1 Monday, 23 April 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Whiting.
7 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 I wonder if I could just briefly raise a procedural matter before
9 we begin.
10 We have a witness, Witness 156, who is scheduled to testify on
11 Thursday. Last week we filed a Rule 70 motion with respect to this
12 witness for -- for certainly Rule 70 conditions, and we also filed a 92
13 ter motion with respect to this witness. Both could only be filed last
14 week because of the -- we only got the statement a short time ago.
15 In order to have the witness testify on Thursday, we would, of
16 course, need an expedited response from the Defence and a decision from
17 the Trial Chamber on those matters, and I wonder -- we just request that
18 that would be possible. Thank you.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, you can request that of the Chamber, but
20 I'm not -- I'm not aware of this practice where the Chamber makes these
21 requests of the Defence. I don't like it, and I was asked by my staff to
22 do it last week, and I didn't. I think you should find out from them
23 whether they will forgo their right to respond within a particular time.
24 That's a matter between you and the Defence. We will give an expedited
1 But let me just ask: Do you know about this? I think your
2 response would be due -- when would their response be due?
3 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I can't say when the exact date is, but
4 it would be due -- if the 14 days were allowed then it would be obviously
5 sometime next week probably after the end of the Prosecution case.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Well, I -- Mr. Tapuskovic, I believe the
7 situation is a little understandable because the Prosecution only got word
8 from the particular government recently. This is a Rule 70 matter, and so
9 they wish to find out whether you would be able to provide a response
10 immediately, I suppose, because the witness is due to testify on -- on
12 If you need time to advise yourself, then say so.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, of course we don't
14 need any time. A witness from that country had already been here and we
15 are not opposed to having the same situation with regard to this witness
16 as well.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much. We'll -- the Chamber will
18 now -- give its decision later today.
19 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I think counsel addressed the Rule 70
20 conditions; we also filed a 92 ter motion. I don't know if Defence
21 counsel would be in a position to respond --
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, more is being asked of you, Mr. Tapuskovic.
23 What is your -- you also have to give a reply in relation to the 92 ter
24 motion. I think that reply is formally due on the 3rd of May.
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm actually
1 focussed on what I'm about to do on during the next few minutes. So could
2 I please be given leave to respond after the first break?
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, certainly. Yes.
4 All right. We'll get the response later. So let us proceed now
5 with the cross-examination.
6 WITNESS: BERKO ZECEVIC [Resumed]
7 [Witness answered through interpreter]
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Tapuskovic: [Continued]
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. And
10 I'll try to continue from where we broke off last time.
11 Q. Mr. Zecevic, could you first ask you something: In order to deal
12 with that document that I showed you last time, and we didn't manage to
13 deal with it fully, I would like to ask you once again about your
14 statement made on the 26th and 27th of February, 1996. That is D 170,
15 Defence exhibit D170.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] But before that, Your Honour,
17 Judge Robinson, could the court deputy please tell me how much time I have
18 left approximately from the time that you've already granted to me?
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: You have one hour and 12 minutes, and nothing
20 obliges you to use all of it.
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, I hope, if need be, you may
22 even add a bit more time to that, if necessary, but I will do my best for
23 it not to be necessary.
24 So could we now please look at page 2.
25 Q. If you remember, you told me that after the first air bomb that
1 fell on Zuc in January, late January 1994, you spoke to General Arif
2 Pasalic - is that right? - and then you made an offer to elaborate a study
3 on air bombs for the interests of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, yes or
5 A. No. It was not a study but it was a survey of the effects of
6 air-fuel bombs. There is a difference involved. And it wasn't for the
7 army. It was just by way of information which was done over a few days.
8 Q. But you spoke to this general and you did that?
9 A. After I saw the effects in January 1994, I thought that it was my
10 duty to inform them of the fact that this was a new type of weapon that
11 had been used in activities aimed against the city.
12 Q. In your statement here, somewhere in paragraph 4 on page 2, you
13 say the following. You say that you carried out an investigation in
14 relation to the shelling of Markale 1 on the 5th of February, 1994. Is
15 that right?
16 A. Yes, that's right.
17 Q. And in the next paragraph it says: "I volunteered to investigate
18 the shelling of the Markale market."
19 Is that right?
20 A. Yes, because I heard that it was improbable to establish where the
21 projectile had come from. I believe that it was possible to determine
22 where the projectile had been fired from on the basis of a proper
23 analysis. So that's the reason.
24 Q. What is written here is that you stated the following: "When I
25 heard that General Smith of UNPROFOR stated that it was impossible to
1 determine the origin of fire, I decided to contact the Security Service
2 and asked if it was possible for me to conduct an investigation on this
4 Is that right?
5 A. Yes, that's right.
6 Q. They agreed, right?
7 A. That's what it says here, yes.
8 Q. And then you went to the actual site, as it says so here, and you
9 introduced yourself to the investigation judge and the investigating judge
10 agreed that you would be the expert?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And it's not only that you were an expert then at that point in
13 time, but you were an expert later at the trial of General Galic before
14 this Court?
15 A. Yes.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Just to be sure, Markale I, was that a mortar
17 grenade explosion or was that a modified air bomb? I think I recall it
18 was a mortar attack, but could you please check.
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes. It was a mortar
20 shell, yes. Markale, the month of February.
21 Q. And this is what it says in the next paragraph, that you stated,
22 that is. "I did not agree with the opinion of General Smith because the
23 Chetniks and the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina used different shells. The
24 shells produced in Sarajevo were not made of wrought steel, but from
25 pieces of steel or cast steel. By examining the fragments of a shell one
1 can see what kind of steel was used to make the shell."
2 Is that right?
3 A. Well, the translation is not very accurate but that would be it,
5 Q. As you stated on Friday you worked on the manufacture of weapons.
6 Therefore, thanks to your experience from arms manufacturing, on the basis
7 of the quality of the shells, did you make an assessment of your own as to
8 where this shell had been fired from?
9 A. No, no. On the basis of a dynamic analysis of what happened at
10 the target and when the stabilisers were found. That was the reason why I
11 reported. It doesn't have anything to do with my investigation. My
12 investigation was based on something completely different and was
13 presented to this Court here in the Galic case, and in the Slobodan
14 Milosevic case. In both cases, I analysed the situation in detail.
15 Giving indications where the possible firing sites were, and it was
16 established beyond any doubt that the projectile had been fired from a
17 minimum distance of 4.6 kilometres from the actual site.
18 If you look at this here, it is clearly stated what the reasons
19 were why I decided to report and, once I did, there was a clearly defined
20 procedure. My study is here in this court and I presented it several
21 times. If necessary, I can repeat it briefly.
22 Q. Thank you. Mr. Zecevic, can we say, in view of the fact that you
23 volunteered to do this, that your motives to do so were the same as when
24 you offered your services when the first bomb fell in January 1994? The
25 motives were that you should help the interests of the army of
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina and your people?
2 A. Excuse me, what's "the first bomb"? There is a bomb in 1994, a
3 modified bomb, and then in 1995 when I was appointed by the investigating
4 judge to be a member of the commission. So what exactly are you referring
6 Q. I'm referring to the first bomb that was fired at Zuc on the 29th
7 or the 27th of January, 1994. That is to say, a year and a half before
8 the second bomb.
9 A. First of all, in my material in my study it says clearly that a
10 student of mine came to pick me up and he asked me to come and have a look
11 at the leftovers of a new piece of equipment that had been used. I came
12 there and I gave my opinion.
13 Let me just inform you of the following. My reporting on the 5th
14 of February, 1994, was an act of reporting to a legal judge. Not to the
15 army of Bosnia-Herzegovina but to a government organ of the government of
16 the Bosnia-Herzegovina, a normal state body. So a judge is a legal
17 investigating organ. I reported to him, not to any military organ, and I
18 worked within judicial instances.
19 Q. Yes, Mr. Zecevic. But first you were at the centre of the
20 Security Services Centre.
21 A. No. Oh, no, not at -- the centre is the centre of public
22 security, not security services, because an acquaintance of mine was in
23 charge of the Krajlic investigation service there and he was in charge of
24 that investigation.
25 Q. I know full well what public security is and I know even better
1 what state security is. So tell me what is correct, what is written here
2 or whatever?
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Whiting has an objection.
4 MR. WHITING: I think that is argumentative that -- the way that
5 question is phrased. "I know full well," and so forth. I think that's
6 arguing with the witness.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, let us just attend to the latter part of
8 the question, which is: "Tell me what is correct, what is written here or
10 What is the answer to that?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I want to the normal police where
12 the head of the crime investigation service who was a colleague who had
13 worked with me until 1993 in the centre for military industry. We were
14 then disbanded, this centre was, and he went there to the crime
15 investigation service to head that service. Since I had his telephone
16 number, I rang him up; that can be checked. It's in that study of mine
17 that was submitted here. This is imprecise. It should be the police, the
18 public security station, whatever the exact wording may be. But that's
19 what it was.
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Thank you. It seems to me that you don't understand me.
22 A. I understand you excellently.
23 Q. Please let me finish my question, and let us bear in mind that I
24 should finish my question so that we do not overlap. So please hear me
25 out and then answer.
1 I have your report on air bombs here and when you spoke about the
2 first air bomb you said that one of your students came to see you and this
3 was in 1994. But here we're talking about Markale on the 5th of February.
4 Over there you do not mention at all any student of yours.
5 As for Markale, you never mentioned that. Could you explain that
6 to the Trial Chamber?
7 A. I didn't understand you. I did not mention a student for Markale.
8 You got the two mixed up, two different cases. Markale. When I heard on
9 television what it was that had happened and that the official position of
10 UNPROFOR was that it was not possible to identify what was necessary to
11 identify, I called a colleague of mine, not a student, with whom I had
12 worked until June 1993 in the same unit and he had become the head of the
13 crime investigation police in Sarajevo, and I told him then that it was
14 possible to determine precisely where the projectile had been fired from
15 and to assess the possible launch sites and then he called me.
16 Q. Thank you. You never stated that before and I categorically
17 assert that. I'm asking you: Was it the security service or was it the
18 public security?
19 A. I state clearly that it was the public service police.
20 Q. Thank you. Now, we're getting to the document that I showed you
21 last time, and it is for the Trial Chamber to see ultimately whether this
22 document can be taken into account as something that should be admitted
23 into evidence.
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] So could the witness please be
25 shown D171 now, please, the last page of the document.
1 Q. As you can see on the document, and we have the version in the
2 B/C/S -- well, not yet, it seems. Last time I showed you the conclusions
3 of the document, and I do not want to read it out yet again. But
4 according to the conclusions the 5th of February Markale explosion was
5 most likely carried out in static conditions. That is one argument.
6 Another argument is that it could not have been fired from the Serb
7 positions for it would have detonated on the roof of the building in that
8 case. I wanted to show you the first sentence in that document whereby
9 you say: "Professor Zecevic handed the team a photocopied report by a
10 Serbian mortar expert scientist, Miroljub Vukasinovic."
11 Is it correct that you had that document in your possession, and
12 is it correct that you handed it over to the investigation team, the
13 people that you talked to?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In the last sentence you say: "Professor Zecevic stated that
16 whilst of course the incidents are separate, the information contained
17 within the report is of relevance to the -- February the 5th, 1994,
19 Can you explain what was the significance of that information and
20 how did you assess them?
21 A. It doesn't say here that they were significant for my work. It
22 just says that the report was of relevance for the 5th of February
23 incident. It wasn't important for my study. It concerns the following.
24 My learned friend, Mr. Vukasinovic, in that document analysed an important
25 issue. Once we have a detonation of a projectile, a mortar projectile, it
1 has the casing and the stabilisers, which is rather heavy. The very
2 casing of the mortar round fragments into several thousand small pieces,
3 which have the speed of some 12 or 1300 metres per second or down to 800
4 in certain areas. The stabiliser cannot be destroyed. It separates from
5 the rest of the body. Depending on whether there is a stabiliser found at
6 the place of impact, if we find it, then the speed with which the
7 projectile hit the ground was approximately the same as at the firing. If
8 the stabiliser was not found, then the round speed was less than at the
9 moment when the stabiliser separates from the body.
10 If the stabiliser buries itself in the ground, we can state that
11 the minimum speed was far greater than the speed of separation of the
12 stabiliser. These are important data based on which it can be determined
13 where the firing occurred approximately. The deeper the stabiliser is in
14 the ground, the distance is greater, the distance where it was launched
15 from. In the case of Markale 1, the projectile was almost 200 millimetres
16 in the ground, which indicated that the place of firing was at least 4.6
17 kilometres or more, having in the mind the angle of descent registered.
18 As for Markale 2, the stabiliser found was next to the place of
19 incident, which means that the speed, when the stabiliser separated,
20 indicated that the projectile had been fired with a different charge for a
21 mortar round. Based on that, we can conclude as to the distance from
22 which the projectile was launched, and we also knew the angle of descent
23 and it was fairly easy to determine the distance --
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much.
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. This is what I wanted to ask you: Professor Vukasinovic is a well
2 known scientist. He is considered to be someone who knows his math and he
3 used mathematical formulae to reach his conclusions?
4 A. As I said, the theoretical approach he used was very correct;
5 however, some entry data wasn't. And you can see here I'm not saying
6 that --
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, let counsel put his question.
8 What's the question you are putting?
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. So, if we look at what you said, that he presented a fair
11 argumentation, are there any grounds in this statement of his, based on
12 your assessment and conclusions, that the explosion of the 28th of August,
13 1995, was carried out in static conditions?
14 A. I would mike a distinction here. My learned friend,
15 Mr. Vukasinovic, is a good expert, and I have known him for a number of
16 years; however, I cannot discuss his code of ethics, i.e., whether someone
17 would intentionally use wrong data so as to manipulate the result. In the
18 Galic case, I was asked by the Prosecutor to provide my comment concerning
19 several mortar rounds that had previously been studied by Dr. Vukasinovic,
20 Dr. Stamatovic, and another doctor from Belgrade. In the part done by Mr.
21 Vukasinovic, there were many entry pieces of information that were wrong.
22 In the study you mentioned, there are several arguments that are
23 misconceived. If we calculate the height of the building and the distance
24 from the place of incident, we can determine that the angle of descent was
25 at least 70 degrees, whereas in Mr. Vukasinovic's study it says 50 to 60.
1 It changes the whole thing and, I underscore yet again, I want to stress
2 that Mr. Vukasinovic is excellent in theory; however, in his study, he
3 used data that did not reflect the accurate situation.
4 Q. We will soon get to your expert finding. In many cases, you also
5 made presumptions when analysing the incidents. You are never stated
6 things categorically?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I address you?
8 When I concluded working on the Galic case, the then Prosecutor, Chester,
9 asked me --
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute. The question was that in your
11 findings you made presumptions when analysing incidents. Just answer that
12 for me directly.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I used presumptions, but I used
14 correct entry data. I didn't try to manipulate as to the height of the
15 building and the distance from the incident. That is what I object to. I
16 do not object to the theoretical mathematical model, but I object to
17 specific things. We know exactly what the height of the building and what
18 the distance was between the place of incident and the building, and you
19 can determine the angle of descent. It is trigonometry. There are no
20 presumptions. It is clear.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
22 Mr. Tapuskovic.
23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will not dwell on
24 this any longer and I know what the OTP's position is. However, I wish to
25 tender a complete translation of this document, since this document was
1 provided by the expert himself, and I would like to have that admitted as
2 a Defence exhibit. It is DD00-2007. It seems that the expert is quite
3 knowledgeable concerning that and he mentioned several details from which
4 I gathered that he studied the document in detail.
5 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, we object. The witness -- this is a --
6 this -- the exhibit in question is a paper written by somebody else. The
7 witness has not endorsed the conclusions in the paper or the information
8 in the paper and, therefore, I don't see how it comes into evidence.
9 There's been no endorsement of it. It's a study of Markale 2. It -- I
10 think the only proper way to bring it into evidence is to have the person
11 who wrote it come in and be cross-examined, but not to kind of slip it in
12 the back door this way into evidence when it has not been endorsed by the
14 In fact, it's been -- just the opposite has occurred. The witness
15 has -- has said he cannot endorse it and that it's not reliable. So I
16 don't see how it comes into evidence that way.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber will admit the document. I dissent
19 in that decision.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be admitted as D175.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Counsel, excuse me. Now that we have accepted
22 your evidence, could you please tell us exactly what it is? Who drafted
23 that report and what is the date of it, and who was it addressed to?
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It was drafted by the Military
25 Technical Institute in Belgrade. I don't see any date.
1 A. In 1997.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Yes, 1997. They used the data they had and they carried out their
4 mathematical calculations. It is a prominent institute, and I believe
5 this involved the person in charge of the institute. What they used were
6 the mathematical formulae to reach the conclusions they did. In any case,
7 I believe it deserves your attention. As to what weight and importance
8 you will give it, we'll see in the future, once you made your decision on
10 I will now turn to the analysis of your findings. I will go to
11 page 62. In English, it is page 68.
12 You recall that I quoted something to you concerning a statement
13 and you said that you couldn't recall anything concerning that. We will
14 go back to that.
15 Under -- or below these photographs it is says the appearance of
16 this modified bomb in the theatre of operations around Sarajevo came after
17 a TV interview with Radovan Karadzic concerning a new secret weapon that
18 would supposedly radically alter the course of the war. Is that correct?
19 A. That's what it says, but have I a correction to make it. When you
20 asked me the first time I recalled it quite clearly and you are now
21 presenting your own statements rather than mine. It is incorrect that I
22 said that I couldn't recall it.
23 Q. I apologise if I misquoted you. However, can you tell me when
24 this statement was taken? Before the 19th of January, 1994?
25 A. In January, 1994.
1 Q. Before that, you had -- had the information we discussed last time
2 as to the use of -- that weapon being used in other places, in Bosnia, in
3 Krajina, and in Croatia?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Very well. I will have to go back to your statement yet again,
6 the statement of the 26th and the 27th of February to ask you about the
7 characteristics of the air bomb. It is D170. In the B/C/S it is page 5.
8 The last sentence of the penultimate paragraph as well as the last
9 paragraph. In the English, it is page 5, the last paragraph.
10 Could you please look at the last sentence of the penultimate
11 paragraph. "About ten metres from the point of impact were large steel
12 containers which showed no traces of fragments, except from a previous
13 82-millimetre mortar shell."
14 This is what it states. Is that correct? Perhaps we don't have
15 to read the whole thing.
16 A. That's what it says, yes.
17 Q. Then you say in the last paragraph: "I went then to the explosion
18 on the road and I saw a crater in the asphalt of two metres diameter and
19 two to 300 millimetres deep. Next to the road was a low concrete wall
20 which was broken and also two houses nearby the explosion and there were
21 no fragment traces on the wall. This confirmed my theory that it was a
22 blast effect weapon and an air-fuel projectile."
23 A. No, it should say that it had fuel, that it was a fuel-air bomb.
24 Q. But the rest is correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Let us go to page 71 of your report. In English, that is 77.
2 Here you talk about the effects of that air bomb, FAB-250; is that
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And you state: "With the use of TNT and aircraft bombs, in
6 addition to the blast effect a powerful fragmentation effect occurs with
7 over 10.000 fragments against objects and personnel within a radius
8 extending tens of metres from the explosion."
9 Is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And then you go on to say: "However, with the large number of
12 cases when the FAB-250 aircraft bomb was used in Sarajevo in 1995, the
13 effects of fragments at the scene of the explosion were not strongly
14 evidenced and so a fuel air explosive was probably used."
15 Is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Can we say that this is where the misunderstanding was between you
18 and the representative of the security service?
19 A. I cannot try to interpret what caused their reaction, but I merely
20 presented my conclusions that they were not interested in the effects.
21 The people investigating were not qualified to discuss that. The very
22 idea of the use of TNT in an air bomb to them meant that it would have a
23 greater effect upon the target, but they didn't want to discuss the
24 characteristics of effects per se. Therefore, I do not agree with you
25 that this was the cause of the misunderstanding.
1 Q. Can we say that they insisted upon the idea that the TNT being
2 present presented a great danger for the civilians and the population of
3 Sarajevo. If there was some TNT explosive with 10.000 fragments, which
4 were absent here, their thesis would have been that they -- that they
5 couldn't -- this is what made them conclude that.
6 A. No.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm not sure as to how who understand fully this
8 paragraph in the witness's report, because it seems to suggest that one
9 could have both TNT and air fuel in one and the same bomb. Is that
10 possible? Can you please verify this with the witness? Is it -- would it
11 be possible to -- to compose a bomb with both fuel air explosive and TNT
12 so as to get sort of the best or perhaps, rather, the worst of both
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge Harhoff,
15 that's a good question. That is what I'm moving to, to the pages dealing
16 with that. But the underlying thesis of this entire paper was that there
17 was no TNT, that there was only fuel air material and that in fact this
18 bomb worked through air pressure. If I understand this properly, that is
19 the underlying thesis and the expert opinion involved.
20 Q. There is only fuel air material, no TNT, right?
21 A. I have to be more specific in terms of your concept. The concept
22 of fuel air bombs means that inside there is a small particle of solid
23 explosive, in this case TNT, so that the fuel air would get out that mixes
24 with the air. Every fuel air bomb contains in it a smaller quantity of
25 explosive, not 90 kilograms like the FAB-250 but, say, ten to 15
1 kilograms, and the point is that it should break the body, break the
2 casing, and carry out this change, and then secondary fuses act to
3 activate this new mix, and that can clearly be seen on page 65.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can I just, for the matter of the record, you were
5 quoted as saying that the FAB-250 would have 90 kilograms of TNT. I think
6 I recall that you said that this would be true for the FAB-100, would it
7 not? So that the FAB-100 would be the one that would carry TNT while the
8 FAB-250 would be the one that carried fuel air explosives, and then only
9 carried as much TNT as was necessary to break the shell, if I understood
10 you correctly. Could you please verify?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge Harhoff, the
12 customary usual FAB-250 air bomb, the one that is launched from an
13 aircraft, is filled with TNT. And as such it has 93 kilograms of
14 explosives, of TNT. In this case, that's not what happened. There was
15 less. Just to be break the body -- there was just enough to break the
16 body of the warhead, whereas the FAB-100 has considerably less TNT, 43
17 kilograms of TNT, and it is used without fuel air explosive.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Even what you said now about these minimal quantities is not what
20 is stated in your findings, even if we were to look at the individual
21 incidents involved.
22 But now let us look at page 94. In English, it's 104. The
23 English version moves on to 105 as well.
24 You say here underneath a table: "The FAB-250 aircraft bomb
25 develops an overpressure sufficiently intense to cause the lungs to burst
1 if a person is 30 metres away from the centre of the explosion."
2 Is that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And then further on: "The FAB-250 aircraft bomb has over 7.000
5 fragments with a mass greater than five grammes. An effective individual
6 range greater than 150 metres."
7 Is that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And now we're moving on to page 105 in the English version.
10 "This data is the basis for calculating whether an aircraft bomb
11 exploded with solid TNT explosive or a fuel air explosive. If the effect
12 of fragments is not intensive, then this is likely that the aircraft bomb
13 was filled with a fuel air explosive."
14 Is that right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. First question: In this finding, you did not mention at all that
17 there was a single gram of TNT there.
18 A. Mr. Tapuskovic, in the description of the effect it is clearly
19 stated how the system functions, so it should not say here that there were
20 ten or 15 kilograms of TNT. If on the walls, if on the buildings there
21 are no traces of fragments and the body had been destroyed, the
22 destruction has to have been caused by something, and that something is
23 TNT. The actual effect of overpressure in fuel air bombs is that in
24 actual fact it migrates into all open spaces, that the process of the
25 activity or the fuel air bomb lasts 100 times longer than the effect of
1 the overpressure caused by TNT. That means that it kills all the people
2 in the area and destroys all light structures. If you look at the same
3 page that you quoted, if you look at the situation, if the overpressure of
4 150 kilopascals works in a millionth particle of a second, then there is
5 one hundred per cent lethal effect. However --
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute.
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I know what you wrote.
8 JUDGE MINDUA: [No interpretation]
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: We're not getting.
10 THE INTERPRETER: We -- yes, the interpreters apologise. We
11 thought we were getting from the other booth.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Repeat the question.
13 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, you're talking about
14 fragments found on the walls, possibly in the event that a bomb contains
15 TNT. My question concerns the presence of metal fragments which would be
16 the case if the bombs were handmade, for example by terrorists, or were
17 they special fragments that were due to the presence of TNT?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No. Of course, there are
19 several types of air bombs. The air bomb that is filled with TNT, when it
20 explodes, the pressure of the explosive and the high temperature of the
21 gas within the body of the bomb destroy the metal body of the bomb. It
22 bursts into millions of pieces and their velocity is very high. But at
23 the same time there is overpressure too.
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, distinguished
25 witness, after this there are just a few photographs.
1 Q. You spoke of individual incidents as well but this is your
2 conclusion. This is your conclusion, these are your findings, and you do
3 not mention a single gramme of TNT. Could you explain that?
4 A. It's a very simple matter. When you come to the site, the scene,
5 where a modified air bomb had exploded and when you see that a house had
6 been destroyed or several houses, or if the projectile hit a sky-scraper
7 then you will see that three storey were destroyed. You walk in and see
8 that there are very few fragments on the walls. And that is the objective
9 of my analysis, to say since there is a great deal of data about the
10 activity of bombs with fragments. That is to say, if on walls there are
11 many fragments, if surrounding buildings are damaged, then this leads to
12 the inevitable conclusion that the bomb had solid explosive. If there are
13 no fragments and there is a great deal of destruction involved, there are
14 remnants of the rocket motor and of the body, then what is the inevitable
15 conclusion is that instead of TNT there was fuel air explosive in the
16 body. This TNT which is used in fuel air bombs has only one function, to
17 destroy the body of the bomb and to have it -- the fuel air migrate into
18 the surrounding atmosphere, for it to mix with oxygen and in all
19 surrounding areas. So there is no need for me to mention this
20 specifically. My conclusion clearly says this data is a basis for the
21 assessment whether this was an air bomb with a solid or --
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. You have answered the question.
23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Please take a look at this. When you talk about the FAB-250 and
25 pressure you say that then there is such intensity that lungs burst for
1 all persons that are up to 30 metres away from where the bomb fell. That
2 is to say, that a large number of people would have been killed, right,
3 within that area?
4 A. One per cent. Can't you see that? It says -- I mean, if a
5 person's lungs burst he or she won't get killed. He or she will have a
6 breathing problem.
7 Please look at the table above.
8 Q. I think there's no need for me to look at the table.
9 Let me ask you the following: Did you have a single medical
10 document showing that somebody had lost their lives because their lungs
11 had burst?
12 A. On television, at least according to my information, there was a
13 man who was relatively nearby, near the site of the explosion, and he had
14 these characteristic effects due to the bursting of his lungs, but I'm not
15 an expert in this field and I don't want to go into that. I'm just
16 telling you what the definitions are and this table only refers to people,
17 whereas in the first part we only speak of buildings, how high the
18 overpressure should be in order to have a building destroyed.
19 Q. All right. But even more importantly, I'm not going to use the
20 fragment, the word fragment anymore, but I'm going to use another word for
21 fragment, "geller" [phoen]. It should act within a diameter of 150 metres
22 if it is TNT, right?
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, we didn't hear the word, the
24 other word which apparently is a synonym for fragment. What is it?
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] "Geller" in the sense of
1 shrapnel, a metal particle, a bomb is broke down into five-gramme
2 particles. At one place he even speaks of 11.000 fragments or shrapnel
3 that can cause lethal effects or very serious injuries.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's apparently shrapnel. Yes, proceed.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Since, according to your own findings here, and I don't know if
7 I'll have the time to analyse a few more incidents. In some places there
8 is no reference to shrapnel. In some places there is very little
9 shrapnel. And if I may say so, in some places there aren't any
10 casualties. Is it possible for there not to be any classical injuries
11 such as the bursting of lungs? Is it possible that it was just an
12 ordinary explosion that was supposed to look as if an air bomb had
13 exploded, especially where there were no casualties involved?
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Indiscernible]
15 MR. WHITING: Yeah, I -- that the -- I don't know what -- maybe we
16 could have some precision about what the -- what the question pertains to.
17 Is he just talking about any explosion? Is he talking about a particular
18 explosion? I -- I'm not clear on what -- I think the question is
19 extraordinarily vague.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, you're asking whether it is
21 possible that it was just an ordinary explosion that was supposed to look
22 as if an air bomb had exploded. Is this in reference to a particular
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Especially for the explosions
25 where there were no casualties, in view of the fact that within a diameter
1 of 150 metres a lot of people would have had to get killed and within 30
2 metres a lot of people would have had to have injuries, such as
3 bursting -- lung bursting. I mean, I have to say that one casualty is one
4 casualty too many, so that is my reading of this. But I'm just saying,
5 suggesting that in most cases these explosions were just supposed to look
6 like explosions caused by air bombs, because there are no witnesses who
7 would testify that an air bomb actually fell there. Could the witness
8 just tell us whether --
9 MR. WHITING: That's just --
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you suggesting then that the explosion did
11 not take place?
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there was an
13 explosion but the explosion was not caused by air bombs. Precisely in
14 view of that, I'm not going to analyse individual incidents now. I'm not
15 going to go from one incident to another because this should be done in
16 the Defence case, and I will do that. But if we were to count the
17 casualties due to these bombs, and please don't take my word at face value
18 counting, but we should look at the effects. The shrapnel, 150 metres,
19 and indeed this is dangerous. However both effects were simply not there,
20 so ...
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have evidence of parts of an air bomb being
22 embedded in the ground?
23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it still doesn't
24 prove anything. In the sense presented here that these were -- these
25 devices which appeared out of the blue, that there were -- very lethal
1 killing everything in the diameter of 150 metres.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: What you're asking the witness is this: There
3 was an explosion, Witness, but might the explosion not have been caused by
4 an air bomb? And I understand counsel to be alluding specifically to
5 instances in which he said there were no casualties.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: It may be that I did not grasp correctly the
8 substance of counsel's question, so I'm going to ask him to put it again.
9 Put the question to the witness, and as clearly as possible.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Zecevic, I don't know whether I will be able to put all of
12 your analysis to you here, but at least in three incidents analysed there
13 were no casualties. Having in mind that, that there were no casualties in
14 certain incidents, and having in mind that the overpressure blast effects
15 are as stipulated, as opposed to the TNT effects, is it possible that one
16 can cause an explosion by some other means other than an air bomb?
17 A. I wanted to tell you this. Concerning the overpressure effects
18 and the shrapnel effects, those refer to the solid explosive; it is
19 clearly stated in my study. For me to be able to reply -- well,
20 Your Honour, I cannot reply unless I know whether the explosive was in a
21 casing or not. What was the type of explosive, what primer was used.
22 Therefore I cannot provide the answer the Defence attorney wants me to.
23 If he specifics the parameters, I can respond.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: You need some other postulates to support the
25 question and the witness is saying one of them is whether the explosive
1 that you had in mind, or that have you in mind, was in the casing or not.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge Robinson, my
3 question refers to any type of explosive.
4 Q. I have already put to you some documents showing that the army of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina had explosives. I'm not trying to say that it wasn't
6 either the fuel air explosive or the TNT. It could have been anything
7 else, any other material which causes destruction on solid objects and
8 does not cause any injures and results in no casualties.
9 A. I cannot reply to your question because --
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you in a position to answer the question?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can reply to any question which
12 has technical sense. This one doesn't, however.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: And why not?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can tell you this:
15 There is a solid explosive in TNT in bags. It's not pressed. Since the
16 characteristics of the explosive depend on the type of processing, the
17 effects of such an explosive is important for the initiation points. It
18 is also important whether it is -- the explosive was buried in the ground
19 or simply put on the floor of a house. Therefore, there are a lot of
20 factors for me to hypothesise and to be able to tell you, you will have
21 this or that effect. In any case I studied, we always found pieces of the
22 rocket motor. There was also the penetration into a wall. A solid
23 explosive in a bag cannot penetrate a building. It cannot have rocket
24 motors. That's why this question strikes me as irrational.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much.
1 You have heard he is not in a position to answer the question in
2 the absence of your providing further information.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps this can be
4 some additional information.
5 Q. There is Sefer Halilovic's book, The Cunning Strategy. In that
6 book he states that his wife, together with her brother in uniform, was
7 killed on the terrace of their house in July 1993, and that they were
8 killed by a projectile which was guided. He said that he knew the people
9 who were to be blamed for that, and that this was a terrorist
10 organisation. Do you know of that incident?
11 A. I have heard of it, but it's got nothing to do with this.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's my view too. I don't understand the
14 Let's have another question, Mr. Tapuskovic.
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. The same way could have been used -- the same mode could have been
17 used in this case, to have it detonated remote, and then we have both the
18 remaining pieces of the bomb as well as the effects which, however, were
19 not dangerous for the population because the bomb contained neither the
20 shrapnel nor the substance that would cause the overpressure. Yes or no?
21 A. No. Because if you look at the high-rise or at the impact on the
22 top of the building of Safeta Hadzica, we see the rocket motor, we see
23 that one level was -- that the bomb went through one level, that three
24 floors were destroyed.
25 Q. How come you have a rocket motor on the roof of a building,
1 however no casualties?
2 A. Yes, there were. People were injured, one killed, as well as a
3 lot of fear due to the explosion. Apartments were destroyed. Well,
4 that's not a casualty, but still. I wish you were present during an
5 explosion of a mortar round near to you, let alone being close to a
6 hundred and -- kilo bomb.
7 MR. WHITING: Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Whiting.
9 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, this is perhaps a bit belated but it's
10 still relevant. Unless I'm mistaken I believe that all of our air bomb
11 incidents have casualties. So I think it's a -- misstating the evidence
12 to say that there were incidents that contain no casualties. I could be
13 wrong, but I don't think -- I don't think I am in this case.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, what incidents are you referring
15 to in respect of which there were no casualties arising from an air bomb?
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't think I'll
17 have time to go through it all, but when you read it, you'll see that at
18 least two incidents, according to expert findings, had no casualties. Not
19 a single one. There were several incidents without casualties, even as
20 the witness put it. But in his analysis, I can show you at least two
21 incidents without a single casualty, a single one.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: I would expect that -- you to have that
23 information at the tip of your fingers, because it's the basis on which
24 you have put the questions.
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't have enough time. I will
1 be able to show you if you give me another 20 or 30 minutes.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute.
3 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, I think it's an important issue
5 as to the evidence in this case, so I'm going to take the adjournment now,
6 and when we return, you are to provide me with the information, and I
7 expect the Prosecutor to do the same.
8 We'll adjourn for 20 minutes.
9 --- Recess taken at 10.20 a.m.
10 --- On resuming at 10.44 a.m.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, do you have the information on
12 the matter that I spoke of?
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I've skimmed through it and I
14 found information on four incidents. First and foremost, you asked me to
15 provide an example with no casualties. It is page 135 in the B/C/S, and,
16 in the English, 150.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, yes, go ahead, yes.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] 135 in the B/C/S and 150 in -- in
19 the English. It is the incident of the 1st of July, 1995, no casualties.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: 1st of July, 1995. Is that in the -- we'd find
21 that in the indictment, would we?
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It is in the expert finding.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Unscheduled?
1 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, this -- this pertains to scheduled --
2 if I may.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, let me just hear Mr. Whiting.
4 MR. WHITING: This pertains to scheduled incident 19.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: 19.
6 MR. WHITING: There are -- in that incident, there are casualties,
7 injuries, alleged, and that is clear at page -- if counsel just went a
8 little further, where there is further discussion about this incident,
9 page 154 of the English report, which is, in B/C/S, 138.
10 So this -- this -- this incident does have injuries and we have
11 led evidence on injuries. Either we have or we will, but -- there is no
12 air bomb incident that -- where there are no injuries.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic --
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Does that go for scheduled as well as unscheduled
16 MR. WHITING: No, I'm sorry. That is for all of the scheduled --
17 that is for all this -- and just to be even more clear, all the scheduled
18 incidents that we are proceeding on -- I believe that there were -- there
19 perhaps were scheduled incidents that we dropped at the beginning of the
20 case where there may -- maybe were no injuries, but all the scheduled
21 incidents that we're proceeding on, all of the ones that were analysed in
22 this report, we allege in the indictment and in our evidence had
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, in the indictment for the incident of the
25 1st of July, it is alleged that 13 people were injured. That one doesn't
1 appear to support your proposition, Mr. Tapuskovic.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] There were no casualties on the
3 26th of May, and I've been going through this report for a few days now.
4 In this report, on this given page, it -- it's where I found it. I'm
5 still dealing with the issue with the proposition I put to the witness
6 concerning this, situations where those explosive devices may have been
7 planted. That is the essence, the gist of my line of questioning.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Now are you talking about an incident that
9 took place on the 26th of May? Which one?
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No, no. I am still talking about
11 the 1st of July, 1995. I wasn't in a position to get all the information
12 about all the specific situations where there were no injuries, but
13 according to the initial indictment there were at least four incidents
14 with no casualty, with explosions only. But could you please direct your
15 attention to the three incidents of the 16th of June. Three incidents in
16 the same day. There were some light injuries and, in the incident of the
17 16th of July, at page 132 in the English, there are no shrapnel traces,
18 according to the expert report.
19 So three days into the offensive. Let us have a look at those
20 three incidents of the 16th of June. It is page 139, no fragmentation --
21 fragment traces.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Sorry before you --
23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And I would kindly ask the expert
24 to clarify.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Before you come to the 16th of June, let's go
1 back to the 1st of July and clarify this once and for all. The indictment
2 alleges 13 people were injured.
3 Mr. Whiting, has evidence been led on this?
4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Not, Your Honour. No,
5 Your Honour. No evidence was presented.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Not yet or ...
7 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I know that some evidence is coming in
8 this week on this -- on this incident from an investigator. I believe
9 that we may have some victim evidence, but, in any event, it's -- it is
10 not the Prosecution's position in the indictment, in the expert report, or
11 in our evidence that there were no injuries.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, no, let me -- let me speak.
13 In relation to this incident of the 1st of July, the indictment
14 alleges 13 people were injured. Evidence has not yet been led on it. But
15 that doesn't entitle you to say that there were no injuries because
16 evidence has not yet been led.
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge Robinson, I
18 have studied the material. There were injuries resulting from other
19 material, but it was because of burst glass, debris, but not the bombs
20 themselves, and we haven't heard any of it here still. When we analyse
21 this report, we cannot go back to telling the Bench that no evidence was
22 led as to that. Perhaps Mr. Whiting can confirm that those injuries were
23 from shards of glass and other material, like debris, in the -- in the --
24 not of the shrapnel.
25 In the incident of the 16th of June, there are no marks on the
1 walls --
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: What would have caused the shards and the glass
3 and the debris? Is it not the bomb, the explosion?
4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if it was a planted
5 explosion, if there are no fragments -- for example, at page 132 in the
6 English, there are no fragments on the incident of the 16th of June one
7 day into the offensive. There is not a single fragment in or on the
8 objects around the place of impact. How is it possible? Just look at
9 that page and the expert can tell me perhaps how is it possible that he
10 hasn't found a single fragment concerning this incident of the 16th of
11 June - page 132 in the English and 118 in the B/C/S - not on the walls or
12 anywhere. If it was an air bomb containing 11.000 pieces of shrapnel
13 killing everything within 150 metres in -- with its -- within its place of
15 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I -- the -- it doesn't say --
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Whiting.
18 MR. WHITING: I think precision matters here, and it does not say
19 that there wasn't a single fragment on the objects or the place of impact.
20 If you look at page 133 of the English it says there are no signs
21 of fragmentation effects in the area around the place of the explosion. I
22 think the witness both in his direct examination, in his report, and in
23 cross has explained, and he can explain again, why there wouldn't --
24 why -- what -- how he explains that, what his explanation is for the fact
25 that there were no signs of fragment from his analysis. I'm not saying
1 there wasn't any fragments. I'm saying from his review there were no
2 signs of fragments. That is, he didn't see any fragment signs. But he
3 can --
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: The report also says on page 132, Mr. Tapuskovic,
5 in English: "Parts of the motors and support structures were found in the
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have it all here,
8 but it's difficult to find my way around with so little time.
9 118, right. The page is 118. I'm sorry, 118. 118. I am sorry,
10 118. 118. There. The English reference is 134. On the side walls of
11 sky-scraper there are no shrapnel marks. 119, just before that one. This
12 is 120 in B/C/S, and 134 in the English. And the previous page, 119, no
13 shrapnel marks around the explosion site. Two distinct references, 119
14 and 120, and the B/C/S is 134.
15 134 for B/C/S, or, rather, for English, and 134 for the English
16 or, rather, the B/C/S is 119 and 120. There are no shrapnel marks
17 anywhere in the area or on the walls for that matter. This is stated
18 quite categorically. Now, how is that possible if there was a bomb that
19 actually exploded there?
20 MR. WHITING: I'm confident that the witness can explain that, and
21 perhaps we should go back to the witness.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, you heard counsel's assertion that in
23 relation to this incident the report says there are no shrapnel marks
24 anywhere in the area or on the walls for that matter, and the question
25 is: How is that possible if there was a bomb that actually exploded?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is a feature of the aerosol
2 generator air bombs, fuel-air bombs, is that they have the -- a wave
3 effect their secondary effects is a fragmentation effect, and that's what
4 I've been trying to prove along. This is the whole point of this report.
5 The point of this report is to show in relation to all cases when an
6 explosion occurred that there were no obvious shrapnel marks, but instead
7 there were effects of destruction. In this particular incident dated the
8 16th of June, you have the photographs and they clearly show that the bomb
9 penetrated into the ground and exploded once it was embedded inside the
10 ground, and there was secondary fragments, secondary shrapnel which was
11 absorbed by the ground. All that was found were bits and pieces of the
12 rocket engine.
13 So my theory is that no solid explosive was used in this incident,
14 which has a significant fragmentation effect, and quite considerable blast
15 effect but the range remaining small though. My theory instead is that
16 this is an air-fuel bomb, fuel-air effect. This is a very dominant
17 weapon, and you can see that in all of these incidents, and the
18 fragmentation effect with the shrapnel being sprayed all over the place is
19 entirely secondary, which is perfectly consistent with the evidence
20 presented here.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Am I right then in saying that your explanation
22 is that this was an air-fuel bomb and not a solid explosive?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is accurate.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: That is your explanation?
25 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] In other words, Witness, what you
1 are saying is that when we're talking about modified air bombs, it is
2 possible that bombs may be made with, as their content merely fuel and
3 air, on the one hand, and that there are other bombs which contain a lot
4 of TNT, and that the first bombs may use maybe 15 kilos of TNT simply as a
5 primer, but that for such modified air bombs, it will -- there will not
6 necessarily be a lot of shrapnel, not necessarily a lot of fragments.
7 That's what you're saying? Because earlier counsel for the Defence said,
8 and he quoted a number of incidents in which he was wondering, if I
9 understood him right, whether since there were no fragments, not enough
10 shrapnel, and since there were not enough traces, then maybe they weren't
11 modified air bombs at all. But what you're say something that, in fact,
12 even without fragments, even without shrapnel, it is quite possible that
13 this is a modified air bomb, right?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is indisputable that this was an
15 air bomb, a fuel-air bomb, and it was driven by a motor engine and filled
16 with an explosive. There are SFOR photographs taken after the war and
17 these photographs are attached to this report. There is no dispute about
18 this. There are photographs of Russian missiles that were also found in
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina by SFOR and not by either of the warring parties, and
20 those too are attached to the present report.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. Mr. Tapuskovic, now you have given us
23 two incidents in respect of the basic issue as to whether there were
24 casualties, the 1st of July and the 16th of June. What is the other one,
25 or the others, in which you allege there were no casualties?
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would need to go
2 back to the statement that I showed. Before his help was ever enlisted as
3 an expert witness, he listed a couple of incidents where there was no
4 shrapnel and no casualties. I do have to remain adamant about this
5 though. The 16th of June, that particular incident, three missiles,
6 alleged missiles, air bombs. On the 16th of June. We have three missiles
7 on that day, that were subjected to analysis by Mr. Zecevic. With the
8 exception of slight injuries there wasn't a single casualty. These
9 incidents are described in his report. This is the 16th of June, three
10 separate incidents. Except for slight injuries, there wasn't a single
11 casualty. This was one day into the offensive. How can he possibly
12 explain this? Three bombs exploded and not a single death.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Whiting.
15 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, this -- counsel is obviously making
16 reference to scheduled incidents 11, 12, 13. In all cases injuries are
17 alleged, and in all cases evidence to that effect has been led. We're now
18 hearing a distinction between light injuries and injuries, but that wasn't
19 the premise of the question earlier. The premise of the question was no
20 casualties. These all -- that -- that there were casualties in all
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Because for schedule -- scheduled incident number
23 11, it's alleged three persons were slightly injured. Mr. Tapuskovic, for
24 number 12, it's alleged seven persons were injured, and in shelling
25 incident 13, W -- witness W-104 and her daughter, who was in the apartment
1 as well, were both badly and permanently injured. And evidence has been
2 led in relation to these.
3 MR. WHITING: Yes, that's my understanding, yes.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, we have examined this matter
6 sufficiently. You are to proceed with the question but not on the basis
7 that there were no casualties, because have you not been able to
8 substantiate that from either the indictment or the evidence to our
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm not sure how much time
11 remains for me to bring up a couple of more incidents to ask the witness
12 about. How much time.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: How many more incidents do you have in mind?
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, I'd like at least two or
15 three. No more than that, because all the other ones are pretty much
16 similar, really.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. You have another 12 minutes left and
18 let us see how far you get in 12 minutes. If you need more time, then we
19 will consider it.
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there's one thing I
21 need to ask the witness --
22 Q. There was no incident where you took into account the medical
23 files, was there? A while ago you confirmed to me about the lungs
24 bursting. You never looked at any medical files in order to cross
25 reference those injuries with the possibility of injury, not merely by
1 shrapnel but also by bits and pieces of building material which was a
2 distinct possibility. You never cross referenced that, did you?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 A. No, no, I did look into that but I'm no expert in defining
6 injuries. I am an expert in determining how injuries come about. I'm a
7 designer of ammunition. My job is to create a weapon that will cause an
8 injury. It's not for me to assess the injury itself. This is the job of
9 a medical expert and no one else.
10 Q. At any rate, there was no medical expert for you to
11 cross-reference and to compare to your own findings, right?
12 A. In the material submitted to me, there were medical findings and
13 submissions by physicians. However, it was my belief that I myself was
14 not qualified to give an opinion about that.
15 Q. Fine. Let me try to tackle what I really believe is necessary.
16 Let's look at the 28th of June, 1995, the incident that occurred on that
17 day. This was when the TV building was hit; that's the incident that I'm
18 talking about.
19 If I'm not mistaken, and I must say this again, before you were
20 appointed as an expert, even then on the 28th, even ten days before then,
21 you observed the effects of those air bombs in an entirely unofficial
22 capacity, as you have confirmed, right?
23 A. What would you possibly consider to be an official capacity?
24 Q. Well, that's not necessarily the issue. But on the 28th you were
25 given the job, and by this time you had already formed a deep conviction
1 to which you stuck throughout the rest of your work, right?
2 A. No. What I always do is I approach the site of an explosion, the
3 scene of a crime. I photograph it, I record the marks, I record the
4 prevailing conditions, and that's what my report is based on. I would be
5 a very lousy expert indeed if I were to define the results of my own work
6 ahead of time or before I take the actual findings.
7 Q. If we look at page 125, B/C/S. The English reference is 140. But
8 before that -- my apologies. I do have to ask you several questions about
9 some general features in relation to the flight of missiles, of bombs,
10 while they're still in the air, I mean. You address that in paragraph 18,
11 19, 20, and 21, those paragraphs.
12 There the English page is 167 and the B/C/S is 148. Here you say
13 that: "The velocity of a missile is relatively low."
14 Is that right?
15 A. What do you mean "relatively low"? I was talking about FAB-100,
16 the velocity was 200 plus/minus per second, and the FAB-220, depending on
17 the angle at which it was fired.
18 Q. And then number 18, I'm talking about page 167. It has a large
19 mass and it's -- it's easy to observe in flight. It is very difficult --
20 it is very easy to spot and to monitor.
21 A. What is your reference for this?
22 Q. Page 148.
23 A. Excuse me, a missile can be observed, if you observe its motion
24 laterally from one of the sides. So this is how a missile flies and
25 whoever is observing it is at a certain distance. If it makes a sound,
1 then it's -- it's possible to observe it. However, if a missile is flying
2 towards the observer it is impossible to visually observe it.
3 Q. More about paragraph 19, page 152. That is the B/C/S reference,
4 171 in the English text where you say: "Given that the launching pads
5 were within urban communities or near forested ground, probably only a
6 small part of the population was near the places that the missiles were
7 fired from and probably very few observed the fact that the missiles were
9 A. Yes, but that's perfectly commonplace. If you look at image 128,
10 figure 128, you can see that. The acoustic spectrum is a function of time
11 of an artillery launch. These are an -- American images, and it wasn't
12 until ten years ago that devices were built to detect missiles by way of
13 using an acoustic spectrum in order to more accurately locate a missile.
14 Q. Let's look at the pages that are in relation to the incident
15 itself. 125 in B/C/S and the English is 140, or rather, 141, if you turn
16 the page. So 126 and 141.
17 You established here that it was the investigators' opinion that
18 the incoming direction of the missile was from the general area of
20 A. I just copied what they had stated in their own report, and then I
21 provide my own comment further on.
22 Q. Yes, we're about to look at that. But let's please first go to
23 the next page, 127, and the English is 143. This is what you state here.
24 You talk about witness statements what various witnesses said. For
25 example, Rijalda Musaefendic heard a sound. Mehmed Kember heard a loud
1 blow. Fadila Serdarevic heard a loud thud. Witness Muhamed heard the
2 falling of concrete and glass, and then they heard a detonation, they
3 heard the projectile fly, and what do you say in relation to Igor Mocnaj?
4 He was outside the building. He heard the missile being fired. And then
5 he goes on to explain what exactly he heard, but he heard the actual
6 missile being fired. And then two paragraphs down you go on to say this:
7 "Two military observers saw the launching and the flight of the projectile
8 low velocity -- low altitude impacting into the north side of the
9 building, the explosion taking place several seconds after the impact."
10 My question: Given the fact that witness Igor Mocnaj heard the
11 missile being fired, does that not clearly show that the bomb or the
12 missile was fired from a nearby position within the area of responsibility
13 of the BH army, yes or no?
14 A. No. Why? We discussed about the features of sound. I said this
15 and you quoted it. If the place that the missile was launched from was in
16 a forested area, or if it was in a settled, built-up area, if you look at
17 the launching direction that I spoke about in my analysis, you will see
18 that there is a flat piece of land there with no settled or built-up
19 areas. It's perfectly flat. You could hear the rocket engines humming,
20 as I said, for about two seconds at least, and then up until 400 metres
21 from the place where the missile was launched from. So as far as the TV
22 building was concerned, yes, you could hear that. You could hear this,
23 you could hear that, but everything depends on specific conditions and
24 each of the incidents were unique. During the testing, I could hear
25 rocket missiles being fired at a distance of between 10 and 12 kilometres,
1 but that is over flat ground.
2 Q. Thank you very much. I have to interrupt you. You say that each
3 incident is unique. This is the only witness who actually heard a missile
4 being fired, not a missile flying. Does that mean that he was near the
5 place that the missile was fired from, which would seem to imply that it
6 was fired from a position under the control of the BH army?
7 A. No, I have just explained it to you, haven't I? This is about the
8 lie of the land; that's what it is about.
9 Q. Did you even try to assess what the two military observers
10 noticed? Or did you simply not take that into account at all?
11 A. I did provide a comment right here, didn't I? It's -- it's their
12 comment, actually. Low velocity. Low velocity, about 200 metres per
13 second. It might be low to you, might not be low to me. I told you about
14 those that have the speed of 1.000 metres per second. For me, this is a
15 low velocity and low altitude. An average missile can fly at 400 or 500
16 metres' altitude. 4.000 to 5.000 metres' altitude, and this one flew at
17 600 or 700 metre, so that is a low altitude for me, for my standards. You
18 need to define high and low.
19 Q. You say that it was located at 5.800 metres that it flew in from
20 the Butile. Could it possibly have had -- have followed that sort of
21 trajectory, given the hills that would have been in the way?
22 A. If you look at the photograph on page 131, you can see very
23 clearly that there is not a single hill in that area, not a single forest.
24 This is flat ground unsettled. This is what we normally refer to as the
25 Sarajevo field. This area was farmed. There are no obstacles there,
1 nothing in way of the sound, nothing to muffle the sound of a missile
2 flying through.
3 Q. I'm really sorry that I won't have sufficient time to -- to take
4 you back to each of the incidents, but can you please explain this to the
5 Chamber. Can you explain why you established something that was totally
6 different from what the investigators had established. They mentioned the
7 Dogladi area from the area where the missile was fired and you talked
8 about general Butile area. Is it not because you were looking for an
9 appropriate trajectory for the missile to follow precisely because there
10 no hills in that area?
11 A. Let me remind you. Go to page 126, the upper-left image on page.
12 One can see clearly on the roof of the TV building clear, severe damage,
13 caused by an impact of a bomb against the roof. If you use standard
14 American norms to establish the direction of impact, in the case of a
15 ricochet, and you can see that here, you can determine the direction. You
16 can see the marks that the bomb left on the roof and based on that, I
17 determined the direction, its angle of descent. I defined that.
18 Last Friday I said that the angle of descent was about 25 per cent
19 causing -- 25 degree, causing severe damage to the roof of the TV
20 building. It was also possible to establish the minimum range followed by
21 that particular missile, not the maximum range, the minimum range, and
22 this tallies fully with the result of my own analysis, which itself is
23 very accurate.
24 Q. Can you explain to the Chamber why there is this striking
25 discrepancy between the two, the place that it was fired from, Butile and
1 Dogladi. These are two different locations, right, especially in terms of
2 distance, aren't they?
3 A. I can only explain what I did myself. If you have any other
4 questions about that, I think I can tell you as to who -- why the
5 investigators wrote this or wrote that. Now, this is really not something
6 that I can be expected to comment on, is it?
7 Q. You took all of those photographs last year, didn't you?
8 A. I don't understand what you're saying.
9 Q. All these photographs, all these lines that you drew as potential
10 trajectories, you did that in your own office, didn't you?
11 A. Can you please be more specific? Which photographs?
12 Q. I hope we're not overlapping, are we?
13 The photographs in your report.
14 A. But which ones?
15 Q. All of them, the whole works. All of the photographs in this
16 expert report that are in relation to these incidents.
17 A. Can I remind you of this: Go back to page 126. Below the
18 photograph in the upper-left corner it says, "photograph from the
19 following document 0032392143." This is a document that I received from
20 the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor obtained this document from the
21 investigators. There are all these photographs. They're all clear, and
22 they all say exactly where they came from.
23 Q. If we could please just go to page 1 hundred. It's impossible for
24 me to deal with everything, isn't it? Page 100, which addresses the
25 incident that occurred on the 7th of April.
1 I'm about to provide the English reference. English reference is
2 112, page 112.
3 Allegedly there is a witness to this incident. That's what it
4 says. The witness who followed the launching of this modified air bomb
5 from the water protection area at the spring of the Bosna River near the
6 village of Dolac. Who is this witness?
7 A. He is in one of the OTP documents. I didn't care about that
8 witness's name it didn't matter to me. But in documents that I was given
9 there was a witness who watched a missile being launched from Igman and he
10 used his own binoculars to follow this.
11 Q. This is in on o the OTP document and the person's name is right
13 Can you please explain how it is possible given the number of
14 incidents that there is no other eye-witness, not a single other
15 eye-witness throughout that summer with the exception of this one?
16 A. I don't see why I should be expected to explain that to you, why
17 things happened the way they did.
18 Q. Well, doesn't that show that many never flew at all, they were on
19 the ground before the explosion?
20 A. I don't understand what you're saying. There is absolutely no
21 physical meaning or possible sense to you're saying. Will someone
22 actually spot a missile over a 24-hour period at a location that is an
23 area covering ten kilometres at a given point in time. It's like looking
24 for a needle in a haystack. You need to know exactly where a missile was
25 launched from in order to be able to assess the probability of someone
1 actually seeing the missile fired and following the missile on its flight.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, just to clarify, your case is
3 that these bombs were actually planted by the -- by ABiH, by the ABiH?
4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] There is one thing that I can say
5 with certainty, and I won't try to explain all of it now. The majority of
6 those explosions, if one looks at their individual features, were
7 occurring on the ground. There is an absence of shrapnel or an absence of
8 a significant number of casualties, if those were the air bombs. It was
9 the air pressure which could have caused casualties within a 30-metre
10 radius, and the witness said that there would have been 10.000 bits of
11 shrapnel. There should have been a lot more casualties. Particularly
12 characteristic is what happened in July when the offensive began.
13 There -- there were no casualties at all --
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: I just want to understand your case, and it is
15 that so far from these bombs having been fired by the Serbs that modified
16 air bombs, they were in fact planted by the ABiH and exploded and you --
17 and, to support that, you say that if there were modified air bombs you
18 would have expected to find more shrapnel and more casualties?
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And at least someone who saw
20 where the bomb came from. Only one witness was mentioned but he never
21 appeared here before us. At least some of the people would have seen the
22 bombs since it was daylight, but we have not heard a single witness who
23 said that he saw a bomb flying at a relatively low speed and fall -- hit
24 the ground. This witness says that that witness saw something and --
25 including the launching system mounted on a truck, and that then he saw
1 the launching truck leave for the factory. He mentions that witness, but
2 we haven't found a single witness in all these days who said that he saw
3 the projectile.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: But just -- we just confirm that your case is
5 that the -- these bombs were planted by personnel of the ABiH? Isn't that
6 your case?
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I categorically state that in
8 most of the cases the answer is yes, absolutely so; it is my definite
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: I just want to the be clear about that.
11 Mr. Whiting.
12 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, it -- it misstates the evidence to stay
13 that there were no witnesses to these air bombs in flight. I can think of
14 one immediately, the witness who testified from -- having seen it from
15 a -- a OP4, and I believe that there are others who have talked about the
16 air bombs in flight. It's also --
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't think he's saying there were no
18 witnesses, but he said that you'd have expected to have more witnesses.
19 MR. WHITING: No. He said there were no other witnesses. He
20 stated it quite categorically. And it's also -- it's not -- there's been
21 no evidence that there were no witnesses to these air bombs in flight.
22 There -- there may be not witnesses who have been identified and come to
23 court, but that's a different thing from saying nobody saw these bombs
24 launched or flying, which is what counsel keeps saying. Well, if nobody
25 saw them, then how could they have been launched and fly? People -- it's
1 our case, of course, that people did see them. It's not -- just because
2 you haven't -- they haven't been identified and brought to court, that
3 doesn't mean that nobody saw them.
4 I -- I mean, it's one thing to argue but to misstate the evidence,
5 I think, is -- is not fair.
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, so as not to
7 forget, in the case of one bomb, the Defence categorically states that it
8 was observed to have been fired from one of the positions of the army of
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina. What importance that attaches to the entire issue of
10 air bombs, well, I wouldn't go into that right now, but at least in one
11 case the Defence's position is that it was fired from one of the positions
12 of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
13 I wanted to ask the witness the following.
14 Q. When you worked on the case that had to do with the television,
15 did you have in mind of UN report in which it is clear that people from
16 the positions of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina fired at projectile that
17 we termed an air bomb?
18 A. I wasn't able to see such a report. What I saw were two
19 statements of military observers, if this is what you had in mind. Maybe
20 we are talking about two different incidents.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Another five minutes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Let us have a look at the incident of the 7th of April, in
24 addition to everything else I have put forth. Perhaps I can show you page
25 102, and, in English, it is 114. So in the B/C/S, it is 102.
1 There you state: "There are no traces of destruction from bomb
2 fragments on the remaining walls while they should have been there,
3 considering that the FAB-250 has a minimum of 11.000 fragments."
4 Isn't this case -- example which shows that that bomb did not have
5 the characteristics of a weapon which could cause catastrophic -- which
6 would have catastrophic consequences, as is stated in the indictment?
7 A. Let us make one thing clear, when I talk about the FAB-250, I'm
8 talking about the one with TNT. When I talk about the -- a modified
9 FAB-250 bomb, I'm talking about an air bomb with a fuel, fuel-air. If
10 confirms my concept. If you look at the second photograph to the right,
11 you will see that next to the house an air bomb exploded. On the walls
12 you see no marks of penetration by fragments which should have been there
13 had the bomb been filled with TNT. This is a typical example of a
14 fuel-air bomb explosion in which the pressure of the detonation is between
15 20 or 30 bar, rather than several 100.000 bars. This corroborates my
16 hypothesis that all of these projectiles were actually fuel-air
17 projectiles. And perhaps I could add something else.
18 Q. Sorry, but I'm short of time.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could you please look
20 at the upper picture in the right-hand side corner. It is a practical
21 example. You see that the inner wall in the house was preserved. Only
22 the outer walls were destroyed, whereas the inner wall remains. It is a
23 typical characteristic of a fuel-air bomb; when the fuel migrates through
24 or in the area it has such an impact. If there is a TNT explosion, the
25 pressure created hits the surface, knocking it down. When we have the
1 fuel-air, when it migrates in a -- in a space, the pressure is on both
2 sides. Therefore, the wall remains, and this is precisely what this
3 photograph shows, the photograph on page 102 in the upper hand --
4 right-hand corner. It is a very clear example of such a bomb impacting
5 against a building.
6 As you can see, there is not a single mark of -- any fragments.
7 There is a wooden door in the picture, and there are no fragment marks
8 there. The only thing that happened was the destruction of the planks.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Apart from the lack of fragmentation, which you
10 say indicates it was a fuel-air bomb, would one expect to find anything
11 else that would confirm your theory that it was a fuel-air bomb? Is there
12 anything tangible that one would expect to find consistent with the -- a
13 fuel-air bomb having been discharged and exploded.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, when a F-250 [as
15 interpreted] air bomb explodes on the ground, depending on whether it
16 impacts at the moment of hitting the ground or once it has penetrated the
17 ground, it forms as crater which is between seven and 12 metres in radius,
18 the depth of which is between 1.8 and 3.8 metres. I provided a reference
19 about a British Army report of such effects. A crater must be there. A
20 bomb cannot influence the surface only. In any case, it creates a crater
21 which is at least seven and as much as 12 metres in diameter, and it
22 uplifts enormous quantities of earth. And if we are talking about an
23 FAB-250, it has 93 kilos of TNT. In these incidents, such effects were
24 not present. It couldn't have happened that there were no fragments and
25 no craters of such dimensions.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic, finishing up now.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is an example
3 of the experts conduct. In the next paragraph on the same page, perhaps I
4 needn't read all the figures, but as for the estimated angle, it would
5 entail mounting a launching pad at the foot of Mount Igman which would
6 cause, or, rather, render the launching site vulnerable to infantry
8 Q. Are you trying to deny that the launching site was as mentioned in
9 the reports of the investigators? It was on page 102.
10 A. Can you show me where the investigator states that the launching
11 site was there? Did they say it was in the village of Dolac, according to
12 a witness statement?
13 Q. Yes but you can read it for yourself. It is on page 102.
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It seems that we are overlapping.
15 MR. WHITING: I'm wondering if we could have an English reference.
16 I think the 102 is a B/C/S reference.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Isn't it the same page, page 140, the paragraph
19 MR. WHITING: I thought there was just another reference to the
20 village of --
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Oh, I see.
22 MR. WHITING: -- to what the investigator said, I don't know,
23 maybe --
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the English page for that other
25 reference, Mr. Tapuskovic?
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Excuse me, 114.
3 A. I clearly delineated the way I determined the azimuth. If we look
4 at page 101 --
5 Q. Witness, did you change the location at which the investigators
6 stated the launching -- the launching pad was?
7 A. You can look at my methodology and the way I used to determine the
8 direction from which the projectile came. Did you read my entire report?
9 It is clearly stated there how I determined what the angle of impact was
10 as well as the direction azimuth. In cases such as this one, I can only
11 determine what the wider area was. I cannot be precise -- as precise to
12 say it was two degrees to the right or to the left.
13 Q. Let me conclude, here you state that that would imply that the
14 launcher had to be placed right under Mount Igman, which would make it
15 exposed to possible infantry fire.
16 Is this why you changed the degree values and now all of a sudden
17 you are talking about 320 degrees?
18 A. I said that it was most likely. This is the minimum position to
19 the left where the launching site could have been in order to be able to
20 hit that building. It doesn't preclude or exclude the previous concept.
21 I did not rely on the witness statement, since it was the witness who
22 mentioned the location.
23 Q. That's precisely what I tried to ask you. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Any re-examination, Mr. ...
25 MR. WHITING: Very briefly, Your Honour.
1 Re-examination by Mr. Whiting:
2 Q. If we could just go to page 140 of your report in the English, and
3 I'll tell you in a second what it is in B/C/S. It would be 125. This is
4 in regard to the TV tower incident.
5 Now, do you see that we -- the section entitled "investigator's
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And there it says that the -- it states that the incoming
9 direction was 280 degrees plus or ten -- plus or minus ten degrees. And
10 then if you could look -- turn a couple of pages and follow to where your
11 comment is. It's on page 143 of the English, where you start your
12 comment, and, on the B/C/S, I'm not sure where it is, but I'm sure you can
13 find it.
14 And in the third paragraph of your comment you state that the
15 incoming was 280 degrees. So is your -- my question is, is your opinion
16 about the direction of fire consistent with the investigator's?
17 A. Completely so.
18 Q. One other question. You were shown one of your prior statements,
19 and it's in evidence now as Exhibit D170. And the President of the Trial
20 Chamber asked you a question about this, but i just wanted to make sure it
21 was absolutely clear because I'm not sure whether it was completely clear
22 in the end.
23 On page 7 in the English of that statement, and I'm afraid I don't
24 know what it's going to be in B/C/S, but I think it's approximately the
25 same page. It's when you're talking about the effects and use of types of
1 bombs, in particular fuel-air bombs, and you say in the last paragraph, I
2 think, there on the B/C/S. If we could scroll down on the B/C/S so that
3 the bottom of the page is visible. You -- you -- you -- does that say,
4 the beginning, technically this projectile was not perfect? Just so I'm
5 oriented, I think ...
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. And then -- and then you say in that: "Our authorities did
8 not appreciate that these weapons are unsuited for use against military
10 Do you see that, that paragraph? Do you see that sentence?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. My question is: Are you suggesting there in any way that the ABiH
13 in Sarajevo had modified air bombs during the period of time that we're
14 talking about?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. WHITING: I have no further questions, Your Honours.
18 Questioned by the Court:
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. Mr. Zecevic, I have a few questions to
20 put to you regarding some of the evidence which we have heard during this
22 And my first question relates to information that was provided to
23 us that on some of the shrapnel pieces of some of the modified air bombs
24 swastika signs were found, suggesting that the air bomb that had been used
25 was a reminiscence from the Second World War. And I wonder if you could
1 enlighten us a bit on that, and the question is: Were bombs that were
2 left over from the Second World War used during the siege of Sarajevo, and
3 who could have used those bombs?
4 A. Your Honour, if I remember it correctly, it was the Safeta Hadzica
5 case. There was a built-up area, and, in addition to a fuel-air bomb,
6 several mortar rounds fell, and, as for the pieces of the fuel-air bomb,
7 it wasn't those pieces that contained the swastika, or, rather, it was the
8 fuse of the mortar round, as far as I recall.
9 Then a fuel-air explosive did not exist in the Second World War.
10 It was used in Vietnam by the Americans for the first time, if this is a
11 response to your question.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Well, I just wanted to clarify, because I thought
13 that some of the air bombs that had been used in Sarajevo were in fact
14 bombs that were remaining from the Second World War, and perhaps they
15 could have been refuelled, so to say, that they could have contained TNT
16 originally and then the TNT had been taken out and the explosive would --
17 would then have been replaced with air-fuel explosive. Or it could have
18 been a smaller bomb corresponding to the FAB-100. But if your answer is
19 that to your knowledge no bombshells remaining from the Second World War
20 were used, except that perhaps some mortars that could have remained from
21 the Second World War were used, then that answer satisfies my question.
22 Is that correctly understood.
23 A. [No audible response]
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well.
25 A. Yes, certainly.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: My next question relates to the observations that
2 apparently some of the witnesses who saw modified air bombs have offered,
3 and I believe that at least one witness and maybe several witnesses have
4 testified to the effects that they saw a bomb with four rockets attached
5 to it. And my question therefore is: What sort of modified air bomb
6 would that have been, because if I understand you correctly the FAB-100
7 had three rockets, while the FAB-250 had only one big rocket attached to
9 So if an air bomb was observed with four rockets, then what sort
10 of bomb would that have been?
11 A. Your Honour, there is the Russian air bomb, Potok 500 with four
12 rocket boosters. The code-name is KREMA-4. In the area of Sarajevo, the
13 FAB-250 with three rocket boosters were used. On occasion, and there is
14 documents to support it by the RS army, that sometimes they used bombs
15 with two rocket boosters. There are orders in existence as to that.
16 When reading investigator reports, I noticed that rocket boosters
17 of 120-millimetre GRAD were used, these are of Russian make. It has two
18 pipes connecting the boosters, and once such a bomb impacts, even four or
19 five cylinders could be found on occasion, and with laypeople this was --
20 create an impression that there were more than three rocket boosters.
21 This is what I came across when reading such reports, but each time it
22 said 122-millimetres deep, and -- sorry, the pieces were 120 by 700
23 millimetres. And the length of a rocket booster is about 1800
24 millimetres. That would be my explanation.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
1 Now my next question relates to observations offered by other
2 witnesses regarding the sound. It has been extensively covered in your
3 report, I am fully aware of that, but somehow the information that I have
4 read in your report does not quite match the witnesses' observations. You
5 see, we have had witnesses who said that they saw a bomb coming flying
6 slowly over the sky and making the sound as -- making a sound that
7 reminded them of a jet plane. What I do not understand and what I'm
8 asking you to explain to me, if you can, is: If I understood you
9 correctly the engine only burns for a couple of seconds, two or three or
10 maybe four seconds, and then the rocket has exhausted its sources of
11 propelling. And from that moment on, the -- the bomb just continues
13 If a witness then observes the bomb coming flying over the sky and
14 hearing a sound that is very distinct, what sound would that have been?
15 Would that have been while the engine -- while the rocket engine was still
16 burning or is there a sound even after the rocket has exhausted its fuel?
17 What I'm asking, I guess, is that the sound of a mortar is very distinct.
18 It has a whistling sound when it lands. And my question is therefore:
19 Would a modified air bomb have a similar sound, even after the rocket has
20 exhausted its fuel? Or would it be silent?
21 A. Your Honour, you put the question exceptionally well. There two
22 segments, one is the launching segment with a high-pitch sound, and it is
23 quite loud when the rocket engines are working. It lasts for about two
24 seconds. That is one phase.
25 If you go to page 60, you will see that the stabilisers or the
1 tail-fins are rather small in terms of their -- in terms of their area,
2 and they are supposed to direct the rocket once it leaves the launch pad.
3 What this means is that watching laterally, people can hear a humming
4 sound, like a cylinder aeroplane engine, the engine of a small plane
5 flying over an area, but this is only laterally. If you stand in front of
6 the projectile, it flies at a designated speed and can you hear it. It is
7 a typical sound of rotation. It is a hissing sound of air going through
8 the pieces of rocket, the streaming of air, and it goes for both the
9 FAB-250 and for the other one. They both have tail-fins which rotate the
10 rocket, and it is stated at page 68 and 69.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: I don't have the B/C/S; unfortunately, I only have
12 the English. But I'll find that information, but thank you very much. So
13 just to confirm: A witness who could hear a modified air bomb, a witness
14 could hear a modified air bomb even after the engine had exhausted its
16 A. You hear the sound for as long as the projectile is flying
17 ballistically as of the moment when the rocket engine stopped working and
18 the moment of impact.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. My next question, and I have just a
20 few more questions left. My next question is the observation that we have
21 been offered by expert by -- sorry, by police officers, investigators and
22 by UNMOs, namely the fact that both for mortars and apparently for
23 modified air bombs the tail-fin for a mortar and the rockets for a
24 modified air bomb remain in the crater once the device has exploded.
25 And -- and I wonder if you can provide us just with some sort of
1 information about how come that the tail-fin remains in the crater. One
2 would have thought that it would be blasted away from the point of
4 What is the dynamic process of the tail-fin remaining in the
5 crater or, as we see on page -- I just found it a while ago. I think on
6 page 119 in the English version, we see on the upper-right corner a crater
7 with -- with the remainders of the rockets? Why are these remnants not
8 blown away?
9 A. First I will try to explain about mortars, if you agree, and then
10 we can go back to this specific case.
11 In the case of a mortar, if I may use this photograph to explain
12 this in detail, when a mortar hits the ground, when it flies at a certain
13 velocity and impacts against a target and explodes, and this part is
14 thrown off at a velocity of about 180 metres per second. This is in the
15 case of a 120-millimetre mortar. If the incoming velocity and the
16 velocity of the bit being thrown off is the same, and that is about 170
17 metres per second, we are likely to find the stabiliser or the tail-fin.
18 And this was the case with Markale 2.
19 When the velocity of a missile, when impacting is less than the
20 velocity of the bits being thrown off, this will bounce about 50 or 100
21 metres and will no longer be at the same place where the explosion took
22 place. When the velocity is greater than 170 metres per second, this
23 piece will continue to fly and will drill its way into the ground. But
24 I'm only talking about 120-millimetre mortars. With 80-millimetre and
25 60-millimetre mortar, it will be very difficult to find a stabiliser or a
1 tail-fin anywhere near the site of the explosion.
2 JUDGE MINDUA: [No interpretation]
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE MINDUA: All the answer was not translated.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, Did you understand that your last
6 answer was translated into French. So I kindly ask you to repeat it. And
7 can I -- when you repeat your answer, could you then include one piece of
8 information, namely, the question -- answer to the question of whether the
9 tail-fin is separated from the shell while the mortar is still descending.
10 Because I thought that -- that the tail-fin would remain on the shell
11 until the moment of explosion.
12 So -- so could you include in your answer also answer to the
13 question whether the tail-fin is separated from the shell -- from the case
14 itself before the mortar explodes.
15 A. The mortar has a body and the bearer of the tail-fin and they are
16 together until the mortar hits the ground. When there is an explosion,
17 the body splinters into thousands of pieces and they fly at a velocity of
18 several thousand metres per second. This body is massive. It's about
19 four and a half kilos. It can't possibly splinter and there are three
20 possible things that can possibly happen depending on the incoming
21 velocity. When the incoming velocity is about the same, which is about
22 180 metres per second, in those cases we shall find the stabiliser near
23 the place where the explosion occurred.
24 If the velocity is lower than that, which usual happens when the
25 range is low, then you -- one doesn't find the body of the projectile
1 nearby. It's usually at a distance of about 150 or 200 metres from the
2 explosion itself, depending on the angle and the velocity.
3 The third case is the case of Markale 3. The projectile flies at
4 a high velocity than 180 metres per second, and then the stabiliser pad
5 continues to fly and drills its way into the ground. Then -- it was then
6 we found it, but this is only possible with 120-millimetre mortars. With
7 these rocket systems, for example, if there was some TNT in the warhead,
8 the same thing would have happened. These rocket boosters would have been
9 bounced out of the crater because the velocity is about 150 to 200 metres
10 per second at the point of impact. And taking into account that fact that
11 if you have an air bomb, FAB-250, and it contains about 93 kilograms of
12 explosives, it -- it would have been bounced off about 100 metres and so
13 would the stabilisers have been. I did not want to use that as an
14 argument because the primary thing for me was no shrapnel, and that is the
15 key to the situation. If an air bomb lands next to a building at a
16 10-metre distance, there is a white wall, and the white wall shows
17 absolutely no shrapnel at all, then the situation is clear.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be reminded to slow
19 down drastically, otherwise we are absolutely unable to follow what he is
20 saying. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: You are speaking too fast, too quickly, yes.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: My last question, Mr. Zecevic, relates to some of
23 the considerations that might have been made at the Pretis factory when
24 these bombs were developed. And when I put my question to you, I remind
25 you that you are still under oath, and that are you not accused in this
2 My question is whether, to your knowledge, the possibility of
3 using these newly developed modified air bombs on civilian targets was
4 ever discussed at Pretis, to your knowledge?
5 A. Sir, you mean up to 1992?
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Up to 1992 and until 1995, to your knowledge.
7 A. I left the factory on the 17th of April, 1992, and I was no longer
8 able to even access the factory. Up until that point in time there had
9 been only been one option, to develop a fuel-air bomb which was meant to
10 be used to target tank convoys and certainly not to target civilians, or
11 civilian settlements. At the same time there was a plan to develop a
12 fuel-air grenade that was supposed to be laid in places where tanks were
14 Throughout my time with the JNA, it was never part of its
15 doctrine, not even in the remotest possible way, to use any weapon at all
16 against civilians. At least that was the case while we were still in the
17 Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia. I don't know about anything
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: But yet you say that the precision-ness of these
20 weapons were extremely poor. So one would have thought that if you were
21 developing a new technique of launching these air bombs by using rockets
22 and you knew that it was very difficult to target with any degree of
23 precision, then how could one have avoided discussing the possibilities
24 that they would be falling on civilian areas and therefore one would have
25 thought that, in developing these weapons, extreme cautions were to be --
1 or would have to be taken when using them, that is to say that -- that the
2 bombs could then only be used against tanks, as you said, in an open field
3 where there was no risk of the bomb dropping down in the civilian area.
4 Were these considerations made in your time?
5 A. I would like to emphasise this. Back in 1991, for example, the
6 Pretis factory sent to Iraq, for example, about 700 missiles with a range
7 of 50 kilometres and these were developed specifically for Iraq. These
8 missiles were the so-called Orkan missiles, but they were not part of the
9 JNA armoury because they didn't meet the standards that existed at the
10 time. I'm talking about up to 1992. The destructive potential, the
11 accuracy, and the effectiveness that was called for at the time.
12 In August 1992 when armed conflicts erupted in Yugoslavia, the
13 rockets were transferred to the Novi Sad Corps. I'm telling you about the
14 general idea. Yugoslavia was pumping a lot of money into developing its
15 rocket systems, but the standards were very high. Ammunition had to be
16 reliable. One had to know where a missile would end up, and what the
17 impact deviation would be. Based on that, you could assess what the
18 targets would have been.
19 However, the course that the war took and the respective powers of
20 the parties involved caused a disbalance to the morality of warfare in
21 Yugoslavia. Up until 1992, not a single rocket artillery or mortar system
22 could have been part of the armoury that had not been long in developing,
23 sometimes between five - possibly seven - and ten years. No single system
24 was ever used. Never was a decision taken to use a system that had not
25 been developed for longer than a year. That was a rule. There is an --
1 actually book of rules adopted by the supreme staff the JNA describing the
2 evolutionary progress of each and every weapon, all tests that had to be
3 run, and there had to be independent committees assessing certain weapons
4 and whether it met certain technical standards or not.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: But that normal screening process then, according
6 to what you're saying, was not observed when it came to the use of -- of
7 the FABs-100 and FABs-250.
8 A. No.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, that concludes your evidence. We thank
11 you for giving it and you may leave now.
12 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
13 [The witness withdrew]
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, do you have an answer on the 92
15 ter motion?
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] We agree. We agree.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. Thank you.
18 Next witness.
19 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, the next witness will be handled by
20 Mr. Sachdeva. It's Mr. Higgs, another expert witness. And I've lost
21 track of when the break is.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: 20 minutes.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the President, please.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: We did break early, but I think we'll just go
25 to -- to 20 past.
1 MR. WHITING: Okay. The reality is that with the -- with the
2 change that's going to occur, we're going to use -- we're going to have
3 basically the time for him to sit down and say hello. So might -- maybe
4 it would be more efficient if we'd -- if you'd -- if Your Honours don't
5 mind. We're happy to do it any way you like, but ...
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll just take the break now.
7 --- Recess taken at 12.17 p.m.
8 [The witness entered court]
9 --- On resuming at 12.38 p.m.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.
11 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
12 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
13 WITNESS: RICHARD HIGGS
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit.
15 And Mr. Sachdeva you may begin.
16 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon to you
17 and to Your Honours.
18 Examination by Mr. Sachdeva:
19 Q. Good afternoon, Witness.
20 A. Good afternoon.
21 Q. Can you start by stating your full name and your place and date of
22 birth, please.
23 A. My name is Richard James Higgs. My date of birth is the 20th of
24 the 10th, 1959, and my place of birth is Nottingham in England.
25 Q. Mr. Higgs, did you prepare expert reports, three expert reports
1 for the Office of the Prosecutor?
2 A. Yes, I have.
3 Q. Did those reports pertain to an incident at the marketplace on the
4 28th of August, 1995, an incident at Livanjska Street on the 8th of
5 November, 1994, at 1525 and 1725 hours and, lastly, related to an incident
6 on the 18th of June, 1995, at Dobrinja?
7 A. Yes I have.
8 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, before I start I would like the
9 registrar assign Exhibit numbers to the reports. I can read out the 65
10 ter numbers.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
12 MR. SACHDEVA: The first report related to the firing incident at
13 the marketplace is 03119; the second is 03120; and the third, that is the
14 supplement to the expert report, is 03121.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, these will become Prosecution
16 Exhibit P588 through P590 respectively.
17 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you.
18 Q. Mr. Higgs, for your benefit and also for the benefit of the Court
19 I'm just going to explain the sequence of my examination. I will first
20 ask you questions about your background and expertise. I will then move
21 on to general information about mortars, how they are fired, their
22 accuracy, and their range. We will then discuss crater analysis, and at
23 the last section I will move on to the specific incidents that you have
24 written your reports on.
25 Let me start by asking you were you in the British Army?
1 A. Yes, I served in the -- for 22 years' service in the British Army.
2 Q. What did you do for the British Army?
3 A. I served with the Royal Artillery and with the Small Arms School
4 Corps, and within the Small Arms School Corps I was the division
5 instructor which is the senior-most technical mortar position within the
6 British Army.
7 Q. When did you work for the Small Arms School Corps, when did you
8 start your work there?
9 A. I started working with them in 1987.
10 Q. And in the army, did you have a rank and, if you did, what was
11 that rank?
12 A. Yes. My rank within the army was called quartermaster sergeant
14 Q. Was your rank, that is the quartermaster sergeant instructor, was
15 that determinative of the -- the work you did related to mortars and the
16 technical aspects of mortars?
17 A. The rank did not bear any resemblance to my appointment as senior
18 mortar officer. I worked on an appointment far higher than my rank as I
19 supported the British government and the British Army at very senior
21 Q. So can I ask you this then: When you say you were the senior-most
22 technical mortar position instructor in the British Army, when it came to
23 questions arising out of the use of mortars and the technical factors
24 related to mortars, did the - how should I say it? - did the buck stop
25 with you? Were you the senior-most person in the army?
1 A. Yes, I was the senior advisor so any rulings or instructions that
2 I gave had to be acted upon. Regardless if a senior officer wanted to do
3 otherwise, my appointment was such that they would carry out my
5 Q. Now, in your career related to the army and to mortars, did you
6 undertake mortar investigations?
7 A. Yes, I have undertaken many mortar investigations for the British
8 Army, for various foreign armies, and also in the past for the United
10 Q. So I take it your investigations were not just conducted in the UK
11 but other places in the world; is that right?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. And what types of investigations did you undertake?
14 A. I have undertaken investigations where there has been loss of life
15 during training, criminal investigations where I have had to identify what
16 has happened and why, and also undertaken investigations where it's been
17 important to find out type of weapons used, directions of fire, possible
18 intentions, and so on.
19 Q. Actually that -- your answer led into my next question, which
20 was: When you conduct a mortar investigation, what are you attempting to
22 A. I need to establish the type of mortar used, the direction of
23 fire, and the angle of descent.
24 Q. Are you also presumably -- all these factors, would they assist
25 you in determining the likely firing point and therefore the people that
1 fired the rounds?
2 A. From this information, that then gives me the information where I
3 can then, using my experience, come to conclusions where the fire came
4 from and the likely intentions.
5 Q. And in your investigations, did you conduct what is called crater
7 A. Yes, these are an integral part of the most of the investigations.
8 Q. And just very generally, we're going get into detail later, but
9 when you undertake a crater analysis, what are you looking for
11 A. With the crater, it forms a pattern so I can use that pattern in
12 my determination. I'm also looking for probably parts off the projectile
13 to assist me in my investigation as well.
14 Q. And the pattern that you look at, what does that assist you in
16 A. The mortar gives a very definite and distinctive pattern on the
17 ground. That pattern can be used to determine the bearing or direction of
18 fire, and can also be used to indicate the angle of descent.
19 Q. Right. And we'll get to those aspects later.
20 So let me ask you this: In your career, how many mortar
21 investigations, roughly, have you undertaken?
22 A. Probably in excess of a hundred.
23 Q. Now, at the moment you not with the British Army; is that right?
24 A. That is correct. I retired from the British Army a few years ago.
25 Q. Do you -- although you've retired, do you interact with the army?
1 A. Although retired, the individuals who are now doing what I used to
2 do still occasionally phone me up for advice, suggestions, because of my
3 experience that I spent in that position.
4 Q. So you are almost sort of an unofficial consultant?
5 A. That would be correct.
6 Q. Mr. Higgs, have you testified here at the ICTY before coming here
8 A. Yes. I presented evidence on the Galic case where I look at
9 various incidents of mortars engaging civilians.
10 Q. Just before I ask you more questions about that, in preparing your
11 expert reports for the Galic case, did you have the occasion to visit
13 A. Yes, prior and for part of that report I spent a number of days in
14 that area, both within the city and driving around all the surrounding
15 areas, looking at the confrontation lines, as they were, all the major
16 parts of the city, to get a feel for the whole topological layout and the
17 position, and basically what both sides would have seen at that particular
19 Q. How long were you in Sarajevo?
20 A. I think the visit was four or five days.
21 Q. Perhaps I can ask you this now, just in relation to Sarajevo, how
22 conclusive of a place or city is it to the deployment of mortar batteries,
23 mortar fire?
24 A. For a mortar commander who would be looking at -- or if he'd be
25 attacking Sarajevo, it is an ideal position, because the city sits below
1 high ground, which surrounds it, which is ideal for any type of mortar
3 Q. And when you say "ideal," just very briefly explain, what do you
4 mean by that?
5 A. Well, because a mortar is technically an indirect fire weapon, you
6 need to be able to, of course, see the target, ideally at as long a range
7 as possible. Because of the layout of the land in that area, it is
8 possible to place mortars on higher ground overlooking the target at a
9 distance far enough away so they are safe themselves but still to have
10 direct line of sight to the target, which is a big issue in increasing
12 Q. If a mortar battery commander did not have direct line of sight,
13 how would they go about identifying targets? How is that typically done?
14 A. When they can obtain to -- a direct line of sight, the mortar is
15 normally fired using an observer in the same way as artillery is used for
16 long distances. The observer will then direct the fire on to the target.
17 This can be done with mortars as well. But mortars can also fire what is
18 known as direct fire, if they have direct line of sight, which then takes
19 out any errors as an observer may have had, and is a far more accurate way
20 of fire.
21 Q. Thank you. And, as I said, I'll ask you more detailed questions
22 about that.
23 I just want to get back for a moment to your evidence, your
24 reports regarding the Galic case. You said that you conducted --
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Prosecutor, I think it might be of interest if
1 you could just put the question to the witness whether he knew that
2 observers were actually used during this, the conflict in Sarajevo.
3 MR. SACHDEVA:
4 Q. Mr. Higgs, I will just repeat the question from His Honour Judge
5 Harhoff. Do you have any knowledge as to whether observers were deployed
6 in the conflict in the Sarajevo theatre?
7 A. I have no direct evidence they were, but some of the mortar
8 locations that were sighted around the town were in such positions where
9 they could not directly see into the town, so those ones must have had
10 some form of observer.
11 MR. SACHDEVA: Does that clarify?
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes.
13 MR. SACHDEVA:
14 Q. Mr. Higgs, just before --
15 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] You're saying that there had to be
16 observers but that's if the target -- if the shots were aimed at a
17 specific target, otherwise there is no need for an observer?
18 THE WITNESS: If you were just going to fire anywhere, and did not
19 care where the round went, then, yes, you are correct. You don't need an
20 observer. But if you want the round to go accurately on to a target, then
21 you would either need to see it directly yourself or use an observer.
22 MR. SACHDEVA:
23 Q. Mr. Higgs, before this -- this slight deviation I was asking you
24 about the Galic case and your investigation into incidents there. You
25 said that they concerned incidents where civilian casualties were
1 incurred. Just very briefly, what was the subject matter of your
2 investigations, your expert reports into -- into these incidents?
3 A. In all the cases we were trying to determine, of course, the
4 calibre of the weapon that was fired, the direction it came from, angle of
5 descent in each case, and then from that to determine the likely firing
6 positions and possible intentions from the type of fire.
7 Q. Do you perhaps recall which incidents that you -- you worked on?
8 A. One of the major cases I worked on was the Markale market
10 Q. And in those -- in those incidents did, as you aid that you --
11 that was a subject matter of your evidence, did you come to any
12 conclusions as to the likely firing position?
13 A. In the -- those cases, it was determined that because of the types
14 of -- from the crater analysis that we carried that the fire had come from
15 across the confrontation lines originating from different areas.
16 Q. And when you say across the confrontation lines, which party to
17 the conflict controlled the area where you concluded was the likely firing
19 A. When I say beyond the confrontation line that would then be into
20 the Serb-held territories.
21 Q. Now I'm going to move on to the general sort of functioning of
23 Firstly, why don't you start by telling the Court what type of
24 mortars are there.
25 A. There are basically types and they are grouped by their calibre.
1 You have light, medium, and heavy mortars. Mortars of around
2 85-millimetre calibre are classed as medium mortars, and then those of
3 120-millimetre calibre and bigger are classed as heavy mortars. So those
4 are the main categories.
5 Q. And very briefly, how -- how is a mortar typically fired whether
6 it be 82-millimetre or 120-millimetre?
7 A. The majority are muzzle loaded, which means that you drop the
8 round down the barrel. You can get some breech-loaded mortars of the
9 larger calibre but these are not as common as the muzzle-loaded version.
10 So the round is dropped down the barrel, it strikes a firing pin at the
11 base of the barrel which then causes the round, of course, then to ignite,
12 and then the charge push it back up the barrel.
13 Q. And you mention charge, and again I'm going to -- well, I'll leave
14 that and follow my sequence but I just -- I'll come back to the definition
15 of charge and what a charge is.
16 But at this point I would like you to tell the Court, what are
17 mortars designed for? Typically what are they designed to do?
18 A. A mortar round is designed primarily to kill personnel. They are
19 not destruct weapon, i.e., for blowing up large targets, buildings and so
20 on. They are primarily used to kill personnel.
21 Q. And from the design, how would that be achieved.
22 A. The mortar bomb, because it has a slower and normally steeper
23 trajectory than, let's say, artillery, which means that the round tends to
24 explode at ground level, first of all, does not tend to dig in as far as
25 artillery rounds. Also, the rounds are made to fragmentate, i.e., burst
1 into smaller -- far smaller pieces than artillery ammunition, which is why
2 they are more effective against what we call soft skin or personnel-type
4 Q. And is there anything you can say about the angle at which
5 mortars --
6 A. Because of their angle, they tend to come in steeper than most
7 other direct-fire weapons. It mean that most of the blast is then
8 directed at floor level and you do not waste blast into the ground like
9 with some shells, so you get maximum effect from each round.
10 Q. And with respect to range, firstly with an 82-millimetre, what is
11 the maximum range?
12 A. Mortars obviously differ slightly depending on the type of
13 ammunition, but the 82-millimetre, which was used a lot in this case, is
14 around four and a half kilometres.
15 Q. And the 120-millimetre mortar?
16 A. The 120's, again very slightly, but they could give you a maximum
17 range of up between seven or eight kilometres.
18 Q. How does one increase or decrease the range of a mortar?
19 A. Most muzzle-loading mortars have a set of charges which go around
20 the tail section of the round. These are called augmenting cartridges, or
21 some people call them cheeses. They slide over the tail section of the
22 round. The more you slide over, increases the charge. The more you have
23 on the tail section, the longer the range you will achieve from that
25 Q. And so with a 120-millimetre mortar, if you know, what -- how many
1 charges can one put on a 120-millimetre metre, at least with the ones that
2 were deployed in the former Yugoslavia, if you know that?
3 A. Most of the rounds used here were using charge systems up to six.
4 So that would be six different charges on the tail sections.
5 Q. So I take it from your previous answer, charge six would give you
6 the highest possible range, highest possible distance?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Again, with respect to range, how significant is elevation in that
10 A. Well, a mortar can effect its range in two ways, either by
11 changing the charge or by changing the elevation or a combination of the
13 Q. I want to move on to accuracy. Firstly, generally, how accurate
14 are mortars?
15 A. The modern mortar, and when I say "modern," we're talking now
16 mortars in the last 30, 40 years, are very accurate weapon systems. They
17 are not to -- the area weapon as of probably used in the two main world
18 wars. They are now very accurate weapon systems indeed.
19 Q. And if I could take to you page 3 of your initial report, and that
20 is the report related to the Markale incident, and I think it's also page
21 3 in the B/C/S version, I take it you have the reports there in front of
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. On page 3 you talk about the factors that determine accuracy. And
25 I want to ask you a few questions about a few of these factors.
1 If you go down the list you will see that you have mentioned--
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [No interpretation]
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I fail to
5 understand. Which Markale incident are we talking about? The 5th of
6 February, 1995, or the 28th of August, 1995.
7 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I'm talking about the 28th of
8 August, 1995. The witness has not produced a report for the first Markale
9 incident for this case.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Proceed.
11 MR. SACHDEVA:
12 Q. Mr. Higgs, you see that list of factors that you have there, and I
13 want to ask you about what you've indicated here called the stability of
14 the base plate. Can you just briefly explain what you mean by that?
15 A. Well, mortars are a mobile weapons system, and before they fire
16 with any accuracy, they have to be stable in the ground. They have a form
17 of a plate which they sit on which has to be located firmly in the ground
18 before they can achieve any accuracy. This can be down by firing normally
19 to get this plate, which is known as "to bed in," solidly into the ground.
20 Without this, you cannot achieve the highest accuracy.
21 Q. In your opinion, if mortars have been positioned in a location
22 over a long period of time, would that increase or decrease the stability
23 of the base plate?
24 A. It would be a major advantage to the stability of the weapon,
25 because you have been able to leave it in place for so long to have a
1 really stable platform to fire from.
2 Q. I know that you've already answered it, but just to be clear, how
3 does that affect the accuracy?
4 A. Because when the weapon fires, it is no longer sinking into the
5 ground, which then affects the accuracy on range.
6 Q. And maybe I will just ask you this: Given your work for this case
7 as also for the Galic case, do you have an opinion as to whether the
8 mortar batteries were indeed positioned for a long period of time in the
9 same place?
10 A. It seems from -- after when I did my visit and from the positions
11 that the mortars tended to be in positions for some time so they could
12 achieve this higher stability.
13 Q. Now, sticking with this list regarding accuracy, I want to --
14 again, you've -- you've started to explain when you talk about the skill
15 of the mortar observer, but just for the sake of completeness, can you
16 explain that factor?
17 A. If the mortar is being used for indirect fire, obviously the skill
18 of the observer is crucial to get the highest accuracy on to the target,
19 because his orders to the mortar will affect, of course, where they fire.
20 Q. And lastly, you've indicated here the prior recording of targets.
21 Again, please briefly explain what you mean by that and how that affects
22 the accuracy of a mortar?
23 A. If it's possible with a mortar to increase accuracy, you want to
24 record targets or reference points in the area you're firing into.
25 Because this being a town, it's got a lot of natural reference points
1 anyway, like church spires, main buildings, and so on, but also every time
2 you fire you would record the firing data to certain parts of that area.
3 And the longer you're there and the more you fire, the more reference
4 points you can obtain, and the more you have, the higher the accuracy rate
5 of you then engaging in where the target would be.
6 Q. So in an urban environment like Sarajevo where the conflict is
7 carried on for some time, do you have an opinion as to whether targets
8 would have been prerecorded?
9 A. I think most definitely because the area lends itself to that and
10 it would speed up engagement time it would make engagements more accurate,
11 and it would save wasting ammunitions.
12 Q. Let me ask you again to sort of characterise the accuracy. You've
13 mentioned that the accuracy rate would be higher, are we talking about a
14 target that could be engaged in one shot? Would that be possible?
15 A. Yes, it would be.
16 Q. Now, I'm going to move on to command issues.
17 You have already mentioned that the 120-millimetre mortar and the
18 82-millimetre mortars are described as heavy and medium weaponry
19 respectively. In your upon opinion, how valuable an asset are these
20 mortars for the military command?
21 A. Any indirect-fire weapon system is a huge asset to a commander
22 because of the types ammunition they can fire. That is why these tend to
23 be controlled very closely on their use, because of course you do not wish
24 to waste such a valuable asset.
25 Q. So typically, how would the deployment and launching of mortars
1 be -- be controlled? By which level?
2 A. Medium and heavy mortars are controlled at command level again to
3 prevent some, if you like, lower rank local commander from just firing at
4 something and wasting such a valuable asset. They tend to be commanded at
5 the more senior command level.
6 Q. So do you have an opinion in respect to this case whether these
7 mortars would have been commanded by -- by senior commandered or even
8 indeed the commander?
9 A. It seems very unlikely they would have been allowed just to fire
10 on their own. In my opinion, they would have come under the most senior
12 Q. I now want to move on to -- to look into detail about crater
13 analysis. You have -- you have answered this, but when you conduct a
14 crater analysis, I understand that you said you're looking for the type of
15 round, the direction of fire, and the angle of descent. Is that right?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. And let me ask you this: Are these factors important for the
18 determination as to the likely firing position of a mortar?
19 A. Yes, they are.
20 Q. Let's start with direction of fire. Again, you've explained it
21 briefly, but I'm going to ask you to use a photograph to go into a little
22 bit more detail as to how this is determined.
23 MR. SACHDEVA: And if we could move to -- it's page 3 of your
24 supplemental report, and Mr. President, Your Honours, that is 65 ter
1 For the benefit of the Defence, I also think it's page 3 of the
2 B/C/S version.
3 Q. Do you have that report with you, Mr. Higgs?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. And on page 3 you'll see these two photographs. And for your
6 answer, I just want you to ignore the measurements that we see here. But
7 just explain how you would determine the angle -- sorry, the direction of
9 A. You can see from the pictures you have the first crater in the
10 centre, which is where the rounds exploded.
11 Q. May I just stop you there for a second.
12 MR. SACHDEVA: I think for the benefit of the Court it might be
13 useful if you are able to -- is the witness able to mark this still and
14 for it to be saved as an additional exhibit. It seems that this is fine.
15 If the court usher could hand -- yes.
16 Q. Mr. Higgs, can I ask you, is it easier for you to work off the top
17 or the bottom photograph for this explanation?
18 A. Probably easier to work off the top one.
19 Q. Okay. So on the top one, you started to talk about the first
20 crater in the centre. Can you just mark that position with the figure 1,
22 A. You mean the point of impact?
23 Q. That's right.
24 A. It would be -- that's the position of the dot that I put on the
1 Q. If you could just place the figure 1. Thanks.
2 A. [Marks]
3 Q. And before I interrupted you, you started by saying you have the
4 first crater in the centre. If you could please carry on.
5 A. Yes, the first crater at the point of impact is the one, and I'll
6 show -- mark the extremities of that just to make it clear. Which is that
7 one there, and I'll just call that number 2. That shows the initial
8 crater at the -- at the point of impact. But just above that, you can see
9 marks in the tarmac that has been caused by the shrapnel, which is what we
10 call the second crown. Those marks are these here -- I'll just put an
11 arrow to them, and you can see they go around in a fan shape. This second
12 crown will always be facing towards the direction of fire. And the second
13 crown and its position on the ground and the general pattern we can then
14 use for calculating the bearing or the direction of fire, and from the
15 overall pattern we can also determine the approximate angle of descent
16 because the pattern -- the general pattern on the ground will change as
17 the angle of descent changes.
18 Q. Thank you. And we'll move on to the angle of descent in a moment.
19 But just for now, could you put the figure 3 by the arrow that you've
20 indicated there.
21 A. [Marks]
22 Q. And so just to conclude your answer, is it fair to say that where
23 one sees the preponderance of the -- of the marks on the ground in a
24 crater, that would indicate the direction from which the projectile came.
25 Is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I would like to tender this into
3 evidence, with your leave.
4 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, please, on the photograph
5 I see that you placed a line at the second crown, at the level of the
6 second crown. According to you, the -- the distance between the centre of
7 the crater to that second crown, is that useful to determine the origin of
8 fire; and, if so, what would happened if there were two projectiles shot
9 from the same mortar, one falling on a hard surface, like tarmac, and the
10 other one falling on a soft surface, like -- like mud. I guess that the
11 distance between the core and the second crown will be different,
12 depending on the terrain that the projectile landed on.
13 THE WITNESS: To answer your first question, yes, the distance
14 from point of impact to the centre of the second crown is a measurement we
15 do use in ballistic calculation.
16 Craters that you get on soft ground still produce this general
17 pattern. However, on soft ground, grass, for instance, it is far more
18 difficult to measure accurately because the pattern does not stand out as
19 well as it does on hard ground.
20 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, just to inform His Honour Judge
22 Mindua, the ballistic calculations that the witness has just spoken about,
23 I'm going to lead into that in -- in about a minute so that should -- that
24 should hopefully become clear.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: And we admit it into evidence.
1 THE REGISTRAR: As P591, Your Honours.
2 MR. SACHDEVA:
3 Q. And for the -- for the next exercise with respect to the angle of
4 descent, can I still have the page on the screen, please.
5 Mr. Higgs, from that page, if we -- sticking with that page,
6 firstly, which photograph is better suited for you to explain how one --
7 well, let me start by asking you this, a more general question. I'm
8 sorry. How does one normally determine the angle of descent from a
10 A. Angle of descent can be calculated in two ways. The first way,
11 ideally, would be using what is called a fuse furrow. If you don't have a
12 fuse furrow then what I have to use, ballistic calculation.
13 Q. What is that fuse furrow?
14 A. A fuse furrow is a hole in the ground cause by the fuse around --
15 when it explodes, it's then driven into the ground and produces like a
16 long small hole into the ground, and then from that it is possible to
17 place a measuring stick into the hole and then record the angle of descent
18 from that.
19 Q. When is a fuse furrow typically created?
20 A. You tend to get fuse furrows on the softer ground. Grass, that
21 sort of thing, you'll get good fuse furrows. The harder the ground, the
22 less chance you're going to get one.
23 Q. So is one less likely to see a fuse furrow on, for example, a
25 A. A main road is probably one of the hardest substances that a
1 mortar will be fired at, and normally you would not get a fuse furrow when
2 it is fired on to this type of surface.
3 Q. And you said that a fuse furrow produces a long small hole. Can
4 you just give an idea to the Court as to the dimensions of this long hole?
5 A. Fuse furrows can differ slightly in there their dimensions but
6 normally a hole will be a couple of centimetres wide and probably anything
7 up to 30 or even 40, 50 centimetres long on soft ground.
8 Q. And let me just ask you this: Can a fuse furrow be used to
9 determine the direction of fire?
10 A. In methodologies used for determination of direction, the use of a
11 fuse furrow should not be used because they are not an accurate means of
12 determining direction.
13 Q. Thank you. So you mentioned the fuse furrow and you said there
14 were two methods to determine the angle of descent. What is the other
16 A. The other method is ballistic calculation, when you don't have no
17 fuse furrow to use.
18 Q. And to explain this ballistic calculation, which photograph would
19 be best suited for that?
20 A. Probably the picture at the bottom of the page.
21 Q. Very well. If we could look at the bottom photograph, perhaps
22 enlarge it, thank you.
23 And again, if you want to take a pen and explain the measurements
24 that are taken.
25 A. The first measurement that you need is the measurement across the
1 initial crater. That will be the measurement from the front to the back
2 of the crater, so from the line there to the rear of the crater. That is
3 the first calculation that we need.
4 Having done that calculation, what we would then look for is a
5 measurement marked on this photograph as measurement L. Because -- that
6 one there on the picture. What we then look at is the type of round that
7 had been fired, because we use the dimensions of the round. We have to
8 look from -- the measurement from the tip of the round to the centre of
9 the body of the round. So that is the -- the other calculation.
10 What we then do is -- the calculation where we look at the
11 dimension from the tip of the round to the centre of the body, and then by
12 using cosines and dividing in the length between point of impact and the
13 centre of the second crown here, we can then come up with an angle of
14 descent. So the measurement, L, which is marked there on the screen is a
15 crucial measurement that we require.
16 Q. In that measurement, L, the top of the line, is that the second
18 A. The second crown, as we call it, is marked in the centre of the
19 area where the shrapnel has cut out the indentations, so it's marked to
20 the centre. That's what is called the second crown.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. SACHDEVA: I'd like to tender this still into evidence,
23 Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
25 THE REGISTRAR: As P592, Your Honours.
1 MR. SACHDEVA:
2 Q. Mr. Higgs, I want to ask you about -- well, let me ask you this:
3 What is a tail-fin?
4 A. The tail-fin is the construction at the base of the round which
5 has small fins that protrude from it which, when the bomb is in flight, it
6 gives it stability, and the tail-fin also gives you a means by which you
7 can attach your augmenting cartridges, i.e., the charges to the round.
8 Q. Can a tail-fin be used to assist in a mortar investigation?
9 A. The tail-fins can you used in two ways. First of all, if you have
10 a tail-fin, it tends to be the only large part usually of the mortar bomb
11 that is left after it's exploded, and the tail-fins will normally have the
12 ammunition batch numbers stamped on them. So it will help you identify
13 the calibre and the type of ammunition straight away. But they can also
14 be of some use when they are still lodged in the mortar crater.
15 Q. When would you typically find a tail-fin lodged into a crater?
16 What circumstances would allow for that occurrence?
17 A. The tail-fin do not always lodge into the craters because of
18 different circumstances like the hardness of the ground and also the
19 velocity in which the round struck the ground, and this will be dependant
20 upon the charge that the mortar has been fired at. There is normally a
21 higher percentage of tail-fins in craters when the rounds have been fired
22 on the higher charges.
23 Q. When you say "higher charge," you mean fired from the longer
24 distance; is that right?
25 A. Yes. The charges which would give the mortars the longer ranges.
1 Q. And you did mention circumstances like the hardness of the ground.
2 In other words, one could have a mortar that was fired from a farther
3 distance but if it landed on hard ground, that you may not see the
4 tail-fin stuck in the crater. Is that correct?
5 A. That would be correct, yes.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: I would now like to turn to the specific incidents
7 that you worked on. And let me start by asking you this: At least in
8 relation to the Markale incident and the Livanjska Street incident at 1525
9 hours and the Livanjska Street incident that is the first shell at 1730
10 hours. In your opinion, were there good quality craters produced from
11 those incidents?
12 A. They've all produced good patterns from the shrapnel on the
13 ground, yes.
14 Q. And were they able to assist you in your conclusions and
16 A. Yes. Those patterns were sufficient to be able to confirm
17 bearings, and from that obviously they've been able to assist me in my
19 Q. Let's move to the Markale incident. Now, can you confirm that
20 you -- you reviewed photographs from this incident and a video taken after
21 the explosion?
22 A. Yes, I did.
23 Q. And were those photographs and the video, were they of sufficient
24 quality for you to again come to conclusions, accurate conclusions?
25 A. Yes, they were.
1 Q. You also -- if you can confirm to the Court, did you review the
2 Bosnian police report?
3 A. Yes, I did.
4 Q. The French UN report?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. The initial UNMO UN investigation into this incident?
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 Q. And finally the UNPROFOR G2 investigation, G2 report?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. Sticking to the Bosnian police report and actually, in general,
11 and please take your knowledge and experience that you used in the Galic
12 case, but in general what can you say about the competence and the
13 correctness of the methodology employed by the Bosnian police
14 investigators when they conducted crater analysis?
15 A. From all the investigations and reports I have seen of theirs,
16 they use correct methodologies and are very competent at crater analysis.
17 Q. With the Markale incident, were you able to come to a conclusion
18 as to the -- the direction of fire of the projectile?
19 A. Yes, I was, by using the photographs.
20 Q. And from your review of the reports -- well, let me ask you this,
21 the G2 report, the fourth investigation, do you recall what their
22 conclusion was as to the direction of fire?
23 A. They disagreed with all the other reports and came up with a
24 direction -- I think between 220 and 240 degrees, which was completely
25 different from all the other reports which gave a direction nearer 170
2 Q. The G2 report that came to a determination of 220, 240 degrees, do
3 you recall what that was based upon?
4 A. The concern I had for that report was that they took that
5 direction from, as they called it, the fuse furrow, which, as I've said
6 before, is not an accepted way of calculating bearing, and none of the
7 other investigating teams who produced reports of that incident even
8 reported a fuse furrow.
9 Q. In your opinion, and in your experience, if there had indeed been
10 a fuse furrow, would the three prior investigations -- would investigators
11 overlooked this if there was one?
12 A. They would not have overlooked it, no.
13 Q. And you -- well, let me ask you this. Do you recall where the
14 mortar projectile exploded in this incident? Was it on the pavement or
15 was it on the road?
16 A. This particular round exploded on a road, obviously between two
18 Q. And you earlier testified that on a road one is less likely to see
19 a fuse furrow; is that right?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. And so what is your conclusion as to the direction of fire? Is it
22 closer to 220/240 or is it closer to 170?
23 A. Using the photographs, I was able to determine the direction from
24 the pattern, first of all, the way in which the round landed on the road.
25 I then related that to the direction that the road actually ran along.
1 And I was able then to plot that and the direction comes out closer to 170
2 degrees and that it does to 220/240 degrees.
3 Q. I'm now going to actually ask you to use that photograph to
4 explain to the Court exactly how you came to that determination.
5 MR. SACHDEVA: If we could move to the -- if I could ask for the
6 first report to be brought up, that is 65 ter 03119, and if we can move to
7 page 12 in the English, and I understand that it is page 12 in the B/C/S,
8 or perhaps page 10.
9 Q. Mr. Higgs, I'm going to ask you hopefully pointed questions so you
10 can explain.
11 You see a measurement there on the photograph. Well, firstly, is
12 that -- let me ask you, is that the crater at the Markale marketplace?
13 A. Yes, it is.
14 Q. You see a measurement that -- you see a line where you have
15 indicated 275 degrees.
16 A. Mm-hm.
17 Q. What is that?
18 A. When you look at the street map of Sarajevo, the road that this
19 impact landed on runs along an approximate direction of 275 degrees.
20 Q. And the 185 degrees, what does that indicate?
21 A. It just shows the right angle to 275 obviously a 90-degree angle
22 to that one, the 185 degrees.
23 Q. And then using those measurements you came up with the 175.
24 A. Yes. The first thing I did was look at the pattern, where you can
25 see the crater in the centre and of course the shrapnel marks coming away
1 from it to identify which way the crater was facing, first of all, and
2 it's facing towards the building, towards the direction of the bicycles
3 you can see on the photograph. Then by calculating of course which way
4 the road runs on the map, I could come up with that bearing, and then
5 relating the thicker lines through the centre of the pattern of the crater
6 it comes up with a direction of approximately 175 degrees, as it's marked
7 there on the picture.
8 You can also see that from that picture, the dotted line, as if
9 the crater had landed in that road at 220 degrees, that shows the
10 direction that the crater should be facing, and you can clearly see from
11 the pattern of the crater that it does not face that way at all.
12 Q. And with the 220 degrees, if indeed it had come at 220 degrees,
13 would that affect the direction in which the road was going in?
14 A. If on this road the round had come in at 220 degrees, the pattern
15 would be -- when that picture turned to the right quite a lot. On this
16 particular road along that direction, that pattern faces nowhere near 220
17 degrees and I say faces closer to 170, 180 degrees, that sort of figure .
18 Q. And I know that you've explained this, the direction of the
19 projectile, but just to resolve any possible confusion, you have an arrow
20 where you have indicated 175. You have an arrow going towards the
21 bicycles. Do you see that?
22 A. Correct, yes.
23 Q. Can you just take a pen and indicate the arrow from which the
24 direction -- from which the projectile came from, in the direction from
25 which the projectile came from?
1 A. [Marks].
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I would like to tender that still
4 into evidence.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
6 THE REGISTRAR: As P593, Your Honours.
7 MR. SACHDEVA:
8 Q. Mr. Higgs, in addition to the direction of fire, did you come to
9 any conclusions as to the angle of descent? And if you did, what were
10 they, please.
11 A. On the angle of descent, because of the lack of reported fuse
12 furrow by the first three investigations, I looked at the ballistic
13 calculations the Bosnian authorities had used to calculate. The first
14 calculation they'd used was 67 degrees to clear the building. That was
15 the minimum it must have been just to get over the building in front.
16 From their calculations, they came up with an angle of descent nearer to
17 70 degrees by using, as I say, the crater analysis and their dimensions.
18 Q. And is there anything about the pattern of the crater that in your
19 opinion enables you to confirm or support that conclusion that it was 70
21 A. Yes. If you remember the first picture of the crater that we
22 looked at a few minutes ago, there was a definite first crater, then there
23 was a gap before we come to our second crown and the second row of
24 shrapnel marks. We have no marks on the other side of the impact crater.
25 When an angle of descent starts to get steeper, the pattern changes
1 because you now start to get shrapnel marks on both sides of the crater,
2 which is what you have got in this case here, which would indicate that it
3 has come in as a higher angle of descent.
4 Q. In addition to the direction of fire, the angle of descent, were
5 you able to establish the type of round?
6 A. The type of round identified again by the investigating bodies,
7 because of the pieces left at the scene, they recovered the tail-fins and
8 small pieces of the fuse, and it was from that they could identify that
9 this bomb was 120 millimetre.
10 Q. And from their investigation and their conclusions as to the
11 direction of fire and the angle of descent, do you have any reason to
12 question or disagree with the finding, that it was a 120-millimetre round?
13 A. I have got no reason to disagree with those first three reports.
14 As I said, their findings, their methodology, their calculations,
15 everything were correct.
16 Q. Now, you said earlier on in evidence that the determination of the
17 type of round, the angle of descent, and the direction of fire assists or
18 are important in determining the likely firing position. With respect to
19 this incident, did you come to a conclusion as to the likely firing
21 A. From the angle of descent calculated, then by using range tables
22 which are a ballistic table that show you all the ranges that can be
23 achieved at different charges and all elevations, it was possible to plot
24 back to the most likely firing positions.
25 Q. Let me just stop you there for one second. You said "range
1 tables." Were these range tables, did they relate to mortars that were
2 used in the JNA or other types of mortars?
3 A. They were mortars relating to the JNA specific to this case.
4 Q. And perhaps we could move to page 13 and 14 on this report and
5 I'll ask you questions about the possible firing position.
6 If you just go to the next page, page 13 --
7 A. Mm-hm.
8 Q. -- Mr. Higgs, you will see that you have -- under the section
9 entitled summary, you have the possible firing positions. You see you
10 have indicated 900 metres on charge 1, 1.600 metres on charge 2, 2.400
11 metres on charge 3 --
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, for the umpteenth
15 time today, I don't have the page reference for the B/C/S, nor do I have
16 that type of information on my screen.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, why not? You should have it on the screen.
18 What's the page reference?
19 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, it's page 13 of the English, and
20 it's the next page of the page that we were looking at beforehand, so I
21 presume it just follows on from where Mr. Tapuskovic was in the B/C/S
22 version. It's up on the screen now.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: And it should be on his screen now.
24 It's on your screen now, Mr. Tapuskovic. Can you confirm?
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I can confirm there is no image.
1 That's the first thing. It's not the same thing at all. This is the
2 second or the third time. I didn't mean to make an issue out of this, but
3 I simply don't have it in B/C/S and that continues to be the case.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: And you don't have the picture on your screen?
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No. No, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, may I ask why that is. I don't know who
7 can answer that. The court deputy or ...
8 MR. SACHDEVA: I perhaps can answer.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: You can answer it, Mr. Sachdeva.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: Or at least I can attempt to.
11 What's happened here is when the reports in the English language
12 are translated, the text is translated without the maps and the pictures.
13 In other words, the maps and the pictures can be referred to in the
14 English version. Because the maps contain arrows, pictures could contain
15 figures which can, in my submission, be readily accessed in the English
16 version. Of course the text doesn't appear to have the maps when they are
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is it the picture or the text that you wish to
20 focus on?
21 MR. SACHDEVA: I had related first to the text where the charges
22 are indicated, and I'm now going to move on to a map which is on the
23 following page, and the map that is indicated in the English version
24 is -- in my submission, does not require translation. In fact, it's a
25 map from the ABiH which has markings in B/C/S.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't have any
2 picture at all. If I had the picture, or a photograph perhaps, I'd be
3 quite happy in fact. All right.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: There's a photograph now.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Indeed. I have it now. But it's
6 with the English original. Never mind, I'll just try to follow. It's not
7 that important, really.
8 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President --
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: I think your assessment of the import appears to
10 different from Mr. Sachdeva's.
11 But continue.
12 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I'm about to -- this section is
13 going to take roughly ten minutes, and I see we are very close to the
14 adjournment time.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes, we adjourn.
16 Very well. We will take the adjournment until tomorrow at 2.15.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,
18 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 24th day of
19 April, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.