1 Tuesday, 25 September 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: I am going to ask the registrar to announce the

7 case, since we had in fact terminated the evidential part of the hearing.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours, good morning to

9 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-98-29/1-T, The

10 Prosecutor versus Dragomir Milosevic.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: I will bypass appearances because we know who we

12 are, by and large.

13 Mr. Tapuskovic, you have nothing?

14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Microphone, no.

16 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters can not hear the counsel.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: The interpreter didn't hear you. Please repeat

18 what you said.

19 JUDGE HARHOFF: But he can't hear you either.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Oh. Yes, all right. Everything seems to be in

21 order now.

22 Let the witness make the declaration.

23 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

24 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

25 WITNESS: ANDREW KNOWLES

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. You may sit, and the procedure that

2 we'll adopt is that the Prosecutor will begin asking questions of the

3 witness.

4 So Mr. Hawking Docherty.

5 Cross-examination by Mr. Docherty:

6 MR. DOCHERTY: Good morning, Your Honour. John Docherty for the

7 Office of the Prosecutor.

8 Q. Good morning, sir, would you begin by introducing yourself?

9 A. I'm Wing Commander Andy Knowles currently serving with the Royal

10 Air Force, UK Royal Air Force, and I presume my reason for being here

11 today is that in 1995 I was serving as an UNMO in Sarajevo as a deputy

12 operations officer.

13 Q. All right. And you were indeed summoned for that reason, Wing

14 Commander.

15 Just a couple of housekeeping matters before we begin. All the

16 people in the courtroom that you see around you speak different languages

17 and that's the reason for the head phones. In order that the

18 interpreters' job, which is already very difficult, is not made even more

19 difficult. It is important that you and I not speak over each other and

20 so it's important that you wait until I finish my question, even though

21 you'll often know what the last few words are going to be, and I will

22 observe the same with you.

23 There is a screen in front of you on which the transcript is

24 scrolling continually, and during this trial we found that a good

25 technique for keeping people from talking over each other is wait until

1 the transcript talks before you begin your answer.

2 You and I, Wing Commander, have not met before. Is that correct?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. And my name, as I said, is John Docherty. I'm one of the

5 attorneys on the Prosecution staff on this case. I understand that you

6 have had some e-mail contact with an investigator for the Office of the

7 Prosecutor named Barry Hogan. Is that correct?

8 A. That is correct.

9 Q. Other than that, have you had any contact with the Office of the

10 Prosecutor in this case?

11 A. No.

12 Q. To begin, you were together with your summons I believe given some

13 documents, am I correct about that?

14 A. That is correct.

15 Q. And you should have received a copy of a report by a Captain

16 Hansen, did you get that?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. Did you get the report that you wrote in 1995?

19 A. Yes, that is correct.

20 Q. And did you also get copies of your e-mail correspondence with

21 investigator Hogan?

22 A. Yes, I did.

23 Q. With those preliminaries out of the way, could you just tell us,

24 sir, when it was that you were serving as an UNMO in Sarajevo as precisely

25 as you can. If you don't know the day, then the month and the year.

1 A. I was serving in Sarajevo, if I can go back, I did a six-month

2 tour in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I initially served out in one of the eastern

3 enclaves in Zepa. I then came back into Sarajevo for the latter part of

4 my six-month tour, so it would have been something like May, June, July of

5 1995. I was working as operations officer in Sarajevo.

6 Q. So if I understand you correctly, you were about three months in

7 Sarajevo?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. And as an operations officer, you would have been working in the

10 PTT building. Is that correct?

11 A. Primarily in the PTT as the deputy operations officer working with

12 Captain Thomas Hansen who was the primary operations officer, but of

13 course our work involved getting out on the ground, going to incidents as

14 well, but primarily inside the PTT building.

15 Q. All right. Inside the ops centre in the PTT building?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. All right. And also in the PTT building there were liaison

18 officers from the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. And you are aware, because you have seen the document, that on 4th

21 of July, 1995 you wrote a report concerning an interaction that you had

22 had with some of those liaison officers. Is that right?

23 A. That is correct.

24 Q. And if we could please see Exhibit P519 at e-court page 6 at this

25 time.

1 Do you see on the screen in front of you now, Mr. Knowles, a

2 document?

3 A. Yes, I do.

4 Q. And is this a correct copy of the report that you wrote on July

5 the 4th of 1995?

6 A. Yes, I believe so.

7 Q. All right. Now before coming to court today did you have a chance

8 to take a look at this and get reacquainted with it?

9 A. Yes, I did.

10 Q. And given that 12 years have passed since this was written I

11 imagine it was helpful to you to have a look at it?

12 A. Yes, very much so.

13 Q. Okay. Because obviously sometimes we can't remember what we did

14 12 days ago, much less 12 years.

15 Could I please direct you, this says that in the first paragraph

16 that at approximately 1730 hours on 28 June of 1995, you visited the BiH

17 LO's office and 1730, that would be 5.30 in the afternoon in the civilian

18 time, correct?

19 A. I will have to accept the daytime group on that report that was

20 written at the time, yes.

21 Q. Okay. But my question was simply that 1730 in military time

22 translates to 5.30 p.m. for us civilians?

23 A. Yes. We would have been using local time then.

24 Q. Okay. All right. And 28 June is the day on which the TV tower

25 was hit or there was an explosion at the TV tower. Is that right?

1 A. Yes, that is correct.

2 Q. Is it also correct that the TV tower had been hit some hours

3 earlier, about 9.20 or 9.30 in the morning?

4 A. Yes, that is correct. The incident took place in the morning.

5 Q. All right. In paragraph 2 it indicates that the liaison officers

6 are upset because of an earlier discussion they'd had with Captain

7 Hansen. And I'm just going to read from paragraph 2: "It was alleged that

8 Captain Hansen had accused the ABiH of firing on their own people with an

9 attack against the TV building." Do you see that?

10 A. Yes, I do.

11 Q. And you react to that in paragraph 3, and again I'll just read and

12 ask you if I've read it properly.

13 "Although I was not aware of the facts, I suggested that I was

14 sure that there had been some misunderstanding most likely due to language

15 difficulties."

16 That's what you wrote on 4 July 1995, correct, Wing Commander?

17 A. That is correct.

18 Q. All right. And then the last thing that I want to draw your

19 attention on this page is in paragraph 5, where you say that your meeting

20 with these liaison officers, which sounds like it got quite contentious,

21 lasted about 40 minutes. Is that right?

22 A. That is correct.

23 Q. All right.

24 MR. DOCHERTY: Could we please go to e-court page 4 of this

25 document.

1 Q. Now on the screen in front of you, Wing Commander, is another

2 report. This one was written by Captain Hansen. His signature block

3 appears on the next page. I don't think this was in the packet that you

4 received with your summons. Am I right?

5 A. That's correct, I have not seen this document.

6 Q. All right. I'm going to draw your attention to a couple of things

7 on this document but if you need some time since you haven't seen it

8 before, just say so.

9 It looks first of all as though after you left and duly informed

10 Captain Hansen that Captain Hansen himself went straight to see the

11 liaison officers, and the reason I say that is in the bottom paragraph on

12 this page it says, "At 1800 hours I went to the liaison office." Now if

13 you went in at 5.25.30 and your meeting lasted 40 minutes, then it would

14 seem that Captain Hansen went straight in after you. Is that correct?

15 A. It would appear so, but I don't recall Captain Hansen going

16 straight down after my discussion with him.

17 Q. I understand. And I understand all the way through this is --

18 we're talking about things that happened 12 years ago and therefore may

19 have to rely more than usual on the documents.

20 MR. DOCHERTY: If we could please go to the next page, e-court

21 page 5.

22 Q. And here, talking about this row with the BiH liaison officers

23 Captain Hansen says, beginning at the first line, "I believe that the

24 situation started because of language misunderstandings and especially

25 because I was not allowed to finish my conversation." So he has the same

1 diagnosis as you, correct, that there has been a misunderstanding over

2 allegations that he is accusing the Bosnian army of firing upon their own

3 civilians. Is that what the document says?

4 A. No, that is not the case.

5 Q. All right.

6 A. If I can refer you back to my statement.

7 Q. Certainly. Could we go to page 6, please.

8 A. When I say in paragraph 3, although I was not aware of the facts,

9 that is referring to I had not been at the earlier meeting with Captain

10 Hansen, so I don't know exactly what had been said apart from the fact

11 Thomas Hansen relayed to me that there had been this explosive situation.

12 Q. I understand now and we'll come back to that in a couple of

13 minutes because there is a couple of things about the first meeting with

14 Captain Hansen.

15 But for now let's go back to e-court page 4, which is the first

16 page of Captain Hansen's report. Because I want to just talk for a minute

17 about when Captain Hansen says due to language based on misunderstandings,

18 I want to see if what Captain Hansen is saying is due to language-based

19 misunderstandings.

20 I want to refer you, sir, to the third paragraph from the bottom.

21 It begins: "When I came back from the investigation."

22 Do you see that?

23 A. Yes I do.

24 Q. All right. And at the -- I'll just trade in the entirety. "When

25 I came back from the investigation, I was informed that the BiH LO wanted

1 to make an official protest against me because of words he believed that I

2 had said (he stated that I accused the BH army of having killed their own

3 people)."

4 And then this is the sentence that I wanted to pay particular

5 attention to: "I did not use words that could indicate this, but it is it

6 difficult to have a conversation with people when you are prevented from

7 finishing what you want to say."

8 The way I read this is that Captain Hansen is saying that he did

9 not use words that would indicate that he had accused the BH army of

10 firing on its own people. Do you read it the same way or differently?

11 A. I was not present at that particular translation, at that meeting

12 and therefore I wouldn't wish to put a subjective interpretation on what

13 Thomas Hansen meant to say or not.

14 Q. All right, that's fair enough. And lastly if we could, before

15 leaving this exhibit, go to e-court page 1. And while that is coming up

16 let me ask you, do you remember a Lieutenant-Colonel Alam, I believe from

17 Bangladesh who was also with the UN in Sarajevo?

18 A. Yes, I do. I think -- we had a sector commander. I think

19 Lieutenant-Colonel Alam was probably the deputy sector commander at the

20 time.

21 Q. And are you aware that Lieutenant-Colonel Alam attended a meeting

22 on 29th June with Bosnian army representatives to try and work this

23 situation out?

24 A. I was aware there were ongoing discussions to resolve the

25 situation Captain Hansen had found himself in, being declared persona non

1 grata, but I wasn't present at that meeting and wasn't aware of the

2 detail.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute. Had he in fact been declared

4 persona non grata, Captain Hansen?

5 THE WITNESS: The meeting I attended on the afternoon of the

6 incident when the BiH LO got very excited with me as well was when I was

7 told he would be declared persona non grata and would have to leave the

8 country. That is my recollection.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you know whether that was actually done?

10 THE WITNESS: I understand. I never saw any kind of official

11 document that was signed off with Thomas being declared persona non grata

12 no, although obviously within a number of days Thomas had left that part

13 of the mission, I can only assume as a result of those difficulties.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. Thank you.

15 MR. DOCHERTY:

16 Q. This, wing commander, I'll just represent to you, it's an exhibit,

17 it is in evidence in this case already through an earlier witness and this

18 is Lieutenant-Colonel Alam's report of his meeting on the 29th of June.

19 And if you ever want to see the signature block or what have you, we can

20 go to those pages. But we have limited time and that's why I'm trying to

21 move along.

22 If you look at paragraph 1-B, Lieutenant-Colonel Alam is here

23 saying, "The LO seemed to have fully misunderstood Captain Hansen

24 altogether. As if Captain Hansen was suggesting that ABiH was firing

25 against their own people."

1 Have you read that accurately?

2 A. You have read the paragraph accurately, yes.

3 Q. So here again Captain Alam in a report that is dated 5 July 1995,

4 correct?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. Is still characterizing this allegation that Captain Hansen said

7 that the BH army was firing on his own people as a misunderstanding,

8 correct? That is at least Lieutenant-Colonel Alam's characterisation on

9 5th July?

10 A. One has to remember this is a very sensitive and difficult

11 situation face-to-face dealing with the liaison officers of the BiH, the

12 point being that the words chosen might not have been very careful and in

13 a very sensitive situation but of course referring to what was reported as

14 the incident. How one wishes to interpreter that is a sensitive issue

15 when dealing face-to-face with very angry people in a war situation.

16 Q. Okay. I can understand that. We're going to move away now from

17 the reports and so forth of 28th and 29th June and get into the e-mails.

18 But before we leave these documents, we have seen just to sum up, Captain

19 Hansen and yourself and Lieutenant-Colonel Alam all say that this was a

20 misunderstanding and I take your point about being diplomatic but everyone

21 has said that this was a misunderstanding. Is that correct?

22 A. No, I don't believe that is correct.

23 Q. Okay.

24 A. Can I continue.

25 Q. Absolutely.

1 A. If I refer to what I said earlier in my report I think it was

2 paragraph 3, I suggested when I spoke to the LO and said there had

3 probably been a misunderstanding about the facts, that was because I was

4 not at the early meeting that became so aggressive with Captain Hansen.

5 Q. Okay.

6 A. And therefore my -- my use of the term "misunderstanding" is

7 completely different to what you are suggesting with these two. Either

8 way, Captain Hansen in my report refer to the incidents when I was with

9 Captain Hansen that morning and obviously we have to look that detail.

10 Q. And that's what we're going to look at now. And we will begin

11 with your e-mail to Mr. Hogan.

12 MR. DOCHERTY: And if we could please have 65 ter number 03511

13 displayed on the screen, please.

14 Q. And that's -- can you read that? I can't.

15 A. Yes, just.

16 Q. All right.

17 A. Thank you.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just -- just a minute, please.

19 This is the witness's e-mail --

20 MR. DOCHERTY: Of 10 September.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- beginning --

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Docherty, it is occurring to me that in the

24 interest of getting everything in sequence, it would be better to begin

25 with your showing the witness Mr. Hogan's e-mail to him.

1 MR. DOCHERTY: Well, okay. I'm not sure that that has been loaded

2 in e-court. I sent the document list in, but we'll maybe have to take a

3 break and do that.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me just check with the court registrar. This

5 is the ...

6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please continue, Mr. Docherty. The e-mail that

8 I'm referring to, we'll get at that after you have discussed this one with

9 the witness.

10 MR. DOCHERTY:

11 Q. All right. Now, what this e-mail says, Mr. Knowles, is that you

12 and Captain Hansen were walking across the PTT building car park morning

13 of 28th June of 1995. Is that correct?

14 A. That is correct.

15 Q. All right. And it says that you heard but does not say that you

16 saw a projectile, at least at first. Later you saw it, but at first it

17 was noise only. Is that correct?

18 A. We heard what we thought was the outgoing report, the launch of

19 some sort of projectile, but of course at that time, having not turned our

20 eyes to catch its trojectory, in Sarajevo there were many outgoing and

21 incoming reports all the time.

22 Q. And in fact on this particular morning are you aware that a battle

23 for western Sarajevo had begun with a BH army offensive against SRK

24 positions?

25 A. Yes. There was activity on the confrontation lines a lot of the

1 time. I think at that period there was more than usual turned into the

2 launch an offensive.

3 Q. So there was probably a fair amount of both outgoing and incoming

4 fire at that particular time.

5 A. That would be fair to say.

6 Q. Okay. After hearing this noise you and Captain Hansen you say

7 then saw a projectile going across and it struck the TV building and there

8 was a tremendous explosion. I'm summarising but is that a fair summary?

9 A. Yes. We observed together. As you say, we heard the launch

10 report. We then caught sight of a low flat almost direct-fire type

11 trajectory, slow moving that flew straight across to a front horizontally

12 and impacted the TV building and a couple of buildings up.

13 Q. When you heard a launch report, is that a military term and if it

14 is, could you just tell us what it -- describe what a launch report is?

15 A. Every weapon will have a launch signature an acoustic signature

16 whether it's an artillery piece, a tank in direct fire, a mortar, even a

17 small arms rifle. Everything has a different type of report, and after a

18 fair bit of time in these environments you begin to learn, you know

19 instinctively what is artillery, what is mortars, what is tanks, et

20 cetera. In this case we heard a report type event but from what we saw of

21 the projectile, it was not a conventional type weapon.

22 Q. What you saw of the projectile.

23 And you nod your head affirmatively there.

24 But the launch report that you heard, before the 28th of June, how

25 many times had you heard a modified air bomb being launched?

1 A. I don't recall I did.

2 Q. You don't recall that you did?

3 A. My apologies. I don't recall ever hearing the launch of a

4 modified air bomb-type weapon.

5 Q. Okay. And so what you heard that morning you say you heard a

6 launch report and then saw the projectile?

7 A. An explosive type event which we took to be a launch report.

8 Q. Okay. You then, according to the e-mail, you and Captain Hansen,

9 thinking that this had come from inside the confrontation lines,

10 immediately went and told this to the Bosnian army's liaison officer. Is

11 that correct?

12 A. Not entirely. This is where the 12-year factor kicks in. Can I

13 just expand --

14 Q. Please do.

15 A. -- to clarify.

16 When I sent that e-mail to Mr. Barry Hogan, of course that was

17 completely cold, 12 years on, having not seen any other documentation. I

18 obviously recalled visiting the BiH LO myself and getting into an

19 aggressive situation with arms flailing, very excited. In my mind, 12

20 years on, I assume Thomas and I must have gone together and I must have

21 witnessed that event but, of course, reading these reports when they are

22 sent to me, it is clear to me that Thomas Hansen went to that early

23 meeting on his own. I believe I probably went back into the operations

24 room of our sector headquarters, and then it was later in the day that I

25 went down to see the LOs myself and I of course got subjected to the same

1 type of aggressive response, and I think because I knew that Thomas Hansen

2 had had the similar experience earlier, in my mind 12 years on, I probably

3 thought it was the same event, but it is not. It is two separate

4 meetings. So I think my e-mail to Barry Hogan is slightly incorrect. I

5 did not go with Thomas. I went later in the afternoon.

6 Does that clarify?

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. Best I can.

9 Q. Yes, I think that is it clear. And are you aware that Captain

10 Hansen gave testimony earlier in this trial?

11 A. No, I was not until I received the court summons papers.

12 Q. Okay. And I know that you have seen his later report but have you

13 seen or heard anything about his testimony?

14 A. No, not at all. I thought I was doing a service by informing

15 Barry Hogan of the presence of a man called Captain Hansen, thinking he

16 hadn't been spoken to.

17 Q. No. He -- I appreciate your good motives, but he'd been here.

18 I just want to read to you a portion of the transcript of his

19 testimony.

20 MR. DOCHERTY: And for the record, Your Honour, this is transcript

21 pages 4334, continuing to page 4335, and it concerns the events of 28th

22 June.

23 Q. When the bomb -- question: "When the bomb hit were you in the TV

24 building or the PTT building?"

25 Answer: "PTT building."

1 Question - this is from the Prosecutor, not me but one of my

2 colleagues. Question: "Okay. Thank you. After it hit, another UNMO came

3 into the PTT building and spoke with you about what he saw. Is that

4 right?"

5 Answer from Captain Hansen: "He came to make a report about what

6 he had observed.

7 Question: "You yourself did not see anything. Is that right?"

8 Answer: "That's correct."

9 And I mean you can see why I go to that bit of the transcript

10 because you have just told us that Captain Hansen was on the PTT building

11 car park with you and that you and he together saw -- heard the report and

12 saw this projectile flying, but Captain Hansen is saying he was sitting in

13 his office at the PTT building when someone came to see him. I realise

14 you just heard this, but is there any light that you can shed on what

15 appears to be differing recollections?

16 A. No, not at all. You completely surprised me there.

17 Q. Okay.

18 A. My recollection was that I was with Thomas Hansen. We observed

19 what we observed. He then went down to speak to the LO, leading to that

20 incident that we all know about. I would have gone back to the PTT

21 building and later on that day I went down to see the LO myself. And

22 indeed it was Captain Hansen that then wrote the UN report later that day

23 and submitted it using third person terminology, referring to an UNMO.

24 Q. Mm-hm.

25 A. Which I assume that he wrote in the third person so as not to

1 identify himself as the source.

2 Q. Mm-hm.

3 A. So I'm afraid my recollection is 180 out there with you. To this

4 day I believe Thomas Hansen and I observed that together and indeed

5 thereafter even went to look at the map to work out where we thought the

6 launch point was to follow-up action. So to hear you say today that

7 Thomas Hansen did not see this is just not my recollection. I'm sorry. I

8 can't add to that.

9 Q. Okay.

10 A. Completely surprised.

11 Q. Okay. I didn't mean to ambush you, but there is a lot of

12 documents and I don't think you've seen them all.

13 A. No.

14 Q. Speaking of, just because you mentioned follow-up action, you

15 indicate in your e-mail that a patrol was sent out, correct?

16 A. I think our intention was to task a patrol to go to the area we

17 thought was the launch point to look for any kind of launch debris, any

18 kind of signatures. But again I don't recall 12 years on -- well, I

19 certainly know that nothing was found, but I don't recall seeing a report

20 that was written by that patrol or anything else.

21 Q. But in any event the results were negative?

22 A. That is absolutely correct. Nothing was found.

23 Q. Okay, okay.

24 MR. DOCHERTY: Now, Mr. President, could I please tender the

25 e-mail 65 ter number 03511.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit it.

2 THE REGISTRAR: As P940, Your Honours.

3 MR. DOCHERTY:

4 Q. The last thing I just want to draw your attention to one thing on

5 this e-mail and then we'll move along.

6 You indicate in paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4, that you saw a smoke --

7 launch signature (smoke). Do you see that?

8 A. Yes, I do.

9 Q. All right. And I just want to -- you also mentioned Captain

10 Hansen's report that he submitted to UN channels, the one that he wrote in

11 the third person and I'd like to turn to that now.

12 MR. DOCHERTY: So could we please see Exhibit D103.

13 Q. And while we're waiting for that to come up, wing commander, I'm

14 going to begin with that. There is some language in there about smoke and

15 that's where I want to start and then we'll move on to some other topics.

16 On the screen in front of you, this document is also in evidence

17 at this time. It is Exhibit D103. And the format, it's a report by

18 Captain Hansen. Correct?

19 A. That is correct.

20 Q. It is released by Lieutenant-Colonel Alam whom we have heard of a

21 few moments ago. Correct?

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. And its subject is special impact on TV building 28/0920 B June

24 1995 which again to translate the times means 9.20 in the morning, Bosnian

25 time on 28 June of 1995, correct?

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. All right. And then the format is there's two sort of topic

3 sentences, I'll call them and underneath each there are a number of

4 indented sentences each preceded by a dash; correct?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. Let's look at the first topic, the first group, if you will.

7 Talks about an UNMO coming into the PTT building, parking his car on the

8 lower parking place and observed various things and as I said, the fourth

9 from the bottom says there was no smoke observed whilst the low trajectory

10 object was in flight.

11 Do you see that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And you have had a chance to look at this before coming to court,

14 correct?

15 A. Yes, correct.

16 Q. Now are you not the UNMO referred to in this first batch of

17 indented sentences, are you?

18 A. Well, again, 12 years on, and I was slightly surprised when I read

19 this because I cannot clarify in my own mind whether this referred to

20 Thomas Hansen's own observations or both of ours combined because I still

21 believe we saw this together, or it may be, therefore, that he is trying

22 to quote me. I'm still surprised by this 180 out with Captain Hansen

23 suggesting he was in the building, and I can't reconcile it in my mind. I

24 taught we were together in that car park 12 years on.

25 Q. In any event, this UNMO says that he saw -- or saw no smoke at any

1 event, whichever one it is, in the first group of indented/dashed

2 sentences?

3 A. The smoke -- there was no smoke behind the projectile.

4 Q. Right.

5 A. It was a projectile that appeared to having been launched, then

6 just flew on its trajectory but did not have any kind of rocket motor.

7 There was no smoke signature behind the projectile.

8 Q. Behind the projectile. Okay.

9 A. Any smoke or dust being referred to here, from my recollection,

10 was a ground point which one would believe was the launch point unless it

11 was a coincidence at that spot with something else happening.

12 Q. Right. And as you mentioned, in terms of coincidences there was a

13 fair amount of both -- of outgoing and incoming fire that day due to the

14 Bosnian army offensive that had just got under way?

15 A. Not necessarily due to the offensive that had just gotten under

16 way, that there was regular activity in the mornings. But I take your

17 point, yes, either way, simultaneous activity.

18 Q. Okay. When Captain Hansen testified, he testified that the

19 individual in the first batch of indented sentences, the UNMO who was

20 parking his car, was a Muslim UNMO. So that would not be you, correct?

21 A. Absolutely.

22 Q. But the second batch of indented sentences - and it continues to

23 the next page - says that this other UNMO heard but did not see. Is that

24 correct?

25 A. That's what it says in the text, yes.

1 Q. All right.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: And that would not be correct if it were a

3 reference to you?

4 THE WITNESS: Correct, sir, yes, that's what I was interfering. I

5 don't believe that was referring to me at all. My recollection is when I

6 read this report was that everything contained in the upper half of that

7 page refers to what Captain Hansen and I had observed.

8 MR. DOCHERTY:

9 Q. All right. I'm going to try and sum things up to this point

10 because then I'm going to turn to external extrinsic evidence not based on

11 you and Captain Hansen.

12 But at this point, understanding it's been 12 years, but in your

13 e-mail to Mr. Hogan you recollected wrongly when you said that you and

14 Hansen went together to see the liaison officer. You heard a launch

15 report on the morning of the 28th, you saw something, it hit the TV

16 building, there was an explosion. A patrol was sent out, it found

17 nothing, and later that day, you had a -- in your word an aggressive

18 interaction with the liaison officer who said Captain Hansen had accused

19 them of shooting their own people. You said that there must be a

20 misunderstanding.

21 Have I fairly summarized what we've talked about so far this

22 morning?

23 A. Yes. Although if I could just clarify, yes, I said there was a

24 misunderstanding. That is because I was not at the early meeting with

25 Captain Hansen. That is not to say that the -- the event did not take

1 place.

2 Q. No, no, no. I mean, we've gone over that.

3 A. Otherwise, yes, absolutely correct.

4 Q. Okay. All right. Now there was another UNMO that day. Did you

5 during the three months that you spent in Sarajevo ever meet a Norwegian

6 officer named Anton Brennskag? He worked on the Pofalici team.

7 A. I'm sure I did, but I'm afraid I can't remember the name.

8 Q. Do you recall where OP 4 was?

9 A. Do you have a map at all.

10 Q. I have a photograph.

11 MR. DOCHERTY: If we could please see Exhibit 518.

12 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Mr. Docherty, I would like to put a

13 question to the witness about this document before we move on to the

14 following document. It is document D103. Is that it?

15 Yes, Mr. Registrar, I would like you to show the previous

16 document, D103.

17 Witness, there's something I would like to clarify with respect to

18 this document. Let me read out the paragraph and then I will put a

19 question to you. It's the second point heard -- [In English] outgoing

20 projectile across the parking place and road from g-r-i-d and the number,

21 the place is on BiH territory approximately 1800 metres from the

22 [indiscernible], et cetera.

23 [Interpretation] My question is as follows: This grid BP 866587,

24 that is the location where the UNMO officer was or is it the location

25 where he believes the projectile was fired from, grid BP 866587? Which

1 one of the two is it?

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. I was confused by that as well when I

3 read the report. I still have my Sarajevo map here with the confrontation

4 lines and all the OPs marked on and the location of the PTT headquarters.

5 That grid reference is the PTT car park where we were observing this --

6 this projectile.

7 So that is not the launch point. That is the car park where we

8 observed from and it is not clear in that UN report. It's confusing.

9 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, that is what I was thinking as

10 well. Because we had a high-ranking officer who testified here and made

11 the same comment. That's different, quite different, if this grid

12 reference is not the origin of the projectile but the place where the

13 officer was located.

14 Mr. Prosecutor, you may proceed.

15 MR. DOCHERTY: Thank you, Your Honour.

16 If we could have Exhibit P518 on the screen, please.

17 Q. What you'll see, wing commander, is a photograph I believe taken

18 from the PTT car park and there will be a red square on it. And I'm going

19 to ask you whether that red square marks the position of the Pofalici

20 team's observation post.

21 Two questions. First, are we looking to the north out of the PTT

22 car -- upper level PTT car park in this photograph?

23 A. Yes, we are.

24 Q. Okay. And the red square, does that have any relation to the

25 Pofalici team's OP?

1 A. Certainly cross-referring to my map and vaguely from memory, that

2 would be the high point that probably was the OP 4 location, but I can

3 give the grid of the OP 4 location because I've got my map from 1995 as

4 well.

5 Q. It wouldn't hurt.

6 A. Okay, OP 4 grid reference would be about 864599.

7 Q. Okay. That's good.

8 A. That would correlate.

9 Q. And thanks. Now we've got that in the record.

10 I'm going to play a short video-clip of Mr. Brennskag' testimony

11 when he came here because he testified he was on duty at OP 4 on the

12 morning of 28 June and he talked with the Chamber about what he saw.

13 MR. DOCHERTY: And I will ask the case manager to play clip one

14 from Sanction at this point.

15 [Videotape played]

16 MR. DOCHERTY: The last word got cut off but it was Bosnian Serb

17 army.

18 And if we could now see, Mr. Registrar, Exhibit P347.

19 Q. And what this is, Wing Commander, is the map that UNMO Brennskag

20 marked as having seen the air bomb launch. Should be coming up on your

21 screen in a moment.

22 This is the map that you just saw Lieutenant-Colonel Brennskag

23 marking on. And you see that circle down in the lower left. According to

24 the launch signature that you heard that morning, could that have been a

25 point from which this device was launched?

1 A. No.

2 Q. All right.

3 A. Can I explain further?

4 Q. In one moment. So you disagree with Mr. Brennskag?

5 A. Clearly, there is a possibility that there were two projectiles.

6 Q. Okay.

7 A. However, from where we were positioned in the PTT car park,

8 looking northwards watching a projectile trajectory that came from the

9 north-west as we tracked it all the way into the building to impact,

10 anything that would have come from the Ilidza area would have to have

11 overflown our position, would have to have overflown the PTT to strike the

12 TV building slightly further down.

13 So I'm surprised any projectile, unless it was in its terminal

14 ballistic phase dropping down would have struck the PTT building without

15 striking something already in its flight path before.

16 All I can say is whatever that particular UNMO was referring to,

17 that was not the projectile that we observed from the PTT building.

18 Q. Now you said strike the PTT building. Did you mean to say strike

19 the TV tower?

20 A. I'm sorry.

21 Q. That's all right.

22 A. The tower, next door.

23 Q. You also, though, said there was no smoke behind this projectile.

24 And then in this answer you said -- referred to a terminal ballistic

25 phase. Now one of these modified air bombs in its terminal ballistic

1 phase will not be having smoke come out because it's in its terminal

2 ballistic phase because the rocket engines have shot off, that they've run

3 out of fuel. Am I right?

4 A. Well if indeed this modified air bomb had any kind of propulsion

5 system within it, which effectively makes it a rocket, I do not believe it

6 had any kind of rocket inside it. Certainly what we saw did not have a

7 rocket mechanism and therefore creating an eflux and therefore creating a

8 signature.

9 Q. All right. Now Mr. Brennskag said that this was the projectile

10 that hit the TV tower.

11 MR. DOCHERTY: And I'll ask the case manager to please play

12 Sanction clip number 2.

13 [Videotape played]

14 MR. DOCHERTY: All right.

15 Q. On the morning of the 28th, you just made reference to the

16 possibility of two projectiles. You observed one explosion on the TV

17 tower, however?

18 A. Yes, that's correct.

19 Q. And you are aware that the Bosnian law enforcement did an

20 investigation of this incident and that the marks on the TV tower were--

21 on the roof of the TV tower were consistent with a projectile that had

22 been launched from the west but skipped across the roof, if you will, from

23 west to east. Were you aware of that before today?

24 A. No, not aware of that.

25 Q. Were you aware that the structural damage to the TV tower was at

1 the south side of the building, on the south facade of the building?

2 A. I did not visit the scene of the TV building myself so I don't

3 know where the damage was, physically cratered.

4 Q. But as a proposition would you agree that it would be difficult

5 for a projectile launched from the north to cause damage at the base of

6 the south side of the building?

7 A. If the impact point, if that's what you're referring to, an impact

8 point, if the impact point was on the southern edge of that building then

9 that projectile had to come from the south, fact.

10 Q. Or from the west?

11 A. Depending on the angle of impact. Certainly not from the north on

12 the opposite side of the building. That would have been an exit point had

13 it gone right through the building.

14 Q. Okay. All right. So aerodynamically that would be difficult to

15 achieve. You are a RAF officer so I with use words like "aerodynamic."

16 A. If the impact point was on the southern side of the building, that

17 projectile did not come from the north.

18 Q. Okay. Are you aware that the United Nations was quite clear that

19 this rocket had been launched by the Bosnian Serbs?

20 A. No, no, I have not seen any kind of follow-up reports or activity

21 from this incident at all.

22 Q. Well, would you like to see a couple? Why don't we start with

23 exhibit P18, please.

24 You're aware that after incidents, if blame can be laid, a protest

25 letter was often sent to a commanding officer on the other side, and you

1 know from your time in Sarajevo who Colonel Robert Meille was of the

2 French army?

3 A. Yes, that's correct.

4 Q. On the screen in front of you is a letter. It is addressed to the

5 accused in this trial, General Dragomir Milosevic. It is from Colonel

6 Meille and it says: "On 28 and 29 June 1995 the Bosnian Serb forces of

7 Romanija Corps launched several attacks, et cetera, et cetera, among them

8 28 June 0930, an extremely powerful rocket bomb was fired at the TV

9 building." The balance of the letter goes on to express negative feelings

10 about this sort of behaviour.

11 So that is one example anyway of the United Nations concluding

12 that this bomb had been launched by the Bosnian Serbs. Are you aware that

13 on three separate occasions officers of the Bosnian Serb army had said

14 that they were responsible for this attack on the TV building?

15 A. No, not at all.

16 Q. All right.

17 MR. DOCHERTY: If we could please see, Mr. Registrar, Exhibit

18 P629, and I'm going to want page e-court 3 in the English, 2 in the

19 French, 3 in the B/C/S. It is all one page. It is 3 in English and

20 B/C/S; it's 2 in French.

21 Q. On the screen in front of you on the right hand is the French, on

22 the left-hand side is the English, and the last paragraph that's visible

23 on the English begins with "he acknowledged."

24 Now this is a memorandum, it is from a Captain Gragogne [phoen] of

25 the French army to Colonel Meille. It is about his meeting with a Bosnian

1 Serb Sarajevo-Romanija Corps officer named Captain Prodanovic. It

2 occurred on the 9th of July 1995, and again if would you be more

3 comfortable seeing these things for yourself, we can go to the first page

4 and have a look.

5 I'm going to read out: "He acknowledged that Kramer rockets had

6 been fired on the city of Sarajevo (about a dozen). This was

7 psychological warfare in that upsetting the Bosnian soldiers engaged on

8 the Treskavica front who would be worried about their safety of their

9 families in Sarajevo. He said that the Bosnian authorities tried to

10 conceal the efficiency of these shots by keeping the press on the

11 television building. In fact, two Kramer rockets were launched on the

12 television building, one of them hit it."

13 You had not been aware of this information before this morning?

14 A. No, not at all.

15 Q. Okay. Could we -- are you aware that Captain Prodanovic is from a

16 specific brigade, or from the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, the Ilidza Brigade.

17 ?

18 A. No, not at all.

19 Q. And if can you remember the circle that Mr. Brennskag drew on the

20 map, that was in the area of Ilidza, was it not?

21 A. It was indeed.

22 MR. DOCHERTY: Okay. Could we see Exhibit P41, e-court page 2.

23 Q. And what we're going to be looking at here, Wing Commander, is

24 some signals intelligence, if you will. It is a transcript of an

25 intercepted telephone call between two Serbian army officers and one of

1 them refers to something that General Mladic did. And now again on the

2 left-hand side you've got the English. And I'm just -- there's an

3 individual named Prstojevic and about between a third and halfway down he

4 says, "And if he attacks, he levels." Do you -- got it?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. "As I could see on TV, the television's been hit, that's good."

7 Answer: "Of course it's good. Mladic congratulated it all."

8 Prstojevic responds "Mladic congratulated?" To which Veselinovic

9 says "Sure he did, he called this morning."

10 Prstojevic says, "Well, yeah [indiscernible], that's good, it's

11 good, it's good."

12 Do you see that?

13 A. Yes, I do.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute.

15 Ms. Isailovic.

16 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I just

17 wanted to check something in my documents. Mr. Docherty did not sate that

18 this was a document marked for identification. Therefore, it is not P41,

19 but P41 MFI and this is part of a set of intercepts related to the person

20 mentioned here. And the Defence is strictly opposed to the admission of

21 these documents.

22 When Mr. 14 came here, the Prosecution tried to tender this

23 document, and we objected. The documents were only marked for

24 identification at the time, and today we see that --

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Why was it marked for identification only?

1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] That was during the testimony of

2 Mr. 14. I was cross-examining the witness, but I wanted to check things

3 beforehand, before taking the floor. The registrar can do so as well.

4 P41 was an intercept. We can find the part of the transcript where this

5 is referred to, but I'm taken completely by surprise by this document, so

6 I don't know exactly what word to use so as not to exaggerate, but this is

7 it going quite a bit far to state that this document is P41, whether --

8 whereas it is only a document marked for identification. That's one

9 thing.

10 And the second thing is that in the transcript you will find the

11 reasons why the Defence was opposed to the admission of this document

12 without any additional evidence related to these conversations without

13 possibly the testimony of these interlocutors, these people were talking

14 all the time with everyone during the offensive. There are about -- we

15 have about four days of conversation of Mr. Prstojevic throughout the

16 offensive. At the time he was the mayor of the town. That's why we

17 object.

18 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I do not understand why

19 this transcript was given an MFI number only.

20 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, I was not

21 expecting this from the Prosecutor. Therefore, I did not bring the

22 transcript of the hearing with me. And I have some problem with my

23 computer as well. I was trying to find the document earlier on. I

24 couldn't.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute, I have been given a note of what I

1 said and I am going -- what I said at the time when it was marked for

2 identification, and we'll consult on this matter.

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, the transcript of the proceedings,

6 or one part of it indicate that one reason, at any rate, for marking the

7 documents for identification was that you not been served with them. I

8 say here: "We'll mark these documents for identification. Counsel will

9 transmit them to you after the hearing. We'll have to investigate

10 independently whether you were in fact served with the documents. If we

11 find that you were not served and you are in any way embarrassed in your

12 preparation for cross-examination, we'll take that into consideration."

13 You have in fact now been served with the documents. Or was there

14 another issue?

15 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. But there was

16 another problem because the report continues, stating that there was a big

17 bulk of such intercepts and we have not received these documents. This is

18 the reason why we objected. And in the meantime, we received the

19 documents, we continued to object to the -- accepting these documents

20 where the witness appears, and we accepted tendering all the intercepts

21 where Mr. Milosevic appears, because in the meantime he said, yes, I

22 accept. And you can look at the list of documents admitted that day, and

23 you will see that there are intercepts that are P documents, not marked

24 for identification, and the conversations where this gentleman appears

25 remain marked for identification, and it was up to the Prosecutor to find

1 the necessary evidence so that we can accept them as real evidence.

2 That was what was mentioned. It is mentioned in the report, and

3 I'm sorry, this is not something that I expected, and with this witness

4 who is not aware of all that, I did not believe that the Prosecution would

5 dare show this document without telling the others that this is a document

6 marked for identification. Because this may have been the judge's focus

7 on what the witness is saying, but we have to be very cautious, but

8 unfortunately these are things that happen. And I believe this is a

9 mistake, just happened by chance, but nevertheless this is something that

10 has to be taken into account.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: You're not suggesting that the mere fact that a

12 document has been marked for identification means that it cannot be shown

13 to another witness.

14 What you're objecting to is the fact that the Prosecution

15 misidentified it.

16 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, of course.

17 First of all, I object to that; and then maybe if he wanted to

18 tender this document with this witness that, will be another point that I

19 object to. But for the time being, this is what I am objecting to and we

20 have to be very cautious with everything we are doing now, everything we

21 have to do now. We keep checking all the evidence because when you say

22 P41, it should be document P41.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Docherty.

24 MR. DOCHERTY: First, several things.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Docherty.

2 MR. DOCHERTY: A couple of things, Your Honour.

3 First of all, to clarify, I believe the objection at the end of it

4 all distils to I said P41 rather than P41 marked for identification, and I

5 take the correction but I don't know that there's any substantive

6 difference that that makes.

7 A couple of things on the disclosure issue. Our records which we

8 were checking during the colloquy indicate that these documents were

9 served on the Defence on 21 November of 2006. Over and above that, these

10 were first attempted to be used with Lieutenant-Colonel Fortin of the

11 Canadian army. He was one of the first witnesses in the trial. He

12 testified in January. So the Defence has certainly had notice of them

13 since then.

14 But as I say, I don't see a substantive difference. I made an

15 innocent mistake when I said P41 rather than P41 MFI, but with that

16 correct --

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: It remains now to be seen whether Ms. Isailovic

18 has a substantial objection to this document being put to the witness and

19 if so, what is it. It remains -- the status of the document remains a

20 document marked for identification.

21 MR. DOCHERTY: Your Honour, before we go across the room can I add

22 one thing.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

24 MR. DOCHERTY: Which is that yesterday we served the usual

25 spreadsheet of documents that we're going to use with witnesses, as did

1 the Defence, and this document appears on and we sent that over I can't be

2 more precise than late in the afternoon yesterday.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, thank you.

4 Ms. Isailovic.

5 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, excuse me for taking

6 all the time -- so much time because I know we have a lot of things to do,

7 the Defense have a lot of things to do, and we are preparing something

8 really urgent and there are two of us, and the problem -- the same problem

9 is still valid. It is true that we received or the Prosecution sent us

10 the list late in the afternoon but this is what I have a problem, because

11 not marking this document the way it should be marked because it is a MFI

12 document, I must admit I have not paid any attention to the document and

13 it is only when I saw it now, because I know the document well, and it is

14 true that the Defence does not have much time and we tried to do our best

15 to prepare ourselves properly and with this kind of mistake and all the

16 mistakes that may have taken place, I realise and I understand that this

17 was just a very -- absolutely innocent, but the transcript mentions an

18 objection -- well, excuse me.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: There's a message.

20 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] So I realise that there was an

21 objection to these intercepts. And these objections were much stronger

22 than communication as I just said. As I'm speaking I cannot check the

23 transcript at the same time. I hope you're hearing exactly what I'm

24 saying. And the objection was much stronger than the lack of

25 communication. So this lack of communication before or concerning the

1 tendering of these documents and my assistant just found out that it was

2 on January the 16th, and she even found the exact pages. The registrar

3 did exactly the same thing.

4 The problem was this -- was this person, as Mr. Milosevic and no

5 other person in this court were present at the time these conversations

6 took place.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much, Ms. Isailovic.

9 I've located with the help of the registrar other passages from

10 the transcript, and you did in fact advance another objection, another

11 basis for objecting to this document. I see here where I say to Mr. --

12 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us go to private session. I'm told we should

14 go to 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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 9359 redacted. Private session

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 [Open session]

18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.

19 MR. DOCHERTY:

20 Q. Mr. Knowles, what we have on the screen now is a message from the

21 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps command, going to the corps and to Trnovo and all

22 SRK units, and it is a report on the situation at the front and deals with

23 the offensive that we've talked about a few times. If we-- we'll look at

24 the second page if we need to, but it is signed by Dragomir Milosevic, who

25 is the defendant in this case.

1 It is a bit difficult to navigate on this because of the lack of

2 indents and paragraphs.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Sorry, Ms. Isailovic has a point here.

4 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] One objection, the document has

5 not been signed. You just have the name of Dragomir Milosevic but the

6 document does not bear any signature. Maybe it is a problem with

7 interpretation, but I believe that the same applies to the English text.

8 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. President, this is a telex and there's been

9 testimony in this trial that telexes typically are not signed. In

10 addition the objection just made is an objection to the admission of the

11 document. Since the document has already been admitted into evidence, I

12 don't think that it has force, in terms of using this document with the

13 witness.

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have already admitted this document,

16 Ms. Isailovic, yes.

17 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since I believe I

18 may have been misunderstood I just objected to presenting this document,

19 because Mr. Docherty told that the document, that the document has been

20 sign, was signed. Signed mean that there is a signature, while there is

21 no signature on this document. That was my only objection.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, again, the objection to a misstatement by

23 Mr. Docherty.

24 MR. DOCHERTY: May I continue?

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

1 MR. DOCHERTY:

2 Q. Wing Commander, down on the -- about halfway down the page, "The

3 Serbian soldiers are displaying unprecedented heroism, not letting the

4 enemy get." Do you see that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Now if you could just go down to the semi-indent, I will call it,

7 is an indent from the right. The very next one. The last sentence before

8 that reads, "In one such response on 28 June they hit the BH radio and

9 television, the centre of media lies against the just struggle of the

10 Serbian people."

11 And I probably should have started a bit earlier. "Our artillery

12 forces are responding with precision to -- "

13 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters would like to have the text in

14 B/C/S and English on the screen.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, can the text in B/C/S and English be put on

16 the screen for the benefit of the interpreters.

17 MR. DOCHERTY: I don't know the page number in B/C/S.

18 Interpreters indicate we can go ahead.

19 Q. "Our artillery forces are responding with precision to the Muslim

20 artillery attacks. In one such response on 28 June, they hit the BH radio

21 and television centre, the centre of media lies against the just struggle

22 of the Serbian people."

23 Had you been aware before today, Mr. Knowles, that there was a

24 document over the accused's name in which he indicated that it was SRK

25 artillery that had hit the TV tower on the 28th of June?

1 A. No, not at all.

2 Q. Wing commander, just a -- I'm almost done. I just want to sum

3 up.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: And would that knowledge which you now have make

5 you change any of your testimony?

6 THE WITNESS: Sir, if I had been aware of some of the subsequent

7 investigations and the reports released by both United Nations and

8 transcripts from Serbian command, then, clearly, and I accept that if the

9 impact was on the southern side of the building, clearly there are two

10 events here that happened because I did not imagine what I saw in the car

11 park that day and it seems to me that therefore the projectile that we

12 observed was a secondary projectile that clearly, having followed its

13 trajectory, appeared to strike the TV building or indeed from our

14 perspective it might have gone behind it but there was an impact

15 coincident at the time. No one, including me would want to dispute all

16 the facts being presented. I think mine is a secondary event. But I did

17 not imagine that projectile crossing the valley that morning.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: When you say secondary event, what do you mean?

19 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, sir. Clearly, from the ballistic

20 evidence that has been referred to with a some sort of munition striking

21 the southern side of the building, that was obviously not the one that I

22 observed that morning, and therefore I am suggesting because clearly, I

23 not made this up nor did I make up the report we wrote that morning. I'm

24 suggesting there must have been two munitions that we are discussing here.

25 MR. DOCHERTY:

1 Q. And just to be clear, I'm not saying there was an impact on the

2 southern side of the building, I'm saying that there was a -- there were

3 marks on the roof of the building that coincided with the projectile

4 coming from the west and then damage at the base of the southern side of

5 the building.

6 A. I see. Slightly more complex.

7 Q. Slightly more complex, and I'm not saying that there was an actual

8 impact on the south side. I'm not ruling it out but I'm not saying that

9 there was.

10 And just to be clear, Wing Commander Knowles, I'm not in any way

11 suggesting that you're making things up or that you're imagining things,

12 but it is correct, is it not, that this happened 12 years ago?

13 A. Absolutely correct.

14 Q. That it was a sudden and unexpected event when it did happen?

15 A. Absolutely correct.

16 Q. That it happened quite quickly?

17 A. Indeed.

18 Q. And that as you have said in your testimony earlier, you had not

19 seen a modified air bomb launch?

20 A. Absolutely correct.

21 Q. All right.

22 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. President, I have nothing further.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. We'll take the break for 20 minutes.

24 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.

25 --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic.

2 Cross-examination by Ms. Isailovic:

3 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Q. [Interpretation] And good morning, witness. My name is Branislava

5 Isailovic. I'm a lawyer with the Paris bar and I'm with Mr. Tapuskovic

6 and our case manager. We are working on behalf of Mr. Dragomir Milosevic

7 accused in this court. I hope that Prosecution explained everything about

8 this before you came into the courtroom.

9 So you please wait -- I don't know if you understand French. But

10 we will proceed slowly, anyway.

11 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. President.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

13 MR. DOCHERTY: Ms. Isailovic just mentioned I hope the Prosecution

14 explained everything about this before you came into the courtroom. Just

15 to be clear, the Prosecution other than the e-mails has had no contact

16 with the witness, since is he a Chamber's witness.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, this is a court witness.

18 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't agree, because I will

19 start with the correspondence with Mr. Barry Hogan. Barry Hogan is the

20 investigator working -- it's a key person in the OTP side, so I don't

21 really agree with Mr. Docherty's objection, but I will immediately show

22 you why.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us proceed.

24 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. So, Witness, would you agree with me when you agree with what I'm

1 say -- could you say out loud yes or say no when you don't not agree. You

2 cannot just, you know, shake your head because this will not be written on

3 the transcript, so you have to say something openly. So let's start with

4 that correspondence you had with the OTP.

5 Could we please pull up on the screen the -- 422D, Exhibit 422D on

6 the 65 ter list. It is an e-mail and we will look at it together.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Docherty.

8 MR. DOCHERTY: I ask that that not be broadcast, Mr. President,

9 because it has internal ICTY e-mail addresses on it.

10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can it be redacted on the screen?

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is that a good enough reason for it not to be

12 broadcast?

13 MR. DOCHERTY: I'm not objecting to the document. It can be used

14 without limits. I'm just asking that that e-mail address not be-- I'm

15 just thinking of things like computer security.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see.

17 MR. DOCHERTY: That's all.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay. Well, the court deputy will take account

19 of that.

20 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Witness, could you please confirm that on the screen you see the

22 document?

23 A. Yes, I do.

24 Q. Was this the first e-mail you received from Mr. Barry Hogan?

25 A. I think this is the response from Mr. Barry Hogan. This is the

1 second e-mail, I think.

2 Q. Witness, please, do you remember the content of the first contact

3 you had with Mr. Hogan and do you remember at what date you had this first

4 contact?

5 A. I'm afraid not, the detail. The only correspondence I had was

6 from Mr. Hogan. This incident came completely out of the blue, the fact

7 that there was a court sitting at the moment and that I might be required

8 to give some more information. That is the only correspondence I've had

9 with Mr. Hogan, two or possibly three e-mails, no more. Thereafter it

10 became a verbal -- I was contacted through my Ministry of Defence.

11 Q. Yes, that is what I had gathered. How many telephone calls have

12 you had with Mr. Hogan?

13 A. I have not spoken to Mr. Barry Hogan verbally. My contact with

14 the Tribunal has been with Mrs. Marry Banoci via telephone. I have not

15 spoken to any of the individuals here today.

16 Q. And you can confirm that the first contact you had was through

17 e-mail. You received an e-mail sort of out of the blue from Mr. Barry

18 Hogan. That's it?

19 A. Yes. And I believe that was the result of, I suspect, Thomas

20 Hansen naming me and I was contacted through the Ministry of Defence in

21 the UK. I think there had been an attempt to track me down.

22 Q. Do you remember, did you know Captain Idriz, a Kenyan UNMO, do you

23 remember this person, a Kenyan UNMO named Idriz?

24 A. I'm afraid not. With regard to the Norwegian UNMO as well, we all

25 worked together over that period of time. There were UNMOs from many

1 countries there, but 12 years on I don't remember the individual names,

2 I'm sorry.

3 Q. What about Mr. Brennskag. You don't remember his name either,

4 right?

5 A. That is correct. But having seen him on video I now recognise him

6 and remember who he was.

7 Q. We started by looking at a map, and if we could put something on

8 the ELMO. I believe that would the easiest way to proceed but in e-court

9 it is document P517.

10 With your indulgence, can we please have it on the ELMO. Could we

11 please have it on the ELMO.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, go ahead.

13 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Witness, Judge Mindua earlier asked you a question about the grid

15 references. Do you remember that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. So I see that as any operations officer you have a map with you,

18 with grid references and we -- we really missed all that in the previous

19 proceedings because we have a lot of reports with these grid references

20 but we're sort of in the dark when it comes to these grid references.

21 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] And, Your Honour, it might be

22 useful to do something so that in the documents we have these maps with

23 grid references in the case file. Otherwise sometimes it is difficult to

24 interpret the UNMO reports without the grid references.

25 Q. So, please, could you look at the map that is on the ELMO, on the

1 screen. On this map we have a grid reference, 866587. Do you see it?

2 A. Yes, I do.

3 Q. However, I don't think that this really corresponds to the

4 reference written on your on map. Earlier you said that this -- that this

5 is the grid reference of the PTT building. I have noted the same thing as

6 Judge Mindua. It seemed that the text of the report is quite confusing

7 when it says from grid reference. The way I interpret it was that this

8 was the reference, the grid reference for the PTT building.

9 So could you confirm this for me, that this 866587, according to

10 the map that you have with you, corresponds to the PTT building?

11 A. I do not have the -- the PTT building marked precisely on my map,

12 but looking at it now, 12 years on, I would suggest that this is the

13 location of the PTT building, where we observed the event. I confirmed

14 earlier that OP4 was this location.

15 Q. So when you look at this map, on this map that we have on the

16 screen, do you believe that this is accurate because the grid reference

17 866587 is quite far from the PTT building on this map?

18 A. I see what you mean now. The PTT is clearly marked. I cannot

19 remember exactly in this area which the PTT building was. That is what

20 I'm saying.

21 Q. Mm-hm.

22 A. If that map is correct, then that is the PTT building. I accept

23 that.

24 Q. So in such case, according to you, this map that's on the screen

25 is not correctly identified. If the PTT building represents grid

1 reference 866587, then this exhibit has not been identified properly.

2 Please take a close look and maybe compare with the map that you

3 have with you.

4 A. If that is the PTT building, that is the PTT building, if that is

5 correct, that in the car park adjacent to that is where we would have been

6 standing that morning, so the debate is the accuracy of this and whether

7 that was in the report intending to state what we thought was a launch

8 point or if that is inaccurately transcribed as the PTT building grid.

9 Q. Well, to finish on this topic, you still maintain that the grid

10 reference 866587 corresponds to something that is south of the river.

11 You probably have the river on your map. But here on this map that we

12 have on the screen, it seems to me east of the river.

13 A. I don't understand what you're saying. If that is the PTT, then

14 that is the PTT. That is where we were standing that morning in the car

15 park.

16 Q. Yes, and that is reference 866587?

17 A. Well, clearly not. If that is 866587, that is not.

18 Q. Yes, that's why I'm asking the question. It doesn't seem to be

19 really accurate. I mean, this map is not cast in stone. It has been

20 marked by another UNMO. It's another UNMO that annotated all this. So

21 please check. You have your own map with you, but could you please tell

22 me whether on the map that's on the screen that has been annotated by

23 another witness in this case, please tell us whether the annotations are

24 accurate or not. You have my question.

25 A. I understand.

1 South of the river there, that is the PTT, I believe. I confirm

2 that is OP4, so the only debate here is to exactly what was 866587. And

3 therefore, one questions whether, in the report written by Thomas Hansen,

4 whether that grid was, after all, meant to illustrate what was thought to

5 be a launch point.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you able now to identify for us grid

7 reference 866587.

8 THE WITNESS: Well, I have a Sarajevo map here, 1 to 50.000 scale,

9 and 8665845 is the PTT building. I think there is a slight discrepancy on

10 those grids.

11 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]

12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Wing Commander, would you be able to give us the

13 grid reference for the point which is now marked 866587? What would be

14 the correct grid reference in your view of this point?

15 THE WITNESS: According to the map here, 866587 is approximately

16 here. I still maintain that 866587 is approximately the grid of the PTT.

17 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Thank you very much.

19 Now, let's move to Exhibit P519.

20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Isailovic, let me -- I don't think I got an

21 answer to my question. What in the wing commander's view would be the

22 correct grid reference of the northernmost of the three-points? Are you

23 able to tell?

24 THE WITNESS: Yes. If I look at the map I have here with OP4

25 located on it, the northernmost point.

1 JUDGE HARHOFF: No. Sorry. The northernmost point of the three.

2 The one that is now marked grid reference 866, incorrectly as we

3 understand, and my question to you: What would be the correct grid

4 reference for that point?

5 THE WITNESS: For this point.

6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes.

7 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Just north of the river ...

8 I have a map here with a number of grids overlayed. Please just

9 give me a second. Forgive me.

10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Take your time, Officer.

11 THE WITNESS: Okay. Just to confirm, then, this spot here, this

12 grid reference, 866587, is pretty accurate. The PTT grid, slightly

13 further south, I would argue from this map is 864865583, 584.

14 So that grid is correct. That grid is obviously slightly further

15 south which I just read out. OP4 is correct. So the question is, what

16 was that referring to that 866587, in my mind.

17 JUDGE HARHOFF: But the important thing is to establish that the

18 indication of this grid reference, which I have come to call the

19 northernmost of the three, this one, exactly.

20 THE WITNESS: Yes.

21 JUDGE HARHOFF: The grid reference indicated on the map is

22 correct. Is that correctly understood?

23 THE WITNESS: Yes.

24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much.

25 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]

1 Q. Witness, this is quite detailed. I'd like to know whether at the

2 time in Sarajevo when you were drafting the report these grid reference,

3 were they noted on some -- some kind of map that was easier to use? When

4 you write down grid references in a report, how do you check that the grid

5 reference is accurate? Could you tell us how you proceeded as UNMO at the

6 time?

7 A. Yes. Well, having gone into the PTT headquarters building after

8 the event, we would have looked at the operations map in the operations

9 room, and from our practical knowledge of the ground, our own familiarity

10 with the ground we would have worked out whatever grid we had to do,

11 whether that was what we perceived as being a launch point or an impact

12 point or whatever. And that would have been recorded at the time.

13 Q. This map that was in the OPs room, was it a big map, very accurate

14 with all these figures? Because it is quite puzzling to have all these

15 figures on a map, so was it easy to interpret when you saw this big map?

16 A. Of course. It is it standard military mapping and there would

17 have been a lot of detail on it. Any military map has a lot of detail,

18 but there is nothing confusing about it. It is day-to-day business.

19 Q. Okay, fine, thank you. Let's move to document 519 then. You saw

20 earlier the document that we looked at some pages in this document. I

21 tried to figure out -- tried to figure out what happened that day. So

22 could you please confirm that this will correspond to what you recollect.

23 I know 12 years have gone by. It is a difficult exercise. But this is

24 what must have happened.

25 Early in the morning of the 28th this event occurred, this event

1 that -- which Thomas Hansen makes reference to in this special report that

2 is on the screen. So first we have the event, right, early in the

3 morning?

4 A. Yes, correct.

5 Q. Then according to your recollection, around 6.00 that day at 18

6 hours there was conflict between Thomas Hansen and the ABiH LOs Nermin

7 Silajdzic and Mr. Goro. Is that what happened, is that what you

8 recollect?

9 A. I don't recall their names but if you tell me that is who the LOs

10 were, then yes, I believe that.

11 Q. Well, the document says so, on page 8 of the document that we have

12 on the screen.

13 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] So could we please have page 8.

14 Q. On page 8, I hope you see it on the screen. Could you please

15 confirm that a meeting was held on June 29, 1995 at 4.30 p.m.?

16 A. That is what the report says, so I assume that is correct. I was

17 not present at that meeting.

18 Q. Yes. But you see the names of the people attending this meeting.

19 So that was my next question. You were not present at that meeting?

20 A. That is correct.

21 Q. However, we can continue to read on, and we see who attended this

22 meeting, Mr. Hansen, Major Tariq, Major Sundquest, and on the other side

23 we had the LOs Captain Nermin Silajdzic, Captain Goro, and another person

24 whose name is unknown and this was also an interpreter. That's it, right?

25 So what I would like to obtain from you, because you wrote your

1 own report on July 4th, so you confirm that did you that, a week later. A

2 week after the event, you wrote your own report. You can confirm that?

3 A. That is the report we saw earlier today, yes, correct.

4 Q. So all this business was reported to Zagreb on July 5th, and we

5 could go back to page 1 of this document and here we see that the report

6 on this investigation regarding the UNMOs and the Bosnian LOs, so all this

7 was sent as a report on July 5th to Zagreb?

8 A. If that is what you have a copy of, that is correct.

9 Q. It seems a bit formal, but for the transcript, you know, I want

10 you to confirm things, because I'm not testifying from the bar, you know,

11 you're supposed to testify, so you are supposed to answer all these

12 questions that might sound a bit silly at first, but it's for the

13 transcript so everything is written down. So I apologise in advance

14 because I'm asking you to do something that is quite difficult, you know,

15 12 years back. But please, could you cast your mind 12 years back. What

16 is the first thing that springs to mind now, without looking at your

17 notes, please? Because later you may look at your notes to refresh your

18 memory. But out of the blue, you know, casting your mind 12 years back,

19 what comes to mind when you think about what happened on that day in June

20 in the summer of 1995?

21 A. If I may, please, just to clarify, I take your point about the

22 date of this report, the 5th of July, which of course I did not author nor

23 have I seen it. But that might be a week after the event, but of course

24 that is a weekly report going up to Zagreb from the headquarters. The day

25 of the event, the 29th of June, is when Captain Hansen did make the

1 report. It was made the same day.

2 Does that clarify, to help?

3 Q. Yes, it is. But I would like to you answer my question. Twelve

4 years after the event, more than 12 years, because we're in September now,

5 what's the first thing that comes to your mind when you think about all

6 these events?

7 A. I recall being in the PTT car park that morning, as I have said

8 earlier. I believe I was with Thomas Hansen and I'm surprised to hear he

9 recalls that we weren't together and he was inside the building, but

10 regardless of that, I recall us watching the trajectory of some sort of

11 projectile that came from the north north-west area crossing to our front,

12 and as I recollect and as we believed at that time, appeared to impact in

13 the TV building. It is conceivable it might have crossed behind, but

14 either way, within seconds there was explosion, a detonation of -- of

15 something. And that is my recollection of the initial event and then

16 everything else of course follows on from there, with subsequent meetings

17 and reporting.

18 Q. Yes, for the time being that is correct's enough. For me, I'm

19 going proceed now, we have seen a number of documents here and it appears

20 that you were asked to draft a document related to Captain Hansen. You

21 did that on the 4th of July. We saw this document because the Prosecutor

22 showed you this document, confronted you with this document. This is at

23 page 6.

24 We have a report dated the 4th of July, is that correct?

25 A. Yes, I was just going to confirm on the 4th of July, that is when

1 I catalogued the incident at the meeting I went to later that afternoon.

2 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. President.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Hawking.

4 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. President, when Commander Knowles --

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm calling you Mr. -- I'm sorry I'm calling you

6 Mr. Hawking. Mr. Docherty.

7 MR. DOCHERTY: I answer to anything, Your Honours.

8 Wing Commander Knowles is referring to a number of notes, and I

9 just wonder for the record, can we know what these are.

10 THE WITNESS: Yes, I'm sorry. All I have done is print off back

11 in the UK the attachments that were sent to me in the e-mail and I have a

12 copy of the UNMO sector headquarters report that Captain Hansen sent up to

13 headquarters, I have a copy of the report that I produced that you just

14 referred to on the 4th of July, and have I a copy of the e-mail with Barry

15 Hogan. That is all I have. And all three of those have already been on

16 the screen this morning.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

18 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. So as not to disturb Mr. Docherty, I would like to ask to you

20 leave your notes aside. It's just a suggestion. I'll show you the

21 document on screen because I see that Mr. Docherty is concerned. I don't

22 think there is any reason for that. Well, thank you very much. Thank you

23 very much, Witness. You have your report on the screen. You can read

24 it. Everyone can read it. It is an exhibit in this case.

25 Well, this report, you wrote it on the 4th of July. It is about a

1 week after the event. Is that correct?

2 A. That is correct.

3 Q. Now I'm going to put a number of propositions to you and in order

4 not to spend too much time on this, can you please answer by yes or no,

5 tell me if you agree or not.

6 On the 29th, on the 29th there is a meeting with Mr. Silajdzic and

7 Goro on the one side and the UNMOs on the other side. The meeting takes

8 place on that day. Is that correct?

9 A. If you're referring to me being the UNMO going down to see them,

10 correct.

11 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Interpretation] I was wondering if the meeting

12 took place on the 28th or the 29th.

13 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] On the 29th. That is mentioned in

14 the document. It is a meeting that took place following the conflictual

15 meeting that took place between the LOs and Thomas Hansen.

16 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Interpretation] On the following day.

17 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] The following day at 4.30 p.m.

18 That is mentioned at page 8 of the document we have on screen at the

19 moment, P519.

20 Q. Witness, do you remember that on the very day of this incident

21 there was this conflict, conflictual meeting, you took part in part of

22 this. So what was your share of the dispute or the conflict with

23 Mr. Silajdzic and Mr. Goro, the LOs at the time?

24 A. I had no conflict with them at all initially. What had happened

25 earlier in the day had already happened. Captain Hansen had had a very

1 aggressive meeting and was thrown out of that office and I know that

2 because he told me. I went down to see the LOs later in the day and it

3 says there late afternoon, 1730, and I don't recall whether I was going to

4 try and follow up the earlier meeting that Captain Hansen had got nowhere

5 with or if I had been tasked to go and speak about something different.

6 Either way, as soon as I arrived in their office they were clearly

7 still very, very angry and started telling me what had happened with

8 Captain Hansen and the fact they were going to declare him persona non

9 grata, et cetera.

10 So whatever intent I had was hijacked and the meeting became a

11 very short angry exchange as I tried to placate them because I had a

12 reason to be there obviously and they were just being very aggressive and

13 angry and the meeting went nowhere and I left to report to Captain Hansen

14 what had been said.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just let me have this clarified. When you say

16 that he was thrown out, you're speaking figuratively, I take it.

17 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, sir, yes. He made no progress and was

18 basically ordered to leave in a very angry fashion. That was my

19 understanding.

20 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Mr. Silajdzic and Goro, did they carry weapons?

22 A. I would imagine so. Everybody carried a weapon. But there is no

23 suggestion there was any threatening behaviour using weapons, no, not at

24 all. A side-arm is normal. Everybody has a side-arm. Not us the UNMOs

25 but Serbian, BiH officers will carry a side-arm of course.

1 Q. You're talking about the streets of Sarajevo. Do you mean that

2 everyone was carrying a weapon?

3 A. I don't quite understand the question. There was a war going on.

4 People that were combatants carried weapons. The UN, UNPROFOR, us, the

5 UNMOs, we were not armed. We did not, but UNPROFOR soldiers doing

6 UNPROFOR convoy escort tasks they would be armed, yes.

7 Q. But you UNMOs were not armed?

8 A. No, and that is the very reason and the very premise under which

9 UNMOs are successful and operate, because by not being armed, one has

10 freedom of movement normally. UNMOs do not present a threat to combatants

11 on either side and therefore if an attack were to be carried out against

12 an unarmed UNMO, well it's a murderous attack. So the strength of the

13 UNMO organisation is the fact you don't present a threat, because you are

14 not armed yourself.

15 Q. But there were all these armed people were sometimes very

16 aggressive. In these circumstances, did you sometimes feel threatened?

17 A. No.

18 Q. At page 1 of the document, but we don't have page 1 on the

19 screen. Now we do.

20 Mr. Alam has signed the report and it says at paragraph 1, and I'd

21 like to ask everyone to read this first paragraph.

22 Page 2, actually, under conclusion, we have a title

23 recommendations, conclusion, recommendations, point 3, and I would like

24 you to read this paragraph and to comment this paragraph. I suppose that

25 Mr. Alam was your superior officer. He was one who sent the report to

1 Zagreb.

2 Please read out point 3 of this document under the title

3 conclusions, recommendations, please, can you read out loud point 3.

4 Starting with the word "however."

5 A. Para 3 states: "However, on the other hand it is important to

6 point out the dangers if the issue is not resolved amicably and soon

7 enough. These are considerable, if not complete, lack of cooperation from

8 the ABiH with the UNMOs and increasing restrictions of movement, ROM,

9 already we have considerable restrictions of movement within the AOR, the

10 area of responsibility."

11 Q. Thank you. I'd like us to talk about that period between the 28th

12 in the morning and the 5th of July. We are talking about one week.

13 Was it a very agitated or animated week?

14 A. Not that I recall, no more than any other week. The city was in a

15 very difficult position. There was fairly regular artillery, direct tank

16 fire rounds impacting in the city. We would task UNMO teams to go to

17 every incident. There was activity going on on the confrontation line,

18 first light most mornings. There was a war going on, it was normal.

19 Situation normal, Sarajevo, that's the way it was.

20 Q. I was not quite on the same wavelength of you. I was thinking

21 about the PTT building, because you know that at the time you shared this

22 facility with others. That was the Sarajevo Sector we had there, we had

23 the Bosnian liaison officers and you, the UNMOs.

24 If you have any recollection about this matter, I'd like to know

25 whether the week was agitated, busy or -- there, before the report of

1 Mr. Alam, a report where he says that one should try to find a solution,

2 an amicable solution with the Bosnians.

3 A. The facts are that clearly the conflict was continuing, there was

4 a lot of activity going on as there was every week. This might have been

5 a heightened period of military activity. You're correct when you say the

6 building was shared by a number of agencies. The BiH LOs were in the

7 basement. We shared the building with the sector headquarter staffs.

8 There clearly was friction with the BiH LOs after this incident and the

9 way it was put across to them by Captain Hansen which led to further

10 frustration and a belief that Captain Hansen might be made persona non

11 grata and have to leave the mission, because that would have been

12 completely unjust. People are always very sensitive and agitated when you

13 are in a situation with deaths occurring daily and killings and everything

14 else that was going on.

15 But, no, there was no -- if you're trying to suggest there was any

16 difficulty within the relationships inside the headquarters building, no

17 there wasn't. Normal military activity, liaison carries on. I don't

18 quite understand really what you're asking me, to be honest. I think

19 we're on a different wavelength here.

20 Q. No, no, no, we're on the same wavelength. You are the witness.

21 I'm just asking you the question. You tell me about what you recollect.

22 I'm not going to put any words in your mouth or in your mind.

23 But it seems to me, when reading your report dated the 4th of

24 July, we see that you're trying to calm the situation. Can you confirm

25 that? You were trying to calm things down?

1 A. That must be put in context. Clearly, I went to visit the same

2 LOs later in the day from Thomas Hansen after this falling out had taken

3 place, so I would have gone down with a fairly placatary manner to try and

4 calm things down but the individuals we spoke to, and understandably,

5 having taken the information the way it was given or the way they

6 perceived it, were very angry and they were not going to be calmed down so

7 I spent some time with them and then decided I wouldn't waste my time on

8 them further and left. That's all there is to it. It is a

9 straightforward situation.

10 Q. Let me go back to what you wrote on the 4th of July. You were

11 trying to adopt a soothing tone. That's -- is that the same tone you

12 adopted later on on the 4th of July, after all that time has elapsed after

13 the conflict with Thomas Hansen, because your report seems to aim at

14 calming things down.

15 A. Again, I have a disconnect here as to events and what it is you're

16 leading to. You're absolutely correct; when I went down the same day as

17 Captain Hansen clearly I was trying to placate or be conciliatory, calm

18 down the LO that was making all these threats. That achieved nothing

19 because he was very angry, and that terminated that meeting. Yes, the

20 report was written on the 4th of July, recounting what had happened, but I

21 don't think that changes anything.

22 Could I just add -- and I think I can see some of the concern you

23 have here. When you talk about Lieutenant-Colonel Alam's report and he

24 talks about the dangers to UNMOs and things have to be resolved, anybody

25 writing a report in English is only as good as the English they possess,

1 and it is very difficult to read the right tone into a report written in a

2 second language. And when I think Lieutenant-Colonel Alam refers to the

3 dangers and having cooperation that that is just a standard concern of UN

4 officers anywhere in the world on any mission, because unless you have

5 full cooperation and unless you have freedom of movement you can't do your

6 job. And therefore there is always a desire, being an impartial

7 organisation, to have good relations with everybody, and that might have

8 been a driving concern that affected some of the wording. As a native

9 English speaker first language, I perhaps regard some of the tone slightly

10 different to other people is what I'm saying. I don't read too much into

11 this.

12 Q. But you know that Mr. Thomas Hansen was refused access to

13 Hrasnica, he was supposed to be impartial as an UNMO and right from the

14 1st of July, he was refused access?

15 A. Yes, and that is when the threats to make him persona non grata I

16 suppose manifested themselves with reality, because that was the first

17 occasion after a few days had elapsed that Captain Hansen tried to cross a

18 confrontation line or through a check-point to go to the scene of an

19 incident, and when it was established who he was, he was denied freedom of

20 movement, so that illustrated to us that actually something formally had

21 taken place and he had been restricted. That is correct.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute, Ms. Isailovic.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, please continue.

25 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]

1 Q. I was interrupted in my question, so I'll come back to the

2 incident of the 1st of July, 1995.

3 On that day, Mr. Hansen set out to carry out his regular duties,

4 and he was refused access to part of the area controlled by the ABiH. Are

5 you aware of that?

6 A. I don't recall that after 12 years in detail, other than reading

7 it in the statements that I have been shown. But I am aware that

8 happened, yes.

9 Q. But do you know that after all the conflict with the UNMOs had an

10 impact on a house inhabited by the UNMOs?

11 A. Sorry, I don't understand that question. When you say impacts, do

12 you mean a munitions impact or a psychological impact?

13 Q. Yes, I'm thinking about the impact of a projectile that struck the

14 surroundings of a house inhabited by UNMOs on the 1st of July. Thomas

15 Hansen set out to investigate and then he was refused access to the

16 location where the incident had taken place. Apparently the surroundings

17 of a house inhabited by UNMOs had been attacked. Do you remember that

18 fact?

19 A. Yes, I do. But from my recollection I don't think you need to put

20 any weight on the fact that it was an UNMO house that suffered superficial

21 damage. Any building in Sarajevo was fair game to every artillery round,

22 mortar round, and tank round, so that was just the incident that caused

23 Thomas Hansen to have to go and investigate when he had the issue about

24 crossing through check-points.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: When you say every building, you mean every

1 building.

2 THE WITNESS: Well, potentially, sir, with the city being

3 subjected to what it was over a period of time, clearly targeting may or

4 may not be accurate and there is a possibility that any building could

5 actually be struck, whether it is a block of flats, an official building,

6 or a residence. So I don't think we put any emphasis on what particular

7 building had been hit on any particular day. It is was just another

8 incident, another shelling, another mortaring.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: And when you say fair game, fair game to whom?

10 Do you mean to both sides?

11 THE WITNESS: Sorry. I don't recall --

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you mean fair game -- fair game, yes he did

13 use the words "fair game." Fair game to whom? To both sides?

14 THE WITNESS: No, not at all. I'm just trying to suggest that a

15 round could impact anywhere and I don't think there was any particular

16 issue as to what a round landed in. I'm trying to say that I don't think

17 there was any particular relevance that that particular damage resulted at

18 an UNMO house. It was just another building.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Ms. Isailovic.

20 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Let's go back to the question put to you by His Honour Judge

22 Robinson. Can you confirm that there was a war going on between the

23 parties, between the warring factions in the areas where you were

24 conducting your mission?

25 A. Yes. There was a confrontation line, drawn around Sarajevo with

1 the Bosnian Serb forces on the outside and the BiH defending their

2 territory on the inside and there were exchanges of fire regularly. For

3 me, that is a war situation.

4 Q. Yes, for me, too.

5 I was stressing that matter for a specific reason, but I'll go

6 back to this matter later on, because you say it is not relevant.

7 We are talking about the 1st of July and following the discussion,

8 the dispute with Mr. Hansen, there was this incident where an UNMO house

9 was hit, maybe by chance. But I'd like to talk with you about the

10 climate, the atmosphere that existed after this incident. Was the

11 premature departure of Mr. Hansen not the price to pay to soothe down, to

12 calm down the relationships between the LOs Mr. Salajdzic and Goro on the

13 one hand and the UNMOs on the other hand, all these people being in the

14 same building on a territory controlled by the ABiH. Was it not the price

15 to pay?

16 A. It may well have been but I would not have been part of any

17 discussion to that effect or indeed to make any recommendations if that's

18 what the UN command group decided. As an UNMO, this happened and at some

19 point in time shortly afterwards, Captain Hansen was reposted within the

20 mission so we accepted that he had been posted. That is the end of it for

21 me.

22 Q. But according to you, according to what you know, at the time

23 Mr. Hansen was also a good UNMO officer, right?

24 A. Yes. Captain Hansen was very professional.

25 Q. Do you see any reason why yourself and Mr. Hansen and maybe any

1 other UNMO, such as Captain [indiscernible] has invented such a story,

2 made up such a story maybe to make Mr. Salajdzic, Mr. Goro angry as well

3 as maybe the Bosnian government and maybe there was also another

4 Salajdzic?

5 A. Again, I don't quite understand your question. If you're

6 suggesting that there was an alternative agenda and people are making

7 things up, that is an outrageous allegation. As UNMOs one reports what

8 one sees with impartiality. That is all we do, no more, no less.

9 Q. If this is the kind of translation you had, I don't understand

10 either, and I will try to speak slowly and maybe I will try my English, if

11 that can help.

12 Do you and Mr. Hansen, the officer you mention as being a good

13 officer, and UNMO the Kenyan officer, Mr. Idriz, at the time did you have

14 any reason to make up this impact or the impact of a missile coming from

15 the area controlled by the ABiH which struck a building on the territory

16 controlled by the ABiH. Have you -- or did you have any reason to make it

17 up?

18 A. No, absolutely not, not -- one reports what one sees or what is

19 what they believe they see. No more, no less.

20 Q. And before I move on to something different, I would have liked

21 the e-mail Mr. Hogan sent you to be tendered. Maybe we can see it. It is

22 65 ter 420D.

23 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, did you get the

24 translation? I was asking maybe we could have -- we could tender document

25 65 ter 42D, 420D, sorry, this is the e-mail that was sent.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... It is very

2 faint. I'm not seeing it.

3 Oh, that is the e-mail from Barry Hogan to the witness dated the

4 17th of September. Is that the one?

5 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Have you asked questions about it?

7 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I have already asked a few

8 questions and maybe I can continue before asking it to be tendered. I did

9 ask a few questions and maybe the witness can confirm whether this is the

10 e-mail that he did receive.

11 Q. Is this the e-mail that you did receive from Mr. Hogan?

12 A. Yes, that is correct.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: We will admit it.

14 THE REGISTRAR: As D459, Your Honours.

15 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation].

16 Q. Now, please, could you read paragraph -- we start with paragraph 1

17 would be the one that starts with "this particular shelling." And I would

18 like you to read paragraph number 4, starting with: Is it possible."

19 A. 666 "Is it possible that the actual launch was from further out

20 and that when you saw and heard the air bomb it was already in mid-flight,

21 or is there no doubt in your mind about the launch being inside the

22 lines?"

23 And if I may, I responded to that e-mail, and I informed Mr. Barry

24 Hogan that, yes, it is conceivable that the projectile was already in

25 flight, and when the sound of a retort was heard that caused us to look

1 left, north-westwards, we then visually picked up this projectile that was

2 travelling slowly but may already have been in flight. That is, of

3 course, a possibility, and we watched its trajectory either to the TV

4 building or, I suppose, I would concede it might have gone behind it.

5 Either way, it looked as though it went to the TV building and, then, as

6 you know, from the reports a few seconds later there was a detonation.

7 Q. Yes. But what you're sure of is the direction the projectile came

8 from. You're sure of that?

9 A. Yes. I'm trying to consider whether you could be confronted with

10 an optical illusion of something passing your frontage at an angle, it

11 might appear to be a slightly different angle to what it really is. All I

12 can say is that from my report -- or Captain Hansen's report that was an

13 accurate account of events, that a projectile did pass that way, did head

14 towards the TV building, may have gone into it, may have gone behind it,

15 but either way within seconds, there was an explosion which clearly, being

16 where we were, we assumed that it was the same event. That is all we

17 thought we saw that morning. That is what we reported. And I was not

18 aware, as I said to the Prosecution earlier, of all of the other reports

19 at the time providing additional information.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: We should also admit the reply from the witness

21 to Barry Hogan.

22 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I believe that this has already

23 been done.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr.

25 Docherty, has it been admitted?

1 MR. DOCHERTY: Yes, that is the one.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well.

3 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. President, let me double-check that.

4 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

5 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. So you remember you were shown the excerpts from Thomas Hansen's

7 testimony on April 2nd this year. And you say that you were a bit

8 surprised to learn that he said that he did not see it personally but that

9 he only related what the two others -- two other UNMOs had told him on

10 that day. You remember that, do you?

11 A. I remember seeing the piece of paper, yes.

12 Q. Yes. But, on the other hand, you're telling us that your

13 recollection is a bit blurry because 12 years have gone by. So could it

14 be possible that you would be with Thomas Hansen on that parking lot but

15 at another moment on -- of that day? Maybe when everything occurred,

16 maybe a few minutes later, or maybe that you weren't with him, but then

17 later you went with him to the parking lot on that very day.

18 Do you think that is a possibility that you could envisage?

19 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. President.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

21 MR. DOCHERTY: I object to the witness being invited to speculate

22 in that way. I mean, Questions beginning with "is it possible," anything

23 is possible. It's really just a form of giving testimony by counsel, and

24 I object to it.

25 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Can I answer?

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

2 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm very surprised at this

3 objection raised by the Prosecutor. This is a cross-examination. Both

4 parties are cross-examining, so I think I can suggest something. This is

5 a lesson that I learned from these proceedings. It's true that in my

6 jurisdiction it's not possible.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... the witness

8 may answer the question.

9 THE WITNESS: As we said earlier, I was surprised when Captain

10 Hansen's account said that: "We did not witness this together. My

11 recollection is we were in the car park together however regardless of

12 that, what I recall in terms of seeing the flight path of some sort of

13 munitions and reporting it, as far as I recall, it is a fact now I would

14 not be confused with that because I can remember it now sitting here,

15 looking back across the city as we talk about it; so, no, I'm not confused

16 by that. But I accept that maybe -- maybe Captain Hansen wasn't with me.

17 Maybe it was another UNMO that was with me. I was not standing there on

18 my own, but I don't recall exactly who it was. I'd always assumed over

19 the last 12 years it was Captain Hansen, hence my surprise this morning.

20 But I'm prepared to accept that it wasn't Captain Hansen."

21 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Thank you. I will now mention page 4372 in the transcript.

23 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Maybe we could hand this over to

24 the usher so that he could put this piece of paper on the ELMO so that the

25 witness would see it.

1 Q. And just disregard what I have highlighted.

2 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, please, may I ask the

3 witness to read it out loud so that everybody can have the translation

4 into B/C/S, especially the accused in these proceedings.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, he may do it.

6 A. I assume the witness is Captain Hansen, so Captain Hansen

7 said: "We went to his car because his car was still parked outside. He

8 came into the building, parked his car, for some reason he had something

9 to do in the building. I don't know if it was to visit me or other

10 business. So when he came to report this, we immediately went down to the

11 car -- to his car to observe from the car, location, and he could point

12 out from the direction from where this was fired."

13 Q. Witness, does this give you a reason why you -- you still have in

14 mind the fact that you were on that parking lot with Mr. Hansen? Would

15 that be the reason?

16 A. Certainly if that is what Captain Hansen had to say, then that

17 supports the fact that he was inside, that he came down after the event

18 and the incident was explained to Captain Hansen there and then,

19 indicating and using directions. That is perfectly understandable. I

20 accept that.

21 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Usher, could I have my paper

22 back?

23 Q. Witness, now, since you were an eye-witness of what occurred that

24 day, it is true that there was a real battle raging around the PTT

25 building that day, wasn't there?

1 A. No, there was not a real battle raging at all. There was

2 obviously a number of events, a number of munitions being fired. That

3 does not constitute a battle.

4 Q. Yes, but the Prosecutor said that the offensive of the ABiH army

5 had been launched and you didn't protest because this happened during an

6 offensive that had been launched by the ABiH army. This is when this

7 incident occurred.

8 A. But you said a battle raging around the PTT. No, there was not a

9 battle raging around the PTT.

10 Q. I'm quite surprised. I didn't use such words.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's what came across in the translation,

12 interpretation.

13 Well, let's move on, and I believe you should be very near the end

14 of your time now. You were allotted 1 hour and 10 minutes and we are just

15 about 12 minutes from the break.

16 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely, absolutely.

17 Could we please have document P42. We saw it earlier. It was

18 shown earlier to the witness.

19 Q. So now I'm going to ask a question to you as an officer. You're

20 still in the army, right?

21 A. I'm still a serving officer in the Royal Air Force Regiment.

22 Q. So I guess that you went through military training, military

23 school, Military Academy. You did, right?

24 A. Yes, that is correct.

25 Q. So you're very competent in military matters and this is my

1 question. During a war, sometimes the warring factions can boast about

2 things that they never did to support the morale of troops, especially

3 when troops are in dire straits during an offensive that has been launched

4 by the opposing party. That could happen, right?

5 A. That is correct, it is theoretically possible that one side or the

6 other could indulge in PSYOPS, psychological operations, of course.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no more questions.

9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Wing Commander, if I may just put a little

10 question to you regarding the exact location you were when you heard and

11 saw the projectile. And my question is: Do you recall if you were on the

12 upper or on the lower car park deck?

13 A. I think I would say the upper deck. I'm not 100 per cent sure but

14 I seem to recall I was fairly close to the main building itself. My

15 vantage point and that would have put me on the upper one, not the lower

16 one. But I honestly -- it was the car park, I can't say, sir, I'm sorry,

17 not with 100 per cent accuracy.

18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Well, it has some importance because I would

19 imagine that your sight would have been obscured if you had been on the

20 lower deck where I would assume most of the cars were parked because of

21 the risk of shelling. So ...

22 A. No. I recall this event in the sense that one watched what was --

23 what was happening. At no point did I take cover, so whatever vantage

24 point I had, I stood there and watched that projectile because that

25 projectile presented no threat to me. I watched its path to my front by a

1 few hundred metres which, again, the way I perceived it that day, struck

2 the TV building or would have passed behind it, either way there was an

3 explosion within seconds.

4 Does that clarify that, sir?

5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, it does, thank you very much.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Docherty, you put some documents to the

7 witness which we have already seen in the case. These are documents

8 with -- in which the Serbs acknowledged that they hit the building that

9 same day.

10 MR. DOCHERTY: Yes, sir.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm trying to recall whether there was anything

12 in it that identified a time when that took place. Did they identify a

13 time when that happened?

14 MR. DOCHERTY: The -- there are two answers to that. First of

15 all, I think that the P42 from the accused gives at least a date but I

16 would want to look at the text to be sure of that.

17 But, secondly, from the evidence in this case I'm not aware of any

18 other strikings on the TV building and so if we are talking -- so we're

19 talking about a unique event.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: I want to go back to the witness now, because the

21 witness said that in relation to that evidence, evidence from the Serbs

22 themselves, acknowledging that they had hit the PTT building, he said that

23 it may be that what he observed was a secondary event, and I asked him

24 what he meant by secondary, and my recollection is that you said secondary

25 to the -- to the -- whatever had been done by the Serbs.

1 THE WITNESS: Secondary or simultaneously, sir, having heard the

2 fact that there is a ballistics report that fairly accurately identified

3 where the damage, the scrapes or the impact was on the building, if

4 clearly, the projectile I witnessed that morning did not cause the damage

5 in the -- or the impact in the ballistics report, then I have to accept

6 that as fact. And, therefore, all I was suggesting was that if the

7 ballistics report shows damage to the south side or impact on the south,

8 then the round I observed must have been a coincidental simultaneous event

9 that may not have been the one that struck the TV building in accordance

10 with the ballistics report; that is all I'm suggesting.

11 Because I equally am now rather, I don't want to say confused but

12 I am surprised that we seem to have simultaneous events or a ballistic

13 report that does not match what I observed; and, therefore, in my mind I

14 question whether the trajectory I observed was the one that clearly struck

15 the south side of the building. And I don't see how it could have been.

16 It must have been a simultaneous event otherwise I can't reconcile myself

17 to what happened here.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Did you hear any reports of any other -- any

19 other hits on the building that day?

20 THE WITNESS: And again that has been troubling me as well and I

21 have to say the answer to that is, no. I did not that day or in the

22 following days read any other reports. However, to qualify that, we were

23 all extremely busy, there were incidents happening all day, every day.

24 And as soon as something would happen, you would be tasked with leading

25 another investigation or sorting out another issue. So it is quite

1 conceivable that although we reported what we report what happened we

2 reported that morning, thereafter I was not involved in any other reports

3 coming from other UNMOs or other agencies. And I just have to accept that

4 that is the way it was conducted at the time.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Now, may I draw your attention to your report

6 dated the 4th of July on the incident of the 28th of June. We have looked

7 at that report and it is in evidence.

8 Is that the only report that you wrote on that -- on the incident?

9 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir I believe it is because having gone up into

10 the operations room after the incident, I would have reported what was

11 seen, what we believe we saw that morning, that is why I also believe

12 Captain Hansen was with me but I accept that could have been wrong. And

13 then Captain Hansen translated that account of events into the report that

14 we submitted and when he used the third person I just assumed that he was

15 doing that for anonymity. Clearly if he wasn't there, the third person

16 was correct and that was referring to myself.

17 But there is no other report that is in evidence that is available

18 for us to see today.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, you may have provided the answer to

20 something that has been troubling me because in this report of yours on

21 the 4th, there is no mention at all, no description at all of the -- of

22 the incident.

23 THE WITNESS: Absolutely, sir. And what I'm suggesting is that

24 the account that Thomas Hansen has signed off is the report that we made

25 immediately after the incident. We would have gone back to the car park

1 and point out directions and try and envisage where the projectile might

2 have come from; and then subsequently, Captain Hansen as the duty

3 operations officer would have written that report.

4 Even, like you, I'm slightly surprised that there isn't a report

5 that I physically wrote that morning because we would have gone up and

6 compiled it together.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: So Captain Hansen would have immediately reported

8 what you both saw and that's why you didn't have to write an individual

9 report on it.

10 THE WITNESS: He would have been reporting, sir, my account to him

11 and, of course, he would have been down to the car park with me as per his

12 transcript trying to work out the trajectory, the angle involved where the

13 launch point might have been having had it explained to him. He obviously

14 felt as a duty operations officer that he was then sufficiently

15 knowledgeable to then draft the report of the facts as they were presented

16 and send out it off under his signature. And I agree with you, the fact

17 that I am not the signature block on that report is slightly surprising

18 but Captain Hansen drafted it and sent it.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: But that would then have meant that he was with

20 you or you were with him, and the two of you witnessed this incident.

21 THE WITNESS: Well, that was my thought initially and that was

22 compounded in my mind when I read the report as though we'd both seen it.

23 But I hear today now that Thomas Hansen maybe wasn't with me but came back

24 down to have the incident described to him; then he drafted the report

25 with my assistance on his signature block.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

2 Do you have questions Mr. Docherty?

3 MR. DOCHERTY: It is a Chamber witness, Your Honour. My questions

4 would follow up on the questions that you were just asking but I do have a

5 few.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Judge Mindua first.

7 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, please, I have one last

8 question regarding this projectile which you saw on June 28.

9 You told us about this -- the signature, you said there was no

10 smoke. Because of that, this led to you believe that there was no rocket

11 attached to the projectile, at least at that point in time when you saw

12 it.

13 What conclusions can you draw, since you are an expert in weapons,

14 about this weapon. Do you think that it is a projectile that is at the

15 end of its trajectory, or is it a projectile that has no motor. In that

16 case, could it be a mortar shell, a modified air bomb? Do you have any

17 idea?

18 A. I am still unclear even today, sir, exactly what it was. I don't

19 recall any kind of smoke signature behind the projectile as it went down

20 its trajectory. It was fairly large, it was too big to be any kind of

21 mortar round or even a small artillery shell or a larger artillery shell

22 that would have been travelling with a different profile, unless it was in

23 direct fire mode but it would have been travelling too fast.

24 This projectile whatever it was was some, I would suggest

25 improvised type device obviously being used in a method that it was not

1 designed from. And wherever it was launched from, the initial launch

2 would have provided it with its energy and then it seemed in a direct mode

3 to be travelling horizontally under its own momentum until it impacted

4 where it impacted.

5 I do not recall a rocket motor being attached to this or if it

6 had, it would have burnt out initially in the early phase of its flight

7 and the rest was ballistic, but that all I can think sitting here 12

8 years on. I'm sorry, I can't be more precise.

9 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] But you said that it was a

10 non-conventional projectile.

11 A. We referred to this as an aerial bomb. I have not seen one that

12 has not been fired on its launch point. I don't know exactly what they

13 look like because those that were fired obviously detonated on impact. If

14 the projectile that I observed was one of these aerial bombs that we talk

15 about, all I know is in the trajectory I observed it was slow because one

16 could track its path which you could not do with an artillery round or a

17 heavier rocket with a motor. And therefore, it was a relatively sluggish

18 slow moving device that was travelling north/south, loosely speaking,

19 without any kind of rocket efflux coming out of the back of it at the

20 point that I observed.

21 I can't be more specific, I'm sorry, 12 years on.

22 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Docherty, how long will you be?

24 MR. DOCHERTY: Three or four minutes.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you have any questions? How long.

1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Five minutes.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Three and five, eight. I believe the

3 interpreters can bear with us for another eight minutes. So we would just

4 proceed, and then we would terminate the proceedings. We will not take

5 the break now.

6 You want to change your assessment from five minutes?

7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel.

8 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I can give one minute, but Defence

9 has something to start with, I think that the exhibit number given to the

10 last number -- the last piece, is wrong, so we have a few logistics

11 matters to deal with.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, we'll just take the break. 20 minutes.

13 --- Recess taken at 12.22 p.m.

14 --- On resuming at 12.44 p.m.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Before Mr. Docherty asks his questions, I would

16 like to say that I have been informed that the document which I asked to

17 be admitted and was told that it had been admitted, in fact it has not.

18 This is the reply from Mr. Knowles to Barry Hogan dated 12th of September,

19 and it's 65 ter 03510.

20 So would that be admitted and given a number.

21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes C16.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: And there's a correction to be made in relation

23 to Exhibit D459.

24 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. That was document ID number DD

25 00-5132. That was mistakenly admitted as D459. The exhibit number should

1 be D460.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Docherty.

3 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. President, I really just have something I want

4 to clear up for purposes of the record not so much in the form of

5 questions to the witness.

6 In answering questions just before the break, the witness spoke

7 about several things he learned this morning including impact on the south

8 side of the building, and although did I it earlier in the proceedings, I

9 want to make clear I'm not saying that the air bomb impacted the south

10 side of the building and I just don't want the witness to misunderstand.

11 Also, when the witness says the south side of the building, my

12 point about the ballistics report not being consistent with an approach of

13 the projectile from the north is based upon the marks on the roof. When

14 we say the south side, I have not been to the TV building.

15 Some people in this courtroom have and have gone done into this in much

16 more detail but there is a small enclosed courtyard on the north side of

17 the TV building and the blast damage was to the south wall of that inner

18 courtyard. This is all in evidence in the trial. It doesn't change

19 anything that I would have put to the witness, but I don't want the

20 witness to have misunderstood or to think that I was saying something

21 that's later shown not to be consistent with the evidence but it doesn't

22 change any of the analysis that I have of the -- of the report.

23 And as I said, I had no actual questions of the witness. I just

24 wanted to clarify the record on that point.

25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Docherty, let's just be clear about this,

1 because I thought that the witness excluded a flight path from the north

2 under the assumption that the building had been hit on its southern side

3 but maybe the witness can testify to what he testified.

4 MR. DOCHERTY: The witness can certainly, I'm sure speak to that.

5 I just didn't want to get into the ballistics report in detail. I don't

6 think Wing Commander Knowles had any role in the investigation. It was

7 the subject of a lot of testimony. It is something that I think we are

8 perhaps better off staying away from in detail with this witness. I just

9 didn't want to be misunderstood as having elicited an answer from the

10 witness by saying something that was not correct.

11 And so when he spoke about impact I corrected that after the last

12 break, and now after this break I just want to clarify that what I'm

13 relying upon are these marks upon the roof. I do think it's quite

14 clear-cut. We'll make submissions on that point of course. Just for

15 purposes of today's proceedings I wanted to make clear what it was that I

16 was saying when I said south. It is the south wall of the inner

17 courtyard.

18 And then one other item of business, Exhibit P940 and also the one

19 that was just admitted, the other e-mail, again, because they have got

20 internal e-mail addresses, could those please be admitted under seal.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes Ms. Isailovic.

22 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

23 I will be short. Maybe we're presenting things in a different

24 matter and this is why I'm standing up to ask the question again, even

25 though as Mr. Docherty says, everything is already in the file, in the

1 case file. But if the witness is to give an opinion on this possibility,

2 he must know that according to the investigation there was a ricochet

3 impact. The expert of the Basim police made the analysis and there was

4 not just one single impact. There were a number of impacts. I personally

5 believe that we don't need to ask more questions but maybe you would like

6 to know more about what happened, but I think we need to tell the witness

7 exactly what the results of the Bosnian investigation was regarding the

8 impacts on the tower.

9 If you do not deem this useful, I can move on to something else.

10 I have one last question. So it is up to you, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Go ahead with your one last question.

12 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.

13 Q. The Presiding Judge asked you a question about your report of July

14 4th. Do you remember this?

15 A. Yes, I believe I do.

16 Q. So let's be very clear on this. Your report dated July 4th, I'm

17 going make a suggestion to you and you can say yes if you agree with me.

18 This report is not on the investigation on the incident regarding

19 the impact of the bomb but it relates to what happened between Hansen and

20 the ABiH LOs, Silajdzic and Goro. That's the -- that's what your report

21 is all about. You wrote the report about this incident, the dispute

22 between Hansen and the LOs from the ABiH side.

23 A. I believe there were two elements to that report and it is not

24 front of us now but I think my wording was towards the end of that, that

25 we -- I should go on to include the following about the -- the Captain

1 Hansen element to that.

2 There were two parts to that.

3 Can we look at it again?

4 Q. Yes, absolutely. This is document P519 on page 6.

5 A. Yes. I'm looking at that now. I believe the first half of that

6 report was I probably had been asked to just catalogue what happened that

7 morning, and then at paragraph 6, I then go on to say additionally, on the

8 1st of July there occurred the following, so it seemed to me I had been

9 asked to write that report actually to address the Captain Hansen earlier

10 difficulties and then add it towards the end of that report what happened

11 when he was denied access.

12 I think there were two clearly halves to that report.

13 Q. There again, I'm not really sure. Maybe you did not understand my

14 question in English.

15 This is my question, I will repeat. You wrote a report on July

16 4th. According to me - and this is what I suggest - I believe that this

17 was a report you wrote in the framework of an internal investigation

18 regarding UNMOs after the very unpleasant situation which occurred between

19 June 28, 1995, this very unpleasant situation that developed between the

20 ABiH LOs and Thomas Hansen, which led to the fact that the ABiH army

21 asking Mr. Hansen to be declared persona non grata. This is what you

22 wrote the report about, isn't it?

23 A. It may well be. It just accounts what I would have been aware of

24 regarding Captain Hansen and the difficulties with the BiH LOs or indeed

25 subsequently his restriction on freedom of movement. I can't remember

1 what document that has been extracted from. You would know. Either way

2 it only covers my recollection of what happened with Captain Hansen. I

3 accept it may well have been just a report into Captain Hansen's

4 difficulties.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Wing commander, that concludes your evidence. We

7 thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give it, and you may now leave.

8 We will be adjourning. We stand adjourned.

9 Is there another issue?

10 Oh, I see Ms. Isailovic has other issues. But the wing commander

11 may leave.

12 [The witness withdrew]

13 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14 First a question that is connected to this witness but can be done

15 without his presence. The document P846 was tendered by the Prosecution.

16 This is a document, an UNMO document. It could have been relevant

17 regarding this incident and everything that occurred around these dates.

18 It is a report dated June 29 -- no, June 30th relating what occurred on

19 June 29.

20 The Prosecutor tendered this document but omitted to tender this

21 document in its entirety, and I checked this with my colleagues. They did

22 not tender the relevant pages of this document. So they tendered the

23 document but everything that could be relevant regarding Sarajevo for our

24 case does not exist in the e-court system, cannot be found in the

25 documents that were disclosed to Defence and to the Bench.

1 We would have wanted to have the document in its entirety,

2 document which has already been admitted by the Bench. But as we have it

3 now in e-court it is totally irrelevant and totally useless. If possible,

4 we would like to have the document in its entirety. Otherwise, we will

5 file a motion to obtain it but we believe that Prosecution can do what is

6 necessary, so we can have the entirety of the report at our disposal.

7 So this is my first point.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ...

9 MR. DOCHERTY: Not yet, Mr. President I'm just looking to see what

10 the document is.

11 [Trial Chamber confers]

12 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, the document is on the

13 screen now.

14 This is supposedly an 18-page document. Unfortunately, we do not

15 have the relevant pages that deal with Sarajevo and that deal with what

16 occurred regarding UNMOs in Sarajevo, and Defence was really keen on

17 getting these pages.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... I was asking

19 for the document to be brightened or to be zoomed in.

20 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I've got the document here, if

21 you'd like. Got a hard copy.

22 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Previous translation continues] ... Admit it and

23 tender it; do you recall?

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: It says there are 18 page, page 1 of 18. And the

25 question is: How much has been admitted and how much has not.

1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Eight pages are available, ten

2 pages are missing, and unfortunately, the missing pages are related to

3 Sarajevo and they relate to a very interesting time-period for the

4 Defence. We realised it because this decision was admitted under your

5 decision of the 29th of February, 2007. The document was admitted and

6 received a number.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit evidence on the basis that the evidence

8 is relevant and probative. So we need to satisfy ourselves about that.

9 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I'm informed that we admitted the document

11 in response to a motion by the Prosecutor to admit eight pages, and that's

12 what we decided to do.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Docherty, I'm not sure whether you are in a

15 position to say what was it the intention of the Prosecution to confine

16 the admission to eight pages.

17 MR. DOCHERTY: I believe so, Your Honour, but this is going back a

18 way. You know, it was routine in this trial there were documents that

19 were hundreds of pages long and either party would select a certain number

20 of pages and put them in. If the other ten pages are also UNMO situation

21 reports and if there are no Rule 70 issues, then I don't believe we would

22 object. I'd like to see them first but if that's all that it is I don't

23 see a problem.

24 [Trial Chamber confers]

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, I'm afraid you will have to file a

1 motion so we can examine the 12 pages and make a decision.

2 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the problem is that

3 the Prosecution is the one that controls the UN documents. They disclose

4 what they want when they want it. Do you remember probably this series of

5 very significant documents for the Defence and what happened. I have

6 worked on the basis of the documents available in the system to find these

7 ten pages. According to me, the rest of the document is not relevant,

8 because it refers to Bihac Dubrovnik, therefore it might be relevant for

9 other Trial Chambers, but this is not relevant for us. The date is

10 extremely significant because we are talking about a selected number of

11 incidents. We are talking about military activities and that's at the

12 heart of the Defence case.

13 Therefore, I believe it is completely unfair to submit and tender

14 the documents that way by only tendering a few pages here and there. I

15 remember that the Prosecution objected when we showed a number of

16 documents, pages to witnesses. I see that the translation might not be up

17 to standard, Mr. President, you may not be able to understand me.

18 But what I wanted to say was that the Prosecution objected, and

19 quite rightly so, when we tried to tender a number of documents where only

20 part of a document had a been translated, and here, we have a document

21 that is supposed to be a very relevant document in this case, and suddenly

22 we realise that a number of pages are missing.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Will you be filing a motion?

24 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, we are, of course, Your

25 Honour.

1 But I just wanted to point out that I do not have these ten

2 missing pages. That is my problem. I don't have these pages. I'm in the

3 hands of the Prosecution --

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... Assist to

5 get these ten pages.

6 MR. DOCHERTY: Yes. We tendered eight. We disclosed all of them

7 on the 31th of the January. The Defence has got them. We'll give them to

8 them again, but they've got them, and it is just incorrect to say that the

9 OTP is doling out UN documents to suit our advantage.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: You don't need to answer that because I believe

11 that that is totally without any foundation.

12 MR. DOCHERTY: We will redisclose these documents, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

14 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] No, it was not disclosed,

15 Prosecutor, because if it was the case, the document should be in the

16 e-court system, should have been uploaded in the e-court system, when

17 talking about fairness.

18 There are number of pending issues related to documents that have

19 not been tendered yet because the translation was missing. These are MFI

20 documents, but they only have the status of MFI documents because at the

21 time we did have a translation, it was not available. But now I'm very

22 pleased to be able to tell that you we have received the translations of

23 these documents.

24 I can give you the relevant numbers for these documents to be

25 admitted as exhibits proper.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Can you not file a motion on this issue? This

2 is --

3 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] No, it was something else.

4 You see, we received the translations as soon they are ready and

5 we proceeded the same way for the previous documents. Here we have

6 documents that had been marked for identification --

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Go ahead with the --

8 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] D112 MFI, ID 00-1839, first

9 document. Second document D146, ID DD00-0648. The following document,

10 D246, then D297 and then D298.

11 I would like to ask the Chamber to admit these documents.

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit them.

14 Let me say something.

15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... earlier can

17 you not file a motion on this -- I said have you not filed a motion on

18 this. That's the question of MFIed documents.

19 Yes.

20 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Last point the Defence would like

21 to raise today is as follows. You made a ruling about the documents we

22 submitted through Snezana Marinkovic Jekic, witness D-35. You ruled on

23 some of the documents submitted through that witness. As I said, we

24 receive the translations as soon as they are ready and I can tell you that

25 we will be able to submit the translations tomorrow because tomorrow we'll

1 have received all the translations, and we'd like to ask the Chamber to

2 rule as quickly as possible about the admission of the documents that will

3 be listed on that -- on that document, on that list.

4 And that's all for administrative matters that the Defence wanted

5 to raise.

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Docherty, we had discussions earlier about

8 the admissibility of some intercepts. You recall Ms. Isailovic brought

9 our attention to that and we looked at the earlier transcripts, and I said

10 to the Prosecutor Mr. Whiting that if he intends to rely on them, then he

11 should bring a witness to speak to their authenticity. But as far as I'm

12 aware, that has not been done.

13 MR. DOCHERTY: And as far as I'm aware, given the procedural

14 stance of this case, that cannot be done and the reason I have not

15 responded up to now is I am considering, given that we can't call a

16 witness, whether to make a motion asking for the admission of these

17 transcripts on the grounds that they are self-authenticating but that

18 would take a little time and I didn't want to just do it off the cuff, so

19 to speak.

20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, I'm just informed in relation to

22 the documents that I just admitted on your submissions, there are three of

23 them in relation to which there is as yet no translation in the e-court

24 system; D112, D297, and D298. So please attend to that as quickly as

25 possible. It may be just a matter of getting them into the system.

1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, we'll make sure

2 that it is done.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: We stand adjourned.

4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.15 p.m.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25