1 Thursday, 23 August 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
8 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
9 WITNESS: DESIMIR GAROVIC
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit.
12 And you may begin, Mr. Tapuskovic.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
14 Thank you. And I'd like to thank you once again for having enabled me to
15 use a bit more time to overcome my health problems. I will try to make up
16 for the time lost with this penultimate witness, who also appears here as
17 an expert.
18 Examination by Mr. Tapuskovic:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, can you tell Their Honours what your first
20 and last name is.
21 A. Your Honours, my name is Desimir Garovic, a retired general.
22 Q. Thank you. I only wanted to hear your first and last name. Can
23 you please tell Their Honours your date of birth.
24 A. I was born on the 14th of April, 1947.
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, unfortunately I
1 have to deal with a few issues before I turn directly to this witness'
3 First of all, briefly of course, I have to deal with a large set
4 of documents I received from the Prosecutor. These documents have to do
5 with a stage in his life, and perhaps he can briefly explain a few things
6 to us.
7 Q. You just said that you are a retired general. What was your rank?
8 A. Major general.
9 Q. During the time of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
10 and in particular at the time when the events discussed here were taking
11 place and back in 1991, what were you then?
12 A. At that time I was in Banja Luka and I was a lieutenant colonel.
13 I commanded an artillery battalion.
14 Q. You said you were in Banja Luka. What do you mean by that? How
15 did it come about that you were in Banja Luka at the time?
16 A. At that time I lived in Banja Luka, working in that garrison, and
17 my family was there as well.
18 Q. How long before 1991 did you live in Banja Luka?
19 A. As of January 1985.
20 Q. It's quite a number of years, then. You were sent there on duty
21 by the army of the then country. You didn't know how long you were
22 supposed to stay there.
23 A. I was employed by the Yugoslav People's Army and the exigencies of
24 the service required that I be in the garrison in Banja Luka. However, I
25 didn't know how long I was to stay there.
1 Q. You also had an apartment.
2 A. Yes, there was an apartment in Banja Luka.
3 Q. When did you leave Banja Luka?
4 A. I left Banja Luka after a presidency decision which had to do with
5 us moving to the territory of the FRY in May 1992.
6 Q. Did you ever go back to Banja Luka after May 1992?
7 A. I did, towards the end of August when conditions were such that I
8 could collect my belongings from the apartment and transport them to
10 Q. What happened then with your friends and acquaintances? Was there
11 anything taking place?
12 A. It is customary that once one leaves a garrison there is usually a
13 farewell party.
14 Q. I don't want to dwell too much on it and waste too much time. I
15 think there are over 100 pages here that can be discussed. But tell me
16 this, please: At that time what was your rank?
17 A. Lieutenant colonel.
18 Q. In 1992?
19 A. No. In 1992, I was a lieutenant. Just before the war I was a
20 lieutenant colonel.
21 Q. When did you become a lieutenant colonel?
22 A. 1998.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 1988.
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Did you ever command a tank unit comprising 50 tanks?
1 A. No. In my unit there was no such weaponry.
2 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions on that. I just wanted to
3 ask for your assistance concerning some matters pertaining to the
4 characteristics of artillery weapons and whether you know anything about
5 craters, compasses and other things requiring certain mathematical
6 calculations. I don't want to ask you anything about your curriculum
7 vitae and your professional career in the JNA from this point on.
8 Can you tell Their Honours, what was your rank at that time?
9 You've explained already but perhaps you can repeat.
10 A. At the moment when I was retired my rank was that of a major
11 general. My duty was chief of the educational directorate.
12 Q. What was your immediate speciality? Perhaps you can explain.
13 A. My speciality is artillery, ground artillery.
14 Q. When you say that, does that mean that you have certain knowledge
15 concerning behaviour of artillery, weaponry, aircraft bombs, and similar
17 A. Yes. I even taught concerning the use of those weapons.
18 Q. On this Defence's request you compiled a written report in which
19 you explained the use and effect of artillery weapons. In the same paper
20 you also explain certain characteristics of aircraft bombs. What was your
21 basis for the report?
22 A. I based my report on the existing literature in possession of the
23 army of Yugoslavia and the former JNA; then based on my previous personal
24 experience and the experience and knowledge and skills I gained by
25 studying other sources.
1 Q. In the report you also state that you had in mind certain
2 incidents when doing your analyses, incidents encompassed by this
3 Prosecution's indictment against General Dragomir Milosevic.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Is this your report, the one bearing the number DD00-4582,
6 referring to the incidents of shelling and dropping of airbombs? Is that
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] That report is in e-court.
10 Q. Can you confirm to us that this is the report compiled by you,
11 judging by the cover page that you can see on the screen?
12 A. Yes, I can. Yes, this is it.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'd like this document,
14 DD00-4582, have admitted as a Defence exhibit.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
16 THE REGISTRAR: As D366, Your Honours.
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Let us turn now to a few things concerning some data about the
19 120-millimetre mortar M-75. It was also a part of your analyses. It is
20 on page 8 of your report in B/C/S. In the English version, it is page 6.
21 I wanted to ask you a few questions regarding that.
22 Can you explain to Their Honours something about the
23 characteristics of that particular mortar. How does one move such a
24 calibre weapon from one firing position to another?
25 A. Any movement of such a weapon from one place to another is done by
1 using engines, vehicles, having in mind the number of people belonging to
2 its crew and its sheer weight. There is no other way to transport that
4 Q. Thank you. When is such a weapon used, or rather, when it is
5 being used, what impact does it have upon the surface it was placed on?
6 A. That particular place from which a 120-millimetre mortar fired
7 from had to have been prepared. The base plate has to be pushed into the
8 ground and certain canals have to be dug out inside which the legs can be
10 Q. What sort of traces are left on the surface?
11 A. The traces of the plate and the legs, of course, and this usually
12 covers an area of some 5 to 6 square metres.
13 Q. One last thing on that topic. Does such a weapon, or rather, can
14 it be placed on a stone surface?
15 A. According to our rules, it is forbidden to place such a mortar on
16 a stone surface.
17 Q. I would kindly ask you not to rush with your answers. Wait for
18 the cursor to stop and allow for a small pause after my question.
19 A. I apologise.
20 Q. Why is that not allowed?
21 A. A stone surface is hard. It doesn't provide for any further
22 operation of firing. The mortar would simply bounce off the surface and
23 wouldn't be much use if trying to fire again.
24 Q. Your report does not include any type of information or assessment
25 regarding artillery weapons, or the artillery weapon called Nora. I
1 wanted to ask whether you know anything about that weapon system.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Sorry, Judge Harhoff has a
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. Before we leave the mortars and move on to
5 the Nora weapon, I would like to ask a few additional questions regarding
6 the mortars. First of all, 120-millimetre mortar, what is the total
7 weight of that weapon? The indications here are not entirely clear in
8 your report, at least as I can see. How much is -- what is the weight of
9 the plate of a 120-millimetre mortar, approximately?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have cited the weight
11 of the weapon when it is in a combat position. Also, undercarriage is
12 being used for transporting the weapon, and the total weight of it is 300
13 kilometres [sic] on march. The weight of individual components varies.
14 For example, the base plate is nearly 80 kilometres, and if you allow me,
15 I may consult the rules and therefore provide you with accurate figures.
16 However, an ordinary person, an individual, is unable to carry it from one
17 place to another. Not a single part of the mortar can be carried by an
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand. Let me just, for the record, say
20 that the indication of the weight, I suppose, should be kilogrammes. It
21 has been translated as kilometres, but I suppose this is a mistake.
22 So the base plate itself weighs 80 kilogrammes, approximately.
23 That means that two persons could lift it from a car or a truck down onto
24 the ground; is that correct?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A mortar is being towed. It's
1 coupled to a motor vehicle. It is not being carried. It is not loaded
2 onto a truck, it's being towed from one place to another.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Please forgive us, General. I think you might
4 wish to explain to us just how a mortar works. The Bench is not composed
5 of experts in artillery weapons. So you say that a mortar is being pulled
6 on wheels, I suppose, after a truck or a vehicle. Then what happens when
7 it arrives to the firing location? Can it then -- I suppose it has to be
8 lowered so as to stand directly on the ground. How is that done?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, along with the mortar
10 that you can see on the picture, there is a sort of undercarriage or
11 carriage that has two wheels. The mortar is mounted on this carriage and
12 this whole assembly is a kind of trailer that can be coupled with a motor
13 vehicle and transported to another location.
14 Upon the arrival to the location, this carriage is detached and
15 disconnected and the mortar remains as shown in the picture, and then it
16 is prepared for operation. A 120-millimetre mortar is not loaded onto a
17 vehicle. It has its own structure that allows it to be towed as a trailer
18 attached to a motor vehicle. And that applies to all mortars that I used
19 all around the world. They are structured in that way. They have rubber
20 wheels and they have a shackle that is used to be attached to a vehicle.
21 I hope I have been clear enough.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: You have been perfectly clear, but still I need to
23 understand and to see for myself how it works. And the reason I'm asking
24 these questions is that in this case we have been dealing a lot with the
25 possible firing positions of mortars, so this is why the Bench needs to
1 become a little more familiar through your expertise about just how it
2 works in practice.
3 Now, I suppose the base plate is standing directly on the ground
4 immediately before firing the mortar, and the legs as well.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Once the carriage is detached from
6 the mortar, it is moved to 10 or 15 metres. It's a separate component
7 upon which the mortar is loaded and fixed. The carriage has no effect on
8 the combat operation. It is just used for transportation.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand. So when the mortar is then fired,
10 what sort of traces would be left on the ground once the mortar is
11 removed? Would that be traces from the pressure of the explosion into the
12 ground or would it be gunpowder or smoke or remnants of powder? What
13 would you find on the ground? How would you be able to see that a mortar
14 was fired from here? What would you look for?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There's an imprint of the base
16 plate. It's circular. And it remains in the ground depending on the
17 hardness of the surface. So this imprint can be 10 to 15 centimetres deep
18 and that's the only reliable trace indicating that this is the position
19 from which a 120-millimetre mortar was fired. This trace on the surface
20 is 60 to 70 centimetres in diameter. So it is clearly shown on the
21 ground, indicating that a mortar was fired from that particular place, and
22 that's the only reliable information that can tell you that.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: And you said that if a mortar was fired from
24 directly on a rock, that would be senseless because the weapon, as a
25 result of the explosion, would bounce off the ground and be destroyed. So
1 you would normally fire a mortar from a ground that would allow some sort
2 of, what should I say, flexibility.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: If the ground is dry, then would you still be --
5 dry and hard, but still it would be earth, but dry earth, would you still
6 be able to see an imprint?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It can be fired from any kind of
8 surface, soft ground or hard ground. This kind of surface is not hard
9 enough to prevent the use of the mortar. Only in the case of a rocky
10 surface, that can present even danger for the crew operating the mortar.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand. But say if I were to fire a
12 120-millimetre mortar from a football field. I suppose we all have a sort
13 of sense of how soft the ground is on a football field. In that case you
14 would say, if I understand you correctly, that the mortar would leave an
15 imprint in the grass of somewhere between 10 and 15 centimetres of depth,
16 when you remove the base plate. Have I understood this correctly?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we have a football pitch, that
18 would be the imprint left. Other kinds of surfaces are harder than a
19 football pitch.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Exactly. And so my question is: If you then move
21 to a place where the ground is very dry and therefore quite hard, my
22 question is: Would you still be able to see an imprint, perhaps only of a
23 few centimetres, or would there be any imprint left at all?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The depth would be 2 to 3
25 centimetres, but of course it would be visible and one could deduce that
1 that mortar was used there. But I keep repeating, if we are talking about
2 dirt or soil.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, I have understood this. Would there be any
4 imprints left from the legs of the mortar?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: What would they look like?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As if you put a stick into the
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: All right. And would there be gunpowder or smoke
10 or burnt-off areas around the base plate in the grass or in the
11 vegetation, if there is any, or would there only be the imprint?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Only the imprint. Gunpowder gases,
13 given the nature of the firing and the elevation, are not present
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: This applies to the 120-millimetre mortar. What
16 is the imprint left by an 82-millimetre mortar? Are they the same, just
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, they are smaller, but as far as
19 the shape and other characteristics are concerned, they are the same.
20 They are just smaller. And that is how you can tell the difference
21 between the 82-millimetre and the 120-millimetre, according to the size
22 and the shape of the imprint found on the ground.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much, General.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
1 Q. Mr. Garovic, as a follow-up to the question asked by His Honour
2 Judge Harhoff, if we have a mortar firing from a certain position and it
3 needs to be shifted to another location, a closer one or a further one, is
4 it necessary for it to be given appropriate towing? As you said, it was
5 brought to the location using what?
6 A. A motor vehicle.
7 Q. What kind of motor vehicle?
8 A. In our vocabulary we call it a truck. These were typical JNA
9 trucks, JAP 150 -- sorry, FAP 150 and 110.
10 Q. When they move in the field --
11 A. They leave traces of motor vehicle passage.
12 Q. When they arrive there --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the speakers please
14 pause between questions and answers.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please observe a pause between questions and
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I will repeat.
18 Q. First, the tow-truck leaves tracks when it arrives to the
19 location, so it leaves the tracks and traces on the grass and in the
20 field; is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, if it were to change location and go to another position, the
23 mortar is again attached to the truck.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Is part of the base plate, or any other element for that matter,
1 is embedded at this particular location? Or, in other words, is it always
2 put on the grass directly or in the field? Can you tell us that?
3 A. In order for the mortar to become operational, preparations have
4 to be made for the location where the base plate is going to be put. One
5 part is embedded into the earth in order to stabilise it for firing.
6 Q. I'm a little bit concerned about the time that has already
7 elapsed. Can you tell us briefly, please, what do you know about Nora?
8 A. Nora is an artillery weapon in the arsenal of the JNA. It falls
9 into the howitzer gun category of weapons and its range is 24 kilometres.
10 Q. Thank you. That would be sufficient. Can you tell me, because I
11 would like to hear that as well: Judge Harhoff asked you whether it was
12 possible for two men to lift 80 kilogrammes, if I remember correctly. You
13 said that the carriage weighs about that.
14 A. Yes, about 80 kilogrammes.
15 Q. So could two men, soldiers - those are mainly 19-year-olds - lift
16 80 kilogrammes?
17 A. Yes, they can, but they cannot carry it too large a distances.
18 Q. Thank you. You said that the carriage was normally parked at what
19 distance from the firing position?
20 A. Five to 10 metres, depending on the configuration of the ground,
21 but not more than that.
22 Q. So practically it is simply detached. It is not being lifted.
23 A. It's being just detached from the mortar and it serves only for
24 the transportation and towing.
25 Q. Thank you. In the chapter entitled "The Rules of Use of Firing
1 Weapons for Direct Support," which is on page 11 in the B/C/S version and
2 page 8 in the English version, you explained this topic in great detail;
3 is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Mr. Garovic, I'm not going to go back on everything that you wrote
6 down, except for a few details that I will address later on, but I would
7 like to hear certain explanations from you relating to the issues raised
8 here and it will be up to the Chamber to arrive at final conclusions.
9 What is not included in your report is the description of how a
10 mortar and artillery unit is being deployed in the course of a combat
11 operation. Can you tell us that?
12 A. A mortar battery in combat operation is deployed in the following
13 way: Mortars are being placed at firing positions which is far from the
14 confrontation line, 2 to 4 kilometres. Part of the units, which is to say
15 one or two men, are deployed at observation points --
16 Q. Please wait for my next question. You gave me the answer. Now
17 please wait for me to pose the next question.
18 First of all, when you speak about firing positions and
19 observation points or observers, does the same arrangement apply to direct
20 and indirect fire? I'm not going to seek explanation for either of these
21 notions. It's already well known. So does this arrangement exist in both
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Whose position is an observer or spotter?
25 A. He is deployed as part of his own force, as close to the line of
1 confrontation as possible. In principle, it is between 500 and 1.500
2 metres away from the confrontation line.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel, please.
4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation].
5 Q. Facing the firing position of his own forces which are to his
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What would be the role of an observer?
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I have no objection, obviously, with
11 respect to the expertise this witness can offer in this subject of
12 observation and observers being deployed by military formations. However,
13 as Mr. Tapuskovic has said now with respect to two subjects, this
14 information, this evidence, is not contained in the expert's report and
15 one would have thought that if Mr. Tapuskovic wants to lead this evidence,
16 that such instructions would have been given to the expert at the outset
17 of his work on the report.
18 Now, of course the Prosecution is aware of these issues, and they
19 are issues in this case. However, the purpose of an expert filing his
20 report or her report is to provide a copy of that report 30 days prior to
21 the testimony of that expert, and that's contained in Rule 94 bis, because
22 some of the analysis and some of the expertise given on the stand or given
23 in the report need to be assessed and examined efficiently by the
24 Prosecution and therefore the 30-day limit is given.
25 Putting new areas that are not contained in the report to the
1 witness and for the witness to now be giving expert opinions and
2 conclusions on these issues, in the Prosecution's submission, impacts on
3 the fairness of the proceedings to some extent.
4 And I also take the opportunity to pre-empt or to mention that the
5 Prosecution has filed a motion on similar considerations with respect to
6 the last witness tomorrow. I think this was filed or will be filed today
7 on similar issues. I just would like to point that out, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: You have heard the objection, Mr. Tapuskovic.
9 You are now leading evidence on matters not in the report.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, first of all, there
11 are still some issues pending and they remain so after this -- after the
12 compiling of this report. I wanted to hear from the witness some of his
13 general opinion as to the activity of certain types of artillery weapons
14 as regards the type of crater, the use of sights, and so on and so forth.
15 All of that he put in the context of events from the indictment.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Sachdeva, the Chamber is not with you
18 on this point. We believe that these matters arise naturally from the
19 expert's report and these are matters on which one would expect questions
20 to be asked. I believe that you have taken too literally the requirement
21 that matters dealt with in examination-in-chief in relation to an expert
22 should be contained in the report. That is so, generally speaking, but
23 where matters arise incidentally from the expertise of the expert, I see
24 no objection to it.
25 Proceed, and please remember the time limit.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is the only
2 thing on my mind currently. However, we spent quite some time on one
3 particular issue and there were questions put by the Judges. I am
4 compelled to use only those documents that have previously been used by
5 the Prosecutor. All the documents that I present to the witness will be
6 of that type. These will only be Prosecution documents. I will not use
7 any additional ones. I will only seek clarification on certain of those
8 documents. Later on there will be some other issues that may raise
9 questions on the part of the Prosecution.
10 Q. I wanted to ask you this, Witness: What is the role of an
12 A. An artillery observer is tasked with monitoring the situation on
13 the battlefield and the situation with the enemy. He needs to make
14 certain assessments as to the activity of the enemy and inform his
15 superior of that.
16 Q. Thank you. I don't want to dwell too much on that, but when it
17 comes to firing from a mortar, especially a 120-millimetre mortar, at what
18 stage is the observer's role crucial with both direct and indirect firing?
19 A. On his superior's approval, the artillery observer can carry out
20 corrections after the first projectile had been fired at the target.
21 Q. Thank you. When you analysed another witness report - this
22 witness was examined by the Prosecutor - and since you are expertise in
23 that field, what does an entered target mean?
24 A. I have encountered that term for the first time in that very
25 text. In my entire career I have never seen such a term. As far as I can
1 understand --
2 Q. Thank you. Thank you. But if one says "entered target," what
3 does that tell you?
4 A. It tells me that all of the targets or a part of the targets
5 chosen by an artillery is then -- their coordinates set up on the sighting
6 devices. Therefore, at any given moment fire can be opened against such
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's remark: We believe the correct
9 term is a presighted target.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Is it possible that someone has entered or presighted a target
12 three months in advance and you come three months later, put in a charge
13 and hit the target without any errors?
14 A. That is not possible. In order to fire a projectile concerning
15 the weapons from the JNA's arsenal, you can hit the target only given that
16 it was presighted immediately prior to that. It is not possible to
17 presight a target and fire at a later stage.
18 Q. I want to move further now.
19 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon. I would like
20 to comment because the English term used, "presighted," has appeared twice
21 and the first time -- well, I'm also listening in B/C/S as I speak in
22 French. It's not coordinate presighted, because Mr. Tapuskovic used
23 another term in B/C/S which means predetermined, predetermined target. So
24 I think that the -- that would be the more appropriate term based on the
25 word used in B/C/S and based on the meaning that was given by the expert.
1 So I just wanted to make this point to avoid any misunderstanding when the
2 transcript is reread.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Predetermined, then.
4 Does the interpreter agree with that?
5 THE INTERPRETER: To presight the weapon, the interpreters
6 believe, means to set the coordinates for the target in advance.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
8 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I would just add that since
9 Mr. Tapuskovic referred to the expert evidence of Mr. Higgs and Mr. Higgs'
10 official report, the term is prerecorded sights.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, we have a number of variances.
12 Prerecorded, presighted, predetermined.
13 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, well, I just think we
14 have to agree that all of the various interpretation booths use the same
15 term because, of course, today's expert is listening in B/C/S, as well as
16 Mr. Tapuskovic. So we have to be sure we're using the same term that was
17 used by Mr. Higgs, because one of the words used in B/C/S does not
18 correspond to the meaning of prerecorded.
19 [Trial Chamber confers].
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: I believe the substance of the matter is quite
21 clear. I don't think we need to trouble the interpreters any further on
23 Please continue.
24 Judge Mindua.
25 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Well, could I please ask you what
1 you think the appropriate translation is in B/C/S?
2 MS. ISAILOVIC: [No interpretation]
3 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Prerecorded.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us proceed.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. What is the most important thing concerning the flight of a
7 projectile once it was fired, something that cannot be prerecorded,
8 presighted, or anything of the sort?
9 A. Concerning all of the elements important to the flight of a
10 projectile, the weather conditions are the most important. They have a
11 significant impact on the flight characteristics and pattern of that
12 particular projectile.
13 Q. Out of all of those --
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute. You had earlier asked the witness
15 a question about a mortar being set three months before. I wasn't clear
16 as to the answer that was given. And I would ask you whether this WAS
17 actually based on evidence in the case. Would you repeat the question.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'll try to find
19 that reference in the Higgs report so as to make that issue perfectly
20 clear. For your sake, I wanted to say that it was Higgs' belief that
21 because of the type of conflict and the situation in Sarajevo, it was easy
22 to have prerecorded sights all over town. The attackers knew where the
23 main assembly points are and where civilians would be. If one wanted to
24 use a single projectile while at the same time causing the maximum damage,
25 then this target would have been the best target. It was Mr. Higgs'
1 opinion that it sufficed to prerecord a sight, since one knew in advance
2 where the civilians would be, and then what one needed to do was only to
3 pull the trigger, causing the damage. This was Mr. Higgs' opinion in
4 T558. That is why I'm asking this expert whether there is such a
5 possibility that someone a month ago or a year ago prerecords a sight,
6 lets some time elapse, then pull the trigger and hit the very same target
7 he had fired on a year before.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: And the witness' answer was no; isn't that so?
9 Yes. And would you explain why, in your view, that was not possible?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The impact of various factors on the
11 flight of the projectile is such that even one hour before a round is
12 fired, the calculated elements are incorrect to a certain extent, and they
13 particularly -- the weather conditions and ballistic conditions affect the
14 flight of the projectile. The weather in Sarajevo from the point of view
15 of use of artillery, it's characteristic of a mountain area. The wind
16 speed, wind direction, they affect the flight of the projectile to such an
17 extent that it is impossible for the round to hit the target precisely,
18 even if we calculated all the elements. Quite simply put: An hour is a
19 long time period for the artillery fired to be accurate.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: And the hypothesis put to you was actually three
21 months, so that the -- it would be even more inaccurate.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Quite inaccurate, inaccurate to a
23 very high degree.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: So it's not so much that it couldn't be done but
25 that the projectile -- the accuracy would not be guaranteed. In fact, the
1 accuracy would be quite compromised.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: And I suppose atmospheric, the pressure of the air
4 also has an influence, aside from the wind speed and wind direction.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Atmospheric pressure affects
6 the density of the atmosphere. If the atmosphere is more dense, then
7 there is a greater resistance and that would affect the range and the
8 flight of the round, even if you fire them using the same firing elements.
9 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Depending on the type of target, a
10 mountain, for example, or a hill, would it be possible that the target be
11 prerecorded, let's say, three months ahead of time with the same weather
12 conditions and then be just as accurate? In other words, if the
13 information was prerecorded three months ahead of time, including the
14 weather, the temperature, the air pressure, et cetera, and three months
15 later if the data is identical, then would it be possible to tier
16 precisely? Is that possible?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. It is impossible to have firing
18 conditions that would be so identical that after a period of three months
19 you could say the conditions now are exactly the same. Even the rounds
20 that are being fired vary in weight and in other characteristics and that
21 affects the accuracy of the fire, too. There are many parameters that
22 affect the accuracy of artillery fire. These parameters make it
23 impossible to prerecord coordinates for the targets in order to achieve
24 accurate fire after a long time period. As a teacher, a long-time teacher
25 of artillery units, this is something that I have not encountered in
1 theory or in practice.
2 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. While we're on this topic, is it possible, then, to plan things
5 three months, a year, or even two days in advance and then to have this
6 element, this thing that was termed the prerecorded target, to make it
7 possible for the first shell to hit exactly where it was intended?
8 A. What I said about three months applies equally to one hour.
9 Because Sarajevo is in the mountainous region - I lived in Sarajevo - and
10 the atmospheric conditions change within half an hour.
11 Q. Well, we have to speed things up a bit. Could you please tell
12 me: If we're talking about an armed conflict, could you please explain to
13 the Judges, how do the warring factions -- what do they do after artillery
14 fire? Do they change their positions, do they move artillery pieces after
15 artillery fire? And are artillery pieces moved at all from one position
16 to another?
17 A. Well, the warring factions try to locate some key pieces,
18 artillery pieces of the other units, in order to fire on them and destroy
19 them as soon as possible. And artillery of course is of particular
20 interest and that is why artillery units often move from one firing
21 position to another two or three times a day, sometimes even more, in
22 order to avoid enemy fire.
23 Q. Thank you. Let us move on to another topic. Could you please
24 tell the Judges, when we're talking about a 120-millimetre mortar, as far
25 as you know based on your experience, at what distance can you hear such a
1 mortar being fired, a 120-millimetre mortar, if we're talking about a
2 person with the average hearing?
3 A. Well, based on my long experience, because I fired this type of
4 mortar, an ordinary person with the average hearing can hear it from a
5 distance of 5 to 6 kilometres at least, and a person with extraordinarily
6 good hearing can hear it from a longer distance of about 40 kilometres
7 from the place where the mortar was fired.
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It says 40 kilometres here and
9 the witness said 10 kilometres, 10 kilometres.
10 Q. But let me be more specific. Is it possible at all not to hear
11 this from a distance of about 5 to 6 kilometres?
12 A. One must hear the sound of a mortar being fired from that
13 distance, 5 to 6 kilometres.
14 Q. I would now like to show you briefly document P888. It is an
15 information report, a preliminary report, filed by Mr. Higgs. It's been
16 admitted into evidence. The last page of his report.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Before we move on, could I just ask one clarifying
18 question to the witness.
19 What is the sound you hear, actually? Is it the explosion or is
20 it the whistling sound of the trajectory?
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge Harhoff, I
22 insisted on the sound of the mortar being fired, when the mortar is being
23 fired. Of course, you are entitled to ask the witness the question, but I
24 insisted in my question that -- about the sound of the mortar being
25 fired. The sound of a round in flight is something different, but we will
1 get to that. But we are now talking about the sound when a shell is being
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, counsel. I was unaware of the
4 precision, the narrowness of your question. But still I would like to
5 hear the answer.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A mortar makes three types of
7 sounds. The shot, the shell being fired, that's one sound, and it has
8 rather peculiar characteristics. The other sound is the sound made by the
9 round on its descent; it's a whistling sound, a piercing sound. And the
10 third sound is the moment when the shell actually explodes.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Now, if we look at Mr. Higgs' report --
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] We don't have the same page in
14 the English version. I would like the last page in the English version to
15 be put on the screen, too. That's document P888. But the English version
16 should -- we should go to the next page or ...
17 I don't want to deal with charges. We have to move to the next
18 page in the English version, page 14. I don't know what's going on. I
19 would like to start with the words "At a range of only 900 metres ..."
20 We're having some problems. Then it should be the previous page
21 in the English version, the last sentence here where it reads: "At a
22 range of only 900 metres ..." In the English version that's the last
23 paragraph, and in the B/C/S --
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can see it.
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. So could you please look at it. "At a range of only 900 metres
2 would put the firing position inside the confrontation line," and in the
3 end, "At this distance they would have heard the round being fired, the
4 observers would have heard it." Would they have heard it?
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Now could we go to the next page
7 in the English version, but just in the English version.
8 Q. And then it says: "At a range of 1.600 metres places the firing
9 point in the area of the confrontation line but still in easy earshot of
10 the UN observers." Is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. The next paragraph: "At a range of 2.400 metres puts the firing
13 position in the hills, which is out of earshot of the UN observers due to
14 the lay of the land. In other words, they would not have heard the round
15 being fired due to the hills and valleys."
16 My question to you is: If they could have heard it well, easily,
17 at a range of 1.600 metres, is it possible that if the shell had been
18 fired only 800 metres further away that now all of a sudden this sound
19 could not be heard by a person with average hearing, with the most average
20 of hearings?
21 A. They should have heard the sound at that distance, too, quite
23 Q. Thank you. And is it possible that one would not be able to hear
24 the sound of five shells, provided they were all fired from a distance of
25 about 2.400 metres?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Now we have --
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
4 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I hesitate because I'm not entirely
5 sure. The question seems to suggest that the four other shells, as is the
6 evidence in this case, were fired from the same -- along the same
7 direction that the shell that the Prosecution alleges was fired from that
8 hit the marketplace. So I'm just attempting to inquire whether
9 Mr. Tapuskovic is, in that question, asserting that the four other shells
10 were fired along that same direction of fire, because, Mr. President, in
11 the evidence in this case, our position is that the four other shells were
12 fired from a direction of 220 to 240 degrees, which is some distance away
13 from where the UN observers were, along the line towards Trebevic
14 mountain. So I'm not sure if that question accurately reflects the
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is your intention here, Mr. Tapuskovic?
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Sachdeva was right, I was not
18 specific enough. But what I intend, Your Honour, is to ask the witness,
19 regardless of the position where the shell was fired, not hearing the
20 shell being fired or four more shells. I'm not going into where the shell
21 was fired from at all. I'm just talking about the possibility that the UN
22 observers had not heard it being fired. I'm not going into the direction
23 of fire or the place from which it was fired, so if it was fired from a
24 distance of about 5 to 6 kilometres or 10 kilometres.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Please move on, Mr. Tapuskovic.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes.
3 Q. To Judge Harhoff's question you said that there were three types
4 of sound made by a mortar. Let us deal with the actual flight now. In
5 which stage of the flight can one hear a projectile flying through the
7 A. Since a 120-millimetre projectile follows a parabolic pattern, we
8 can hear the sound during the descending part of the trajectory.
9 Q. You've just described that sound for Judge Harhoff a few moments
10 ago; therefore, I won't go back to that. But tell me this: Such a sound
11 of such nature, is it also something that an average person can easily
13 A. The characteristics of a projectile flight in its descent is such
14 that one can hear the whistling sound 2 to 3 kilometres away.
15 Q. In what phase?
16 A. During the descent. The closer to the ground --
17 Q. Thank you. Thank you. You've given us an answer. Tell Their
18 Honours this: Let us assume that a projectile was fired, for example,
19 from a distance of 2.400 metres. What is the length of the flight
20 measuring from the place of origin of fire, or rather, what is the
21 duration and length of ascent as opposed to descent?
22 A. That can vary. As for that distance, an average trajectory would
23 be about 2.500 metres. The descending phase would be about -- or rather,
24 the descending phase is 2.5 kilometres.
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] My colleague is telling me that
1 the apex of the trajectory is also mentioned.
2 Q. Did you say that the ascending trajectory up to the apex is 2.5
3 kilometres and the descending part of the trajectory is also 2.5
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. As the projectile is falling down it can be heard. Can you tell
7 Their Honours, can you describe for them the nature of that sound as of
8 what moment when it leaves the apex and starts descending towards the
10 A. I've already said that it's a whistling sound. The closer the
11 projectile is to the ground, the louder the intensity. And it is at its
12 loudest just prior to hitting the ground.
13 Q. Do you know if it's possible at all to say how long in terms of
14 time it takes to leave the apex and hit the target?
15 A. Depending on the range and the distance and the charge, it can be
16 anywhere between 20 seconds and as much as a full minute, 60 seconds, that
18 Q. No, no. I'm interested in the period of flight during which you
19 can hear it.
20 A. That is one half of the entire flight time, that is, 15 to 20
22 Q. Let us not waste time. When I ask you about the descending stage,
23 tell me about the descending stage. So it's 15 to 20 seconds?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did I ask you this: If there were five shots fired from different
1 sides from a distance of 2.5 kilometres, is it possible that not a single
2 projectile would be heard? Is it possible that no projectile would be
3 heard, although each projectile would have the descending pattern which
4 lasts for 15 to 20 seconds?
5 A. That is not possible.
6 Q. What can be registered on the instruments which are custom-made in
7 order to follow the sound of firing, flight, and impact? First of all,
8 what is registered on the instruments which are supposed to follow the
9 firing -- they're supposed to follow the sound of firing?
10 A. In modern armies there are instruments which can follow sound.
11 They can observe two types of sound - the sound of firing and the sound of
12 explosion. In this case there are instruments which can register the
13 moment of firing, they can register the sound that occurs, and based on
14 certain mathematical calculation, according to that, one can determine the
15 very source of sound, or rather, the place of origin of fire.
16 Q. Such instruments --
17 A. Depending on the army --
18 Q. Thank you. Wait, wait. At what distance from the origin of fire
19 can such instrument register a firing?
20 A. They can register the sound and they can do that at a distance up
21 to 20 kilometres.
22 Q. How much later after such an instrument has registered the sound
23 those who work with that instrument, how much later would they be able to
24 ascertain the actual firing position?
25 A. One minute at the most.
1 Q. How do you explain that?
2 A. If we have a trained crew with a good instrument and its
3 characteristics are such that it takes the crew only one minute by using
4 the information to determine the source of sound, and they can calculate
5 the coordinates from which the shot occurred.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, we must take the break now.
7 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
8 --- On resuming at 10:54 a.m.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Mr. Garovic, before the break we were discussing the mortar sound,
12 the sound of a round in flight. We talked about one projectile. What if
13 there were five projectiles which were fired from approximately the same
14 distance but from different locations? Would such instruments register
15 the sound of impact of those projectiles?
16 A. Sound reconnaissance devices are made in such a way so as to be
17 able to register the firing, the shot, and then in that case they must
18 have registered that.
19 Q. Therefore, these instruments do not register the sound of a round
20 in flight but rather the sound coming from the place of fire.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What is the degree of accuracy in terms of pinpointing the exact
23 location, and what is the reliability of such instruments?
24 A. Such instruments are so precise that the circular error is up to
25 10 metres. Such data is always considered accurate.
1 Q. I'm interested, first and foremost, at the very location from
2 which a shell was fired. Can such an instrument determine the very point
3 of firing with a possible error of up to 10 metres?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Please tell Their Honours if there is a chance of a radar device
6 registering a 120-millimetre projectile?
7 A. In modern armies there are radar devices which detect the place of
8 firing of a mortar round as well. In this case it would be the Cymbeline
9 radar device. Based on detecting the ascending pattern of the projectile,
10 it can determine the place of firing with a degree of accuracy of plus or
11 minus 5 metres.
12 Q. Thank you. Provided a projectile was fired from a distance of
13 2.400 metres, you told us what would be the duration of the ascending
14 stage and, from the apex, the descending part of the curve. What can be
15 registered by this radar device as regards the curve which consists of an
16 ascending and a descending stage?
17 A. That radar device registers the ascending phase of the curve and
18 it registers the projectile itself. It records it.
19 Q. Since you said that the ascending part of the curve from the
20 distance of 2.400 metres is approximately 2.5 kilometres, does that mean
21 that the radar registers the ascending part of the path up to that height?
22 A. The radar needn't register the entire curve of 2.500 metres. It
23 only records the part of the flight pattern from the nozzle up to 200
24 metres away. This suffices, and based on that information, can calculates
25 the entire curve.
1 Q. Can you sketch that for us so that the Judges would be able to
2 understand better what is the range that such a radar can detect.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.
4 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I note the earlier ruling. However,
5 the opinions with respect to radars is somewhat different to the use of
6 observers and traces left by mortars. And it's not that the Prosecution
7 would not anticipate the issue with respect to radars and Cymbeline.
8 However, when an expert comes and gives opinions and conclusions on the
9 day that the expert is testifying without it being included in the report,
10 it can leave the Prosecution in somewhat of a difficult position in terms
11 of cross-examining the witness on these conclusions. The radar and
12 Cymbeline issue is a very, very technical aspect that really, in my
13 submission, should have been included in the report.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is your expertise in the matter of radars?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As an artillery officer, I was
17 trained to use the SNR radars. With a long teaching career, I also became
18 familiar in lecturing on radars to our cadets. However, we did not go
19 into the very essentials and construction of the device, but we did study
20 its use.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, what do you say about the
23 objection? It seems to me that there are two matters. First, that this
24 subject matter is not in the report. In my earlier ruling I said if it
25 arose naturally from the expertise of the witness' report, then I would
1 allow evidence to be given on it as something which is naturally
2 incidental. I am not certain that this qualifies.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is a very
4 important issue --
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: That really was two issues in one. One, the
6 subject matter being discussed is not in the report. And secondly, it's a
7 different area from the expertise of the witness.
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] As regards the first issue, at
9 page 21 - that's the English version 14 - the witness discussed Cymbeline
10 radar systems. Well, you've given us your view about the earlier
11 objection raised by Mr. Sachdeva. I will not go back to it. He is not an
12 expert for radars, but he does know a few basic things. So I'm not
13 insisting on expert aspects as regards radars but the elements that every
14 artillery officer is aware of regarding the use of radars, because without
15 such knowledge they cannot perform their job at all.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, I do see it in the report, but it's really
18 just a mention of the Cymbeline satellite radar systems. It doesn't go
19 into any detail. There's nothing there to suggest to me that he possesses
20 any knowledge, specialised knowledge in that area. But taking into
21 account all these points, I'm going to allow the evidence to be given on
22 the basis that there is mention of it in the report.
23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Garovic, to the extent that you know about some basic things,
25 what you began to draw here, this pertains to the -- what happens here in
1 this area that -- in this thing that you just started drawing for us?
2 A. The Cymbeline radar is set at such a spot that the radar beams
3 cover the area where mortars are expected to operate. At the moment when
4 a shell is fired, at the height of about 200 to 300 metres, the radar
5 beams register the entry of the shell into the beams and registered the
6 bear coordinates. And then at a higher part of the trajectory, 300 to 400
7 metres - that depends on the settings of the radar - another recording is
8 taken of the same shell at a different height and the parameters are
9 recorded. Then a calculation is made, the parameters are processed, and
10 the coordinates are established on the basis of the ascent of the impact.
11 The source of the projectile is determined. The circular error is up to 5
13 Q. Well, apart from the fact that the radar is able to establish with
14 unerring accuracy the point from which the shell was fired, what else is
15 the radar able to establish with unerring accuracy?
16 A. The speed of the flight over a certain area which serves to
17 determine the charge used to fire the round.
18 Q. What do you mean? In addition to determining the spot, the radar
19 can also determine the charge that was used?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Is it possible for a radar such as this one not to register a
22 single ascent of a shell fired from any mortar, including the mortars at
23 such a range from any direction, from the position where theoretically we
24 could say that a shell was fired 2.500 metres?
25 A. Since I had Cymbeline radars in my unit - we had a unit that
1 worked with those radars - it is impossible for a shell to be fired
2 without the radar registering the trajectory.
3 Q. In this respect does it matter at all, although you have already
4 answered this question, if the length of the trajectory is 2.500 metres,
5 which as you indicated, is the case in mortars firing a shell from a
6 distance of 2.400 metres?
7 A. It doesn't matter at all because the radar records the trajectory
8 up to the height of a maximum of 400 metres - interpreter's correction:
9 1000 metres - to determine the charge.
10 Q. Now please tell me: If you have a person with the average
11 hearing, such as the UN observers have, if they failed to register the
12 firing, if an average human hearing, such as the observers of the United
13 Nations possess, if it failed to register the sound of the flight of the
14 round, if this was not registered by the state-of-the-art device
15 monitoring the sound of the firing of the shell, if no radar system, the
16 radar system that you mentioned, or any other that is even more advanced
17 failed to register the trajectory of the shell, and if only one thing was
18 heard in all this, if only one thing was heard, the impact, the sound at
19 the place where a shell landed, can you explain that in any way
21 A. On the basis of the conditions that you just explained to us, the
22 sound of the explosion of a body can only be heard if such a device was
23 exploded in static conditions.
24 Q. Thank you. Now we should move on to another topic. In chapter 2
25 of your report, that's paragraph 18, or rather, page 18 in the B/C/S
1 version, which would be page --
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, there's no reason for it to
3 be shown to the witness, or perhaps we should.
4 Q. At that page you spoke about -- you spoke about craters. What I
5 want to ask you before showing you anything: A crater caused by a
6 120-millimetre mortar, can it in itself provide accurate parameters or
7 elements to determine the direction and the range from which this shell
8 was fired?
9 A. A crater caused by a shell, a 120-millimetre mortar shell, cannot
10 give a single accurate parameter to determine any of the elements of the
11 trajectory or anything that would indicate the place from which the shell
12 was fired.
13 Q. At page 18 in the B/C/S version - that's page 12 in the English
14 version - and now I have to waste some time.
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at document
17 Q. That's your report. I can't find it now exactly, but that's the
18 passage starting with the word "The diameter and depth..." That's at page
19 12 in the English version, the last paragraph. Could you please look at
20 the B/C/S version, that would be the second paragraph right in the
21 middle. It says:
22 "The funnel of the crater, the edges and epicentre of the
23 explosion crater which would allow for a precise determination of
24 reference points required for taking reliable and precise measurements are
25 not well-defined."
1 Is that so?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And could you please tell me whether this applies to every crater
4 regardless of the type of the mortar, including the 120-millimetre mortar?
5 A. Yes, if a shell landed on the same type of ground. If you have
6 loose soil, the crater is different. Its depth is different. It can be
7 even wider because of the nature of the soil, the firmness of the ground.
8 Q. Why is that so, in addition to what you just told us? Why is it
9 difficult? Could you explain this to us more precisely, at least to a
10 certain degree.
11 A. When a shell hits the ground, earth or soil, because the soil is
12 soft, it penetrates deeper into the ground and it ejects a larger quantity
13 of soil out of the explosion site. That's why the crater is deeper and it
14 is larger, because more soil had been ejected. If the shell hits a
15 concrete or asphalt, because this ground is firm, the shell does not
16 penetrate into the ground at all, but all the traces are based on the --
17 all the traces are those of the gunpowder gases that were ejected at the
18 moment of the explosion.
19 Q. But even if a shell hits a firmer ground, it leaves a
20 funnel-shaped crater behind.
21 A. Yes, but it's much shallower. It penetrates to a very shallow
22 degree. The funnel is very shallow, unlike when it hits loose soil.
23 Q. I understand that. But what determines the length of the funnel?
24 Don't talk to me about soil. Tell me about firmer ground, asphalt,
25 concrete. How deep would the funnel be, and what would the depth depend
2 A. When a shell hits firmer ground, the funnel is shallow and the
3 depth of the funnel indicates the speed of the shell before the explosion
4 itself. So the only thing that could be read from the depth of the funnel
5 is the impact velocity at the time of the impact.
6 Q. Well, you can't seem to be able to answer my question. What does
7 the depth depend on? You say that it's shallow, but what would the depth
8 of the funnel depend, 1, 2, 5 centimetres?
9 A. I did say that the depth would depend on the velocity the shell
10 had at the moment of impact and the weight of the shell. That's what it
11 depends on.
12 Q. Yes, but what does the speed, the velocity, depend on?
13 A. The velocity, I apologise. The velocity of the shell would depend
14 on the charge that was used to fire it.
15 Q. And how many charges would a 120-millimetre shell have?
16 A. A 120-millimetre shell has the base charge used to fire it and six
17 additional charge -- the base charge that is not used to fire it and six
18 additional charges that are used to actually fire it.
19 Q. And in this case, because you were telling us that radars are able
20 to determine the type of charge, in fact did you have any elements here
21 that you could use to determine the type of charge?
22 A. On the basis of the crater it is impossible to determine any
23 indicators that would tell us what type of charge was used to fire that
25 Q. But could you at least tell the Judges, depending on the depth of
1 the funnel, what could you tell on the basis of that? What kind of charge
2 was used, at least approximately?
3 A. On the basis of the depth of the funnel, one can assume the charge
4 that was used when the round was fired. The deeper the funnel, the
5 stronger the charge. If the shell was fired using the first or the second
6 charges, then the funnel is at its shallowest, maybe 1 or 2 centimetres at
7 the most.
8 Q. Before I show you anything else, could you please tell us, what
9 can you conclude on the basis of the traces left by the shrapnel caused by
10 the explosion of a 120-millimetre round hitting an asphalt or concrete
12 A. Two things could be observed in the crater: The funnel and a band
13 of shrapnel, fragments, shell fragments, around the crater. On the basis
14 of this band, the general direction from which the shell had come can be
15 determined and the angle of impact at the moment of impact or explosion.
16 Q. And in what relations? What did you say?
17 A. Well, I don't understand your question.
18 Q. Well, in what relations could this be determined?
19 A. Well, on the basis of these two parameters. With the epicentre of
20 the funnel and the shrapnel band, one can determine the approximate angle
21 of descent and the direction from which the shell had come in.
22 Q. So in general, approximate direction.
23 A. Yes, general direction.
24 Q. Fine. Of what assistance -- you spoke about that in your report.
25 You spoke about the magnetic compass. Let me not go back to it. At any
1 rate, can we, first of all, say that apart from the general direction, the
2 general characteristics of the crater, the depth and the shrapnel marks,
3 do they make it possible for us to determine the position from which the
4 round was fired?
5 A. Based on those parameters it is not possible to determine the
6 place from which the round was fired.
7 Q. And would the use of a magnetic compass?
8 A. A hand-held compass that was used when investigating the
9 incidents, well, with that device one can calculate an approximate
10 direction from which the projectile had come.
11 Q. Let us go to page 19 of your report. In the English, it is page
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it seems the system
14 is down. We are unable to use the computer.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is that so? The court deputy is carrying out a
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: While we wait for the technician to come, could I
18 take some time just to ask a few clarifying questions to the witness. I
19 mean, we will compensate you for the Bench's questions in the end,
20 Mr. Tapuskovic.
21 But speaking of the craters of the mortars, I understand you to
22 say that the depth of the funnel depends only on the velocity of the shell
23 and the weight of the shell, and that raises the question: What about the
24 explosion itself? Does that leave any impact in the funnel of the crater,
25 or is it only the velocity and the weight that will leave an impact on the
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I said is correct. It depends
3 on the velocity, since at the moment of impact and between that moment and
4 the explosion itself, this is the period during which the projectile
5 penetrates the ground. At that time the soil is ejected and the crater is
6 deeper. Therefore, it is not only the velocity but the velocity at the
7 moment before the impact because that increases the size of the funnel.
8 The lesser the speed, the less penetration of the projectile and the
9 smaller the crater. However, there is an explosion in both cases.
10 With projectiles, which can be made to slow down when using the
11 ignition mechanism, the penetration is greater; therefore, the depth of
12 the crater and the amount of ejected earth is greater.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: I see. Thank you very much. This is very useful.
14 Another question that we have come across in this case is the
15 position of the tail-fin. We have understood that under certain
16 circumstances the tail-fin is found in the crater itself and in other
17 circumstances the tail-fin is ejected and thrown away and can be found
18 away from the crater. Could you explain to us under which conditions a
19 tail-fin is normally to be found in the crater itself? Sorry.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is not difficult. I'm a
21 teacher and I can reply to your question.
22 The stabiliser or the tail of the projectile is the same speed as
23 the projectile itself. At the moment of explosion it is ejected. The
24 speed at which it is ejected depends on the speed of flight before the
25 impact and the explosive charge. Since the projectile has constant
1 values, the ejection is constant as well; however, the speed affects the
2 ejection of the tail-fin and that also has impact on how far it will be
3 from the place of impact.
4 In my 40-year-long career I did not come across a tail-fin which
5 would be in the very centre of the crater. Usually and most often it is
6 at the edge of the crater or a few metres away, say, 5 or 6. That depends
7 on the speed. For the tail-fin to actually penetrate the centre of
8 explosion, it needs to have a very great initial speed; however, such
9 projectiles have the speed of 3 to 400 metres per second before impact and
10 the speed of penetration of the tail-fin would have to be over 700 metres
11 per second, which means that such a tail-fin has no required speed at
12 which it could actually penetrate the very place of impact. The tail-fin
13 is always around the crater, closer or a bit further away, but never in
14 the epicentre of the crater.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to thank Judge Harhoff.
17 This actually spared some of my time. Otherwise, I would have had to ask
18 the same question. I don't know whether the system is up now. It's still
19 not there, but I think I can continue examining the witness nonetheless.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, go ahead.
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. It is not necessarily important for you to be able to see what's
23 in the report. When drafting the report you mentioned a compass, a
24 hand-held compass --
25 [Defence counsel confer]
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. You said that the crater in itself can provide us with certain
3 data on the direction. What about a hand-held compass as used by people
4 who were in the area of combat? What can that device tell us? What can
5 it tell us out of the entire range of things that are essential in such
7 A. A hand-held compass is an instrument used by our units, usually
8 the artillery units, but it only determines the general direction of the
9 azimuth and is used for a general navigation of soldiers and officers in
10 open space. Precise measurements with a hand-held compass are not
12 Q. A hand-held compass of such possibility, with the help of the
13 elements that can be deducted from the shape and depth of the crater, what
14 sort of reliability can such data in total give us? So judging by the
15 elements discernible from the crater and what the compass tells us, how
16 can that help us in making certain conclusions as to the origin of fire,
17 if we don't know what the charge was?
18 A. Based on such parameters as mentioned a minute ago, one can only
19 give unreliable and approximate data on the direction from which the shell
20 had come. Therefore, we're not discussing the place from which it was
21 fired but rather the direction from which it came.
22 Q. Before we move on on the issue of the compass, I wanted to ask you
23 this: The hand-held compass as such, does anything impact its operation
24 in the field as to its general ability?
25 A. The hand-held compass is an instrument using a magnetic needle to
1 provide measurements. In certain conditions in which close to the place
2 of inspection there are sources of magnetic radiation, if there is lots of
3 metal and so on and so forth, the hand-held compass will not provide us
4 with even remotely accurate data, and as such it cannot be used even in
5 the most general sense. It is almost 100 per cent unreliable in such
7 Q. If we are in an urban setting, in the centre of any town in the
8 world, where there's plenty of metal - maybe there's no weaponry close by
9 but other metal objects - to what degree does that affect the operation of
10 the compass?
11 A. The operation of a compass in an urban setting is practically
12 excluded because of the electrical power lines, metal piles and pylons,
13 railroad wagons, and so on and so forth. All that has a great impact on
14 its ability to calculate the azimuth and direction.
15 Q. Mr. Garovic, do you know whether in the artillery there are
16 instruments which are precise or more precise than the hand-held compass,
17 and whether artillery units in modern armies have those?
18 A. In modern armies, in addition to the hand-held compass, which is
19 just an instrument of navigation, there are other instruments used to
20 measure bearing, angle, and so on and so forth. We have a periscopic
21 compass which also uses the magnetic needle. It is more accurate than the
22 compass but can also be affected by sources of magnetic radiation.
23 Then --
24 Q. Please stop. We don't have time to go over all of that. How much
25 more accurate is the periscopic compass, how much more accurate than the
1 hand-held one?
2 A. The periscopic compass is fully accurate; however, the hand-held
3 one is not.
4 Q. Thank you, but I wanted to ask you exactly how many times or how
5 many per cent is it more accurate?
6 A. 100 per cent.
7 Q. Had such a compass been used, what sort of results would have it
8 provided -- it would have provided in this given situation in order to
9 assist us in determining the place of firing of a certain projectile?
10 A. Had the periscopic compass been used, the data taken in such a way
11 would have been correct.
12 Q. Since we're on the topic, what other instruments can be more
13 accurate than a simple compass?
14 A. Out of other instruments using the magnetic needle, one could also
15 use the land-surveying instruments, such as satellite and similar kinds of
17 Q. And the result obtained in such a way would be more reliable than
18 the result obtained with a hand-held -- with the compass?
19 A. It would be as reliable as the compass.
20 Q. You mean the periscopic compass?
21 A. Yes. It would also provide us with accurate data.
22 Q. In your report you talk about certain values of the angle of the
23 bearing and its declination.
24 A. In military topography we use two bearings or azimuths to the
25 north: The magnetic one based on the magnetic field of the earth and the
1 right-angle azimuth or bearing determined based on a coordinate system
2 used to make topographic maps in the army. Those two bearings differ, and
3 the difference between them is called declination. The use of one azimuth
4 as opposed to the other one or converting the measurements from one into
5 the other cannot be done without knowing the difference or the declination
6 in the given circumstances, and that depends on the latitude and
7 geographical position, as well as time of year. All that is taken into
8 account and a calculation is made so that both bearings can be used. We
9 can convert one into the other and vice versa. When working on the map,
10 all azimuths have to be of right angle so as to be able to obtain proper
12 Q. If we don't use the right-angle azimuth, what happens?
13 A. If you don't use it on the map, then we have a mistake in terms of
14 direction. Its size can be one-hundredth part to the left or to the
15 right. These are quite large errors in terms of maps.
16 Q. By using a simple hand-held compass, can it happen that the
17 reliability is jeopardised?
18 A. It is not.
19 [Defence counsel confer]
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. I have to repeat my
22 Q. If we used the elements obtained from the crater and we coupled
23 that with what can be obtained from a compass, when using both such
24 parameters and both elements, can that increase reliability of determining
25 the place from which the projectile had come? Does it increase
1 reliability or not?
2 A. My answer is yes, when that parameter is taken into account,
3 reliability cannot be increased and the results obtained still remain
5 Q. Thank you. But if we go back to the crater, if the crater is
6 shallow - you were talking about centimetres - what could that indicate?
7 A. In those cases when we have a shallow crater, it is possible that
8 a shell had hit the impact site at a low velocity or that at the impact
9 site an explosive device was exploded or set off in static conditions.
10 The difference in the appearance of the crater is nil.
11 Q. I would like to show you a brief and then if you could say thing
12 about it.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I have to ask Mr. Sean for
14 assistance because our network is still down. Could the witness please be
15 shown P250. So I would like to show the witness a crater. I am not going
16 to tell him where this crater is or what kind of a crater it is.
17 I was not sure. I wanted to look at the crater without the
18 markings. That's 65 ter number -- no, that's P264, page 12.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, I'm told you have about another
20 12 or 13 minutes.
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't know, I
22 think it's virtually impossible for me to complete my examination of this
23 witness in that time. I don't know whether you factored in all the time
24 that was used by the Chamber.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: I think that was done. But how much more time
1 would you require, because I intend to finish this witness today?
2 Tomorrow is the last day and we have to set aside some time for
3 housekeeping matters.
4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, I'm sure that I will take
5 much less time for my last witness than was allotted to me, but perhaps
6 this is not of such importance for you. But I simply don't think that I
7 can complete by the break.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Tell me how much you will need. Oh, so you will
9 not -- well, we'll see. Let us see how we get on.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Let me try and find my way
11 because that's my duty, to do so.
12 Q. You see this crater here. What category would you put it in
13 regarding the depth of the funnel?
14 A. On the basis of this panoramic image, the depth of this crater
15 could be up to 2 centimetres, which would indicate that a shell could have
16 either come in at a low velocity or that an explosive device was set off
17 in static conditions.
18 Q. But if we were to apply its elements to this crater, the shrapnel
19 traces and the depth of the funnel, could we then determine, and with what
20 degree of probability, where the shell had been fired from, if a shell had
21 been fired at all? I have to ask the question in those terms.
22 First of all, does this crater show anything that would indicate
23 the calibre of the round that exploded here, at this site that is marked
25 A. Well, an 82-millimetre shell would leave a similar crater. But on
1 the basis of the appearance of the funnel and the shrapnel dispersion
2 around the funnel, one could conclude that the round, if it had indeed
3 been fired, had come in from an angle -- at an angle of 185 degrees, as is
4 indicated here. It is -- all the other angles are impossible. So that
5 would be the approximate angle of 175 degrees as indicated here, but these
6 are all approximate values.
7 Q. Could an error be made regarding the direction from which
8 something had come in or -- let us now take as our starting point that the
9 shell had flown in from a direction.
10 A. On the basis of the appearance of the crater, it is impossible to
11 make a mistake regarding the direction from which the shell had come in.
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness now please be
13 shown Prosecution document P254. It's a sketch that we have seen here a
14 number of times. Again, with the assistance of the registrar.
15 Q. You've seen the crater. What direction, what general direction is
16 indicated on this sketch?
17 A. On the basis of the position of the round, this round could have
18 come in from a westerly direction, having had a look at the crater
19 previously -- oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, from a northerly direction, so
20 that would be the opposite of the crater.
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Now let us look at a sketch,
23 Q. Looking at that crater and at this sketch, what does this sketch
24 show? What is the general direction? We're talking about general
25 direction. From what general direction did this round come in, as
1 indicated here?
2 A. According to this sketch, the general direction from which the
3 shell had come in is from a southerly direction, or the bearing would be
4 175 degrees, approximately, in relation to the building, as indicated
6 Q. And on the basis of the markings that you can see, the figures,
7 they mean nothing to me because I'm a layperson, but when we're talking
8 about the crater that you just saw, were any errors made in the
9 calculation of the position? If you bear in mind the first sketch that
10 you just saw and the second sketch that you're looking at now, are there
11 any discrepancies, and of what kind?
12 A. The first sketch is completely wrong. I would not even make any
13 comments on it because it is irrelevant for this part. This second
14 sketch --
15 Q. But let me just ask you: After what you've just told us and
16 bearing in mind that two such sketches were made, one of them indicating
17 that the direction is the one that you told us and the second one, that
18 the direction is the one that you told us, does that have anything to do
19 with the fact that the unreliable elements were used, the element of the
20 crater, and the unreliability of the hand-held compass which caused those
21 vacillations or is there anything else at work here?
22 A. Well, the hand-held compass cannot make a mistake of about 180
23 degrees, so this is probably caused by some other element that is unknown
24 to me.
25 Q. If you're looking at this sketch that's now in front of you, are
1 there any errors that you may have noted in the calculation in relation to
2 the characteristics of the crater that you looked at?
3 A. On the basis of the panoramic images that I had at my disposal,
4 this sketch reveals a number of errors. First of all, the site of impact
5 of the round, the crater, as indicated here, where the shell touches the
6 surface, the street surface, is far away from the pavement of the market.
7 According to the panoramic images that we saw, the distance is much less.
8 The height of the building is determined arbitrarily because it is not
9 visible on any of the panoramic images and it is impossible to determine
10 it with any precision, so it is simply assumed that the height is 11.45
11 metres, as indicated here.
12 On the basis of the parameters that were used here, using the
13 trigonometrical functions, the minimal angle which is needed for the shell
14 to clear the building is calculated. But if you enter the values that can
15 be determined from the panoramic images, you get different values. You
16 get an angle which makes it impossible for the shell to clear the
18 Q. Thank you. If we were to look at the first sketch and the
19 building from that side, where did the shell have to go in relation to the
20 building, the first one?
21 A. Well, it came from a northerly direction and it couldn't have --
22 Q. Please follow what I'm saying. If it is, indeed, accurate, where
23 would it have gone in relation to the building?
24 A. The shell would have gone right through the building.
25 Q. Thank you. And the second sketch, if it were accurate, what would
1 that mean in terms of where the shell would have gone?
2 A. It would have flown over -- the shell would have flown over the
3 building. It would have cleared the building. If you enter the correct
4 values, it would have hit the roof of the building.
5 Q. Well, thank you. Now I would like to show you a photograph,
6 P264. That's page 1.
7 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Mr. Tapuskovic, you mentioned the
8 mortar flying over, but we're talking about the descent. I'd like to ask
9 you whether, in your understanding, in order for a mortar to fall exactly
10 where it did, that curve, that descent curve, would be impossible. You
11 would have had to have had a trajectory going through the building and not
12 above the building, as is shown in this sketch. In other words, is the
13 situation described here absolutely impossible or is it possible?
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, are you asking the
15 witness or should I ask the witness?
16 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Well, you can also ask the question
17 to the witness if you like.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, you always have the
19 primacy, of course, but I didn't understand it that way.
20 Q. The first sketch, you said that the shell would have gone through
21 the building.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. The first sketch, you said that that was absolutely incorrect.
24 That's document P245, to be quite precise -- 254. And this other sketch,
25 provided it is correct, would the shell have hit the building before
1 hitting the site that's indicated here on the sketch? So we have a
2 different thing here now.
3 A. I'm afraid that we can get confused about what we're explaining.
4 The first sketch that we were talking about is completely inaccurate
5 because it indicates that the shell had come from the north. It is ruled
6 out, it is inaccurate, and the values indicated there could not be used to
7 explain anything regarding the shell.
8 Q. Yes, but I asked you, if it were true, you said it would have gone
9 through the building.
10 A. Well, if we were to make this 180-degree turn, it would have gone
11 through the building. But since it is completely reversed, we cannot even
12 talk about it at all, about it. But if you're asking me that --
13 Q. I'm sorry, sir. Judge Mindua asked about the second photograph,
14 the second photograph, or rather, the second sketch, that according to
15 you, if it were true, the shell could have -- it would have been possible
16 for the shell not to hit the building.
17 A. Yes, that's true.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Judge, Your Honour, is that what
19 you asked?
20 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, that was my question, because
21 in the view of the witness, what is described here does not seem
22 realistic. So I'm afraid I don't understand. We are talking here about
23 the descent curve and apparently, based on this drawing, the point of
24 impact, the final impact of the shell is the result of this trajectory
25 which goes over the building without hitting the building.
1 So my question is: Is that trajectory totally impossible or could
2 it be considered as a possibility?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to the sketch and the
4 values that are indicated here, this trajectory is possible.
5 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Well, in that case, if this
6 trajectory is possible, why, then, do you contest it? What is the
7 information you have in order to contest this sketch? If I've understood
8 what you have said, you said that the shell should have -- should have
9 necessarily hit the building. So I'm afraid I don't understand.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The sketch is not correct. The
11 dimensions indicated there are not correct. The distance from the impact
12 site of the shell from the wall of the building totals 350 centimetres
13 with a margin of error of 5 centimetres, plus or minus, and as indicated
14 on all the panoramic images of the scene of this crime or incident. So
15 the value of 4.8 metres is not correct. The correct value, the correct
16 length, is 3.5 metres.
17 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Where does this figure of 3.5
18 metres come from? Because on the sketch it says 4.8. Have you yourself
19 checked this distance?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I checked the distance based on the
21 panoramic images of the area, by using the photogrametric calculations of
22 the measurement of distances by using photographic images. The
23 measurements gained that way is the exact distance between individual
24 spots that are being measured.
25 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Witness.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I wanted to go about this in a
2 different way, but since His Honour Judge Mindua posed this question, I
3 will follow it up with a sketch from the P631 document. DD00-4403,
4 Prosecution Exhibit 631. That's not it. That's not it either.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel, please.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is your microphone on?
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] This is it. Your Honours, no, it
8 does have the same number, but this is not it. We were looking at it with
9 Witness Demurenko. He commented on that photograph, or rather, that
10 sketch. Perhaps we can place it on the ELMO so as not to waste any more
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Does this sketch describe the place of impact better? Does it
15 describe the place of explosion better?
16 A. This sketch is also completely incorrect. The place of impact of
17 the projectile is in the middle of the street. According to all of the
18 panoramic images in existence, that does not correspond. The flight of
19 the projectile of 89 degrees descent angle is the maximum elevation
20 setting that can be used with a mortar and can only be used from a
21 distance less than 1 kilometre, irrespective of the type of charge.
22 Q. Is there a measurement here that is correct when discussing the
23 ground, or does it differ from the measurements on the previous two
25 A. Yes. The width of the street is correct in this sketch.
1 Q. What is the difference compared to the two previous ones?
2 A. The difference compared to the two previous sketches is that in
3 those two sketches there is no information on the width of the street or
4 the pavement -- pedestrian area which would be useful when trying to
5 reconstruct the flight of the projectile.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please go to P264 now,
8 page 1.
9 Q. On this photograph, please mark something. Perhaps the witness
10 can be given the pen. Show to the Judges, please, something concerning
11 the first sketch. You said that it was completely incorrect. According
12 to that, can you show us or indicate on this photograph what the first
13 sketch says about the direction of the projectile.
14 A. The first sketch shows the projectile coming in from this side.
15 Q. The other one?
16 A. The other shows that the projectile had come from this direction.
17 Q. You mentioned the 170-degree angle. If we take the 220- to
18 240-degrees value, where would the projectile have come from in that case?
19 A. Along the street from the south.
20 Q. Therefore, it would have had no obstacles in front of it?
21 A. No, no buildings.
22 Q. Can you mark the first arrow with number 1.
23 A. [Marks].
24 Q. The second line with number 2.
25 A. [Marks].
1 Q. Don't rush it. Go step by step. On this photograph, when trying
2 to determine the dimensions, you mentioned I think you used the photo --
3 what was the name of the method?
4 A. Photogrametric.
5 Q. Thank you. By using that method, would you be able to locate the
6 exact spot of the explosion?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What would that show us, in your view?
9 A. In that case it would show that the epicentre of the explosion
10 crater is 350 centimetres away from the wall, from here to here, with a
11 margin of error of plus or minus 5 centimetres.
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to have this exhibited,
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you rising for the break or to make a point?
15 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I would like to make a point.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
17 MR. SACHDEVA: Again, it's along the lines of my previous
18 submissions. This now is very technical evidence that, in my submission,
19 should have been the basis for the conclusions of the expert, the analysis
20 of these pictures, the evidence that, frankly, in his report were not
21 listed as material that he would have reviewed. And now the expert has on
22 occasion in the report made mention of a static explosion, but of course
23 in the report there's no basis for his conclusions. And now I see that
24 the expert is providing detailed evidence on measurements and calculations
25 which even if one takes the -- takes it that the Prosecution must
1 anticipate certain issues arising out of its case, I understand that.
2 However, this is very technical and opinions that need to be tested
4 And so I made the point simply to ask leave that I may need to add
5 some material to my list of exhibits for cross-examination, given the fact
6 that I did not anticipate this level of detail and, in my submission, it
7 should have been in the report.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. I have some sympathy with that submission,
9 Mr. Tapuskovic. Why wasn't this put in the report? I anticipate,
10 Mr. Sachdeva, that you'll have the -- you will have the benefit of tonight
11 for the -- any additional preparation.
12 MR. SACHDEVA: I hope so. However, Mr. President, your earlier
13 comment about hoping to finish the witness today, I suspect that's --
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
15 MR. SACHDEVA: -- not going to be possible.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: But I believe that is going to be revised.
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in our introductory
18 remarks, we were clear on the topics analysed by this expert. We
19 mentioned he studied the cases and that he provided some general opinion
20 on the characteristics of craters, compasses, and other matters pertaining
21 to all this. I didn't mention particular incidents but rather I dealt
22 with the documents that have been at the disposal of the Prosecutor for a
23 long time. Therefore, I think --
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. We're going to take the break.
25 --- Recess taken at 12.23 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 12.48 p.m.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please continue, Mr. Tapuskovic.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like this photograph to
4 be assigned an exhibit number, please.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let it be given a number.
6 THE REGISTRAR: D367, Your Honours.
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since we discussed
8 here some measures or measurements that the expert mentioned, and he was
9 asked to write a report on the part of the Defence, and since he told us
10 he used some numerical calculations as well as specifying the sources he
11 used in the report, he also mentioned in item 18 the name of
12 Mr. Vukasinovic, the use of numerical methodology. I wanted to put
13 questions about that to close the topic of crater analysis and trajectory
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.
16 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, this report that the Defence has
17 just mentioned, you may recall that this is an expert report of some 15 to
18 20 pages that was completed by an expert in the field called
19 Dr. Vukasinovic. You may recall that this was tendered through the expert
20 witness Dr. Berko Zecevic. At the time the Defence tendered the report,
21 the expert report, Mr. Whiting, who was leading the evidence of
22 Dr. Zecevic, objected to the admission because the author of the report
23 had not been presented for -- the author of the report was not -- at that
24 time had not testified and it was deemed to be fair that if the
25 conclusions of that report and the methodology used in that report were to
1 be given weight, then the author should be called for cross-examination
2 and the report should be tested.
3 At the time it was the Prosecution's assumption that since this
4 report was indeed relevant to the case in that it dealt with Markale 2
5 incident, that the author would be called in the Defence case so that we
6 could test the report and test his conclusions.
7 Now, I know from the report given by Mr. Garovic, he has referred
8 to this quite technical and complicated report and therefore the
9 Prosecution submits that if Mr. Tapuskovic is going to go into details of
10 the conclusions or the methodology used by Dr. Vukasinovic, then in our
11 submission, that person ought to have been presented for cross-examination
12 so the Prosecution could properly test his conclusions and his
13 methodology. It does leave the Prosecution --
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber did rule, however, that the report
15 could be exhibited.
16 MR. SACHDEVA: That's correct, Mr. President, ruled by majority in
17 fact that the report could be exhibited.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Exhibited. I would like to remind myself of
19 that. I'm going to ask those with the technical know-how to -- can you
20 find the page? I see my legal officer nodding.
21 MR. SACHDEVA: I can if ...
22 It was tendered on the 27th of April, 2007, at transcript page
23 4938, and therein you will also find the objections by Mr. Whiting.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: The laughter from my colleague is accounted for
25 by the fact that -- the laughter from my colleague is explained by the
1 fact that I dissented, but I'd like to remind myself of what happened. I
2 think the legal officer is getting the relevant passage for me.
3 But, Mr. Sachdeva, the essence of the Trial Chamber's decision,
4 albeit one by majority, would have been that the report was admissible.
5 We admitted it through the evidence of this other witness and therefore
6 questions could be asked about it and it would be a matter for the Chamber
7 to determine the weight to be attached to it, particularly taking account
8 of the absence of the person who prepared the report.
9 MR. SACHDEVA: That's correct, Mr. President, and of course I
10 understand that. However, if we are now going to go into details of the
11 report where the expert is going to either corroborate or explain the
12 methodology or explain the conclusions, then again, in my submission, it
13 should have been detailed in the expert report.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. This is another point now? Is that --
15 this is a different point, isn't it?
16 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes. In fact, there were two points. Of course, I
17 can't do anything with the decision to admit -- to admit the expert
18 report, but of course it still leaves the -- it should have been, if it's
19 going to be discussed and explained, it should have been in the report, in
20 my submission.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, the Chamber is at some disadvantage, is it
22 not, Mr. Tapuskovic, in your examining this witness about this other
23 report? He didn't make any reference to it in his own report and you're
24 examining him about the details of that report.
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] May I respond?
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I never
3 intended to examine anyone on someone else's opinion. That did not cross
4 my mind. I only wanted to say that in our report, in the end we have the
5 sources, the sources used by Mr. Garovic inter alia that report. When
6 drafting the report he used certain things, among others, the report by
7 Mr. Vukasinovic, which is available to the Prosecutor. They've had it for
8 almost half a year when Mr. Zecevic testified. All of the parameters
9 concerning that report are at their disposal. I just wanted to ask him
10 one single question on that, whether when he was drafting his report he
11 used that method of numerical analysis in order to be able to come to the
12 conclusions he expressed to you today, and that was the only question I
13 had. I didn't want to go into any details.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. We thank you for that explanation.
15 I'm just looking at the Chamber's previous decision now.
16 [Trial Chamber confers].
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber will allow the question. I think the
18 question is consistent with the previous decision of the Trial Chamber,
19 and we note that the question is going to be confined to a very narrow
21 So put the question.
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. So the one and only question that I have: We heard you,
24 Mr. Garovic, we heard what you told us about the literature that you
25 used. Everything that you said today before this Chamber and before all
1 of us, when it comes to this numerical analysis method, in an incident
2 such as this one, is this something that was present in your overall
3 analysis of everything here before you gave your testimony today? And
4 please be very brief.
5 A. In my work I used the -- I applied the photogrametric method --
6 Q. Please, please.
7 A. Oh, yes, yes. The photogrametric method to determine the
8 distances on panoramic images. Professor Vukasinovic had the same results
9 that I did and all similarities between my work and Mr. Vukasinovic's work
10 is that our results are similar.
11 Q. I will now leave this topic. I will now just like to ask you some
12 more questions about some other topics related to -- well, you had the
13 opportunity to look at other incidents. I don't have the time or the
14 capabilities to deal with all of them, but I wanted to ask you the
15 following: When it comes to parameters such as the crater, and if all of
16 it is linked with the aid of a magnetic compass, in relation to all the
17 other incidents, in particular the Simon Bolivar school and the Livanjsko
18 street incident, is that something that you would present in a similar way
19 here when we're talking about the things that we have been talking about
20 here? As briefly as possible. If it is so, then can you please say that
21 it is so or not.
22 A. Well, this applies to all the cases.
23 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to show you very briefly the
24 photograph. That's 65 ter number 119, page 11.
25 Could you please tell us whether on this photograph you were able
1 to find anywhere traces of shrapnel?
2 A. There are no shrapnel marks on those photographs or anything else
3 that would indicate that a mortar shell exploded here.
4 Q. Thank you. Just a couple of questions related to airbombs. You
5 saw Mr. Zecevic's report.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You saw that particular emphasis is placed on the inaccuracy of
8 those things that are called airbombs.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. If you said all of the things that you said regarding the crater
11 and the magnetic compass, and if we're now dealing with an inaccurate
12 information, inaccurate data related to the effects of such a bomb, can
13 anything be determined on the basis of a crater and the magnetic compass?
14 A. On the basis the crater where an airbomb exploded and with the use
15 of a magnetic compass, nothing can be determined, not the direction from
16 which the round the projectile had been -- had come in or the place where
17 it was fired from.
18 Q. If the airbomb is as inaccurate as Mr. Zecevic indicates - he says
19 that it can be up to 1.200 metres inaccurate - what areas of the core of
20 Sarajevo, taking into account what the positions held by the BH army and
21 by the VRS, what positions could be targeted if such a bomb had been
22 launched at the core of the city?
23 A. Well, taking into account the deployment of the forces on both
24 sides, one could give no guarantees and one could not even begin to guess
25 what site such a projectile could hit.
1 Q. It could hit Grbavica, Nedzarici, Hrasno, Dobrinja?
2 A. Yes, anything. It would have -- it could have hit any area.
3 Q. Could you please tell us. You had an opportunity to look at all
4 of those incidents. Could you please tell us something about the
5 technical features of the airbombs that are mentioned in Zecevic's
7 A. Professor Zecevic, in his analysis, uses the term "airbomb with
8 fuel-air explosive." The characteristic of those bombs is that they
9 destroy personnel but cause very little damage to other structures because
10 they use the fuel-air mixture. But on the basis of what could be observed
11 at the scene and on the basis of documents that were enclosed, there were
12 no traces there that would indicate that fuel-air explosive was used.
13 Q. According to your knowledge, what is airbomb?
14 A. An airbomb is a projectile that is used, that is launched from
15 aircraft. It can carry either a classical explosive payload, impact --
16 with an impact fuse. And when it hits an obstacle, the explosive explodes
17 and causes destruction. Such an airbomb generates a large number of
18 fragments, case fragments, to the tune of 11.000 such fragments, and about
19 500 metres, that's the dispersal.
20 Q. And when fuel-air explosive is used?
21 A. Well, first of all, you have the fuel-air mixture and you also
22 have some classical explosive which is used to break down the bomb case so
23 that the fuel-air mixture is dispersed. There's also a small parachute
24 that makes it possible for the fuel-air mixture to disperse. And there
25 are also some case fragments that cause destruction. But the primary
1 effect of fuel-air explosive is to destroy personnel. There is far less
2 structural damage to the buildings and it is mainly used to kill
4 Q. Mr. Garovic, I've given up on asking questions about the
5 possibilities that a 120-millimetre mortar shell would offer. You saw in
6 this case that a single shell fired from a mortar, as is alleged here,
7 killed as many as 43 people and injured about 80 of them. In light of the
8 qualities of the airbomb and the features of the airbombs which generate a
9 certain number of fragments - as Mr. Zecevic says, up to 10 or 11.000 such
10 fragments - given such an airbomb that could -- whose effect could spread
11 over 150 -- 150 metres, if it has only 3 kilogrammes of TNT, and we're now
12 talking about a bomb that has 90 kilogrammes of TNT, how many people would
13 it kill if it were to hit a town?
14 A. If we're talking about this order of magnitude, we would expect an
15 airbomb to cause several hundreds of casualties, even up to a thousand
17 Q. Could you please tell me, on the basis of the documents that
18 you've seen, did you ever see a document indicating that anyone was killed
19 by the blast effect of a fuel-air bomb? Is there any documents indicating
20 that -- after all, what happens when a fuel-air bomb explodes? Did you
21 find any document related to that? And that would be my last question.
22 A. In all the documents that I studied I was unable to find anything
23 about the effects of the fuel-air explosive. Some persons, moreover,
24 found themselves in the epicentre of the explosion of an airbomb and they
25 remained uninjured, alive, which would be astonishing to anyone who knows
1 anything about explosives. This is impossible.
2 Q. Thank you very much, Witness.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I
4 really have to apologise. I've given up on many things and yet I am -- I
5 have gone beyond my time.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, I make it clear: If you wish to
7 ask more questions on this subject, I will allow you.
8 But I wanted to ask the witness: What is the furthest distance
9 that a person would be, in your opinion, to sustain an injury from an
10 airbomb? Or, put it another way, what is the distance beyond which a
11 person would not sustain an injury from an airbomb?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, an airbomb creates up
13 to 11.000 fragments, and for a single fragment, a case fragment, to be
14 deadly it has to have the energy, the kinetic energy, of 100 joule when it
15 hits an obstacle or a body. When we're talking about 150-kilogramme
16 airbombs, the distance from the epicentre would be 150 metres. Beyond
17 this radius, it is possible for some of the fragments to injure people but
18 they cannot be lethal.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
20 Do you have any more questions, Mr. Tapuskovic?
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, just one. This is something
22 that I didn't ask because I was in such a hurry.
23 Q. If there were no traces, no casualties that may have been killed
24 by the blast effect that destroys the lungs -- okay, maybe there's just
25 one case. If there were no such casualties of this kind, what happened
1 here, if there are no fragments at all? In some cases there were just a
2 few fragments. What could have happened then?
3 A. Well, for all the explosive devices, projectiles, and everything
4 else, when there are no marks left by the shrapnel, by the case fragments,
5 then the explanation is that an explosive device that does not have a case
6 exploded at that site. In other words, that's why there were no such
7 marks on the site. Or to put it quite simply, a certain quantity of
8 classical explosive detonated in a certain way can create an explosion
9 that causes destruction but does not generate fragments that would kill
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
12 Mr. Sachdeva.
13 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Sachdeva:
15 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Garovic. Should I refer to you as General, or
16 is Mr. Garovic fine with you?
17 A. Well, I'm fine with both. But once a general, always a general.
18 But whichever way is easier for you.
19 Q. Very well. We'll stick with general, then.
20 Let me just first talk to you about your background and your CV.
21 You said that you were a commander of an artillery unit with the JNA; is
22 that right?
23 A. Yes, at different levels, in various units.
24 Q. And when you were commander of -- let's say just prior to the
25 out -- the onset of the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, were you within a
1 corps command or were you at brigade level, when you were an artillery
3 A. Before the war I was a commander of an artillery regiment which
4 was part of a corps.
5 Q. And what kind of weapons did you have in your regiment? In other
6 words, what kind of -- yes, what kind of military weaponry did you
8 A. In my unit I had 122-millimetre howitzers, D-30, a Soviet make,
9 and 155-millimetre howitzers.
10 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters apologise. We didn't hear the
11 last part of the answer. It seems that some other microphones are on at
12 the same time.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Would you just repeat your answer, General. The
14 interpreter didn't hear it.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my unit I had 122-millimetre
16 howitzers, D-310, and 155-millimetre howitzers, M-1. These were
17 American-made and the former were Soviet-made.
18 MR. SACHDEVA:
19 Q. And is that it, General?
20 A. That's all I had.
21 Q. So, therefore, no mortars.
22 A. No.
23 Q. Now, if you -- I take it you have your report there with you?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. If you go to the last page where your biography is detailed, I
1 notice that in listing your career, as you have done chronologically, I
2 notice that at the end you have not stated where you were from 1992
3 through to 1995. In other words, what were you doing in those three years
4 during the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina? Where were you and what were
5 you doing?
6 A. I think that in my report it is indicated that at that time I was
7 a teacher at the command and staff school in Belgrade. That's the higher
8 military academy in Belgrade. It indicates -- it is indicated here that I
9 was a teacher, that I taught at the command and staff school there.
10 Q. Perhaps you could show the Court where that's indicated, and
11 perhaps I'm mistaken. But if I go to your biography, which is at the end
12 of the report, the second line reads: "An artillery regiment commander
13 from 1988 to 1992," and then you mention artillery training centre
14 commander from 1995 through to 1999. And so from 1992 to 1995, at least
15 there's nothing I can see that's -- that indicates what you were doing in
16 those three years.
17 A. Well, my CV lists command posts, as you quoted, and then at item 2
18 it says "other posts, lecturer at the military academy, lecturer at the
19 secondary military school, lecturer at the command and staff school, chief
20 of artillery at the corps staff and in the 2nd Army staff." These are all
21 teaching posts that I held in that period between 1992 and 1995.
22 Q. So in 1992 through to 1995 you were in Belgrade; is that right?
23 A. Yes, yes.
24 Q. And when the war started in Bosnia-Herzegovina, you were posted in
25 Banja Luka, is that right, with the JNA in April 1992?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And when the war started and the VRS, the army of Republika
3 Srpska, was established, your unit became part of the 1st Krajina Corps of
4 the VRS; is that right?
5 A. It was part of the Banja Luka Corps which later became the 1st
6 Corps of the VRS. It was part of that unit right from the start.
7 Q. And so at least for some time you were part of the VRS; is that
9 A. No. I was a member of a JNA unit until the Supreme Command in
10 Belgrade made the decision that all the officers from Serbia and
11 Montenegro should move to Serbia and Montenegro. And there are relevant
12 documents indicating that at the corps command where I stated that I would
13 like to go to Yugoslavia. And as soon as it became possible, I went to
15 Q. And when did you move from Banja Luka to Yugoslavia at the time?
16 Was it July 1992?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So let me just confirm. You left Banja Luka for Belgrade in July
19 1992; is that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And therefore in that period, April to July 1992, if you were
22 still stationed at Banja Luka you were part of the VRS, weren't you?
23 A. I was not a member of the Republika Srpska army because it was
24 impossible to go from Banja Luka to Belgrade in any way, by air, by land,
25 until early September 1992. Banja Luka and the surrounding area were
1 encircled by the Muslim and Croat forces and nobody could leave Banja Luka
2 to move in any other direction.
3 Q. Well, perhaps we're not understanding each other. But you have
4 given evidence that you were in Banja Luka where you were positioned with
5 the JNA and you were there up until July 1992 and then you moved to
6 Belgrade; is that right?
7 A. I was in Banja Luka until July, but I was the commander of an
8 artillery unit until May, when the decision was issued by the Supreme
9 Command to -- for all the officers to withdraw to Yugoslavia. So as an
10 officer I was duty-bound to perform the orders issued by my superior
11 command, the command in Belgrade, until May 1992. And the reason why I
12 couldn't go to Yugoslavia sooner was because it was impossible to do so.
13 Q. So, then, I take it that from May 1992 through to July 1992 you
14 did not have any military duties; is that right?
15 A. I didn't have any duties or activities of any kind, of any
16 military kind.
17 Q. What were you doing in Banja Luka, then?
18 A. There were many of us waiting for the route to Belgrade to open so
19 that we could leave.
20 Q. I'd like to show you a document, if I may, sir, General.
21 MR. SACHDEVA: Could I ask that 65 ter 03500 be shown on the
22 screen, please.
23 Q. General, I take it you have the article on the screen. And I want
24 you to look at the text --
25 MR. SACHDEVA: Perhaps if the box can be enlarged.
1 Q. You see, sir, General, that it reads. July 30th, and it's dated
2 Friday, the 31st of July, 1992. "As of tomorrow, Colonel Desimir Garovic,
3 army of the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina Krajina Corps mixed
4 artillery regiment commander, is departing for high military office in
5 Belgrade in the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."
6 So my first question is: What do you say to this report from,
7 this newspaper from Banja Luka, that at least up until the 30th of July,
8 1992, has you down as a member of the 1st -- of the Krajina Corps of the
9 VRS? Is that incorrect or is it right?
10 A. This article mentions the farewell I was accorded when leaving
11 Banja Luka for Belgrade. I picked up my positions from the apartment and
12 it was quite customary that your friends and acquaintances see you off
13 before you leave. That pertained to anyone. Since I was to leave for
14 Yugoslavia the next day, they put this thing together and it was a
15 symbolical thing. I don't remember this article because by the time it
16 was published I had already gone. I can see in the article that some
17 people are mentioned here who were actually not present. But I don't
18 think anything -- I don't see anything extraordinary about this, to say
19 goodbye to the people I knew. At that time in Belgrade --
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: The point is -- that counsel is making is that it
21 refers to you as a member of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
22 Krajina Corps. Is that it?
23 MR. SACHDEVA: Precisely, Mr. President.
24 Q. General, I'm not quibbling with the reasons why you had a
25 farewell, and so on, but I'm just asking you to confirm or deny, because
1 this report has you as a member of the Bosnian Serb army, with the Krajina
2 Corps, in other words, up until July 1992, in the period when the VRS was
3 established. So my question is: Were you or were you not a member of the
4 VRS up until the time you left for Belgrade?
5 A. I was not a member of the VRS, sir.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: So this report is incorrect?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As regards the farewell, it is. But
8 as to my affiliation to the VRS, that is incorrect. It was drafted by a
9 journalist. In May I undertook in writing that I will return to
10 Yugoslavia to be an army member there rather than in Republika Srpska.
11 MR. SACHDEVA:
12 Q. Do you know of Commander Momir Talic? Do you know him, sir?
13 A. I know him personally. He used to be my commander.
14 Q. And when you were in Banja Luka up until July 1992, I take it that
15 you also knew him there and you met with him; is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And you're aware, General, that Mr. Talic was indicted for war
18 crimes by this institution. Are you aware of that, sir?
19 A. I am.
20 Q. Did you -- from the period May 1992 through to July 1992, were you
21 involved in any combat activities in the areas of Prijedor, Kotor Varos,
22 and other areas in the Bosnian Krajina?
23 A. I was not, nor did the unit that I had commanded over take part in
24 any of those activities.
25 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I'd like to tender this article into
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's admitted.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As P394, Your Honours.
4 MR. SACHDEVA: May I just inquire from the registrar, I think 394
5 is probably incorrect.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. The parties and Your Honours, on Monday, the
7 Registry assigned some exhibit numbers to some pending OTP documents that
8 were admitted by written decision dated 24/01/07, hence the jump in
9 exhibit numbers.
10 Oh, I'm sorry, my mistake. The next Prosecution exhibit number to
11 be assigned to this document is P934.
12 MR. SACHDEVA: If I could now ask for 65 ter 03499 to be shown,
13 please. I believe there should be a translation.
14 Q. Now, General, this is a document from the Dutch and it's dated,
15 you'll see at the top, you can at least see the date, 21st of June, 1993.
16 Do you see that on the top left -- top right-hand side?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And if you look down the page, you will see -- well, firstly, do
19 you see your name there? It's just below the halfway point. Desimir
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. And this document from June 1993 has you, again, listed as a
23 member of the 1st Krajina Corps, and I want to ask you whether this is
24 correct or you still maintain that you weren't with the VRS.
25 A. During that time I lectured in Belgrade. This date is completely
1 incorrect. I'm surprised that one could have made a full year of mistake
2 in terms of dates. At that time, as of 1992 onwards, I was not in Bosnian
3 Krajina. I was in Belgrade. I wasn't there either physically or
5 Q. And --
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva, a little more about this document.
7 It's from the Dutch, but in what capacity?
8 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I believe that it's just part of
9 the -- while the Dutch were in Bosnia-Herzegovina, part of their records,
10 their monitoring records, of the various brigades and army personnel in
11 the area.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: But it must have come from a particular section.
13 It would assist us in determining what weight to attach to it if we knew
14 more about it.
15 MR. SACHDEVA: If you'll allow me, Mr. President, I can provide --
16 I would like to provide more detailed answers tomorrow. But may I just
17 ask one follow-up question?
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Well, let me hear first from
19 Mr. Tapuskovic.
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we received a large
21 set of documents from the Prosecutor. Among those documents we received
22 this page as well. We were unable to make any conclusions as to what
23 document -- what larger document it came from, and we saw no signature, no
24 name of the author. As it is, it can be produced by anyone, any time. I
25 can come up with a thing like this this very afternoon. I believe the
1 Prosecutor needs to verify its authenticity.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Sachdeva, I agree. What is this
3 document? That's what I have been asking. Exactly where is it from? You
4 say it is from the Dutch, but who are the Dutch? The Dutch are with us.
5 Does it mean Emily, my legal officer? Is it from her?
6 MR. SACHDEVA: I believe it came from the Dutch contingent with
7 the United Nations, but if you will allow me, I will --
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: But there's nothing on it to indicate that,
9 absolutely nothing, is there? Is there a commencement page, an ending
11 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, some of these materials were
12 provided to the OTP under the provisions of Rule 70, so this was -- this
13 happened to be one of the materials that was not provided under that
14 provision. But if you'll allow me, I can provide further answers
15 tomorrow, hopefully.
16 But may I ask just one follow-up question?
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
18 MR. SACHDEVA:
19 Q. General, I take what you say about the date and the date being
20 wrong, but again I have to persist with my question: When -- and I know
21 I've asked you this before, but because of this document, was there any
22 time at all when you were a part of the Krajina Corps? In other words,
23 perhaps this could be an outdated document and may have referred to your
24 role sometime in the past, and therefore my question again is: Even if it
25 was just for two months, were you with the VRS at all?
1 A. Not in any given moment was I a member of the VRS. At the
2 beginning when there was a separation between members of the VRS and the
3 JNA, since I originate from the FRY, I wanted to go back there.
4 Therefore, I was never a member of the army of Republika Srpska. The
5 circumstances were such that I had to sit and wait until there was a way
6 for me to go to Yugoslavia, but during that period I was not a member of
7 their army.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: General, we have now seen two documents - first,
9 the report from -- what was it, the first one? Was it a newspaper?
10 MR. SACHDEVA: That's right.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: A newspaper report referring you to -- referring
12 to you as a member of the VRS. Now, this document, we still of course
13 have to determine its authenticity and the precise source, but we now have
14 two documents which refer to you in that capacity. Would you be able to
15 assist us with an explanation why -- as to why such a mistake would have
16 been made?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. President, I
18 commanded a JNA unit, this being the 5th Artillery Mixed Regiment. It was
19 a JNA unit as part of the JNA Corps, of the Banja Luka JNA Corps. During
20 that period that unit was transferred in its whole to the VRS and perhaps
21 they thought it fit to see off their former commander. There were no
22 other reasons for that. However, I never commanded the 5th Artillery
23 Regiment as part of the VRS. However, before that period I had commanded
25 This list, dating back to 1993 -- well, as of August 1992 I taught
1 at the Belgrade academy without interruption, and in no circumstances did
2 I ever go to Banja Luka during that time. I'm surprised to find myself
3 among the people I know, and I see some of the names crossed out. There
4 is no reason, as far as I know, for me to be on that list.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll take the break and resume tomorrow --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- and I will ask the legal officer to ensure
8 that the dates that we had set aside for next week are not relinquished in
9 favour of any other Chamber until further notice. But the intention is to
10 conclude tomorrow.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1:43 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Friday, the 24th day of
13 August, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.