1 Friday, 23rd January 1998
2 (10.00 am)
3 JUDGE JORDA: Please be seated. Let us have
4 the accused brought in, please.
5 (Accused brought in)
6 JUDGE JORDA: We can now resume. Good
7 morning, everybody. Are the interpreters ready? Does
8 everybody hear me? The Prosecution and the Defence?
9 General Blaskic, do you hear?
10 MR. BLASKIC: Good morning, your Honour, I can
11 hear you well.
12 JUDGE JORDA: We can now resume. Mr. Cayley,
13 you will be representing the Prosecution today. Let us
14 try to finish today -- finish with the witnesses we
15 have today, as Mr. Harmon said we would.
16 MR. CAYLEY: Good morning, Mr. President,
17 your Honours, learned counsel. The next witness is a
18 witness who has sought protective measures from the
19 Tribunal, in that he wishes to be known by a pseudonym
20 and to have visual distortion of his image as
21 transmitted to the public.
22 If you wish, I can give a summary of what the
23 witness will be saying and how relevant that is to the
25 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, of course.
1 MR. CAYLEY: I believe since the witness is
2 actually going to be under a pseudonym and his face
3 will be distorted, if we could for the first part of my
4 summary go into a private session, because the
5 description --
6 JUDGE JORDA: How are we going to call him?
7 THE REGISTRAR: It will be Witness V.
8 MR. CAYLEY: If we could for a few moments go
9 into a private session, Mr. President, while I give the
10 background to the witness which will identify him to
11 the public, who he is.
12 JUDGE JORDA: All right, then we can go into
13 private session.
14 (In closed session)
13 Page 6004 redacted - in closed session
13 Page 6005 redacted - in closed session
13 Page 6006 redacted - in closed session
13 Page 6007 redacted - in closed session
13 Page 6008 redacted - in closed session
7 (Witness entered court)
8 (In open session)
9 JUDGE JORDA: Witness W, since that is what
10 we are going to call you, do you hear me?
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, I can.
12 JUDGE JORDA: First we want you to check your
13 identity on the piece of paper which is being shown to
14 you, but do not say your name, just make sure that that
15 is your name. Is that your name?
16 THE WITNESS: This is my name.
17 JUDGE JORDA: Please remain seated and read
18 the declaration which the Registrar is giving to you.
19 Read it in your own language.
20 WITNESS W (sworn)
21 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you, Witness W. You have
22 been called to testify by the Prosecutor as part of the
23 charges that have been brought against General Blaskic,
24 the accused, who is sitting in this courtroom. The
25 Prosecutor has summarised succinctly and densely the
1 essential points of your testimony. After a few
2 preliminary questions which the Prosecutor will ask
3 you, you will testify freely before the judges about
4 your military investigation, further to the shelling of
5 Zenica on 19th April 1993.
6 Mr. Cayley, the floor is yours.
7 Examined by MR. CAYLEY
8 Q. Good morning, Witness W. Please relax, and
9 remember to speak slowly because some of the language
10 that you will be using is quite complex and it needs to
11 be translated simultaneously into two languages.
12 Am I right in saying that at approximately
13 midday on 19th April a number of shells fell on the
14 city centre of Zenica, killing and injuring a number of
15 members of the civilian population?
16 A. Could the interpreter please repeat this,
17 because I did not hear it clearly?
18 MR. CAYLEY: Obviously I need to say the
19 question again. Am I right in saying that at
20 approximately midday on 19th April a number of shells
21 fell on the city centre of Zenica, killing and injuring
22 a number of members of the civilian population.
23 JUDGE JORDA: Is there a technical problem?
24 A. Could I please have the interpreter give a
25 complete interpretation of what you just said? Now
1 I can hear it.
2 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Cayley, we are going to ask
3 you to read your question for the third time now.
4 A. I apologise.
5 MR. CAYLEY: Witness W, it is not your fault
6 at all. Witness W, am I right in saying that at
7 approximately midday on 19th April, a number of shells
8 fell on the city centre of Zenica, killing and injuring
9 a number of members of the civilian population?
10 A. Yes, that is correct.
11 Q. Am I right in saying that the Chief of Staff
12 of the 303 Brigade in Zenica carried out an
13 investigation into the number of impact sites of these
14 shells in order to determine the direction and distance
15 from where the shells were fired?
16 A. Yes, the said gentleman did conduct an
17 investigation about the artillery attack on the city of
19 Q. Am I right in saying that you participated in
20 that investigation and you took part in the analysis
21 and determination of the firing point of these shells?
22 A. In the investigation, I was not present at
23 the scene but I was with the part of the headquarters
24 which conducted the investigation on where the shells
25 were fired from.
1 Q. Did you subsequently attend the scene in
2 order to confirm the findings of the individual who did
3 the preliminary investigation?
4 A. Yes, I left the brigade headquarters around
5 4.00 pm and went on to the scene.
6 Q. Were all the initial findings that had been
7 brought to the headquarters at first, were they in
8 accordance with your findings on the scene?
9 A. Yes, they were.
10 MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could be shown,
11 please, Exhibit 228, which is an exhibit that has
12 previously been entered into evidence by the Defence?
13 This is a portion of that exhibit, during Major
14 Baggesen's testimony, on which this witness has made
15 certain marks. Could it be placed on the ELMO, please?
16 Witness W, if you could explain this diagram
17 to the judges; one or two preliminary questions. This
18 is a portion of a city centre map of Zenica, is that
20 A. Yes, that is correct. This is the very
21 centre of the city of Zenica.
22 Q. Can you explain to the court the red marks
23 and then the black marks? I apologise, the black
24 numbers and then the red spots with the red numbers and
25 then the 10 and 11, the two black numbers.
1 A. Red dots mark the positions, that is the
2 places where the shells fell on 19th April 1993, which
3 is positions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and points 7, 8 and 9,
4 which we reached later when analysing the data about
5 the shells that fell on that date on the city of
6 Zenica. The red line marks the direction from which
7 the shells reached the city centre. Points 5, 7, 19,
8 2, 6, 24, 4, 22, 9, 23, 11 and 10 mark the deployment
9 of units or parts of the units of the army of Bosnia in
10 Zenica on that particular day.
11 Q. If I can interrupt you there, Witness W,
12 these are the black marks to which you are referring,
13 so there is no confusion?
14 A. Yes, they are.
15 Q. You said red spots marked 7, 8 and 9; in fact
16 they are not numbered because those are shells that
17 fell into the river, is that correct?
18 A. Yes, that is correct. The three shells that
19 fell into the river are points 7, 8 and 9.
20 Q. Witness W, what is the nearest military
21 target to any of these shell craters 1 to 6, obviously
22 not including the last three that fell into the river.
23 A. The closest military installation to the
24 position where the shells 1 through 6 fell is at the
25 location marked with 11.
1 Q. What is that location?
2 A. This is the location of the Sipad Komerc
3 Company, which was the command post of the second
4 battalion of the 303 Mountain Brigade.
5 Q. On 19th April, how many soldiers were at that
7 A. On this location, we can say that no more
8 than ten soldiers were located.
9 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you. We will come back to
10 that diagram at a later stage.
11 If the witness could now be provided, please,
12 with the photographic exhibit of yesterday, which
13 I think is 226, and be shown photograph 6, please.
14 I will be finishing questions in a moment,
15 Mr. President.
16 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you, Mr. Cayley.
17 MR. CAYLEY: Witness W, if you could explain
18 to the court in layman's terms, so that even I can
19 understand, how from this crater you can determine the
20 bearing and the impact angle, the bearing from which
21 the shell was fired and the impact; remembering, of
22 course, the determination of the calibre of the shell
23 from the shell remnants. We will move on to range
24 tables and calculations in a moment. Can you first of
25 all identify which crater this was, which number shell
1 was this that made this mark?
2 A. This crater was caused by shell number 3 that
3 fell in front of the Borac department store.
4 Q. If you could now explain to the court what
5 I just summarised to you, the determination that was
6 made on the site?
7 A. It was established at the investigation first
8 that the calibre was 122 millimetres. The crater shows
9 that the calibre is no greater than 122 millimetres.
10 The position of the crater and the footprints, the
11 traces show from what direction the shell came, and
12 that is that the shell came -- could your Honours
13 please follow my hand and the way I am using the
14 pointer, this is the direction in which the shell came,
15 (indicating) and so you can see that the lower part of
16 the shell left a clear footprint on the road. The
17 upper part of the shell splintered and exploded.
18 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Hayman?
19 MR. HAYMAN: Since I do not know if the video
20 is capturing this, I think it is important to note for
21 the record that the witness is pointing from the lower
22 left-hand corner of the picture to the point of impact
23 as indicating the direction from which the shell came.
24 JUDGE JORDA: That is right. Yes, that
25 clarification is relevant, otherwise when one rereads
1 the transcript it might not be clear.
2 All right, Witness W, please think for a
3 moment about our transcript and any possible challenges
4 or discussions that might arise from what is being
5 said, so specify clearly by saying "from the left of
6 the photograph", or, "starting from this point". Go
7 ahead. Begin again, if you do not mind, please.
8 A. I understand, and let me try and show you the
9 real situation. When I was showing you with this
10 pointer the direction of the shell, it came from this
11 area, which means that on the ELMO, this would be on
12 the left-hand side of the photograph. Let it be
13 entered in the transcript like that.
14 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, that is good, thank you.
15 Is that clear, Mr. Hayman? Mr. Nobilo, it is not clear?
16 MR. NOBILO: I think it would be more precise
17 if it were said that the shell came from the left
18 towards the right. I think that is the best precision
19 we can make.
20 JUDGE JORDA: Do you agree?
21 MR. CAYLEY: Witness W, with your pointer
22 indicate from where in the photograph the shell was
23 coming to where it was going and I will put into the
24 transcript the movement of your hand.
25 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Cayley will tell you to say
1 things as clearly as you can in your own words and then
2 if clarifications are necessary, Mr. Cayley will clarify
3 for us.
4 JUDGE RIAD: Perhaps you can add from the
5 lower left or the higher left or middle left.
6 MR. CAYLEY: It is difficult to get the three
7 dimensional element. So from the bottom left-hand
8 corner of the photograph, moving down to the centre
9 point of the impact point. Is everybody content with
11 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I am afraid his knuckle
12 is in the way and I cannot see very closely.
13 MR. CAYLEY: I will move across, your Honour,
14 and see if I can assist.
15 A. (Indicates).
16 Q. So from the bottom left-hand side of the
17 photograph, moving down indicating the arc of the shell
18 into the centre point of the impact point.
19 A. Yes.
20 JUDGE JORDA: Or else put two letters, A and
21 B if possible, that is so you add an A on the left side
22 and B on the right side and in the transcript we can
23 say the direction is from A to B. Let us try to move
25 MR. CAYLEY: The problem with that, your
1 Honour, is that A is somewhere up here (indicates).
2 JUDGE JORDA: Or in relation to the sidewalk,
3 for example.
4 MR. CAYLEY: So from the bottom left-hand part
5 of the sidewalk going diagonally at approximately 45
6 degrees to the point of impact, which is the white spot
7 in the middle of the petal-shape marks made by the
9 JUDGE JORDA: Does that satisfy the Defence?
10 I think everybody has understood now. Please continue,
11 Witness W.
12 A. On the basis of the traces left on the hard
13 surface, the lower part of the shell fragmented and the
14 fragments left clear traces in the form of a
15 semicircle. The upper part of the shell exploded into
16 space, into free space. There are no traces of it on
17 the hard surface, but there is only the traces of
18 gunpowder gas, which can clearly be seen on the
19 photograph. According to this finding, and having
20 investigated the situation on the spot, and the
21 appearance of the surrounding buildings, and having
22 observed the direction from which the shell came and by
23 establishing the point of impact, to use military
24 terminology, or rather the fixed point, which is a
25 point for geographic orientation, your Honours, the
1 direction of fire can be defined, and it is possible
2 roughly to estimate the impact angle.
3 At the same time, may I explain the calibre
4 is determined on the basis of the appearance of the
5 crater, or rather the depth of the crater formed by the
6 shell. Therefore by our on site investigation, I was
7 led to the conclusion that Mr. Hajdarevic had made a
8 correct assessment of the situation and, taking into
9 account everything that I observed, his conclusion was
10 in line with mine, and that is that the calibre was 122
11 millimetres, that the direction of the shell was 270
12 degrees, according to azimut, and that the impact angle
13 of the shell was in the range of between 40 and 44
15 MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could now be shown
16 Exhibit 229, please?
17 Just to clarify a couple of points with you,
18 Witness W, the calibre of the shell was determined from
19 the remnants that were found at the site, is that
20 correct, the remnants of the shell?
21 A. Yes, that is true too.
22 Q. And the size of the hole in the ground?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. In front of you, you have a set of range
25 tables. Could you briefly explain to the judges the
1 purpose of these tables and what they are used for by
2 artillery officers?
3 A. Artillery officers have these tables at their
4 disposal and they use them for determining ranges in
5 relation to certain targets, and again in relation to
6 the positions of the deployed artillery pieces.
7 JUDGE JORDA: Excuse me, I did not get
8 interpretation on that point. Can we just repeat what
9 was said before that, very quickly?
10 A. This table, as I was saying, is used by
11 artillery officers in relation to the positions of the
12 artillery and the distance between those positions and
13 the targets, and we have data on the gunpowder filling
14 of the artillery shells. In the case of artillery
15 pieces of 122 millimetre calibre, the gunpowder is
16 3,800 grammes. That is the standard charge, standard
17 basic charge. If an artillery officer has a desired
18 target which is removed from the position of his
19 artillery up to the maximum range of his artillery --
20 MR. CAYLEY: Witness W, to come straight to
21 the point, what type of shell was used in this shelling
22 from the analysis that was done, in the shelling of
24 A. Having investigated the situation by the team
25 of the 303rd Brigade, it was established that a shell
1 of normal weight was used, with additional charge and
2 with UTF fuse. This is an impact fuse that is attached
3 to the shell.
4 Q. So the shell explodes immediately upon
5 contact with the ground; there is no delay in
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And those shells are normally used when
9 artillery is being fired against infantry?
10 A. In practice, this type of shell is used in
11 battles against the infantry.
12 MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could now be shown
13 Exhibit 230? Could you explain this diagram which you
14 drew for me in layman's terms to the court?
15 A. I can. This is a diagram showing the
16 position of the artillery, and the position at which
17 the shell fell, the distance from the artillery weapon
18 to the place of impact of the shell, and the following
19 parameters were taken into account; the height of the
20 building that provided a protection outside the town of
21 Zenica. What I am referring to is the actual hills,
22 the relief of the terrain, and the direction from which
23 the shell hit the town of Zenica.
24 Then also the difference in altitude between
25 the place of impact and the position of the artillery
1 weapon. I took into account also the relief of the
2 terrain in front of the artillery weapon, its altitude,
3 and roughly estimated the angles of the position of the
4 barrel of the artillery weapon and the angle of impact,
5 and I showed the trajectory, which is in military
6 terminology called the ballistic trajectory, of the
7 artillery shell at the moment of firing, how it moved
8 through the air and the form of the trajectory as it
9 hit the target.
10 Q. If you could point to the location that you
11 have marked in the middle, I think it is the feature
13 A. On the map, we see this Vranjaca relief.
14 Q. That is the highest feature over which the
15 shell would have had to have climbed, from where it was
16 fired from to where it was going, is that correct?
17 A. Yes, sir, it is the highest feature over
18 which the shell had to cross to reach Zenica.
19 Q. What is the point at the extreme left of this
21 A. At the extreme left of the diagram is the
22 region of Prahulje.
23 Q. That is where you calculated the firing point
24 was for the weapon that fired the shells into Zenica?
25 A. Yes, that is the position which was
1 calculated to find where the artillery weapon was at
2 the moment the shell was fired on that particular date.
3 Q. Can you explain to the judges the
4 significance of the impact angle, where the shell
6 A. The angle at which the shell landed tells us
7 that the artillery weapon was about 16,000 metres away
8 from the town of Zenica. At the same time the gunman
9 had to take into consideration all the elements in
10 order to overcome this natural feature, the Vranjaca
11 point, for the artillery shell to reach the town of
13 Q. What is the normal range of a 122 millimetre
14 artillery piece?
15 A. The normal range, with the basic charge, is
16 about 15,300 metres.
17 Q. So how was the shell able to travel 16,000
19 A. The shell could cover the distance and to
20 overcome this obstacle or feature and cover a path of
21 16,000 metres because the artillery piece was at an
22 altitude of 510 to 515 metres above sea level, and
23 there is a difference in altitude as compared to the
24 position of the shell landing, because the town of
25 Zenica itself is at an altitude of 310 to 320 metres
1 above sea level.
2 Q. So simply put, in my layman's language,
3 Zenica is several hundred metres lower than the firing
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Is it your opinion that the shell also had an
7 additional charge, an additional propellant to cover
8 the extra distance?
9 A. On the basis of our findings it was assessed
10 that the gunmen had to have used a shell with an
11 additional charge.
12 Q. To conclude on this, what was the bearing of
13 the direction of fire of the artillery piece?
14 A. The bearing was westerly in relationship to
15 the city of Zenica.
16 Q. What was the calibre of the shell and the
17 propellant used in that shell?
18 A. Calibre was 122 millimetres, with additional
19 propellant or charge.
20 Q. What was the geographical location of the
21 firing point?
22 A. The geographical location, that is the
23 position from which the shell was fired, is the area of
24 Prahulje, due west of the city of Zenica.
25 MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could now be shown
1 Exhibit 231?
2 JUDGE RIAD: Mr. Cayley, I just want to
3 understand your question. When you said what was the
4 bearing, the bearing was westerly in relationship to
5 the city of Zenica. What do you mean by the bearing
6 was westerly?
7 MR. CAYLEY: That means, your Honour, that the
8 shell was coming from a westerly direction, it was
9 moving -- the witness can explain this better than me.
10 Can you explain to the judge the direction
11 from where the shell was coming from? In fact there is
12 a map which should explain this to you, your Honour,
13 which is the next exhibit.
14 JUDGE JORDA: What is the number, 231, is
16 MR. CAYLEY: 231. If a copy of this could be
17 placed on the ELMO? In order to confirm the firing
18 point of this artillery, you did use other information
19 other than the calculations that you made on the
20 ground, is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What was that information?
23 A. This is information received from the scene,
24 and this information was passed on to us by the
25 soldiers who were at the front-lines, who were deployed
1 at these fixed points, which is --
2 Q. Which fixed points are you referring to?
3 A. In military terms these are the observation
4 points. You usually take very dominant features of the
5 terrain for such observation points from which a
6 soldier could follow the situation at the front.
7 Q. Are they labelled on this map?
8 A. Yes, they are and they are marked here as
9 observation posts, position A, or post A; this was the
10 observation post in the Mosor area. Point or post B,
11 this is in the area of Studerak. Point C, which is an
12 observation post in the area of Bila, that is more
13 precisely Grbavica. Observation post D, which is in
14 the area of Kuber, and the observation post E, which is
15 in the area of Saragavica.
16 Q. Can you explain to the court first of all the
17 direction of fire and the reason why you concluded that
18 the artillery that had fired on that day was from point
19 1, remembering that you are not talking to military
21 A. The direction of the firing of the shell from
22 the artillery piece in relation to the location of this
23 particular -- at this particular map placed on the ELMO
24 would be direction from left to right; that is from the
25 area of Prahulje to the city of Zenica.
1 Q. That is broadly speaking a westerly
3 A. Yes, in relation to the city of Zenica it
4 would be the westerly direction.
5 Q. But on this map, it is not directly west. It
6 is not a straight line. Why is that?
7 A. It is not a straight line because the city of
8 Zenica is north of the equator, so the curvature of the
9 earth has to be taken into account, and then this is a
10 military map that is at the scale 1 to 50,000. I can
11 also observe that it has been copied several times, so
12 this is another generation, and this was just marked as
13 the area of Prahulje without taking the real grid
14 location marks, so that all this can account why it is
15 not a straight westerly direction in relation to the
17 JUDGE JORDA: Just for clarification,
18 Prahulje was mentioned several times and I do not see
19 this Prahulje on the map. Is it a map, a feature, a
20 hill? I do not follow. Just a clarification I would
21 like to ask.
22 A. Prahulje is a point, it is a location of a
23 hamlet and this is what I am showing with my pointer.
24 This is at the cross-roads of these two roads, at the
25 intersection (indicates).
1 JUDGE JORDA: I see it now, thank you.
2 A. That is correct, that is Prahulje, which is
3 why this area got the name, the whole area got the name
5 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you.
6 JUDGE RIAD: How far is it from Zenica?
7 A. This point, your Honour, is about 16,000
8 metres away from the city of Zenica.
9 Q. And 500 metres high?
10 A. Yes, the altitude is between 510 to 520
11 metres above sea level.
12 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you.
13 MR. CAYLEY: Can you explain to the court why
14 you concluded that the shelling had come from the area
15 marked 1, which is Prahulje or Puticevo, and that the
16 shells had not been fired from 2, 3, 4 or 5, where your
17 information confirmed that there were HVO artillery
19 A. On the date in question, the observation post
20 at point A relayed that around 12.15 they heard firing
21 and observed smoke coming from the position from which
22 the firing took place. This situation was repeated.
23 Q. Witness W, which numbered point is that on
24 this map?
25 A. It is the point marked with A.
1 Q. Where did they see the smoke coming from?
2 A. They observed the smoke coming from the area
3 of Prahulje.
4 Q. How is Prahulje marked on this map?
5 A. On this map, Prahulje are marked with
6 number 1.
7 Q. Please continue.
8 A. The firing was repeated nine times. The
9 information was received around 1700 hours. The
10 observation post marked with B in the area of Studerak
11 also reported that in the period of 1215 to 1300 hours
12 it had heard the firing coming from the position
13 number 1, and that the shells in relation to the
14 position of the observation post B came from the
15 direction of north west, going in the direction of
16 north east.
17 At the same time, from this same post, that
18 is observation post B, it was reported that the HVO
19 artillery at positions 2 and 3 at that point in time
20 was not active.
21 Q. You stated that the observation post at point
22 B heard the shells going in a north-easterly direction;
23 you mean that the shells were coming from the west?
24 A. I said that they were coming from the
25 north-westerly direction in relation to the observation
1 post, so from the north-westerly direction, north of
2 the observation post, in the north-easterly direction.
3 Q. Please continue.
4 A. This I stated in relation to the position of
5 the observation post B. The observation post in the
6 area of Grbavica, which is marked with C, also
7 confirmed the information that it heard the firing from
8 the north-westerly direction from position 1, and that
9 the HVO artillery positions 2 and 3 during this period
10 were inactive. In other words, the artillery was not
11 engaged in any activity, any firing at that time.
12 The observation post D also sent the
13 information that they heard firing from the
14 north-westerly direction, and that at the same time
15 they sent the information that the positions 4 and 5 of
16 the HVO artillery deployment were inactive. Identical
17 information, that is similar information, was furnished
18 by the observation post E, which is in the Saragavica
19 area, and the observers at the observation post E
20 provided not fully clear and unequivocal information,
21 saying that they have heard several shells passing by
22 north of their position which flew at a very low
24 Q. How did you establish the positions 1 to 5 of
25 the HVO artillery?
1 A. The positions of deployment of the HVO
2 artillery pieces in the Lasva River valley were
3 established through the statements of Bosniaks who
4 lived in those areas and who had an opportunity to
5 observe the engineering works of the HVO positions in
6 these areas, and that is the positions 1, 2, 3, 4 and
8 Q. You say "the engineering works"; by that, you
9 mean the levelling of ground in order to prepare an
10 artillery emplacement?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did any of these witnesses actually see the
13 artillery pieces there, in these locations, locations
14 1 to 35?
15 A. Several witnesses observed these artillery
16 pieces, and a number of Bosniaks gave us information on
17 positions marked 4 and 5 in very precise terms. This
18 is the area of Osvidak and Bare, where they were
19 engaged partially in setting up these positions such as
20 bringing in lumber and making shelters for storage of
21 the artillery shells. This information was confirmed
22 at the time when the conflict between the forces of the
23 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the HVO forces started,
24 because from the positions marked with 1, 2, 3, 4 and
25 5, starting on April 16th 1993, the HVO forces were
2 Q. I just have a few additional questions. If
3 the witness could now be shown Exhibit 229 again, which
4 is the city centre of Zenica.
5 Witness W, what was the nearest Bosnian
6 military installation in terms of distance in metres?
7 A. From the city centre in Zenica, that is the
8 position marked with 1, where the artillery shell fell
9 on 19th April 1993, the closest military position, that
10 is the position of deployment of the Army of
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina was at the location marked with 11.
12 That is the unit of the second battalion of the 303rd
13 Mountain Brigade, which was about 250 metres away.
14 Q. What is the margin of error with a 122
15 millimetres calibre artillery piece when firing from a
16 distance of 16,000 metres?
17 A. An experienced artillery person with this
18 weapon at this distance can hit the target within 10
19 metres range.
20 MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could now be shown
21 Exhibit 226/6 again, the photograph.
22 Mr. President, may I move over towards the
24 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, go ahead. If the Defence
25 would like to approach the witness as well, that is
1 possible. I do not know if you think it is necessary,
2 but you may if you like.
3 MR. CAYLEY: Can you demonstrate to the court
4 again the direction from which the shell was fired?
5 A. On the basis of the photograph and the
6 position of the impact, this is the position of the
7 impact (indicates).
8 Q. So approximately at a 45 degree angle from
9 the bottom left-hand corner of the photograph. When a
10 shell lands, does it not normally leave splash marks
11 forward of the impact point? Why are there no
12 splash marks in this area here?
13 A. The traces would be left had the shell landed
14 perpendicularly. That means that the marks or the
15 splash marks would be evenly sprayed around in relation
16 to the spot of the impact.
17 Q. So what you are saying is, had the shell
18 landed at a perpendicular angle to the ground, it would
19 have left a rose shape of shrapnel marks?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. At what angle did this shell land?
22 A. Based on the traces left in the street
23 pavement, and the gunpowder gases left, this shell
24 could only have landed at an angle which is between 40
25 and 44 degrees.
1 Q. And that is why there are no splash marks
2 actually forward of the impact point?
3 A. This is why there are no splash marks and this
4 is why you have the traces of the gunpowder gases.
5 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you.
6 One last question and I will be finished,
7 Mr. President.
8 JUDGE JORDA: According to the summary that
9 you made, the witness has really spoken about
10 everything that you mentioned. Ask your final question
11 and then we will take our break.
12 MR. CAYLEY: Witness W, you identified on
13 I think it is Exhibit 232, the position from which the
14 HVO artillery was fired, position 1. Do you recall
16 A. Yes, that was position number 1, the area of
18 Q. Under whose control was that geographical
19 area on 19th April 1993?
20 A. On 19th April 1993, this area was under the
21 control of the HVO.
22 Q. Do you have knowledge of the HVO command and
23 control structure?
24 A. In the command structure of the HVO at that
25 time in the area of Central Bosnia, there was the
1 Central Bosnia operation zone area of responsibility.
2 Its headquarters was in Vitez and it commanded over the
3 units in the Vitez area, the area of Travnik,
4 Novi Travnik, Bugojno, Busovaca, Kiseljak, Vares,
5 Kakanj, Zenica, Zepce.
6 Q. Artillery assets within that operational
7 group, under whose command did they fall, to your
9 A. Throughout the war, the artillery was always
10 under the immediate command of the officer who is in
11 charge of a particular area.
12 Q. Do you mean the officer in command of the
13 operational group or zone?
14 A. Yes, I mean the superior officer, that is the
15 highest officer who was at that time the commander of
16 the operational zone in Vitez.
17 Q. On 19th April, who was the commander of the
18 operational zone in Vitez, to your knowledge?
19 A. On 19th April, the chief officer or the
20 commanding officer of the operational zone in Vitez was
21 Mr. Tihomir Blaskic.
22 Q. And the artillery piece that you state fired
23 on Zenica on that day, under whose command was that
25 A. It could only have been under his command.
1 JUDGE RIAD: But he did not mention that when
2 he said that the headquarters of Vitez commanded over
3 Vitez, Travnik, Novi Travnik, Kiseljak. He did not
4 mention Prahulje.
5 MR. CAYLEY: Witness W, the area of Prahulje,
6 which area is that? Which municipality is that in?
7 A. Prahulje is to the south east of Travnik,
8 about 5 to 6,000 metres. In pre-war Bosnia-Herzegovina,
9 that is until the outbreak of war in the former
10 Yugoslavia, Prahulje used to be part of Travnik.
11 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you.
12 MR. CAYLEY: I have no further questions,
13 Mr. President.
14 JUDGE JORDA: All right, we are going to take
15 a break, we will resume at noon.
16 (11.35 am)
17 (A short break)
18 (12.05 pm)
19 JUDGE JORDA: We can resume the hearing now.
20 Have the accused brought in, please.
21 (Accused brought in)
22 JUDGE JORDA: Witness W, we will now --
23 Mr. Cayley?
24 MR. CAYLEY: In the break, my colleagues have
25 told me that there is some confusion about the angle of
1 flight of the shell, because of the use of one of the
2 photographs. I believe we can clarify very quickly by
3 using another photograph with the witness at the same
4 impact point to get him to explain in layman's terms
5 where the shell was coming from and the reason for the
6 pattern on the ground, so if I would be given five
7 minutes more, I believe he can explain that.
8 JUDGE JORDA: You, of course, will be the one
9 to decide, but if you want to clarify things, why not?
10 But he did tell us from where it was coming, did he
11 not? I do not want to get into a discussion about that
12 with you. If you feel there are clarifications
13 necessary, you can do it as quickly as possible.
14 Mr. Nobilo?
15 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, on two different
16 occasions we established the angle of the shell, first
17 time Mr. Cayley did it from his place and the second
18 time he approached the witness. I got up and asked for
19 a precise description, and I think this is just
21 JUDGE JORDA: If we are going to repeat the
22 direction, I think that the testimony of the witness
23 was detailed enough, he gave us all the various details
24 that we were looking for. Are you really referring
25 only to the 45 degree impact angle?
1 MR. CAYLEY: This is an explanation,
2 Mr. President, of why the shape of the splash marks is as
3 it is. What I want is to get the truth out, that is
4 what I am after. I do not think that has happened and
5 I believe --
6 JUDGE JORDA: You are not the only one
7 looking for the truth, you know. That is our first
8 priority. I have no problem with it, but let us not
9 leave any useful things in the shadows. But do it
10 quickly, please.
11 MR. CAYLEY: I will simply be showing the
12 witness one photograph and asking him to then make a
13 sketch plan on the ELMO to explain to your Honours
14 exactly why the splash marks look as they do.
15 JUDGE JORDA: All right, let us do that
17 MR. CAYLEY: Photograph 19, please. If
18 I could move across to the witness, your Honour?
19 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, of course.
20 MR. CAYLEY: Witness W, can you show the
21 judges where the splash marks are on this photograph
22 left by the fall of the shell?
23 A. The splash marks on this photograph are on the
24 hard surface where the shell fell, where they fell.
25 Then also you can see them on the remains of this
1 vehicle, so in relation to the crater, it is on the
2 right-hand side of the photograph, so you can see the
3 marks on the car. Then also the glass in the shop
4 windows, that was broken.
5 Q. Why are there no significant splash marks to
6 the forward or rear of the point of impact?
7 A. There are no significant splash marks to the
8 forward or rear in relation to the direction of the
9 shell because the shell came at an angle and there was
10 no obstacle in front of it. If this car should have
11 stood by chance in front of the position where the
12 shell fell, then it would have been significantly
13 damaged by fragments, or if there had been a wall, then
14 the splash marks would have been identical on this hard
15 surface. But because there was no obstacle, the shell
16 fragmented and the fragments flew around into the shop
17 window and the vehicle.
18 Q. Can you take a piece of paper and very
19 quickly, because we do not have much time, demonstrate
20 to the judges why there are no splash marks on the
21 ground forward or to the rear of where the shell
22 actually fell?
23 A. Your Honours, the shell falls on the ground
24 at an angle of 90 degrees. Upon impact, the fragments
25 splinter equally in all directions and according to the
1 splash marks, you have what we call a rose being
2 formed. If an artillery shell lands at an angle from
3 whatever direction, the lower part of the shell leaves
4 clear splash marks at the target or on the ground, and
5 it has the form of a semicircle.
6 MR. CAYLEY: Can you demonstrate just for this
7 particular shell, this shell impact, exactly what
8 happened, how the shell fell and why those marks are on
9 the ground as they are.
10 That is an exhibit, Mr. Hayman, yes.
11 MR. HAYMAN: Before it gets thrown in the
12 trash, I just wanted these diagrams to be marked as
13 exhibits in the record, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE JORDA: You are right, Mr. Hayman, to
15 say that. This might even be an essential diagram.
16 A. The shell, when it hit the ground, as I have
17 already mentioned, the lower part of the shell created
18 a hole and damaged the ground. The upper part of the
19 shell, as there was no obstacle in front of it, bits
20 flew around into the space around it, and on the
21 ground, there are only traces of gunpowder burning,
22 nothing else, whereas the ground in the direction of
23 the incoming shell is seriously damaged and you see
24 visible traces of damage.
25 MR. CAYLEY: So this exhibit, 232,
1 demonstrates a shell falling at a perpendicular angle
2 into the ground?
3 A. Yes, at an angle of 90 degrees.
4 Q. And this demonstrates the angle at which the
5 shell actually fell in Zenica in this photograph, in
6 photograph 19 of Exhibit 226?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And why are there no splash marks forward of
9 the shell on the ground?
10 A. There are no splash marks in front of the
11 shell because the shell had an impact fuse. The moment
12 it touched the ground, it went off, it exploded so that
13 there was only small damage at the point of impact and
14 the shell fragments, as I have already said, from the
15 top of the shell splintered, but they made significant
16 damage in the road and a small crater on the lower part
17 of the shell.
18 Q. So the forward force on this exhibit, all of
19 the shrapnel that went forward of the shell is
20 demonstrated on this motor car?
21 A. Yes, the shrapnel which flew around, their
22 traces can be seen on the remains of this car, on the
23 door of this car, and the back part of the car.
24 JUDGE JORDA: I would understand things
25 better if I could see the picture. What is the
1 direction of the shell? Could you show that to us with
2 the pointer? On the photograph, you can see there are
3 traces in black ink. Where does the shell come from,
4 from where?
5 A. (Indicates).
6 JUDGE JORDA: From that direction, all right.
7 MR. CAYLEY: So from the bottom left-hand
8 corner of the photograph, that is Exhibit 226/19. If
9 I give these to the Registry and then we can make
10 copies for counsel for the Defence. Thank you to the
11 court, thank you to the Defence for allowing me to make
12 the clarification.
13 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Nobilo, I suppose you have
14 been completely illuminated about this, so I suppose
15 you have no more questions about the impact?
16 MR. NOBILO: I am afraid nothing is clear
17 anymore, because this is quite contrary to what the
18 investigative judge said yesterday.
19 Could we please now have a closed session,
20 because I have a couple of questions which could
21 identify the witness?
22 JUDGE JORDA: Do you want a private session
23 or a complete --
24 MR. NOBILO: Private.
25 JUDGE JORDA: All right, a private session.
1 (In closed session)
13 Page 6043 redacted - in closed session
1 (In open session)
2 MR. NOBILO: Thank you. Witness W, I would
3 like to know which steps or measures, formal measures
4 did you take in the course of that investigation?
5 A. At the time, we went to the spot, I first
6 found a point to determine where the shell came from.
7 Q. Did you make a drawing of the position?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Did you determine with a compass where the
10 north was for each crater?
11 A. Sir, I orientate myself so well in the town
12 that I know exactly where the cardinal points are.
13 Q. With equal precision as you would with a
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Is there any written document on the basis of
17 which we could reproduce the exact impact of the
18 artillery shell?
19 A. There is no written document but there is a
20 document that was compiled on the basis of the
21 conclusions of the commander officer of the team, and
22 on the basis of those data from the spot and from the
23 field, the conclusions were made.
24 Q. But those are conclusions. I am asking about
25 a written document which could help us to reconstruct
1 the event, so let me ask you questions one by one. You
2 said that there was no sketch. Did you make minutes of
3 the investigation?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Did you make a plaster cast of the crater?
6 A. If I may tell you, sir, what would you do in
7 that position? Would you have undertaken all those
8 measures at the moment the shell landed? At the time
9 we did not have the conditions to do that.
10 Q. But you said you came in the afternoon. You
11 could have come ten days later, it would not have been
13 A. Yes, but I had no plaster.
14 Q. Therefore today there is no material written
15 trace of that investigation?
16 A. That is right.
17 Q. Will you tell me please what remains of the
18 shell were collected, and by whom?
19 A. The shrapnel were collected that were found
20 alongside the wall in front of the plateau opposite the
21 Borac department store, then the shrapnel found
22 alongside the destroyed car in the immediate vicinity
23 of position number 1, the shrapnel at position number 4
24 and the shrapnel at position number 6.
25 Q. Was the fuse found?
1 A. It probably was, I am not aware of that, but
2 as a team of European observers came out to
3 investigate, if they found the fuse, they have it.
4 Q. So you did not find the fuse?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did you have in your hands on a table those
7 shrapnel once they were collected?
8 A. I had the shrapnel in my hands and on the
9 table, those that we found subsequently.
10 Q. Were those shrapnel suitable for identifying
11 the type of shell?
12 A. For an expert in metallurgy, yes.
13 Q. How can you establish exactly the type of
14 shell used on the basis of those shrapnel?
15 A. On the basis of the shrapnel, an artillery
16 expert can ascertain the kind of shell they belong to
17 by the way in which it splinters.
18 Q. What is the difference in the splintering
19 between 120 and 122 millimetre calibre shell?
20 A. The difference is in the size of the
21 shrapnel, then the actual type of shell, whether it is
22 cumulative or some other kind. Then as I have also
23 mentioned, the shell is larger and the shrapnel are
24 larger in the case of a higher calibre shell.
25 Q. I asked you about the difference between 120
1 and 122 millimetre calibre. There is no --
2 MR. CAYLEY: Objection, your Honour. The
3 witness answered the question. The witness has
4 answered the question. He said the difference between
5 the two is the size of the shrapnel, the type of the
6 shell, whether it is cumulative or some other kind.
7 JUDGE JORDA: Between 120 and 122
9 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, the witness did not
10 answer my question, because he probably misheard me.
11 He was talking about the difference between a 152 and
12 122 millimetre shell. My question was 120 and 122
13 millimetre shell. How can he determine the difference
14 according to the size of the shrapnel?
15 A. I know that 120 millimetres are only for
17 JUDGE JORDA: All right, Mr. Nobilo, ask your
18 question. It was the difference between 120 and 122
20 A. The difference between a 120 and 122
21 millimetre calibre is 120 millimetre is the projectile
22 of a mortar, and 122 millimetre is the shell of a
23 Howitzer, of an artillery piece, so here again the
24 differences are considerable. In the case of artillery
25 pieces the wall of the shell is thicker, when we are
1 talking about 122 millimetres. Also the curve of the
2 shell differs from a mortar shell of 120 millimetres.
3 In the case of a mortar shell of 120 millimetres, the
4 wall thickness is smaller, it was produced using a
5 different method and the shrapnel are even smaller than
6 those in the case of 122 millimetre shell.
7 MR. NOBILO: Tell me, please, the shrapnel
8 that you collected, what was the size of those
9 shrapnel? How did it vary?
10 A. The size varied from a large walnut to a
11 diameter of 5 to 6 centimetres, about the length of a
13 Q. On the basis of those shrapnel, you said that
14 you could determine the calibre.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Is it possible to determine on the basis of
17 those shrapnel whether there was an additional charge
18 or not?
19 A. It is not possible to determine what kind of
20 charge was used on the basis of the size of the
21 shrapnel. The type of charge is defined on the basis
22 of the distance between the artillery piece and the
24 Q. Did I understand you well? You found the
25 place of impact and then you determined where the
1 artillery piece would be and then you said in order to
2 cover that distance, there must have been additional
3 charge, so you did not establish it on the basis of
4 material traces?
5 A. That cannot be established by those traces.
6 It is determined by the casing. The basic charge is
7 3,800 grammes and this means that the gunpowder charge
8 is 186 grammes, and there are four different degrees,
9 first, second, third and fourth and this depends on the
10 target aimed for.
11 Q. Talking about additional charge, if there had
12 not been any additional charge, from what maximum
13 distance could Zenica be hit?
14 A. From a distance of 14,000 metres.
15 Q. Is that the maximum distance?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. With 122 millimetre calibre shell?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. You gave us the parameters for the Howitzer
20 122 millimetres, and I think this is just --
21 A. Yes, this is a quote from a book.
22 Q. However, you did not give us full information
23 on what the artillery person is using when using a
24 Howitzer. What portion of the maximum distance is used
25 operationally? What is the usual standard?
1 A. Let me give you the procedure, so that their
2 Honours could understand it well. First the position
3 that is targeted is set out, and when the artillery
4 piece is first placed in the position, then the
5 geographic orientation is set out. Then the markers
6 are used, these are sticks two metres long and they are
7 about 30 millimetres thick, and they are marked with
8 red and white stripes. Then the phosphorescent
9 markings can be placed on them. These sticks are then
10 placed in front of the artillery piece, depending on
11 the distance of the desired target.
12 Let us say the artillery piece is where I am
13 right now. I would first determine the fixed position
14 of this artillery piece, its position in geographic
15 terms in the area. That is, I would determine the
16 direction of the north and together with my team, who
17 all man this artillery piece, I would mark the
18 directions in which I was going to operate.
19 Q. We understand that, but that was not my
20 question. What maximum distance does the artillery
21 personnel use for operational purposes? Is it not
22 true, in other words, that two-thirds of the maximum
23 distance is the operational distance that it is used?
24 A. It depends.
25 Q. What is it when used defensively?
1 A. Two-thirds for the defence purposes and
2 one-third for the enemy positions.
3 Q. The additional propellant is used in which
5 A. It depends on the personnel and it depends on
6 the purposes, let us say two-thirds up to one-half of
7 the third third.
8 Q. So what would that be in terms of percentage?
9 A. That would be about 85 per cent.
10 Q. Okay, what would be the maximum range without
11 the additional propellant?
12 A. The maximum range of the 122 Howitzer would
13 be 15,300.
14 Q. Earlier on, you said 14,000?
15 A. No, that was not the question that you had
16 posed to me originally.
17 Q. So what would be the 85 per cent of that?
18 A. 85 per cent of this, in this situation, given
19 where the artillery piece would be, would be from
20 15,500 to 16,000.
21 Q. Let me ask you one more time: what would be
22 the maximum range of the 122 millimetre Howitzer with
23 the standard propellant charge?
24 A. It would be 15,300 metres.
25 Q. Then how can we -- how do we get to the
1 number 15,500 to 16,000?
2 A. That would be --
3 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please
4 slow down.
5 JUDGE JORDA: It is going very fast for the
6 interpreters and for the judges as well. I would like
7 us to refocus the discussion. What is the influence of
8 the additional charge, and the theoretical maximum
9 range? Does one need -- for your demonstration, do you
10 need an additional charge? That is what it seems to
12 In any case, let us try to go a little more
13 slowly for the interpreters' sake and also for the
15 MR. NOBILO: Very well, I will try.
16 Witness W, what we are trying to clear up is
17 first of all the standard range of the 122 millimetre
18 Howitzer standard --
19 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, this question has
20 already been posed three times, the standard range.
21 JUDGE JORDA: Perhaps it was asked, I am
22 speaking for myself, not for my colleagues, but
23 personally I did not understand it very well, even
24 though the question was asked. I have no objection
25 myself to its being asked again, so that the judges who
1 are here before you will understand themselves. It is
2 also a request for the interpreters, so it is a simple
3 question: what is the maximum range. Let us try to
4 make these questions very clear.
5 MR. NOBILO: Thank you, Mr. President. Indeed
6 it is important.
7 What is the standard operational range of the
8 122 millimetre Howitzer of the standard charge?
9 A. It is 15,300 metres.
10 Q. Is this a maximum or the operative?
11 A. This is the maximum.
12 Q. I asked you about the operative. You told me
13 that up to 85 per cent is used as the standard range.
14 A. 85 per cent of the maximum range is used when
15 the artillery piece is used in defence and that is more
16 than two-thirds, in order to achieve the desired
18 JUDGE JORDA: 15,300 is the maximum range,
19 except for a defence protective position where you
20 reduce it by 15 per cent, winding up with 85 per cent
21 of the range. Have I understood correctly, Witness W?
22 A. Correct. When I am in a defensive position.
23 JUDGE JORDA: If the judge understood it,
24 then I think everyone will understand it. Continue,
25 Mr. Nobilo. What is your next question?
1 MR. NOBILO: Thank you. Let us move forward,
2 even though things are a bit contradictory. In order
3 to achieve the maximum range, what conditions have to
4 be fulfilled in order for a shell to reach the maximum
6 A. All conditions in terms of climate have to be
8 Q. What temperature would that be?
9 A. 15 centigrade, then the wind velocity does
10 not have to be great. Optically it has to be clear,
11 and also the artillery piece needs to be at a higher
12 altitude than the target, so that the range can be
13 achieved where the shell falls.
14 Q. What about humidity and the rest?
15 A. That is what I also tried to mention, the
16 atmospheric conditions have to be met.
17 Q. Based on the traces in the asphalt, in the
18 pavement, could you determine the calibre?
19 A. Yes, on the basis of the traces in the
20 asphalt, I could determine the calibre.
21 Q. How did you achieve that, through observation
22 or measurements?
23 A. Simply by observing.
24 Q. Let me ask you a similar question that my
25 colleague asked of you earlier. We are not artillery
1 persons, our source is Major Baggesen and we talk about
2 this rose or this splash mark. According to him, it is
3 the forward traces that it makes, and now you are
4 saying that it is backward.
5 JUDGE JORDA: I would like a question to be
6 asked, first. The question has not been asked, or at
7 least I did not hear the end of the question. You said
8 that according to the Major, the traces were in front.
9 What is your question, Mr. Nobilo. Does he agree, does
10 he not agree? Do you agree, do you not agree?
11 MR. NOBILO: I asked the witness whether on
12 the basis of what I asked him, does he still insist
13 that the splash marks are made backward rather than
15 JUDGE JORDA: That is a question.
16 A. When an artillery shell falls to its target,
17 the splash marks are made backwards if the shell hit at
18 an angle. The rest of the shrapnel wipe out everything
19 forward if there is no obstacle in front of them.
20 MR. NOBILO: You said that in photo number 6,
21 and this is Exhibit 226 -- could we please have the
22 usher show the witness Exhibit 226, the photographs
23 from Zenica? I would like photograph number 5 shown.
24 You said that in the photograph number 6 that
25 it was taken in front of the department store
2 A. That is not what I said. This is number 3
3 impact in front of department store Borac.
4 Q. Very well. Does this photograph correspond
5 to photograph number 5? Is it the same shell? Please
6 can we have the usher show the witness photograph
7 number 5.
8 JUDGE JORDA: Objection?
9 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I would like to
10 make a point that Mr. Nobilo made absolutely clear about
11 what Major Baggesen said. He did not state what
12 Mr. Nobilo stated. I have the transcript in front of me
13 here. His exact words were --
14 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Cayley, just a moment, let
15 us get some order here. Right now this is a
16 cross-examination. If you want to contest something
17 you can do it when you exercise your right of reply,
18 otherwise you are going to fall into a Romantic German
19 legal system and it is going to be a confrontation
20 between both of you, but I do not think that is really
21 what you are looking for. Let Mr. Nobilo do his
22 demonstration and after that, you can ask any further
23 questions you like. Do you agree to that -- you seem
24 to agree, although you seem to be resigned. All right,
25 but, of course, you have the right to your reply and
1 the right to be resigned.
2 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, this is your court,
3 I will do as I am told. I am just concerned when
4 previous witnesses' testimony is misrepresented to the
5 court, that is my only concern.
6 JUDGE JORDA: All right, think about what you
7 want to ask while this demonstration is being done.
8 Mr. Nobilo, what photograph are you trying to
9 show -- about which one do you want to show that there
10 is a contradiction? Go ahead, but please be clear.
11 MR. NOBILO: I do not want any
12 contradictions. I want to ask a simple question,
13 whether the photographs number 5 and number 6 represent
14 the same point of impact of the same shell?
15 A. Photograph number 5 was taken from the
16 direction of the department store Beogradanka, and the
17 arrow points to the point of impact of shell number 1
18 from which 16 people were killed and 30 injured.
19 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Nobilo, you asked a
20 question. We want to know whether this is the same
21 impact on photographs 5 and 6. That was the question,
22 was it not, whether it was the same impact. That is
23 your question, is it not?
24 MR. NOBILO: Correct.
25 JUDGE JORDA: Would you please answer, is it
1 from a different angle?
2 A. No, it is not the same.
3 JUDGE JORDA: All right, now go back to your
4 question using one photograph, I suppose.
5 MR. NOBILO: Thank you, yes. You said that
6 the shells impacted at an angle of about 40 to 45.
7 A. On average.
8 Q. Yes, on average. So at a distance of about
9 100 metres from the shell, what height is it from the
11 A. You would have to calculate it
13 Q. Have you done that?
14 A. No, not strictly speaking.
15 Q. You said that the point of impact was, the
16 angle was at 40 to 44 degrees. How did you determine
17 that, approximately or by some exact method?
18 A. In those moments, we only had some standard
19 equipment, anglometer and things like that.
20 Q. How did you use that?
21 A. Anglometer is determined first by the
22 azimut. Then you observe the point of impact itself,
23 the shape of the impact, and you compare the cavities,
24 that is you determine the centre point of this cavity
25 and then you calculate the angle.
1 Q. I am interested when you position your
2 anglometer at the surface; how did you do that?
3 A. You clear it up.
4 Q. What would be the deviation?
5 A. Five to eight per cent.
6 Q. Both plus and minus?
7 A. Yes, that is exactly what I mean, in both
9 Q. When determining the direction after 16
10 kilometres, how much deviation can you calculate there?
11 A. About one degree, so that would mean about
12 300 metres. This would be just my own estimate without
13 any measuring.
14 Q. Where are the fragments now, the shrapnel?
15 A. It is probably kept for this type of
16 situation, because it was mostly collected by the
17 European Monitors.
18 Q. What the military commission had?
19 A. That was, I believe, turned over, because at
20 that time they were the only type of body who did this
21 kind of investigation at the time.
22 Q. So you do not have these fragments any more
23 in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Who analysed the shrapnel in the Army of
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina? Who was examining them and who
2 said that it was calibre 122?
3 A. It was Huso Hajdarevic, specifically.
4 Q. How about you?
5 A. I did see them, I would have had to have been
6 an expert in metals or an expert in artillery to have
7 made a full analysis.
8 Q. You showed us a map, and I would like that
9 Exhibit 231 be shown to the witness, if the usher would
10 please do that. By showing with your pointer, could
11 you show us where the Serbian artillery was positioned
12 on Mount Vlasic?
13 A. In relation to position number 1, and please
14 follow the direction of my pointer, the Serbian
15 artillery was in this direction, which is
16 north-westerly of this position (indicates).
17 Q. Could you position your pointer between the
18 Serbian artillery and Zenica, so we can see where they
19 would have been, the angle?
20 A. (indicates).
21 Q. How many degrees is in this angle between
22 Vlasic and position number 1?
23 A. According to me, it is 50 to 55 degrees.
24 Q. Do you know the exact positions of the
25 Serbian artillery on Mount Vlasic?
1 A. At that time, the exact positions of the
2 Serbian artillery on Mount Vlasic was on the Vlasic
3 plateau, but they could not have reached the city of
4 Zenica with 122 calibre Howitzers.
5 Q. How about a bigger calibre?
6 A. With a bigger calibre, yes.
7 Q. Before this event, did the Serbs guarantee
8 the safety of Zenica -- shell Zenica? How about after
10 A. No.
11 Q. From what positions did they later shell from
12 the Vlasic plateau area?
13 A. From the area of Kukotnica.
14 MR. CAYLEY: Excuse me, I am not objecting to
15 the question, but we are missing a portion of an
16 answer, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, there are a lot of missing
18 parts in a lot of the questions. I have noted it.
19 I know that Mr. Nobilo dropped some of his questions,
20 perhaps he decided he would give them up as he went
21 along. But you have a good ear, it is true, there is a
22 missing part of this question, Mr. Nobilo.
23 MR. CAYLEY: I do not think it is Mr. Nobilo's
24 fault, I think the interpreters did not pick it up
25 because it is going so quickly.
1 MR. NOBILO: Maybe I can make the observation
2 that the Serbs were shelling with the calibre 130
3 millimetres, and that did not come into the record.
4 MR. CAYLEY: That was never asked, your
6 JUDGE JORDA: I think a lot of things are
7 getting confused here. I am glad that you said that.
8 Ask your questions, ask them again if you want, but do
9 not go that way. Do not just affirm things without
10 questions and answers being provided. We are kind of
11 lost in ballistics here. Perhaps this is the impact of
12 the break which is looming before us. Perhaps it would
13 be best for us to stop. In any case, we are not going
14 to finish this morning with Witness W, who also needs
15 to rest. Sharpen your equipment and we can start again
16 at 2.45.
17 (1.00 pm)
18 (Adjourned until 2.45 pm)
1 (2.45 pm)
2 JUDGE JORDA: We can resume the hearing.
3 Have the accused brought in, please.
4 (Accused brought in)
5 JUDGE JORDA: Witness W, did you have a
6 chance to rest up a bit?
7 A. Yes, thank you.
8 JUDGE JORDA: We can now resume. Mr. Nobilo?
9 MR. NOBILO: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 The question of 130 millimetre shells and 122
11 millimetre shells; can the difference between these two
12 calibre shells be noticed, judging by the shrapnel?
13 A. Yes, by the traces of the shrapnel.
14 Q. What is the difference?
15 A. The difference is that the crater of 130
16 millimetre gun is larger and the splash marks are larger
17 and longer.
18 Q. But can you judge by the shrapnel?
19 A. Yes, also by the parts of the shell, that is
20 by the shrapnel, one can define which weapon was used.
21 Q. What is the difference between 120 shrapnel
22 and 130 shrapnel?
23 A. The manufacture is different. I already
24 mentioned earlier on that a metallurgical expert can
25 easily distinguish between the two, because the quality
1 of manufacture between 130 millimetre and 122
2 millimetre shell differs; the way in which the shrapnel
3 break also differs, depending on what size shell is
5 Q. Could you explain to us laymen, what do you
6 mean difference in quality of the shell?
7 A. Well, you see, 130 millimetre weapon,
8 so-called boat cannon, is a far-reaching weapon and it
9 is used for destruction purposes. It is fired in order
10 to incapacitate facilities. Upon explosion, the shell
11 breaks up into larger parts, larger shrapnel, the
12 crater is larger and the traces are more visible is
13 compared to the 122 millimetre calibre gun.
14 On the other hand, the 122 millimetre shells,
15 their shrapnel are smaller, the wall of the shell is
16 thinner and the splash marks are smaller in relation to
17 those left by a 130 millimetre shell.
18 Q. How much thinner is the wall of the shell and
19 how much smaller in the average are the shrapnel of
20 122 shells as compared to 130 millimetre shell; could
21 you tell us that?
22 A. I would not be able to give you the exact
23 answer to that question, but it is visible. It can
24 easily be seen.
25 MR. NOBILO: Could I ask the assistance of the
1 usher to show the witness a map? It is a customary,
2 normal map from the former JNA of the area of Travnik,
3 and I would like to ask you to tell us whether next to
4 number 73, where it says "Oraske Stijene", are those
5 the slopes of Mount Vlasic?
6 If I may, Mr. President, I should like to
7 approach the witness.
8 JUDGE JORDA: Go ahead. If Mr. Cayley also
9 would like to approach, please do? As you like.
10 MR. NOBILO: I would like to ask you to show
11 us on the map on the ELMO where the beginning of Mount
12 Vlasic is, where it begins?
13 A. Mount Vlasic begins from the region of Mala
14 Peca, because the inclination is considerable and there
15 is a considerable difference in altitude here, because
16 Travnik is at an altitude of some 500 metres.
17 Q. Can you please show us the area of Mount
18 Vlasic that is visible on this map?
19 A. On this map we can only see the slopes above
20 Oraske Stijene, number 3093 on the chart, Oraske
21 Stijene. These are the beginning, the first slopes of
22 the plateau. Above there there are Paklarske Stijene,
23 which is further up Mount Vlasic.
24 MR. NOBILO: (Not interpreted). Could the
25 usher please bring us exhibit number 29.
1 THE REGISTRAR: I would like to point out
2 this is a protected witness and we cannot use the
3 camera to focus on the map.
4 JUDGE JORDA: What is the problem?
5 THE REGISTRAR: We would have to have a
6 completely closed session.
7 JUDGE JORDA: The features of the witness
8 must be hidden, so while we are showing the map, let us
9 have a completely closed session.
10 (In closed session)
13 Page 6067 redacted - in closed session
13 Page 6068 redacted - in closed session
13 Page 6069 redacted - in closed session
18 (In open session)
19 MR. NOBILO: I should now like to ask for
20 Prosecutor's Exhibit 91, please. Could it be placed on
21 the ELMO? Could the usher please take the pointer --
22 all right.
23 Would you please look at this picture and
24 tell us from what direction did the shell come in this
25 photograph, and will you put your pointer in that
2 A. The shell came in relation to this picture
3 from the direction of the bottom right-hand corner, as
4 the picture faces me.
5 Q. Could you tell me now, how do you determine
6 that this pointer which indicates the direction of the
7 shell is not five centimetres up or down? How can you
8 calculate that?
9 A. It could be 20 centimetres up or down, I am
10 not on the spot to be able to measure the traces, the
11 splash marks, to clean the actual spot and to determine
12 the central point.
13 Q. But to what extent would you say that this
14 pointer could be moved up or down and yet to correspond
15 to the traces on this photograph?
16 A. That depends on the situation on the spot.
17 Q. Can you determine on this photograph the
18 direction from which the shell came in view of the
19 splash marks left on the asphalt?
20 A. You know when using photographs that one can
21 only make rough estimates.
22 Q. Therefore, in your opinion, there is no
23 precise method whereby the direction from which the
24 shell came in view of the splash marks on the ground?
25 A. That is not what I said.
1 Q. Is there a precise method?
2 A. There is a precise method, which has to be
3 done on the spot, given all the optimal circumstances
4 and all the necessary resources.
5 Q. Will you tell us, please, what are those
6 conditions and what are the optimal resources that one
7 needs to have to be able to determine with precision
8 the direction from which the shell came?
9 A. To determine the exact direction of the
10 shell, or rather to define the impact angle of the
11 shell, the place has to be cleaned, the splash marks
12 copied using plastic or plaster. Then one has to
13 indicate the furthest point to which the shell left a
14 mark, and then take a photograph of that position from
15 all four cardinal points and from several angles, to
16 photograph at the same time the position of the
17 facilities around the place where the shell fell and
18 finally make an estimate.
19 Q. Therefore this is a highly specialised
20 approach to dealing with this problem?
21 A. Yes, if all the necessary conditions are in
23 Q. When we have all those conditions, and once
24 we have done all that, how do we do the calculation?
25 Is there a rule in terms of the range of the fan and
1 things like that?
2 A. Artillery men, people who are experts, define
3 this on the basis of the investigation, after all these
4 steps have been taken, and comparing their findings
5 with the range tables for that particular artillery
7 Q. The impact angle appears to be important from
8 the standpoint of distance, but what about the
9 direction, left or right?
10 A. It is also important for the direction,
11 because on the basis of this fan-like splash marks made
12 by the shell, the impact angle also affects the
13 direction, because upon impact, the shell leaves this
14 fan-like splash mark left and right of the point of
15 impact, and to the rear, there are very clear and
16 obvious traces, with a crater, and in the direction of
17 the incoming shell, or rather to the front of the point
18 of impact, those marks are less pronounced and few in
19 number. To the front of the shell, in most cases there
20 are traces of gunpowder gases following the explosion,
21 and this can be seen from this photograph which was
22 partly in colour, where you can see these gunpowder
23 traces to the left of the photograph from halfway up to
24 the top of the photograph.
25 Q. But you have not answered my question whether
1 there are any rules regarding the spread of gunpowder
2 gases and then, on the basis of those rules, can one
3 determine the direction?
4 A. Sir, for an artillery shell, if you have the
5 data and the parameters, before that up to a million
6 test shells are fired, so when you know this, then it
7 is easier to answer how one can establish with
8 certainty what kind of shell was used, what direction
9 it came from, at what angle and distance and so on.
10 Q. Did I understand you well, that every shell
11 does not leave identical splash marks?
12 A. That is why I said that up to a million test
13 shots are fired to get the proper exact parameters.
14 Q. On the basis of this photograph, can you
15 determine the direction from which the shell came?
16 A. On the basis of this photograph, as I have
17 already said, you cannot insist that I tell you whether
18 it is 5 centimetres up or down, but this is direction
19 from which the shell came.
20 MR. NOBILO: Can the technical department take
21 a shot of this as a photograph? I think we could use
22 it later on.
23 JUDGE JORDA: Would you speak a little more
24 slowly, please.
25 MR. NOBILO: Thank you. You have just told us
1 that in view of the fact that this is a photograph, the
2 assessment is five centimetres plus or minus, which
3 means a total of ten. You told us that deviation of
4 one degree in the angle of the impact angle implies 300
6 A. No, you have turned my statement upside
7 down. Your question was, if there is a deviation of
8 one degree in relation to the defined line of fire, how
9 does this affect the result, so you are misinterpreting
10 me. I said that if an estimate is made according to
11 which the azimut or the angle is 271 degrees, then the
12 artillery weapon means had to be moved by 300 to 500
14 Q. But that was my interpretation. Does that
15 mean if it is moved by ten degrees, that is ten times
16 more, by 3,000 or 5,000 metres, what would that mean at
17 a distance of 26 kilometres? If 130 millimetre calibre
18 shell is used, how will this effect the result?
19 A. The effect is much greater.
20 Q. Do you know how much greater?
21 A. I could not tell you offhand.
22 Q. This drawing that you must made, the blue and
23 red lines, what is the difference in degrees?
24 A. In relation to the position of the shell and
25 the firing positions in Prahulje and Kukotnica, those
1 are azimuts. You cannot compare the azimuths, where for
2 Prahulje it is 270 degrees and Kukotnica, where the
3 difference is 310 to 320 degrees, which is a difference
4 of 45 to 50 degrees in the azimut, if you know what
5 that means.
6 Please, let me explain myself. I am not
7 trying to convince anyone of anything, I just want to
8 make myself understood. If the north here according to
9 my view is camera number 3 that means in the azimut,
10 270 degrees would be the edge of this blue chair, so
11 that is the 40 degree angle. The difference between
12 the azimut, the 270 degrees -- if a weapon is in
13 Prahulje and a weapon in Kukotnica, then the difference
14 is increased by the difference in altitude. Prahulje
15 is 510 metres and Kukotnica is 1,510 metres altitude;
16 plus Kukotnica has a feature of 1,940 metres in front
17 of it, so there are considerable differences. You are
18 trying to lead me on to say that the fire came from
19 Vlasic. All the data that we have and my statement on
20 the basis of that data shows that the fire came from
21 the azimut of 270 degrees and that an artillery weapon
22 of 122 calibre, millimetre calibre was used.
23 Q. As we have no translation from Bosnian into
24 Croatian, I do not know.
25 A. According to me it is azimut.
1 MR. NOBILO: Is that the same as "angle"?
2 I am afraid we do not know.
3 JUDGE JORDA: I think that we get to where we
4 are going in this. You have your thesis, Mr. Nobilo,
5 the witness has his. We cannot spend the whole
6 afternoon on this issue, although I am not disregarding
7 the importance of that. I would like us as judges to
8 arrive at certain conclusions. We are the ones who
9 must be convinced. I have two questions.
10 Is it probable that the shell came from the
11 Serbian batteries, and second, what is your feeling
12 about that? These are the two questions. Is it
13 possible and is it probable? You have your ideas, but
14 I would like you to answer very simply; is it possible
15 or probable? We do not want to spend the entire
16 afternoon talking about photographs.
17 Mr. Nobilo, I think the witness has explained
18 his method, you have your thesis and the witness has
19 his. Is there a possibility, technically speaking,
20 that the shell came from Serbian batteries that would
21 be a certain number of kilometres from the HVO
22 batteries to which you have ascribed the origin of the
24 A. Your Honours, I am sorry that in my testimony
25 and through the questions of the gentleman we have
1 confused you. May I explain? At that point in time,
2 units of the Serb Army had batteries on the Vlasic
3 plateau, and that was 130 millimetre calibre gun, which
4 has a range up to 32,000 metres, which means that it
5 could reach the town of Zenica. Its firing position,
6 which has been defined, satisfies all artillery
7 conditions according to deployment and position.
8 At the same time, let me add at that time
9 this 130 millimetre cannon did not operate, did not
10 attack Zenica. 105 millimetre, 122 millimetre and a
11 Howitzer of 152 millimetre calibre were used.
12 JUDGE JORDA: You are answering the facts,
13 the events, saying what happened, conclusions you drew
14 from that, but this is not quite the technical answer.
15 In other words, if I have understood what you are
16 saying, it could have been a shell from those
18 A. Yes.
19 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you. I think that we can
20 move to another question now.
21 MR. NOBILO: What is the rule? Are artillery
22 weapons positioned on a hill or at the foot of a hill?
23 A. It depends on the situation and the commander
24 in chief.
25 Q. What is the rule?
1 A. The rule is a rule, but I am telling you, it
2 depends on the situation and the commander in chief.
3 Q. When asked by his Honour Judge Riad, you said
4 that the difference in altitude, that the altitude was
5 between 510 to 520 metres between the Zenica and the
6 place from where it was fired?
7 A. No, that is not the case. You confused it.
8 My answer was that the city of Zenica was at the
9 altitude of 310 to 320 metres above the sea level. The
10 positions of the artillery pieces, that is the 122
11 millimetre Howitzer at Prahulje was between 510 and 520
12 metres above the sea level, so the difference between
13 the position of the artillery piece and its target was
14 about 200 metres.
15 Q. When presiding Judge Jorda asked you a little
16 while ago, you said that Zenica was hit by 122
17 millimetre and 105 millimetre. Was that on that day?
18 A. No, I was talking in general and this is how
19 I responded to the presiding judge as well.
20 Q. You drew the trajectory between the artillery
21 piece in Prahulje and the target in Zenica. How did
22 you come to that calculation?
23 A. This is what the artillery specialist should
24 do. I just drew it in a lay method, so this is the
25 trajectory that a shell would take based on the initial
1 velocity, and it would follow this trajectory for about
2 two-thirds of the way, then it loses its speed, so
3 after having been fired, the shell -- after it was
4 fired from the artillery piece, it follows the
5 trajectory for about two-thirds, so it is not the full
6 one-half and it is not full two-thirds, so you could
7 characterise it maybe as two- or three-fifths of the
8 trajectory with full acceleration. After about that,
9 the trajectory becomes a descending ballistic
10 trajectory, so it would not be a fall but it would be a
11 gradual curve.
12 Q. But for the ballistic curve, how did you
13 calculate that? What is the formula?
14 A. Sir, I already mentioned, there are the
15 artillery experts. They take all the relevant
16 parameters and then calculate it.
17 Q. But that is not what you did.
18 A. What I did was draw what was asked of me by
19 hand and I can do it again.
20 Q. So it is not exact?
21 A. No, that is not the exact mathematical
22 calculation. From there you can just glean how and
24 Q. Thank you. On this map, you showed us the
25 observation posts A through E. Whose observation posts
1 were these, let us say observation post A. That is
2 exhibit number 231. Could you please put it on the
4 A. These observation posts belong to the Army of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina. After the conflict of 16th April
6 1993, the HVO forces at first were pushed away from the
7 city of Zenica towards the Lasva River valley, and also
8 from Bila and Guca Gora, so all these observation posts
9 belonged to the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, who were in
10 the immediate vicinity of the front-line between the
11 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the HVO.
12 Q. Could you define, determine these units?
13 A. I do not think there is a need for that.
14 Q. But could you?
15 A. Yes, I could.
16 Q. Would you do that?
17 A. Due to the national security reasons, I would
19 MR. NOBILO: But this is information from 1993
20 and this is a trial where a person's life is at stake.
21 Mr. President, would you please decide, since
22 we are talking about events of 1993 and the witness
23 refuses to divulge the name of the units.
24 JUDGE JORDA: First of all, I think this is
25 part of the examination-in-chief. The witness is
1 protected, I am not sure that this is the most
2 significant thing for you, even if you are the one who
3 judges your own strategy. The Tribunal has its opinion
4 as well. Therefore it is not necessary to go any
5 further in this type of question. Have you any other
6 questions you would like to ask, Mr. Nobilo?
7 MR. NOBILO: Yes, I do, thank you.
8 The reports on what artillery pieces were
9 operating at the time, was that a written or an oral
11 A. It was a written report.
12 Q. Did you see these reports?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Who told you this?
15 A. It does not matter.
16 MR. HAYMAN: I would just note for the record,
17 your Honour, these reports that have been related are
18 obviously hearsay statements. We are trying to
19 identify the source and the identity of the
20 declarants. We obviously cannot cross-examine this man
21 about it and if he refuses to answer, then we have
22 absolutely no way to identify the source of the
23 information and seek our right of cross-examination.
24 JUDGE JORDA: Do you want us to go back into
25 closed session, Mr. Hayman, Mr. Cayley?
1 MR. CAYLEY: A solution to this, Mr. President,
2 may be that we can take a break, I can speak to the
3 witness, find out what his concerns are and maybe bring
4 a solution so the Defence can get a reasonable answer
5 to the questions they are asking.
6 JUDGE JORDA: Very well. We will take a ten
7 minute break. Will that be enough for you, Mr. Cayley?
8 Is ten minutes enough? We will take a fifteen minute
9 break then.
10 (3.35 pm)
11 (A short break)
12 (3.50 pm)
13 JUDGE JORDA: We will now resume the
14 hearing. Have General Blaskic brought in, please.
15 (Accused brought in)
16 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Cayley, I hope that we had a
17 positive break. Rather a French expression to say a
18 positive break, but nonetheless I hope you had a
19 positive break.
20 MR. CAYLEY: We did, Mr. President. I think
21 there was a dual concern the witness had and I think it
22 should be put on the record to make it absolutely
23 clear. We all have to understand that 1993 was a
24 difficult time, there was a conflict going on in that
25 area, that these are still sensitive matters for the
1 Bosnian government.
2 The other concern I think by the witness was
3 that his identity would be apparent to the public if he
4 was to discuss these matters. He is prepared
5 specifically to answer two questions, and that is
6 firstly the units of the Bosnian army which were
7 present in those observation posts and he is prepared
8 also to clarify for Defence counsel the exact nature of
9 the reports that were made in respect of the HVO
10 artillery in that area, but his responses would be
11 limited in that manner and I would ask the court to
12 limit any cross-examination for the reasons that I have
13 just stated. And also a closed session, in order that
14 his identity is not released.
15 JUDGE JORDA: Private session and two
16 specific questions, Mr. Nobilo. Not a private session,
17 a closed session.
18 THE REGISTRAR: There will not be any type of
19 projection, so we do not have to have a completely
20 closed session, since we are not projecting anything.
21 JUDGE JORDA: Are you sure?
22 THE REGISTRAR: I would just like to know
23 whether there will be anything projected or if we are
24 just going to be showing maps.
25 MR. CAYLEY: These are verbal answers. There
1 should be no public transmission.
2 JUDGE JORDA: Right then, a private session
3 but no transmission to the public. What about the
4 transcript, is the transcript under seal as well?
5 MR. CAYLEY: It should be under seal, your
6 Honour, yes.
7 JUDGE JORDA: Only for these two questions.
8 Mr. Nobilo, the Prosecution has stated the two questions
9 that you can ask.
10 (In closed session)
13 Page 6086 redacted - in closed session
25 (In open session)
1 MR. NOBILO: In general, people from whom you
2 received your information as to where certain artillery
3 pieces were located, were these local villagers, did
4 they have expert enough knowledge so they could
5 distinguish the guns and Howitzers and particular
7 A. Sir, the situation is Bosnia-Herzegovina was
8 such that every child knew what a Howitzer was, what a
9 gun was, what an anti-aircraft gun was, what the hand
10 grenade was, et cetera, so the situation was such that
11 everybody had to know each weapon.
12 Q. Including calibre?
13 A. Up to a point. The expert people did know
15 Q. Am I correct in stating that there are
16 different kinds of firing position?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. In the operation zone in Bosnia, were there
19 different operational groups?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Am I right, and you can correct me if I am
22 wrong, that the Howitzer 122 millimetre belongs to the
23 class of brigade artillery pieces?
24 A. It depends on the operations.
25 Q. So according to the tactics?
1 A. Yes, it can belong to the brigade, it depends
2 on the types of combat operations that are being
4 MR. NOBILO: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Mr. President, this concludes my cross-examination.
6 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Cayley.
7 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I have but a few
8 questions to ask the witness. I anticipate in the
9 region of five to ten minutes.
10 JUDGE JORDA: But you are not going to go
11 back into teaching us a course on military ballistics,
12 because the court has received a great deal of
13 information on this subject and I think the witness
14 must be a bit tired. Go ahead, supplement or correct
15 certain points of the cross-examination.
16 Re-examined by MR. CAYLEY
17 Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Witness, is it normal to use an additional
19 propellant or charge in a shell?
20 A. Yes, it is very usual.
21 Q. What is the optimal range of a 122 millimetre
22 artillery piece with an additional propellant in the
24 A. I already mentioned that to the gentleman,
25 with additional charge or propellant which is the
1 fourth degree, the optimal range is nearly 18,000, or
2 more precisely 17,800 metres.
3 Q. Just a final clarification on this point;
4 what is the distance between the HVO artillery piece at
5 Puticevo and the impact points in the centre of Zenica?
6 A. The distance from the position of the
7 artillery piece in Prahulje to the point of impact in
8 the centre of the city of Zenica is about 16,000
10 Q. I am sorry, Prahulje is a more accurate
11 reference point on the map, but that is in the Puticevo
13 A. Yes, that is correct.
14 Q. You stated that the best evidence for doing
15 this type of examination is to be on the spot as you
16 were at the time and actually see the crater
17 physically; is that correct?
18 A. Yes, it is.
19 Q. Photographs can only really demonstrate the
20 techniques which you used at the time?
21 A. Yes, the photographs demonstrate the
22 technique and also show the history of what occurred.
23 Q. You were cross-examined at some length on the
24 difference in the positions of the artillery, the HVO
25 artillery at Prahulje and the Serb artillery on the
1 Vlasic feature. You stated to the President when he
2 asked you a question that it was possible for Serb
3 artillery to hit Zenica; do you recall that?
4 A. Yes, I do remember and again, I repeat, the
5 artillery of the army of Republika Srpska also had a
6 possibility to shell the city of Zenica, but with the
7 artillery pieces of 130 millimetre calibre.
8 Q. The shells that hit Zenica on 19th April
9 1993, is there any possibility that those particular
10 shells were fired from the Vlasic feature in your mind?
11 A. No, there is no doubt that these artillery
12 shells were fired from Prahulje and I cannot see a way
13 for them to have been fired from Mount Vlasic, given on
14 the trajectories and the splash marks as shown on these
15 photographs. I am really sorry that I did not have a
16 chance to explain to the gentleman here how this
17 actually looks in reality.
18 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you. We are just going to
19 show one photograph again, Mr. President, to try and
20 establish which impact point -- this is the photograph
21 that the Defence produced a moment ago. If the witness
22 could be shown that exhibit? I am not sure which
23 number it was.
24 MR. HAYMAN: The original photograph was 91,
25 your Honour. The reproduction with the chopstick is
2 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you, Mr. Hayman. So this
3 has become a new exhibit of the Defence then?
4 Your question, Mr. Cayley?
5 MR. CAYLEY: Witness, do you have any idea
6 which impact point this was of the nine shells that
8 A. I have an idea and I believe that I could
9 ascertain which one it was, even though I did not see
10 the surroundings. With your permission. The spiral
11 line here is a decorative piece of metal that is used
12 on the body of the Yugo 45 vehicle. From this crater
13 in the direction of the upper right corner, the
14 distance is about 2.5 to 3 metres. This is the
15 photograph of the first artillery shell that fell on
16 the city of Zenica, and which killed 16 persons and
17 seriously injured around 30 persons.
18 Q. Thank you. Witness, can you refer that
19 particular photograph to any of the larger photographs
20 that you have seen, which show the whole area?
21 A. I believe that it can be defined.
22 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, this is the last
24 If you could look through those photographs
25 and identify a photograph that was taken from a further
1 distance of that crater.
2 A. It cannot be defined based on photograph
3 number 4, photograph number 5.
4 MR. CAYLEY: Can I have the interpretation
5 again? Can it be defined?
6 A. Yes, it can, based on photograph number 4,
7 photograph number 5.
8 JUDGE JORDA: Excuse me, the judges do not
9 have the photo album either. Is there at least one for
10 the three judges?
11 MR. CAYLEY: We can place it on the ELMO,
12 Mr. President, you should be able to see it on the
14 JUDGE JORDA: Very well, all right,
15 I withdraw my comment.
16 MR. CAYLEY: Photograph number 5, please.
17 A. On photograph number 5, the crater is shown
18 and the marks are shown by the arrow where the
19 artillery shell impacted.
20 Q. Where was the forward blast of the shell? Is
21 there any object there which demonstrates the forward
22 blast of the shell, on that photograph that you have on
23 the ELMO.
24 A. On this photograph, I have no other objects
25 except for the passenger vehicle, which is the Yugo 45
1 model, which in relation to that point of impact is
2 turned in the direction of north east, and has been
3 destroyed as a result of the impact of the shell.
4 I refer here to the spiral shape of this ornamental
5 metal strip belonging to this vehicle. The shape and
6 outlook of the crater which was photographed from the
7 direction of north west.
8 JUDGE JORDA: Could we see where the north
9 west direction is on this photograph, please? The car
10 is north east, if I have understood that correctly.
11 A. I am sorry, the car is facing north east, so
12 you see where it is facing. So it is facing towards
13 the centre of the street.
14 MR. CAYLEY: Can you indicate from where the
15 shell came from?
16 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, that is the question.
17 Thank you, Mr. Cayley.
18 A. From this location (indicates).
19 Q. So you are indicating that the shell came
20 from over the top of those buildings?
21 A. Yes, the shell arrived from behind these
22 buildings, that is between the first and the second
24 Q. It landed where the arrow is?
25 A. Yes, it landed where the arrow is.
1 Q. And this vehicle, the Yugo 45, took part of
2 the force of the forward impact of the shell; in fact
3 was probably thrown sideways, I would think?
4 A. If there is a way to enlarge this photograph,
5 the car was parked -- in this photograph where
6 I defined the direction for the gentleman of the
7 Defence, the vehicle was parked at the very top left
8 corner, parked, but the explosion turned it so that
9 following the explosion it turned to face in this
10 direction, that is in the direction of north east,
11 looking from the photograph.
12 Q. Can you just place the small photograph back
13 on the ELMO? We have almost finished. Where did you
14 say the vehicle was parked?
15 A. The car was parked in the upper left corner
16 of the photograph.
17 Q. Is that not the upper right corner as you
18 look at the photograph?
19 A. From my -- I am looking towards the
21 Q. I understand that. As you look at the
22 photograph, it is the upper right-hand corner.
23 A. The top right corner.
24 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you. I have no further
25 questions, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you. Judge Riad?
2 JUDGE RIAD: Good afternoon.
3 A. Good afternoon.
4 Q. Witness W, when did you arrive on the spot of
5 the explosion exactly? Was it the same day of the
6 explosions, was it afterwards? When was that exactly?
7 A. It was on the same day, about 4.00 pm.
8 Q. Then you think that the outlook and the shape
9 of the crater was still intact completely?
10 A. Yes, I can assure you that it remained the
11 same until late into the night.
12 Q. Your conclusion, your very firm conclusion
13 was that it could be the result of 122 calibre and not
14 130 calibre, with the result that it could not have
15 been from the Serbian side? I am sorry for my question
16 as a layman, but I want just a clear view. You affirm
17 that according to your eye's witness, let us say, when
18 you arrived, you mentioned that it could be the result
19 of 122 calibre and was easy to be shot or to be
20 directed from Prahulje, since the optimal range would
21 be 17,800 and the distance was only 16,000, whereas if
22 it came from the Serb side, it should have been 130,
23 which did not result in the same impact. Is that
24 right? Did I gather rightly?
25 A. Yes, sir, you have understood quite clearly
1 that 130 millimetre weapon creates a larger crater and
2 larger splash marks which are visible. Its lethal
3 effect is greater than a weapon of 122 millimetre
5 Q. There was no trace of that, no trace of 130
6 millimetre calibre?
7 A. No, there were no such traces.
8 Q. Just another layman question. Is there a
9 possibility to know, judging by the impact on the
10 ground, what kind of weapon, I mean if it was a Serb
11 weapon or a Croat weapon, could you know from the
12 impact on the ground that the weapon was Serb or Croat?
13 A. On the basis of the impact itself, without
14 knowing the other data, it would be difficult to make
15 an estimate, because both the HVO and the forces of
16 Republika Srpska had identical weapons. But by
17 comparing the data, it is clearly possible to come to
18 the conclusion that the army of Republika Srpska could
19 only have fired from positions on Mount Vlasic using
20 artillery weapons, that is 130 millimetre gun, because
21 all other artillery pieces would not have had the
22 optimal range to reach the town of Zenica, because the
23 Vlasic plateau at that moment was the closest point of
24 the positions of the forces of Republika Srpska,
25 closest to the town of Zenica.
1 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much.
2 JUDGE JORDA: Judge Shahabuddeen?
3 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Witness W, correct me in
4 case I misunderstand your testimony. I understood you
5 to be saying that these shells were 122 millimetre
6 shells, is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And that on that day, it was not possible for
9 122 millimetre shells to reach Zenica from the Serb
10 positions on Mount Vlasic?
11 A. It was not possible, because the distance is
12 considerable between the Vlasic plateau and Zenica.
13 Q. Would your answer hold good even if the Serbs
14 were to use an extra charge?
15 A. Yes, because the distance between Zenica and
16 the Vlasic plateau is about 28,000 metres.
17 Q. That would exceed the range of shells of this
18 kind, even if they were used with an extra charge?
19 A. The end limit, the extreme limit for 122
20 millimetres is 18,000. Anything beyond that, there is
21 no point firing at it.
22 Q. Do bear with me. As you have heard from
23 counsel, we are all laymen in the court. We have to do
24 our best to appreciate and assess your evidence, being
25 the evidence of one who is more acquainted with these
1 matters than we are. Do answer me this question: can
2 different weapons discharge 122 millimetre shells,
3 different types of weapons I mean?
4 A. No, they cannot, sir. Your Honour, when one
5 mentions calibre, then we are thinking of the internal
6 diameter of the barrel, and the technical
7 characteristics every weapon has, including the
8 definitions of its abilities. Thus a 122 millimetre
9 weapon has its properties defined, and the same applies
10 for all other types of artillery weapons. Projectiles
11 are not of the same diameter.
12 Q. So the range of the shell would not be
13 dependent on the type of weapon used to fire it?
14 A. That is the difference, the range of a weapon
15 depends on the type of weapon.
16 Q. Let me follow this through, and do again bear
17 with me. The only claim I have to intervene in this
18 field is my encyclopaedic ignorance of it.
19 Could it be that 122 millimetre shell, if
20 discharged by one type of weapon, might have a range
21 which is different from the range which would be had if
22 the same shell was discharged by a different weapon?
23 A. If I may, let me try and explain. It will
24 take a little time, so I beg your indulgence.
25 Your Honours, this is, of course, in simplified form to
1 make it more easily comprehensible. Every artillery
2 weapon has its own calibre and the calibre is the
3 diameter of the barrel, through which the projectile is
4 fired. Therefore no other calibre can fit. For
5 example, if you have 122 calibre, you cannot use 152
6 calibre shell. In such a case, the persons manning the
7 weapon would get killed and the weapon itself would be
9 There are also differences regarding the
10 discharge chamber, the firing chamber, because a 122
11 millimetre Howitzer uses a shell. 152 Howitzer gun
12 uses separately the shell and the gunpowder filling.
13 They are not together -- charge. An M46 also uses
14 separately the shell and the charge, that is the
15 difference. So let me further explain with an
16 example. 152 millimetre projectile cannot be put into
17 a 122 Howitzer or 133 millimetre cannon, because their
18 diameters of the barrels and of the shells differ.
19 Q. All right, I thank you for the lesson.
20 A. I apologise. I am sorry.
21 Q. I do not particularly wish that drawing to be
22 made an exhibit, but if it is the wish of the parties
23 that can be done. Very well. Could you answer me this
24 other question? You spoke of an extra charge being
25 used to launch these projectiles. Did you see any
1 physical feature on the ground which indicated to you
2 that an extra charge must have been used?
3 A. Your Honour, I have already explained. An
4 additional charge is used to achieve a desired effect.
5 It can be seen and ordered only by the superior officer
6 in command of the firing positions where the weapons
7 are positioned and the crew manning those positions.
8 Q. You do well to remind me of that, but
9 actually my question was directed to a different
10 point. Was there anything on the ground which
11 indicated to you that an extra charge was used?
12 A. There were no traces on the ground, but by
13 comparing all the data regarding the capacity of such
14 an artillery weapon, and its positions from where it
15 fired against the town of Zenica, they led us to
16 conclude that an additional charge was used.
17 Q. Let me explain that I am trying very hard to
18 follow your reasoning processes, the process of
19 reasoning which led you to the conclusion that an extra
20 charge was used. It was not based on any finding of
21 any physical feature on the ground. As I understand
22 you, and you correct me, your reasoning process was
23 this: that on analysis of the physical features
24 relating to the point of impact, you concluded that the
25 line of fire was directed to Prahulje, and then you
1 reasoned backwards to say, "well, it could have come
2 from Prahulje if an extra charge was used", and
3 therefore as you concluded that it did come from
4 Prahulje, your final conclusion was that an extra
5 charge was used; was that the process?
6 A. Yes. Upon arriving on the spot I defined it,
7 the splash marks and the traces and determined the
8 calibre. By comparing the subsequent data that we
9 obtained through exchange, it was confirmed what kind
10 of weapon was used and the assumption as to where it
11 came from, and defining the distance from the point of
12 impact to the position of the artillery weapon led me
13 personally to conclude that an additional charge had to
14 be used and was used, additional to the regular charge.
15 Q. Thank you. One last question, you arrived on
16 the scene I think at 4.00?
17 A. Yes, about 4.00.
18 Q. Where were you when the shells actually
20 A. When the shells were falling, I was in the
21 brigade headquarters.
22 Q. Were you within hearing distance of the
23 falling shells?
24 A. Of course, indeed.
25 Q. Did you hear the shells coming in?
1 A. No, I heard them falling, when they fell.
2 Q. Only when they impacted and exploded?
3 A. Yes.
4 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Thank you.
5 JUDGE JORDA: A final question, Witness W,
6 after this very long and tiring testimony, but as my
7 colleague said, you have given us quite a course on
8 ballistics and now we know ballistics better.
9 In your opinion, all of these fires, could
10 they have been directed at military targets? Could it
11 have been the result of an error, that is the fact that
12 there were so many civilian victims? Were there
13 military strategic military targets that might have
14 been the target in fact of that firing?
15 A. Your Honour, if it is in my personal interest
16 to destroy a strategic military target, I would
17 certainly not target it when there is the greatest
18 frequency of people in the square in the centre of the
19 city. That is my first point.
20 Secondly, my artillery weapon would be
21 directed towards its target, and thirdly, the HVO knew
22 very well where the military strategic targets in the
23 city of Zenica were situated.
24 Q. Therefore in your opinion there were no shell
25 impacts near the military facilities, for example the
2 A. No, sir, because the closest military
3 facility was about 250 metres away. That was the
5 Q. A final question. I noted that you spoke
6 about fragmentation. The shell that was used, was that
7 a fragmentation shell?
8 A. If I may? Let me try and explain to make
9 things clearer. In the first place I must apologise to
10 the ladies, I hope they will not misinterpret my
11 drawing. An artillery shell is cast, it is cylindrical
12 in shape, it is rounded in front and there is a fuse
13 attached to it. Inside, there is cast trotil and the
14 purpose of that is upon impact the time fuse, it is one
15 of the possible types of fuses for artillery shells,
16 ignites and detonates the explosive within the shell,
17 and at that moment, the shell fragments. Its
18 fragmentation is evenly distributed to all sides, if it
19 impacts under right angles in relation to the target.
20 However, if the impact is under a different
21 angle other than a right angle, then the fragmentation
22 is again the same, but the splash marks are different.
23 So as to not to confuse you, this is a standard
24 artillery shell charged with trotil. There are also
25 so-called "cassette" artillery shells.
1 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you. I believe that
2 Judge Riad has another question he wishes to ask.
3 JUDGE RIAD: Witness W, you just mentioned to
4 the President that the shells fell in the centre of
5 town something like 250 metres away from any military
6 installation, and that the place of these military
7 installations were well known by the HVO. My question
8 is, what is the margin of error in launching any shell
9 by a military expert, and not by a layman like here?
10 What is the margin of error?
11 A. Your Honour, may I correct you? The closest
12 military facility from the position where the shells
13 fell is about 250 metres, and for an experienced
14 artillery man, and given all the necessary atmospheric
15 conditions, climatic, the qualitative choice of
16 position for the artillery weapon, then the target will
17 be hit within a range of 10 metres.
18 Q. You said the shelling was around midday, was
19 it, in broad daylight, was it? Or was it at night?
20 A. It was at 12.15, when the plateau was
21 crowded, full of people, as we Bosniaks say, "God
22 forbid". Had that shell fallen 20 metres further away,
23 the minimum number of casualties would have been
24 between 150 and 200, and among them the most numerous
25 were elderly people and small children.
1 Q. If you remember, what was the atmospheric
2 conditions like and the visibility conditions at that
3 time? Was it completely clear or was it completely
5 A. As far as I can recollect, it was a fine
6 spring sunny day, without any strong wind, which is one
7 of the conditions required for the precision operation
8 of artillery weapons.
9 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much.
10 JUDGE JORDA: Witness W, we have now
11 completed this long testimony. The Tribunal thanks
12 you, both for the competent information which you have
13 given to us and the availability which you showed both
14 to the Prosecution which called you here and the
16 The judges will now take approximately a 15
17 minute break, since we have already had one, and we are
18 going to finish our work at about 5.45, therefore we
19 will start again at around 5.00. Please do not move
20 yet so that your protection can be ensured.
21 (4.45 pm)
22 (A short break)
23 (5.10 pm)
24 JUDGE JORDA: We will now resume. Have the
25 accused brought in, please.
1 (Accused brought in)
2 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Kehoe, I am looking at the
4 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, if I may.
5 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Nobilo, yes?
6 MR. NOBILO: My apologies, we forgot to offer
7 into evidence the exhibits that we used. I had them
8 all marked down. I think they were 81, 82 and 83 and
9 they consist of the plastic foil that was put over the
10 map, the photograph.
11 JUDGE JORDA: No objection on the part of the
13 MR. KEHOE: No, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Kehoe, looking at this
15 week's schedule, if I am not wrong, we still have three
16 witnesses to hear between now and 5.45 in order to
17 complete your schedule.
18 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I do believe, with
19 all due respect, that several of those witnesses will
20 be spending the weekend with us. I do not think it is
21 feasible for us to get through three witnesses. We
22 will carry them over until next week.
23 JUDGE JORDA: Very well.
24 MR. KEHOE: For the most part, I think we can
25 move through those witnesses relatively quickly, but
1 I really do not see any other alternative at this
3 JUDGE JORDA: Very well. Now we are going to
4 have a witness who is not covered by protective
5 measures, is that correct?
6 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, to the contrary.
7 I believe at this point, and I have raised this with
8 counsel, that this witness, because of his position,
9 would mandate a closed session, in that because of his
10 position, discussing the various matters that he will
11 discuss, people will know who he is.
12 JUDGE JORDA: Did you agree with the
14 MR. HAYMAN: We do not know who is next, your
15 Honour. We have had various discussions about
16 protected witnesses and I accept Mr. Kehoe's
17 representation, but I am not sure exactly who the next
18 witness is. I accept counsel's representation though.
19 JUDGE JORDA: Maybe because this is Friday
20 afternoon, but I suppose that is why you are in
21 agreement in principle, even though we do not know
22 which witness it is. I see the Defence is contributing
23 to our discussions here. Very well, you are not going
24 to give us the name of the witness, but we will go into
25 closed session, but through the Registrar I would like
1 to have the witness's name given to the Defence
2 immediately, but do not state it until we have -- since
3 we are going into closed session.
4 (In closed session)
13 Pages 6111 to 6122 redacted - in closed session
17 JUDGE JORDA: We will continue the testimony
18 on Monday at 10.00. The court stands adjourned.
19 (5.45 pm)
20 (Hearing adjourned until 10.00 am
21 on Monday, 26th January 1998)