1 Wednesday, 10 July 200

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.

6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Case Number IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus

8 Stanislav Galic.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10 Ms. Pilipovic, you are ready to resume the cross-examination?

11 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp.

13 MR. STAMP: If it please you, Mr. President, if for a moment I

14 could just bring to the attention of the Court the fact that the witness,

15 Richard Philipps, is still waiting and available.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

17 MR. STAMP: So, I am not sure and I don't expect that the witness

18 presently being taken will be all day, all three sessions today.

19 However, I did raise it with my friends yesterday an apparently they

20 will have problems with that. So perhaps if we would determine what we

21 are going to do.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Pilipovic, what would be a problem if we

23 would continue with Mr. Philipps?

24 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yesterday the

25 Defence and the Chamber received a schedule for the following week and we

1 can see that from the schedule, Mr. Philipps was suggested to appear on

2 Tuesday, that is for the 16th of July. The information that Philipps

3 would be heard the following day, that is today, was told to us by the

4 learned colleague yesterday. But we wanted to find out, Mr. Piletta-Zanin

5 and I, wanted to know what we would be doing today. Mr. Piletta-Zanin, we

6 wanted to know whether we would have a full working day today and I wanted

7 to know about the scheduled today. And then yesterday it was 1900 hours I

8 was told that my learned colleagues had intention of continuing to hear

9 Mr. Philipps. I would just like to draw the attention of the Chamber,

10 that according to the schedule, we had Mr. Philipps last Friday and on

11 Monday. And bearing in mind the decision -- because of the decision of

12 the Chamber, there was also our expert who was present on Friday and

13 Monday.

14 But since the decision regarding his stay was until Tuesday, he

15 had to return, and leave The Hague because his authorisation was only for

16 five working days. So we thought, our assessment was that he had to

17 return, because that is what the rules were. We couldn't ask for him to

18 stay any longer because we wouldn't -- we did not know that our learned

19 friends had intended to hear Mr. Philipps today. If they had told us

20 that earlier, then we would have found an opportunity for our expert to

21 remain here and to hear Mr. Philipps. But as I am telling you, we only

22 heard that last night. Mr. Radinovic was here for five working days and I

23 don't think it is not really seemly to spend so much money and without the

24 expert being here. We believe that if Mr. Philipps is going to be heard

25 today, then I believe that this would not be good for the Defence.

1 I don't understand. We have a right to have our expert to be

2 present, Mr. Radinovic, I don't understand why we were told this at such

3 a -- such a belated time. I don't think that we can accept that

4 Mr. Philipps be heard today, particularly since we have -- did ask the

5 Prosecution whether Mr. Philipps would be heard on Tuesday, in order not

6 to have Mr. Radinovic be here for longer than necessary.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, would you please respond.

8 MR. STAMP: I am afraid that I am not in a position to be

9 accurate as to the history of what was said or what was not said exactly.

10 However, if the Defence expert has had to leave because of visa

11 limitations, I do confess that I am sympathetic to the position of the

12 Defence. However, I wonder whether or not if they would be biased or any

13 way in prejudice was just taken in chief.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Just taken in achievement, may I ask, Ms. Pilipovic,

15 whether it would help if you would take the tape with the B/C/S

16 translation to the expert so he can, although not officially, but orally

17 could follow every detail that he heard here and see whether that would

18 be a presence, a distance, more or less, so that you are able to prepare

19 for cross-examination, even after today so that we would start with chief.

20 Would that be an acceptable solution for the Defence?

21 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if there is a

22 possibility for us to receive a tape immediately after the examination

23 today, then the Defence would accept this solution in order not to waste

24 time. But we just wanted our colleagues to confirm that Mr. Philipps'

25 examination would continue on Tuesday so that we have -- so that we know

1 that when Mr. Radinovic comes he doesn't have to wait.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then, of course, we would have to know exactly

3 how we then proceed, because it is very unfortunate, we said that already

4 Monday in the afternoon that we would not continue with Mr. Philipps.

5 And of course, the Defence could not properly prepare when the

6 examination-in-chief is not yet over and when the expert could not have

7 heard the evidence given by Mr. Philipps.

8 Perhaps we will have a short break when we finish with the

9 present witness and then, first of all, find out whether it would be

10 possible for you to get a tape of the B/C/S translation of what

11 Mr. Philipps will say. Then at the same time, that the Prosecution

12 informs us about when Mr. Philipps would be called to be cross-examined.

13 Would that be a provisional solution? So we will --

14 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I can say that

15 if Mr. Philipps is going to be scheduled for Tuesday, and if the learned

16 colleagues can confirm that he will appear on Tuesday, then we would be

17 prepared for Tuesday.

18 JUDGE ORIE: My last schedule of today is the 15th, that is next

19 Monday, isn't it? Mr. Philipps is scheduled for the 16th, as far as I can

20 see on my update I just received. So the main risk would be about the

21 witness scheduled on Monday. You say it is four hours. Would that

22 include cross-examination?

23 If you are not quite sure, Mr. Stamp, perhaps you better find out

24 and then inform the Chamber.

25 MR. STAMP: Yes, perhaps we could deal with it after this

1 witness.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's first then start and, Mr. Usher, could

3 you please escort the witness into the courtroom.

4 [The witness entered court]

5 JUDGE ORIE: Please be seated, Dr. Kovacs.

6 Dr. Kovacs, may I -- may I remind you that you are still bound by

7 the solemn declaration you gave at the beginning of your testimony.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

9 WITNESS: VILMOS KOVACS [Resumed]

10 [Witness answered through interpreter]

11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, please proceed.

12 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

13 Cross-examined by Ms. Pilipovic: [Continued]

14 Q. [Interpretation] Good Kovacs, good morning.

15 A. Good morning.

16 Q. Mr. Kovacs, in your report on page 9 --

17 A. I am sorry, I haven't got a copy of the report.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please assist to --

19 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Mr. Kovacs, on page 9, it starts on page 8 and then it continues

21 on page 9 -- in your report, when you were discussing the destruction of

22 targets, you said that in case that targets, uncovered targets --

23 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel repeat the question, please.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please repeat the question, Ms. Pilipovic.

25 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

1 Q. So in your report, page 9, I am interpreting your words, I am

2 paraphrasing you spoke of about "unobservable targets" and you said, "if a

3 target is not observable and 120 millimetre mortar is used to fire at it

4 at a distance of 4 kilometres, and an open target is being fired at, it

5 is necessary to fire 80 to 100 shells in order to destroy the target."

6 Did I understand this correctly?

7 A. Yes you did. However I have to add that this was just an

8 example and basically does not include all the necessary data which I

9 obviously did not possess. So this is just an approximate example. I

10 just wanted to show you the differences in dimensions, when firing at

11 open and covered targets. And I wanted to demonstrate the magnitude of

12 destruction.

13 Q. But you did establish that it was necessary to fire between 80

14 and 100 shells in order to destroy the target?

15 A. Yes, this is true. But I would like to emphasise that this is

16 just an example, chosen at random among the artillery weapons, which I

17 choose and that I chose the firing distance and all the other conditions

18 of firing. Thank you.

19 Q. Mr. Kovacs, could you tell us what is the probability to hit such

20 a target with only one shell?

21 A. Do you mean to say whether it is probable to hit a target with

22 one single fire or shooting?

23 Q. Yes.

24 A. I don't think that I am in a position to give you a satisfactory

25 answer to that question because there are so many things that should be

1 taken into consideration. And there are so many other factors which

2 might be considered as a risk. Therefore, it is not possible to give a

3 satisfactory answer to your question.

4 Q. Mr. Kovacs, from your experience, do you know if an unobservable

5 target at a distance of 2000 metres can be fired at with only one mortar

6 shell?

7 A. 200 or 2000 metres?

8 Q. 2000.

9 A. Thank you.

10 Yesterday we spoke about the fact that when it comes to

11 non-observable targets firing involves different conditions and

12 circumstances than in the case of observable targets. Taking into

13 consideration all this, I think that when it comes to a non-observable

14 target, the probability of hitting a target like that, with one shell

15 only, is very little.

16 Q. Mr. Kovacs, on page 9 paragraph 2, we can call it 2A, you spoke

17 about the destruction of live troops, live forces, and if I understood

18 you correctly, you said that it is necessary to use ammunition with

19 smallest possible charge because that is how the firing can be done with

20 a specific angle.

21 A. Could you please tell me where this is in the text because I

22 can't find it.

23 Q. Mr. Kovacs, it is called a live forces and weapons located in the

24 open or under cover. The following sentence is that the firing must be

25 carried out with the smallest possible charge as this allows a greater

1 firing angle and therefore a correspondingly greater striking angle. And

2 you said that this ensures the greatest fragmentation effect.

3 In accordance with what you stated here, can you tell us, what

4 would be the charge in a shell, in a mortar shell of 120 millimetres,

5 what would be the charge that would allow for the greatest effect in

6 destroying live troops or live forces?

7 A. Yes. In case of mortars and mortar shells, the ignition charge

8 can be changed and as I said, this depends on the firing distance and

9 this is very important. The smallest possible charge is supposed to be

10 used and this is done this way because in that case the striking angle is

11 going to be bigger at the target as well. And if the striking angle is

12 greater, the fragmentation effect of the shell will be bigger after the

13 detonation. And this is true because fragments coming from the body of

14 the shell or the whole of the shell, will be absorbed by the ground in

15 fewer numbers. Because all this depends on the striking angle of the

16 shell. The bigger the striking angle, the fewer fragments will be

17 absorbed.

18 So to sum it up, we can achieve the greatest possible striking

19 angle when using a mortar, if we use the smallest possible charge,

20 depending on the firing distance in the mortar. As regards to the

21 quantity of this charge, we have to use the quantities that can be found

22 in the artillery table. Thank you.

23 Q. Mr. Kovacs, could you tell us what would that smallest possible

24 charge be?

25 A. The smallest possible charge always depends on the firing

1 distance. You have to choose the smallest possible charge so that it can

2 cover this firing distance in question, but at the same time, provide the

3 greatest possible striking angle.

4 Q. Mr. Kovacs, is that -- Mr. Kovacs, in your opinion, is this

5 smallest possible charge of a shell the basic charge of the shell?

6 A. I am afraid I am not in a position to give you an exact answer

7 here because I don't know the firing distance and I don't know the data

8 on the artillery table either. The smallest possible charge can be the

9 basic charge, but it can be more than that as well.

10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kovacs.

11 Mr. Kovacs, on page 11 paragraph 5, you spoke of the artillery

12 positions on mountains. So that is part of the subsection, the

13 application of artillery in combat against cities and paragraph 5

14 beginnings: "It is a particular case if the mountain surrounding the

15 city around the side of the one of the parties for then this party can

16 see every part of the city."

17 You said that even a projectile, the strike of projectiles can be

18 observed from the mortar firing posts. Now my question is whether from

19 such positions that you cited here, it is possible to see the location

20 where the shell lands, if that position or that location is between a

21 high-rise buildings?

22 A. Here again, the basic question is if the target is observable or

23 not. If the target is observable, obviously you can observe the effect

24 of the fire as well. It is another question whether we are talking about

25 a special situation in which from the firing post, that is the mortar

1 firing post in our case, we can see the target and we can see the effect

2 of the fire as well. This can make particularly accurate of the actual

3 firing. It can facilitate and speed up firing as well.

4 If the target is situated among tall buildings, the key issue is,

5 again, whether from this firing post or another observation post, this

6 particular target can be observed or not and, therefore, the effect of

7 the fire can be observed or not. If this is so, whatever I described in

8 my document is to -- for an answer to your question as well. Thank you.

9 Q. Mr. Kovacs, on page 12 of your report, you speak about the

10 optimal conditions which can improve the accuracy. It is line 6 from the

11 top of the page. You speak about accuracy. And then you say what are

12 the crucial requirements to reduce to a minimum the number of civilian

13 casualties. And under G, and that would be the last item, the last dash

14 in your list --

15 A. Do you mean the last paragraph, because I don't have a letter

16 sign at the paragraphs?

17 Q. Yes, that's right. That's right, Mr. Kovacs. You say that

18 accuracy also requires that the first hit of the ranging fire be directed

19 at a location where civilian casualties are not probable, where it is

20 probable that there will be no civilian casualties.

21 So, when you speak about this method with regard to accuracy, you

22 speak about an endeavour to direct the first hit of the ranging fire to a

23 location where it is probable there will be no civilian casualties.

24 Tell us in a centre of a city, can one find a location at which

25 to fire a ranging shot without consequence?

1 A. I understand your question. According to me, the following facts

2 should be taken into account: My description indicates an existing

3 firing situation. This procedure is employed if friendly troops or any

4 other troops or civilians would be endangered. In this case, the elements

5 of the first firing should be calculated in such a way that the shell

6 should hit an area that can be well observed, at the same time, is farther

7 away from the incriminated area. This is because after this the corrected

8 fire, the second shot of the corrected fire, will most probably be closer

9 to the target.

10 Concerning the second part of your question, I would like to

11 reply: In a city, I would like to stress this is not a concrete city, I

12 could imagine an area with no problem that would meet these demands, and

13 according to me, even with this firing you have to be cautious. Thank

14 you.

15 Q. Mr. Kovacs, would you say that it is permissible that the troops,

16 military equipment, weapons, be deployed in areas where there are

17 civilians? Can you answer that question?

18 A. Could you specify your question? If I am on one side, do you

19 mean the soldiers and civilians of the other side?

20 Q. Mr. Kovacs, let us try to imagine a part of a city and say that

21 it is inhabited by civilians. Then, according to you, is it permissible

22 that in that part of the city or in one building which is inhabited by

23 civilians, is it allowed to have military equipment, a military unit, that

24 is, a military facility there?

25 A. Thank you. Now the question is clear to me.

1 I feel that your question is rather addressing legal and moral

2 issues, than artillery expertise. Thank you.

3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kovacs.

4 Mr. Kovacs, on page 13 of your report in paragraph 3, you say

5 that when the destruction of military objects is the real aim, the use of

6 artillery, when larger number of civilian casualties are to be expected,

7 is terrorism.

8 Can you tell us, what is terrorism according to you?

9 A. I cannot exactly find where this is.

10 JUDGE ORIE: We all have difficulties in finding the --

11 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, page 30. So it is

12 the last part.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Is the problem, is in the transcript it reads "13."

14 And therefore, we are looking at the wrong page. So it is the last page

15 of the report.

16 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, paragraph three.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I found the sentence you are

18 addressing.

19 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Mr. Kovacs, are you telling us that the use of artillery in any

21 city is terrorism, to your mind?

22 A. No, that's not what I am claiming. I have a more nuanced

23 opinion. I think, as I mentioned before, in any case, in any such

24 target, when you demolish such a target where civilian casualties may

25 occur, the commander has to weigh all factors so that the result that you

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 hope to achieve is in proportion with the civilian losses. In this area,

2 I feel, as I described in the sentence, if the commander of that level

3 issues a command within a battle in a city where artillery is used and it

4 is known that many civilian casualties may occur, then what I described

5 is valid. Thank you.

6 Q. Mr. Kovacs, are you telling us that the bombing of Hiroshima,

7 Nagasaki, Belgrade, is terrorism, too, according to you.

8 A. The question you are asking is transgressing the limit of my

9 expertise. Thank you.

10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you. The

11 Defence has no further questions.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Pilipovic.

13 Mr. Stamp, is there any need to re-examine the witness?

14 MR. STAMP: Yes, Mr. President. May I?

15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

16 Re-examined by Mr. Stamp:

17 Q. You said yesterday in answer to my learned friend that a brigade

18 artillery group would be -- would normally be under the command of a

19 corps commander and you also answered some question in respect to units

20 and subunits.

21 Could you just clarify what you understand to be a brigade

22 artillery group?

23 A. Of course, I will explain. In the course of yesterday, it became

24 apparent when I was asked these questions that the different

25 organisational units -- there are changes between -- in the differences

1 and a concrete answer would only be possible if these organisational units

2 are exactly limited.

3 Yesterday, when we spoke about this, I felt that there was some

4 confusion between the organisational units. I couldn't reply in an exact

5 manner. If we are to talk about this, we should define the organisational

6 unit that I am supposed to reply about. But I would like to point out

7 that I am not familiar with the corps command level. Thank you.

8 Q. You said you could not answer satisfactory about whether it is

9 possible to hit a target with a single fire because there are many factors

10 that are taken into consideration.

11 Could you elaborate a little bit these factors that you take into

12 consideration?

13 A. Of course, I would like to explain. When firing shell, you are

14 using an artillery weapon. This may be a mortar. There are many factors

15 that determine the accuracy of the firing. Without being exhaustive, I

16 would like to sum up a few. The measurement of the position of the

17 firing location is determining. The exact determination of the

18 coordinates of the target are decisive. The level of training of the

19 handlers are decisive, is decisive. The technical state of the mortar is

20 decisive. The type of mortar, the production year, the maintenance state

21 of the mortar is decisive. The firing load. Other ballistic

22 circumstances and I would like to give some examples of these.

23 The direction and the force of the wind is very decisive, and

24 other extreme meteorological circumstances. Apart from this, there is

25 also the factor of uncertainty which we call the "scattering" of the

1 shell. And it is also complex of factors and this we cannot influence in

2 practice. I hope that in these few sentences, I have given you an

3 impression how complex it is to determine the first firing or the

4 circumstances around the first firing. Thank you.

5 Q. Now, bearing -- sorry -- a reasonably well trained mortar or

6 artillery crew, having regard to all the factors which effect artillery

7 fire, and applying what you have called in your report, "the proper

8 correction data," is it possible for them to hit a target first shot

9 through what you have described as "transfer of fire"?

10 A. This question is composed of two parts. I feel that a good

11 well trained crew, that is well familiar with the target area, will take

12 into account all factors mentioned by me or not mentioned by me for

13 correction. All of these will contribute to an improvement of the

14 probability of hitting the target at first -- with first shell. But I

15 cannot answer how much better the hitting rate will be at first firing.

16 Regarding the second part of the question, concerning the firing

17 at the target, I think that the target to be eliminated, in the

18 surroundings of this target to -- go eliminated another target that has

19 already been fired at from that mortar from that position, the

20 correction factors for those previous targets are already known. This

21 includes all correction factors I mentioned before. This will be taken

22 into account by the commander of the given level. Then the accuracy of

23 the first firing will be greatly increased. Thank you.

24 Q. What do you mean by "greatly increased"? Perhaps if I ask you

25 this way, how far or near to the target is it possible for them to get in

1 terms of metre?

2 A. As I mentioned before, I cannot give you exact data. It is

3 conceivable that the first shell will fall in the immediate vicinity of

4 the target but it is also conceivable that in spite of all the

5 correction measures taken, the shell will hit outside the targeted area.

6 Experience i.e. mathematics tell us, and of course ballistics tell us,

7 that taking into account all of the factors, of the relevant factors,

8 should considerably increase the accuracy. But without having seen it,

9 it is not possible to say. It is always decided by practice. Thank you.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 MR. STAMP: Nothing further, Mr. President.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stamp.

13 Judge Nieto-Navia has one or more questions for you.

14 Questioned by the Court:

15 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you, Mr. President.

16 In your city you mentioned that you have studied the history of

17 artillery. Could you illustrate us with some examples of cities in the

18 modern history of artillery, let's say after the Second World War, which

19 have been besieged as Sarajevo?

20 A. Yes, sir I understand the question. If we talk about the

21 history of modern -- modern history of artillery, we could also include

22 the pre-World War II period, for I have to add that the basic changes in

23 technique of artillery did not change so much in the past decades as we

24 might think. The conventional artillery also uses means today of which

25 less modern, but similar versions, were used in the Second World War.

1 These conventional firing equipment is the equipment that didn't

2 bring much news in the past decades. I am referring to the conventional

3 firing equipment that are described in the report. In the framework of

4 my work I am mostly involved with the artillery in the Second World War

5 and the First World War. As I said, the minor changes in this equipment

6 is also continuing until this day. If I claim that in the siege of city

7 during the Second World War the procedures used in artillery are similar

8 to the methods in the middle of the 19th Century, I am not far beside the

9 truth.

10 The concrete question by Your Honour, I would like to answer that

11 similar cases during the Second World War were numerous. I could mention

12 a similar case in my country the siege of the capital Budapest. During

13 the siege, enormous amounts of artillery were used by the Soviet troops.

14 The losses caused by Russian artillery were enormous. It is difficult to

15 separate the military targets and civilian areas, but this siege, too, as

16 many other sieges, had civilian casualties.

17 I think, however, that the Second World War, during the Second

18 World War similar events happened in the siege of other cities as well.

19 So there are historical examples that are similar to the means of

20 destruction and procedures used in the 80s and 90s. Thank you.

21 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you.

22 The fire of a tank is considered direct or indirect fire?

23 A. Your Honour, the contemporary versions of tanks are suitable for

24 both types of firing. Basically I have to say that direct firing is

25 their main objective, but the -- tanks are also suitable for indirect

1 fire. Thank you.

2 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: What do you call "contemporary versions"?

3 A. Your Honour, I am referring to those versions that were built in

4 the 60s 70s 80s, and later in the military industry of the east or the

5 west. In my own army, I could mention some types we use there. T-54,

6 T-55, T-72, T-55 AM. This is a Hungarian version. All of these are

7 suitable for direct or indirect firing. Thank you.

8 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Which is the maximum range of a mortar, let's

9 say, 120 millimetres mortar, maximum range?

10 A. 120 millimetre mortar would have a maximum range that depends on

11 the exact type of mortar. It also depends on the type of ammunition

12 used. I could give you an indication. With conventional ammunition, 120

13 millimetre mortar would have a maximum range of about 6.000 metres.

14 There may be deviations with regard to the ammunition used. Thank you.

15 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you. No further questions, Mr.

16 President.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Judge El Mahdi also has one or more questions to

18 you.

19 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you, Mr. President.

20 [Interpretation] Sir, I have a preliminary question for you. Do

21 mortar shells always have tail-fins, stabilisers?

22 A. Your Honour, in conventional shells, mortar shells that I also

23 mentioned in the course of today, that would be tail-fins at any case.

24 Thank you.

25 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] So the use for -- of tail-fins,

1 what they do is in a way to adjust the firing, in some way?

2 A. Your Honour, this is not really what matters. The tail-fins

3 found on mortar shells, they have a primary function to stabilise them in

4 their trajectory. If this would not be the case, the shell would follow

5 an irregular course and it would be impossible for the guidance -- for

6 the guiding person to control it.

7 So the role of the tail-fin of the mortar shell is to stabilise

8 the fired shell in its trajectory. When the shell hits the target, it

9 has no role at all. Thank you.

10 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

11 My following question would be: In your opinion, in order to

12 determine where a round has come from, where a shell was fired from, when

13 we look at the crater and the position of the stabiliser, is the position

14 of the stabiliser of the tail-fin in the way that it is placed in a

15 crater, is this something that we can rely upon in order to determine

16 where the shell was fired from?

17 A. Your Honour, I will try to given an answer as complete as

18 possible to your question, taking into account that my training does not

19 include to analyse shell craters. But based on my experiences in

20 artillery, I can say that the form, the shape of the shell crater, the

21 depth, and possibly the situation of the tail-fin of the shell after

22 detonation may indicate the origins from where the shell was fired.

23 Thank you.

24 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, sir.

25 JUDGE ORIE: I have a few questions for you as well, Mr. Kovacs.

1 May I first take you back to yesterday where questions were put

2 to you in respect of the sound. Distinction was then made between the

3 firing sound and the sound of the impact. One question put to you was

4 about the sound of a mortar shell during its trajectory. So after firing

5 and before impact. You said: "You've got to note that the speed on

6 the ammunition of the trajectory is that you can't really see it." The

7 question was about hearing and you continued: "There is a sound effect

8 on the basis of which an ordinary lay person or an expert could not

9 specify 100 per cent what kind of shell it was. Because of the high

10 speed of these shells, they are invisible on the trajectory."

11 Since the question was about the sound of a shell during its

12 trajectory, did I understand your answer well that you could hear a shell

13 on its trajectory, but that you could not, by that sound, identify

14 specifically what shell it would be, or did I misunderstand your

15 testimony?

16 A. Your Honour, I try to go into details about the question that you

17 have just asked. There are three types of sound effects, I think. The

18 first sound is when the shell is actually fired. When the shell leaved

19 the barrel of the mortar, this is a sound which can be heard from miles

20 away from several kilometres away because it has got a very

21 characteristic sound.

22 The second sound we have mentioned in connection with the

23 trajectory. Here I said that the sound can only be heard on the

24 trajectory when we are close to the trajectory, when we are close to the

25 impact site or when we are close to the third location, that is, where

1 the shell is actually fired from. And this is likely when we are talking

2 about artillery, cannons, that is the fact that this sound is something

3 that you can actually hear. The sound on the trajectory of the shell can

4 only be heard when I am in the vicinity of that particular trajectory.

5 And for instance, the shell is passing above my head or near me

6 on its trajectory.

7 The third sound that we have mentioned is the sound --

8 JUDGE ORIE: I was mainly interested in this second type of sound.

9 If you say if the shell is flying over your head in its trajectory, would

10 a normal civilian, so not a specifically trained person, be able to

11 discern this sound from other sounds? I mean would it be such that a

12 normal not specifically trained civilian could identify that as a sound

13 of a projectile? And what would that sound approximately be?

14 A. Yes, Your Honour, I understand your question. And what I would

15 say is that an ordinary lay person will not be able to identify the shell

16 on the basis of the sounds that particular person can hear. When I was

17 talking about eyewitnesses of people who could actually hear certain

18 sounds, can distinguish various impact sounds, I meant the third type of

19 sound, which is the sound of the impact of the shell at the target.

20 Because that sound has very special characteristics. I think

21 that those who can hear or see things like that for the first or the

22 second time, can give you an approximate account of such phenomenon and

23 this might be the basis for you to have an idea. Thank you.

24 JUDGE ORIE: May I bring you back to the second sound. A shell

25 flying over my head. So I do understand that a lay person could hear it.

1 What would you expect a lay person to describe if he would have heard a

2 shell flying over his head?

3 A. Your Honour, now, coming back to the second type of sound. I

4 think that if you take artillery weapons and here I don't principally

5 mean mortars, but, first of all, I would like to mention cannons and the

6 other type of very important weapons which is Howitzers, I think it is

7 very important to distinguish between the shells of such weapons because

8 the speed at which shells fly is completely different, and the

9 trajectories are different as well.

10 JUDGE ORIE: If we would take as an example a 120 millimetre

11 mortar flying over my head, and I would have to describe to you what I

12 heard and let's assume that the trajectory was not very flat, not very

13 steep, something in between, what would you expect me, as a layman, to

14 describe if I would describe the sound I hear?

15 A. Your Honour, I think that the sound a lay person would hear in

16 that case, although I don't think it very probable for a mortar shell to

17 be heard actually because its trajectory is very steep, and it can have a

18 sound which can be heard at the particular instances or parts of its

19 trajectory, that is, close to the target and close to the post where it

20 was fired from. But if that person can hear the sound, I do not think

21 that he or she would be able to distinguish between the sounds. Because

22 one must have heard quite a few times the sound of shells to be able to

23 do that, and to have an idea of what kind of sound he or she has just

24 heard.

25 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that to make that distinction that

1 you need to have heard more shells. But given the example, would you

2 expect someone to say it was a low sizzling sound or no, it was a high

3 "bits". What would you expect the person to tell you.

4 A. Your Honour, artillery mortar shells on their trajectories will

5 have a kind of whistling sound, if you can hear them at all, while they

6 are kind of advancing in the air. Obviously talking about artillery

7 shells, this sound is much stronger because the shell is actually turning

8 around on its trajectory. Thank you.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do I understand that a stabiliser fin prevents

10 it from turning or does it make it turn?

11 A. No, actually the role of a stabiliser fin is not to make it turn,

12 basically.

13 JUDGE ORIE: So, you would say that if there is a stabiliser fin,

14 it would have the effect that the shell would not turn, not rotate, and,

15 therefore, would make less sound than other projectiles?

16 A. Your Honour, what I am saying is that if there were no tail-fins

17 on the shells, the shells given their shape because they actually have

18 the shape of a drop, would have a kind of bumping movement on their

19 trajectories. This happens when the leading fin is damaged at the moment

20 when the shell is fired or a small bit comes off it.

21 In a case like that, it has got a typical sound.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for these answers.

23 May I take you back to your report, page 16, and I would like to

24 show you a document.

25 Madam Registrar, could the witness be shown P2261. And could

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 perhaps be placed on the ELMO the ERN, number ending with 4117 which is

2 the 26th page of this 46-page document. Yes, that is the page. Could

3 that please be placed on the ELMO.

4 Dr. Kovacs, if this picture, and I am referring to the picture,

5 not the small one under "A," but the big picture. If that would be the

6 picture of the pattern of damage made by the impact of a mortar shell,

7 and if someone would have told you that the angle of descent would have

8 been 60 degrees would there be anything in this picture --

9 THE INTERPRETER: Excuse me, did you say ascent or descent?

10 JUDGE ORIE: Descent. Would be 60 degrees, would there be

11 anything in this picture which would -- would contradict that conclusion?

12 So I am not asking you whether this would a picture you would be able to

13 establish that it was 60 degrees, but if someone would say that this is

14 the picture of a 60-degree angle of descent impact of a mortar, would

15 there be anything in this picture that would cause you to say, no, that

16 could not have been a 60-degree angle of descent for such-and-such

17 reason?

18 A. Your Honour, you have also mentioned that there is not enough

19 information at my disposal to give you a satisfactory answer to this

20 question. Because this is just a drawing and I haven't done the analysis

21 of the crater.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand. You say the information given

23 to me does not enable me to make whatever comment either positive or

24 negative?

25 A. Your Honour, maybe I could give you my own opinion, but I must

1 point out that this is just my opinion and just at first sight and without

2 any previous analysis.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I am asking if you please give us your opinion

4 and I take it that it is based upon your experience then.

5 A. Obviously I have already seen quite a few of these. I have

6 already seen quite a few craters. And on the basis of my experience, I

7 think that since the crater, the shape of the crater is close to a

8 circle, and if this shows us the direction of the spreading of the

9 fragments, although I am not quite sure about that, and I am asking you,

10 Your Honour, whether the bottom part of the drawing shows the damage

11 caused by the fragments or not?

12 JUDGE ORIE: As far as I understand, the picture reflects the

13 damage on the surface caused by the impact of a mortar shell. So the

14 pattern of the damage.

15 A. Your Honour, the back part of the effect of the shell does not

16 give me sufficient background information, so I mean the top part of the

17 drawing. But on the basis of what I can see, I think that -- and I have

18 got to emphasise on the basis of what I can see now -- I think that it is

19 very likely that the striking angle or the impact angle was more than 60

20 degrees. Thank you.

21 JUDGE ORIE: And could you tell us anything about how much more

22 or would that not be possible? If you say, I can't do that -- we want

23 reliable answers. So if you can do it reliably, please, and if you

24 can't, please say you cannot.

25 A. Your Honour, I think that I wouldn't be able to give you a

1 reliable answer. Therefore, I would rather not answer your question.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much.

3 These were my questions, Dr. Kovacs.

4 MR. STAMP: I am wondering from that if I can just qualify one or

5 two things.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, related to the questions from the Bench.

7 MR. STAMP: Indeed

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, we have -- if it would just take two or

9 three minutes, fine, otherwise we would first have the break.

10 Further examination by Mr. Stamp:

11 Q. You referred to, from the translation, the turning of the

12 artillery of the shell which are not mortar, in the air?

13 A. I am sorry, we can't see the transcript.

14 Q. Now this spin on artillery, not being mortar shells, is it

15 caused by the rifling of the barrel of the artillery gun?

16 A. Yes. We are not talking about mortars.

17 Q. We are talking -- we are not talking about mortars. We are

18 talking about artillery shell.

19 A. Yes, that's right.

20 Q. And does it sometimes -- and shells as well?

21 A. Yes. This is true for conventional shells which can be fired

22 from tanks. Because the principal is that the shell is spinned by the

23 interior part of the barrel and this is the same phenomenon as we can

24 experience in the case of artillery.

25 Q. Thank you.

1 And the mortar is stabilised by the fin at the back of the shell

2 at one end of the shell?

3 THE INTERPRETER: The mortar?

4 MR. STAMP:

5 Q. The mortar shell is stabilised in flight by the fin, is that

6 right?

7 THE INTERPRETER: We are just waiting for the transcript.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Obviously we can't speak about

9 these two things at the same time. Because there is a difference between

10 artillery using barrels, to --

11 Q. Very well. Let us speak about mortar, mortar rounds. Are they

12 stabilised in flight by the fin?

13 A. I do understand your question. I just wanted to distinguish

14 between the two.

15 Q. Just let us deal with that question and then we can get to the

16 distinction, that are mortar rounds stabilised in flight by the fin?

17 A. Yes. Mortar shells are stabilised by the fins.

18 Q. Are mortar rounds in flight subsonic or supersonic or --

19 A. Here again, I have got to say that this depends. It can

20 be both or either. Depending on the speed, depending on the charge when

21 firing, and obviously the speed can change once the shell is on its

22 trajectory. From an artillery table, you can -- you can see that quite

23 easily.

24 Q. Doctor, let us talk only about mortar rounds. Mortar rounds. Do

25 they travel faster or slower than speed of sound?

1 A. I do understand your question. But my answer is they can be

2 either. And this depends on the charge in the firing stage. Thank you.

3 Q. Very well.

4 Are you -- I heard earlier you referred to the depth that a

5 tail-fin might go in asphalt as being outside of your area of expertise.

6 Is the analysis of craters within your area of special training and

7 knowledge?

8 A. No, it isn't. Crater analysis itself is not.

9 MR. STAMP: Thank you, nothing further.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stamp.

11 Dr. Kovacs, this concludes your testimony in this court. I thank

12 you very much for having come to The Hague, having answered all the

13 questions of both parties and the Bench and I wish you a safe trip home

14 again.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE ORIE: We will then adjourn until a quarter past 11.00. I

17 was informed, Ms. Pilipovic, that it might be possible to create a

18 videotape with the B/C/S translation in a relatively short time. I don't

19 know how much time you would have available to wait until the video would

20 be ready, but do you have any arrangements that you have to leave at a

21 certain time from The Hague, so that we can verify whether "relatively

22 short" is quick enough?

23 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I could get the

24 audio tape this afternoon, it will mean a great deal, because it would

25 mean that I could send it to Belgrade this afternoon.

1 JUDGE ORIE: I think this afternoon would be no problem. Would

2 you prefer to have an audio tape rather than a videotape or both?

3 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to have both, if

4 possible.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

6 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have only one

7 question. Would it be possible for the expert to look at the tail-fin

8 which is in this courtroom?

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is one of the exhibits. I think under

10 the supervision of the Registry, it could be inspected by your expert,

11 but the remaining question is then, would that have any impact on the

12 presence of Dr. Kovacs or is it just for future. For future.

13 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Only for the future.

14 JUDGE ORIE: If you then please follow the instructions of the

15 Registry, because it is the Registry who is finally responsible for the

16 surveillance of all objects.

17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, is it appropriate for Mr. Philipps to

19 set up his laptop to commence evidence immediately after the break?

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think that is what we more or less expected.

21 That is also the reason why we continued a bit later. I have to

22 apologise to the interpreters, but we will have a break now until a

23 quarter pas 11.00.

24 --- Recess taken at 10.45 a.m.

25 --- On resuming at 11.19 a.m.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, for your information, the audio tape

2 will be ready within a couple of minutes after the -- after we adjourn.

3 The videotape will be prepared so that also the charts are available to

4 your expert because that might be important for him. But that takes a

5 preparation time which is the same the evidence took. Well, let's just

6 assume that we will continue until a quarter to 2.00, that would mean it

7 would take approximately two and a half hours to prepare the videotape

8 with the B/C/S language as well. Yes. Okay.

9 It will then be put in your locker as soon as it is ready.

10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. What I

11 would like to hear from our learned friends is whether they can confirm

12 to me that the examination of Mr. Philipps will be resumed on Tuesday,

13 the 16th of July?

14 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President.

15 JUDGE ORIE: That is for sure? As sure as life can be?

16 MR. IERACE: Indeed. General Abdul Razek is due to give evidence

17 on Monday. Given the problems the Defence has with the arrangements of

18 their expert. If the General does not finish on the Monday, then it

19 seems to me appropriate that we accommodate the Defence by sticking to

20 the timetable Richard Philipps to give evidence on the Tuesday and then

21 return to General Abdul Razek, if needed.

22 JUDGE ORIE: So that is confirmed. I take it that you at least

23 agree with that Ms. Pilipovic.

24 Mr. Ierace.

25 MR. IERACE: Before we return to the evidence of Mr. Philipps, in

1 relation to Dr. Kovacs, do you require a formal tendering of his report or

2 is the filing sufficient? I ask the question because his report does not

3 bear a signature and in light of some problems we had with the report of

4 Mr. Zecevic, we think it appropriate to clarify that now.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes Ms. Pilipovic, you heard the observation made

6 by Mr. Ierace and you are aware of our decision in

7 respect of Dr. Zecevic. I think the parties would agree that having gone

8 through the report in some detail, there could be no -- at least I hardly

9 could imagine that it would be in dispute that this is the report of --

10 which has been drafted and even been amended during the court session by

11 the expert, Dr. Kovacs.

12 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, during the

13 cross-examination we received answers to some questions, however, the

14 problem is that so far we have not received a copy of Mr. Kovacs' report

15 in his mother tongue, the language that he wrote the report in.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is there -- well, neither have we seen it.

17 The question is whether this is a document which plays any role. Is

18 there an original available to you?

19 MR. STAMP: Yes. With courtesy we indicated we would let the

20 Defence have a copy. I think the copy is here. I thought it might have

21 been handed over to him as well. The copy is here. I have seen that

22 copy. However, the filing is not the Hungarian, for the purposes of this

23 case, the filing is in the language used in the Tribunal, the English

24 version. The Defence may if they want have a copy of the Hungarian

25 document.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Can we -- we are in a procedural situation

2 where the English version of the report has been filed, that is the

3 report on which the Prosecution relies and on the basis of which

4 questions have been put to the witness. If the Prosecution would provide

5 the original report to the Defence, I think it is up to the Defence if

6 they find any specific differences that, with the consent of the

7 Prosecution, I think it could be introduced without being introduced by a

8 witness.

9 Would you agree with that? But only if there are good reasons to

10 believe that the original report is a different one.

11 MR. STAMP: That is something that would be difficult to agree

12 upon without the presence of the witness -- of the expert. There have

13 been changes made to the original. It was important to the Prosecution

14 to ensure that the English version, the version that could be tendered,

15 was the one which he --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Stamp, of course, I am not referring to the

17 changes made during the examination of the witness. But, for example, the

18 conclusions would be totally different in the original version, then I can

19 imagine that the Defence would like to introduce in one way or the other,

20 even if it was just for the reliability of the expert. But let's do it

21 this way: You provide the original to the Defence. If there would be any

22 specific need for the Defence to introduce this report, we will have to

23 find -- for specific reasons, then indicated, -- we would, of course, then

24 have to consider that. If the Defence would say we have someone who

25 speaks perfect Hungarian and says that the report is totally different

1 from what the English translation says, then, of course there might be a

2 different situation. We will cope with that as soon as the Defence

3 indicates its desire to bring into evidence the original report for the

4 reasons then to be indicated by the Defence.

5 MR. STAMP: Very well, Mr. President.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

7 Then, so, Ms. Pilipovic, we will either hear from you or not hear

8 from you. Then we could --

9 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. It will be on

10 Monday.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If I don't hear from you, I take it that there

12 is no reason to deal with the matter any further.

13 That means that we are now all ready to continue the

14 examination-in-chief of Mr. Philipps. Mr. Usher, would you please escort

15 the witness into the courtroom.

16 [The witness entered court]

17 JUDGE ORIE: In order to avoid all misunderstandings, so the

18 filing at this moment is enough and it has the "P" number indicated

19 because we have to register it in one way or another, but the filing is

20 such is enough, no tendering necessary.

21 Good morning, Mr. Philipps. May I remind you that you are still

22 bound by the solemn declaration you gave at the beginning of your

23 testimony.

24 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

25 WITNESS: RICHARD PHILIPPS [Resumed]

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, please proceed.

2 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.

3 Examined by Mr. Ierace: [Continued]

4 Q. Mr. Philipps are you in a position to continue your examination

5 utilizing your images that you started to show us last week?

6 A. Yes, I am

7 MR. IERACE: Perhaps, Mr. President, the chart could be turned

8 around with the assistance of the usher and Mr. Philipps, if you could

9 please open your laptop and for the sake of the need of a brief

10 revision --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please turn the chart in our

12 direction. And could you please face it in such a position that General

13 Galic also can see it. Could it be placed in such a way that the

14 interpreters still have eye contact with the courtroom. It is the

15 general experience that in high tech times, the classical technique

16 becomes more difficult to master. Can it be placed in such a way or --

17 General Galic, if you would not be able to see enough on the screen, would

18 you please indicate so then we will find a practical way of ...

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am still looking

20 for it and I can't find anything on my screen.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That, I have the same problem. Would it be

22 possible -- have you opened the programme yet or not, Mr. Philipps?

23 THE WITNESS: I am unable to start the laptop. So if I could

24 have some assistance in starting my laptop.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Could Mr. Philipps have some assistance in starting

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 his laptop. In commercials, it is always the little boy that puts in the

2 plug but it seems not to be the situation here.

3 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

4 JUDGE ORIE: Any clue why it doesn't function? I am informed that

5 we would need a break in order to -- does the laptop not function at all

6 or is it just the programme that doesn't start?

7 THE WITNESS: I don't know, Your Honour. It is not actually my

8 laptop. It is a laptop belonging to the court.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So it is the Court to be blamed for it. Could

10 one of the technicians please come into the courtroom and see whether we

11 can solve the problem quickly. If not, we will have to take a break. It

12 says "warning resume failure" that is what we noticed already.

13 It seems as if the technical problems were solved. Mr. Philipps,

14 do you think you could -- yes, I think.

15 Mr. Ierace, I think we are where we stopped last Friday.

16 MR. IERACE: Yes.

17 Q. Now having regard to the image presently on the screen, the large

18 box at the top of the chart is highlighted in red and beneath it I think

19 there are a total of 13 boxes also highlighted. Approximately -- I think

20 9 of those are joined by a thick red line to the top box and there are an

21 additional 4 boxes highlighted in red. Is that correct?

22 A. Yes, that's correct.

23 Q. Now, have you prepared a presentation of the material summarised

24 on the chart and does that presentation involve a sequence of images

25 which highlight details of various aspects of the chart?

1 A. That is correct.

2 Q. Is this the second slide or the third slide in that sequence?

3 A. This is actually slide number 2.

4 Q. All right.

5 Now, at the point that we left off last Friday, you said that you

6 had marked, I think, 12 brigades on the chart. Firstly, were there in

7 fact 12 brigades in the SRK during the indictment period?

8 A. The number of brigades in the Sarajevo Romanija Corps changed

9 during the indictment period.

10 Q. Could you please explain the detail of that change, according to

11 the documents that you examine said.

12 A. Yes. Initially, two brigades which are shown on the top line

13 were part of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, but then were passed to the

14 Drina Corps on the 20th of November 1992.

15 Q. Now, at that stage, could I stop you and invite you to continue

16 the presentation at your own pace and in the manner that you have

17 prepared.

18 A. The next slide that I show you will see join as line from the

19 corps headquarters to the corps support troop.

20 Q. Are you now indicate the corps headquarters on the chart?

21 A. Yes. This is the corps headquarters and is connected by line to

22 the corps support troops underneath.

23 Q. And do you now indicate on the chart a line following the

24 right-hand edge of the chart to the bottom row or a row towards bottom?

25 A. That is correct.

1 Q. Now, could you explain to us what you mean by the term, "corps

2 support troops"?

3 A. The corps support troops are a series of units which directly

4 support the corps itself. That is, they are subordinated to the corps

5 headquarters. These consist of units such as artillery, air defence,

6 military police, logistics, medical, reconnaissance and engineers.

7 Q. In due course, during your presentation, will you return in more

8 detail to those units?

9 A. Yes. A section of the presentation covers each of those units.

10 Q. All right.

11 Please continue.

12 A. The blue section shows those troops subordinated to individual

13 brigades.

14 Q. For the purposes of the transcript, perhaps as you move from one

15 image to another, you might indicate, if you know it, the number of the

16 image. Otherwise, simply indicate that you have progressed to the next

17 image.

18 A. Yes.

19 Now, on the next image, I have highlighted the corps headquarters,

20 so that I can talk specifically about the organisation of the corps

21 headquarters.

22 Q. Before you move on, in the bottom right-hand corner of the

23 screen, we see the number "3." Are each of the images sequentially

24 numbered hereafter?

25 A. Yes, they are sequentially numbered, however, some slides have

1 multiple facets to them so that additional information is on each slide.

2 Q. As you change images could you please commence by identifying a

3 number or other information that appears in the bottom right hand corner

4 for the benefit of the transcript.

5 A. Yes.

6 The next slide is slide number 4. This is detail from the

7 diagram on my left.

8 Q. Please indicate the relevant part of the chart with your pointer.

9 A. [Indicates]

10 Q. You indicate the top line within the corps headquarters block.

11 Is that correct?

12 A. That is correct.

13 Q. Now, we see on the screen a symbol. You told us earlier, that is

14 on Friday, that you have employed NATO map symbols. Is that correct?

15 A. That is correct. In this case, this is a linked to analysis

16 symbol.

17 Q. What does a green human figure depict?

18 A. I have used a green human figure where the information is

19 confirmed that such an individual was in that position, that is,

20 confirmed from multiple sources.

21 Q. Please continue.

22 A. On the left of this we have General Major Tomislav Sipcic, who was

23 the commander of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps during the dates or for part

24 of the periods of the dates shown. There is then a dotted line to Colonel

25 Stanislav Galic, who took over the Sarajevo Romanija Corps on the 9th of

1 September 1992. The line is dotted to indicate that there was not

2 specifically a handover from General Sipcic to Colonel Galic. But that

3 General Sipcic, left the Sarajevo Romanija corps before Colonel Galic took

4 over. We then see the date under then by then General Major Galic of the

5 10th of August 1994, which is the last date that the documents show he was

6 in command of the corps. His position was then taken over by the next

7 corps commander, Dragomir Milosevic.

8 Q. Just in relation to the date of the 10th of August, having regard

9 to your answer, did you see a document saying that he definitely left that

10 position on the 10th of August, or rather is it a matter of that being the

11 last document you could find which referred to him as holding that

12 position?

13 A. A combination of the two. Firstly, a document signed by the new

14 corps commander, Dragomir Milosevic which by -- by which document I could

15 see that General Galic ha relinquished command of the Sarajevo Romanija

16 Corps?

17 Q. Please continue.

18 A. On the next line we can see the positions of chief of staff. The

19 first being Colonel Dragan Marcetic who took over that position on the

20 29th of September 1992. He relinquished that position to a Colonel

21 Dragomir Milosevic sometime between the 20th of June 1993 and the 6th of

22 July, 1993 and then finally, Dragomir Milosevic on becoming the corps

23 commander Cedo Sladoje became the chief of staff.

24 Q. Now, coming back to the top line, you indicate, you depict

25 rather, Dragomir Milosevic becoming the corps commander. Alongside his

1 name on that line in brackets are the numbers 02. What is the

2 significance of that?

3 A. The number in brackets allows the index to be looked up under

4 Dragomir Milosevic to relate to those documents which show him as being

5 the corps commander. And also the number 2 indicates that it is the

6 second time that Dragomir Milosevic appears on the diagram, as his name

7 also appears under the chief of staff.

8 Q. By the index to the documents, do you refer to the index which

9 accompanied your report and contained I think approximately 60 pages of

10 documentary references?

11 A. That is correct.

12 Q. All right.

13 Now, also by way of explanation, alongside each reference in this

14 image to dates, we see a little symbol which appears to be a reddish

15 coloured square with something in it. Could you explain that.

16 A. The symbols to the left of the lines underneath each name are in

17 linked to analysis termed attributes. And these are simply symbols to

18 allow the reader, when the chart is larger, to understand what each of

19 those lines represents. So the small box which is very difficult to read

20 on the small screen, actually show as calendar and this indicates that it

21 is in fact a date. The block dot and the yellow dot simply differentiate

22 between the position that an individual officer held and his rank of that

23 particular time. And where an officer held more than one rank or was

24 promoted over a period of time, both his ranks will be shown where they

25 are known.

1 Q. Could you briefly explain to us the relationship between a corps

2 commander and the chief of staff in terms of basic military corps

3 structure.

4 A. The chief of staff in the Sarajevo Romanija Corps is sometimes

5 referred to as the deputy corps commander. In many respects, the chief

6 of staff would be responsible for managing the operational staff within

7 the corps headquarters. The corps commander would issue orders and

8 directives which the chief of staff would put into action through working

9 with the staff.

10 Q. All right.

11 Now, when you say "the corps commander would issue orders and

12 directives," to what degree of detail would those orders and directives

13 go as to the implementation of a strategy, if at all?

14 A. On some occasions, the orders might be written by the corps

15 commander himself in detail. But on many occasions, the corps commander

16 would merely explain his intention to the chief of staff and the chief of

17 staff would engage the staff officers within the corps operational staff

18 to put together the plan and to write the order. When this was finished,

19 it would be put before the corps commander who was then able to sign it,

20 having agreed that the staff work was correct.

21 Q. Now, perhaps this is obvious, but from the chart, but in any

22 event to make it clearer, is the chief of staff, the immediate

23 subordinate of the corps commander?

24 A. Yes, that's correct.

25 Q. Please continue.

1 A. The next slide is slide number 5 and this shows in detail the

2 operational staff of the corps headquarters.

3 Q. Please point to the area of the chart where now appears on the

4 screen in slide number 5. You indicate the box to the immediate left

5 within the corps command box. Please continue.

6 A. This slide represents one of the four staff divisions within the

7 corps headquarters and is split into several components. First of all,

8 the top line shows one of the assistant corps commanders. The corps

9 itself would have four assistant corps commanders responsible for

10 different aspects of the staff. We can also see here that there is a

11 different attribute or a different symbol used for some of the figures,

12 and that is, a blue figure with a blank face.

13 Where I have used a blue figure with a blank face, this indicates

14 that the individual is unconfirmed in that position, and by that I mean

15 that there was only one source of data that put that individual as being

16 in that position.

17 Q. How many different sources of information did you rely upon in

18 order to conclude that a particular person held a particular position?

19 A. If there were two reliable sources, then I considered it to be

20 confirmed that an individual was in that position. Generally speaking,

21 there were five or six or more pieces of information confirming an

22 individual in a specific role or with a specific rank.

23 Q. For the purposes of this project as a whole did you presume that

24 documents received from the Defence were reliable?

25 A. In some respects, I presumed they were reliable. To qualify

1 that, I should explain that they matched other data that was available,

2 that they were consistent, and therefore, I took it that they were

3 reliable.

4 Q. And what of documents which were received from the Defence that

5 could not be corroborated in that fashion?

6 A. Where there was a single document from the Defence which showed

7 an individual in a particular position but which I could not confirm by

8 another source, I have indicated the unit either by a dotted line or that

9 the individual is shown in blue with a blank face, meaning that they are

10 unconfirmed.

11 Q. All right.

12 Now, could I take you about to five minutes ago. I think you

13 said that this box shows one assistant commander. Is that correct?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. When one looks at the diagram, there appears on the face of it to

16 be five assistant commander. So perhaps you could explain what you mean

17 by that.

18 A. The horizontal arrows show the passage of command from one

19 individual to another as they did on the corps commander slide. So the

20 first assistant commander for organisation an mobilisation was Colonel

21 Aleksa Krsmanovic. He hand over to all the Colonel Milan Malkovic and so

22 on across the chart.

23 Q. Do I take it, therefore, that you meant by that earlier

24 observation that this shows, not so much one individual, but one post

25 being the assistant commander for organisation and mobilisation?

1 A. That is correct. But it is one of the four posts of assistant

2 corps commander that exist within the corps headquarters.

3 Q. Please continue.

4 A. The main and most important future on this chart is the box

5 showing the operations and training. This staff division was responsible

6 for putting together orders relating to operations and insuring that the

7 troops had correct training. And here we see it is headed by a Colonel

8 Cedo Sladoje. Again, we see a number 2 next to his name, showing that he

9 appears on the entire chart twice. And we see that later on, of course,

10 he became the chief of staff from that position.

11 Q. Could you briefly explain to us what was involved in being an

12 assistant commander -- being a chief of operations and training, what was

13 the function of that person? You have mentioned training, but could you

14 go into some more detail in relation to operations.

15 A. The chief of operations was responsible for putting together the

16 staff work, that is, the written orders and written instructions that

17 follow the directives or orders of the corps command. So, Colonel Cedo

18 Sladoje would be responsible for planning operations with the assistance

19 of other staff officers.

20 Q. Please continue.

21 A. The other boxes on the side show an armoured operation staff and

22 again showing two officers, one of whom took over from the previous

23 officer. We can also see a signals and communication staff again

24 responsible of relating to the corps commander the capability of his

25 signal and communication equipment and insuring that communications and

1 signals were functioning for any operation. Moving across to the right,

2 we can see a series of sections, an office section, a computer section,

3 an NBC defence or ABHO unit and electronic warfare staff.

4 JUDGE ORIE: May I just interrupt you because I am trying to

5 follow you and it might be difficult to come back to a certain point

6 later. You said that in one of these boxes -- let me just find your

7 words. An operation staff and again showing two officers, one of whom

8 took over from the previous officer. So I would expect an arrow there,

9 but apart from the top line, I don't see an arrows.

10 THE WITNESS: Yes. On this diagram, I have not shown an arrow

11 unless I know that one officer specifically handed over to another

12 officer. In this case, for example, Lieutenant-Colonel Ratko Graorac was

13 killed in action on the 8th of February 1993 and all the Colonel Ilija

14 Petrovic does not appear in that position until the 25th of December

15 1993.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and you would not use then the dotted arrow as

17 you did before.

18 THE WITNESS: I could have used the dotted area but there should

19 be another officer in between those two.

20 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. Please continue.

21 MR. IERACE:

22 Q. Perhaps, since we already have a break in your explanation, I

23 might pick up on some other items that require amplification. Some of the

24 boxes depicted with dotted lines and some with firm lines. What is

25 the significance of that?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 A. Where there is a dotted line, this shows that the existence of

2 that formation is not fully confirmed, that is, I do not have two separate

3 reliable sources to show the existence of such a staff. Where there is a

4 full line, that is not dashed or dotted, this chose that I have data from

5 two or more reliable sources indicating that such a staff exist said.

6 Q. Each of the -- or rather I should say, some of the boxed titles

7 have capital letters underneath them. To given an example, "armoured

8 operations" has underneath it the capital letters "OM" either "J" or "I".

9 First of all, is it a J or I and what is the significance?

10 A. The abbreviation OMJ is from the B/C/S and I believe relates to

11 an operational armoured unit.

12 Q. You were in the process of going through the small boxes which

13 appear towards the centre of the screen in a different dotted line, boxes

14 titled "office," "computer section" and so on. Could you explain the

15 significance of the different dotted line, firstly.

16 A. Yes. Where the dotted line is quite faint this is because a

17 document shows that such an organisation existed, but I have no

18 confirmation that it should exist or that it does exist, nor have I found

19 any personnel relating to that organisation.

20 Q. I am sorry, go on.

21 A. What this means, these are organisations that might fall within

22 the order of battle of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, but I have no

23 confirmed documents to show that they did in fact exist.

24 Q. One of those boxes is titled "NBC defence." Could you explain that

25 title?

1 A. NBC defence, which stands for nuclear biological and chemical

2 defence, is a direct translation I believe of ABHO, which is the B/C/S

3 abbreviation or military abbreviation for nuclear biological and chemical

4 defence.

5 Q. Would you continue to go through the boxes where you left off?

6 A. The next box on the right is air defence. This is not of course

7 the unit of air defence, but it is the staff officers responsible for air

8 defence for advising the corps commander on air defence and for insuring

9 that appropriate air defence was available for any operation. In the

10 bottom left of the diagram is the engineer staff. In the box is the

11 commander of engineers and the date at which he took over or a date at

12 which he was in that post. We then see two other boxes, reinforcement

13 and personnel and an administration section.

14 These again are unconfirmed.

15 Q. Is there any significance in the different type of dotted line

16 for those two boxes?

17 A. I believe in this case that the dotted line for reinforcement and

18 personnel is the same as that for office computer section and NBC

19 defence. But the slight increase in size due to the computer has made

20 the dotted line look slightly different.

21 Q. Please continue.

22 A. The final staff on this diagram is the artillery staff showing

23 two officers, all the Colonel Radisav Cvetkovic and Colonel Tadija

24 Manojlovic. Both of these officers appear to be in the artillery staff at

25 the same time, although Radoslav Cvetkovic is not confirmed as the chief

1 of artillery. The artillery staff were responsible for insuring that

2 appropriate artillery staff was available to the corps commander for his

3 operations.

4 Q. Now, just by way of summary, in relation to the contents of the

5 operations box, do I understand you to be saying that their primary

6 function was to advise the Main Staff or the corps commander of the state

7 of readiness for the various facilities under -- I am sorry -- the

8 various facilities, according to their area of knowledge?

9 A. Two aspects. One, to advise the corps commander, but also to

10 ensure that such facilities were available. Perhaps a better description

11 of the operations is that they respect the fighting arms of the Sarajevo

12 Romanija Corp.

13 Q. Please continue.

14 A. The next slide, which is number 6, shows the morale staff

15 organisation.

16 Q. Please point to where that is on the chart, if you will.

17 A. Slide number 6 shows two officers, one taking over from the

18 other. The first one being Colonel Ljubo Kosovac, and the second being

19 Colonel Luka Dragicevic. These officers were corps commanders for morale

20 legal and religious affairs. Here there may be a translation issue

21 relating to the words "morale" as it is sometimes translation as moral,

22 there being two words in English, but I believe in B/C/S and in French,

23 only one word.

24 Q. Could you explain the function of this unit?

25 A. The function of the staff for moral, legal and religious affairs

1 was to inform the corps commander of the status of morale within the

2 corps, but also to maintain that morale and ensure that it was at a high

3 level. The organisation is divided into three parts and maybe more parts

4 than three. Firstly, a section for political activities, a military

5 club and a legal section.

6 Again, all these three parts of this organisation are

7 unconfirmed.

8 Q. Did you come across any information as to the nature of the

9 function of the legal section?

10 A. No, I didn't.

11 Q. Generally, in relation to the structure of the Sarajevo Romanija

12 Corps are you able to comment on the degree to which, if at all, it

13 follows the structure to a corps of the JNA?

14 A. The structure and organisation of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps is

15 similar to a corps within what was the JNA.

16 Q. Please continue.

17 A. The next slide is number 7 and shows the security staff section.

18 Q. Please briefly point to where it is located on the chart overall.

19 A. [Indicates]

20 Q. Thank you.

21 A. Again, this staff section is headed by a corps assistant commander

22 for intelligence and security, sometimes known as the chief of security,

23 in this case, Colonel Marko Lugonja. I have very little information about

24 this staff section, except for the fact that it is confirmed as existing

25 by multiple documents. This staff section would be responsible for, not

1 only intelligence on the enemy and the activities of the enemy which it

2 would gain through the troops on the ground, but also for the security of

3 the corps itself.

4 Q. You mentioned that a source of intelligence or resource was troops

5 on the ground. If the SRK had available to it, sources of information on

6 enemy territory, would that come through this unit or a different unit?

7 A. Ideally all information relating to combat intelligence, that

8 would be channelled through this organisation, whether they came from

9 subordinate units or subordinate troops or from other sources or indeed

10 from the Main Staff of the VR.

11 Q. Would you please now explain the dark box which appears on the

12 image?

13 A. The box itself rather like the others represents a security

14 staff. This one is looking rather empty because there is very little

15 information about what was actually contained within the security staff

16 section. It is possible that it was very small or it may be that I

17 simply have no information on that organisation.

18 Q. Please continue.

19 A. The next slide which is slide number 8, shows parts of the

20 logistics staff.

21 Q. For the transcript you now indicate the relevant part of the

22 chart which is towards the right of the corps command box.

23 A. This staff section represents the fourth of the staff sections

24 within the corps headquarters. And again, is commanded by a corps

25 assistant commander, this time for corps rear services. Throughout most

1 of the period it was commanded, as shown on the right of the slide, by

2 Colonel Aleksa Krsmanovic who commanded that staff section from the 20th

3 of November 1992 until at least October 1993 and possibly longer.

4 Q. Is that indicated by the dash which appears after the date

5 October 1993, in other words, that it was at least until that date?

6 A. That's correct. The last document I am able to find -- excuse

7 me. The last document I have found showing Colonel Aleksa Krsmanovic as

8 the corps assistant commander for corps rear services is dated October

9 1993.

10 Q. Wherever else that symbol appears, does it have the same meaning?

11 A. Yes, it

12 does. The other boxes on the slide show, first of all, technical service,

13 which was responsible for the technical assistance to the corps, that is,

14 the repair of equipment, the servicing of equipment and instructions to

15 the troops on how equipment should be maintained. There is a section for

16 procurement and sale which is unconfirmed, a finance section or PMF, a

17 veterinary service responsible for any animals used by the corps and

18 finally an unconfirmed reinforcement section.

19 Q. Could you explain the purpose of a reinforcement section.

20 A. I am afraid I could only speculate which would be of little value.

21 Q. Please continue.

22 A. Slide number 9 is a continuation of the logistics staff. At the

23 top of the slide I have shown again the corps assistant commander as he

24 was also in charge of this part of the staff. This staff is divided into

25 two parts. The transport services responsible for the movement of

1 supplies, materiel, that is, ammunition and war supplies, to the troops

2 of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps and the supply services who were

3 responsible for obtaining and maintaining those supplies.

4 Q. Please continue.

5 A. On slide number 10, there is an additional staff division not

6 normally found within the structure of the corps and that is the liaison

7 section. Here there are four individuals named and then a separate

8 section within liaison relating to air force liaison. First of all, on

9 the left we have Colonel Komnen Zarkovic, then Captain, but later

10 promoted, Milenko Indic. We have a Branko -- I beg your pardon. A Major

11 Branko Milosevic who was liaison at the airfield, Butmir. And we have a

12 first Captain Brane Luledzija, who was liaison with UNPROFOR. This is a

13 separate staff section from the normal staff found within a corps

14 headquarters.

15 Q. Please continue.

16 A. Slide number 11 returns to the main diagram so that I can

17 highlight two specific units. These two units are the Rogaticka Brigade

18 and the 2nd Motorised Brigade.

19 Q. There is no need to show that on the chart since we have the

20 chart on the screen. Thank you.

21 A. I highlight these units both of which are brigades. They

22 remained under the command of the corps headquarters until the 20th of

23 November, 1992 when they were resubordinated to the Drina Corps.

24 Q. Just before you continue could you tell us, if you know, what is

25 the -- what was the size of a brigade in the SK, in other words, how

1 many members?

2 A. A brigade within the Sarajevo Romanija Corps could vary from a

3 few hundred individuals up to the size of 5.000. And that is something I

4 am able to cover later on.

5 Q. In terms of the basic structure of the corps, you have told us

6 something of the relationship between the chief of the Main Staff

7 and the corps commander and the rest of the Main Staff and the corps

8 commander. Is the brigade the next level down?

9 A. To be quite correct, there is a direct contact between the corps

10 commander and the brigade commander. The staff is merely facilitating

11 that contact, but does not represent a step in the level of command.

12 Q. In other words, is the immediate superior to a brigade commander

13 the corps commander?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 Please continue with your explanation of this image number 12.

17 A. I am showing each, the brigade commander at a particular time of

18 these brigades were known, but it may not relate to the date when these

19 brigades were under the command of General Galic. That is, brigade

20 commander Rajko Kusic was in charge of that brigade in January 1993, but

21 I have no reason to believe or no evidence that he was the commander of

22 the brigade on the 20th of November, 1992.

23 All the Colonel Milorad Krstic is shown as the brigade commander

24 on the 13th of June 1992 and again he may or may not have been the brigade

25 commander on the 20th of November 1992. The fact that is of value is that

1 these corps -- sorry -- these brigades took no further part in the battle

2 for Sarajevo as they were posted to the Drina Corps on that date.

3 Slide number 13 returns to the main diagram and highlights the

4 1st Gradiska Light Infantry Brigade. Slide number 14 shows that this

5 brigade was temporarily attached to the Sarajevo Romanija Corps during

6 the Operation Lukavac 1993. So this brigade was temporarily under the

7 command of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, but only for that operation.

8 Q. What was that operation, briefly?

9 A. Operation Lukavac 1993 was, I believe, was an attempt to close the

10 corridor that was in use by the ABiH to and from Gorazde, that is, to seal

11 off the communications and supply routes to the south of Sarajevo.

12 Q. There is a date which appears in the box of the 15th of July

13 1993, followed by the hyphen symbol. What does that indicate?

14 A. That date is actually the date of the document that attaches the

15 Gradiska Light Infantry Brigade to the Sarajevo Romanija Corps. I do

16 not have a date for when it was resubordinated to the 1st Krajina Corps

17 and can only assume that it was at the conclusion of the Operation Lukavac

18 1993.

19 Q. Please continue.

20 A. Slide 15 returns to the main diagram and indicates the position

21 of the headquarters of the Vogosca Operational Group and further shows

22 the four brigades which formed part of the Vogosca Operational Group.

23 These brigades were the Ilidza Brigade, the Ilijas Brigade, the Rajlovac

24 Brigade, and the Vogosca Brigade.

25 Slide number 16 shows details of the headquarters of the Vogosca

1 Operational or Tactical Group. This group appears to have been formed,

2 first of all, on the 15th of September, 1992, and was later reformed on

3 the 19th of July, 1993. In its first incarnation, the group appears to be

4 commanded by Colonel Vukota Vukotic and later in July 1993 was commanded

5 by all the Colonel Dragan Josipovic.

6 The details of the brigades under this group will be covered at

7 later slides.

8 Q. Did you learn anything of the apparent function of this

9 operational or tactical group in relation to the four brigades?

10 A. The four brigades mentioned are all to the north and to the

11 north-west of Sarajevo, on the opposite side from Lukavica, that is, from

12 the corps forward headquarters. It seems that this operational group or

13 tactical group was formed to have better control over the brigades on the

14 opposite side of Sarajevo from the corps tactical -- sorry, corps forward

15 headquarters.

16 Q. Having regard to that answer, does it, therefore, follow that the

17 operational group commander was in something of a superior role in

18 relation to those four brigades, individually? In other words, they, in

19 some sense, came between the brigades and the corps commander?

20 A. It would be correct to assess that the corps commander commanded

21 the officer in charge of the operational group, who himself commanded the

22 brigade commander.

23 Q. In relation to Dragan Josipovic could you explain the reference

24 to the date, having regard to your earlier explanation, does it mean that

25 you located a document which indicated he held that position on the 9th

1 of July 1993, and may well have done so both before and after that date?

2 A. That is correct. You can also see a question mark in the top

3 left corner after the 15th of September, 1992. The reason for the

4 question mark is that if the brigade -- I am sorry -- if the operational

5 group was reformed on the 19th of July, 1993, one would have to assume

6 that at some time it had been disbanded or removed in order for it to be

7 reformed. And the reason for the question mark is it is unclear to me

8 what date the Vogosca Operational or Tactical Group ceased to exist,

9 whether it did cease to exist and exactly how or why it was reformed at a

10 later date.

11 Q. Just in relation to that, given that a document or more than one

12 document referred to it being reformed on the 19th of July, 1993, it

13 follows that another document referred to Dragan Josipovic being the

14 operational group commander 10 days before the reformation. Is that

15 correct?

16 A. Yes. My assessment to that is, it is very normal to post a

17 commander into a job before a unit exists or before an organisation

18 exists so that he is able to oversee its formation or reformation.

19 Q. Finally, does the number 3 in brackets alongside his name

20 indicate that he appears three times in the chart?

21 A. That's correct. This is his third appearance in the chart.

22 Q. Please continue.

23 A. Chart -- slide number 17 returns to the main diagram. And here

24 on the left deals with the Igman Brigade.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Before continuing, if you think you could do it in

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 three or four minutes, the next slide, please proceed. If however, it

2 would take more time, then I prefer to have the break now.

3 THE WITNESS: I think it would take more than three or four

4 minutes to go through the brigade.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Then we will adjourn until 10 minutes to 1.00.

6 --- Recess taken at 12.28 p.m.

7 --- On resuming at 12.55 p.m.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, we get a lot of detailed information.

9 Could you perhaps guide the witness in such a way that those names and

10 dates that have no specific importance for the case, could be left out.

11 We will read that if we don't -- if we would like to know these names, we

12 can read them. Of course, on the other hand it might be that certain

13 names are of specific importance. Would you guide the witness and ask

14 for those specific names, for example, names that have been mentioned

15 several times, for example in the liaison atmosphere that these are

16 important to draw the attention to. The Chamber could not memorise them

17 all. So we have to read them any how.

18 MR. IERACE: I understand, Mr. President, and the chart will now

19 speak for itself. The reason behind the first few -- information was to

20 show the process. I take the point.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, structure is also important, but not always

22 names and dates.

23 Please proceed.

24 MR. IERACE:

25 Q. With that in mind, Mr. Philipps, we now have on screen the Igman

1 Infantry Brigade setting out the relevant holders of the senior positions.

2 Is that correct?

3 A. That is correct.

4 Q. It seems that nothing there requires further explanation. Is

5 that your view?

6 A. It may be worth just mentioning why there are various names for

7 the brigade.

8 Q. Go on.

9 A. Obviously there is the English the Igman Infantry Brigade and

10 then the B/C/S, which I don't attempt to read. But also there is the

11 abbreviation for the brigade IG PBR, that is the most commonly used terms

12 for the documents. That is IG PBR is the most common terms used in the

13 documents to refer to the Igman Infantry Brigade.

14 Q. And on Friday you explained reference to the VP, that is the

15 reference used within the Army of Republika Srpska which was unique to

16 its unit, in this case the brigade is that correct?

17 A. That's correct.

18 Q. Perhaps you can go to the next image, number 19

19 JUDGE ORIE: If consequence is always one of the worst things to

20 experience. But do I see that you are here using the Cyrillic alphabet.

21 Is there any specific reason -- I see a name under -- it is not clear on

22 my screen but the top right-hand corner, first name.

23 THE WITNESS: It looks -- no it is not Cyrillic. It is a "J"

24 followed by an "I." It is not a --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay, now it is clear to me. I have a very bad

1 image on my screen.

2 Please proceed.

3 MR. IERACE:

4 Q. Please move to the next box.

5 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I just checked video evidence button.

6 If you are using that button, you will find the computer evidence button

7 is much clearer.

8 JUDGE ORIE: I used that, as a matter of fact. What I see is

9 that there are bright shades on the screen all the time behind block

10 letters.

11 MR. IERACE: On my computer, I see the same. If I press the

12 video evidence button, but if I press the computer evidence button, it is

13 totally clear

14 JUDGE ORIE: You are totally right. I took the wrong one. I

15 apologise for the inconvenience and the waste of time.

16 Please proceed.

17 MR. IERACE: All right.

18 Q. Now, would you please point to the relevant part of the chart for

19 the image that we see now?

20 A. [Indicates]

21 Q. In other words, we are now seeing what is under the box for the

22 Igman Infantry Brigade is that correct?

23 A. That is correct. The previous slide showed the headquarters and

24 the remaining slides show the subordinating units.

25 Q. In this image for the first time we see a symbol indicating in

1 this instance "mortars"; is that the case?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. Is that is symbol, as you understand it, used for NATO mapping

4 purposes?

5 A. That's right. The symbol is simply a square or rectangular box

6 with a dot in the middle representing artillery or mortars.

7 Q. The reference to Hadzici in the top two boxes is a reference to

8 the shorthand name for the brigade. Is that correct?

9 A. Yes. The brigade is sometimes called the Hadzici Brigade and the

10 battalions were also sometimes called Hadzici Battalion.

11 Q. Is it a standard part of military structure that brigade is

12 comprised of battalions?

13 A. Yes, that is correct.

14 Q. What were the --

15 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow down.

16 MR. IERACE: Yes, I will slow down.

17 Q. What was the size of a battalion in the SRK, according to the

18 documents you have examined?

19 A. The size of a battalion within the corps, that is, subordinated

20 to each of the brigades, could vary from an as little in one case as 56,

21 up to as many in one case over 700. So the battalions varied enormously

22 in size, depending on their role and the number of casualties that they

23 had suffered.

24 Q. The first box refers to two mortar platoons. What was the size

25 of a platoon in the corps?

1 A. Mortar platoons that were attached to battalions varied in size

2 from 2 mortars up to as many at 8 mortars.

3 Q. In the top left-hand corner of the first box alongside a red

4 hyphen, appears the word and numbers "strength, 616." And then a date.

5 Could you please explain that?

6 A. A document supplied -- I am sorry. I am wrong there. Documents

7 obtained from another source gave the strength of this first battalion in

8 September 1995 as 616.

9 Q. The unconfirmed platoon, which you describe as a reconnaissance

10 platoon, has in brackets after it the word "Munja," what is that?

11 A. Munja perhaps one might call it nickname that was given the

12 reconnaissance platoon.

13 Q. Is there anything else of significance in that slide?

14 A. No. It is worth pointing out that each battalion consists of a

15 number of infantry companies which are not shown on the diagram. So each

16 battalion may have between two, up to as many seven infantry companies.

17 Q. What was the size of a company?

18 A. A company again could vary from as little sometimes at 10 men up

19 to as many a 100 men.

20 Q. Is there any particular reason why you have not shown the

21 companies?

22 A. I have not shown the companies because I have no specific

23 documents or collection of documents that indicates the number of

24 companies within the first battalion or the second battalion.

25 Q. Would you please move to slide --

1 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask one question. It is indicated after 82

2 millimetre mortar platoon, a "2" which indicates that it is mentioned for

3 the second time, as far as persons are concerned, I have no difficulties

4 in understanding. How would I have to understand the two here?

5 THE WITNESS: Here the two assists in finding the reference to

6 the 82 millimetre mortar platoon for there are several 82 millimetre

7 mortar platoons. This reference enables the ERN numbers to be located.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that is in order to distinguish it from other

9 82 millimetre mortar platoons. Thank you very much.

10 MR. IERACE:

11 Q. Yes, would you please move to image 20.

12 A. Image 20 shows the artillery and supporting units attached to the

13 Igman Brigade. It is clear that not all the units that are normally

14 attached to a brigade are shown on this diagram. So it is likely that

15 there are other units which I have not identified and I have, therefore,

16 not shown that would be expected to appear in the brigade.

17 Q. In the first box -- well, perhaps you could tell us a little more

18 about the three types or sizes of artillery that are described.

19 A. Within the artillery attached to the Igman Brigade, I was shown

20 three different types of artillery. The first is a 152 millimetre gun

21 Howitzer. The second is a 105 millimetre M-56 Howitzer. And the third

22 is a 76 millimetre or more correctly 76.2 millimetre ZIS gun which was

23 also capable of being used as a Howitzer.

24 The size of these units is not known. They are shown as being

25 part of the artillery of the Igman Brigade through the supply of

1 ammunition for those weapons.

2 Q. Above each artillery reference, do we see a NATO symbol for

3 artillery?

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. If there is nothing else of significance in the slide, could you

6 move to number 21.

7 A. Number 21 returns to the main chart and indicates the position of

8 the 2nd Sarajevo Light Infantry Brigade.

9 Q. You told us on Friday that you have shown the brigades in the

10 order in which they occupied the front line as one moved clockwise around

11 Sarajevo. I take it the Igman Infantry Brigade was located in the area

12 of Mount Igman. Is that correct?

13 A. Igman and Hadzici.

14 Q. Does it follow that the 2nd Sarajevo Light infantry Brigade was

15 located directly to the north of the Igman Brigade or not?

16 A. No, in this case the chart is slightly or could be considered to

17 be out of order as the 2nd Sarajevo Light Infantry Brigade was really

18 slightly to the other side of the Igman Brigade in the area of Vojkovici.

19 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow down. The French booth

20 is kindly asking this.

21 MR. IERACE: I apologise. I will slow down.

22 Q. The box on the chart for the 2nd Sarajevo Brigade appears lighter

23 than the others. Is there any reason for that?

24 A. The 2nd Sarajevo Light Infantry Brigade was a much smaller

25 unit than many of the other brigades. Some of the brigades within the

1 corps were only the size of battalions in a normal structure, and

2 sometimes only the size of reinforced companies. The 2nd Sarajevo Light

3 Infantry Brigade is an example of one of the brigades that was really the

4 size of a reinforced battalion.

5 Q. Mr. Philipps, could you please slow down your delivery a little.

6 Please continue.

7 A. This slide shows the headquarters of the 2nd Sarajevo Light

8 Infantry Brigade.

9 Q. I think that is self explanatory, unless there is anything of

10 significance, perhaps you could move to the next image.

11 A. The next image shows the infantry battalions that were

12 subordinated to the 2nd Sarajevo Light Infantry Brigade. As an example

13 of strength, we can see on the right-hand side the Trnovo Battalion when

14 formed on the 21st of April, 1993, had a strength of only 56 men.

15 Q. Perhaps you could now move to image number 24, unless there is

16 something of consequence.

17 A. You will note that there is no attached unit, artillery,

18 logistics, or military police to the 2nd Sarajevo Light Infantry Brigade

19 that we have just seen. This is either because it relied on some other

20 logistic or military police support or perhaps that I have simply not

21 located the documents indicating that such supporting troops existed.

22 The next diagram returns to the main chart and then shows the

23 position of the Ilidza Brigade. The Ilidza Brigade lay to the north of

24 the Igman Brigade and so now the clockwise layout of brigades around

25 Sarajevo beginnings correctly on the chart. This diagram shows the

1 brigade headquarters.

2 Q. Are we now seeing image 25?

3 A. Image number 25.

4 The only matter of note and interest is first of all, the

5 strength of this brigade, which is given on 11th of April, 1993, as

6 3.000. So we can see this is a much larger brigade than the 2nd Sarajevo

7 Light Infantry Brigade.

8 Q. Did you understand from the documents that it was located in the

9 area of Ilidza?

10 A. That's correct.

11 The next slide is slide number 26. This shows the infantry

12 battalions attached to the Ilidza Brigade, each consisting of a number of

13 infantry companies, but not identified by any documents.

14 Q. Please continue.

15 A. Slide number 27 shows the supporting arms attached to the Ilidza

16 Brigade, that is, 105 millimetre Howitzers, 128 millimetre Oganj, which

17 is a 32-barreled rocket launcher, and an anti-aircraft defence unit

18 consisting of 30 by 2 millimetre cannon.

19 Q. And again, the numbers in brackets, given your earlier evidence,

20 do not refer to the number of Howitzers, is that the case?

21 A. That's correct. Again the numbers in brackets refer to the

22 references.

23 Q. We see a different symbol on the right-hand side for the cannon.

24 Can you explain that?

25 A. The standard NATO symbol for an anti-aircraft gun is a half

1 circle surrounded by the dot for "artillery."

2 Q. Where the numbers are known, are they indicated in the same

3 fashion that is, 30 anti-aircraft weapons of 2 millimetre in calibre, is

4 that correct?

5 A. No. I should explain that. This is a 30 millimetre cannon which

6 has two barrels.

7 Q. I see. Yes, please continue.

8 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you, I am intervening. Usually I would

9 wait, but in order to find back the picture later, it is perhaps a bit

10 difficult. You, as far as I understood you well. You are talking about

11 Howitzers, when you talked about 105 millimetres. The number is not

12 indicated. Is the number known?

13 THE WITNESS: I haven't found the number.

14 JUDGE ORIE: You don't know the number.

15 THE WITNESS: Where I have found the numbers in documents I have

16 indicated it on the chart.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you.

18 THE WITNESS: The next slide number 28, returns to the main

19 diagram and shows the position of the Ilijas Brigade. Here again, the

20 most interesting thing is the strength in February 1994 of 4.738 soldiers

21 and officers. And here again without going into details on the names, we

22 can see Dragan Josipovic appearing, who had previously appeared as the

23 commander of the Vogosca Operational Group.

24 MR. IERACE:

25 Q. In relation to him, I take it the hyphen after the 5th of March

1 1993 indicates that he held the position of brigade commander at least

2 until that date. Is that correct?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. And in relation to Bozidar Savic, we see that he was brigade

5 commander until some time in 1994?

6 A. That is correct. He was no longer the brigade commander some time

7 in 1994.

8 Q. And we can take it that Dragan Josipovic was no longer commander

9 of the brigade by some time in August 1993 at the latest, is that correct?

10 A. That's correct. We have seen from previous data that he probably

11 became the commander of the Vogosca Operational Group in July 1993.

12 Q. And do you mean by that it seems that at that point he

13 relinquished the position of brigade commander of Ilijas?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. All right. Please continue.

16 A. In the next slide, we see the first four battalions of the eight

17 infantry battalions within the Ilijas Brigade. And here for the first

18 time we have data on the number of companies, infantry companies, within

19 the battalions. And also the number of mortars attached to each battalion

20 and in addition, the strengths of each battalion at specific times.

21 Q. We see on this image again different symbols. The rectangle with

22 the cross, what does that indicate?

23 A. The rectangle with the cross is used to indicate infantry and the

24 rectangle, which isn't very clear, but the rectangular the circle and the

25 cross running through it represents a reconnaissance unit.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. Is there anything else of significance in that image?

2 A. Not specifically, no.

3 Q. All right.

4 Please continue.

5 A. We then have the remaining four of the eight infantry battalions

6 within the Ilijas Brigade. Again, showing infantry company numbers where

7 known, and also attached mortars where known. And we have seen that

8 within the brigade, strengths of battalions vary enormously.

9 Q. Please continue.

10 A. Slide number 32 -- excuse me.

11 Slide number 32 shows the supporting arms of the Ilijas Brigade,

12 specifically an armoured mechanised company, probably consisting of

13 mechanised infantry combat vehicles. And interestingly, a sniper squad

14 with a strength of six, attached directly to the brigade.

15 Q. I draw your attention to the artillery -- first of all, the mixed

16 artillery divizija, in which you identify the battalion commander and then

17 in a separate box underneath it, artillery. Could you tell us something

18 about that?

19 A. Yes. The artillery for the Ilijas Brigade seems to be

20 divided into two parts. And I have used the word "divizija," which is

21 actually a B/C/S word. Probably the best translation might be

22 "battalion." But a divizija is a special word a specific word, again one

23 of those words that is not easy to translate.

24 Q. The first item in the artillery box reads 122 millimetre M-38 and

25 then times one. Can you explain the times one?

1 A. In this case the by one actually refers to the number of 122

2 millimetre pieces. I have included it because it is normally very

3 unusual to see one artillery piece on its own. The reasons for this are

4 that one artillery piece, especially of a different calibre, would then

5 require a separate artillery supply, separate artillery ammunition supply

6 just for that one piece. Normally you would expect to find a multiple

7 number.

8 In this case it may be that the 122 millimetre M-38 is able to

9 fire the same ammunition as the 122 millimetre D-30.

10 Q. I see. Returning briefly to the meaning of the word divizija,

11 having regard to your answer, it seems it does not mean division. Is that

12 correct?

13 A. It sometimes is translated as division. But that could cause

14 confusion, as that is a very large artillery organisation.

15 Q. Finally in relation to that page, in the to right-hand corner

16 you have Vasko's Platoon with its own VP number. Is that correct?

17 A. Yes, that's correct.

18 Q. Would you comment at all on the fact that it had its own VP

19 number, what, if anything, does that tell you as to whether Vasko and his

20 men were a part of the SRK or no?

21 A. The VP number which stands for "vojna post" [phoen], army post,

22 for the Ilijas Brigade is 7491. Each of the units subordinated to the

23 Ilijas Brigade uses that four-figure designation, followed by its own

24 two-digit number. The fact that any of these units, including Vasko's

25 Platoon have a VP number 7491, shows them to be part of the organisation

1 of the Ilijas Brigade and in addition, the number 20 indicates it to be a

2 separate unit of the Ilijas Brigade.

3 Q. Given the box is not a dotted line, do I take it that you found

4 more than one source for that information?

5 A. That's correct. There are several, several documents referring

6 to that platoon.

7 Q. Do you remember anything as to the nature of any of those

8 documents?

9 A. I would have to look them up on the reference.

10 Q. All right. Please continue.

11 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Sorry, what are the 40 millimetre Bofors guns.

12 THE WITNESS: Under the anti-aircraft defence box, there are

13 marked 40 millimetre Bofors guns. This is an anti-aircraft gun which I

14 believe is in a pair or three guns mounted on a fixed base, that is, it

15 is not on the back of a truck, but it can be towed. It is normally used

16 for anti-aircraft and has a range of about 4 kilometres into the air but

17 of course is very accurate when fired against the ground target.

18 MR. IERACE:

19 Q. Please continue.

20 A. The only other box of notes is the mixed antitank divizija or

21 battalion, but I have no informations to what weapons were held in that

22 organisation.

23 The next slide is number 33 and shows the other supporting arms

24 for the Ilijas Brigade. These are not part of the fighting units of the

25 brigade but assist the brigade in its normal daily activity, such as

1 supply or medical services or military discipline.

2 Q. Please continue. For the record, this is image number 33, I

3 think. Yes. Thank you.

4 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask one question, ABHO, what stands that for?

5 THE WITNESS: Again, we have a platoon ABHO is the B/C/S

6 abbreviation of a military abbreviation NB, which is nuclear, biological

7 and chemical defence.

8 JUDGE ORIE: You mentioned that before. I apologise. Please

9 proceed.

10 THE WITNESS: Slide number 34 returns to the main diagram and

11 shows the Rajlovac Brigade.

12 Slide number 35 shows the headquarters of the Rajlovac Brigade

13 MR. IERACE:

14 Q. If I can stop you there for a moment. Did the territory

15 controlled by that brigade, as you understood it, control the area of the

16 Rajlovac?

17 A. That's correct. This brigade is similar to the 2nd Sarajevo Light

18 Infantry Brigade and it is much smaller than some of the other brigades

19 and really only consists of a battalion-sized unit.

20 Slide number 36 shows the units that form part of the Rajlovac

21 Brigade, that is, one infantry battalion and some attached artillery.

22 Neither of these units nor the commanders are confirmed, that is, there

23 is only one document that relates to these individuals.

24 Q. Perhaps you could point to the area of the chart which appears on

25 that image.

1 A. [Indicates]

2 Q. Thank you.

3 A. Slide number 37 returns to the main chart and shows the Vogosca

4 Brigade.

5 Q. And again, did its area include the Serbian Army side closest to

6 Vogosca?

7 A. That is correct.

8 Slide number 38 shows the headquarters of the Vogosca Light

9 Infantry Brigade.

10 Slide number 39 shows the infantry and also tank unit that formed

11 part of the Vogosca Brigade. And again, we see that this is a relatively

12 small brigade, consisting really of a reinforced battalion.

13 Q. We also see in that image the symbol for tanks.

14 A. That is correct. A simple rectangle with a track shape in the

15 centre. The tank shown is a T-55 tank, which is of Russian design, with

16 100 millimetre tank gun.

17 Q. Can you tell us, if you know it, in a typical tank platoon, how

18 many tanks there were?

19 A. I actually have no data for this specific tank platoon, but one

20 would expect at least three tanks and possibly four tanks in a tank

21 platoon.

22 The next slide shows -- which is slide number 40 -- shows the

23 brigade supporting arms for the Vogosca Brigade. Firstly, it shows the

24 light anti-aircraft artillery unit consisting of two sections. One with

25 20 millimetre anti-aircraft guns and the second with 40 millimetre

1 anti-aircraft guns.

2 Q. What do the initials "PAT" stand for?

3 A. It is a B/C/S abbreviation for anti-aircraft, as I understand it.

4 Q. Please continue.

5 A. The next slide, number 41, shows the attached artillery to the

6 Vogosca Brigade. Again consisting of 122 millimetre gun Howitzers, 76

7 millimetre guns, a Plamen section, and Plamen is the B/C/S name for a

8 32-barreled 128 millimetre rocket launcher, but with a considerably less

9 range than the one Oganj that was mentioned earlier.

10 Q. Is that multiple rocket launcher or a single rocket launcher?

11 A. It is a multiple rocket launcher. The next section shows the 128

12 millimetre Oganj and again this is a multiple rocket launcher, but with a

13 longer range just over 20 kilometres. And finally, almost finally, we

14 have a mixed Howitzer platoon with unidentified weapons. And finally on

15 the right, not found to be within a unit, that is, attached to an

16 unidentified unit of the artillery a T-12 antitank gun or more.

17 Q. In relation to that image, one of the boxes has some dates, that

18 is, the 128 millimetre Oganj section. The other boxes do not. Could you

19 assist us as to whether that means that the information you discovered

20 was not only unconfirmed, as indicated by the dotted line, but does it

21 also mean that you were unable to date the information?

22 A. Yes. It means I was unable to date it, precisely.

23 Q. You mean precisely that's correct or precisely you could not

24 date it with precision?

25 A. We may have been able to work out a range of dates which the

1 documents fell within, but it may be that the document itself did not

2 have a specific date.

3 Q. All right --

4 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you one question in that respect. I see

5 dotted lines are not always the same, especially vertical ones, the first

6 and the fifth are different from the others. Is this just because it is

7 very difficult to make them all the same?

8 THE WITNESS: I believe it to be a software problem where one

9 opposes a dotted line --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, there is no specific meaning.

11 THE WITNESS: That's correct.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

13 MR. IERACE:

14 Q. Just coming back to my earlier questions, does that mean, for

15 example, even in relation to the one source of information, in respect of

16 the first box, that is 122 millimetre section, commander being

17 Dragan Janjic, there is no information as to whether that was within the

18 indictment period or not?

19 A. I would have to check the reference. But I believe I would not

20 have included it on the diagram if it were outside the indictment period

21 for this organisation.

22 Q. Please continue.

23 A. Slide number 42 shows the 2 mortar battalion attached to the

24 Vogosca brigade. The full structure of the battalions is not shown and

25 only 120 millimetre mortar battery has been identified as part of the

1 1st Mortar Battalion. One would expect to see several other mortar

2 batteries forming part of this mortar battalions.

3 Q. Now, can you tell us something of the size of a mortar battalion

4 and a mortar battery. Earlier you gave us some information on mortar

5 platoons.

6 A. A mortar battery may consist of a series of mortar platoons, each

7 of which may have four mortars. So a battery in some circumstances, can

8 consider to be 8 pieces and with two batteries in a mortar battalion, a

9 battalion might be considered to consist of 16 or of course it may have 3

10 batteries, in which case it would consist of 24.

11 Q. Please continue.

12 A. The next slide, number 43, returns to the main diagram and the

13 arrow on the diagram indicates the formation of a new organisation, the

14 3rd Sarajevo Light Infantry Brigade. This organisation appears to have

15 been formed from the headquarters, first of all of the Vogosca Brigade.

16 And the units that were within the Rajlovac Brigade, the Vogosca Brigade

17 and the Kosevo Brigade.

18 Slide number 44 shows the headquarters of the 3rd Sarajevo Light

19 Infantry Brigade.

20 Q. Just before we continue with that, did that occur somewhere

21 between October 1993 and March 1994, that is, that the Vogosca Brigade

22 was incorporated into the 3rd Sarajevo Light Infantry Brigade?

23 A. Yes, that is correct.

24 Q. And had the Rajlovac Light Infantry Brigade been move and in the

25 process down sized in January 1994, that is incorporated?

1 A. That is correct. The Rajlovac Brigade as already been stated, was

2 a smaller organisation. It was only really a battalion-sized

3 organisation. That became part of -- that is one of the battalions within

4 the 3rd Sarajevo Light Infantry Brigade.

5 Q. And was the Kosevo Light Infantry Brigade moved and downsized at

6 the same time as the Rajlovac Light Infantry Brigade?

7 A. I believe it was at the same time.

8 Q. All right. Is that information contained on the chart?

9 A. Yes, that's all on the chart.

10 Q. Please continue.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, may I ask you, we will stop at a quarter

12 to 2.00. And I would need just a couple of minutes three, four, five,

13 minutes, perhaps partly in closed session, to deal with a few procedural

14 matters. Would you find a suitable moment to stop.

15 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, there is something that I wish to

16 raise in closed session as well. I wonder if we can go into the closed

17 session and deal with these matters

18 JUDGE ORIE: In the presence of the matters?

19 MR. IERACE: Yes.

20 JUDGE ORIE: For the other matters it would not be convenient to

21 do it in the presence of the witness. So we stop now at chart 45 and we

22 turn into closed session.

23 [Closed session]

24 [redacted]

25 [redacted]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 11572 – redacted – closed session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 11573 – redacted – closed session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 11575 – redacted – closed session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [redacted]

14 [redacted]

15 [redacted]

16 [Open session]

17 JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session now. I would like to ask the

18 Defence more specifically to prepare for some questions in respect of

19 what the Chamber would have to expect from the Defence case. We have to

20 plan well in advance a lot of things, that means, whether during the

21 recess we expect anything from the parties or not or that we wait until

22 after the recess and then make new schedules. But one of the elements in

23 it would also be how many witnesses, approximately, I am not asking for a

24 final figure, we could expect and how much time in view of the Defence

25 the examination of these witnesses approximately would take, and how to

1 measure that time needed to examine these witnesses.

2 We will discuss this perhaps in relation with the other questions,

3 the questions about if the Defence would intend to file a motion to

4 dismiss at what date it should be done, when an answer should be -- when

5 the Prosecution should respond. So would you please prepare for, even if

6 it would be a very short exchange of views, on these matters and give us

7 at least some impression of what we can expect from the parties. And then

8 certainly we will give you an impression of what we expect from you.

9 Then we will adjourn, if there is nothing else on the agenda, for

10 a bit longer period than usual, until next Monday, 9.00 same courtroom.

11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

12 1.46 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,

13 the 15th, day of July, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25