1 Friday, 24 August 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva, to continue with your

7 cross-examination.

8 MR. SACHDEVA: Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning, Your

9 Honours, and thank you.

10 WITNESS: DESIMIR GAROVIC [Resumed]

11 [Witness answered through interpreter]

12 Cross-examination by Mr. Sachdeva: [Continued]

13 Q. Good morning, General. I trust you rested well last night.

14 A. Good morning.

15 Q. Now, yesterday before we closed I was trying to establish your

16 movements in the period 1992 through to 1995, and I wanted to continue

17 with that theme for five minutes or so.

18 MR. SACHDEVA: If I could ask for 65 ter 03503 to be brought up on

19 the screen.

20 Q. While that's being brought up, General, I take it you're aware of

21 a military magazine called Vojska?

22 A. Yes, I am. I am aware of it.

23 Q. And this -- this is, again, an article from that military

24 magazine, Vojska, and the Prosecution has translated the pertinent part

25 that I want to put to you.

1 Now, do you see on the Serbian version, do you see where you are

2 mentioned? It talks -- the date is 16th of March, 1995, and it talks

3 about -- it mentions you as the artillery school centre commander. Do you

4 see that there firstly on the Serbian version? It's the second paragraph

5 on the left-hand side.

6 A. I do see it.

7 Q. And, again, it's -- as I said, it's -- I'm trying to clear up

8 where you were in the period of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and it says

9 here that - and I'll read from the translation - it says: "This is why

10 the artillery school's centre commander, Colonel Desimir Garovic, a

11 fighter who has spent a year in the field of war in Croatia and Bosnian

12 Krajina with his unit," and then it talks about your interaction in

13 Kragujevac. But I want to ask you again: Why is this Vojska magazine,

14 military magazine, referring to you as having spent a year in the Bosnian

15 Krajina for a year during the war? Is that right or is that incorrect as

16 well?

17 A. This article that I had no influence upon does state some things.

18 It is correct that at the outbreak of the war I was in Banja Luka. I

19 spent there the period we referred to yesterday. As for the rest, it is

20 this journalist's story. I don't know what his motives may have been.

21 Q. So now we have two articles - one in a magazine called Glas and

22 another in a military magazine called Vojska which puts you for some time

23 at least -- it suggests that you were active in the war in

24 Bosnia-Herzegovina. And again you deny that; is that right?

25 A. I commanded a unit in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as I described

1 yesterday. As for the rest, it is not true. Anything beyond the scope of

2 the presidency's decision for the officers from the area of Serbia and

3 Montenegro to return to their respective areas is incorrect. There were

4 orders in place that I obeyed, and in that period I undertook no

5 activities in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in this article

8 there is no mention of any year. It can include several years. I don't

9 want to suggest anything in particular, but there is no reference to a

10 year. Perhaps Mr. Sachdeva could provide us with such a reference.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, did you mention a specific year?

12 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I did not. It actually refers to

13 the war, and it's established that the war went on from 1992 to 1995. So

14 I simply wanted the General to comment.

15 Q. General, may I just --

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the problem, Mr. -- what's the problem?

17 Why can't he put that? It's for the witness to say whether he was there.

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well, Your Honours.

19 However, there is no mention of the war between 1992 and 1995. What is

20 mentioned is -- well, a war is mentioned but I don't want to suggest when

21 it began.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: But he's still entitled to put it. It's for the

23 witness to answer. He's not saying that 1992 to 1995 is in the document.

24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. Sachdeva said

25 1992 to 1995.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, but I don't believe he's saying that that is

2 in the document.

3 Was there a war in Croatia and Bosnia Krajina, 1992 to 1995,

4 Witness?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In that period there was a war in

6 Croatia.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: And were you involved in that war? Did you

8 participate in it?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in that war I

10 participated from the beginning until August. I was in that area until

11 August 1992. As for my participation, I did until the presidency's

12 decision for the transfer of Serbian and Montenegrin officers to be moved

13 into that territory. That happened in May. Therefore, my active

14 participation is limited to -- or by May 1992, for as long as there was

15 the JNA in place.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: So you participated as a member of what army?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As a member of the JNA.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: The JNA.

19 Yes.

20 MR. SACHDEVA:

21 Q. General, now I'm slightly confused. In your answer to

22 Mr. President you said that you participated, and I take it you mean 1992,

23 in the war until the beginning of August. This is what you've just said

24 and you clarified it by saying that your active participation was up until

25 May 1992; is that right?

1 A. Until May I carried out orders issued by the JNA, as their

2 member. At that moment all officers hailing from Serbia and Montenegro,

3 according to their wishes, may be transferred to the area of Serbia and

4 Montenegro. However, at that time due to the conditions that prevailed we

5 could not take any road or air routes to go to Yugoslavia. Therefore, I

6 was forced to remain there until August without any participation in

7 combat activities or any activities on the part of the VRS. In late

8 August I travelled with my belongings to Serbia, and that's all there is.

9 Q. So it's your evidence that after May 1992, in the two months or so

10 that you remained in Banja Luka because you couldn't -- you couldn't get

11 out of the region, you essentially did nothing. You did not participate

12 in combat; you did not carry out orders or adhere to orders from the

13 military formations in Banja Luka. You did nothing; is that right?

14 A. In that period one couldn't leave Banja Luka. As any other person

15 working there, I did carry out certain administrative tasks; however, I

16 did not participate in any combat and, in any case, there was no combat in

17 the area of Banja Luka at the time. I did not command any units. The

18 unit I had commanded before that was, indeed, deployed around Banja Luka.

19 Q. So now I understand that while you may not have been in combat,

20 you were carrying out administrative tasks for the military, which is the

21 military that you were part of, in Banja Luka from the period May through

22 to August 1992; is that right?

23 A. I was not carrying out their orders. I was there due to a force

24 majeure and no one issued orders to me.

25 Q. General, you are aware that your unit, on the 19th of May, 1992,

1 was incorporated by the newly established army of Republika Srpska and

2 became part of the 1st Krajina Corps. You're aware of that, aren't you?

3 A. I am aware of the changes.

4 Q. And so as you remained in Banja Luka through to August carrying

5 out administrative tasks, those administrative tasks would have pertained

6 to the workings of the 1st Krajina Corps, which was headquartered in Banja

7 Luka. Am I right?

8 A. The tasks I performed had to do with my apartment, had to do with

9 collecting certain documents, so that I would be able to regulate my

10 status once in Serbia. None of the tasks had to do with any combat. None

11 of it had anything to do with combat.

12 Q. And so in that time you had no contact with the commander Talic,

13 Momir Talic, you had no contact with other members of the Krajina Corps

14 command; is that right?

15 A. It is.

16 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I'd like to tender this article into

17 evidence.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll admit it.

19 THE REGISTRAR: As P935, Your Honours.

20 MR. SACHDEVA:

21 Q. General, am I right in saying that in 1991 you testified as an

22 expert in a court martial hearing in, I think it was in a VJ court, in a

23 Yugoslav army court; is that right?

24 A. In my country at the time I don't know of the existence of any

25 court martial court.

1 Q. You were not involved in the case against General Trifunovic with

2 regard to the surrendering of the --

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

4 MR. SACHDEVA:

5 Q. -- Varazdin barracks?

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's hear Ms. Isailovic.

7 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Your Honour. One

8 misunderstanding to be lifted. What we're hearing in the B/C/S is

9 something that does not correspond to martial court. What we hear is --

10 it should be "vojni sud" and the B/C/S is talking about "preki sud," which

11 is something that does not correspond to a martial court and that's why

12 the witness is hearing this and I think that's why there's this

13 misunderstanding right now.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Thank you for that clarification.

15 MR. SACHDEVA:

16 Q. So, General, now that the wording has been clarified, were you not

17 involved in a case against -- in the case against General Trifunovic with

18 respect to the Varazdin barracks, the surrendering of those barracks in

19 1991? You remember that?

20 A. I was one of the experts in the proceedings against General

21 Trifunovic as regards artillery.

22 Q. And may I ask why you have not included that in your biography?

23 Would you not think it's important for the Court to know that you had

24 similarly testified as an artillery expert in a previous case?

25 A. I believe it was not important. I did not fail to mention that

1 trying to cover up anything but rather out of ignorance.

2 Q. Now, yesterday when I asked you -- asked you about your unit that

3 you commanded as an artillery commander, you talked about weapons,

4 howitzers, but you said that you did not have mortars in your unit. Do

5 you recall that?

6 A. I do and that is correct.

7 Q. And while your CV states that you have experience with respect to

8 artillery in general and you -- and you've told the Court that you lecture

9 on issues related to artillery, it's fair to say, is it not, sir, that you

10 are not an expert specific to mortars and the functioning of mortars?

11 A. I taught construction of artillery weaponry and equipment, as part

12 of which we also study the mortar with our cadets. I worked on that for a

13 number of years. As for my familiarity with mortars and other artillery

14 pieces, it is well-founded.

15 Also, with my cadets we carried out live-fire exercises with such

16 weapons. I was training the cadets, trying to equip them with all type of

17 knowledge and skill they might need in operating such weapons.

18 Q. Yes, General. I'm not suggesting that you don't have knowledge of

19 mortars. But what I'm putting to you is that your career is not solely

20 concerned with the functioning, the firing, the investigation of mortars;

21 isn't that a fair statement?

22 A. One cannot put it that way.

23 Q. Well, either your career -- in your career you solely concerned

24 yourself with mortars or you did not, and as you've already told the

25 Court, you worked on other artillery weapons but you did not confine

1 yourself to the functioning of mortars; isn't that right?

2 A. That is correct. I studied other artillery pieces as well and

3 worked with those.

4 Q. So as a general observation, General, if the court -- if a court

5 that's deciding on very complicated issues with respect to mortars, if a

6 court hears from a witness that has not spent his career dealing only with

7 mortars as opposed to another witness, expert witness, who has a broad

8 range of knowledge, which expert do you think would --

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, I don't believe that's a matter for the

10 witness to say, Mr. Sachdeva.

11 MR. SACHDEVA: Well, perhaps I can put it in another way.

12 Q. Would you say that someone who has concerned himself with the

13 functioning and the investigation of mortars throughout his military

14 career and been an advisor to the British military on the specific issue

15 of mortars, the functioning of mortars, how they are fired, where they are

16 deployed, how one investigates mortar incidents, would you be in a better

17 position to provide evidence than that witness?

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: The witness should not be asked to comment on

19 that. The level of expertise of the witness as against any other witness

20 is a matter that the Court will determine.

21 MR. SACHDEVA: I'm guided, Mr. President.

22 Q. General, let me ask you this, then: Have you conducted, have you

23 physically conducted, crater examinations after a 120-millimetre mortar or

24 an 82-millimetre mortar has been fired?

25 A. I don't know which specific crater you have in mind. If you have

1 in mind the craters in Sarajevo, I did not examine those. However, I did

2 examine craters when firing mortars with my cadets and students.

3 Q. And how many such craters have you examined? I'm not talking

4 about the ones in Sarajevo. You've already given your answer on that.

5 But how many such craters have you -- well, let me ask you this: How many

6 mortar investigations have you yourself conducted in your career?

7 A. One might say thousands.

8 Q. And so you are familiar with the investigation when shrapnel has

9 left patterns on the ground. You're familiar with the details of that

10 investigation; is that right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And in your report you've also mentioned that when one gets to the

13 scene, one of the ways to establish what type of projectile has been fired

14 is to look at the parts that may have been left at the scene, such as the

15 tail-fin. Do you remember putting that in your report? In other words,

16 the tail-fin, the markings on the tail-fin, can give the investigator an

17 idea as to the projectile, the type of projectile, that was used; isn't

18 that right?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And so when one is trying to establish in an investigation the

21 origin of fire of a mortar, one has to go through certain components. You

22 have to establish the type of round, you'd agree with that, you have to

23 establish the direction of fire, the angle of descent, the charge, to give

24 you an indication of the origin of fire. You agree with those factors?

25 A. In the location itself in the crater, one might come across

1 certain indicators, including the elements you mentioned. As for the

2 tail-fin, at the rear there is a marking. It states that it was the basic

3 charge. One can also find data on the producer and calibre of that

4 particular charge. Certain parts of the casing, although very seldom, one

5 can come across certain lettering that usually accompanies rounds.

6 According to the position of the crater and the depth and width of the

7 funnel, one can approximate the calibre.

8 And as for the shrapnel which leave the -- a band around the

9 crater, one can approximate the direction of flight. As for the angle of

10 descent, that can only be calculated. To determine the type of charge,

11 that is impossible. And it is impossible to determine any other

12 parameters based on which we could come to a more accurate calculation of

13 the trajectory.

14 Q. Thank you for that long answer. I'm going to get to those details

15 later. But I want to stick to the type of projectile that may have been

16 used.

17 So, for example, you could see -- you could have a tail-fin which

18 suggests that the tail-fin is from an M-52 mortar or an M-75 mortar.

19 That's right, isn't it?

20 A. A tail-fin can only tell you something about the calibre of the

21 round, but it does not point to any particular model of weapon, whether it

22 is an M-75 or any other. A round can be fired from several types of

23 mortars.

24 Q. And once you establish the calibre from the tail-fin, you then, in

25 your investigation, you then would look at the firing tables that pertain

1 to that particular calibre. So if it's an M-52, you look at the firing

2 tables related to an M-52. If it is an M-74, you similarly look at the

3 firing tables related to an M-74. Isn't that right?

4 A. That is not right. By using the round itself, one cannot

5 determine which model and which weapon it was, whether it is an M-52 or

6 M-75. The round cannot tell you which mortar had fired it.

7 Q. I'm not suggesting that the round will tell you which mortar. But

8 if you have the tail-fin that suggests the calibre of the round and you

9 want to establish, in your investigation you want to establish the

10 possible range with other factors as well, you would in your

11 investigation, as part of your investigation, you would refer to the

12 firing tables for that round. In other words, if you've established that

13 it's an M-52 calibre, you would look at the firing tables for an M-52.

14 That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying it gives you -- I'm not saying it

15 undercuts anything else you have to do in an investigation, but at least

16 that would be a starting point. Would you agree with that?

17 A. I would not. A tail-fin can tell you none of those things. It

18 can only tell you about the calibre and that is it.

19 Q. General, I think that you're not understanding me. Let's take the

20 starting point that the tail-fin can tell you the calibre of the round.

21 We agree on that. You've just said so. I agree with you.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Now, as we've discussed and as you've told the Court, to establish

24 the likely firing position, you have to go through a certain amount of

25 steps in your investigation. You agree with that?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And you agree that with each calibre, whether it's an M-52 or an

3 M-74, there are firing tables, written, completed firing tables from, for

4 example, the JNA, that refer to those calibres. You agree with that?

5 A. Yes. One of such firing tables I have before me.

6 Q. And so what I'm saying is, and I'm not saying this information

7 gives you all you want in your investigation, but at least as a starting

8 point when you are trying to do your investigation you would -- one would

9 refer to the firing tables of the calibre of the round that you found at

10 the scene. So if it was an M-52, you would refer to the firing tables,

11 the produced firing tables, of an M-52. Do you agree with that?

12 A. Sir, Mr. Prosecutor, one cannot establish what kind of weapon

13 fired a projectile based on the type of projectile, whether it's an M-52

14 or an M-75, because both types of weapons can fire the same calibre

15 shell. The tail-fin we can find where the crater is can come from two

16 types of shell, a light shell and a heavy shell. They do not differ in

17 any of their elements, so it's impossible to tell from a tail-fin whether

18 the shell in question is a light one or a heavy one. The tail-fin does

19 not allow us to establish that --

20 Q. Sir --

21 A. -- if you can believe someone who has fired hundreds of thousands

22 of projectiles.

23 Q. General, I feel we're getting more complicated than we need to.

24 I'm simply making this one suggestion to you. Let me try and put it this

25 way: For an M -- I see has you're referring to a book. If you could

1 just -- thank you.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: If you are -- General, if you are going to refer

3 to a book, then you must inform the Court.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.

5 MR. SACHDEVA:

6 Q. You agree that there are firing tables, as I said, written,

7 produced, JNA firing tables for an M-52 calibre. You agree with that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And you agree that there are also firing tables for an M-74?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Similarly, there are also firing tables for an M-75.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Now, you've told the Court, and in fact Mr. Tapuskovic has said

14 that in your -- in your report and while producing your report, you

15 reviewed the evidence in this case; is that right?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. I take it, then, you reviewed the reports, documents, the witness

18 evidence, for the Markale incident.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Did you review the Bosnian police report for that incident?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And did you also review the report by the UN military observer,

23 Mr. Konings? Do you remember reviewing that report?

24 A. I have reviewed all the documents disclosed by the Prosecution.

25 Q. Then you -- you know then that the calibre of the round that was

1 fired at the Markale market -- well, what is the calibre of the round that

2 was fired there? Do you know?

3 A. According to the documents disclosed, it was a light mine, 120

4 millimetres, M-75. Sorry, a light shell, M-62.

5 Q. Are you sure it wasn't an M-74, General?

6 A. Just a minute, please. Just a minute. I copied it down. A light

7 shell, M-62, 120 millimetres, P-2.

8 Q. Sir, I suggest to you --

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: General, would you tell us what book you're

10 referring to? You're not prohibited from doing it, but let us know what

11 is it that you are using.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the report I wrote.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's your report. I see. Okay.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

15 MR. SACHDEVA:

16 Q. General, you reviewed the report of Mr. Higgs, did you not?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And therefore I take it with that report and also with the Bosnian

19 police report that you reviewed, you know that the round that was fired

20 was from an M-74 batch.

21 A. According to what it says, yes, it's a light shell.

22 Q. And I just make the point that in your report, when you have

23 included firing tables and firing graphs, they all pertain to the M-76; is

24 that right?

25 A. I didn't understand you. M-76? There is no M-76. There is M-75,

1 if we're talking about mortars. The calibre is M-75.

2 Q. Well, in the translation of the report that I have, you have a

3 firing graph that indicates, at least it's entitled the 120-millimetre

4 mortar, light mortar, M-76, and the firing tables that you have provided

5 pertain to an M-75. And I make the point that nowhere is there any

6 information related to an M-74.

7 A. If this is a mortar, the title is "120-millimetre, M-75" for a

8 mortar, and that's how it is in my report. There's no 76.

9 Q. There's also no M-74, is there?

10 A. No. No, there isn't, because the difference between these two

11 mortars is negligible. It doesn't influence any ballistic element. For

12 that reason I felt it unnecessary to deal with both. They are the same.

13 Q. There is a difference, is there not?

14 A. The difference does not affect ballistic conditions. It does not

15 affect targeting.

16 Q. There's a difference enough so as to warrant two different tables,

17 one for an M-74 and one for an M-75; isn't that right?

18 A. In military libraries I found firing tables for M-75. Those were

19 the ones I used. There's no difference. I didn't find the other one.

20 Q. With respect, please just answer the question. There is a

21 difference that warrants two different tables, one for an M-75 and one for

22 an M-74. You may not have found the M-74, but there is a difference, is

23 there not?

24 A. Not in terms of ballistics, not in terms of ballistics. As

25 regards the trajectory and the impact of the projectile, no, there isn't.

1 No difference.

2 Q. And what about the ranges?

3 A. The ranges depend on the type of projectile, the projectile that

4 was used. If it's a heavy shell then it's one range, and if it's a light

5 shell it's another range. It depends on the weight of the projectile, not

6 on the mortar, whether it's an M-74 or an M-75.

7 Q. Now, yesterday when you were speaking about the transport of

8 mortars, you said that a 120-millimetre mortar, according to your

9 knowledge of the regulations, needs to be transported by a motor vehicle.

10 Do you remember that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Isn't it also correct, sir, that the JNA provides for the

13 transport of 120-millimetre mortars by, in addition to a motor vehicle or

14 in the alternative, by a mule or more than one mule; is that right?

15 A. Yes, and that refers to a 120-millimetre M-52 mortar. The JNA did

16 not have mules or other kinds of pack animals.

17 Q. But yesterday when you were asked to give information as to how

18 mortars are transported, you did not mention the mule, when in fact it is

19 provided for in the rules, is it not?

20 A. Yes, but to the best of my knowledge, and I know for certain, the

21 JNA had neither mules nor horses. There were never mules in that area.

22 They only used horses and they didn't have those.

23 Q. Which area are you talking about, sir?

24 A. I'm talking about the mountainous areas around Sarajevo, the

25 mountainous areas of the SFRY, the Socialist Federal Republic of

1 Yugoslavia. Everywhere in the former SFRY, in fact.

2 Q. It's important to be specific about the area. I take it you

3 weren't with the VRS or the JNA stationed in Mount Trebevic, were you?

4 A. I lived in Sarajevo for 15 years, sir.

5 Q. That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking you that from the period

6 1992 through to 1995, you were not with the VRS, the SRK, or the JNA

7 stationed on Mount Trebevic or in Sarajevo at all, were you?

8 A. No.

9 MR. SACHDEVA: If I could ask for 65 ter 03394. Perhaps,

10 Mr. President, I'll come back to this because I have to establish what

11 page. I know the paragraph. And I can do that in the break.

12 Q. General, I'm sorry, I'm going to move on to another topic now.

13 General, I want to talk to you about the aspect of your report

14 where you described the killing range of a 120-millimetre mortar. Do you

15 remember that information in your report?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Firstly, we can agree that, and as you've said yesterday, that the

18 main purpose of a mortar, the design of a mortar, is to maximise the

19 killing of enemy personnel or the harassment of enemy personnel. Do you

20 agree with that?

21 A. Well, not according to the definition we had in our rules of

22 combat. It's intended for the destruction of enemy manpower. It doesn't

23 mention harassment. It's combat and the aim is to destroy enemy

24 manpower. There are other tasks also which I will not go into, but they

25 do not refer to manpower.

1 Q. Well, that's fine. We can go with that. So the main purpose is

2 to destroy, to kill, in other words, enemy personnel. That's right?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Now, in your report you talk about -- you give a figure of the

5 amount of shrapnel, the fragments that -- the amount of fragments there

6 are when a mortar explodes and you've given that figure of 3.500 or so.

7 Do you remember that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And you go on to say that only about 250 to 300 of that 3.500

10 are -- cause lethal injuries. Do you remember that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. So by my calculation, and I'm not a mathematician by any means;

13 however, but that would render, in terms of the purpose of a mortar, that

14 would, with your figures, that would render the mortar some roughly 10 per

15 cent effective. In other words, if only 250 out of the 3.500 shrapnel

16 pieces are lethal, then it renders a mortar pretty much 90 per cent

17 ineffective, by your calculation?

18 A. The calculations I presented are based on experimental methods.

19 Mathematical methods were used to prove how many pieces of shrapnel there

20 were in total. It's 2.5 to 3.000 pieces. And of that total number, 10

21 per cent is lethal. Ten per cent have the kinetic energy of about 100

22 joule or more, which is sufficient to kill a human being. That's why

23 these figures are what they are.

24 Q. And then beyond that, how many of those pieces would cause

25 casualties, not necessarily lethal casualties but casualties?

1 A. The range of the pieces of shrapnel from a mortar is 150 metres

2 from the epicentre at the most. But in view of the fact that when a shell

3 explodes, the pieces of shrapnel are dispersed in a sphere.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.

5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it says 150 metres.

6 The witness said 50 metres. The expert witness said 50 metres, whereas

7 the transcript says 150.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you for that clarification.

9 MR. SACHDEVA: Did the witness say that?

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, I take Mr. Tapuskovic's word, but I'll ask

11 the witness.

12 Witness, what did you say, 150 metres or 50 metres?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I said 50 metres.

14 MR. SACHDEVA:

15 Q. General, I suggest to you that the casualty range for a

16 120-millimetre mortar is up to 190 to 200 metres from the centre of the

17 explosion.

18 A. I'm not aware of any such mortars. That might refer to a bomb

19 dropped from a plane. But as for mortars, it's what I said.

20 Q. Up to 200 metres if people are in the vicinity of a -- within 200

21 metres of a 120-millimetre mortar shell that explodes into thousands of

22 fragments, I suggest to you that there will be people beyond the 50- or

23 70-metre mark that would sustain injuries, not necessarily lethal but

24 would sustain injuries. Do you agree with that or not?

25 A. No, no.

1 Q. Now I want to move on to the issue of sound which you spoke about

2 yesterday. Do you remember that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And you said that somebody could hear a 120-millimetre mortar

5 being fired if that person was up to 5 to 6 kilometres away from the

6 firing position. Do you remember that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And so if somebody was a kilometre away, then it's virtually

9 impossible that if a mortar was fired a kilometre away from, let's say, a

10 UN observer, it would be impossible if that mortar had been fired for him

11 not to have heard that. Do you agree with that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Now, Mr. Tapuskovic, you may recall, spoke to you about the

14 position of 2.400 metres from the Markale market. Do you remember that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And I think you're aware --

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, when I asked the

19 witness about these things, I was speaking in general and I was speaking

20 about the possible -- a possible distance of 2.400 metres. I didn't

21 mention Markale. I said if the distance is 2.400 metres, what's the

22 situation. I didn't mention Markale then.

23 MR. SACHDEVA: Very well.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.

25 MR. SACHDEVA:

1 Q. Witness, let me put this scenario to you. You have an observer in

2 a certain location and then a kilometre away, let's say hypothetically, a

3 kilometre away a mortar, a 120-millimetre mortar has been fired. Are you

4 with me on this for the moment?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And your evidence is that ordinarily when the mortar has been

7 fired, that observer would have heard, or should have heard, the

8 120-millimetre mortar being fired; is that right?

9 A. Yes. He should have heard. It's certain that that person would

10 have heard it.

11 Q. If, however, there was a mountain or a hill or other similar

12 relief features between the observer and the firing position, it's

13 possible; in fact, I suggest to you that the sound would be muffled or, in

14 fact, non-existent and therefore make it more difficult for that person to

15 hear the mortar being fired. Do you agree with that?

16 A. No. Mountains and elevations have an impact on the intensity of

17 the sound, but at those distances the intensity of the sound is sufficient

18 for the firing to be heard.

19 Q. Well, you've agreed that the mountain or the relief features would

20 affect the sound. You agree with that, don't you? Of course it's obvious

21 that a mountain or a hill would have an impact on the sound, it would

22 muffle the sound, deflect the sound. Do you agree with that?

23 A. Mountainous areas do have an impact on the sound, but there is an

24 echo effect.

25 Q. General, I just want you to follow my questions. Okay, you agree

1 with that. And so what I'm suggesting to you is that it would be --

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. -- it is therefore, in that situation, one cannot guarantee that

4 somebody would have heard the firing of a mortar. In other words, it is

5 less likely for that person to have heard the mortar being fired.

6 A. It depends on the distance. At small distances one can hear it;

7 at longer distances, it's possible that the sound would not be heard.

8 Q. In any case, you agree that the sound is deflected and the sound

9 is different, it's muffled. Do you agree with that?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Of course you spoke about these rather technical sound devices.

12 Do you remember speaking about that yesterday?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And of course for those sound devices to work, they would have had

15 to have been installed in the military, in the theatre. That's obviously

16 correct, isn't it?

17 A. Yes. Yes.

18 Q. And you also spoke about the radar, the Cymbeline radar. Do you

19 remember that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And again I put the same question to you, that -- well, let me

22 first go back to what you said. You gave in an answer to Mr. Tapuskovic

23 that the radars are established or set up in areas where -- in certain

24 areas where it is presumed fire will be coming from. So it depends on

25 where you set the radars, doesn't it?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. So if a mortar is fired from the south and the radar is set up to

3 cover the north or the east, it wouldn't obviously pick up the mortar

4 being fired from the south. That's a logical conclusion.

5 A. If there's only one radar, then the conclusion is correct.

6 Q. And for -- similarly, for these radars to be effective, for

7 someone to establish the firing position, that person has to catch the

8 times when both the lower elevation, the lower beam, and the higher beam

9 are cut in the trajectory of the firing projectile; isn't that right?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. So, again, it depends on what elevation, what level, the radar is

12 set.

13 A. The radars are set from 0 elevation to plus 70 degrees.

14 Q. But, General, it's possible, is it not, that a radar could be set

15 at such an elevation that that would not enable it to catch the projectile

16 cutting both beams. In other words, a projectile could fly underneath the

17 level set by the radar, the beam set by the radar.

18 A. That's not possible.

19 Q. You're saying that it's not possible for a projectile to fly below

20 the level of a radar beam?

21 A. A mortar projectile can never fly below the radar beam. It has to

22 be cut by the radar beam.

23 Q. But does it not depend on what beam -- at what level the radar has

24 been set? It surely must depend on that.

25 A. Radars are designed in such a way as to operate in all

1 conditions. Their elevation settings provide for mountainous terrain, as

2 well as flatlands, elevations, depressions. Literally speaking it is

3 impossible for a mortar round to be fired without the Cymbeline recording

4 it.

5 Q. I'm asking you to answer the question. Does it not depend on the

6 level, the elevation level, set -- the level elevation that's been set

7 with the radar? It depends on that. Whether it's unlikely that it was

8 set that way or not, I'm just asking you to agree with the possibility or

9 to agree that it depends on the level set by the radar.

10 A. A radar elevation setting provides for any projectile to be

11 detected.

12 Q. Do you know what the elevation settings were in Sarajevo?

13 A. I'm not familiar with that.

14 Q. Do you know where the radar -- where the radars were located in

15 Sarajevo during the war?

16 A. According to the documents I had at my disposal, they were at the

17 airport, around the Sarajevo airport. It's a flat area.

18 Q. And the airport is pretty much the other end of town from Mount

19 Trebevic, is it not?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Now, the other factor about radar, and you've talked about how

22 they are very accurate, but the accurate readings depend on the person at

23 the computer watching at the time the projectile cuts both the beams, and

24 for that person then to identify the location and then therefore to

25 calculate -- from those measurements, calculate the origin of fire. So it

1 depends on the efficiency of the human person being there at the time

2 these beams are cut, doesn't it?

3 A. Radar precision depends on the type of instrument. As for the

4 calculations, it depends on the crew. The crew has no impact on the

5 precision of recorded elements.

6 Q. But the crew has to identify when those beams have been cut, at

7 what time those beams have been cut, and the crew has to record that

8 information for the eventual calculations to be established; isn't that

9 right?

10 A. On the radar screen one registers the data as to what the beams

11 were cut and what the parameters were at that moment. It stays on the

12 screen long enough for the crew to be able to use it. That is entirely

13 independent of the crew.

14 Q. Well, when you say one registers the data, by that I mean -- by

15 that I take it you mean the person who is reviewing the screen at the

16 time. In other words, it depends on the efficiency of a human watching

17 that computer and recording the data. That's all I'm putting to you.

18 A. Registration is automatic, with no influence on the part of the

19 crew.

20 Q. And that information, how is that information recorded and passed

21 on, and how are the calculations made?

22 A. The information recorded is introduced into the computer. Then

23 the crew undertakes certain calculations and the final results are the

24 exact coordinates of firing. All that takes less than one minute.

25 Q. Now, you told the Court with respect to the prerecording of

1 targets -- you remember speaking about the prerecording of targets?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And I want to ask you that, as an artillery person, you surely

4 cannot be telling the Court that this procedure whereby a target -- the

5 coordinates of a target are recorded down in a log and then kept for

6 future use, you're saying that that does not occur.

7 A. As I said yesterday, the first time I encountered the term

8 of "prerecorded target" was when reading this documentation. In artillery

9 units there is no way or practice for targets to be prerecorded and kept

10 in some sort of archives or for any other future use.

11 Q. Are you saying that armies, including the JNA or the VRS, did not

12 have target lists that were pre-prepared, that had been pre-prepared? Are

13 you saying those things do not exist?

14 A. During reconnaissance enemy activity is recorded. It is also

15 recorded in any given area the enemy is of such and such strength and

16 type. However, such data is not useful for artillery units to carry out

17 firing. Such data is not used in artillery.

18 Q. I'll get to the use in a moment. But I want you to first agree

19 with me that a military target, for example, in the city of Sarajevo like

20 a barracks or something of that character, the coordinates of that target

21 can be recorded and kept as a target in a list of targets. That's

22 possible, is it not?

23 A. It is possible to register those coordinates.

24 Q. And you agree with me that the city of Sarajevo, with its several

25 identifying features -- for example, you have -- you know that there's a

1 cathedral in the central of town. You agree with that, that there's a

2 cathedral there?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And for a mortar crew who hail from the Sarajevo region, they can

5 use that identifying feature, such as the cathedral spire, or other

6 similar features, to be able to establish coordinates in a much easier and

7 quicker fashion than in an open battlefield. Do you agree with that?

8 A. Knowing the coordinates of a cathedral or another building does

9 not contribute to any quicker calculation on the part of the crew. It

10 bears no importance irrespective of the type of building. What I wanted

11 to state also was that they never targeted the cathedral.

12 Q. I didn't suggest that in my question. Let me put a scenario to

13 you. You have a mortar crew that has at the beginning, let's say,

14 beginning of the conflict, beginning of the Sarajevo conflict, fired a

15 couple of mortars into the city with a direct line of sight, and through

16 the firing of those mortars they have adjusted their rounds until they

17 have established almost a direct fire for the target they want to hit.

18 And once they have established those coordinates, those coordinates are

19 recorded. You're following what I'm saying, I take it?

20 A. Yes, I am.

21 Q. And that mortar crew has its mortar with the base plates dug in

22 and that mortar stays there for three or four or even -- three or four

23 months or even a year. And then that mortar crew goes back, let's say, in

24 a year's time to the mortar in the same location as it was when it fired

25 those initial rounds and it takes out its target list and it has those

1 coordinates that represent the target that it hit a year ago. Are you now

2 saying that that information, the same crew with the same mortar location,

3 that information is not useful?

4 A. This scenario is rather odd. The data that the crew might use --

5 Q. General, sorry, before you answer, I don't want you to comment on

6 the scenario. I'm just saying that if that scenario were to be the case,

7 you cannot tell the Court that that information, those target coordinates,

8 would not be useful to that mortar crew, I suggest to you.

9 A. I apologise, sir. Such data is completely useless to the crew.

10 Q. General, we have heard in this case an expert who has come here

11 and given evidence, an expert on mortars, who has told the Court in his

12 report and also during the evidence that the prerecording of targets in

13 Sarajevo with a military situation that pretty much remained static

14 throughout the three to four years - in other words, mortar positions

15 weren't moved throughout that time period - that the prerecording of

16 targets most certainly increases the accuracy of the mortar crew that is

17 firing into the city. And you disagree with that expert's evidence.

18 A. I disagree, absolutely.

19 Q. And even if one were to take into account the variations with

20 respect to the weather, with respect to atmospheric conditions, those

21 coordinates would still assist -- enable the mortar crew to fire the

22 round, maybe not necessarily the exact place where the initial round was

23 fired, but at least within 10 to 15 metres of that first round. Do you

24 agree with that?

25 A. If one calculates in all of the weather and ballistic conditions

1 at the moment prior to the firing and if all the parameters impacting the

2 flight of the projectile be taken into account, such coordinates of any

3 given building in Sarajevo, with the weather, ballistic conditions, and

4 all of the other types of influence impacting the flight of the

5 projectile, do assist us in acquiring an impact approximate to the

6 coordinates prerecorded. Without any of those it is not possible,

7 however.

8 Q. Well, that's the answer. That's what I was putting to you, and I

9 take it you agree with that.

10 Now, yesterday you spoke about observers as well. Do you remember

11 that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And Mr. Tapuskovic talked to you about the use of observers with

14 indirect and direct fire? Do you remember that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Would you agree with me, General, that if a mortar crew has direct

17 line of sight of a target that it intends to hit, in other words, almost

18 using the mortar like a rifle, notwithstanding the parabolic trajectory,

19 that target could be hit without the use of an observer. In other words,

20 it's not necessary to have an observer if it has a direct line of sight.

21 A. Mortars never fire directly irrespective of whether they can see

22 the target or not.

23 Q. General, that's why I put in my qualification about the curve.

24 I'm not suggesting that it's a straight, direct fire like a rifle or a

25 tank. But what I'm suggesting to you is that if a mortar battery crew

1 has -- is positioned, for example, on a hill and can see down into the

2 valley and can see a target, it can then try and engage that target with

3 or without the use of an observer. Do you agree with that?

4 A. I understood you and I've given my answer. Due to the parabolic

5 trajectory, a mortar cannot target and hit a target directly. The

6 parabolic trajectory makes it necessary for all of the elements to be

7 calculated as if one were targeting indirectly. Irrespective of whether

8 we can see the target or not, we still have to factor in the parabolic

9 trajectory. It is unimportant whether they can see the target from the

10 place of firing or not.

11 Q. General, are you really saying that the fact that a mortar crew

12 can see a target is unimportant in their -- in what they try to do? Are

13 you saying that?

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, he didn't say that, Mr. Sachdeva. I think

15 you should move on.

16 MR. SACHDEVA: I think he said it in the last sentence.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: You say that "Irrespective of whether we can see

18 the target or not, we still have to factor in the parabolic trajectory.

19 It is unimportant whether they can see the target from the place of firing

20 or not." So the parabolic trajectory is, for him, key, crucial.

21 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, there's something I don't

22 understand very well because when the person firing can see the target, I

23 think there is some confusion here. What is the person firing supposed to

24 do and what is the observer supposed to do? Because the observer tells

25 the person firing where the target is located, where the first shell has

1 fallen, and what needs to be done to improve the firing range. But when

2 the person firing can see the target, he is in the same position as the

3 observer. So I don't understand the observer who can see the target, the

4 person firing who can see the target, whether he sees the target or

5 doesn't see it, that that doesn't make any difference. I don't understand

6 the rationale here.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The person firing a round at the

8 mortar has the same role as an observer that might be to the front,

9 without being able to see the piece. Therefore, cooperation is the same

10 between the two. They conduct the same activities. The nature of the

11 parabolic curve is such that it does not provide for direct targeting.

12 One cannot turn the mortar tube directly on to the target. The crew

13 member can be the observer and vice versa. However, the parabolic

14 trajectory always needs to be factored in. I don't know whether I was

15 clear enough.

16 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, you were clear, but I think

17 the issue hinges on the word "directly," because when the person firing is

18 an observer, he might not be able to reach the target first time round,

19 and after having missed the first time, then the second time he is better

20 able to direct the shot, the mortar, and will be able to reach the target

21 in the end because he can observe and see what's happening. He won't hit

22 the target the first time round, but the next time round he might be able

23 to. What do you think about this?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. For the next round he needs to

25 enter certain corrections, which is also something done by an observer who

1 cannot see the firing position. Therefore, the action is the same in both

2 cases. There is a correction of targeting, whether they see the target or

3 not.

4 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.

6 MR. SACHDEVA:

7 Q. General, we were talking -- you were speaking yesterday about the

8 phenomenon of the tail-fins in the -- sticking into the ground at the

9 explosion site. Do you remember talking about that?

10 A. Yes, but I did not talk specifically about tail-fins plunging into

11 the ground. I did talk about the issue of tail-fins in general.

12 Q. But generally we can agree that if a tail-fin is found in the

13 ground in the explosion site, generally it means that it was fired -- or

14 the mortar came in from a further distance at a higher speed.

15 A. A tail-fin is found in the immediate vicinity of an explosion. It

16 can tell us something about the calibre but it cannot tell us anything

17 about the place and direction of firing or about the distance.

18 Q. So what I'm suggesting to you is that if the tail-fin is found in

19 the ground, as it was in one of the incidents that you have reviewed in

20 Livanjska Street, the general assumption - I'm not saying that it's

21 definite - the general assumption is that it came -- therefore the mortar

22 came from a further distance, the mortar was fired from a further

23 distance.

24 It's the same physics with respect to the depth of the fuse, the

25 funnel that you spoke about yesterday, the fuse furrow. If you have a

1 deeper funnel or if the tail-fin is embedded in the ground, it suggests,

2 it's an indication, that the mortar was fired from a further distance and

3 therefore had a higher velocity. This is what you said yesterday.

4 A. Yesterday I said, and I reiterate, that only the depth of the

5 funnel can tell us anything about the distance from which that round was

6 fired. The tail-fin does not provide us with any information on the

7 distance of firing. I repeat: It doesn't tell us anything about the

8 distance of firing.

9 Q. And you never have come across an incident where a tail-fin had

10 been stuck -- had been stuck in the ground at the explosion site?

11 A. Yesterday I presented some data to you. During a projectile

12 explosion, the tail-fin is ejected. Depending on the speed of descent,

13 the forces ejecting the tail-fin and the speed of movement of the tail-fin

14 annul each other. Depending on the size of one or the other force, the

15 ejection distance is greater or lesser from the place of explosion. In

16 order for a tail-fin to bury itself in the ground, one needs to have the

17 speed of the projectile greater than 650 metres, or around 700 metres per

18 second. In such circumstances that tail-fin can be found buried in the

19 crater. However, all speeds of descent are in the range of 3 to 400

20 metres and it is therefore natural to suppose that the tail-fin is never

21 buried in the ground. It also depends on the hardness of the surface. In

22 my previous experience as a lecturer, I have never come across a tail-fin

23 buried in the ground.

24 Q. But you're aware that the incident at Livanjska Street, the

25 tail-fin was found in the ground and you are also aware, are you not, that

1 in the first Markale incident, the tail-fin was found in the ground. So

2 therefore I suggest to you, as Mr. Higgs has stated to the Court here,

3 that it is possible for a tail-fin to be found in the ground, and that

4 generally indicates that the firing was from a farther distance and the

5 speed was higher.

6 A. I have no comment as to how those tail-fins ended up in the

7 crater. It would be unjust of me.

8 Q. And if we talk about the depth of the crater, which you were

9 speaking about --

10 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, if I'm going to move on to a new

11 subject, perhaps it's time for a break.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We'll take the break.

13 --- Recess taken at 10.28 a.m.

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

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.

16 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President.

17 Q. General, before I move on to my next topic, I just want to ask you

18 with respect to one of the answers you gave, and this is at line 12 on

19 page 28, you said: "What I want to state also was that they never

20 targeted the cathedral." Do you remember saying that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Given the fact that you were not with the VRS in Sarajevo during

23 the war and during the indictment period, how do you know they never

24 targeted the cathedral?

25 A. In the documents I studied I found no cases of fire on that

1 building.

2 Q. So what you're saying is from the material that you reviewed with

3 respect to the mortar incidents in the indictment, you've come to the

4 conclusion that they never targeted the cathedral. I suggest to you, sir,

5 of course you don't know if they ever intended to target the cathedral, do

6 you?

7 A. I know according to the documents. I know what I said. I don't

8 know about their intentions.

9 Q. Yes, thank you. Now, I was about to move on to the -- what you

10 were speaking about yesterday with respect to the depth of the crater and

11 the depth of the funnel. Do you remember talking about that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And you said that if there was a shallow crater, a shallow funnel,

14 according to your expertise, that then indicated that the shell was fired

15 from charges, one or two, in other words, from a lesser distance, or that

16 it could have been a static explosion. Am I correct in my understanding

17 of your evidence?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Of course, General, the depth or shallowness of the crater depends

20 on the surface that the shell lands on, doesn't it?

21 A. Yes, the characteristics of the soil, of the ground.

22 Q. And so one could have a shell that has landed on hard ground, such

23 as asphalt or a road, and it could produce a shallow crater, but that

24 would not necessarily mean that the shell was fired from a lesser distance

25 or, indeed, that it was a static explosion.

1 A. The characteristics of all kinds of ground and their hardness is

2 something where one knows what the depth of the crater will be in view of

3 the range. So the same projectile landing on soil or on asphalt and so on

4 would not produce the same depth of crater. But in every case the

5 shallowness of the crater in relation to the type of ground speaks of the

6 velocity and range of the projectile.

7 Q. But, General, you cannot subtract or take away the factor, the

8 very huge factor, I suggest, of the hardness of the ground and therefore I

9 want you to agree with me that if you have a shallow crater on hard

10 ground, it does not necessarily mean that the shell was fired from a

11 lesser distance or that it was a static explosion. You surely have to

12 agree with that.

13 A. I cannot agree with that. A shallow crater on hard ground means

14 that the projectile arrived at a slow velocity and it produced a small

15 crater. If the projectile arrived at a high velocity, then the crater

16 would be larger. Experiments have shown that low-velocity projectiles

17 create small craters and high-velocity projectiles create deeper craters.

18 Here I exclude those projectiles that burrow deeper into the ground, which

19 are slowed down.

20 Q. As a general conclusion, that is -- I would agree with you that

21 the depth of the crater obviously indicates the velocity of the shell.

22 However, you have to factor in the hardness of the ground, do you not?

23 A. It is factored in, yes. Yes.

24 Q. Now, you've told the Court that you were not in Sarajevo during

25 the conflict and therefore I take it that the day the incident occurred at

1 Markale, you weren't at the site, were you?

2 A. No, I wasn't.

3 Q. Unlike the Bosnian investigators, unlike the UN investigators, you

4 were not able to conduct an in situe investigation; you did not take

5 measurements at the scene, did you?

6 A. No, I did not.

7 Q. General, are you an expert in photogrametrics?

8 A. I was the commander of a unit that dealt with that. I completed

9 certain training for that job and I also taught on topographical geodetic

10 work at the military academy, so I think I am familiar with that subject

11 matter.

12 Q. I didn't ask you whether you are familiar. I asked you whether

13 you're an expert in photogrametrics, in the field of photogrametrics. Are

14 you or are you not an expert in that field?

15 A. Nobody has ever asked me to produce an expert report in that

16 field.

17 Q. And no one's ever asked you to because you're not an expert in

18 that field, are you? It's a simple question: Are you an expert or are

19 you not?

20 A. I'm acquainted with that field, I'm familiar with it. I have done

21 that for the needs of the army. I feel I am qualified to do that.

22 Q. Why didn't you include that in your biographical data, in your

23 CV? Why is that not indicated?

24 A. Well, there's a lot of things that I'm qualified to do which I

25 have not included because I felt them to be of lesser importance.

1 Q. So what you're saying is that when you come to the court and give

2 your conclusions about measurements based on your familiarity with

3 photogrametrics, according to you that's not of importance to include that

4 in your CV. Is that what you're saying?

5 A. I did not include it in my CV because I was not asked to. I

6 didn't think that every detail of my work ought to be included, so I

7 probably omitted to include that. But I am familiar with that field.

8 Q. Well, of course not every detail, but this is a detail that you

9 have given lengthy evidence on and you have not included it in your CV.

10 Why didn't you do that?

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's move on, Mr. Sachdeva.

12 MR. SACHDEVA: Very well, Mr. President.

13 Q. Now, when you spoke yesterday about the respective sketches and

14 diagrams, do you remember talking about those diagrams yesterday with

15 respect to the Markale incident?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And I recall that you took issue with the measurements of the

18 height of the building. Do you remember that?

19 A. I pointed out that the height of the building cannot be

20 established exactly, but I accepted the measurement provided in the

21 documents.

22 Q. You did not accept the measurement, the distance from the

23 explosion crater to the foot of the building. You said that the

24 measurements were wrong in that sketch. Do you remember that?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. General, do you really think that your analysis or your

2 measurements are more accurate than the measurements made by trained

3 investigators who were at the scene at the day of the explosion, not only

4 Bosnian investigators but also UN investigators? Are you asking the Court

5 to take your measurements over those measurements made physically with

6 measuring tapes?

7 A. I consider that the measurements I presented are approximately

8 correct and that they are more correct than the measurements entered into

9 those sketches. I'm not going into who provided those measurements.

10 Q. So your evidence is that your measurements are more correct

11 than --

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's move on, Mr. Sachdeva. You're just

13 repeating the question.

14 MR. SACHDEVA: Very well.

15 If I could have Exhibit P254 brought up on the screen, please.

16 Q. Witness, you remember seeing this sketch yesterday, I take it?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. This sketch is an illustration of the calculation of the angle of

19 descent. You agree with that? Whether it's the right calculation or not,

20 but this sketch is being used to calculate the angle of descent. Do you

21 agree with that?

22 A. Yes. And this is how the angle of descent is calculated.

23 Q. Nowhere on this sketch is it indicated that it's -- nowhere on

24 this sketch is it indicated the direction of the projectile. That's not

25 contained in this sketch, is it?

1 A. That's correct, yes.

2 Q. It does not say that the shell came from the north, from the

3 south, from the east, from the west. It's simply a sketch used to

4 determine the angle of descent.

5 A. I would not agree. The vertical line on the left-hand side of the

6 drawing suggests that that is the building across from the market. It's a

7 thick vertical line so it suggests the building, the market building, in

8 fact, which says that the projectile came from the south.

9 Q. Does it say on this sketch -- does it say on this sketch that that

10 vertical line represents a building? Does it say that on this sketch?

11 A. No, it doesn't say that, but that was my understanding of the

12 sketch.

13 Q. So it is your assumption that the vertical line represents a

14 building; is that correct?

15 A. Yes. Yes.

16 Q. It could also be, could it not, that this is a standard sketch

17 used by investigators to demonstrate how the angle of descent is

18 calculated, and that that vertical line has nothing to do whatsoever with

19 the position of the building. Do you agree with that?

20 A. It's a possibility. Not necessarily so, but it's a possibility.

21 Q. Now, on a general level, when one is investigating what happened

22 at a mortar explosion -- at a mortar explosion and one has an indication

23 that the mortar that was used was a 120-millimetre mortar, and if one is

24 attempting to establish which side fired that mortar, one of the factors

25 that you would have to establish is whether the army that you presume is

1 responsible, whether it be the ABiH or whether it be the Sarajevo-Romanija

2 Corps, one would have to establish whether they had in their arsenal

3 120-millimetre mortars. Do you agree with that statement?

4 A. One must establish whether they had a certain type of weapon, yes.

5 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, if I could ask for -- it's 65 ter

6 03395.

7 Q. Now, General, you see a document on your screen and this document

8 is from the 1st Sarajevo Mountain -- 1st Sarajevo Mechanised Brigade on

9 the 5th of August, 1995, and it is, as you can see, a report on the

10 receipt of materials -- material, supplies and funds. I suggest to you,

11 and I don't think that this is disputed, that the 1st Sarajevo Mechanised

12 Brigade controlled the territory, part of the VRS territory, in the area

13 where the market was located, in other words in the Serb confrontation

14 lines.

15 And I want you to look down the list and you will see there in the

16 first line that it is reported that in the month of July 1995, the 1st

17 Sarajevo Mechanised Brigade received from the 27th Logistics Base 160

18 pieces of 120-millimetre mortar. I just want you to agree with me that

19 that's what's indicated in this document.

20 A. Yes, I agree that that's what the document says.

21 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I'd like to tender this document

22 into evidence.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

24 THE REGISTRAR: As P936, Your Honours.

25 MR. SACHDEVA:

1 Q. Yesterday, when you were shown the picture of the crater, do you

2 remember seeing a picture of the crater - I think it was Exhibit P264 -

3 and you agreed that the direction of fire was roughly 175 degrees. You

4 said, in fact, if I can remember, that it was impossible to make a mistake

5 on the direction of fire from that crater. Do you remember that?

6 A. I remember seeing the photograph and I said that the general

7 direction of arrival was as shown.

8 Q. And when talking about the Markale incident, your conclusions, if

9 I can put it that way, were that because of the shallowness of the crater,

10 it indicated that the shell was fired from a closer distance or that there

11 was a static explosion. Those are your conclusions, aren't they?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Now, of course, given the fact that you did not go to the scene on

14 the day of the explosion and conduct your own investigation and so your

15 conclusions are based upon, at least as I see it from the evidence you've

16 given and from your report, on the shallowness of the crater, you would

17 not have seen -- if, indeed, there had been a static explosion, you did

18 not see any secondary explosive marks on the ground that would have

19 been -- that would have existed if there had been a static explosion, did

20 you?

21 A. No.

22 Q. In fact --

23 A. May I explain?

24 Q. If I can just continue.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, let him give the explanation. I'd like to

1 hear it.

2 You wanted to explain? Yes, go ahead.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Your Honour, I based my expert

4 report on the documents disclosed by the Prosecution which we had at our

5 disposal. All the calculations were made in the documents in order to

6 determine the approximate angle of descent, the direction of arrival, and

7 the angle at which the projectile could have flown over the building in

8 order to explode where it did, and that's why I used the photogrametric

9 method.

10 Based on that data, comparing all the photographs I had at my

11 disposal in connection with the crater and everything else, we arrived at

12 the mathematical results showing that the crater was shallow, that the

13 angle of descent was about 63 degrees, according to the traces of the

14 shrapnel and the epicentre of the crater, that the angle needed for the

15 projectile to fly over the building would be 74 degrees, and no

16 projectile, regardless of the distance from which it was fired or the

17 charge, would have been able to fly over the building. It would have

18 exploded on the roof of the building.

19 Based on the shallowness of the crater and all this, the

20 conclusion was that there was an explosive device exploding in static

21 conditions. That's the explanation I wanted to give.

22 MR. SACHDEVA:

23 Q. If there was a static explosion, you would agree with me that on

24 the ground there would have been secondary marks created on the ground

25 either by a contraption that would have been used to hold the mortar in

1 place or the explosion device. You would have seen other explosive marks

2 on the ground; isn't that right?

3 A. An explosive device on the ground can also be a 120-millimetre

4 shell in static conditions.

5 Q. But something would have been used to either detonate the device

6 or to hold the device in place for it to produce such a crater, so there

7 would have been another contraption in addition to the mortar used to

8 perform this static explosion, and that's why I'm suggesting that you

9 would have seen, one would have seen secondary marks on the ground.

10 A. There would have had to be something. What was used to activate

11 the shell in static conditions, I cannot say.

12 Q. So you agree that -- well, firstly, you don't know what was used,

13 number 1. Number 2, you agree there would have been -- as you said, there

14 would have had to have been something, and I take it you mean something

15 else, and from the evidence that you reviewed from the witnesses that have

16 given evidence here, from the investigators that have given evidence

17 here - the investigators, I point out, that were there on the ground at

18 the time - there is no positive evidence that suggests that this was a

19 static explosion, is there?

20 A. According to the documents, the site of the explosion was cleaned

21 quickly. It was washed with water to remove traces on the site of the

22 explosion. That's in the documents that the Prosecution disclosed to us

23 for inspection. It was cleaned up very quickly.

24 Q. With respect, General, I'm putting to you that you do not or you

25 were not aware or you have not seen, you have not reviewed, any evidence

1 that suggests, any positive evidence that suggests that this was a static

2 explosion. I'm not talking about your assumptions about the cleaning of

3 the site. I'm talking about positive evidence.

4 A. I did not have any opportunity to see such evidence.

5 Q. And in fact, with the crater that you see -- that we've seen, the

6 marks that were caused on the asphalt, you would agree with me that even

7 if you clean away the blood, you clean away the other types of mess that

8 are caused in an explosion, cleaning the scene does not damage or alter

9 the position of the crater or the marks on the ground, does it?

10 A. I did not go into that. The only thing I observed was that no

11 dimension was measured on the photograph to enable one to orient oneself.

12 Q. Again, you have not answered my question. What I'm suggesting to

13 you is, and it's also evidence that has been heard in this trial, that a

14 crater left on the ground, those marks do not get altered by the cleaning

15 of a crime site. Do you agree with that?

16 A. Yes, I agree. They do not get altered, no.

17 Q. And in your investigation and in fact in the time since the

18 Markale market incident, you have not come across any person that has

19 suggested to you that he or she planted an explosive device at the scene,

20 have you?

21 A. No. No, I have not.

22 Q. And I take it that you also agree that if one were to assume that

23 the explosion was a static explosion, then to set up that explosion, in

24 other words, to ensure that the mortar is positioned in the place where

25 you want it to be placed, to ensure that there is an explosive device or a

1 detonation device, to ensure that there is a contraption that may hold the

2 mortar in a certain position, that would take some time, wouldn't it?

3 A. I don't understand the thrust of your question.

4 Q. The thrust of my question is this: That to perform a static

5 explosion, to ensure that you have all the -- all the necessary

6 contraptions to ensure that an explosion occurs in situe, to set that up

7 would take time, would it not?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And you are aware that the -- at least on that day, that the

10 marketplace is in the centre of the town; there were people in the market

11 going past on the road; there were cars going on the road; there were

12 stalls that were set up just outside the building selling cigarettes. If

13 somebody had decided to set up this explosion, somebody would have seen

14 that, surely.

15 A. I agree that somebody would have seen it. But preparing or

16 setting the stage for such an activity is never done in a way that other

17 people can see. Such preparations are carried out elsewhere. I don't

18 think anyone would do that in public, the way it was.

19 Q. Well, maybe it could have been conceived and the preparations may

20 have been conducted elsewhere. However, at some point you would have to

21 bring in the explosive device; you would have to bring in the mortar in

22 position, in situe, in the marketplace, for it to explode. Do you agree

23 with that?

24 A. I agree with that, but perhaps not a mortar was brought to the

25 market, just a round.

1 Q. Well, you don't know. These again -- these are, again, just all

2 assumptions on your part, aren't they?

3 A. Sir, I know what a mortar is. It cannot be just brought in like

4 that. It's a weapon, weighing 3 to 400 kilogrammes. How can it be

5 brought on the scene without anyone seeing it? That was the gist of the

6 interpretation I received.

7 Q. I'm not disputing that. In fact, that was the question I put to

8 you. But when you said it could have been -- you said perhaps not a

9 mortar was brought to the market. I'm suggesting that these, again, are

10 just assumptions on your part. You don't know, do you?

11 A. I suppose that the preparations to activate the mine in static

12 conditions were carried out. Based on the traces visible and based on the

13 documentations, that is the only conclusion I can come up with.

14 JUDGE HARHOFF: General, excuse me for interrupting, but I guess

15 the issue here is whether it's possible by means of a static explosion to

16 leave a trace in the street similar to the one that was found in the

17 Markale 2 incident. Is that at all possible, to have an explosion, a

18 static explosion, that would leave a crater and a pattern of fragments

19 similar to what you found in the street?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A 120-millimetre detonation or

21 projectile detonation in static conditions and an explosive -- and -

22 interpreter's correction - and a firing of a first or second-charge round,

23 well, in both those cases the crater would be the same. It would be

24 impossible to say whether such a projectile had flown in or whether it had

25 been detonated in static conditions, since the traces would be very

1 similar.

2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.

4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] There was one part missing from

5 the transcript. The witness mentioned another witness [sic], which is due

6 to slow or low speeds. That is what he mentioned, that one of the

7 characteristics of the crater is that the projectile flies in at low

8 velocity. Therefore, there is no important distinction between the

9 projectile flying in at low velocity or the one being exploded in static

10 conditions. And that part was missing.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

12 MR. SACHDEVA:

13 Q. General, there are many possibilities, but to -- what you're

14 saying is that you would have to then ensure that the explosion produced

15 the exact same crater patterns that we saw on the ground. Those patterns

16 on the ground are not accidental; those patterns are dependent upon a

17 particular angle of descent which then causes in a particular direction

18 which then causes these patterns, so to produce a static explosion you

19 would have to emulate that -- you would have to emulate those conditions,

20 that angle, you would have to do that, wouldn't you?

21 A. I agree.

22 Q. And so if you had to produce the same pattern, you would have to

23 have either somebody -- well, you would have to have a contraption that

24 holds the mortar in that particular -- in that particular angle of

25 descent, or somebody holding it, maybe two, three, four people holding

1 it. Of course, that wouldn't happen. But you would have to have a

2 contraption to put it in place, in position, would you not?

3 A. I'd rather not go into what or how they did it. But based on the

4 traces of the crater, the ones that were washed after the incident, one

5 can still calculate the angle of descent at which the projectile had

6 exploded. If we rely on the mathematical calculations, the figure is 63

7 degrees.

8 Q. General, with respect, that's not my question. And in fact if you

9 are -- I suggest to you that if you are coming to the Court to make this

10 allegation, that it was a static explosion, and you're now telling the

11 Court that you don't want to go into why you think it was a static

12 explosion apart from the appearance of the crater, why didn't you include

13 that in your report? Why haven't you provided the basis of your

14 conclusion that this was a static explosion?

15 A. There is such an assertion in the report. I stated that it is

16 possible for the explosion to have been carried out in static conditions.

17 It is in the report.

18 Q. Yes, I agree with that, and it's what you've stated here, that

19 it's possible. But you have not provided any basis from that conclusion,

20 apart from the appearance of the crater. You haven't provided any

21 evidence as to why you -- how you think it was set up, what was used, how

22 long it would take. That's what I'm suggesting to you.

23 A. I was not on the site, I was not involved in the investigation,

24 and I had no such information at my disposal. Therefore, it is an

25 illusion that I could go about guessing at how they did it.

1 Q. Yes, because it would be a guess, wouldn't it?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Now, I want to briefly move on to the issue of modified airbombs.

4 Firstly, General, let me ask you: You were never in the air force with

5 the JNA, were you?

6 A. No, I was not.

7 Q. You never worked at the Pretis factory, for example, in Bosnia in

8 your career, did you?

9 A. In my career I visited the Pretis factory 15 to 20 times, touring

10 the production line. But other than that I wasn't there.

11 Q. You were not involved, were you, in your work in the development

12 of airbombs or modified airbombs.

13 A. I was an operations officer. I'm sorry for not having been

14 involved in research and development of weapons. Therefore, the answer is

15 no.

16 Q. And, of course, you were not with the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps and

17 therefore you were not involved in the launching of any airbombs or

18 modified airbombs, were you?

19 A. No. At that time I commanded the school centre in Kragujevac.

20 Q. So your assertion that the airbombs that were used, the modified

21 airbombs that were used in the Sarajevo theatre, that they were not

22 fuel-air bombs but rather bombs filled with conventional TNT is simply

23 based on what you've seen, the photographs and the evidence. It has

24 nothing to do with your personal knowledge; is that right?

25 A. As a VJ officer I was trained and I'm familiar with weaponry of

1 all branches and aspects in possession -- in the composition of the JNA.

2 We undergo additional training every year about new types of weapons,

3 devices, and based on that I made the conclusions in the report concerning

4 the airbombs.

5 Q. Do you know of a Centre for Nuclear Research in Vinca, in Serbia?

6 A. I've heard of it but I never was there.

7 Q. So you were never there and therefore you would not know if these

8 fuel-air explosives were researched into and made there, do you?

9 A. I can't tell you anything about that.

10 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, might I have one second.

11 [Prosecution counsel confer]

12 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I have one last thing to do and that

13 was to show the witness the JNA rules, which I hadn't been able to find

14 the page. I do have the page now. If I could do that and then I will

15 finish my cross-examination.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

17 MR. SACHDEVA: It's 65 ter 03394. I apologise for the delay. And

18 if we could go to the B/C/S, page 99, and the English translation, page

19 70.

20 Q. General, I want you to look at the paragraph, it's 233. Do you

21 see paragraph 233 there?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And you will see that towards the end of that paragraph it states

24 that -- it reads, and I'm going to read from the English:

25 "Load the mortar on the trailer, and if the mortar is to be towed

1 by a motor vehicle or a single mule or transported on a motor vehicle, if

2 the mortar is to be carried by pack mules, disassemble the mortar and

3 trailer down to their assembly parts which are then loaded on the

4 animals."

5 Do you see that?

6 A. Yes, I do.

7 Q. So you would agree that in addition to a motor vehicle, a mortar

8 can be transported by a mule or a pack of mules?

9 A. This is what it says.

10 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender this document into

11 evidence.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

13 THE REGISTRAR: As P937, Your Honours.

14 MR. SACHDEVA: And that's the end of my cross-examination.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

16 Any re-examination, Mr. Tapuskovic?

17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I'll try to be

18 as efficient as possible.

19 Re-examination by Mr. Tapuskovic:

20 Q. [Interpretation] While on the topic that was last presented, and

21 it was also discussed previously during cross-examination, and while we're

22 on the topic of pack animals, I wanted to ask you this: You said that at

23 that time the JNA did not have pack animals. When was this regulation put

24 in place?

25 A. These rules date from the time of the JNA in the 1970s, when there

1 were many pack animals among the people. But I don't think there were any

2 pack mules in the former Yugoslavia; however, there were pack horses.

3 Later on no JNA units had such animals.

4 Q. When it comes to efficiency, even if we had such a horse or a

5 mule, which would be more efficient, such an animal or a truck or a towing

6 device, a modern one?

7 A. During the last 30 years, only motor vehicles were used to tow

8 mortars and other artillery pieces. No other devices were used and no

9 other means.

10 Q. Say if there were a mule nearby in the 1990s, having in mind the

11 weight of a few hundred kilogrammes, wherever it was, would such a weight

12 have left the same markings on the ground if it were to be set up at a

13 firing position?

14 A. I've never seen a pack mule in my career except on a photograph.

15 As for any mortar markings, they would be the same, irrespective of

16 whether it was transported by a motor vehicle or an animal. The firing

17 position markings are the same.

18 Q. Thank you. Let us go back to some more important issues. I will

19 have to choose but the few most important ones. Let us go to one of the

20 questions Mr. Sachdeva posed concerning the sound.

21 You said in response that when it comes to greater distances, it

22 is possible for the sound to be muffled. I have to ask you this, and I

23 asked you that once already: What is the greatest distance at which one

24 can hear such a firing? First of all, the firing --

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.

1 MR. SACHDEVA: As counsel has said himself, this has already been

2 asked in examination-in-chief. That particular question has been asked.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.

4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I did put such a question

5 during my examination-in-chief. However, I wanted to use that as the

6 basis to remind the witness of some things contained in Mr. Sachdeva's

7 question.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. There's nothing wrong with that,

9 Mr. Sachdeva. It still arises out of cross-examination.

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

11 wanted to ask the witness this:

12 Q. What are the distances at which it is possible not to hear the

13 sound of firing?

14 A. Yesterday we said what the distance is. At a distance of over 20

15 kilometres and more, it is possible not to hear the sound of firing, if

16 the distance is greater than 20 kilometres.

17 Q. With an average hearing, what is the distance that one can hear

18 it? You are probably now referring to the instruments you mentioned. Let

19 us talk about people.

20 A. I apologise. Any person should be able to hear it at the distance

21 of 5 to 6 kilometres. However, if a person has excellent hearing, the

22 distance may up to 10 kilometres.

23 Q. There was some discussion about hills during cross-examination.

24 Is it possible that at a distance of 1.600 metres anywhere on this planet,

25 that at a distance of 1.600 metres and 2.400 metres there is a hill?

1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The counsel did not

2 complete his question. We presume he meant to say that there was a hill

3 serving as an obstacle.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is impossible.

5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. As for your calculations and the issue of the compass and craters,

7 there was some mention of the things you experienced while in the JNA

8 until May or June 1992. When did problems arise that had to do with the

9 JNA? When did conflicts break out in that country? What year?

10 A. Please put it in a clearer way.

11 Q. In any part of that country, but at that time you were in

12 Croatia -- sorry, in Banja Luka, but there was some mention of Croatia as

13 well, when did the conflict begin in the SFRY, in that area, having to do

14 with those conflicts?

15 A. Now it seems clearer. The conflict with the JNA arose at the

16 moment when some paramilitary units executed an attack on certain JNA

17 units. Those JNA units were forced to defend themselves, of course.

18 Q. General, sir, since I believe I have to address you that way, tell

19 us what year it was.

20 A. In Croatia, in Slovenia, it was in 1991; in Bosnia, in 1992.

21 Q. When in 1991? And let us close the topic with that.

22 A. I think in the spring of that year, in April.

23 Q. And throughout that year you've been going through what?

24 A. From that moment on, all JNA units were attacked by paramilitary

25 units of Croatian and Slovenia in parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina where there

1 was the JNA at the time.

2 Q. And during that period and with a view to your duties, which may

3 have been combat duties; is that correct?

4 A. Yes, during that time.

5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Just bear with me for a moment,

6 please.

7 Q. Let me dwell on this topic a while longer. Yesterday I was short

8 of time, but as my learned friend has opened the topic, I now have an

9 opportunity to discuss something very important with you and it concerns

10 firing tables, especially the question relating to the lethal range of 50

11 metres, as you said here, and even more importantly the 10 per cent

12 fatality of a certain number of pieces of shrapnel.

13 You spoke about this in your expert report on page 18 of the B/C/S

14 version and page 12 of the English. Could you now please explain in

15 greater detail, when you say that 10 per cent of the pieces of shrapnel

16 are lethal, why you say this, and what would then be the precise number of

17 these lethal pieces of shrapnel in the case of a 120-millimetre mortar

18 shell?

19 A. Before a 120-millimetre mortar shell explodes, because of the

20 gases developing, the casing cracks and 2.5 to 3.500 pieces of various

21 sizes, shapes, and weights are created; 250 to 350 of these pieces have a

22 kinetic energy of 100 joule or more. To clarify, for a piece of shrapnel

23 to have this energy and to be lethal, it needs to be 5 grams in weight and

24 to have a speed of 200 metres per second. That amounts to 100 joule. 250

25 or 350 of these pieces will have this effect on manpower.

1 Q. Let's try to illustrate this. Can you indicate on the sketch this

2 50-metre circle?

3 A. The radius is 18 metres. That's the lethal area. 34 metres is

4 the diameter. 50 metres is not lethal and does not kill manpower.

5 Q. These are things that can be determined precisely, according to

6 the table you're holding in your hands?

7 A. These measurements and this data has been calculated and checked

8 by mathematical and experimental methods, and they are taken as axiomatic.

9 Q. In view of the circumstances of this explosion we have been

10 dealing with more almost a year now, in view of the buildings on both

11 sides, can you draw a sketch of that circle? And then I will put a few

12 questions to you, if possible.

13 A. Yes. By leave, I already have a sketch and it can be shown here,

14 or I can draw a new sketch here.

15 Q. No, please do it now, approximately.

16 A. [Marks].

17 Q. What do these two lines show?

18 A. The star is the epicentre of the explosion.

19 Q. Mark it with an R.

20 A. [Marks].

21 Q. And what do these two lines represent?

22 A. The edges of the buildings.

23 Q. Please say out loud what they represent.

24 A. The edges of the buildings, the edges of the street and their

25 distance from the epicentre.

1 Q. Mr. Garovic, please follow what I'm asking. What does one line

2 represent and what does the other line represent? Don't write anything.

3 Just say it.

4 A. The upper line represents the market buildings over which the

5 projectile allegedly flew, and the other line is the opposite side of the

6 street and the buildings there.

7 Q. Mark the first with a number 1 and the second with a number 2.

8 A. [Marks].

9 Q. And as you say that R is the epicentre, explain to the Judges, in

10 what directions do these 10 per cent pieces of shrapnel which are lethal

11 move? In what directions do they go?

12 A. From the centre, the pieces of shrapnel fly in all sides, in a

13 360-degree circle.

14 Q. Thank you. Do some of these pieces of shrapnel go directly into

15 the ground or -- the ground?

16 A. According to experiments that have been carried out testing the

17 physics of the explosion, from the front of the projectile under a

18 70-degree angle, pieces of shrapnel go into the ground, into the crater.

19 From the middle part, 58 per cent of those from the middle part of the

20 projectile fly on all sides. And the 2 per cent from the tail-fin go up

21 into the air together with the tail-fin.

22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's not in the

23 record that 40 per cent go into the ground. It's not recorded in the

24 transcript. The witness said that, that 40 per cent of the pieces of

25 shrapnel go into the ground.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. How many go towards the buildings on both sides?

4 A. From the centre of the --

5 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please speak into the

6 microphone?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the centre --

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, please speak into the microphone.

9 THE INTERPRETER: And could counsel's microphone be switched off

10 while the witness is speaking.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 58 per cent of the pieces go

12 horizontally in all directions from the centre of the explosion.

13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. How many go up into the air?

15 A. Two per cent go up into the air, including the tail-fin.

16 Q. Is it possible, or rather, how many pieces of projectile in this

17 particular situation can be lethal?

18 A. In relation to the street and the surface of the street, the total

19 surface area of this circle is 1.017 square metres and the diameter is 18

20 metres. That was effectively impacted by the shell. The surface of the

21 street affected is 370 square metres. That's 38 per cent of the

22 projectile from that 58 per cent I mentioned will have an impact in the

23 street. That means that from 110 to 120 or 30, 130 pieces of shrapnel

24 will hit people in the street.

25 Q. In this case we are saying that there were 43 persons who were

1 killed and 18 wounded. In practical terms it would mean that not each and

2 every piece of shrapnel hit a person. Is that possible?

3 A. No, it's not possible. This 120-millimetre mortar shell can kill

4 ten or so people and the others would not even be wounded.

5 Q. Can you explain this? Let's assume that it landed right in the

6 middle of a certain group of people. How many people --

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.

8 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, of course I acknowledge that I

9 briefly touched upon this subject with respect to the efficiency of a

10 mortar and compared to the design and the purpose of the mortar. However,

11 this -- the same submission as yesterday. This is, again, quite strong

12 conclusions that, in my submission, should have been in his report. It

13 should have been -- all these calculations, all these measurements, all

14 the information that the witness is now saying and the conclusion that

15 he's drawing about how many people would have been hit by a 120-millimetre

16 mortar, they're not in his report. And of course I'm not an expert in

17 this field, the Prosecution doesn't have experts in this field, and

18 typically we would confer with our experts to have this information

19 tested. And to have this sort of detailed information in re-examination

20 now, I just put that for the record.

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva, it arises from your

23 cross-examination, so the question of whether it's in the report now is

24 not pertinent. Counsel is permitted to put questions that arise from

25 cross-examination, and if the witness' answer relates to something that is

1 not in the report, then so be it.

2 Proceed.

3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'll try to round this off

4 quickly.

5 Q. So if the shell landed in a group of people, as the indictment

6 claims, can these projectiles pierce human bodies and act or have an

7 impact on people standing behind them, or would that actually reduce the

8 number of pieces of shrapnel that are lethal?

9 A. The pieces of shrapnel do not have the power to pierce because of

10 their shape, their weight, and because they have no rotational velocity

11 when flying. Rotational velocity, let me explain, pierces through human

12 organisms and it is characteristic only of infantry weapons which have a

13 certain kind of barrel.

14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have

15 no further questions. I wish to tender this sketch.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We admit it.

17 THE REGISTRAR: As D368, Your Honours.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva, on the matter of the last document

19 you tendered and which we admitted, I'm told it is 150 pages.

20 Mr. Sachdeva, I'm saying that the last document you tendered, I'm told

21 it's all of 150 pages. Was that your intention or just to have the single

22 page admitted?

23 MR. SACHDEVA: Precisely, I could have the single page and perhaps

24 the cover page.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. The court deputy will note that.

1 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President.

2 Questioned by the Court:

3 JUDGE HARHOFF: General, I have one question that has puzzled me

4 since yesterday when you testified about the Markale incident, because you

5 gave us some indications on the photo - and I would like the registrar to

6 call up Exhibit D367 - and the matter that I wish to raise with you is

7 your statement that there was contradictory evidence in the Markale

8 reports. As I understood you to say, one report would indicate that the

9 mortar had come from the north; another, that it had come from the south.

10 And this is what is depicted here on your drawing, and I think it's number

11 1 and number 2, coming from either south or north. And what I do not

12 understand is, how do you come to this conclusion?

13 The Prosecutor, in his cross-examination, did suggest to you that

14 the drawing of how a mortar shell landed in the streets and having a

15 vertical line on it would, in your submission, indicate the Markale

16 market, but I wasn't sure if that was the basis for your conclusion

17 yesterday that the evidence seems to point -- seems to be mutually

18 exclusive and contradictory.

19 Now, could you explain to me just for clarification, why is it

20 that you thought that the shell could have come from both north and south,

21 according to the evidence that was given to you.

22 A. Your Honour, two drawings I was able to see, I assume they were

23 drawn from the same vantage point. On one, the direction of the incoming

24 shell is from the north; the other, from the south. These two drawings

25 representing one and the same place indicate that such a mistake was

1 made. If I am wrong and if they used different vantage points, then it's

2 my mistake. But if the vertical line on the second drawing is identical

3 to the one on the first, that would indicate that the direction from which

4 the shell came is the opposite. There would be no reason for them not to

5 draw it in the same way when they were calculating this other angle.

6 If it's confusing, maybe I was confused, but I concluded that a

7 mistake had been made. Mistakes were also made in the dimensions of the

8 landing of the projectile, and that can easily be seen when one compares

9 the panoramic photographs of the site of the event and the dimensions

10 entered into the sketches. But I still think that the sketches lead to

11 the conclusion I have presented.

12 JUDGE HARHOFF: I accept that is your evidence and your testimony,

13 but I'm not sure I fully understand how you could reach that conclusion.

14 But I accept that this is your conclusion. Thank you very much.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: General, that concludes your evidence. We thank

16 you for giving it, and you may now leave.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

18 [The witness withdrew]

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber will carry on some consultations and

20 return in 25 minutes.

21 --- Recess taken at 12.17 p.m.

22 --- On resuming at 12.48 p.m.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have before us a motion to limit testimony of

24 Dr. Ivica Milosavljevic to matters contained in his report, or in the

25 alternative, for a continuance. The last words suggest to me that it was

1 filed by somebody from the American system.

2 Mr. Docherty?

3 MR. DOCHERTY: Yes, Your Honour, it indeed was. I don't know who

4 it was.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: You own up.

6 MR. DOCHERTY: I own up. It's me. Your Honour, beyond what is in

7 the --

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not asking you to comment on it.

9 MR. DOCHERTY: Oh.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: I am just making some preliminary observations.

11 The report seeks to ensure that the evidence of the expert report

12 is confined to his report. There is a concern, an anticipatory concern,

13 that matters out the report will be led in evidence. And the new document

14 list filed by the Defence refers to five documents. First, the report

15 itself, there is no problem with that. Secondly, the ICRC report, that's

16 not mentioned in the report, that is outside the report. Thirdly, three

17 e-court pages of photographs re Markale 2. These are not in the report.

18 How many photographs are involved here, Mr. Tapuskovic?

19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there was a

20 mistake. In the beginning, all the photographs, but after a serious

21 analysis, we boiled it down to three. These were photographs of all the

22 possible victims and also a film which is already in evidence and which we

23 have seen more than once.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: So it's three. So we are talking about three

25 photographs.

1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Not 200. Three photos. I note that.

3 The fourth document is the police report, including the medical

4 report concerning the incident relating to Dzenana Sokolovic and the death

5 of her son. That's not included in the expert's report either. Fifth,

6 there is the videoclip.

7 In principle, none of the last four mentioned documents are to be

8 admitted because they are not included in the report. I am to say,

9 Mr. Tapuskovic, that it is indicative of a lack of rigour for you not to

10 have included these documents in the report if your intention is to

11 examine on them, as appears to be the case from the fact that you have

12 submitted them in your witness list -- in your list of documents, rather.

13 I had earlier, in a similar situation, given a decision in favour

14 of allowing Mr. Tapuskovic to examine on documents which were not in

15 the -- in an expert's report on the basis that they arose naturally,

16 incidentally, from the report. But in this case I don't see how these

17 four documents arise.

18 Nonetheless, the Trial Chamber considers that it has a duty in its

19 inquisitorial role - and that may surprise Mr. Docherty, it may even

20 surprise me - but we have a duty to ferret out the truth. And in light of

21 that duty, we are going to allow examination on some of these documents

22 that are not included in the report. And the reason for allowing

23 examination on these documents is that, in the Trial Chamber's view,

24 evidence on these documents will advance the case and will assist the

25 Chamber in its pursuit of the truth.

1 Now, these are the documents that we'll exceptionally allow:

2 We'll allow Mr. Tapuskovic to examine on the three photos and we'll also

3 allow examination on the police report, including the medical report

4 pertaining to Dzenana Sokolovic. Now, in this regard, if the Prosecutor

5 is embarrassed by the evidence that will be led which was not included in

6 the report, then the Prosecutor is to bring that matter to our attention

7 so that the Chamber will decide how to deal with that situation.

8 That's the Chamber's decision.

9 Are you in a position to say whether you need any time for

10 preparation?

11 MR. DOCHERTY: No, I'm not, Mr. President, because I don't know

12 what will be said.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Precisely.

14 MR. DOCHERTY: We'll wait and see.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Right. Yes.

16 Very well. Let the witness be called in. Before the witness is

17 called, I have another decision to give.

18 Mr. Tapuskovic.

19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Just briefly. You did not

20 mention the film we have seen here more than once. I don't insist on Your

21 Honours handing down a decision right now, but when you hear the issues we

22 will deal with, I assume that Your Honours may decide to view the film in

23 view of what might follow from the examination of this expert witness. I

24 think it is very necessary to view the film so that Your Honours can

25 arrive as close as possible to the truth of all this, and it is directly

1 connected with what this expert will deal with. This expert will tell us

2 all the things he found lacking in order to give a precise opinion that

3 might be of assistance to Your Honours.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. The Chamber's decision stands, subject to

5 any review that we may undertake in relation to the matter just raised by

6 Mr. Tapuskovic.

7 Now, there's another matter in relation to which I have a

8 decision.

9 On the 23rd of August, the Defence submitted a motion requesting

10 the admission into evidence of 23 documents disclosed by the Prosecutor on

11 the 18th of July in accordance with Rule 66 and 68 after receiving the

12 consent of the United Nations to do so, pursuant to Rule 70(B). The

13 Defence submits that these documents are relevant to the case at hand and

14 support the Defence case.

15 Further, the Defence explains that the documents were received

16 from the Prosecutor at an advanced stage in the proceedings, thus

17 preventing the Defence from tendering these documents through witnesses

18 appearing before the Court.

19 During the hearing on the 19th of July, the parties were heard on

20 the issue of the late disclosure and the Prosecutor indicated it had -- or

21 he had no objection to the admission of these documents into evidence.

22 Upon review of the 23 documents, the Trial Chamber finds that they

23 constitute relevant evidence with probative value and admits the

24 documents, except for two, and these are the documents pertaining to the

25 engagement of foreign nationals in the ABiH, document 65 ter number 395D

1 and 382D.

2 Let the witness be called.

3 [The witness entered court]

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

6 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

7 WITNESS: IVICA MILOSAVLJEVIC

8 [Witness answered through interpreter]

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit.

10 And you may begin, Mr. Tapuskovic.

11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. We've

12 come to the very end of the Defence case in these proceedings. This is

13 our last witness, who is an expert.

14 Examination by Mr. Tapuskovic:

15 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, please state your first and last name for

16 the Bench.

17 A. My name is Ivica Milosavljevic.

18 Q. It will suffice for you to say when you were born.

19 A. I was born on the 14th of November, 1955.

20 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 1959.

21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. I just wanted to warn you to wait with your answer before --

23 rather, until the cursor has stopped, and I will do the same when you will

24 be providing your answers.

25 What is your occupation?

1 A. I am a specialist in forensic pathology and I am in the register

2 of permanent court pathologists with the courts in Serbia and currently I

3 am a professor at the medical school in Belgrade. As of last year I am

4 the president of the Forensic Pathologists Association of Serbia. I also

5 hold a masters degree in the application of digital imaging in forensic

6 pathology and I also work as a senior lecturer at several schools of the

7 university in Belgrade, and the department of IT, I teach the course in IT

8 technology and digital imaging within the framework of forensic pathology.

9 Q. Thank you. Please slow down a bit when speaking. Otherwise, if

10 you keep up the pace, not much will be entered into the transcript.

11 Therefore, kindly slow down when speaking.

12 What I believe is important for the Bench to know, first of all,

13 is what your experience is in forensic pathology and what is your

14 expertise when it comes to crimes, violent crimes. And please wait for

15 the cursor to stop.

16 A. As of 1993, by the county court in Belgrade as well as by other

17 county courts all over Serbia, I was tasked as an individual or as a

18 member of doctor/expert commissions to work on several incidents of

19 crime. During last year I was also tasked with two well-known law firms

20 from London to work on cases in which my CV as a forensic pathologist was

21 also accepted by the Supreme Court of the UK.

22 Q. Please slow down. Please tell me what your experience is -- well,

23 I'll cite an example. When it comes to homicide and violent crimes, I

24 have to ask you this: When it comes to homicide, when there is shooting

25 from hunting rifles ...

1 A. As a forensic pathologist I worked on several dozens of cases of

2 investigation in which there was wounding and killing from hunting

3 rifles. In my country hunting weapons are quite frequent in many

4 households.

5 Q. Did you know that in the conflict in the territory of the former

6 Yugoslavia, at the outset many hunting rifles were used?

7 A. Around 4.000 bodies that autopsies were conducted on between 1991

8 and 1995 at the institute of forensic pathology of the medical school,

9 there were several dozens of cases of people who had been killed due to

10 the use of hunting weapons.

11 Q. Please tell Their Honours what your experience is in working on

12 forensic pathological investigations in extraordinary circumstances, such

13 as at times of war.

14 A. As I've said, between 1991 and 1995, we autopsied some 4.000

15 bodies of people killed in the war-affected areas. Those people were not

16 only killed by firearms but over 1.000 of those cases were killed by

17 different types of explosions. Apart from that, individually or as a

18 member of a team of medical experts, I also carried out around 1.000

19 external examinations as part of the process of identification and

20 establishing of cause of death of those who were killed in the

21 war-affected areas.

22 Q. As a physician, did you have the occasion to attend scenes during

23 combat or while there was combat in the area?

24 A. Attending a crime scene is an important factor. Whenever I was

25 called up I tried my best to attend the scene. The participation of a

1 physician, of a forensic pathologist, in the on-site investigation is of

2 great importance, not only for the physician himself since he can also

3 acquire certain facts on the spot based on which he can determine

4 precisely the exact time of death, but it is also important for other

5 members of the investigative team because due to his knowledge and

6 experience he can assist in collecting all necessary traces and evidence

7 as well as to secure them in order to further that investigation.

8 Q. When you said a minute ago that you carried out external

9 examinations, that is something that can be done on the spot, I believe.

10 A. External examinations are a part of a forensic pathology autopsy.

11 That is its initial stage. It can be done at the scene, of course not

12 completely, but by gathering the most important elements based on which we

13 can, first and foremost, precisely determine the time of death, and then

14 securing -- or, rather, detecting all of the signs of external injuries

15 based on which we can later determine the cause of death as well as the

16 mechanism and manner of inflicting those injuries.

17 Q. What is the following phase during which such an external

18 examination can be useful in obtaining data prior to any autopsy?

19 A. It is customary that an external examination is an integral part

20 of the autopsy. When transporting the body from the crime scene, or

21 rather, after that, an autopsy is carried out. But, however, if the

22 circumstances are such that there are numerous victims and that

23 insufficient numbers of experts can be provided, and also due to several

24 other types of circumstances which make such investigations difficult, by

25 conducting an external examination we can obtain the necessary data

1 important for any further forensic pathological work.

2 Q. What is it that can be discovered only by forensic pathology in

3 terms of the circumstances and causes of death, including in the

4 conditions of war?

5 A. Forensic pathology and an autopsy, as its most important part and

6 in cases when it is impossible to carry that out, the external examination

7 is the only acknowledged method in that process which can provide us with

8 sufficient information with the weight of proof based on which the precise

9 time of death can be determined as well as the victim's identity

10 established. We can also -- rather, we can confirm the presumed identity

11 of the victim. Based on that we can also determine the exact cause and

12 manner of death as well as the mechanism of injuring.

13 Q. Can it also connect the death of the victim with the spot, with

14 the crime scene, provided there was a crime?

15 A. During the autopsy we also take biological traces and samples of

16 tissue necessary to unambiguously determine the identity of the victim.

17 Later on during the process, that can be compared to the traces found at

18 the scene, primarily blood traces and other biological traces. Based on

19 all that it can be unambiguously determined whether that person was indeed

20 injured at the crime scene and whether that victim was at the scene at

21 that time.

22 Q. By way of example, for example, there is a part of a body found,

23 say a foot, and it is taken away from the crime scene. Due to combat or

24 some other activities, nothing else can be done at the scene. Such

25 remains are then taken to the morgue. What can a forensic pathologist do

1 at the morgue with such a piece of evidence of a crime?

2 A. It is the duty of the police and the judiciary organs to collect

3 body parts found at the crime scene, parts that had been torn off the body

4 of the victim due to an explosion, for example, to take such bodies --

5 such parts to the morgue. The first reason for that is the forensic

6 reason in trying to reassociate the severed part with the rest of the

7 body, thus to confirm that it, indeed, is a part of that body. There are

8 also anthropological methods. However, if we have several victims to whom

9 that foot can be ascribed, then we revert to the DNA method, and based on

10 that we can determine whose foot it is exactly. There are also reasons of

11 ethics and for that reason we have to put all of the body parts together

12 so that such remains can be buried together.

13 Q. You mentioned the police a minute ago. If a physician, for

14 various reasons, was not present -- well, I'd like to ask you this first:

15 When attending a scene as a physician, as an expert in forensic pathology

16 at wartime, are you in any way singled out or marked as a medical worker?

17 A. Since we are medical workers, we always have to be visible when

18 performing our duties in the field.

19 Q. If you were, say, opened fire at, that further aggravates the

20 circumstances of your work. It is also an aggravating factor if that

21 person firing upon medical personnel were to be charged.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's a leading question, isn't it?

23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. I'll move on.

24 Q. You mentioned the police. Provided there was no medical physician

25 attending the scene for various reasons, whose obligation is it, then, to

1 secure the most basic parameters and facts from the crime scene, if there

2 is an alleged crime, in order for a forensic pathologist to carry out at

3 least an external examination so as to provide his opinion on the time and

4 reason of -- and the cause of death?

5 A. The police is always the first to attend the scene. It is their

6 duty to secure the scene and preserve evidence. In case a physician, a

7 forensic pathologist, cannot be brought to the scene, they are also

8 duty-bound to take photographs of all victims individually at the place

9 where they were found when the police arrived. And then they are supposed

10 to move the bodies and take photographs of all the traces and evidence

11 that can be found next to the body or under it. They are also tasked with

12 collecting all other evidence from the scene which may be of importance

13 for any other investigation, including forensic pathology examination.

14 Q. If that could not be done that very day due to combat activities,

15 does that mean -- or rather, how does that affect the next phase, once the

16 bodies had already been brought to the morgue? Was there anything for the

17 police to do in such circumstances?

18 A. Once bodies are in the morgue they are under our remit. We have

19 to carry out an autopsy, and if that is not possible, we have to conduct

20 an external examination. During that procedure the police may take

21 photographs under the supervision and instruction of the forensic

22 pathologist present.

23 First and foremost what I have in mind is the taking of

24 photographs in order to identify that person, that is, photographing the

25 face from three directions, three angles. Then they can take photographs

1 of the front and the rear of the body with clothes and without. And then

2 they can take photographs of any signs of injury found by the forensic

3 pathologist.

4 Let me add that very often, if, in the course of the forensic

5 procedure or the external examination, they establish that a subsequent

6 visit to the site is required to look for certain traces, police teams can

7 go to the spot subsequently, even after a lapse of time, and find such

8 traces and deliver them for further analysis, mark them and deliver them.

9 Q. Mr. Milosavljevic, I put hundreds of photographs at your

10 disposal. These were persons who had lost their lives. I asked you to

11 give me your opinion as to whether on the basis of that entire

12 documentation you can give me information as to where these persons lost

13 their lives based on the documents you received from me and whether you

14 could assist me at all or assist the Court to establish whether someone

15 who lost their life was actually killed on the crime scene, as you say.

16 A. I looked at all the photographs provided to me. I'm referring to

17 photographs of victims taken in morgues. There were 35 victims whose

18 photographs were taken in the morgue in Sarajevo. I also looked at the

19 photographs taken by the police on the crime scene.

20 With respect to the photographs taken by the police on the scene,

21 one can say that they meet certain standards needed for forensic work on

22 site. But these are only photographs showing certain parts of the crime

23 scene - the place of the alleged explosion, body parts, personal documents

24 of possible victims on the spot - but the victims themselves were not

25 photographed on the crime scene.

1 The photographs of the bodies in the morgue were not taken

2 according to the forensic principles I have just described. These

3 photographs are photographs of bodies in clothes. One is a photograph of

4 an entire body. Sometimes they are taken from the front, sometimes from

5 the side, and mostly the front of the face, so that in terms of forensics,

6 especially for purposes of expert testimony in court, I was unable to

7 establish any of the elements I stated only forensic expertise is able to

8 establish.

9 Q. I think it's very important for the Chamber when dealing with

10 cause and effect, based on any of the documents you had at your disposal,

11 could you say whether any of the bodies you saw was or was not on the

12 crime scene, at the crime scene.

13 A. Based on the documents I received, the documents I inspected,

14 there is no documentation apart from the photographs. Nothing about an

15 external examination or autopsy. I was unable to establish this. I could

16 assume only, based on the signs of injuries that could be seen on the

17 photographs, that the body might have been a victim at that crime scene

18 but nothing more.

19 Q. In this introductory section of your testimony, you might explain

20 to Their Honours, because that was a dreadful time, if we have 40-odd

21 human lives that have been snuffed out, how much does it take for a single

22 doctor not to do an autopsy but to do the minimum, the least that can be

23 done as regards an external inspection of the body and body parts in the

24 way you have described today for Their Honours?

25 A. We often had occasion to carry out external inspections --

1 external examinations under extraordinary conditions following the

2 principles of forensic medical work. In my experience you would need 16

3 hours to inspect 40 bodies. Of course, if the doctor had someone with him

4 to take notes and if he had persons who can photograph the body while the

5 doctor is engaged in carrying out an external examination, two bodies --

6 two doctors would need eight hours to examine 40 bodies.

7 Q. Were you ever in such a situation in that terrible time?

8 A. At the outset I said that hundreds, maybe thousands of times I

9 carried out external examinations either on my own or as part of a team.

10 I can give you some examples from 1999. An hour after a rocket hit a

11 building in the barracks in Topcider in Belgrade I went to the scene and

12 spent seven hours there searching for evidence and the remains of three of

13 our men who had been killed. I also had an opportunity to go on site when

14 the television was hit in May 1999, where 16 employees of the television

15 were killed.

16 In May 1999 I was in Nis and I went on site at the Nis hospital

17 next to the pathological institute where a fragmentation bomb had landed

18 and where several persons had been injured.

19 Let me add that I went on site very soon after the events occurred

20 as part of a police forensic team investigating the event.

21 Q. Can you tell Their Honours whether there are international

22 standards regarding forensic expert reports with regard to external

23 examinations and special circumstances, not just in wartime but any

24 special circumstances? Can you explain to Their Honours, in those wartime

25 circumstances, are there any international standards regulating this or

1 not?

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

3 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. President, two reasons -- I'm getting up for

4 two reasons.

5 First of all, I'm not -- I have an objection to the relevance of

6 these international standards. It seems to me that the question is, is

7 the examination that is carried out one that is sufficient to get at the

8 truth of the particular circumstances, and I'm not sure that the existence

9 of international standards of a general nature are relevant to that.

10 I also object because this, once again, is an area that was not

11 covered in the report, and if I could, Mr. President, could I have an

12 objection for the record for all testimony going beyond the report. It

13 will save individual submissions that might be quite frequent.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON:

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, what are you seeking to establish

17 by leading evidence about these international standards?

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is a

19 collection of documents issued by various international organisations at

20 various international conferences which provided the basic guidelines

21 which should be applied in special circumstances such as wartime

22 conditions. This was done at a large gathering of forensic experts --

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, I'm asking: What are you seeking to

24 establish by adducing evidence about these international standards? In

25 other words, show us how it becomes relevant to the case.

1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Precisely because of what Expert

2 Milosavljevic said. He kept pointing out that the external examination is

3 the least that is required in extraordinary circumstances in order to

4 connect in a precise manner the death of a person with the crime scene,

5 under any circumstances, including special circumstances. The expert did

6 not insist, although it's very important, did not insist so much on

7 autopsies. He insisted on external examinations which, in this particular

8 case, when the policemen of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina or the

9 policemen of Bosnia-Herzegovina came on the crime scene, they failed to

10 respect the minimum standards, especially what the witness spoke about,

11 which is why now it is impossible to link with precision the victims --

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Well, I understand the relevance to your

13 case. Now, how do you answer the point that this was not included in the

14 report and the lack of riguor and discipline that this evidence is ...

15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment.

16 [Defence counsel confer]

17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it follows from the

18 nature of this expert opinion. It's inseparable from everything that is

19 contained in the report. It simply flows out of every sentence. The

20 witness deals with this in every sentence of his report. He mentions

21 external examinations --

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: For example?

23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, I can find a place. To

24 establish an important fact, persons with expert knowledge have to be

25 engaged, and then it says what must be taken from a crime scene and blood

1 must be taken, photographs must be taken, the time of death must be

2 established, and so on and so forth. There are several places where it

3 says that blood samples must be taken, that the time of death must be

4 established, that photographs have to be taken. This is mentioned on

5 almost every page and this is what the Defence kept insisting on. Why did

6 not they take blood samples? Why did not they not take photographs? Why

7 was the time of death not established? We have asked the policemen who

8 testified here these questions repeatedly. This was constantly mentioned

9 in our cross-examination. All that was missing and all that is prescribed

10 by the most elementary standards.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: The point which Mr. Docherty makes is that it is

12 not in the report. We'll consider this.

13 [Trial Chamber confers].

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber will allow the evidence to be led.

15 To the extent that it is not in the report and the Prosecutor may be

16 embarrassed by this, the Prosecutor will have the weekend to prepare for

17 it, for his cross-examination.

18 Continue.

19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I forgot to do

20 something at the outset. This report, DD00-4649 --

21 Q. Well, Witness, you drafted this report as you described it today;

22 is that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Since it is already in e-court,

25 I'd like to tender this document as a Defence exhibit.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

2 THE REGISTRAR: As D369, Your Honours.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: I should say that nothing in what I said earlier

4 in giving the Chamber's decision is to be taken to mean that the

5 Prosecutor is obliged to cross-examine on this matter. It's for him to

6 consider whether it is sufficiently important to warrant

7 cross-examination. We have allowed it on the basis that it is a part of

8 the Defence case and in the view of the Defence it's an important part of

9 their case.

10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Witness, you heard me mention that report and the international

12 standards. I extracted a few pages from those that have to do with

13 external examination as something which represents the bare minimum that

14 can be done in order to link the crime scene to a victim. What do those

15 international standards envisage for?

16 A. First of all, an external examination is an integral part of the

17 forensic pathological procedure. It does not fall outside that

18 framework. Rather, it is the initial stage during which most facts are

19 gathered when trying to provide an answer as to the identity of the victim

20 and the time and cause of death. For that reason governmental and

21 non-governmental experts drafted recommendations on how to carry out

22 forensic pathological work in conditions when only external examinations

23 are possible.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Have you finished?

25 THE WITNESS: No.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please conclude your sentence and then we'll have

2 to take the break.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those recommendations provide for

4 work in difficult conditions, such as the ones discussed here. In such

5 conditions forensic examinations can be carried out only to the extent of

6 external examinations. If there is a minimum of data from the recommended

7 checklists contained in that document, only under such circumstances can

8 that evidence be used and deemed valid within the process of forensic

9 pathological examination.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. Thank you.

11 We'll take the break now. Let the witness the courtroom and then

12 I have a matter to deal with.

13 [The witness stands down]

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Private session.

15 [Private session]

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,

3 to be reconvened on Monday, the 27th day of

4 August, 2007, at 9.00 a.m

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25