular fuel-air bombs, and you say in the last paragraph, I

2 think, there on the B/C/S. If we could scroll down on the B/C/S so that

3 the bottom of the page is visible. You -- you -- you -- does that say,

4 the beginning, technically this projectile was not perfect? Just so I'm

5 oriented, I think ...

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Okay. And then -- and then you say in that: "Our authorities did

8 not appreciate that these weapons are unsuited for use against military

9 targets."

10 Do you see that, that paragraph? Do you see that sentence?

11 A. Yes, I do.

12 Q. My question is: Are you suggesting there in any way that the ABiH

13 in Sarajevo had modified air bombs during the period of time that we're

14 talking about?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Thank you.

17 MR. WHITING: I have no further questions, Your Honours.

18 Questioned by the Court:

19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. Mr. Zecevic, I have a few questions to

20 put to you regarding some of the evidence which we have heard during this

21 trial.

22 And my first question relates to information that was provided to

23 us that on some of the shrapnel pieces of some of the modified air bombs

24 swastika signs were found, suggesting that the air bomb that had been used

25 was a reminiscence from the Second World War. And I wonder if you could

1 enlighten us a bit on that, and the question is: Were bombs that were

2 left over from the Second World War used during the siege of Sarajevo, and

3 who could have used those bombs?

4 A. Your Honour, if I remember it correctly, it was the Safeta Hadzica

5 case. There was a built-up area, and, in addition to a fuel-air bomb,

6 several mortar rounds fell, and, as for the pieces of the fuel-air bomb,

7 it wasn't those pieces that contained the swastika, or, rather, it was the

8 fuse of the mortar round, as far as I recall.

9 Then a fuel-air explosive did not exist in the Second World War.

10 It was used in Vietnam by the Americans for the first time, if this is a

11 response to your question.

12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Well, I just wanted to clarify, because I thought

13 that some of the air bombs that had been used in Sarajevo were in fact

14 bombs that were remaining from the Second World War, and perhaps they

15 could have been refuelled, so to say, that they could have contained TNT

16 originally and then the TNT had been taken out and the explosive would --

17 would then have been replaced with air-fuel explosive. Or it could have

18 been a smaller bomb corresponding to the FAB-100. But if your answer is

19 that to your knowledge no bombshells remaining from the Second World War

20 were used, except that perhaps some mortars that could have remained from

21 the Second World War were used, then that answer satisfies my question.

22 Is that correctly understood.

23 A. [No audible response]

24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well.

25 A. Yes, certainly.

1 JUDGE HARHOFF: My next question relates to the observations that

2 apparently some of the witnesses who saw modified air bombs have offered,

3 and I believe that at least one witness and maybe several witnesses have

4 testified to the effects that they saw a bomb with four rockets attached

5 to it. And my question therefore is: What sort of modified air bomb

6 would that have been, because if I understand you correctly the FAB-100

7 had three rockets, while the FAB-250 had only one big rocket attached to

8 it.

9 So if an air bomb was observed with four rockets, then what sort

10 of bomb would that have been?

11 A. Your Honour, there is the Russian air bomb, Potok 500 with four

12 rocket boosters. The code-name is KREMA-4. In the area of Sarajevo, the

13 FAB-250 with three rocket boosters were used. On occasion, and there is

14 documents to support it by the RS army, that sometimes they used bombs

15 with two rocket boosters. There are orders in existence as to that.

16 When reading investigator reports, I noticed that rocket boosters

17 of 120-millimetre GRAD were used, these are of Russian make. It has two

18 pipes connecting the boosters, and once such a bomb impacts, even four or

19 five cylinders could be found on occasion, and with laypeople this was --

20 create an impression that there were more than three rocket boosters.

21 This is what I came across when reading such reports, but each time it

22 said 122-millimetres deep, and -- sorry, the pieces were 120 by 700

23 millimetres. And the length of a rocket booster is about 1800

24 millimetres. That would be my explanation.

25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.

1 Now my next question relates to observations offered by other

2 witnesses regarding the sound. It has been extensively covered in your

3 report, I am fully aware of that, but somehow the information that I have

4 read in your report does not quite match the witnesses' observations. You

5 see, we have had witnesses who said that they saw a bomb coming flying

6 slowly over the sky and making the sound as -- making a sound that

7 reminded them of a jet plane. What I do not understand and what I'm

8 asking you to explain to me, if you can, is: If I understood you

9 correctly the engine only burns for a couple of seconds, two or three or

10 maybe four seconds, and then the rocket has exhausted its sources of

11 propelling. And from that moment on, the -- the bomb just continues

12 ballistically.

13 If a witness then observes the bomb coming flying over the sky and

14 hearing a sound that is very distinct, what sound would that have been?

15 Would that have been while the engine -- while the rocket engine was still

16 burning or is there a sound even after the rocket has exhausted its fuel?

17 What I'm asking, I guess, is that the sound of a mortar is very distinct.

18 It has a whistling sound when it lands. And my question is therefore:

19 Would a modified air bomb have a similar sound, even after the rocket has

20 exhausted its fuel? Or would it be silent?

21 A. Your Honour, you put the question exceptionally well. There two

22 segments, one is the launching segment with a high-pitch sound, and it is

23 quite loud when the rocket engines are working. It lasts for about two

24 seconds. That is one phase.

25 If you go to page 60, you will see that the stabilisers or the

1 tail-fins are rather small in terms of their -- in terms of their area,

2 and they are supposed to direct the rocket once it leaves the launch pad.

3 What this means is that watching laterally, people can hear a humming

4 sound, like a cylinder aeroplane engine, the engine of a small plane

5 flying over an area, but this is only laterally. If you stand in front of

6 the projectile, it flies at a designated speed and can you hear it. It is

7 a typical sound of rotation. It is a hissing sound of air going through

8 the pieces of rocket, the streaming of air, and it goes for both the

9 FAB-250 and for the other one. They both have tail-fins which rotate the

10 rocket, and it is stated at page 68 and 69.

11 JUDGE HARHOFF: I don't have the B/C/S; unfortunately, I only have

12 the English. But I'll find that information, but thank you very much. So

13 just to confirm: A witness who could hear a modified air bomb, a witness

14 could hear a modified air bomb even after the engine had exhausted its

15 fuel?

16 A. You hear the sound for as long as the projectile is flying

17 ballistically as of the moment when the rocket engine stopped working and

18 the moment of impact.

19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. My next question, and I have just a

20 few more questions left. My next question is the observation that we have

21 been offered by expert by -- sorry, by police officers, investigators and

22 by UNMOs, namely the fact that both for mortars and apparently for

23 modified air bombs the tail-fin for a mortar and the rockets for a

24 modified air bomb remain in the crater once the device has exploded.

25 And -- and I wonder if you can provide us just with some sort of

1 information about how come that the tail-fin remains in the crater. One

2 would have thought that it would be blasted away from the point of

3 explosion.

4 What is the dynamic process of the tail-fin remaining in the

5 crater or, as we see on page -- I just found it a while ago. I think on

6 page 119 in the English version, we see on the upper-right corner a crater

7 with -- with the remainders of the rockets? Why are these remnants not

8 blown away?

9 A. First I will try to explain about mortars, if you agree, and then

10 we can go back to this specific case.

11 In the case of a mortar, if I may use this photograph to explain

12 this in detail, when a mortar hits the ground, when it flies at a certain

13 velocity and impacts against a target and explodes, and this part is

14 thrown off at a velocity of about 180 metres per second. This is in the

15 case of a 120-millimetre mortar. If the incoming velocity and the

16 velocity of the bit being thrown off is the same, and that is about 170

17 metres per second, we are likely to find the stabiliser or the tail-fin.

18 And this was the case with Markale 2.

19 When the velocity of a missile, when impacting is less than the

20 velocity of the bits being thrown off, this will bounce about 50 or 100

21 metres and will no longer be at the same place where the explosion took

22 place. When the velocity is greater than 170 metres per second, this

23 piece will continue to fly and will drill its way into the ground. But

24 I'm only talking about 120-millimetre mortars. With 80-millimetre and

25 60-millimetre mortar, it will be very difficult to find a stabiliser or a

1 tail-fin anywhere near the site of the explosion.

2 JUDGE MINDUA: [No interpretation]

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE MINDUA: All the answer was not translated.

5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, Did you understand that your last

6 answer was translated into French. So I kindly ask you to repeat it. And

7 can I -- when you repeat your answer, could you then include one piece of

8 information, namely, the question -- answer to the question of whether the

9 tail-fin is separated from the shell while the mortar is still descending.

10 Because I thought that -- that the tail-fin would remain on the shell

11 until the moment of explosion.

12 So -- so could you include in your answer also answer to the

13 question whether the tail-fin is separated from the shell -- from the case

14 itself before the mortar explodes.

15 A. The mortar has a body and the bearer of the tail-fin and they are

16 together until the mortar hits the ground. When there is an explosion,

17 the body splinters into thousands of pieces and they fly at a velocity of

18 several thousand metres per second. This body is massive. It's about

19 four and a half kilos. It can't possibly splinter and there are three

20 possible things that can possibly happen depending on the incoming

21 velocity. When the incoming velocity is about the same, which is about

22 180 metres per second, in those cases we shall find the stabiliser near

23 the place where the explosion occurred.

24 If the velocity is lower than that, which usual happens when the

25 range is low, then you -- one doesn't find the body of the projectile

1 nearby. It's usually at a distance of about 150 or 200 metres from the

2 explosion itself, depending on the angle and the velocity.

3 The third case is the case of Markale 3. The projectile flies at

4 a high velocity than 180 metres per second, and then the stabiliser pad

5 continues to fly and drills its way into the ground. Then -- it was then

6 we found it, but this is only possible with 120-millimetre mortars. With

7 these rocket systems, for example, if there was some TNT in the warhead,

8 the same thing would have happened. These rocket boosters would have been

9 bounced out of the crater because the velocity is about 150 to 200 metres

10 per second at the point of impact. And taking into account that fact that

11 if you have an air bomb, FAB-250, and it contains about 93 kilograms of

12 explosives, it -- it would have been bounced off about 100 metres and so

13 would the stabilisers have been. I did not want to use that as an

14 argument because the primary thing for me was no shrapnel, and that is the

15 key to the situation. If an air bomb lands next to a building at a

16 10-metre distance, there is a white wall, and the white wall shows

17 absolutely no shrapnel at all, then the situation is clear.

18 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be reminded to slow

19 down drastically, otherwise we are absolutely unable to follow what he is

20 saying. Thank you.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: You are speaking too fast, too quickly, yes.

22 JUDGE HARHOFF: My last question, Mr. Zecevic, relates to some of

23 the considerations that might have been made at the Pretis factory when

24 these bombs were developed. And when I put my question to you, I remind

25 you that you are still under oath, and that are you not accused in this

1 case.

2 My question is whether, to your knowledge, the possibility of

3 using these newly developed modified air bombs on civilian targets was

4 ever discussed at Pretis, to your knowledge?

5 A. Sir, you mean up to 1992?

6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Up to 1992 and until 1995, to your knowledge.

7 A. I left the factory on the 17th of April, 1992, and I was no longer

8 able to even access the factory. Up until that point in time there had

9 been only been one option, to develop a fuel-air bomb which was meant to

10 be used to target tank convoys and certainly not to target civilians, or

11 civilian settlements. At the same time there was a plan to develop a

12 fuel-air grenade that was supposed to be laid in places where tanks were

13 expected.

14 Throughout my time with the JNA, it was never part of its

15 doctrine, not even in the remotest possible way, to use any weapon at all

16 against civilians. At least that was the case while we were still in the

17 Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia. I don't know about anything

18 else.

19 JUDGE HARHOFF: But yet you say that the precision-ness of these

20 weapons were extremely poor. So one would have thought that if you were

21 developing a new technique of launching these air bombs by using rockets

22 and you knew that it was very difficult to target with any degree of

23 precision, then how could one have avoided discussing the possibilities

24 that they would be falling on civilian areas and therefore one would have

25 thought that, in developing these weapons, extreme cautions were to be --

1 or would have to be taken when using them, that is to say that -- that the

2 bombs could then only be used against tanks, as you said, in an open field

3 where there was no risk of the bomb dropping down in the civilian area.

4 Were these considerations made in your time?

5 A. I would like to emphasise this. Back in 1991, for example, the

6 Pretis factory sent to Iraq, for example, about 700 missiles with a range

7 of 50 kilometres and these were developed specifically for Iraq. These

8 missiles were the so-called Orkan missiles, but they were not part of the

9 JNA armoury because they didn't meet the standards that existed at the

10 time. I'm talking about up to 1992. The destructive potential, the

11 accuracy, and the effectiveness that was called for at the time.

12 In August 1992 when armed conflicts erupted in Yugoslavia, the

13 rockets were transferred to the Novi Sad Corps. I'm telling you about the

14 general idea. Yugoslavia was pumping a lot of money into developing its

15 rocket systems, but the standards were very high. Ammunition had to be

16 reliable. One had to know where a missile would end up, and what the

17 impact deviation would be. Based on that, you could assess what the

18 targets would have been.

19 However, the course that the war took and the respective powers of

20 the parties involved caused a disbalance to the morality of warfare in

21 Yugoslavia. Up until 1992, not a single rocket artillery or mortar system

22 could have been part of the armoury that had not been long in developing,

23 sometimes between five - possibly seven - and ten years. No single system

24 was ever used. Never was a decision taken to use a system that had not

25 been developed for longer than a year. That was a rule. There is an --

1 actually book of rules adopted by the supreme staff the JNA describing the

2 evolutionary progress of each and every weapon, all tests that had to be

3 run, and there had to be independent committees assessing certain weapons

4 and whether it met certain technical standards or not.

5 JUDGE HARHOFF: But that normal screening process then, according

6 to what you're saying, was not observed when it came to the use of -- of

7 the FABs-100 and FABs-250.

8 A. No.

9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, that concludes your evidence. We thank

11 you for giving it and you may leave now.

12 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

13 [The witness withdrew]

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, do you have an answer on the 92

15 ter motion?

16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] We agree. We agree.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. Thank you.

18 Next witness.

19 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, the next witness will be handled by

20 Mr. Sachdeva. It's Mr. Higgs, another expert witness. And I've lost

21 track of when the break is.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: 20 minutes.

23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the President, please.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: We did break early, but I think we'll just go

25 to -- to 20 past.

1 MR. WHITING: Okay. The reality is that with the -- with the

2 change that's going to occur, we're going to use -- we're going to have

3 basically the time for him to sit down and say hello. So might -- maybe

4 it would be more efficient if we'd -- if you'd -- if Your Honours don't

5 mind. We're happy to do it any way you like, but ...

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll just take the break now.

7 --- Recess taken at 12.17 p.m.

8 [The witness entered court]

9 --- On resuming at 12.38 p.m.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.

11 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

12 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

13 WITNESS: RICHARD HIGGS

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit.

15 And Mr. Sachdeva you may begin.

16 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon to you

17 and to Your Honours.

18 Examination by Mr. Sachdeva:

19 Q. Good afternoon, Witness.

20 A. Good afternoon.

21 Q. Can you start by stating your full name and your place and date of

22 birth, please.

23 A. My name is Richard James Higgs. My date of birth is the 20th of

24 the 10th, 1959, and my place of birth is Nottingham in England.

25 Q. Mr. Higgs, did you prepare expert reports, three expert reports

1 for the Office of the Prosecutor?

2 A. Yes, I have.

3 Q. Did those reports pertain to an incident at the marketplace on the

4 28th of August, 1995, an incident at Livanjska Street on the 8th of

5 November, 1994, at 1525 and 1725 hours and, lastly, related to an incident

6 on the 18th of June, 1995, at Dobrinja?

7 A. Yes I have.

8 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, before I start I would like the

9 registrar assign Exhibit numbers to the reports. I can read out the 65

10 ter numbers.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

12 MR. SACHDEVA: The first report related to the firing incident at

13 the marketplace is 03119; the second is 03120; and the third, that is the

14 supplement to the expert report, is 03121.

15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, these will become Prosecution

16 Exhibit P588 through P590 respectively.

17 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you.

18 Q. Mr. Higgs, for your benefit and also for the benefit of the Court

19 I'm just going to explain the sequence of my examination. I will first

20 ask you questions about your background and expertise. I will then move

21 on to general information about mortars, how they are fired, their

22 accuracy, and their range. We will then discuss crater analysis, and at

23 the last section I will move on to the specific incidents that you have

24 written your reports on.

25 Let me start by asking you were you in the British Army?

1 A. Yes, I served in the -- for 22 years' service in the British Army.

2 Q. What did you do for the British Army?

3 A. I served with the Royal Artillery and with the Small Arms School

4 Corps, and within the Small Arms School Corps I was the division

5 instructor which is the senior-most technical mortar position within the

6 British Army.

7 Q. When did you work for the Small Arms School Corps, when did you

8 start your work there?

9 A. I started working with them in 1987.

10 Q. And in the army, did you have a rank and, if you did, what was

11 that rank?

12 A. Yes. My rank within the army was called quartermaster sergeant

13 instructor.

14 Q. Was your rank, that is the quartermaster sergeant instructor, was

15 that determinative of the -- the work you did related to mortars and the

16 technical aspects of mortars?

17 A. The rank did not bear any resemblance to my appointment as senior

18 mortar officer. I worked on an appointment far higher than my rank as I

19 supported the British government and the British Army at very senior

20 levels.

21 Q. So can I ask you this then: When you say you were the senior-most

22 technical mortar position instructor in the British Army, when it came to

23 questions arising out of the use of mortars and the technical factors

24 related to mortars, did the - how should I say it? - did the buck stop

25 with you? Were you the senior-most person in the army?

1 A. Yes, I was the senior advisor so any rulings or instructions that

2 I gave had to be acted upon. Regardless if a senior officer wanted to do

3 otherwise, my appointment was such that they would carry out my

4 instructions.

5 Q. Now, in your career related to the army and to mortars, did you

6 undertake mortar investigations?

7 A. Yes, I have undertaken many mortar investigations for the British

8 Army, for various foreign armies, and also in the past for the United

9 Nations.

10 Q. So I take it your investigations were not just conducted in the UK

11 but other places in the world; is that right?

12 A. That is correct.

13 Q. And what types of investigations did you undertake?

14 A. I have undertaken investigations where there has been loss of life

15 during training, criminal investigations where I have had to identify what

16 has happened and why, and also undertaken investigations where it's been

17 important to find out type of weapons used, directions of fire, possible

18 intentions, and so on.

19 Q. Actually that -- your answer led into my next question, which

20 was: When you conduct a mortar investigation, what are you attempting to

21 establish?

22 A. I need to establish the type of mortar used, the direction of

23 fire, and the angle of descent.

24 Q. Are you also presumably -- all these factors, would they assist

25 you in determining the likely firing point and therefore the people that

1 fired the rounds?

2 A. From this information, that then gives me the information where I

3 can then, using my experience, come to conclusions where the fire came

4 from and the likely intentions.

5 Q. And in your investigations, did you conduct what is called crater

6 analyses?

7 A. Yes, these are an integral part of the most of the investigations.

8 Q. And just very generally, we're going get into detail later, but

9 when you undertake a crater analysis, what are you looking for

10 specifically?

11 A. With the crater, it forms a pattern so I can use that pattern in

12 my determination. I'm also looking for probably parts off the projectile

13 to assist me in my investigation as well.

14 Q. And the pattern that you look at, what does that assist you in

15 concluding?

16 A. The mortar gives a very definite and distinctive pattern on the

17 ground. That pattern can be used to determine the bearing or direction of

18 fire, and can also be used to indicate the angle of descent.

19 Q. Right. And we'll get to those aspects later.

20 So let me ask you this: In your career, how many mortar

21 investigations, roughly, have you undertaken?

22 A. Probably in excess of a hundred.

23 Q. Now, at the moment you not with the British Army; is that right?

24 A. That is correct. I retired from the British Army a few years ago.

25 Q. Do you -- although you've retired, do you interact with the army?

1 A. Although retired, the individuals who are now doing what I used to

2 do still occasionally phone me up for advice, suggestions, because of my

3 experience that I spent in that position.

4 Q. So you are almost sort of an unofficial consultant?

5 A. That would be correct.

6 Q. Mr. Higgs, have you testified here at the ICTY before coming here

7 today.

8 A. Yes. I presented evidence on the Galic case where I look at

9 various incidents of mortars engaging civilians.

10 Q. Just before I ask you more questions about that, in preparing your

11 expert reports for the Galic case, did you have the occasion to visit

12 Sarajevo?

13 A. Yes, prior and for part of that report I spent a number of days in

14 that area, both within the city and driving around all the surrounding

15 areas, looking at the confrontation lines, as they were, all the major

16 parts of the city, to get a feel for the whole topological layout and the

17 position, and basically what both sides would have seen at that particular

18 time.

19 Q. How long were you in Sarajevo?

20 A. I think the visit was four or five days.

21 Q. Perhaps I can ask you this now, just in relation to Sarajevo, how

22 conclusive of a place or city is it to the deployment of mortar batteries,

23 mortar fire?

24 A. For a mortar commander who would be looking at -- or if he'd be

25 attacking Sarajevo, it is an ideal position, because the city sits below

1 high ground, which surrounds it, which is ideal for any type of mortar

2 fire.

3 Q. And when you say "ideal," just very briefly explain, what do you

4 mean by that?

5 A. Well, because a mortar is technically an indirect fire weapon, you

6 need to be able to, of course, see the target, ideally at as long a range

7 as possible. Because of the layout of the land in that area, it is

8 possible to place mortars on higher ground overlooking the target at a

9 distance far enough away so they are safe themselves but still to have

10 direct line of sight to the target, which is a big issue in increasing

11 accuracy.

12 Q. If a mortar battery commander did not have direct line of sight,

13 how would they go about identifying targets? How is that typically done?

14 A. When they can obtain to -- a direct line of sight, the mortar is

15 normally fired using an observer in the same way as artillery is used for

16 long distances. The observer will then direct the fire on to the target.

17 This can be done with mortars as well. But mortars can also fire what is

18 known as direct fire, if they have direct line of sight, which then takes

19 out any errors as an observer may have had, and is a far more accurate way

20 of fire.

21 Q. Thank you. And, as I said, I'll ask you more detailed questions

22 about that.

23 I just want to get back for a moment to your evidence, your

24 reports regarding the Galic case. You said that you conducted --

25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Prosecutor, I think it might be of interest if

1 you could just put the question to the witness whether he knew that

2 observers were actually used during this, the conflict in Sarajevo.

3 MR. SACHDEVA:

4 Q. Mr. Higgs, I will just repeat the question from His Honour Judge

5 Harhoff. Do you have any knowledge as to whether observers were deployed

6 in the conflict in the Sarajevo theatre?

7 A. I have no direct evidence they were, but some of the mortar

8 locations that were sighted around the town were in such positions where

9 they could not directly see into the town, so those ones must have had

10 some form of observer.

11 MR. SACHDEVA: Does that clarify?

12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes.

13 MR. SACHDEVA:

14 Q. Mr. Higgs, just before --

15 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] You're saying that there had to be

16 observers but that's if the target -- if the shots were aimed at a

17 specific target, otherwise there is no need for an observer?

18 THE WITNESS: If you were just going to fire anywhere, and did not

19 care where the round went, then, yes, you are correct. You don't need an

20 observer. But if you want the round to go accurately on to a target, then

21 you would either need to see it directly yourself or use an observer.

22 MR. SACHDEVA:

23 Q. Mr. Higgs, before this -- this slight deviation I was asking you

24 about the Galic case and your investigation into incidents there. You

25 said that they concerned incidents where civilian casualties were

1 incurred. Just very briefly, what was the subject matter of your

2 investigations, your expert reports into -- into these incidents?

3 A. In all the cases we were trying to determine, of course, the

4 calibre of the weapon that was fired, the direction it came from, angle of

5 descent in each case, and then from that to determine the likely firing

6 positions and possible intentions from the type of fire.

7 Q. Do you perhaps recall which incidents that you -- you worked on?

8 A. One of the major cases I worked on was the Markale market

9 incident.

10 Q. And in those -- in those incidents did, as you aid that you --

11 that was a subject matter of your evidence, did you come to any

12 conclusions as to the likely firing position?

13 A. In the -- those cases, it was determined that because of the types

14 of -- from the crater analysis that we carried that the fire had come from

15 across the confrontation lines originating from different areas.

16 Q. And when you say across the confrontation lines, which party to

17 the conflict controlled the area where you concluded was the likely firing

18 position?

19 A. When I say beyond the confrontation line that would then be into

20 the Serb-held territories.

21 Q. Now I'm going to move on to the general sort of functioning of

22 mortars.

23 Firstly, why don't you start by telling the Court what type of

24 mortars are there.

25 A. There are basically types and they are grouped by their calibre.

1 You have light, medium, and heavy mortars. Mortars of around

2 85-millimetre calibre are classed as medium mortars, and then those of

3 120-millimetre calibre and bigger are classed as heavy mortars. So those

4 are the main categories.

5 Q. And very briefly, how -- how is a mortar typically fired whether

6 it be 82-millimetre or 120-millimetre?

7 A. The majority are muzzle loaded, which means that you drop the

8 round down the barrel. You can get some breech-loaded mortars of the

9 larger calibre but these are not as common as the muzzle-loaded version.

10 So the round is dropped down the barrel, it strikes a firing pin at the

11 base of the barrel which then causes the round, of course, then to ignite,

12 and then the charge push it back up the barrel.

13 Q. And you mention charge, and again I'm going to -- well, I'll leave

14 that and follow my sequence but I just -- I'll come back to the definition

15 of charge and what a charge is.

16 But at this point I would like you to tell the Court, what are

17 mortars designed for? Typically what are they designed to do?

18 A. A mortar round is designed primarily to kill personnel. They are

19 not destruct weapon, i.e., for blowing up large targets, buildings and so

20 on. They are primarily used to kill personnel.

21 Q. And from the design, how would that be achieved.

22 A. The mortar bomb, because it has a slower and normally steeper

23 trajectory than, let's say, artillery, which means that the round tends to

24 explode at ground level, first of all, does not tend to dig in as far as

25 artillery rounds. Also, the rounds are made to fragmentate, i.e., burst

1 into smaller -- far smaller pieces than artillery ammunition, which is why

2 they are more effective against what we call soft skin or personnel-type

3 targets.

4 Q. And is there anything you can say about the angle at which

5 mortars --

6 A. Because of their angle, they tend to come in steeper than most

7 other direct-fire weapons. It mean that most of the blast is then

8 directed at floor level and you do not waste blast into the ground like

9 with some shells, so you get maximum effect from each round.

10 Q. And with respect to range, firstly with an 82-millimetre, what is

11 the maximum range?

12 A. Mortars obviously differ slightly depending on the type of

13 ammunition, but the 82-millimetre, which was used a lot in this case, is

14 around four and a half kilometres.

15 Q. And the 120-millimetre mortar?

16 A. The 120's, again very slightly, but they could give you a maximum

17 range of up between seven or eight kilometres.

18 Q. How does one increase or decrease the range of a mortar?

19 A. Most muzzle-loading mortars have a set of charges which go around

20 the tail section of the round. These are called augmenting cartridges, or

21 some people call them cheeses. They slide over the tail section of the

22 round. The more you slide over, increases the charge. The more you have

23 on the tail section, the longer the range you will achieve from that

24 mortar.

25 Q. And so with a 120-millimetre mortar, if you know, what -- how many

1 charges can one put on a 120-millimetre metre, at least with the ones that

2 were deployed in the former Yugoslavia, if you know that?

3 A. Most of the rounds used here were using charge systems up to six.

4 So that would be six different charges on the tail sections.

5 Q. So I take it from your previous answer, charge six would give you

6 the highest possible range, highest possible distance?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. Again, with respect to range, how significant is elevation in that

9 calculation?

10 A. Well, a mortar can effect its range in two ways, either by

11 changing the charge or by changing the elevation or a combination of the

12 two.

13 Q. I want to move on to accuracy. Firstly, generally, how accurate

14 are mortars?

15 A. The modern mortar, and when I say "modern," we're talking now

16 mortars in the last 30, 40 years, are very accurate weapon systems. They

17 are not to -- the area weapon as of probably used in the two main world

18 wars. They are now very accurate weapon systems indeed.

19 Q. And if I could take to you page 3 of your initial report, and that

20 is the report related to the Markale incident, and I think it's also page

21 3 in the B/C/S version, I take it you have the reports there in front of

22 you?

23 A. Yes, I do.

24 Q. On page 3 you talk about the factors that determine accuracy. And

25 I want to ask you a few questions about a few of these factors.

1 If you go down the list you will see that you have mentioned--

2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [No interpretation]

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I fail to

5 understand. Which Markale incident are we talking about? The 5th of

6 February, 1995, or the 28th of August, 1995.

7 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I'm talking about the 28th of

8 August, 1995. The witness has not produced a report for the first Markale

9 incident for this case.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Proceed.

11 MR. SACHDEVA:

12 Q. Mr. Higgs, you see that list of factors that you have there, and I

13 want to ask you about what you've indicated here called the stability of

14 the base plate. Can you just briefly explain what you mean by that?

15 A. Well, mortars are a mobile weapons system, and before they fire

16 with any accuracy, they have to be stable in the ground. They have a form

17 of a plate which they sit on which has to be located firmly in the ground

18 before they can achieve any accuracy. This can be down by firing normally

19 to get this plate, which is known as "to bed in," solidly into the ground.

20 Without this, you cannot achieve the highest accuracy.

21 Q. In your opinion, if mortars have been positioned in a location

22 over a long period of time, would that increase or decrease the stability

23 of the base plate?

24 A. It would be a major advantage to the stability of the weapon,

25 because you have been able to leave it in place for so long to have a

1 really stable platform to fire from.

2 Q. I know that you've already answered it, but just to be clear, how

3 does that affect the accuracy?

4 A. Because when the weapon fires, it is no longer sinking into the

5 ground, which then affects the accuracy on range.

6 Q. And maybe I will just ask you this: Given your work for this case

7 as also for the Galic case, do you have an opinion as to whether the

8 mortar batteries were indeed positioned for a long period of time in the

9 same place?

10 A. It seems from -- after when I did my visit and from the positions

11 that the mortars tended to be in positions for some time so they could

12 achieve this higher stability.

13 Q. Now, sticking with this list regarding accuracy, I want to --

14 again, you've -- you've started to explain when you talk about the skill

15 of the mortar observer, but just for the sake of completeness, can you

16 explain that factor?

17 A. If the mortar is being used for indirect fire, obviously the skill

18 of the observer is crucial to get the highest accuracy on to the target,

19 because his orders to the mortar will affect, of course, where they fire.

20 Q. And lastly, you've indicated here the prior recording of targets.

21 Again, please briefly explain what you mean by that and how that affects

22 the accuracy of a mortar?

23 A. If it's possible with a mortar to increase accuracy, you want to

24 record targets or reference points in the area you're firing into.

25 Because this being a town, it's got a lot of natural reference points

1 anyway, like church spires, main buildings, and so on, but also every time

2 you fire you would record the firing data to certain parts of that area.

3 And the longer you're there and the more you fire, the more reference

4 points you can obtain, and the more you have, the higher the accuracy rate

5 of you then engaging in where the target would be.

6 Q. So in an urban environment like Sarajevo where the conflict is

7 carried on for some time, do you have an opinion as to whether targets

8 would have been prerecorded?

9 A. I think most definitely because the area lends itself to that and

10 it would speed up engagement time it would make engagements more accurate,

11 and it would save wasting ammunitions.

12 Q. Let me ask you again to sort of characterise the accuracy. You've

13 mentioned that the accuracy rate would be higher, are we talking about a

14 target that could be engaged in one shot? Would that be possible?

15 A. Yes, it would be.

16 Q. Now, I'm going to move on to command issues.

17 You have already mentioned that the 120-millimetre mortar and the

18 82-millimetre mortars are described as heavy and medium weaponry

19 respectively. In your upon opinion, how valuable an asset are these

20 mortars for the military command?

21 A. Any indirect-fire weapon system is a huge asset to a commander

22 because of the types ammunition they can fire. That is why these tend to

23 be controlled very closely on their use, because of course you do not wish

24 to waste such a valuable asset.

25 Q. So typically, how would the deployment and launching of mortars

1 be -- be controlled? By which level?

2 A. Medium and heavy mortars are controlled at command level again to

3 prevent some, if you like, lower rank local commander from just firing at

4 something and wasting such a valuable asset. They tend to be commanded at

5 the more senior command level.

6 Q. So do you have an opinion in respect to this case whether these

7 mortars would have been commanded by -- by senior commandered or even

8 indeed the commander?

9 A. It seems very unlikely they would have been allowed just to fire

10 on their own. In my opinion, they would have come under the most senior

11 command.

12 Q. I now want to move on to -- to look into detail about crater

13 analysis. You have -- you have answered this, but when you conduct a

14 crater analysis, I understand that you said you're looking for the type of

15 round, the direction of fire, and the angle of descent. Is that right?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. And let me ask you this: Are these factors important for the

18 determination as to the likely firing position of a mortar?

19 A. Yes, they are.

20 Q. Let's start with direction of fire. Again, you've explained it

21 briefly, but I'm going to ask you to use a photograph to go into a little

22 bit more detail as to how this is determined.

23 MR. SACHDEVA: And if we could move to -- it's page 3 of your

24 supplemental report, and Mr. President, Your Honours, that is 65 ter

25 03121.

1 For the benefit of the Defence, I also think it's page 3 of the

2 B/C/S version.

3 Q. Do you have that report with you, Mr. Higgs?

4 A. Yes, I do.

5 Q. And on page 3 you'll see these two photographs. And for your

6 answer, I just want you to ignore the measurements that we see here. But

7 just explain how you would determine the angle -- sorry, the direction of

8 fire?

9 A. You can see from the pictures you have the first crater in the

10 centre, which is where the rounds exploded.

11 Q. May I just stop you there for a second.

12 MR. SACHDEVA: I think for the benefit of the Court it might be

13 useful if you are able to -- is the witness able to mark this still and

14 for it to be saved as an additional exhibit. It seems that this is fine.

15 If the court usher could hand -- yes.

16 Q. Mr. Higgs, can I ask you, is it easier for you to work off the top

17 or the bottom photograph for this explanation?

18 A. Probably easier to work off the top one.

19 Q. Okay. So on the top one, you started to talk about the first

20 crater in the centre. Can you just mark that position with the figure 1,

21 please.

22 A. You mean the point of impact?

23 Q. That's right.

24 A. It would be -- that's the position of the dot that I put on the

25 screen.

1 Q. If you could just place the figure 1. Thanks.

2 A. [Marks]

3 Q. And before I interrupted you, you started by saying you have the

4 first crater in the centre. If you could please carry on.

5 A. Yes, the first crater at the point of impact is the one, and I'll

6 show -- mark the extremities of that just to make it clear. Which is that

7 one there, and I'll just call that number 2. That shows the initial

8 crater at the -- at the point of impact. But just above that, you can see

9 marks in the tarmac that has been caused by the shrapnel, which is what we

10 call the second crown. Those marks are these here -- I'll just put an

11 arrow to them, and you can see they go around in a fan shape. This second

12 crown will always be facing towards the direction of fire. And the second

13 crown and its position on the ground and the general pattern we can then

14 use for calculating the bearing or the direction of fire, and from the

15 overall pattern we can also determine the approximate angle of descent

16 because the pattern -- the general pattern on the ground will change as

17 the angle of descent changes.

18 Q. Thank you. And we'll move on to the angle of descent in a moment.

19 But just for now, could you put the figure 3 by the arrow that you've

20 indicated there.

21 A. [Marks]

22 Q. And so just to conclude your answer, is it fair to say that where

23 one sees the preponderance of the -- of the marks on the ground in a

24 crater, that would indicate the direction from which the projectile came.

25 Is that correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I would like to tender this into

3 evidence, with your leave.

4 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, please, on the photograph

5 I see that you placed a line at the second crown, at the level of the

6 second crown. According to you, the -- the distance between the centre of

7 the crater to that second crown, is that useful to determine the origin of

8 fire; and, if so, what would happened if there were two projectiles shot

9 from the same mortar, one falling on a hard surface, like tarmac, and the

10 other one falling on a soft surface, like -- like mud. I guess that the

11 distance between the core and the second crown will be different,

12 depending on the terrain that the projectile landed on.

13 THE WITNESS: To answer your first question, yes, the distance

14 from point of impact to the centre of the second crown is a measurement we

15 do use in ballistic calculation.

16 Craters that you get on soft ground still produce this general

17 pattern. However, on soft ground, grass, for instance, it is far more

18 difficult to measure accurately because the pattern does not stand out as

19 well as it does on hard ground.

20 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, just to inform His Honour Judge

22 Mindua, the ballistic calculations that the witness has just spoken about,

23 I'm going to lead into that in -- in about a minute so that should -- that

24 should hopefully become clear.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: And we admit it into evidence.

1 THE REGISTRAR: As P591, Your Honours.

2 MR. SACHDEVA:

3 Q. And for the -- for the next exercise with respect to the angle of

4 descent, can I still have the page on the screen, please.

5 Mr. Higgs, from that page, if we -- sticking with that page,

6 firstly, which photograph is better suited for you to explain how one --

7 well, let me start by asking you this, a more general question. I'm

8 sorry. How does one normally determine the angle of descent from a

9 crater?

10 A. Angle of descent can be calculated in two ways. The first way,

11 ideally, would be using what is called a fuse furrow. If you don't have a

12 fuse furrow then what I have to use, ballistic calculation.

13 Q. What is that fuse furrow?

14 A. A fuse furrow is a hole in the ground cause by the fuse around --

15 when it explodes, it's then driven into the ground and produces like a

16 long small hole into the ground, and then from that it is possible to

17 place a measuring stick into the hole and then record the angle of descent

18 from that.

19 Q. When is a fuse furrow typically created?

20 A. You tend to get fuse furrows on the softer ground. Grass, that

21 sort of thing, you'll get good fuse furrows. The harder the ground, the

22 less chance you're going to get one.

23 Q. So is one less likely to see a fuse furrow on, for example, a

24 road?

25 A. A main road is probably one of the hardest substances that a

1 mortar will be fired at, and normally you would not get a fuse furrow when

2 it is fired on to this type of surface.

3 Q. And you said that a fuse furrow produces a long small hole. Can

4 you just give an idea to the Court as to the dimensions of this long hole?

5 A. Fuse furrows can differ slightly in there their dimensions but

6 normally a hole will be a couple of centimetres wide and probably anything

7 up to 30 or even 40, 50 centimetres long on soft ground.

8 Q. And let me just ask you this: Can a fuse furrow be used to

9 determine the direction of fire?

10 A. In methodologies used for determination of direction, the use of a

11 fuse furrow should not be used because they are not an accurate means of

12 determining direction.

13 Q. Thank you. So you mentioned the fuse furrow and you said there

14 were two methods to determine the angle of descent. What is the other

15 method.

16 A. The other method is ballistic calculation, when you don't have no

17 fuse furrow to use.

18 Q. And to explain this ballistic calculation, which photograph would

19 be best suited for that?

20 A. Probably the picture at the bottom of the page.

21 Q. Very well. If we could look at the bottom photograph, perhaps

22 enlarge it, thank you.

23 And again, if you want to take a pen and explain the measurements

24 that are taken.

25 A. The first measurement that you need is the measurement across the

1 initial crater. That will be the measurement from the front to the back

2 of the crater, so from the line there to the rear of the crater. That is

3 the first calculation that we need.

4 Having done that calculation, what we would then look for is a

5 measurement marked on this photograph as measurement L. Because -- that

6 one there on the picture. What we then look at is the type of round that

7 had been fired, because we use the dimensions of the round. We have to

8 look from -- the measurement from the tip of the round to the centre of

9 the body of the round. So that is the -- the other calculation.

10 What we then do is -- the calculation where we look at the

11 dimension from the tip of the round to the centre of the body, and then by

12 using cosines and dividing in the length between point of impact and the

13 centre of the second crown here, we can then come up with an angle of

14 descent. So the measurement, L, which is marked there on the screen is a

15 crucial measurement that we require.

16 Q. In that measurement, L, the top of the line, is that the second

17 crown?

18 A. The second crown, as we call it, is marked in the centre of the

19 area where the shrapnel has cut out the indentations, so it's marked to

20 the centre. That's what is called the second crown.

21 Q. Thank you.

22 MR. SACHDEVA: I'd like to tender this still into evidence,

23 Mr. President.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

25 THE REGISTRAR: As P592, Your Honours.

1 MR. SACHDEVA:

2 Q. Mr. Higgs, I want to ask you about -- well, let me ask you this:

3 What is a tail-fin?

4 A. The tail-fin is the construction at the base of the round which

5 has small fins that protrude from it which, when the bomb is in flight, it

6 gives it stability, and the tail-fin also gives you a means by which you

7 can attach your augmenting cartridges, i.e., the charges to the round.

8 Q. Can a tail-fin be used to assist in a mortar investigation?

9 A. The tail-fins can you used in two ways. First of all, if you have

10 a tail-fin, it tends to be the only large part usually of the mortar bomb

11 that is left after it's exploded, and the tail-fins will normally have the

12 ammunition batch numbers stamped on them. So it will help you identify

13 the calibre and the type of ammunition straight away. But they can also

14 be of some use when they are still lodged in the mortar crater.

15 Q. When would you typically find a tail-fin lodged into a crater?

16 What circumstances would allow for that occurrence?

17 A. The tail-fin do not always lodge into the craters because of

18 different circumstances like the hardness of the ground and also the

19 velocity in which the round struck the ground, and this will be dependant

20 upon the charge that the mortar has been fired at. There is normally a

21 higher percentage of tail-fins in craters when the rounds have been fired

22 on the higher charges.

23 Q. When you say "higher charge," you mean fired from the longer

24 distance; is that right?

25 A. Yes. The charges which would give the mortars the longer ranges.

1 Q. And you did mention circumstances like the hardness of the ground.

2 In other words, one could have a mortar that was fired from a farther

3 distance but if it landed on hard ground, that you may not see the

4 tail-fin stuck in the crater. Is that correct?

5 A. That would be correct, yes.

6 MR. SACHDEVA: I would now like to turn to the specific incidents

7 that you worked on. And let me start by asking you this: At least in

8 relation to the Markale incident and the Livanjska Street incident at 1525

9 hours and the Livanjska Street incident that is the first shell at 1730

10 hours. In your opinion, were there good quality craters produced from

11 those incidents?

12 A. They've all produced good patterns from the shrapnel on the

13 ground, yes.

14 Q. And were they able to assist you in your conclusions and

15 investigations?

16 A. Yes. Those patterns were sufficient to be able to confirm

17 bearings, and from that obviously they've been able to assist me in my

18 investigation.

19 Q. Let's move to the Markale incident. Now, can you confirm that

20 you -- you reviewed photographs from this incident and a video taken after

21 the explosion?

22 A. Yes, I did.

23 Q. And were those photographs and the video, were they of sufficient

24 quality for you to again come to conclusions, accurate conclusions?

25 A. Yes, they were.

1 Q. You also -- if you can confirm to the Court, did you review the

2 Bosnian police report?

3 A. Yes, I did.

4 Q. The French UN report?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. The initial UNMO UN investigation into this incident?

7 A. Yes, I did.

8 Q. And finally the UNPROFOR G2 investigation, G2 report?

9 A. Yes, that's correct.

10 Q. Sticking to the Bosnian police report and actually, in general,

11 and please take your knowledge and experience that you used in the Galic

12 case, but in general what can you say about the competence and the

13 correctness of the methodology employed by the Bosnian police

14 investigators when they conducted crater analysis?

15 A. From all the investigations and reports I have seen of theirs,

16 they use correct methodologies and are very competent at crater analysis.

17 Q. With the Markale incident, were you able to come to a conclusion

18 as to the -- the direction of fire of the projectile?

19 A. Yes, I was, by using the photographs.

20 Q. And from your review of the reports -- well, let me ask you this,

21 the G2 report, the fourth investigation, do you recall what their

22 conclusion was as to the direction of fire?

23 A. They disagreed with all the other reports and came up with a

24 direction -- I think between 220 and 240 degrees, which was completely

25 different from all the other reports which gave a direction nearer 170

1 degrees.

2 Q. The G2 report that came to a determination of 220, 240 degrees, do

3 you recall what that was based upon?

4 A. The concern I had for that report was that they took that

5 direction from, as they called it, the fuse furrow, which, as I've said

6 before, is not an accepted way of calculating bearing, and none of the

7 other investigating teams who produced reports of that incident even

8 reported a fuse furrow.

9 Q. In your opinion, and in your experience, if there had indeed been

10 a fuse furrow, would the three prior investigations -- would investigators

11 overlooked this if there was one?

12 A. They would not have overlooked it, no.

13 Q. And you -- well, let me ask you this. Do you recall where the

14 mortar projectile exploded in this incident? Was it on the pavement or

15 was it on the road?

16 A. This particular round exploded on a road, obviously between two

17 buildings.

18 Q. And you earlier testified that on a road one is less likely to see

19 a fuse furrow; is that right?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. And so what is your conclusion as to the direction of fire? Is it

22 closer to 220/240 or is it closer to 170?

23 A. Using the photographs, I was able to determine the direction from

24 the pattern, first of all, the way in which the round landed on the road.

25 I then related that to the direction that the road actually ran along.

1 And I was able then to plot that and the direction comes out closer to 170

2 degrees and that it does to 220/240 degrees.

3 Q. I'm now going to actually ask you to use that photograph to

4 explain to the Court exactly how you came to that determination.

5 MR. SACHDEVA: If we could move to the -- if I could ask for the

6 first report to be brought up, that is 65 ter 03119, and if we can move to

7 page 12 in the English, and I understand that it is page 12 in the B/C/S,

8 or perhaps page 10.

9 Q. Mr. Higgs, I'm going to ask you hopefully pointed questions so you

10 can explain.

11 You see a measurement there on the photograph. Well, firstly, is

12 that -- let me ask you, is that the crater at the Markale marketplace?

13 A. Yes, it is.

14 Q. You see a measurement that -- you see a line where you have

15 indicated 275 degrees.

16 A. Mm-hm.

17 Q. What is that?

18 A. When you look at the street map of Sarajevo, the road that this

19 impact landed on runs along an approximate direction of 275 degrees.

20 Q. And the 185 degrees, what does that indicate?

21 A. It just shows the right angle to 275 obviously a 90-degree angle

22 to that one, the 185 degrees.

23 Q. And then using those measurements you came up with the 175.

24 A. Yes. The first thing I did was look at the pattern, where you can

25 see the crater in the centre and of course the shrapnel marks coming away

1 from it to identify which way the crater was facing, first of all, and

2 it's facing towards the building, towards the direction of the bicycles

3 you can see on the photograph. Then by calculating of course which way

4 the road runs on the map, I could come up with that bearing, and then

5 relating the thicker lines through the centre of the pattern of the crater

6 it comes up with a direction of approximately 175 degrees, as it's marked

7 there on the picture.

8 You can also see that from that picture, the dotted line, as if

9 the crater had landed in that road at 220 degrees, that shows the

10 direction that the crater should be facing, and you can clearly see from

11 the pattern of the crater that it does not face that way at all.

12 Q. And with the 220 degrees, if indeed it had come at 220 degrees,

13 would that affect the direction in which the road was going in?

14 A. If on this road the round had come in at 220 degrees, the pattern

15 would be -- when that picture turned to the right quite a lot. On this

16 particular road along that direction, that pattern faces nowhere near 220

17 degrees and I say faces closer to 170, 180 degrees, that sort of figure .

18 Q. And I know that you've explained this, the direction of the

19 projectile, but just to resolve any possible confusion, you have an arrow

20 where you have indicated 175. You have an arrow going towards the

21 bicycles. Do you see that?

22 A. Correct, yes.

23 Q. Can you just take a pen and indicate the arrow from which the

24 direction -- from which the projectile came from, in the direction from

25 which the projectile came from?

1 A. [Marks].

2 Q. Thank you.

3 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I would like to tender that still

4 into evidence.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.

6 THE REGISTRAR: As P593, Your Honours.

7 MR. SACHDEVA:

8 Q. Mr. Higgs, in addition to the direction of fire, did you come to

9 any conclusions as to the angle of descent? And if you did, what were

10 they, please.

11 A. On the angle of descent, because of the lack of reported fuse

12 furrow by the first three investigations, I looked at the ballistic

13 calculations the Bosnian authorities had used to calculate. The first

14 calculation they'd used was 67 degrees to clear the building. That was

15 the minimum it must have been just to get over the building in front.

16 From their calculations, they came up with an angle of descent nearer to

17 70 degrees by using, as I say, the crater analysis and their dimensions.

18 Q. And is there anything about the pattern of the crater that in your

19 opinion enables you to confirm or support that conclusion that it was 70

20 degrees.

21 A. Yes. If you remember the first picture of the crater that we

22 looked at a few minutes ago, there was a definite first crater, then there

23 was a gap before we come to our second crown and the second row of

24 shrapnel marks. We have no marks on the other side of the impact crater.

25 When an angle of descent starts to get steeper, the pattern changes

1 because you now start to get shrapnel marks on both sides of the crater,

2 which is what you have got in this case here, which would indicate that it

3 has come in as a higher angle of descent.

4 Q. In addition to the direction of fire, the angle of descent, were

5 you able to establish the type of round?

6 A. The type of round identified again by the investigating bodies,

7 because of the pieces left at the scene, they recovered the tail-fins and

8 small pieces of the fuse, and it was from that they could identify that

9 this bomb was 120 millimetre.

10 Q. And from their investigation and their conclusions as to the

11 direction of fire and the angle of descent, do you have any reason to

12 question or disagree with the finding, that it was a 120-millimetre round?

13 A. I have got no reason to disagree with those first three reports.

14 As I said, their findings, their methodology, their calculations,

15 everything were correct.

16 Q. Now, you said earlier on in evidence that the determination of the

17 type of round, the angle of descent, and the direction of fire assists or

18 are important in determining the likely firing position. With respect to

19 this incident, did you come to a conclusion as to the likely firing

20 position?

21 A. From the angle of descent calculated, then by using range tables

22 which are a ballistic table that show you all the ranges that can be

23 achieved at different charges and all elevations, it was possible to plot

24 back to the most likely firing positions.

25 Q. Let me just stop you there for one second. You said "range

1 tables." Were these range tables, did they relate to mortars that were

2 used in the JNA or other types of mortars?

3 A. They were mortars relating to the JNA specific to this case.

4 Q. And perhaps we could move to page 13 and 14 on this report and

5 I'll ask you questions about the possible firing position.

6 If you just go to the next page, page 13 --

7 A. Mm-hm.

8 Q. -- Mr. Higgs, you will see that you have -- under the section

9 entitled summary, you have the possible firing positions. You see you

10 have indicated 900 metres on charge 1, 1.600 metres on charge 2, 2.400

11 metres on charge 3 --

12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, for the umpteenth

15 time today, I don't have the page reference for the B/C/S, nor do I have

16 that type of information on my screen.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, why not? You should have it on the screen.

18 What's the page reference?

19 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, it's page 13 of the English, and

20 it's the next page of the page that we were looking at beforehand, so I

21 presume it just follows on from where Mr. Tapuskovic was in the B/C/S

22 version. It's up on the screen now.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: And it should be on his screen now.

24 It's on your screen now, Mr. Tapuskovic. Can you confirm?

25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I can confirm there is no image.

1 That's the first thing. It's not the same thing at all. This is the

2 second or the third time. I didn't mean to make an issue out of this, but

3 I simply don't have it in B/C/S and that continues to be the case.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: And you don't have the picture on your screen?

5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No. No, Your Honours.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, may I ask why that is. I don't know who

7 can answer that. The court deputy or ...

8 MR. SACHDEVA: I perhaps can answer.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: You can answer it, Mr. Sachdeva.

10 MR. SACHDEVA: Or at least I can attempt to.

11 What's happened here is when the reports in the English language

12 are translated, the text is translated without the maps and the pictures.

13 In other words, the maps and the pictures can be referred to in the

14 English version. Because the maps contain arrows, pictures could contain

15 figures which can, in my submission, be readily accessed in the English

16 version. Of course the text doesn't appear to have the maps when they are

17 translated.

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is it the picture or the text that you wish to

20 focus on?

21 MR. SACHDEVA: I had related first to the text where the charges

22 are indicated, and I'm now going to move on to a map which is on the

23 following page, and the map that is indicated in the English version

24 is -- in my submission, does not require translation. In fact, it's a

25 map from the ABiH which has markings in B/C/S.

1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't have any

2 picture at all. If I had the picture, or a photograph perhaps, I'd be

3 quite happy in fact. All right.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: There's a photograph now.

5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Indeed. I have it now. But it's

6 with the English original. Never mind, I'll just try to follow. It's not

7 that important, really.

8 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President --

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: I think your assessment of the import appears to

10 different from Mr. Sachdeva's.

11 But continue.

12 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I'm about to -- this section is

13 going to take roughly ten minutes, and I see we are very close to the

14 adjournment time.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes, we adjourn.

16 Very well. We will take the adjournment until tomorrow at 2.15.

17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,

18 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 24th day of

19 April, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.

20

21

22

23

24

25