1 Friday, 21 June 2000
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in this courtroom.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is Case Number
8 IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus Stanislav Galic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much, Madam Registrar.
10 Yes, Ms. Pilipovic.
11 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour. The
12 Defence simply wishes to inform the Chamber that we have our expert,
13 Janko Vilicic, as part of our Defence team, while the examination of
14 Mr. Berko Zecevic is in progress.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Pilipovic. Welcome in the courtroom.
16 Mr. Stamp.
17 MR. STAMP: I think perhaps it would be more convenient if we
18 proceed, and this is really in the hands in the Court, with the exhibits
19 of the witness from yesterday. There was a holdover --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think that is the first thing we should do.
21 MR. STAMP: But before we proceed to that, I wonder if my learned
22 friend could spell the surname of the expert. I have the pronunciation,
23 but the spelling I think I'm not too sure of. If she may, I would be
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Pilipovic, would you spell the surname of
1 the expert who is assisting you today.
2 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Janko Vilicic, Dr.,
4 JUDGE ORIE: And Vilicic is written V-i-l-i-c-i-c?
5 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] V-i-l-c-i-c.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Vilcic.
7 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could you please guide us the
9 through the documents that were tendered yesterday.
10 THE REGISTRAR: The first document, Your Honour, is Defence
11 Exhibit 137, letter to commander of UNPROFOR, number 09/20-94. D138,
12 letter from the head of the state of the army of Republika Srpska, dated
13 5/2/1994, number 10-24-28. And D139, letter from Radovan Karadzic dated
14 26 July, 1994, under seal.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much, Madam Registrar.
16 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, just to make
18 things perfectly clear, the name of the witness is Vilivic. An "i" is
19 missing after the "l," between the "l" and the "c." If you want me to
21 JUDGE ORIE: We took note of that now. We have V-i-l-i-c-i-c.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: That's right.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then the documents are admitted into evidence, that
24 is D137, D138 and 139.
25 MR. IERACE: Might I be excused, Mr. President? Mr. Stamp is
1 taking the next witness.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, before
4 Mr. Stamp is authorised to bring in the next witness, I would like to say
5 something and consult with you, that is to say the fashion in which the
6 consequences of your new jurisprudence should apply to the transcript. If
7 you understand -- if you remember yesterday, we spoke of the possibility
8 of speaking of transcript problems at the end of the session. Yesterday,
9 we were not able to do that. I am not blaming anyone, but the Prosecution
10 needed more time.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Since we had no time yesterday to do it, if
12 there is any problem with the transcript which could not be solved by
13 bringing it to the attention of the Registry at a later stage, please do
14 it now.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well.
16 There were two problems, but I didn't have the time to verify
17 them, and this is another issue that I have to bring up. These are pages
18 1113, where the name -- where "civil" was not introduced in the French
19 text. The other is 229, where all the specifications of crater analysis
20 were not sufficiently or correctly translated into French. And I think
21 there are some minor issues which I do not want to deal with now.
22 What I wish to say is that while the Defence is trying to gain
23 time for the Prosecution, I don't think it is admissible that we ask to
24 spell out names that are very well-known like "Timisoara." That is
25 like asking us to spell Gorazde or Sarajevo. I don't think that has any
1 particular sense. And I think the Prosecution should bear this in mind,
2 and I thank them in advance.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Both parties should keep in mind that they should
4 assist the other in order not to waste any time. I do agree with that.
5 The first name you mentioned appeared -- let me say it cautiously, less
6 frequent than the other ones you mentioned. Could you perhaps, as far as
7 the pages are concerned, give me during the first break a small note
8 indicating three or four subsequent words so that we can find them in the
9 transcript of yesterday and see whether there is any problem remaining.
10 Pages and lines disappear on the second day, so if we have to retrieve
11 that on the transcript of yesterday, I need a couple of subsequent words
12 so that we can search for that. If you would give the two during the
13 break, we will check it after the break.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I, Mr. President, have the
15 same -- my own floppy disk, where I registered the texts of yesterday, but
16 I don't think I am authorised to hand it over to you. But if I can, I am
17 at your disposal.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we try to retrieve the specific places when you
19 give the text. I don't know whether you on your computer, can you view
20 yesterday's transcript?
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I have it on a floppy
23 JUDGE ORIE: Is it not on your computer, because on my laptop
24 computer at least, I can -- yes, but it is not on your laptop?
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: It is also on the laptop but it is a floppy.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I have it somewhere in the system with my
2 notes but --
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I will find it. Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Stamp, I think I asked the usher to bring
5 in Mr. Zecevic.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like to
7 take advantage of this interval to gain time to tell you that following
8 Mr. Zecevic's testimony, we will tell you how much time we will need to
9 consult with your expert before we start the cross-examination.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 [The witness entered court]
12 WITNESS: BERKO ZECEVIC
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning. Can you hear me in a language you
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I take it you are Mr. Zecevic.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I am.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Before giving testimony in this court, the Rules
20 require you to make a solemn declaration that you will speak the truth,
21 the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The next of this declaration
22 will now be handed out to you by Madam Usher. May I invite you to make
23 that solemn declaration.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
25 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic. Please be seated.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zecevic, you will first be examined by counsel
4 for the Prosecution.
5 Mr. Stamp, please proceed.
6 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President. With your leave,
7 Mr. President, may I proceed by handing to the witness the filing of the
8 expert report of the 11th of April, 2002? I trust the Court has copies
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
11 MR. STAMP: Excuse me, the -- it is one document with everything
12 in place.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 MR. STAMP: May I see what you are handing to the witness,
15 please? This is it, not this.
16 Examined by Mr. Stamp:
17 Q. Mr. Zecevic, may I call you Professor? Is that appropriate?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. You have in front of you a document which we filed as your
20 statement. Do you see amongst the papers your curriculum vitae in English
21 and the Yugoslav language? [Realtime transcript read in error "Bosnian
23 A. Yes. Yes, it is. Yes.
24 Q. In February, 1994, subsequent to the event at the Markale market
25 on the 5th of February, 1994, were you commissioned by the Court, along
1 with other scientists, to carry out some work and to present a report?
2 A. Yes, I was.
3 Q. And among the papers, do you see a copy of the report in English
4 and in B/C/S?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. And is that report to the best of your knowledge, belief, true and
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. On the 26th of February, 1996, you gave a statement to officers of
10 the Tribunal, of this Tribunal, explaining --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. I think it is useful to
13 mention this now, because I note that the English transcript does not seem
14 to reproduce the terms used by the Prosecution. It is not a question of
15 meaning but a question of practice that the words be reproduced. A while
16 ago, Mr. Stamp used the word "Yugoslav language," which I heard very
17 clearly and it was translated in the French booth, and I believe that the
18 words should not be transposed in the transcript such as they are stated.
19 Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Where would -- I heard Mr. Stamp saying "B/C/S," but
21 where would he have used the word --
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Line 12 of page 6. I see
23 that everyone is nodding. The word used by Mr. Stamp was "Yugoslav
24 language" and it is not normal that we see "Bosnian language" in the
25 transcript. I don't wish to obstruct anything, I just want the text to
1 be faithful, and since I am listening to both, I wish to underline that.
2 MR. STAMP: Very well.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 MR. STAMP: Very well, Mr. President, I think if in the future I
5 reserve to it as the B/C/S language, because I do think I said the
6 Yugoslav language, and probably I said the Bosnian language.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Later, you said B/C/S.
8 Mr. Zecevic, "B/C/S" stands for Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian. I think
9 both parties are always trying to use the rather neutral expression,
10 "B/C/S." Sometimes they make a mistake. That happens to both parties.
11 And now and then hear "Yugoslav" or "Bosnian" or "Serbian." I think it is
12 clear to everyone that every party always tries to use the
13 expression "B/C/S." And if one party would fail to do so perhaps at an
14 occasion, it is common understanding that whenever "Yugoslav" is used,
15 that is a reference to "B/C/S."
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I note that
17 perfectly and I have nothing against that. What I am trying to say is
18 that it is a technical problem. If a word is pronounced, it must be
19 reflected in the transcript. The transcript cannot interpret our words,
20 whatever they are. It is a question of practice and of principle. Thank
22 JUDGE ORIE: I do agree with you that in the transcript there
23 should appear the words spoken by counsel.
24 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
25 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 Q. Professor, I see that you have used the time to peruse the
2 documents more carefully so I could perhaps ask you a composite question.
3 Among those documents, do you see a statement of the 27th of February,
4 1996 and --
5 A. No. I didn't receive that statement. There must have been some
6 confusion when the documents were handed to me.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could you please return the papers
8 handed to the witness so that we can see what he actually received.
9 MR. STAMP: May I just enquire the Court, does the Court have a
10 copy of the filing dated the 11th of April, 2002?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we have it.
12 MR. STAMP: This is all mixed up.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, to be sure
15 what has been handed, can the Prosecution give us all the copies that were
16 given to the witness so as to see to problems that may arise as to date
17 and so forth?
18 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it, Mr. Stamp, that you now provided the
19 witness with whatever was in the filing of the 11th of April?
20 MR. STAMP: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
22 MR. STAMP:
23 Q. And do you see --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, counsel.
25 MR. STAMP:
1 Q. Do you see a record of your statement of the 27th of February,
2 1996, in English and the B/C/S language?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And also records of what you said in interviews that you gave to
5 OTP officials for the 22nd of November, 2001, and the 1st of March, 2002,
6 in both English and B/C/S language?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And to the best of your knowledge and belief, Professor, is the
9 information contained in all five of these documents true and accurate?
10 A. With some perhaps mistakes in translation, but basically
11 everything is there.
12 Q. If there is any mistake in translation which you think detracts
13 from the truth or the accuracy of those statements and report to any
14 significant degree, could you please tell us what they are
16 A. I really have no serious comments to make. I will accept these
17 documents as being truthful, accurate.
18 Q. There are -- the documents are numbered, Professor, but they are
19 numbered almost in the reverse. I am going to ask you to have a look at
20 page 3450, and that is the handwritten number to the top right of the
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I have a problem. I don't
25 know if it is my microphone or something else. I am experiencing some
1 difficulties. I do not hear one of the channels and I do not also see
2 where do the written numbers appear, at the back, at least. I do not see
3 them, these handwritten numbers. It seems that I do have also -- I am
4 experiencing some technical difficulties at the present time.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is it your microphone or your earphone?
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It seems to be a technical
7 problem related to earphones. I am going to see if I can stand it by
8 listening to it. I can only hear -- if I listen to only one channel, I
9 can hear correctly but, if not, I shall call somebody to help me.
10 I hear very unpleasant scratchings or -- I hear very unpleasant
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I will ask the technical booth to
13 come in and see whether they could assist you. Can you meanwhile follow
14 what is said so that we can continue? And the handwritten writing is on
15 the top right-hand corner of the pages, as Mr. Stamp explained to us.
16 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
17 MR. STAMP: Mr. President, that part of the document is in B/C/S
18 or the -- quite correct, B/C/S. And it is translated at page 3455 into
20 Q. Professor, in that exposition you explain that the lodging of a
21 tail-fin of a 120-millimetre mortar into the ground depends on certain
23 Now, could you answer orally, please. Don't nod.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zecevic, if you nod, the interpreters who are
25 sitting, not in front of you, they cannot translate that and it cannot be
1 put into the transcript. So, therefore, if you are nodding yes, would you
2 please pronounce the word "yes," and if you are nodding no, would you
3 please pronounce the word "no."
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
5 MR. STAMP:
6 Q. And in your report, you indicated that the tail-fin at the Markale
7 market explosion on the 5th of February, 1994, had been lodged to some
8 degree into the asphalt ground of the market?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, I know, Professor, it is highly scientific, but I am going to
11 ask you to explain again the proposition that you have here, slowly and
12 carefully, so that the Court could understand the significance of the
13 lodging of the 120-millimetre mortar fin in the asphalt ground of the
14 market on the 5th of February, 1994.
15 A. Very well.
16 The projectile, mortar projectile, when it hits a target, in this
17 case it hit the asphalt surface of the market under an angle of 60, of
18 approximately 60 degrees with respect to the ground level. Upon hitting,
19 there was fragmentation of the body of the projectile. The result of the
20 fragmentation is the following: The jacket of the mortar changed into or
21 became fragmented and these fragments spread very quickly around in the
22 surrounding area, however, the stabiliser that was part of the last part
23 of the body of the mortar, almost -- it never fragments; it never bursts
24 into small pieces, into fragments. And in this particular case, the
25 stabiliser continued its trajectory towards the ground and embedded itself
1 in a depth of approximately 250 millimeters.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zecevic, every word you speak has to be
3 translated. If you slow down the speed of your speech, the interpreters
4 will be better able to interpret.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in fact, in the
6 transcript that I can follow now, only now I see at "250 millimetres," and
7 where I listened to the French booth, I heard "250 kilometres." This is
8 what I seem to hear. I guess the depth and the speed was of some sort of
9 a confusion here.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I did not speak of the speed of
11 the mortar. Velocity.
12 JUDGE ORIE: You are talking about the depth of approximately 250
13 millimetres and--
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct
15 JUDGE ORIE: And it was translated in "kilometres" in French, and
16 that is what Mr. Piletta-Zanin tries to draw our attention to. But, of
17 course, it would create no confusion. No one would ever think of a
18 tail-fin, a stabiliser, to go 250 kilometres in the ground.
19 Please proceed.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In order for the stabiliser to be
21 embedded into the asphalt service at a depth of 250 millimetres, [Realtime
22 transcript read in error "kilometres"] the stabiliser has to have a
23 certain impact velocity, a certain energy. At the time of the explosion,
24 the mortar already had its arrival velocity, the arrival to the target.
25 When the explosion occurred, the detonation caused that the surface of the
1 stabiliser was affected with a certain velocity which had to result from
2 -- it had to result that the stabiliser should hit upwards, but since --
3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]...assist you, I know
4 that again kilometres and millimetres are -- I think, as a matter of fact,
5 I think that the witness was misled by our discussion and used these
6 words, but I am not quite sure.
7 If you would look at your screen. Once the cursor stops moving,
8 you may continue.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.
11 MR. STAMP:
12 Q. May I ask you one or two questions. You said --
13 A. Very well.
14 Q. -- that the body of the mortar fragments and the stabiliser does
15 not fragment?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. The stabiliser, you said, continues in its path of approach?
18 A. Under certain circumstances, of course. It depends of the
19 velocity at the point of impact and the explosion. If the velocity of the
20 mortar is of a certain value, it can occur that the stabiliser flows
21 backwards or bounces back near the explosion impact and can also go right
22 into the ground. But in this case, the stabiliser hit the surface and got
23 itself embedded into it.
24 I can talk to you about my experience. My previous experience
25 shows that at the time of the explosion, at the moment of the explosion,
1 the force of the product created by the detonation makes it so that the
2 stabiliser is thrown back at a distance of 150 metres per second
3 plus/minus 20 metres per second. 170 metres per second, correction. If
4 we think that -- if we actually look at the calculations that were made,
5 it can show that the energy in which the stabiliser hit the ground --
6 penetrated the ground --
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I believe that this witness
8 is talking way too fast.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I gave already a sign to the witness that he should
10 slow down.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, but I wish to say is that
12 the transcript, the English transcript, shows distance instead of speed,
13 and this is fundamental. And if I am doing this, it is to help everybody
14 inside this courtroom. There is a big difference between the word
15 "distance" and "velocity." The witness said "velocity." I hear that he
16 said that. He is nodding. And I think the Prosecution should also verify
17 what appears on the transcript. I cannot do their work. Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps we could have repeated that part
19 because if you talk too quickly, especially when it is very technical
20 language, it might be easily not followed by the interpreters. So may I
21 ask your attention to that again.
22 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I do not bother at all if you make a correction
23 to the transcript for the better understanding, but you started saying "if
24 the witness talks too quickly," I mean, that was clear to everyone. And
25 if you would then immediately go to where the transcript failed to reflect
1 the words of the expert witness. Yes.
2 MR. STAMP:
3 Q. Professor, in your report, you said: As a round approaches earth,
4 it falls at a velocity determined by the level of the charge.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Can you tell the Court what you mean by that, please
7 A. A mortar bomb can reach certain targets and fall under certain
8 angles, depending on the elevation, and it also depends of the level of
9 the charge. Each additional charge determines the initial speed of the
11 If the additional charge is greater, the velocity of the mortar
12 shell is greater. In this case, if we talk about 120-millimetre M-6253
13 shell, there are six additional charges which means that -- means that the
14 difference between the beginning, the velocity, the initial velocity,
15 initial speed, goes from 140 up to 170 metres per second, depending on
16 the additional charge -- no, I am not saying "170" but 310. It goes from
17 140 to 310 metres.
18 Q. So can I take it from what you are saying that, at charge 1, the
19 initial velocity would be approximately 140 metres per second?
20 A. Yes. The velocity of the launch, however, when the projectile
21 falls, it is lesser, the velocity is lesser.
22 Q. And at charge 6, the initial velocity would be greater and would
23 be how much, approximately?
24 A. Approximately 310 metres per second.
25 Q. Now, does the initial velocity have a consequence on the impact
1 velocity? That is, when the mortar arrives on target, does it affect it
2 at all?
3 A. Yes, it has a direct effect. If the initial velocity is greater,
4 generally speaking, the impact velocity is greater. This proportion is
5 not a linear proportion but it is lesser, it is lesser than the initial
6 velocity. It also depends on the angle from which the shell is launched.
7 Q. Now when the shell explodes on contact with the ground, you say
8 the body of the shell fragments but the tail-fin does not. Is there a
9 force from the explosion which tends to push the shell backward from the
10 centre of the explosion?
11 A. No, not the projectile, but the stabiliser.
12 Q. I beg your pardon. And what is -- could you describe the degree
13 of that force of the explosion which is tending to push the stabiliser fin
15 A. Well, the velocity is contrary to the -- is approximately 150
16 plus/minus 20 metres per second.
17 Q. And --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I am terribly sorry. There is
20 a word that was not written down and it is very important that we see what
21 it is contrary to. Line 4 in the transcript, please.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Your answer was, as we read it in the English
23 transcript: "Well, the velocity is contrary to the -- " Could you please
24 fill in that word?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That velocity is 170 metres
1 plus/minus 20. Not 150 but 170 plus/minus 20.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and it is contrary to what --
3 A. Inertia [Realtime transcript read in error "inushera"] of the
4 shell. The mass of the shell.
5 MR. STAMP:
6 Q. Do you mean contrary to the mass of the shell or to the
7 stabiliser fin?
8 A. I will explain. Upon impact of the shell, the shell has its own
9 inertia, its velocity. At the moment of the explosion, the products of
10 the detonation react to the front of the stabiliser and they kick the
11 stabiliser away, they push it backwards. If there was no explosion, the
12 mine would continue to travel towards the ground and it will embed itself
13 in the ground. But in this case, the detonation makes it so that it is
14 pushed backwards. So whether the stabiliser will be pushed back or
15 whether the stabiliser will be embedded in the ground, it depends upon the
16 velocity of the shell upon its arrival, upon its -- upon the impact point.
17 So the velocity of the two at the moment of impact is the same.
18 I can also try to explain it to you by making a sketch. Maybe the
19 visual effect will be clearer.
20 Q. Would you please do so, with your leave.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If a clear piece of paper could be given to the
22 witness and perhaps put on the ELMO so that we can follow what he draw.
23 Yes. You perhaps turn the ELMO in such a way that it is comfortable
24 for --
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would just
1 like to say at this very moment that, on line 17, just to make sure, we
2 are not talking about "inushera" but "inertia," and since the word is not
3 written correctly, we just like the appropriate modifications to be
4 brought to the transcript.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perfect issue for the yellow papers,
6 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the moment, upon arrival of the
8 shell and upon its hitting the ground, it obtains its velocity. The
9 velocity is "V." This velocity depends on the additional charge, the
10 amount of the additional charge that was used, and also it depends on the
11 elevation. This is the angle under which -- the descent angle of the
12 mortar, and it is approximately 60 degrees. It is the descent angle.
13 Right after that, when the detonation occurs, the shell becomes
14 broader. And after the detonation, because we hear -- the explosion
15 charges are right here. So what happens is that the explosion charges
16 tend to destroy the metal jacket of -- the metal body of the shell. So
17 the pressure that is -- the pressure inside is 1.100 bars and the
18 temperature is 2.500 Celsius degrees. 2.500 Celsius. At that moment --
19 Q. Stop.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, you wanted to --
21 MR. STAMP:
22 Q. Could you just put your initial and the number 1 on that document
23 which you have just drawn on, please. Please proceed.
24 A. When the body of the mine fragments, the shell fragments, and it
25 fragments into many fragment pieces, they scatter in the surrounding
1 distance at a distance of approximately 1.000 metres per second. However,
2 the front of the stabiliser has some forces. The forces, the pressure of
3 the products of the detonation, affect the stabiliser and this is why the
4 stabiliser wants to be pushed back. And this is -- and the stabiliser
5 still has the same velocity at this point. So the stabiliser also has the
6 velocity which is equal to the velocity of the impact point, and the
7 products of the detonation are also reacting towards or acting towards
8 this stabiliser. And this velocity here, according to some calculations,
9 shows that it should be approximately 170 plus/minus 20 metres per second.
10 Q. Stop. Explain to us again what is 170 plus/minus 20 metres per
12 A. That is the velocity with which the products of the detonation
13 tend to push back the stabiliser, to push it back contrary to its path
14 towards the ground. So they act upon the stabiliser. So we have the
15 velocity of the arrival, "V", minus this "VD", velocity.
16 The stabiliser can at that particular moment, depending on the
17 value of this velocity here -- if this velocity is smaller than 170 metres
18 per second, what will happen is the following: The stabiliser will be
19 pushed back from the impact point. It will fall near the centre of the
20 explosion, in the vicinity of the centre. If the velocity of arrival is
21 equal to 170 metres per second, the stabiliser will be embedded right
22 into the centre of the explosion. If "V" here is greater than 170, the
23 stabiliser will at that point tend to embed itself into the ground.
24 In this particular case, we have found that the body of the
25 stabiliser was embedded into the ground, which means that the shell, for
1 sure, had a velocity, the impact velocity of 170 plus/minus 20, or its
2 velocity was greater than the 170 plus/minus 20 metres per second.
3 Q. I am going to ask you to clarify that.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
5 MR. STAMP:
6 Q. So the shell that you found embedded to that degree or that was
7 embedded to the degree it was embedded at Markale, would have had to have
8 an approach velocity in excess of what?
9 A. Of 170 plus/minus 20 metres per second.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 A. Further calculations showed -- may I continue?
12 Q. We will get to the further calculations. I am going to ask you to
13 go over this again, and I am going to put some propositions to you and you
14 will tell me if I am right or I am wrong.
15 The 120-millimetre mortar that was fired into Markale market can
16 be fired from six charges. Is that correct or is that not correct?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. The greater the charge used between 1 to 6 charge is a higher --
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, I am terribly, terribly
20 sorry. I must intervene at this point. I believe hearing the French
21 booth say that it was bearing six charges, whereas the question was more
22 to the effect that it can possess six charges. And I believe that this
23 distinction is very important. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is what, at least, in the English language
25 understood the witness said, and which is also logical.
1 MR. STAMP: Thank you.
2 Q. Now, the greater the charge, the greater the impact velocity?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. On explosion, the products of explosion tend to be pressing
5 outwards and pushing back the stabiliser at 170 metres per second
6 plus/minus 20 metres per second. Correct? Don't nod, please.
7 A. Yes, yes.
8 Q. So the stabiliser will be pushed back if its approach velocity is
9 less than 170 metres per second plus/minus 20 metres per second?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. That situation would fall somewhere near to the centre of the
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. It would only continue on its path and penetrate the ground if it
15 is approaching at faster than 170 metres per second?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And for it to approach the ground at faster than 170 metres per
18 second and lodge to the degree it did, from what you saw in Markale
19 market, at approximately what charge would it have had to be fired?
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I am objecting.
21 I object to this question, for the following reasons. They are technical
22 reasons. I believe that, depending on the distance as well, that
23 everything depended on the distance and since distance is not established,
24 this type of question seems to be a question that is not allowed.
25 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]...answer the
1 question instead of making an objection to the question. If the question
2 is such that it could not be answered unless there would be other
3 information available, the witness will tell us. And during
4 cross-examination, you are fully entitled to -- So, please proceed, Mr.
5 Stamp. Your objection is denied. And I must ask you not to interfere
6 when it is not a real objection to the question.
7 MR. STAMP:
8 Q. The question, and I repeat the question: For the stabiliser fin
9 and the mortar to approach the ground at Markale at a speed faster than
10 170 metres per second and lodge to the degree it did as you saw at
11 Markale, at approximately what charge would it have had to be fire?
12 A. It would have to have been fired with a fourth, fifth and sixth
14 Q. Your report and your statement indicates that you took into
15 consideration the topography of the Markale -- of the Sarajevo area --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Type of --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And you found the angle of descent was 55 to 65 degrees?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Having regard to all those factors, how far would that mortar be
22 if it had been fired on the fourth, fifth or sixth charge, approximately
23 how far?
24 A. That distance is between 4.900 to 6.000 metres, considering this
25 angle and the depth of penetration of 250 millimetres.
1 Q. Is it possible that the -- it could have been fired from charge 3?
2 A. It could have been fired, but these -- this situation could not
3 have occurred on the ground, that is, the penetration depth of 250
4 millimetres. That is the key reason. For the stabiliser to be lodged at
5 a depth of 250 millimetres into the ground, it would have had, at the time
6 of penetration, to have had a velocity of 60 plus/minus 10 metres per
7 second. Since this 60 metres per second, plus this velocity of 170
8 plus/minus 20 metres per second, shows that the shell must have had at the
9 moment of impact a minimum velocity of 200 metres per second.
10 Q. Well, that is very informative. But if I could get back to the
12 Is it possible that it could have been fired from charge 3? Do I
13 take the answer to be "no" or "unlikely" or "probably," or what is your
15 A. No.
16 Q. Charge 2?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Charge 1?
19 A. No.
20 Q. If it had been fired from charge 1, would the impact velocity be
21 more than 170 metres per second?
22 A. The impact velocity would have been about 110 to 120 metres per
23 second, depending on the angle of decent.
24 Q. And I take it from your previous answers that had it been fired on
25 charges 2 or 3, the impact velocity would not have been sufficient for
1 it to lodge into the ground?
2 A. Yes, for it to lodge 250 metres deep into the ground.
3 Millimetres, sorry.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 Now, you said in your report that your conclusions were to some
6 degree based on and confirmed by research done by one Miroljub Vukasinovic
7 at the Belgrade Military Institute. You said that in your report?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. The Belgrade Military Institute, could you just tell us quickly
10 what the Belgrade Military Institute is in respect to the 120-millimetre
11 mortar? If you could in a sentence.
12 A. The Belgrade Military Institute of the Grad Forces in Belgrade is
13 a highly respectful scientific institution that before the war, and
14 probably still now, does research for the needs of the Army of the Federal
15 Republic of Yugoslavia, formally the Yugoslav People's Army, and that
16 institution also started projectiles of 120 millimetres and mortars of 120
18 Q. And I take it that includes the Yugoslav 120-millimetre mortar?
19 A. Of the pre-former Yugoslavia because that mortar was manufactured
20 in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
21 Q. That mortar was manufactured in Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is what
22 you just said. Which mortar are you referring to?
23 A. Mortar weapons are produced by the Bratstvo factory in
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina. The shells as projectiles of 120 millimetres were
25 manufactured at Pretis, a factory in the immediate vicinity of Sarajevo,
1 Licki Osik, a factory in Kraijina, in Lika, and Krusik Valjevo, a factory
2 in Serbia.
3 Q. Very well. We will get back to that, Professor.
4 Subsequent to the time before today when you last spoke with the
5 OTP --
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I simply have
7 no more translation. The question -- Mr. Stamp's question was not
8 translated for me, at least I didn't hear it at all. I heard the answer
9 but I did not get the question at all.
10 JUDGE ORIE: The previous question or the last one which -- I take
11 it that you are talking about the question that has been answered by the
12 witness, which reads --
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, it is perfect. But I
14 think it was not translated in any event. I didn't hear it.
15 JUDGE ORIE: The last question that was answered by the witness
16 was: "That mortar was manufactured in Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is what
17 you just said. Which mortar are you referring to?"
18 That was the question. So I take it that it is now translated.
19 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The translation is not good of my
21 -- of my answer on the transcript. The line is 25.8.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] What the witness said is that
23 it was not translated well. That is what the interpreter said, too.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if the witness says that it is
25 not properly translated, that is translated by the interpreters to
1 ask. So we know what he just said, and I was just to invite him to
2 correct what was not properly translated. Could you please do so, Mr.
3 Zecevic. Would you please do so.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mortar weapons were produced in the
5 Bratstvo factory and the shell as a projectile was manufactured in Pretis,
6 a factory close to Sarajevo, or in a factory in Licki Osik, in Lika,
7 Krajina or in the Krusik factory in Serbia.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I am very sorry,
9 Mr. President. It is because the French translation said in relation to
10 what this witness just said that the answer was not good. The witness did
11 not say, "My answer was not good." He said, "It was not translated well."
12 I think we have to be precise.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that has been clarified now.
14 Please, Mr. Stamp.
15 MR. STAMP:
16 Q. You said in your report, if I may lay the foundation to where I am
17 going, you said in your report that your conclusions were based on your
18 own studies and studies done by Miroslav [sic] Vukasinovic of the Belgrade
19 Military Institute. Now --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- since you spoke to us and gave us that information, have you
22 obtained any further information in respect to that proposition of the
23 charges effecting the lodging of the shell?
24 A. The report of Dr. Vukasinovic is based mostly on scientific
25 thinking in Russia regarding explosion physics. It is very interesting
1 and a highly valuable document. However, I conducted analysis of research
2 done in the United States, the ballistics laboratory, and I used their
3 research results to estimate the value of the velocity of rejection and
4 the velocity of the penetration of the stabiliser into the soil. There
5 are certain differences in values, but they are of the same order of
6 magnitude. May I continue?
7 Q. Yes, but slowly, if you can. Please proceed. You may continue,
8 but I was indicating if you could do so slowly.
9 A. I apologise. I am rather emotional so I speak quickly.
10 According to Dr. Vukasinovic, the velocity of rejection is about
11 160 metres per second, due to the effect of detonation products. And this
12 value that he used or borrowed from a Russian scientist, I used equations
13 obtained from Sukas and Walters. They mention velocity of 170 plus/minus
14 20 metres per second as the tolerance and I adopted this because of the
15 seriousness of this Tribunal.
16 There is no possibility, however, of defining this with precision.
17 You can't say it is 143 or 173. There has to be a certain range of
18 reliability of this value. To determine the velocity of penetration into
19 the ground, I used the well-known formulas that exist for 150 years and
20 that were established by French scientists during the wars of nineteenth
21 and twentieth centuries, and those formulas are extremely reliable. And
22 it is with the help of those that I did establish that the necessary
23 velocity for penetration into the ground to a depth of 250 millimetres is
24 of the order of 60 plus/minus 10 metres per second.
25 Those formulas can be found in any serious textbook on munitions,
1 and the basis is certainly the well-known French scientist who published
2 a book, "The Construction of Ammunitions."
3 Q. So, finally, may I ask you, in coming to your conclusions, you
4 have considered the report of the Belgrade Military Institute who were
5 involved in designing the 120-millimetre mortar? The Russians, the
6 Russian scientist --
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Is the Yugoslav 120-millimetre mortar based on any previous
9 mortar? Is it designed from any previous mortar that was being used?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, but it seems
12 to me that I am the only one following the transcript. The witness
13 indicated the name of the French expert, and I think it is important.
14 Could we ask him to repeat it? I think he said Mr. Saterline, and the
15 name doesn't appear in the transcript. And I think that these things
16 should appear on the transcript
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if you could understand, could
18 the witness repeat the name of the French scientist, that would have
19 taken one line and a half. Now it took you five lines.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: I am sorry for that, sir.
21 MR. STAMP:
22 Q. Was the Yugoslav 120-millimetre designed from a previous mortar
23 that was in use?
24 A. No. The 120-millimetre mortar M-62 was developed on the basis of
25 a heavy Russian mortar, M-52, I think it is. But by design it is an
1 original Yugoslav design. And it is a standard type of mortar, standard
2 mortar shell, worldwide.
3 Q. Thank you. And you considered the research and work on mortar
4 ballistics of the Belgrade Military Institute, the Russian scientists, the
5 French scientists and the American scientists, and your own research; is
6 that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 MR. STAMP: Having regard to the time, Mr. President, Your
9 Honours, I will not go into certain aspects of what he has to say. The
10 report and the statements are in evidence. He has mentioned certain
11 things about the make of the shell that fell in the market, and if I may
12 invite Your Honours to -- well, I am quite sure that Your Honours will
13 have a look at the entire report. But the explanations are in the report
14 and I leave it now to my friend and the Court.
15 That is the examination-in-chief, may it please you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stamp. How much time would the
17 Defence need to prepare for cross-examination?
18 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, until the break that
19 we have at the usual time, the Defence would like to ask a couple of
20 questions that are not linked to this report, some more general questions.
21 And if we can have the time from 10.30 to 11.30, the Defence would need
22 that time for my colleague Piletta and myself to consult our expert, and
23 then we would start the cross-examination within the time allowed us
24 by Your Honours for the cross-examination.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think you would stay, if we would resume at
1 12.30, and since we have time until a quarter to 2.00. Yes, of course,
2 11.30, from 11.30.
3 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] 11.30.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Until 1345. That would be a bit over two hours.
5 But, of course, there might be questions from the Bench as well. There
6 might be need to re-examine the witness. So I said yesterday, not more
7 than two hours.
8 May I just ask you, Mr. Zecevic, if necessary, would you still be
9 available after today? We are trying to finish today, but if it
10 would turn out to be necessary to continue next week, would you still be
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am at your disposal, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much. Although we try to finish, but
14 it is an important issue and therefore we should not -- we should not try
15 to do it too quickly.
16 Yes, please proceed, now, with your general questions,
17 Ms. Pilipovic.
18 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Cross-examined by Ms. Pilipovic:
20 Q. [Interpretation] Professor, good afternoon. I am sorry, good
21 morning. In your curriculum vitae that you provided to the Tribunal, and
22 talking to the investigators of the Prosecution, you said that you wrote
23 a thesis entitled "The Effect of Variable Fields of High Radical
24 Acceleration on the Internal Ballistics of Rocket Engines with Special
25 Types of Fuel." Can you confirm that this was a doctoral thesis?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Can you confirm -- can you confirm that this was a doctoral
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Who was your tutor?
6 A. Professor Ganic.
7 Q. Do you know Mr. Ejub Ganic, who during the conflict in 1992,
8 1993, and 1994, held very high positions and replaced Mr. Izetbegovic?
9 A. I don't know whether he replaced him. I don't remember, but he
10 is the person I am referring to.
11 Q. In your biography, you confirmed that you were one of the ten
12 greatest experts for weaponry in the former Yugoslavia. Is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. As an expert, and you are one of the ten greatest experts, were
15 you the winner of the national awards?
16 A. Which country?
17 Q. You said that you were one of the greatest experts in the former
18 Yugoslavia and in Bosnia.
19 A. No, I did not win any awards.
20 Q. You acquired your doctoral degree on the basis of the thesis, the
21 name of which we have mentioned. Does that mean that you did not
22 specialise in mortar shells, but rocket projectiles?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Can you please tell us what research you did into mines? Were you
25 more active with regard to mortar shells or rocket projectiles?
1 A. Your Honour, may I give an elaborated answer?
2 Q. Professor, if you could please just answer my question, which you
3 devoted more attention to.
4 A. By my basic orientation, I was an ammunition designer. I worked
5 for 20 years in a factory for the production of ammunition. I am the
6 only designer of the 128-millimetre rocket, M-87, which was an original
7 design: the rocket engine, the warhead, the design of the projectile, the
8 testing. I also worked on a propagation mine of 120 millimetre. I also
9 worked on 129-millimetre, a 50-millimetre rocket, the whole design of that
10 rocket, et cetera.
11 Q. You said that you worked in production?
12 A. No, not in production, but in a factory manufacturing ammunitions.
13 Q. During the conflict in Sarajevo - I am talking of the period 1992,
14 1993, and 1994 - you told the investigators that you had executive control
15 over the production of ammunition for Bosnia-Herzegovina?
16 A. Not executive control. I was head of the research and development
18 THE INTERPRETER: That is too fast, I'm sorry.
19 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you both to make a pause between question
20 and answer and then answer and question.
21 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Professor, I have in front of me some additional information which
23 the Defence received from the Prosecution, and in the translation, it said
24 that during the conflict, you had executive control over the department
25 for the production of ammunition for the BH army. Maybe it hasn't been
1 correctly translated. Would you explain what your role was?
2 A. In the 1992/1993 period, I was head of the research and
3 development department attached to the centre for special production in
4 the Main Staff of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. My task was to try, in
5 view of the shortages and no import of ammunition, no electricity, and no
6 sources of energy, no explosives --
7 Q. My question was a simple one: What was your position? Can you
8 please confirm that what you told the investigators?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Now the witness is now explaining what it is and
10 it seems, as far as I understand from what you quoted, to be different
11 from what is in that statement. And the witness may explain. He
12 explained already what his position was. If you say it is important to
13 know what his task was, and usually positions and tasks are both of
14 importance, the witness could finish his answer.
15 If you would say that since he now explains his position, that
16 would be enough, then we don't need any further information about the
17 tasks he performed in that position.
18 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you. I think
19 that the witness was explaining the conditions prevailing at the time, and
20 which put him in a position as to hold the position of manager that he
21 held. I just wanted the witness to confirm his -- what exact position he
23 JUDGE ORIE: He said that his position was that he was head of the
24 research and development department attached to the centre for special
25 production in the Main Staff. When he started explaining his task, I
1 think he described the circumstances under which the necessity for
2 performing this task became apparent.
3 I think his position has been explained. If that is just what you
4 wanted to know, I think the question has been answered. And it is
5 different from what you quoted from his statement. That is clear to
6 everyone as well.
7 Ms. Pilipovic, looking at the clock, it is a couple of minutes.
8 If you would say "I continue for just a couple of minutes -- "
9 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] One more question, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then with the assistance with the interpreters, we
11 could continue for a couple of minutes and then have a longer break. Yes.
12 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. Professor, can you tell us, please, where the factory for the
14 production of the ammunition was in Sarajevo?
15 A. We didn't have a factory for the production of ammunition. We had
16 small workshops for the production of ammunition.
17 Q. Can you confirm that one of those factories was in Alipasino
18 Polje, which factory for the production of ammunition?
19 A. Your Honour, may I explain in some detail? In Sarajevo there were
20 at the same time, two lines: One line next to the Ministry of Energy,
21 where the Pretis factory was, and it manufactured ammunition. I am
22 talking to the part of Pretis that was within Sarajevo. Another
23 organisation that I was in was a purely military organisation. It was not
24 under civilian control, and it manufactured in wartime workshops and
25 partly through ordering material from certain factories. Therefore,
1 within Sarajevo, in 1992 and 1993, there were two parallel cycles of
2 production, one under the control of the civilian authorities and the
3 other under the control of the military authorities. That is where I was,
4 and I can tell you more about that because I was there.
5 JUDGE ORIE: May I interrupt you. I think what Ms. Pilipovic
6 would like to know is whether there was either a factory, perhaps, or a
7 workshop in Alipasino Polje. I think that is what the question was about.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.
9 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I think
10 it is time for the break.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If we would start at 11.30, would that be good?
12 Then we will adjourn until 11.30.
13 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m
14 --- On resuming at 11.33 a.m.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, please proceed.
16 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Professor, before the break, you told us that the production of
18 mortars took place in Alipasino Polje --
19 A. I didn't say that this was the case, that the mortars were
20 manufactured in Alipasino Polje. It is you that said that.
21 Q. Professor, in your interview with the investigators, the 7th and
22 10th of September, 2000, you said that mortars were manufactured in a
23 casting plate in Alipasino Polje?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. When you are saying that shells were manufactured in
1 Alipasino Polje, can you tell us what sort of shells, what was their
2 calibre, the ones manufactured in Alipasino Polje?
3 A. There is a casting plant in Alipasino Polje where casts were made
4 for mortars of 82 millimetres.
5 Q. Can you tell me when the manufacturing starting, and can you
6 please tell us where the plant was?
7 A. I believe that the manufacturing started in November, 1992.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could we please slow down? Especially, Mr. Zecevic,
9 you and Ms. Pilipovic are speaking the same language, and that always
10 causes additional problems. Yes.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I take
13 advantage --
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like to
16 say that there will be a persistent problem, but I will continue in this
17 way. I heard from the French booth that there were mortars of 128
18 millimetres. That is what I heard. In the transcript, it says "82
19 millimetres." So we have to see which of the two figures is right.
20 JUDGE ORIE: When you said: "Casts were made in Alipasino Polje
21 for mortars," was it of 82 millimetres?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
24 Please proceed.
25 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Professor, can you tell us -- you said, in fact, that
2 manufacturing started in November 1992. Can you tell us with accuracy
3 where the plant was in Alipasino Polje exactly, the exact location?
4 A. What is -- what is --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Unfortunately, the English booth is getting the
6 French translation. I don't know what is happening. There is an echo.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, there is an echo for everyone, and
8 give me an opportunity first to react, and if I do not, please interfere.
9 We have a technical problem, I think, since we have different translations
10 on different channels. I have got on channel 4 now the French
12 I think we get it --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. President, the B/C/S booth hears the French
14 translation as well.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could the interpreters tell us what is happening in
16 their view because I see some signs. It seems that now I don't hear any
17 French translation any more. So everything has been solved.
18 Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.
19 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Professor, when you are saying "Alipasino Polje," can you tell us
21 the street where the manufacturing plant was?
22 A. No --
23 Q. You said "no," and then you started saying because in Sarajevo --
24 A. It is not so important.
25 Q. Is it because you do not know or you do not wish to answer?
1 A. When the war started in the former Yugoslavia, all the names of
2 the streets changed.
3 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you, Mr. Zecevic, do you know the name of
4 an old street or a new street, and have you been there? Could you locate
5 the spot? You are nodding. May I take it that your answer is "yes"?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. President, I can
7 pinpoint where the manufacturing plant was. I believe that before the
8 war the street was called Dzemal Bijedic Street. I don't know what its
9 name is currently.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.
11 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Professor, you told us that there were several workshops where
13 manufacturing took place. Could you tell us in which parts of the city
14 were the workshops located?
15 A. I cannot tell you because this work did not fall within the scope
16 of my action.
17 JUDGE ORIE: The question is whether you know it or not.
18 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
19 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Thank you, Professor. You said you did not know because it did
21 not fall within the scope of your activities. I am talking about
22 make-shift manufacturing. But what about the BH army? Can you tell us,
23 since you knew where the production plants were, the casting plants were?
24 A. There was only one line, it was in Alipasino Polje. When I speak
25 about workshops, well, I here understand small workshops with one or two
1 machines. So where I was, there were only a few machines which were
2 scattered throughout Sarajevo. The part of them which I was able to see
3 was at the mechanical engineering faculty where I was employed.
4 Q. When you say they were scattered all over Sarajevo, can you tell
5 us in what sort of buildings were those workshops housed?
6 A. I did not deal in manufacturing. I was -- I dealt with
7 development and research. Other peoples were in charge of that aspect.
8 JUDGE ORIE: The question is whether you know where these
9 workshops were housed, in what kind of buildings? If you know tell us.
10 If you don't know, tell us.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
12 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Thank you. Professor, you, as an expert, did not visit or
14 supervise the production?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Thank you. Professor, you did a study as member of the commission
17 for the incidents -- for the incident at the Markale market?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Can you tell us from whom did you hear about the Markale incident?
20 A. I saw it on the news programme of the Bosnian television.
21 Q. Can you tell us what you saw on the news programme of the Bosnian
23 A. I saw a footage of the event, that is, what followed the event,
24 and I heard different statements made by responsible persons, and that was
1 Q. When you said that you saw footages of the event following the
2 event, can you tell us what you saw on that footage? Can you remember?
3 A. Yes. Many people were there helping the wounded, putting them in
4 cars, taking them away, their comments. That is all I could see.
5 Q. In your statements, you said that you saw a French soldier?
6 A. Yes, on television we saw the moment when a French soldier was
7 digging up a part of the stabiliser and was taking it out of the ground.
8 It was a very short clip of that footage.
9 Q. To the best of your recollection, how can you describe what the
10 clip was? Can you describe it in relation to the area where the crater
11 was dug out, as you say?
12 A. The sequence lasted one or one and-a-half seconds. And as far as
13 I can remember, that is all.
14 Q. In the sequence, what could you see which lasted a very short
15 time? What could you see?
16 A. I saw a soldier and some people who were crouching around the
17 centre of the explosion, and this soldier tries to take out the
18 stabiliser. And that was all one could see at that moment, nothing else.
19 Q. Your study was composed also by three other members of the
21 A. Yes
22 Q. Who appointed you and when to be a member of that commission?
23 A. Judge Asim Kanovic, I think. He appointed me. It was on February
24 6, 1994. On the previous day, on February 5th, I called my acquaintance
25 who worked as the head of the crime department at the Sarajevo police and
1 told him that one should approach the problem of the explosion seriously
2 because, on that very same evening, there was much confusion in the
3 statements of individual people. He asked me to come the next day to the
4 Markale market. I went there. I met the investigating judge. I told him
5 in brief what my occupation was, what my colleague's occupation was, and
6 he appointed us on the spot to be part of the team.
7 Q. In other words, as far as I can gather from what you have just
8 said, you were the one who formed the commission, proposed the
10 A. Yes, I proposed the commission.
11 Q. On February 5th, when you heard about the incident, did you go
12 there on the spot?
13 A. The place where I live and the place where the incident took place
14 is at a distance of 7 millimetres -- "no" is the answer.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Pilipovic, if you speak at the same time, it
16 even becomes more difficult.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like
18 to ask for other earphones because I have problems.
19 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]...ask for other
21 Please proceed.
22 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. Professor, you said that you proposed who would be in the
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Can you tell me who was in charge of the work of the commission?
2 A. I was.
3 Q. Can you tell us what the task of the commission was which you
5 A. The task was to try to determine the cause of the massacre in
7 Q. As far as I could understand you, on February 6th, you came to the
8 Markale market.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Did you see the crater that was allegedly made from the remnants
11 of the stabiliser of the mortar?
12 A. The crater doesn't -- is not caused by the remnants of the
13 stabiliser but by the explosion, and the hole in which the stabiliser was
14 is quite a different thing.
15 Q. Did you photograph that?
16 A. Yes. Not me, but I asked that this should be photographed because
17 I did -- I was not authorised to take photos.
18 Q. When you say that you asked photographs to be taken, to photograph
19 everything on the site, does that mean that on February 6th, you had
20 persons with you who was a photographer and who photographed?
21 A. No. I only was -- I was only able to convey this. No, I didn't
22 have anyone with me. I just asked that this should be done. And I was
23 told that photographs had been taken the day before.
24 Q. If I understood you correctly, on that day when you went with the
25 other two members of the commission, that you didn't have a photographer
1 with you and you had taken no photos that day?
2 A. We did take photos, the things that I encircled, but I was not in
3 charge of that. I could only express the wish to have a photographer, and
4 this wish was fulfilled because the photographer was a police
5 photographer. I was not authorised to know who the person was. I only
6 said that photographs would be necessary, and photographs were taken of
7 the area which I encircled with chalk.
8 Q. On that day, on February 6th, you had with you a person who took
9 photographs of this site of what you asked to be photographed?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Can you tell us who the person was?
12 A. No. I saw him only once. And it wasn't very important as far as
13 I was concerned.
14 Q. Since you are saying that this person was not important for you,
15 does that mean that you didn't use the photographs that the photographer
16 had taken on that day, if he took photographs?
17 A. Don't distort my answer. Don't distort my statement. I used the
18 photographs that I received from the police, that what I asked to be
20 Q. Professor, does that mean that the persons who -- that the person
21 who photographed on February 6th what you encircled that should be
22 photographed, was a person who was employed by the police?
23 A. I cannot tell you. I don't have accurate information to that
25 Q. How can you explain that in response to my question when I asked
1 about the photographs, that they were given to you by someone from the
3 A. Well, people from the police brought me those photographs, and who
4 they engaged as the photographer, I do not know.
5 Q. Professor, can you tell us when you received photographs from that
6 person who, on February 6th, photographed the site of the incident?
7 A. I received the photographs the next day on the 7th of February,
8 if I can recollect it well.
9 Q. Thank you. Professor did you measure the angle of penetration of
10 the stabiliser?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can you tell us how?
13 A. I asked to be brought the remnants of the stabiliser. And then at
14 the place of the centre of the explosion, I spotted a hole which the
15 stabiliser had penetrated on the previous day. I put the remnants of the
16 stabiliser in the hole, and thanks to -- and with the aid of a quadrant on
17 the basis of which you can determine the angle, I determined the angle of
18 the front of the stabiliser in the part where the capsule is and the basic
19 charge is. This is one way of doing it. I also measured the depth of the
20 opening in which the carrier of the stabiliser was.
21 Q. Thank you, Professor.
22 Since you say that you measured the angle of the penetration of
23 the stabiliser, you asked to tell us how it was done. Can you confirm to
24 us whether you photographed the moment when the angle was ascertained on
25 that day since you had the photographer with you?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Did you photograph the crater?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Can you tell us whether those photographs that were made on that
5 day, were they used for writing the study that you were in charge of
7 A. The photographs were not a basis for writing the report but some
8 of the photographs had been included in that report.
9 Q. So you are telling us that you used a part of the photographs
10 that were -- that had been used for the report?
11 A. Yes. Look at page 3482.
12 Q. Thank you. I looked at this. I just wanted confirmation if these
13 were photographs of the 6th of February.
14 Professor, you told us that when you came to the scene, that you
15 asked that the stabiliser be brought to you.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So you were informed that the stabiliser had been taken out?
18 A. I was not informed of this. When I came to the site, I saw that
19 there was no stabiliser there, and I asked where it was. And I was told
20 that it had been taken out by a soldier, a UN soldier, and I asked that it
21 be brought so that I could try to reconstruct the attack angle of the
23 Q. From whom did you ask to have the stabiliser brought to you?
24 A. From the judge.
25 Q. Can you tell us whether the judge told you where the stabiliser
1 exactly was?
2 A. No. This was not within the scope of my activity and there was no
3 need to ask the judge.
4 Q. Did the judge tell you precisely who had taken the stabiliser and
6 A. No.
7 Q. Can you tell us who brought the stabiliser?
8 A. No.
9 Q. On that day, on February 6th, you say that you did not know who
10 brought the stabiliser. Can you tell us for how long did you use the
12 A. It is very difficult to say at this moment for how long I used it.
13 Perhaps a few hours.
14 Q. While you were using this stabiliser and while you were doing the
15 investigation, was the judge with you all that time?
16 A. Yes, most of the time. I didn't pay attention to this, really.
17 Q. On that occasion, was a report made?
18 A. I don't understand who is to write down the minutes. I registered
19 information on my own and I have a record of the results of my
20 investigations. And on that -- on the basis of that material, I wrote my
21 report. I, as an expert authorised by the Court, at least as far as I was
22 informed, I had no more precise instructions that I had to do anything in
24 Q. You say that you were working for yourself?
25 A. No. No. I wrote down my own notes.
1 Q. You wrote notes for yourself. The investigating judge, did he
2 keep records of what was going on that day?
3 A. I don't know. I was authorised from the judge to receive report
4 in two, two and-a-half days at the most, and according to his instruction,
5 my report was only reliable, that is, the commission, the three of us who
6 were in that commission, all three of us were engaged in writing the
7 report and in preparing the material for writing the report, which implied
8 that we had to make a detailed investigation of the site of the explosion.
9 Q. Professor, when you went on site that day, did you also find the
10 remnants of the body of the shell?
11 A. I asked that fragments be found, and according to the information
12 that I received at the time, I know that they were only able to find two
13 fragments. Because the previous day, after the incident that occurred,
14 there was a lot of blood on the market. In the afternoon hours, the
15 firemen came on to the spot and they also proceeded to cleaning the area
16 with very strong water hoses, so that is the reason why most of these
17 fragments were also cleaned out or disappeared.
18 Q. So, therefore, you are answering to us that you did not find
19 shrapnels of the body on the site?
20 A. If an explosion occurred correctly, you don't really find
21 remnants. There are just fragments that fly at a very high speed, a few
22 thousand metres per second, and it is very difficult to find bigger metal
23 fragments belonging to the body of the shell on the site.
24 Q. Professor, regarding these fragments for which you say that
25 usually they stay on the spot, were you able to find any fragments on the
2 A. I only told you that I found two. Two fragments were found and
3 they were given to the investigating judge.
4 Q. So you are telling us that on the 6th of February, you only found
5 two fragments?
6 A. Yes, Madam.
7 Q. Do you know if the previous day, therefore, on the 5th of
8 February, was there a team that went out on site, a team belonging to the
9 centre of the Security Services?
10 A. I was not informed of that at that point. However, at a later
11 stage, I found out that fact over the television. In fact, that was not
12 long ago, when I was following this trial.
13 Q. Could you tell us what is it that you heard exactly?
14 A. That there was an on-site investigation belonging to the police
15 department and they went to carry out an on-site investigation, and that
16 is all I know.
17 Q. At that time did you hear that that team found shrapnels belonging
18 to the shell?
19 A. No, ma'am.
20 Q. And that they were the ones who took away the stabiliser?
21 A. No, ma'am.
22 Q. So, Professor, you do not know and you never saw shrapnels that
23 were found on site on the 5th of February?
24 A. I told you that two were found. Two fragments, two shrapnel
1 Q. Did you carry out some lab examinations?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Regarding these two fragments?
4 A. Ma'am, it was to make a report and I had two days to do it. In
5 fact, better to say I had 30 hours to complete my report. In Sarajevo at
6 the time, there was no electricity, there was no water, there was no fuel
7 for transportation. It was impossible for any type of analysis to be
8 done. We could not carry out the metallic analysis of these shrapnels.
9 We had to use a very sophisticated laboratory which was not available at
10 the time in Sarajevo.
11 Q. Professor, I know that in Sarajevo there was a war. I only asked
12 you if you carried out some analysis. Do you know if at any point in time
13 there was any kind of analysis carried out on the shrapnels?
14 A. Ma'am, after I drafted this report, nobody ever, aside from
15 members of the OTP, contacted me to talk about this report.
16 Q. Professor, on that day when you were using the stabiliser, can you
17 tell us, after you finished your part of the work, if you will, who -- did
18 somebody take away the stabiliser and who took it away?
19 A. I was not particularly interested by that fact because it is out
20 of the scope of my activities.
21 Q. Professor, can you tell us which parts of the projectile were you
22 able to analyse during the identification of the projectile, or to
23 examine, to look at?
24 A. I only had the carrier of the stabiliser, madam, and it is on this
25 carrier that you were able to see embedded the charges, initial charges,
1 with the capsules. And according to this, I was able to identify the type
2 of projectile and the type of the capsule, also the type of the initial
4 Q. Mr. Zecevic, can you tell us what led you to believe that it was
5 the charge that was used, in fact?
6 A. I don't understand your question.
7 Q. You told us that you were able to conclude that the shell was
8 filled with ammunition and powder?
9 A. Yes, madam.
10 Q. Who is the manufacturer?
11 A. It was Krusik.
12 Q. On the basis of what were you able to conclude this?
13 A. Because of the standard marks that are embedded on the initial
14 charge, and it is also the standard procedure regarding ammunition for the
15 former JNA.
16 Q. Aside from the fact that it was written on it "Krusik Valjevo,"
17 what else was embedded? What else were you able to read on that part?
18 A. There was also M-74 capsule, the year of the manufacturing also
19 was there, and it was 1996, with regards to the initial charge.
20 Q. M-74. Can you please tell us where are those parts?
21 A. How do you want me to tell you?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps the translation says that it was 1996. Is
23 that what you --
24 MR. STAMP: I heard --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was in 1987.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Professor, you wanted to say something?
4 A. Madam, how do you want me to know where they were? They were out
5 of the scope of my work. I didn't find them, and I answered to your
6 previous question I don't know where they were brought. But there was --
7 the initial charge was there into the carrier of the stabiliser and the
8 capsule was there as well.
9 Q. Would you be able to tell us what was the material with which the
10 body of the shell was produced?
11 A. It was made out of steel.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 Professor, can you describe to us what the surface of the ground
14 of the Markale market looked like? Can you explain to us and tell us what
15 the structure of the ground?
16 A. There was a layer of asphalt, probably two centimetres thick, and
17 the underneath there was sand and small rocks, gravel, small stones.
18 Q. According to your expertise, could you tell us what was the
19 firmness of that layer?
20 A. I am not a geologist.
21 Q. Thank you, Professor.
22 I believe that you told us that you measured the depth of the
23 crater of which allegedly was formed by the shell?
24 A. Yes, madam.
25 Q. Can you tell us what was the depth, please?
1 A. From 200 to 250 millimetres, depending on the angle, depending on
2 what end of the hole you measure.
3 Q. When you say that it depends on the part that you measure, can
4 you be a little bit more precise?
5 A. I can only make a drawing, if you wish, a sketch. You will
6 understand then. Because like this, it is a bit difficult to explain
7 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave, if
8 we could allow the Professor to draw a sketch.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in fact, it is
11 perhaps not really important.
12 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has no difficulty in understanding what
13 the witness said. But if you would like to use your time to make him
14 draw, then, of course, it is up to you.
15 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] No, thank you very much. It
16 won't be necessary, Your Honour.
17 Q. Professor, when you said that you measured the depth of the
18 crater, would you be able to tell us if the measurement was made starting
19 from the upper layer of the surface of the asphalt?
20 A. Yes. As that part of the asphalt was missing, so we placed a
21 stick, and on the basis of that, many measurements were carried out in
22 order to attain this figure of 200 to 250 millimetres.
23 Q. You say that you held the stabiliser, you had it in your hands?
24 Were you able to measure also the length?
25 A. Of what?
1 Q. Of the stabiliser.
2 A. No.
3 Q. Were you also able to measure the -- sir, the width of the crater?
4 A. You mean the dimensions? Yes.
5 Q. Can you tell us if the crater had the same width all along the
6 hole in the depth?
7 A. I don't think we understand each other. What do you mean by
9 Q. Professor, there is a crater which had its depth. When you were
10 measuring the width of the crater --
11 A. Well, I measured the girth or the area of the explosion, and when
12 I measured this space in which the explosion occurred, there was also a
13 place where the asphalt was destroyed, and there is also a part where the
14 asphalt was not destroyed but some parts of particles of the asphalt
15 were removed, were blown away. So we can see where the -- where the
16 impact occurred under a great deal of velocity and these fragments hit the
17 asphalt and ricocheted. So this is what I want you to precise. I know
18 what the dimensions were; I have them in my notes. But I couldn't tell
19 you by heart. I could consult my notes, if you wish. I would then be
20 able to give you precise figures.
21 Q. Thank you very much, Professor. If it is necessary --
22 JUDGE ORIE: I ask you, wouldn't there be some confusion? You are
23 using the word "crater" while what we were talking about was the tunnel.
24 And I think you wanted to know the dimensions, the diameter, I would say,
25 of the tunnel, rather than of the crater. You used the word "crater,"
1 where the witness indicated before that the crater is something different
2 from the hole or tunnel. So perhaps if you put the question
3 differently, you would get the answer you would like.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could you also ask the counsel and the witness
5 to speak slower, please?
6 JUDGE ORIE: And may I ask you also to speak slower, both of you.
7 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Q. What was the width of the tunnel?
9 A. About 40 millimetres.
10 Q. Thank you, Professor.
11 Professor, would you be able to confirm to us if when the shell is
12 activated, at the precise moment of the explosion, the explosive force,
13 the force of explosion, if I may use that term, does it clear the area
14 surrounding the crater?
15 A. It all depends on the type of fuse, if the fuse is set to a
16 super-rapid action or if it is set to start later. If the surface is very
17 strong, it also depends on that. So many factors depend on the -- on what
18 will happen after the explosion.
19 JUDGE ORIE: May I also ask one more question. You said the
20 diameter, I understand, of the tunnel was 40 millimetres. At least, that
21 is 40 millimetres, so 4 centimetres.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, very briefly, I
24 must do it really at this point. I read in the English transcript, "type
25 of fuse," which is type of detonator and not type of terrain, which we
1 find in the French interpretation. So I would like this to be corrected.
2 Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that is what I heard in the English translation.
4 Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.
5 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 Q. Professor, when a mine -- a bomb explodes, around that area where
7 the explosion took place, what happens with the objects that surround that
8 area? Are they pushed away?
9 A. Well, a metre to a metre and-a-half around the place of explosion,
10 the impact, upon the pressure that occurs after, that you see
11 the sort of a -- the intensity, and depending on the objects that are
12 surrounding that area, these objects can be pushed away, blown away, or
13 not. It all depends on the mass of the surface. Of the structure as
14 well, if it is a metal structure, if it is a wooden structure. It is a
15 very complex question.
16 Q. Professor, is it possible that upon the explosion and after the
17 stabiliser embedded itself on the ground, into the ground, is it possible
18 that a crater be formed and that the stabiliser be completely embedded
19 inside and that you do not see where the crater is and you don't see the
20 stabiliser, either, on that very strong asphalt surface, for instance?
21 Would you please be able to explain this to us?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Are you talking about the crater or are you talking
23 about the tunnel or the hole?
24 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I am talking about the crater.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will repeat again. It really all
2 depends on the type of fuse. If the fuse is set to act, react
3 immediately, the shell will practically detonate immediately after -- upon
4 contact with a surface. And it has -- if it didn't happen that way, the
5 efficiency would not -- the military efficiency or the military purpose of
6 this would not be interesting. There are fuses which are set to
7 detonate slower. Then in that case, the shell goes right into the
8 obstacle, and at that point, they react inside the surface and the hole --
9 the consequence of everything would be quite different. In this
10 particular case, it is quite clear that the fuse was set to impact
11 immediately. It is a super quick fuse, as we call it. And the effect
12 that it caused on to the surface, it really all depends on the quality of
13 the terrain, on the thickness of the asphalt as well, of the firmness, of
14 the consistency of the ground, and also it depends on the velocity of the
15 shell. And all these factors influence the depth. So it is a very
16 complex issue and it is not very easy to answer briefly if we don't
17 analyse every and each of these parameters.
18 Q. Professor, it seems to me that you said that in this particular
19 case, the fuse was set to --
20 A. On impact. To explode on impact.
21 Q. Thank you. How then do you explain, Professor, that the shell
22 broke the surface of the Markale market [Realtime transcript read in
23 error "Madam Registrar"] and that the stabiliser embedded
24 itself on to the ground? I think that you said that it was from 200 to
25 250 millimetres in depth. If the fuse was set to explode upon impact, how
1 could this be possible?
2 A. The stabiliser has nothing to do with all this.
3 Q. I don't know, you don't understand me. When the mine explodes --
4 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]...again.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.
6 JUDGE ORIE: So a pause between question and answer, and answer
7 and question.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation Mr. President, I don't know
9 if we see the same thing, but I see that the surface was -- we read
10 something very strange. Maybe we should -- we see "Madam Registrar".
11 What I see in my transcript is that "the surface of the Madam Registrar,"
12 "that the shell broke the surface of the Madam Registrar." It seems very
13 painful and not very likely, Mr. President. So if we could please correct
14 this for the transcript, first of all, for poor Mrs. Registrar and also
15 for the transcript.
16 I don't know if we have the same text, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you could have asked whether we
18 could take it back at a certain line. That would have been enough instead
19 of talking about things that are clear to everyone.
20 Could you please resume, Ms. Pilipovic. The question was asked,
21 Professor, it seems to me that you said in this particular case, the fuse
22 was set -- and that it was to explode on the impact.
23 I think if we restart from there.
24 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Professor, can you explain to us the following. How is it
1 possible that the shell can embed itself into the ground? And we are
2 talking about the ground covering the Markale market. So how is it
3 possible that the stabiliser was able to get embedded into the ground at
4 about 200 to 250 millimetres under the conditions that you have explained
5 to us? You told us that the fuse was set to blast upon impact. Can you
6 explain this to us, please?
7 A. I did not say that the shell went down and that it went right
8 through from 200 to 250 millimetres. It is not the shell that was
9 embedded, but the stabiliser. Secondly, upon the -- when a shell hits
10 upon impact, the fuse activates itself, and the fuse transmits the
11 detonation impulse onto the detonator. The detonator, therefore,
12 transmits a further impulse onto the explosion. Then what happens is
13 that detonation occurs, the projectile becomes larger, and just before
14 exploding, its diameter enlarges from two to three times. And this all
15 happens extremely briefly. It is a very short period of time.
16 When the products of the detonation are stronger than the jacket,
17 the resistance of the jacket, the jacket fragments, and the fragments of
18 the jackets are blown away in the area surrounding the explosion. This
19 happens all very quickly. The velocity of these fragments is enormous.
20 And we talk about the stabiliser now.
21 The same products of the detonation also act upon the stabiliser
22 and they are contrary to the movement of the shell, which occurs just
23 before the explosion. So depending on the velocity of the shell at the
24 time of impact, the point of impact, the stabiliser can embed itself into
25 a terrain or it can also be thrown away from the point of impact or it can
1 also be found in the near vicinity of the explosion.
2 Q. Thank you very much, Professor. You have already explained this
3 to us. I didn't want to interrupt you.
4 Professor, you have told us that you were able to determine the
5 angle of descent of the shell?
6 A. I have found the range.
7 Q. Can you please tell us what is the range?
8 A. 10.5 to 65 degrees.
9 Q. Professor, in your statement that you gave on the 26th and on the
10 27th of February --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp.
12 MR. STAMP: I am not quite sure if we have a record of what
13 exactly the questions and answers -- the last two questions and the last
14 two answers are. Perhaps they can repeat it and the witness can clarify.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. I believe the Professor said that it was from 55 and 65 degrees.
18 JUDGE ORIE: That is the -- yes. It is now clear. It was 55 to
20 Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.
21 I think, Mr. Stamp, in order to clarify the issue, when it was
22 asked whether the Professor would have determined the angle of descent, he
23 said, "I found a range." I understand it as not the exact angle but the
24 range in which the angle should be located. Yes. And not the range of
25 firing of something like that. That would be a totally different matter.
1 MR. STAMP: I know you have asked the witness and counsel to slow
2 down, but may I ask the Court to remind the witness to begin answering at
3 the end of the translation of the question.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I asked several times not only for the speed of
5 speech, but also to make a pause between answers and questions.
6 Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic, after you have taken a small
8 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 Q. Professor, you gave a statement to the members of the OTP on the
10 27th and 28th of February, 1996. Is that correct?
11 A. [No audible response]
12 Q. In that same on page 2 of the said statement, the penultimate
13 paragraph says the following, and I will just quote one line. You said:
14 "We were able to determine the angle of the descent angle of the shell."
15 Is that correct, "We were able to determine the angle of descent
16 of the shell"?
17 A. Would you please be able to give me the page?
18 Q. 08.
19 A. No, 02 on the upper right-hand corner, the OTP attributed a
20 number --
21 JUDGE ORIE: We cannot speak at the same time since interpreters
22 have only -- they have two ears, but they have only one mouth to pronounce
23 the words. So you really have to slow down and to make pauses, otherwise,
24 the Chamber will not be able to understand what the testimony is.
25 Please proceed.
1 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Professor, the English version is 3502, that is the number of the
3 page. And I am asking you to comment on the page 3501. And in B/C/S, we
4 are talking about page 3493. It is the penultimate paragraph and it is
5 the last word.
6 A. This is not exactly what I said. Once again, I must say that we
7 were able to determine from 55 to 65 degrees. That is in the official
8 report that I signed, and I maintain what I said in that official report.
9 Q. So, therefore, Professor, you are telling us that what is written
10 in this statement that "We determined approximately the angle of descent
11 of the shell," it is not correct?
12 A. It is not precise, I say.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, if you say, "approximately," that
14 means it is within a certain range. If you really want to spend two or
15 three minutes, you first started quoting without using the
16 word "approximately," which is clearly in the statement. Then it
17 perfectly coincides with the report. At least, until now, you say it is
18 not precise. You say, "approximately." That is not precise.
19 Please proceed.
20 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President, but the
21 witness did say in his statement that he signed himself that it is
22 approximately. I just really wanted to make sure what does he understand
23 as "approximately."
24 Q. Thank you.
25 Mr. Witness, you said in your statement, and I am going to
1 paraphrase, that a large number of people were injured in their lower
2 extremities, lower limbs.
3 Is that correct?
4 A. Yes. I said that because that is what I heard from people, and
5 this is just a statement which is not contained in the report.
6 Q. Doesn't such a statement lead you to conclude that it doesn't
7 really correspond to the fragments of a 120-millimetre shell?
8 A. No, madam, it fully corresponds to the effect of a 120-millimetre
10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just a few more
11 questions before the break.
12 Q. Professor, I would like to ask you a few questions linked to the
13 sound that the shell makes as it flies. At what distance, in your
14 opinion, can you hear this sound when a shell is fired?
15 A. That depends on where you are and where the firing of the shell
16 occurs. It depends whether between you and the source of the sound there
17 are any obstacles. It depends on whether it is raining or not. It
18 depends on whether it is snowing or not. All these factors have some
19 effect on the intensity of the sound that people hear. So if you are on a
20 flat area and there are no obstacles, the firing, the actual process when
21 the shell leaves the mortar, can be heard at a distance of several
22 kilometres. That is one possibility.
23 If the mortar is in a valley or in a wood, in a forest, the
24 intensity of the sound will be significantly reduced that you hear. If
25 the person listening is in a town surrounded by high-rise buildings, they
1 can muffle the sound of the firing. So there are many factors that have
2 some effect on this.
3 Q. Professor, does the configuration of the ground affect the
4 possibility of one hearing the firing of the shell?
5 A. Indeed, yes.
6 Q. Can you also see the shell flying in the air?
7 A. Can you tell me from which position?
8 Q. From the position of an ordinary citizen.
9 A. No. You see, when -- as a shell flies - this is the ballistic
10 trajectory people - observing it from the side in some cases may be able
11 to see the shell, depending on the height. The people who are standing in
12 the direction of the flight of the shell cannot see it. A very important
13 role in that respect is also played by the reflex of the background, the
14 kind of sky, what the sky is like, whether it is cloudy, whether it is
15 sunny. In some cases, it is possible to see it but that depends on the
16 velocity of the shell.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is time for the
19 break. With your permission, my colleague will have a few questions and
20 we will complete our cross-examination before the two hours expire, so he
21 will need another five minutes after the break.
22 JUDGE ORIE: We will then adjourn until 5 minutes to 1.00.
23 --- Recess taken at 12.35 p.m.
24 --- On resuming at 12.59 p.m.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, please proceed.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 Cross-examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:
3 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, good afternoon. Are you not using
4 your headphones or maybe you do not need them. Can you hear me? Thank
6 Witness, I shall ask you a few questions quickly in French, and I
7 should like to thank you in advance if you can to give me answers with a
8 "yes" or "no."
9 You stated that you were not authorised to take photographs; is
10 that right?
11 A. I was not responsible for taking photographs.
12 Q. But what you said a moment ago, on page 4311, what was in
13 English: "I was not authorised."
14 A. Yes, okay, "authorised."
15 Q. By whom?
16 A. First of all, at that point in time I was a civilian person. I
17 was appointed by the Court without any support. I just asked for
18 photographs to be taken, and the appropriate services fulfilled my wish,
19 very simply.
20 Q. Very well. But who was it that did not authorise you?
21 A. When I said that, I meant -- I did not have any support as
22 president of the commission. I didn't have any support services which, in
23 peacetime, any investigating commission would have. In Sarajevo, the
24 conditions were emergency conditions. I drew attention to the need for
25 photographs to be taken. I conveyed that to the judge. A photographer
1 came, took photographs, and I thought I had nothing more to do with it.
2 It was my duty to establish how the explosion had occurred.
3 Q. Witness, are you trying to tell me that things were done in haste?
4 A. Which things, sir?
5 Q. The things connected to your inquiry.
6 A. My inquiry was over within 30 hours because I was asked by the
7 judge, in order to have a clear picture of the whole case, that we should
8 try to come to clear conclusions in the shortest possible time. My
9 report and that of my colleagues is extremely precise and clear, and it
10 was completed within a period of 30 hours, and there is no haste there.
11 But it is a fact that the time factor was very important for the
12 completion of the report.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, with the
14 assistance of the usher and with your permission, I should like an exhibit
15 which should be here, which is the stabiliser --
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]...
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Can we open it?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it may be opened.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Witness, while you are opening the parcel and to gain time, my
21 next question will be -- you can take it out. Please do that.
22 Are you holding in your hands what is called a stabiliser?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Witness, is it a 120-millimetre stabiliser?
25 A. It is.
1 Q. Witness, have you already seen this object? Answer with a "yes"
2 or "no."
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Witness, does it correspond to the one that you examined?
5 A. It is similar to it. That is all I can say.
6 Q. Witness, in your capacity as an expert who worked on this project,
7 is it that stabiliser or not?
8 A. Sir, no one on this whole world can tell you whether this is that
9 stabiliser or not. The markings on this stabiliser are identical to the
10 markings on those that are -- on the one that I examined, and that is all
11 an engineer can tell you.
12 Q. Very well.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] The object can be taken back,
15 Q. Witness you told us that the stabiliser was taken out from the
16 marketplace before the beginning of your inquiry and that you, yourself,
17 put it back later. Do you remember that?
18 A. I said that I didn't find the stabiliser there, that I saw on
19 television that an attempt was made to take it out, and that I asked the
20 stabiliser to be given to me, for me to try and place it back in the
21 tunnel. That is exactly what I said.
22 Q. Witness, would you agree with me, then, if I say to you that
23 there is nothing to prove to you at the time that that stabiliser was the
24 one that was allegedly found on the spot?
25 A. In the report, a photograph is included of the spot immediately
1 prior to the extraction of the stabiliser, and I got it from the police.
2 It is part of the report. The photograph was small. If it is magnified,
3 we can see whether the markings correspond. So I can only agree insofar
4 that I was asked for the stabiliser, I was given the stabiliser, I put it
5 back in the tunnel. And that is what it says in my report.
6 Q. Consequently, you could not know whether this stabiliser that you
7 had in your hands was the one which allegedly hit the market or not?
8 A. With the exception of one point, and that is that this stabiliser
9 in -- according to its length, could have fitted into the hole in the
11 Q. Witness, when you arrived on the spot, what was the condition of
12 the tunnel? Because the stabiliser had been moved, with the help of a
13 knife, and consequently what was the condition in which you found that
15 A. Let me see. The entry part of the hole, that is where the fin of
16 the stabiliser entered, was filled in with earth, whereas the bottom part
17 of the tunnel into which the stabiliser had penetrated was relatively well
18 preserved. So it was sufficient for me to use my finger to remove the
19 surplus earth that had fallen into the hole so that, without
20 any effort or without using any kind of force, to place the stabiliser
21 into that tunnel.
22 It is natural that 24 hours later -- after an incident of this
23 kind, it is normal for the earth to enter that hole, but it is impossible
24 not to consider the energy necessary for the stabiliser to penetrate.
25 There must be a difference in the hardness of the ground. So that with
1 any difficulty, I could remove the earth and place the stabiliser into
2 the tunnel.
3 Q. Professor, what you just told me is that the condition of the
4 tunnel was not the same as it was 24 hours earlier?
5 A. I don't know what it was like 24 hours previously. All I know is
6 that the entrance into the tunnel was filled in with earth.
7 Q. Very well. So, we agree, Professor, that there was a manual
8 operation that you engaged in yourself and that was necessary for you to
9 do before replacing anything into that tunnel?
10 A. Before placing the stabiliser, yes.
11 Q. Very well. Professor, on a technical level, and I would like you
12 to answer me on that level, what would it mean if there was a simple
13 10-degree error in the replacing of such an object? I am speaking in
14 general terms and not in this particular case.
15 A. When there is such a delicate issue at stake, there is no general
16 answer. The only criterion for determining the angle of descent was not
17 the access of the tunnel. Another criterion was that a couple of metres
18 from the place of detonation, there was a kiosk which had a roof. And if
19 we were to draw a theoretical curve of the trajectory of the shell for
20 the last 10 or 15 metres before impact, that minimum angle with which the
21 shell would hit the point of impact without hitting the roof of that
22 kiosk is just over 50 degrees.
23 Therefore, in this case, with a very high degree of certainty, we
24 can assert that the optimum angle of descent was between 55 and 65
25 degrees. Or rather as a referral angle, we used the angle of 60 degrees.
1 Q. Thank you, Professor.
2 In your inquiry, did you take the trouble to measure the distance
3 from the point of impact in relation to the two facades of buildings on
4 either side?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Professor, can you confirm with a yes or no, is it correct to say
7 that a simple error of a few decimetres regarding the localisation of the
8 point of impact would have important consequences in relation to the
9 distance in relation to this particular event, supposing that there was a
10 firing of a weapon?
11 A. I am afraid I don't quite understand your question.
12 Q. My question is the following: Let us imagine that there was an
13 error in measuring the point of impact itself, not the tunnel. Is it not
14 true to say that such an error would have implications of all kinds on the
15 technical analysis?
16 A. No. Because I told you that the shell -- that had the shell hit
17 the roof, then the angle of descent would be about 50 degrees. We took it
18 that the angle is 60 degrees, and this is an enormous difference in the
19 military use of shells. And if you noticed, no where in our report can
20 you find the shell was fired from 5.382 metres, but it is said from the
21 region between 4.900 -- about 5.800, about 6.400 metres, as I said today.
22 Therefore, we took great care so that there would be absolutely no doubt
23 that from the technical point of view, anybody could challenge the concept
24 that I presented here.
25 There is no error of that type because then I would not be a
1 serious engineer in undertaking this study.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Could we show the witness
3 Exhibit 68, D68, please?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please repeat your question, since you did
5 not make a pause. Yes, now I see it.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Could we show the witness
7 Defence Exhibit 68.
8 MR. STAMP: While that being done, at page 71, line 6, I think it
9 should be "4.900, about 5.000," not "5.800."
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and not 5.800.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Witness, you have before you Exhibit D68.
13 MR. STAMP: I beg your pardon. Before we proceed, may I just have
14 a look at what the witness is being shown, please.
15 Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could it be put on the ELMO, please, so we can follow
17 questions and answers.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Witness, do you recognise this diagram of the buildings
20 surrounding the Markale marketplace?
21 A. It looks like it. It looks like the marketplace of Markale, only
22 the figures are not quite clear. The width of the street has not been
23 indicated, the width of the pavement. For me to be able to answer with
24 precision. But it looks like it.
25 Q. Very well.
1 Witness, the diagram in the form of a star, the star in the middle
2 of the diagram represents the point of impact. Can you read the distance
3 in relation to the lowest building there.
4 A. It says here on your diagram -- you are referring to this figure,
5 are you?
6 Q. Yes. Yes.
7 A. Six metres.
8 Q. Very well. Witness, does that agree with your own memories?
9 A. In my report, there is a very precise picture and the report is
10 one that I signed, and it does not correspond.
11 Q. Witness, did you yourself measure the point of impact?
12 A. In this area, yes.
13 Q. Very well.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] The document can be taken
16 Q. Witness, I shall like to go back to the question of fragments.
17 You stated that you found two fragments?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. As far as you know, where are they today?
20 A. Why should I know that?
21 Q. Because you are somebody in charge of weapons, because you found
22 it, and you told us that you followed the trial --
23 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]...not whether you
24 should know --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't know.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
3 Q. Witness, is it correct that a chemical analysis of these elements
4 would make it possible to provide interesting answers regarding the type
5 of projectile in question?
6 A. A chemical and metallographical analysis.
7 Q. Quite so. So is your answer yes?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Thank you, Witness. You stated a moment ago that you followed the
10 trial in general terms. Do you remember saying that?
11 A. Which trial?
12 Q. The trial we are -- at which we are speaking.
13 A. Only occasionally, when I happened to be at home on Fridays and
14 Saturdays, when reports on this trial were broadcast in Sarajevo.
15 Q. Witness before your testimony here, did you hear any other
17 A. No.
18 Q. Did you hear anything that had a direct or indirect connection to
20 A. No.
21 Q. Witness, you saw a televised feature with a French soldier
22 removing this alleged stabiliser with a knife. Is that correct?
23 A. Not a feature but just a clip of a couple of seconds.
24 Q. Very well. Is it not true to say, Witness, that when undertaking
25 extraction of this kind, that is, by scratching with a knife, one will
1 necessarily damage at least the upper part of the tunnel?
2 A. For your information, that is true. That is true.
3 Q. Witness, when one damages the upper part of the tunnel and when
4 the earth itself, due to the time that elapses, tends to fall in, would it
5 not be correct to say that 24 hours after the event, the situation was
6 relatively different when you returned than when allegedly that stabiliser
7 was taken out of the ground?
8 A. Everything depends on the velocity of penetration. At high
9 velocity, 24 hours doesn't mean anything. For low velocities, yes.
10 Q. Very well. And 60 metres per second, is that a low velocity in
11 relation to 310 or some other velocity?
12 A. Everything depends on the type of ground and what you are trying
13 to investigate.
14 Q. No, Professor. I am asking you a technical question. A velocity
15 of 60 metres per second, is it a low velocity compared to 310 metres, as
16 you indicated to be a possible starting velocity?
17 A. I never said 310.
18 Q. Well, never mind. Is the speed of 60 metres per second a low
20 A. The velocity of what? You can't ask me to say something if the
21 velocity is not linked to the object, if you are talking about the
22 velocity of the stabiliser or the velocity of the shell.
23 Q. But that was your answer, Witness.
24 A. No, sir. I am telling you a shell can hit the target at
25 velocities in the range of 200 metres per second, and the stabiliser,
1 due to the effect of detonation products, penetrates the soil at a speed
2 of 60 metres per second. So this is a major difference, technically
4 Q. I am speaking about the 60 metres per second. Are we talking of
5 a relatively low velocity there?
6 A. The question is not precise. For me as an expert witness to be
7 able to give you a precise answer, you have to link it to the object. Was
8 it a stabiliser or the shell that you are talking about? There is a
10 Q. So you can't give me an answer to that question, Professor?
11 JUDGE ORIE: You ask an impossible question. The witness --
12 because what you are doing, you are comparing the speed of firing with the
13 speed of arrival. I could also ask someone whether 50 kilometres is a
14 relatively low speed for a rocket. Of course, it very much depends on
15 whether the rocket is transported in a truck or whether the rocket is
16 fired or whether the rocket arrives somewhere or whether the rocket
17 is used in a game where strong people have to push it.
18 So you are making a comparison to the 310 metres per second,
19 which was the firing speed. I think you would like to know from the
20 witness - perhaps you could ask him - whether 60 metres per second, as the
21 speed of --
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: Penetration.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Not the speed of penetration. The speed with which a
24 tail-fin or the last tail-fin would impact in the ground, would be a
25 relatively high speed or a relatively slow speed, if you would compare
1 that with the average speed with which tail-fins would impact on the
2 ground after the mortar has detonated. I think if that is what you want
3 to know, you should ask the witness.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Q. I thought we understood one another. We were speaking, Witness,
6 of the speed of penetration.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So when you mentioned 60 metres per second, were you talking
9 about the speed of penetration?
10 A. Yes, of the stabiliser, of the stabiliser.
11 Q. Yes, of course. That velocity of penetration of 60 metres per
12 second, in your opinion, is it a relatively low velocity or otherwise?
13 A. Relatively high.
14 Q. Very well. Witness, I should like to move on to another line of
15 questioning now. You indicated in your statement that in the town of
16 Sarajevo, there were locations where weapons were being manufactured.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Very well. Witness, is it true to say that you have relatively --
19 a relatively important position regarding armaments today?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Very well. Is it true that at the time -- I think your answer is
22 yes, so I will withdraw the question.
23 In your capacity as an engineer designing weapons, who has
24 designed weapons --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Stamp.
1 MR. STAMP: Could we have a clarification there? To the
2 question, "Witness, is it true to say that you have a relatively important
3 position regarding armaments today," could we just have the answer again
4 please? The record indicates an answer of "no." My friend says that the
5 answer is "yes."
6 JUDGE ORIE: There might be a translation mistake. We will check
7 that. When you were asked whether you had a relatively important
8 position regarding armaments today, was your answer "yes" or "no"?
9 The answer was "no," Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I withdrew the question,
12 Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is that you distorted the answer of the
14 witness and even --
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That's precisely to clarify
16 the question, Mr. President. That is why I said that I was withdrawing
18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you said something before, but let's not spend
19 time on it.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you very
22 Q. Witness, do you know approximately how many other installations
23 for the manufacture of weapons existed in Sarajevo?
24 A. What does that mean, "approximately"?
25 Q. With precision or approximately, whichever you are able to tell
2 A. I can enumerate what I know, if you're interested.
3 Q. Yes, please do that.
4 A. At the faculty of mechanical engineering, there was a small
5 workshop with three lathes. In the Vaso Miskin Crni factory, a hall was
6 used with perhaps 10 or so machines. In addition to that factory, I
7 think there's another factory, and I can't remember its name exactly. It
8 too had about 10 machines. In addition to the foundry at Alipasino Polje,
9 there is another factory of reinforcement. I was never in that factory.
10 I don't know how many machines it has, but probably 10 to 15. Let me
11 remember. I know that in the brewery, there was also a small workshop for
12 manufacturing weapons, and I think those are the ones I am aware of.
13 Maybe later I will remember some more.
14 Q. I am sure everyone will appreciate that. When you were talking
15 about the brewery, could you tell us in which institute was it? Was it in
16 the Old Town?
17 A. No, I couldn't, because I was never there. I never visited. Are
18 you talking about the brewery or the workshop?
19 Q. Thank you, Witness. We come to my last set of questions. Are you
20 aware of an operation code-named "Oxygen"?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Are you aware of an operation intending to import weapons to
23 Sarajevo in oxygen bottles?
24 A. I read about that in the newspapers, but as an individual during
25 the war, I was not aware of it. I knew --
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. But on the other hand, Witness, did you know how the BH Army
2 procured its explosives for the manufacture of ammunition?
3 A. May I answer that?
4 Q. Yes, please.
5 A. I will tell you regarding the part I was in control of. As I was
6 in the research and development department, this group belonged to the
7 Main Staff of the army of the Bosnia-Herzegovina. 40 per cent of all
8 explosives that we obtained, I extracted from unexploded shells. I did so
9 because in my unit, there were young men of 17, 18, and 20 years of age,
10 and I was a professional. And every unexploded shell - and I have
11 complete records about that - I would take off the fuse that didn't
12 detonate and I prepared it for the extraction of explosives. This was in
13 the period of June 1992 until June 1993, when my unit was disbanded.
14 Q. Thank you for your answer. You said that there were young men of
15 17 in your unit; is that true?
16 A. Yes, in my unit, who worked on computers.
17 Q. Very well.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] By your leave, I consult my
19 colleagues for a couple of minutes.
20 [Defence counsel confer]
21 Q. Just one point and my very last question: And are you aware of an
22 operation called "Container"?
23 A. I was not an important person in the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
24 Q. And finally when you said 40 per cent of the ammunition, were you
25 saying that 40 per cent of the shells targeting Sarajevo did not explode?
1 A. No. I am saying that 40 per cent of the explosive that my unit
2 obtained, and it only produced hand grenades and rifle grenades, used
3 ammunition from unexploded projectiles.
4 Q. And the factory Zrak, did it manufacture hand grenades?
5 A. No, it didn't manufacture hand grenades. Hand grenades were
6 partly manufactured at the mechanical engineering faculty. I think some
7 in the Vaso Miskin factory also, but that is as much as I know. I don't
8 know about others.
9 Q. My very last question. Is it correct that the BH army --
10 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]...that you say it is
11 your last question, it is your very last question.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Is it true that the BH army had mortar shells, mortars of 120
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
18 Mr. Stamp, is there any need to re-examine the witness?
19 MR. STAMP: Just one or two questions arising from
20 cross-examination, and there is one matter of formal clarification at the
21 end of it which will be very brief.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
23 Re-examined by Mr. Stamp:
24 Q. The Defence showed you this exhibit, the tail-fin. And you said
25 that the markings on that tail-fin that you have there now is identical to
1 the one that you were presented to by the judge?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You said also in cross-examination that something, and I am not
4 sure what that thing is, was made at Krusik. What was it that you said
5 was made at Krusik?
6 A. Yes. Krusik is a well-known factory for manufacturing mortars of
7 120 millimetres.
8 Q. What is it you said was made at Krusik in respect to that
9 particular shell or stabiliser?
10 A. That part.
11 Q. What is that?
12 A. It is the basic charge and the capsule which activates the basic
13 charge, and this further on triggers the additional charge. This capsule
14 activates the gunpowder, the gases go out through these holes and
15 activates additional charge which then contributes to acceleration.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 You said in your report that the shell -- or not in your report,
18 in one of your statements, that the shell was either manufactured at
19 Licki Osik in Croatia or at Pretis in Vogosca, but that it was most
20 probably --
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Could you explain quickly why, having regard to the colour of that
23 stabiliser which you have in your hand or which you have there.
24 A. In our report, we noted that this stabiliser was not coloured.
25 This is an unacceptable standard for a factory working under normal
1 conditions. The Yugoslav standards were perfect in terms of surface
2 protection, which provides for the stability for stocking such products.
3 If colour is not put, this is a question of saving fuel, which happened
4 when war was going on. This happened in Licki Osik and in the Pretis
6 Q. Thank you. The Pretis factory is exactly where, do you know, in
7 which municipality or area?
8 A. It is in the Vogosca municipality, about 8 kilometres from the
9 centre of Sarajevo.
10 Q. In 1994 and 1993, can you say which party to the conflict was in
11 control of that factory? And may I just ask it this way: When you
12 respond, either say the army of the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina or
13 the army of the Republika Srpska.
14 A. Army of Republika Srpska.
15 Q. And on this issue, lastly, to your knowledge, was the army of the
16 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1994 in possession of that type of
17 factory-manufactured shell without the paint?
18 A. No, I couldn't say that because I was no longer in the army then.
19 Q. Very well. You said that there was a factory in Alipasino Polje.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. From your report, is that -- can you remember the district or the
22 area in Alipasino Polje where that factory was? Perhaps I could invite
23 you to have a look at the page marked 3459 in the English version, which
24 would be --
25 MR. STAMP: May I just try to find the page in the B/C/S version,
1 in the --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 3453.
3 MR. STAMP: Yes.
4 Q. Having looked at the record of your statement, where in
5 Alipasino Polje was this factory?
6 A. In the casting plant. Casts were made there.
7 Q. Yes, where? Where was this place?
8 A. Novo Sarajevo, across from the television.
9 Q. Did you tell us the name of the area?
10 JUDGE ORIE: You gave the name of the street, wasn't it, or is
11 that a different -- the old name of the street?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was Dzemal Bijedic Street, the
13 area across from the television of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
14 Q. And that community was Livnica?
15 A. It was called Alipasino Polje. The casting plant is the name of
16 the factory Energoinvest, one of Energoinvest factory where casts were
18 Q. What was the name of the factory? You said the casting plant is
19 the name of the factory. That is the record that I have. What was the
20 name of the factory in Alipasino Polje?
21 A. Yes. Yes.
22 Q. What was the name of the factory or casting plant in
23 Alipasino Polje?
24 A. "Livnica" means casting plant.
25 Q. Oh, I see. I think the word "Livnica" means casting plant. And
1 you said it was across from the --
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. I see. Please forgive me. And you said it was across from the
4 television station. How far was it from the television station?
5 A. About 300, 400 metres.
6 Q. Thank you very much.
7 Now, can you recall if it was to the south, north, east or west of
8 the television station?
9 A. North.
10 Q. Thank you. Now, you were asked questions about the scratching in
11 the removal of this --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, may I ask you -- we are at a quarter to
13 2.00. You indicated that you would have one or two questions. Well, both
14 parties seems to influence each other, a very last question, one or two
15 questions. How much time would you still need?
16 MR. STAMP: Not more than three to five minutes. I indicated that
17 I would have one or two questions in respect of a formality at the end of
18 the examination.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but let me just -- because we have to plan and
20 see whether we can finish or not today.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Since the Judges will have questions as well and
23 since the courtroom is used this afternoon for another case, I am afraid
24 we cannot, unfortunately, not --
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ORIE: That we could not conclude today. And, therefore, I
2 don't know whether the questions you still have are so linked to the
3 questions that you asked already or whether they could be separated
4 because otherwise -- they could be separated. Then I prefer to adjourn
5 now because otherwise one of the other Chambers will think that it has
6 become a habit to -- has become a habit to take their time.
7 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I am just --
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Especially since we have not
9 -- we were not given the five minutes for our transcript business, I think
10 we can do that on Monday in the morning.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I am just wondering, since we
12 will have only a few questions left, whether it is necessary for your
13 expert to stay with us or that he would like to return?
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We don't know what the future
15 holds. The expert would like to be there also.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I am afraid for just half an hour next Monday.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
19 JUDGE ORIE: I am just informed that we would have another 10
20 minutes since the next case does not start at a quarter past 2.00. So
21 let's try to see if we can finish today.
22 Mr. Stamp.
23 MR. STAMP:
24 Q. Quickly, Witness, if you could -- did the scratching that was done
25 to the top part of this tunnel to remove this stabiliser fin, did it
1 impact, in your opinion, to any significant degree on your measurement of
2 the angle of descent?
3 A. No.
4 Q. In terms of measuring angles and erections, are you aware of the
5 use of mils instead of degrees, which is occasionally done sometimes?
6 A. Yes, degrees.
7 Q. And would you -- are you aware that an official UNPROFOR
8 investigation -- may I rephrase. Are you aware that an official
9 investigation by a team of experts was conducted by UNPROFOR about four or
10 five days after your investigation?
11 A. I heard this on television. I was not familiar with that.
12 Q. Very well. And on your report - and this is a question of
13 formality, it doesn't really arise - your original report in your native
14 language, and this is at page 385.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You will see it is dated at the bottom, the 7th of February, 1994?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And do you see at the bottom right corner where you have also
19 signed it beside the date the 29th of September, 2001?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And you signed it and dated it on the 29th of September, 2001 at
22 the request of the investigators of the ICTY. Is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. STAMP: Thank you. That is the form that I just wanted to
25 explain that date. Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, before giving the opportunity to the other
2 Judges to put questions, since you have this page in front of you, may I
3 ask you one question.
4 Questioned by the Court:
5 JUDGE ORIE: That is in the conclusions in photograph 7, the
6 English translation, if we compare that with the original - I do
7 understand that from your curriculum that you at least read English - the
8 translation ends under 6 with "unclear." I do not see a similar
9 indication under 6 in the original. It could be that the meaning was
10 unclear to the interpreters or that the text was unclear, which is not --
11 the translation now reads: "The projectile came from the north, from the
12 centre of the explosion."
13 Is that what you intended?
14 A. No. I said that it came from the north, viewed in the direction
15 of the flight. So it came from the north towards Markale.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You could say that from the -- if you would
17 make the explosion the place of impact, then it would have come from the
18 north. So I think the unclarity was perhaps the language used. You have
19 to clarify that. Thank you very much.
20 Judge Nieto-Navia has one or more questions to you.
21 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Were you able to determine what type of steel was used to make the
24 A. No, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: You spoke about two fragments found in the
1 place. Were those fragments from the shell or from the shrapnel?
2 A. Those were the fragments that were found there that were produced
3 after the explosion of the shell, and they are part of the body of the
5 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Are the fragments or the shrapnel
6 indispensable, important, or useless, for determining the direction of
7 the projectile?
8 A. They are not important for determining the direction or the
9 possible location of launching.
10 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Judge El Mahdi has, as I understand, one question
12 for you.
13 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 [Interpretation] I would like you to clarify something for me in
15 response to a question asked of you. It is about a brewery and a workshop
16 producing ammunition. And you told us -- actually, I was not able to
17 follow your answer. My question would be whether there was a brewery
18 which had been transformed into a workshop manufacturing ammunition?
19 A. Can I answer your question precisely? The brewery worked --
20 operated during the whole war, and as part of that brewery, there was a
21 workshop for overhauling equipment. The machines for the mechanical
22 process working of metal was also used for producing ammunition. So the
23 factory, the brewery, was not transformed into an ammunition facility,
24 but it was part of the factory that was a small workshop within it which
25 was used for manufacturing ammunition. It is a question of two lathes.
1 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] So it was located where?
2 A. It was -- this factory was in the old part of the city.
3 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Near which building or in which
5 A. I was never in that workshop.
6 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Finally, Professor Zecevic, I have a few questions
8 for you. First question: Is there a maximum angle from which you could
9 fire a mortar? Could you fire it at a 90-degree or is there any maximum
11 A. Usually 85 degrees are used as a maximum for firing.
12 JUDGE ORIE: So that is almost vertical?
13 A. Yes, it is more or less vertical.
14 JUDGE ORIE: My next question is: You explained to us that the
15 power of the detonation would have a backwards effect to what follows,
16 that is the stabiliser fin. Could it also influence the course of the
17 stabiliser fin? Could it -- could the angle of impact being influenced
18 by the, I would say, the backwards power caused by the detonation?
19 Do you understand? I mean, would the stabiliser fin continue its
20 course or could it be deflected in any way by this backwards power of the
22 A. The velocity of the shell at the time of impact is very important,
23 which means that if the velocity of the shell is about 100 and then 60 or
24 70 metres per second, then the stabiliser will fall near the point of
25 explosion. If the speed of the shell is 120, 130 metres per second, the
1 stabilisers will fly backwards and will be 10 metres or so away.
2 If the velocity of the shell is 200 or more metres per second,
3 then the stabiliser will continue its trajectory and become lodged in the
4 ground. The disruptions are short. This happens within the time frame
5 of a microsecond.
6 JUDGE ORIE: My last question, and it is just a clarification.
7 Did I understand you well that the high velocity of the tail-fin,
8 especially the first part of it, I would say the part with the small
9 diameter, was such that the tunnel was relatively firm and that,
10 therefore, it was not difficult to make a distinction between earth having
11 fallen into that part of the tunnel and the relatively firm shape
12 the tunnel itself?
13 A. Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much for your clarification.
15 This then concludes your testimony in this court. I would like
16 to thank you very much for having come to The Hague and having answered
17 all the questions both of the parties and of the Bench. And I wish you a
18 safe journey home again.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, can you please escort the witness out
21 of the courtroom.
22 I think we have to deal with the paperwork next Monday. That
23 would be preferable because otherwise this Chamber might build up a bad
25 MR. STAMP: Indeed. And may I quickly, before the Court
1 adjourns, just alert the Court and my friend that the Prosecution is
2 seeking a clarification in respect to the Order of the Court not to
3 include or receive in evidence the approximately 60 post-mortem reports?
4 The clarification we seek is whether or not the Order includes three or
5 four pages, which were attached --
6 JUDGE ORIE: I have been quite clear on that. I have said this
7 report exists of two parts. First, we have the large series of
8 post-mortem reports. If you would read the transcript, Mr. Stamp, it
9 would be very clear to you. It is not the letter three four pages that I
10 excluded, but just the first --
11 MR. STAMP: It was clear to some of us. Very well,
12 Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then we will adjourn until next Monday at a quarter
14 past 2.00.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
16 2.05 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,
17 the 24th day of June, 2002, at 2.15 p.m.