1 Wednesday, 26 February 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone. Madam Registrar, would you
6 please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus
8 Stanislav Galic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much, Madam Registrar.
10 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I was informed that you would like to address
11 the Chamber for less than a minute. Please proceed.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. Good morning. The
13 reason why we want to intervene this morning is the following, it is of a
14 public character, it's to do with the agenda organisation, it is
15 absolutely necessary for the Defence to know how the organisation of the
16 schedule will continue so that we can present our case until its very end.
17 I think it is the right of the Defence to know whether, yes or no, the
18 Prosecution is going to continue with the rebuttal or not and to give us
19 clear answers because all of us, I believe, should be able to organise
20 ourselves and in order to do this, we have to know what's happening and I
21 think the time has come now for the Prosecution to stop not giving us
22 information and to speak up openly about this. Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Would you like to respond, Mr. Stamp.
24 MR. STAMP: No, Mr. President, I think the Rules cover the issue
25 of the rebuttal case and we'll comply with the Rules.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. STAMP: And the directions of the Court.
3 JUDGE ORIE: We will consider the matter during a meeting in
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: During a meeting in Chambers, there has been some
7 discussion as to what information should be given. The Prosecution has
8 taken the view that at the end of the presentation of the Defence case,
9 that they would have to announce or whether they would like to present any
10 evidence in rebuttal and they also have indicated that perhaps and they at
11 that time mentioned one issue that they perhaps might be willing to give
12 some information prior to that very moment. The Chamber has considered
13 the matter and as it stands now, it could be expected that at least a
14 couple of days will be needed for the Prosecution, if they apply for leave
15 to present rebuttal evidence would be needed and then the same would be
16 true for the Defence so that some time will be given to prepare for that
17 but that would be not more than just a couple of days, certainly not more
18 than three, four, five days.
19 As far as -- I do understand that the Defence takes the view that
20 the Prosecution is under an obligation now to announce what subjects they
21 would like to cover during their rebuttal evidence; is that a correct
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Not only that, but simply if,
24 yes or no, the Prosecution wishes to do this. If I am allowing myself to
25 make this intervention it's for a simple reason is that the counsel of the
1 Defence, as well as the Prosecution counsel, are all independent people
2 and they have their obligations outside of this courtroom. Personally, I
3 have been asked to assent to the post of presidency in Switzerland and may
4 I know whether the time will allow me to accept such a function or not and
5 I think that here, law should be applied but also its a question of
6 elementary courtesy as well as professional one, thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I listened to the English channel
8 and so therefore it's not clear from the transcript, perhaps you could
9 repeat it what you have been asked to do in Switzerland.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, I have been asked to
11 assent to a Presidency, Mr. President, and I have to know whether I will
12 have time to devote myself to such and such a case or will be here for a
13 number of weeks. Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As far as the -- as we can see now, after the
15 Defence has finished the presentation of its case, it's in -- if the
16 Prosecution wants to present rebuttal evidence, and I think it's clear
17 that some rebuttal evidence in any case will be short to be presented,
18 that would mean presumably that we would have a break of a couple of days
19 then rebuttal evidence will be presented, then we might have another break
20 of a couple of days in order to give the Defence an opportunity to
21 indicate whether they want to present any further evidence but apart from
22 two times a break of anything between three and five days, I think we
23 could not expect to be out of this court for any longer and that would, as
24 far as we can see it now, but of course a lot also depends on the parties
25 and the speed they develop when examining witnesses, when presenting
1 evidence, that I would say somewhere late March would be the final
2 conclusion of the trial and I have then not yet included -- or perhaps --
3 but perhaps we -- it's better to sit together with the legal officer who
4 is specifically at this moment that's Ms. Tournaye who is specifically
5 dealing with scheduling the time we have given it quite some thought but
6 as far as I can see, there will be only two times perhaps of a couple of
7 days that we are not sitting in court up, up to five days.
8 So if the parties would meet with Ms. Tournaye then they can get
9 better information as to what the Chamber expects to happen but the course
10 it's not the Chamber but it's mainly the parties who are -- I wouldn't say
11 in control but are decisive factors in what will happen.
12 Yes, Mr. Ierace.
13 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. On a related issue,
14 perhaps, is what time, if any, will be permitted the parties between the
15 close of evidence and the filing of the closing briefs and the making of
16 the final submissions.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. IERACE: It would be helpful to the Prosecution at the least
19 to have some indication of what time the Trial Chamber is contemplating,
20 what period of time in that regard. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It will be relatively short because a lot can
22 be prepared already prior to that very moment and -- but also that we do
23 not know what the parties exactly would like to have -- how much time they
24 would need, how much time they would claim to prepare for that, but
25 perhaps this would be very good to deal with in a meeting with Ms.
1 Tournaye and then of course finally the Chamber will decide. Yes.
2 If there's nothing else at this moment to be dealt with urgently,
3 I'd like to ask Mr. Usher to escort the witness into the courtroom.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Dr. Vilicic.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning. Good morning.
7 JUDGE ORIE: May I remind you that you are still bound by the
8 solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.
9 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I understand that you will resume the
10 examination of the witness. Please proceed.
11 WITNESS: JANKO VILICIC
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you.
14 Examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
15 Q. Good morning, Professor?
16 A. Good morning.
17 Q. Before we talk about the Markale incident, I'd like to go back to
18 some of the answers that you gave yesterday at the time of your
19 examination yesterday. Yesterday, you said that when a primary charge was
20 fired, in effect it is always -- the weapon was always charged with what
21 we call the primary as well as the one increment charge; do you remember
23 A. No, no, I couldn't have said that. I didn't say that. In fact,
24 the fuse is part of the shell. The only thing that can be done on the
25 fuse before the firing is it can be set to a time delay, if that is
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 possible, if this is this type of the time-delay fuse. If you have the
2 kind of fuse which can either be an instant-contact fuse or a time-delay
3 fuse, the primary charge is in the stabiliser of the mine and the
4 increment, first increment charge is supposed to go around the body of the
5 stabiliser of the shell. And such a shell is then dropped down the barrel
6 in an 82 millimetre mortar and then when the shell hits the firing pin,
7 then the mortar is fired. There is a mechanism for firing so after the
8 shell is dropped, you can then do another mechanism and then you can fire
10 Q. Thank you. Professor, what you said yesterday on the transcript
11 that I'm quoting now, is the following, and this is where I would like
12 some clarification, page 20.179 -- no, I'm sorry -- 20.179. Yesterday you
13 said the following, and I'm going to quote now, line 4, [In English] "For
14 120 millimetre shell we have to use the primary plus one additional
15 charge." [Interpretation] I don't know this is what you wanted to express
16 yesterday, Professor, or whether you wanted to say that when it's a
17 primary with one additional charge, that you are saying something that
18 could be linked to another technical point. Could you please give us some
19 clarifications? Thank you.
20 A. As we know, a problem in interpretation, basic charge is the
21 primary charge and the additional charge is the additional charge which is
22 around the body of the stabiliser. You can have six increment charges,
23 one to six depending how many are placed before the mortar is fired.
24 Q. Thank you, Professor. I'm going to come back to the transcript
25 now. So is it possible, and I'm here speaking about all types of mortars,
1 also the small mortar which is 60 or 62 millimetre calibre, and 82
2 millimetre calibre, 120 or even 81 millimetre calibre that we have
3 occasionally, for these mortars, is it possible for them to be fired only
4 with the primary charge, the basic charge? Yes or no?
5 A. I have to correct something. There is no 62 millimetre calibre
6 mortar, there is 50, 60, 81 or 82, 120 and even a higher 140, 160 that are
7 rare. Another thing, from all the mortars apart from the 120 millimetre
8 mortar, it is possible to fire only with a primary charge, with a basic
9 charge. In 120 millimetre calibre mortar, the basic charge, the primary
10 charge does not make it possible to have sufficient speed to arm the fuse
11 and that's why it is necessary to have the primary plus one or the first
12 increment. In this case, the increment, the first increment is only used
13 to arm, to fire.
14 Q. Perfect. Thank you, Professor.
15 Then on page 30, I'm referring to the references from yesterday,
16 the pagination of yesterday, you mentioned that it was perfectly possible
17 to use a mortar to destroy troops and material like facilities that you
18 mentioned for instance shelters, basements and so on. And you also
19 mentioned a machine-gun nest as being one theoretical potential target
20 perfectly compatible with the use of mortars. My question is the
21 following: On this level, is there a difference between a machine-gun
22 nest, whether it is high or on the ground level, and a sniper nest, if we
23 can use this term?
24 A. I said that for machine-gun nest destruction, this is primarily to
25 do with machine-gun nests that are located in bunkers on ground levels so
1 more or less this is semi-open or open machine-gun nest, it's a
2 machine-gun nest which is covered with timber, wood, and soil or with some
3 other protective material. A mortar cannot be used to target a
4 machine-gun nest if it is in a building.
5 Q. Very well. Professor, if now I have the following situation, this
6 is a hypothetical question: A roof which would allow, either because it's
7 open or because it's flat, to place a machine-gun nest on the top of the
8 building, that is on the roof. In this hypothesis, could a mortar be
9 something that could be used to reduce this, to eliminate this firing
10 point, in fact, yes, to eliminate it? Yes or no, is it possible?
11 A. Yes, if the machine-gun nest is located on the roof, and even if
12 it's on the roof which is covered with tiles, roof tiles, the fact is that
13 the mortar can go through the roof or if it's a flat roof as most tall
14 buildings have flat roofs then you have use the mortar and you have can
15 have the desired effect.
16 Q. Thank you. Would it be feasible to attempt, and this is a purely
17 theoretical question, to attempt to attack these surfaces either the
18 higher storeys or these roofs that would have been covered by using
19 mortars in order to try to cause damage to the lower floors by shelling
20 the roof, would one damage the lower storeys? Would this method of
21 attrition be feasible?
22 A. Well, only -- it depends on the construction of the building. If
23 you used 120 millimetre shell which had delayed action, it could penetrate
24 the roof providing it did that, the shell would penetrate down below and
25 it would cause damage, but given the way shells are usually -- mortars are
1 usually used -- well, there are other means that could be used to
2 accomplish such a task. Hand-held anti-mortar devices are far more
3 efficient, they penetrate far more walls. Usually up to about 1 metre
4 they have an effect and more or less destroy everything that is in the
5 area that they hit.
6 Q. I'd like to return to this matter. I think that you spoke about
7 arms, weapons that could be used by just one man. I think you mentioned
8 hand-held grenades, could you provide us with some more information about
9 this kind of weapon, Professor?
10 A. Yes, yes, I can, since I worked on the development of such
11 devices, I tested them, I have quite a lot of experience. These weapons
12 are used for combatting anti-armour vehicles, among the weapons of the
13 JNA. There are two types of such anti-armour weapons, those the old RBN
14 57 hand-held launcher and then for -- there was a rocket weapon with a
15 cumulative warhead, a Zolja, a hand-held rocket launcher and we also had
16 an anti-armour weapon with a retractive projectile. It was called an
17 Osa. They could penetrate armour that was 300 millimetres thick and the
18 primary purpose was to destroy armoured devices. They could also target
19 bunkers which had walls which were up to 1 metre thick.
20 Q. Professor, I'll stop you there. You're not the first to do this,
21 but please try to slow down a bit for the sake of comprehension. For
22 example, you mentioned a Zolja and then apparently something else but it
23 wasn't caught by the court reporters. Could you tell us what the second
24 device was?
25 A. It's also an anti-armour weapon, the calibre of this weapon is 90
1 millimetres for multiple use. It's a launcher.
2 Q. What's its name?
3 A. Osa, O-s-a.
4 Q. And was there something else before you mentioned the Osa?
5 A. A Zolja, z-o-l-j-a. A Zolja and an Osa.
6 Q. It's very clear now, thank you.
7 A. Zolja is a 73 millimetre weapon.
8 Q. Thank you. Professor, do you know and do you have any information
9 about this? Do you know whether these two weapons that you have mentioned
10 were weapons that were generally part of the former JNA arsenal and did
11 they have such weapons in their store houses?
12 A. Yes. These weapons were built and produced in the former
14 Q. Thank you.
15 A. And we produced large amounts of these weapons especially of
17 Q. Thank you. Professor, since you were involved in the design and
18 the production, I think, of these weapons, do you know whether these
19 weapons could also have been intended for what we call the Territorial
20 Defence arsenals?
21 A. I have to correct you, teams involved in constructing weapons, so
22 you shouldn't think that I was the person who constructed it. I know the
23 names of the main constructers, the leaders of the teams, I can mention
24 them: Mr. Lazarevic was involved in the Zolja; Mr. Jovanovic was involved
25 with the Osas. They are the main constructers, but teams were involved in
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 the production process. These weapons and especially the Zolja, which
2 were -- and large amounts of these weapons were produced, especially the
3 Zolja, they were part of the main infantry units, part of their weapons
4 and they were intended for the use of the Territorial Defence. So they
5 were in warehouses where they kept weapons for Territorial Defence units.
6 Q. Thank you, Professor. I'm certain I have no doubts that such
7 efforts are team efforts, but thank you for drawing our attention to this
8 fact. But since you have had experience in teams and you know for whom
9 these weapons were intended within Yugoslavia, I would like you to tell
10 us, very briefly, because perhaps you have knowledge about this too, how
11 were the warehouses organised, that is to say, the arsenals of the
12 Territorial Defence? If you don't know anything about this, I'll move on
13 to a different subject.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp.
15 THE INTERPRETER:
16 JUDGE ORIE: Microphone, please, Mr. Stamp. The translators
17 cannot translate your words unless the --
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. Piletta-Zanin, as I have
19 withdrawn my question and in any case, the Prosecution has been reduced to
20 silence, there are no more problems.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The question has been withdrawn as far as I
22 understand, Mr. Stamp.
23 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 Q. Witness, yesterday it was on page 35 you told us that the
1 precision of a shot could be affected by certain factors, namely the age
2 of the ammunition used and the loss of weight, if I have understood this
3 correctly. The loss of weight is problematic for me.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. STAMP: Perhaps we could be reminded of the part of the
6 transcript where --
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I said it was on page 35, but
8 obviously I don't have the page today. It's page 35, sir.
9 Q. Did you mention a problem that had to do with weight, Professor,
10 do you remember this?
11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the witness, please.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Vilicic, we seem to have microphone problems at
13 this very moment. When the red light is on, the microphone is on. You
14 may answer the question.
15 A. Well, if that's how it was translated, that was an error. I
16 didn't say anything like that. I said that dispersal is the result of a
17 change in the powder charge. When the powder becomes old, it loses some
18 of its characteristics so the speed at which it burns is changed. I won't
19 go into all the details because of this, the pressure diminishes and the
20 initial speed of the projectile changes and I said that a result of
21 dispersal and it had to do with --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat that part of the
24 JUDGE ORIE: May I stop you? The translators could not catch all
25 of your answers and meanwhile, I could inform the parties that on my
1 LiveNote it seems that we are talking about the testimony which appears on
2 page 20.186 on from line 13 where the witness said something about the
3 year of manufacture, the year of the charge being filled and the outside
4 temperature, that's where I take it you were referring to,
5 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
6 MR. STAMP: With respect to fragmentation, not the position of
7 shot which is the question Mr. Piletta-Zanin led the witness with.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but if I'm wrong, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, that's
9 where I find the word gunpowder and where the year of manufacture seems to
10 be of importance. It seems to relate, rather, to the explosive --
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, it's possible that I
12 noted something last night but the Professor has provided elements of his
13 answer that interest us.
14 Q. My question is as follows: I'm talking about the shot now
15 Professor, apart from the factors that you mentioned, the factors that you
16 mentioned, are there any other factors that might influence the quality of
17 a shot and I'm referring to the precision of a shot, other factors that
18 would be exterior to the ammunition itself, if you know anything about
19 this, which factors would they be?
20 A. Yesterday I mentioned what the internal factors were, as you
21 called them, factors which influence precision. They have to do with the
22 projectile, the weapon, the sites, the system itself. We call that the
23 weapons system. Precision, is in fact dispersion, not fragmentation, it
24 has to do with the dispersion of the projectile and this is a function of
25 a system deviation. I've already mentioned this, but the precision is
1 influenced by how well the distance of the target is determined. If the
2 distance is not set correctly, then the wrong information is used, and
3 apart from the factors that I have mentioned, the system factors, the
4 target man or the commander who is in charge of the weapon can introduce
5 an external error, as you called it. So it can go too far or not far
6 enough not just because of a system deviation but because of the mistakes
7 introduced by the commander or the person targeting.
8 Q. Yesterday, you told us that the shot could go very high and would
9 then obviously fall. In the course of its trajectory, can the projectile
10 encounter various weather conditions that might also cause deviations of
11 the order that you have mentioned?
12 A. Yes. Yesterday, I mentioned weather conditions, so-called
13 ballistics weather conditions and if you are not familiar with them, this
14 can result in serious errors especially with mortars because mortar shells
15 have curved trajectories. The projectile goes very high and this happens
16 especially in conditions where you have so-called inversion. In the upper
17 echelons, you have wind and in such cases, the range can be extended or
18 shortened for the values by the values that have been given in the firing
19 tables. They can be a fire deviation which amounts to ten seconds, et
21 Q. Thank you. Professor, yesterday, you showed us a table, we
22 mentioned the existence of a table where you said in percentages what the
23 chance of success or failure was in order to hit a target and this
24 depended on the number of charges and the distance desired and the type of
25 calibre used, the percentages such as 25 per cent, et cetera. My question
1 now is as follows: These margins of error, if we should translate them
2 not into percentages but into metres, what would that correspond to on the
3 basis of your experience; that is to say, would the margin of error be
4 about 10 metres or perhaps far more or far less?
5 A. The deviation, the distance deviation has to do with the
6 dispersion and it's given in the firing tables. That magnitude depends on
7 the range for one weapon system. The distance, the dispersion in distance
8 increases when the range is greater. In the firing table for mortars you
9 can see that it goes up to about 50 metres, that is one possible
10 dispersion, and the statistical range in which you can find the greatest
11 number of projectiles fired out in a series is four, five, VDs. So at a
12 range of 6.000 metres, 120 millimetre mortar they can fall within a range
13 of 200 and 250 metres, four to five VDs in the distance.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please explain exactly what you mean by
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A VD is the possible margin of error
17 which is determined for each system, for each projectile system.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Professor, I'm afraid that I have to ask you to be a little
20 clearer, for me at least. Let's imagine we have a target, a target A, and
21 that I want to hit it with a mortar shell. Let's say that it's at a
22 fairly great distance, what is the margin of error, the theoretical margin
23 of error? Perhaps it's an abstract notion, but theoretically speaking, if
24 we have optimal conditions, what would the margin of error be and in terms
25 of the radius?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. It's difficult for me to explain this to you because we'd have to
2 make an assumption. When carrying out a statistical analysis, it's a
3 well-known fact that a series of events does not always appear in the same
4 manner. A series of events, the mean value of deviation is called a
5 standard deviation and 67 per cent of that standard deviation is called a
6 possible error.
7 Normally, 50 per cent of that dispersion, 50 per cent from that
8 dispersion one could expect this to be a good shot, so plus or minus 50
9 per cent, that's 50 per cent of total dispersion. The dispersion picture
10 in terms of percentages is between 25, 25 per cent. This is a statistical
11 representation, in this case we're talking about dispersion. So if you
12 fired 100 shells, 50 per cent of the shells would be in the zone plus or
13 minus 25, plus or minus one VD, and the other 50 per cent would be the
14 remaining six VD. So if we take six VD, we'll find 50 per cent and in the
15 other areas, we'll find, as we're going towards the extremity of that
16 zone, we'll find fewer and fewer shots. I hope that I have managed to
17 explain this to a certain extent.
18 So for example, if you are firing at 2.000 metres with 100 shells,
19 in two VDs, according to statistics, and if the VD is accurately
20 determined in the firing tables, you'd have 50 per cent of the shells, and
21 outside of that zone, above or below that value, that is where you would
22 find the other shells. So you could find shells in a range of four VDs
24 Q. Thank you. I just want to make sure that I have understood
25 something. I'm not sure that I've followed your explanation correctly
1 when you mentioned about the -- mentioned the six remaining VDs. Could
2 you just clarify this part of your testimony, the six remaining VDs in
3 relation to what?
4 A. If you divide the entire image into eight VDs, then the first two
5 VDs -- you'll find 50 per cent in the first two VDs and as we move
6 upwards, in each successive VD you will have a smaller number of shells.
7 We take these eight segments in the first -- in the central two you'll
8 find 50 and in the other six you'll find the other 50.
9 Q. It's clear. I would now like to focus on the so-called Markale
10 incident. My first question, could you briefly tell us what documents you
11 were provided with in order to carry out this analysis but, Mr. President,
12 I would like to know how much time we have remaining so that we can plan
14 JUDGE ORIE: You used a bit over three hours yesterday, as far as
15 my computing goes and we started -- you used today 35 minutes --
16 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
17 JUDGE ORIE: I made a mistake. Yesterday, you used three and a
18 half hours and today, you used 35 minutes, that would be a little bit over
19 four hours whereas you have five and a half hours. We'll be very strict
20 on that.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 Q. Professor, could you answer, please?
23 A. With the basic document to analyse and give an expert report on
24 the Markale case was the official report of the public security station in
25 Stari Grad and then also the report that was compiled by the expert
1 commission of the security services centre in Sarajevo entitled the
2 "Report on the Circumstances about the Markale Incident," and we also
3 used a number of other documents, material. Primarily we had the UNPROFOR
4 report about the Markale events and then we had some statements, for
5 instance, the John Brendan Hamill, and others off the top of my head, I
6 would have to look in my papers to check.
7 Q. Professor. Professor, let me stop you here. We'll come back to
8 that but this is because of time. Did you have the opportunity to view
9 the videotapes that are to do with the scene at the Markale market?
10 A. Yes, yes. We also had the opportunity of viewing that and we
11 analysed these videotapes in detail, particularly a videotape which is
12 very interesting to assess this event.
13 Q. Professor, did you see a videotape, and we'll probably view this
14 tape later on, but considering that we remember -- or we will ask you, do
15 you remember that tape with a group of UNPROFOR soldiers and they had a
16 French army insignia and they were handling an object in the ground, in
17 the soil where the stabiliser may have been? Do you remember that scene;
18 yes or no?
19 A. First of all, I have to remember -- yes, I do remember. It's not
20 a group of soldiers, you see just one person. On his right shoulder he's
21 got UNPROFOR insignia with a helmet. Next to him, I think you can see a
22 part of a face, and what's characteristic is the voice that can be heard
23 on the videotape. I think that the voice was rather odd.
24 Q. Thank you. Professor, do you remember, in particular, the soil,
25 the view of the soil as it appears on this tape; yes or no?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 A. On the tape, we could not see the projectile and then you can see
4 that with a knife, there's a digging action going on, rubble is around.
5 Q. Our time is counted, Professor. Did you see at a certain point
6 this image with the projectile being -- after it's been cleared, do you
7 see the form of the projectile in the soil?
8 A. After the rubble was taken off, it was cleared, then you can see
9 the stabiliser -- yes, it was sometime ago that I've seen it. I think we
10 should have a look at it again in order to be certain.
11 Q. We will. We will. But the following question: As far as your
12 memory, what was the nature of the soil on the scene of the incident in
14 A. The soil, the ground on Markale, it seemed to be stone because
15 there was small stones all over the place, and as far as I remember, when
16 I compare that with the photograph, it seemed that it was a concrete
17 cover, it seemed to have been concrete cover and that that hole was being
18 cleared of the stones which is absolutely impossible. It cannot be
19 accepted that a projectile had exploded there, that a mortar projectile
20 had exploded there and that it had remained in that hole, that is not
22 Q. Professor, can you please, as much as possible, answer the
23 questions. You told me about the documents, and my following question
24 is: How did you conduct your investigation and your analysis?
25 A. We conducted the investigation and the analysis in view of our
1 main task which was to establish what projectile was in question and from
2 which distance this projectile was fired. We studied the report about the
3 circumstances of the massacre at the Markale market and we found that
4 there were a number of omissions which would rule out certain results that
5 were given there.
6 First of all, one thing that is given there is that during the
7 analysis of the angle of firing, the stabiliser was not on the scene of
8 the incident, the stabiliser had been taken out. And by placing the
9 stabiliser again in the hole, what was established is that the angle of
10 descent, I think, was established being 55 to 60 per cent, I believe, 60
11 degrees, I believe. That is unacceptable. That is unacceptable for
12 ascertaining the angle of descent because after the stabiliser is taken
13 out, the error can be so great that it rules out the possibility that it
14 is on the basis of that that we can draw a conclusion.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 A. If I may continue, first of all we ruled out this conclusion and
17 it was -- we did not continue with this method. We wouldn't accept this
18 value as a basis for our investigation, although we did mention this angle
19 of descent, 55 to 60 degrees.
20 Q. Thank you. Professor, now let us look at the theoretical issue of
21 projectiles that were allegedly used. What did you -- what did you rule
22 out? What did you establish? What can you tell us about it in terms of
23 investigation and examination of hypothetical projectile that would have
24 hit Markale? I'm talking about a projectile.
25 A. All the calculations that we did as well as our long experience --
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Professor Stamatovic and I have worked for over 30 years, we worked on
2 investigating examining mortar systems. The first few years of my
3 engineer work I myself fired a large number of these projectiles and I
4 spent three months at -- in -- I spent three months in Bus at the
5 specialised school and such a result that was found there, we couldn't
6 corroborate it with any existing theory.
7 First of all, all of the calculations and the latest method coming
8 from the U.S. Sandia National Laboratory which works for the U.S. Army
9 showed that it was impossible for the stabiliser of a mortar shell, 120
10 millimetre calibre of our performances, that is, of our drop velocities
11 would penetrate so deeply into such a material which was given by being as
12 Mr. Zecevic here as they said it was tarmac, that it was macadam. So we
13 concluded on the basis of those calculations that that depth of
14 penetration was impossible.
15 Our starting point was to analyse the effectiveness of 120
16 millimetre mortar projectile. Our calculation for its effectiveness, what
17 we took as a given was that the -- at the space of Markale, we presumed
18 there were 1.500 people, that there were -- on the square metre turned
19 toward the --
20 Q. I'm going to stop you here, Professor. I'm going to have to stop
21 you here. We will look at this issue a little later. We will now remain
22 on the issue of the possibility or no possibility that the projectile, and
23 whether this projectile could have its stabiliser penetrate into the soil.
24 Now, on the basis of your calculations yesterday, you spoke to us about
25 the Berezansky formula or the Berezin formula to be more precise and you
1 said which one was the most favorable.
2 Now, could you please clarify this and give us a precision just so
3 there's no misunderstanding. It was -- was it stricter in terms of the
4 defence scenario that we know or was it -- was it giving it more latitude?
5 Do you understand what I mean?
6 A. What I said was that we took the Berezin's formula because it gave
7 the least favorable results from the Defence's aspect because it -- more
8 favorable results in respect of these results given in the reports of the
10 Q. Professor, to be very specific, to be very specific, if you
11 were -- had based yourself on other formula that you mentioned, your
12 conclusions would have been even more categorical; is this how we should
13 understand this less favorable term that you used? Yes or no?
14 A. If you recall that during the testimony of the expert Zecevic,
15 what was mentioned was the Sutterlin method, among others.
16 Q. Professor, I'm going to have to -- I have to interrupt you. Time
17 is very short. Could you please answer briefly, please?
18 A. If we had based our calculation only on contemporary methods used
19 in France, which is the method used by General Sutterlin, then we would
20 have been even more categorical in saying that it was impossible on such a
21 soil to have such a penetration of a stabiliser under the angle that is
22 given, 55 or 60 degrees. Some greater results would be given with a
23 larger angle of descent, 86 degrees.
24 JUDGE ORIE: May I just ask you, you are moving to your next
25 subject. Could the witness please answer your question? Your question
1 was - and he compared it with some other systems used - the question was,
2 to be very specific: "If you had based yourself on other formula that you
3 mentioned, your conclusions would have been even more categorical," that's
4 the question. That is the same question I think as whether the Berezin's
5 formula would have been the, I would say, the most unfavorable for the
6 Defence. That's the same question, I think.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. Thank
10 you, Mr. President.
11 Q. Witness, on this subject, we have frequently heard here
12 testimonies in relation to a possible use of a -- the so-called time-delay
13 fuse. If, hypothetically speaking, such a fuse, a time-delay fuse had
14 been used on the Markale market, could the crater have appeared such as it
15 was photographed and filmed in the documents that you received?
16 A. No, no, it wouldn't appear like that. It would be a crater with a
17 distinct conical surfaces with a much larger opening. At the end of the
18 day you could have seen that in the appearance of the crater of Alipasino
19 Polje on the 4th of February in Dobrinja. You saw that there was a crater
20 when the projectile hit the ground. It was a large crater on such a soil,
21 it would be narrower, it would be conical. It wouldn't be like this as it
22 is on the ground, a hole where the stabilisers can barely fit in.
23 Q. Professor, do you rule out as an expert, and I would appreciate a
24 very brief answer, do you rule out in Markale the possibility penetration
25 of the stabiliser in the soil and with the time-delay fuse in view of the
1 crater that was found on the scene of the explosion?
2 A. I do rule it out. If the projectile is in question, it could have
3 only exploded on the surface.
4 Q. Thank you. Can you please give us some information regarding
5 relative velocity to do with 120 millimetre shell. What can you tell us
6 in relation to this question, I'm speaking about the velocity of a rival
7 initial velocity, trajectory velocity, what can you tell us very briefly?
8 A. In the firing tables that were given in the report, the excerpt,
9 brief excerpt that was given in the report, you have the initial velocity
10 which is V0 and the drop velocity with VC, that's how it's denoted from
11 the first increment charge to the sixth increment charge.
12 Q. Professor, which table, which page?
13 A. In the English text we spoke about it yesterday on the pages where
14 you have the main characteristics of the projectile for the 120 millimetre
15 on page 5 of the expert analysis, you have the initial and the rival
16 velocity of 120 millimetre shell for the maximum and minimum ranges from
17 which you can see that the maximal drop velocity for a maximum range is
18 235 metres per second and for the higher range --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slow down.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please speak a bit slower especially when
21 it comes to technical terms. The translators need more time.
22 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
23 JUDGE ORIE: But I -- perhaps for the translators, I do understand
24 that you said --
25 THE WITNESS: I can repeat.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand you well that for the lower
2 trajectory, 235 would be the maximum drop speed and for the higher
3 trajectory you said it would be 248 metres per second.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here in the translation it says "255
5 millimetres." No, it's 255 metres per second and for the top charge would
6 be 248 metres per second. Again, it says millimetres.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
8 Q. It's clear, Professor. In relation to the quality of the surface
9 of the soil in Markale - that's the first question - did you go to the
10 Markale market?
11 A. The location in Sarajevo was visited by Professor Stamatovic, I
12 did not go personally, but in Markale is this site where the projectile
13 had fallen and the situation has completely changed since so it's
14 impossible to establish what is now truly the quality of the surface.
15 Q. Indeed. Thank you. In relation in the surface to the soil that
16 we can imagine that it was in relation to the photos and the video that
17 you had the opportunity of viewing, what would be the necessary velocity
18 for a hypothetical projectile of 120 millimetres to ensure its penetration
19 into the soil in the manner that we've examined it, that is, as deeply as
20 we have seen it in the surface? In other terms, this velocity, would it
21 have been possible to achieve for 120 millimetre calibre shell no matter
22 what the distance is?
23 A. Yesterday, I showed you for the drop angle of 55 degrees and I
24 provided this firing table to be copied and this related to macadam. I
25 said that in order to penetrate the depth of 20 centimetres, for the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 stabiliser to penetrate to such a depth, it was necessary for the
2 remaining velocity of the stabiliser after the pressure exerted on it
3 caused by the explosion, I said it should be 127 metres in a second and
4 this was in relation to a macadam surface, but if we are talking about a
5 concrete surface then it would have to be of the order of about 600
6 metres. In other words, those drop velocities not such that a 120
7 millimetre shell can have.
8 Q. Thank you. Witness, in relation to what we viewed yesterday,
9 could you tell us --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please ask the witness to indicate on the
11 table he gave that he was just referring to where we find --
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That was going to be my
13 question, Mr. President.
14 Q. Witness, you spoke about firing tables yesterday. Could you show
15 us this table but could you also show us whether there is a table, I think
16 it's that one there, Professor, Professor -- Professor, can you hear me?
17 Very well. Please, concentrate on my question. I don't only want you to
18 show us in the tables, but can you tell us where there is a table where
19 one can read about these issues in relation to various surfaces? For
20 example, an asphalt layer and then an earth layer or a more compact layer,
21 this is what we are particularly interested in. These documents can now
22 be placed on the ELMO.
23 A. Yesterday, I showed this and I provided these tables for copying.
24 It was a table in which the ground was either pure concrete or just a
25 macadam surface. These tables which I also provided yesterday for you to
1 copy, I hope you have it here, this table was compiled on the basis of the
2 Berezin formula and the assumption made was that there was a 2 centimetre
3 layer of concrete; in other words, that the macadam was connected with
4 cement in the layer in order to obtain a firmer, a solid surface on which
5 asphalt could be placed.
6 In such a case, if the projectile falls at an angle of 55.6
7 degrees, and penetrates 2 centimetres of concrete, the velocity of the
8 stabiliser has to be 44 metres. So if the drop velocity is 235 and if the
9 rebound velocity is 144, the ejection velocity, then the difference in the
10 velocity is the difference -- the stabiliser hits the concrete it
11 penetrates the concrete layer of 2 centimetres and its velocity is reduced
12 by 44 metres.
13 The remaining velocity, so the difference between the velocity of
14 44 metres, it depends on whether it was -- whether it was fired with a six
15 increment, one is left with the velocity of 81 metres.
16 If you then use 44 metres then all you are left with in order to
17 penetrate further is the number of 37 metres on a macadam surface. So at
18 a velocity of 37 metres you can only penetrate a macadam surface to the
19 depths of ten centimetres, so if you take into consideration the 2
20 centimetres in the concrete and the 10 centimetres, the total depth has to
21 be less than 12 centimetres.
22 Q. Very well, Professor. In other words, these tables show, if I
23 have understood you correctly, these tables show that it's impossible to
24 penetrate to the depth that we are familiar with; is that correct or not?
25 A. That's correct, that's correct.
1 MR. STAMP: Asked and answered. I think my friend is attempting
2 to use a document, and if he's going to use a document, may I ask that
3 the -- this document which apparently has been created by the witness,
4 there are some parts here in the left, the furthest left column of the
5 document which if it is intended to be used in this Court, the counsel
6 ought to have the witness to explain each one.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, is this an
8 objection or what is at stake?
9 JUDGE ORIE: It's a request for the Defence to elicit from this
10 expert an explanation of what this table exactly says, especially as far
11 as the left column is concerned where we find A, KP times 1006 metres and
12 then DLP and VP. That's what you are asked for to elicit from this
13 witness for a better understanding of this table.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, gladly.
15 Q. Professor, very briefly please because we're running out of time,
16 what does all this mean?
17 A. Well, the designation A is the form, the coefficient of the
18 stabiliser form KP 10, 6 is the coefficient of the Berezansky formula for
19 concrete, when penetrating concrete; M is the stabiliser mass, 1.2
20 kilograms; D is the radius -- the diameter of the stabiliser body; KP is
21 the Berezansky coefficient for penetrating concrete; M is the stabiliser
22 mass, 1.2 kilos; D in metres, is the diameter of the stabiliser, it's 4
23 centimetres; LP is penetration depth from nil nil two metres, that is to
24 say, 2 centimetres; and VP is the necessary velocity according to the
25 Berezansky formerly in order for the projectile to penetrate -- I
1 apologise, for the stabiliser to penetrate concrete layer which is two
2 centimetres thick.
3 Q. Very well. That was clear, Professor, thank you. That was clear.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether it was that clear. You say KP
5 was the factor for concrete since we find different KPs for concrete,
6 clay, beat stone, et cetera, would it be the formula for the respective
7 material rather than for just concrete?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. And then I have one more --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] KP is the coefficient, the value of
11 which depends on the nature of the ground so it's nil 13 for concrete and
12 nil 45 for macadam.
13 JUDGE ORIE: When you say D is the diameter of the tail fin, is
14 that in -- stabiliser.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The stabiliser body.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Is that the surface, because I read somewhere else in
17 your report that you are, I think, talking about 4 square centimetres
18 rather than -- could we then please.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] D is the diameter of the stabiliser,
20 perhaps you saw for the energy of the impact that it was joules per square
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed and could I --
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President, but
24 given the time, I think that we're going to have a break now. I just want
25 to make a comment, since there were certain interventions and questions
1 that were put, I would just like to know how much time we have. I think
2 it's about an hour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... very
4 exceptional, my computing was to be preferred above the computing of Madam
5 Registrar. You would have one hour and 24 minutes left after the break.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And perhaps it could help if we would have the
8 stabiliser fin nearby after the break.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, I was going to do that.
10 JUDGE ORIE: We will adjourn.
11 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 11:08 a.m.
13 MR. STAMP: If I may briefly mention two matters before we
14 proceed. The first, Mr. President, is that there was a document which the
15 witness was referring to yesterday, a photograph, a document not in
16 evidence, I think the Court had asked to see the originals that we have.
17 JUDGE ORIE: At least that we know where it comes from and what
18 was the original.
19 MR. STAMP: Well, it is here.
20 JUDGE ORIE: We'll look at it at a later moment because we are
21 still in the tables at this very moment.
22 MR. STAMP: Secondly.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. STAMP: The Defence has brought with its expert to court a
25 document which ought to have been part of an expert report so that it
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 could have been examined before the expert testifies.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Is that the document you are now talking about, the
3 document on the ELMO.
4 MR. STAMP: The document on the ELMO, yes, indeed, and having
5 regard to certain matters, we may, hopefully not, but may apply that the
6 witness be asked to remain here just for a short period so that we could
7 complete our cross-examination.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that you reserve your right to
9 ask for more time for preparation for cross-examination.
10 MR. STAMP: Indeed, Mr. President. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: That's understood.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] With regard to this issue,
15 because the Prosecution has raised the matter, we don't have any images of
16 the same quality that the Prosecution has. I saw that the Prosecution has
17 seven of them, perhaps it would be useful, according to the time that we
18 still have, to work on the basis of what the Prosecution has to place it
19 on the ELMO and to put a few questions to the witness. It has to do with
20 the positions on the map in the photograph, et cetera.
21 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... could perhaps
22 the original be provided to the Registry so at a suitable time that we
23 will have a look at it and that the Defence can also have access to it in
24 its best quality. Yes.
25 We'll then -- Mr. Usher, would you please escort Dr. Vilicic into
1 the courtroom again.
2 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Witness, following your explanations, and it's now clear to
5 everyone, I would like you to focus on the conclusions of your colleague,
6 Mr. Brko Zecevic?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the Chamber has some question as
8 to the table which is on the ELMO. Perhaps put it right now to the expert
9 witness otherwise --
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Willingly, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Dr. Vilicic, yesterday, you gave a copy already
12 to the Chamber of a table concerning the impact velocity on the stabiliser
13 of a mortar shell of 120 millimetres for penetration in various targets,
14 angle of descent 55.6. It is a document which bears at the top right
15 corner the number 5.5. Today, with the same number in the top corner,
16 it's not visible on the ELMO, you provided us with a document which has
17 adapted in -- has been adapted in some respect because it's -- because it
18 now has as text added, concrete 2 centimetres over other materials, yes?
19 When I compare these two documents, I see the following, I see
20 that if we concentrate on the -- but let me first ask you a question: Is
21 the whole table now about penetration in the material as indicated with a
22 top layer of 2 centimetres of concrete?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The main difference between this --
24 these tables on the screen now and the tables that I provided you with
25 yesterday, consists in the fact that in the table provided yesterday, the
1 LP, the penetration depth in the first column, if we take concrete into
3 JUDGE ORIE: May I stop you? My question was whether the whole
4 table now refers to the material indicated in the different columns and a
5 top layer of 2 centimetres of concrete.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These tables were made in order to
7 make it possible to make comparisons. If the concrete layer is 2
8 centimetres thick --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Vilicic, I'm asking you a very simple question,
10 whether the whole of the table now deals with the material indicated in
11 the column with a surface layer of 2 centimetres concrete or that it does
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Is my understanding correct that the first row of, I
15 would say, one, two, three, four, five, six lines, so up until the first
16 velocity P is just a 2 centimetre concrete layer?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the first row, yes, the velocity
18 is 44 metres in the first column.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now I take you to the -- I take you to the
20 penultimate last column, that is ground stone, could you please point at
21 it, where it says ground stone.
22 THE WITNESS: Ground stone.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please point to it on the -- yes. There,
24 you are -- the depth you are referring to is 2 centimetres, that is 0.02
25 metres; is that correct?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Now, could you please tell us what material you had
3 in mind for these 2 centimetres?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Two centimetres, it's for ground
5 stone, for a stabiliser to penetrate 2 centimetres of ground stone, it
6 needs to have a velocity of 11.4 metres.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you would say that for 2 centimetres of
8 concrete, you would need a velocity of 44 metres per second to penetrate.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, this table does not directly answer what
11 speed you would need for -- what velocity you would need to penetrate
12 first through 2 centimetres of concrete and then to another 16 or 18
13 centimetres of ground stone; is that correct?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it doesn't provide direct
15 information, but if you use these factors together you can come to the
16 total depth, you can arrive at the total depth.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So what you would need to know what velocity is
18 required to penetrate through 2 centimetres of concrete, you'd have to
19 take the 44 metres per second and then you would have to add the -- for
20 every additional centimetre of ground stone the coefficient needed for
21 ground stone as you gave it yesterday, on the previous document, where I
22 see there's a linear function in the beat stone column saying that for 5
23 centimetres you would need 31.8, for 10 centimetres you would need 63.6,
24 for 15 centimetres, you would need 95.3. So that means, for example, to
25 come to 18 centimetres in your new assumption, that would need the 44 of
1 the table of today for 2 centimetres of concrete, and then a little bit
2 over --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 95.3 in order for one to reach the
4 depth of 17 centimetres.
5 JUDGE ORIE: For 17 centimetres, yes, and for each additional
6 centimetre we would need to add approximately 6.4, 6.5 or 3.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Metres.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now at least it is clear what this new table
9 tells and what it does not tell us and what homework we have to do to come
10 to the velocity required for penetrating through 2 centimetres of concrete
11 and additional 16 centimetres of ground stone.
12 Thank you very much for your explanation.
13 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, there's
15 just one matter that should be specified because I think the Professor
16 said no in response to a question as to whether the entire table, as far
17 as concrete is concerned, related to a layer of 2 centimetres, he said no
18 and when I say the table itself --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It's clear to me. I don't
21 know whether it's clear to everyone. When I read the table with regard to
22 concrete I can see in red it says concrete 2 centimetres on other
23 materials, so it's stable for concrete, I think, but I don't know whether
24 what the Professor said a minute ago contradicts to a slight extent these
25 tables but if it's clear to everyone, it's clear.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's perfectly clear where in red text it
2 says concrete 2 centimetres over other materials, then the table as such
3 does not show the results for that situation because it is in the relevant
4 column, it's beat stone, 2 centimetres, beat stone, 10 centimetres, beat
5 stone and 15 centimetres and beat stone 20 centimetres, but by combining
6 the information from the first column, which deals with 2 centimetres of
7 concrete, together with the surface in the column on beat stone, you
8 finally can calculate what the velocity would be needed. So if that's
9 clear to everyone, please proceed.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 Q. Professor, we'll leave these tables for a minute as well as the
12 others and we want to turn to the conclusions of your colleague, Mr. Brko
13 Zecevic. My first question is: Did you analyse these conclusions; yes or
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Insofar as you have analysed them, what can you tell us with
17 regard to your own research and your own discoveries as an expert?
18 A. I have already said that -- I have already spoken of the drop
19 angle of 55 to 65 degrees which is mentioned in the plan on the
20 circumstances and causes of the massacre at the Markale market. And I
21 said that that value can't be accepted and one doesn't work in this way
22 because this was obtained on the basis of the stabiliser that was
23 subsequently -- that subsequently penetrated that opening and then the
24 stabiliser was probably moved, but as far as I can remember, the witness
25 Zecevic said that he even put a device over the wings and on the basis of
1 that, he determined the drop angle of the mine, of the shell. He used a
2 protractor to determine this, so the drop angle is not acceptable. And
3 furthermore, in Mr. Zecevic's testimony, several methods of calculating
4 were mentioned, I think that it was even said that with methods that were
5 over 150 years old, one obtained a result that it was possible for 60
6 metres for other velocities for the stabiliser to penetrate to a depth of
7 240 metres. To be precisely said, 200 to 240 millimetres.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, it's millimetres not
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Any other general comments?
12 A. Well, our conclusion was that in addition to the fact that the
13 professional -- the material processed was professionally processed, it's
14 not acceptable -- such a method is not acceptable given the drop angle,
15 it's not possible for the stabiliser to penetrate in a way it was
16 mentioned in the testimony. It was said that the 60 minus 10 metres was a
17 sufficient velocity for the stabiliser to penetrate to that depth.
18 Q. Thank you. Witness, with regard to this expert's testimony
19 concerning residual velocity after the shells's explosion, I'm talking the
20 residual velocity of the body of the stabiliser, what can you tell us
21 about the claims made by your colleague?
22 A. Well, they are theoretically not acceptable and practically this
23 has not been proven. Similarly for, if my memory serves me well, for
24 expert witness Higgs mentioned only two cases in his experience, which
25 extends over a 20-year period, in which there are several thousand shells
1 were fired, he only mentioned two cases in which the stabilisers
2 penetrated the ground to such a depth. He didn't say how deep they went.
3 He gave an example there was hard ground concerned, this was in Kenya and
4 in Germany. He mentioned a shell which fell on a macadam road but he
5 didn't provide any specific, any concrete information on the basis of
6 which it would be possible to examine the matter further. He didn't say
7 what charge was used, what distance was involved, he didn't mention the
8 angle at which the stabilisers were found, he didn't say whether they
9 penetrated completely or whether, as in the case of the Dobrinja incident,
10 when shells fell on hard ground, they remained at an angle, they got stuck
11 in the ground but they didn't penetrate.
12 In the -- on the macadam surface as shown on that tape, it appears
13 as if the stabiliser sunk into the macadam surface and that's totally
14 illogical because when it explodes, everything is dispersed around the
15 centre of the explosion. So even in the case of earth which is soft this
16 doesn't happen, let alone in the case of macadam.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. Mr. President, I
18 have one question in relation to the stabiliser. If I can just deal with
20 JUDGE ORIE: My question was about what the findings of
21 Dr. Zecevic on which the witness just commented were in order to see
22 whether we talk about the same. If that will be your subject as well,
23 please proceed if not I will like to ask a question.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, please do. Please. In
25 the meantime, if I can be given the stabiliser again then we could save
1 some time.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Vilicic, you said that, "It's not possible for
3 the stabiliser to penetrate in a way it was mentioned in the testimony.
4 It was said that the 60 minus 10 metres was a sufficient velocity for the
5 stabiliser to penetrate to that depth."
6 Is that your understanding of the testimony of Dr. Zecevic?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. He said that it was
8 enough for 60 --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please answer my questions and the next
10 question you're going to tell us what he said but I'd like you to read
11 what he has said, according to the transcript.
12 Dr. Zecevic said, and I'm referring to where he mentioned 60 and
13 10, he said the following: "The velocity of the shell at the time of
14 impact is very important --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. President slow down when reading.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. "... which means that if the velocity of the
17 shell is about 100 and then 60 or 70 metres per second, then the
18 stabiliser will fall near the point of explosion. If the speed of the
19 shell is 120, 130 metres per second, the stabilisers will fly backwards
20 and will be 10 metres or so away. If the velocity of the shell is 200 or
21 more metres per second, then the stabiliser will continue its trajectory
22 and become lodged in the ground. The disruptions are short. This happens
23 within the time frame of a microsecond."
24 You just commented on the testimony of Dr. Zecevic being it that
25 at a speed of 60 metre per second, the tail fin would be embedded in the
1 ground, whereas from what I just read as the testimony of
2 Professor Zecevic, it seems to me that what he tells us is that at 60
3 metres per second, the tail fin will not be embedded in the ground, and
4 that only at a speed of some 200 metres per second then the tail fin will
5 continue its trajectory and may be found embedded in the ground.
6 As far as I understand his testimony, and as far as I understand
7 your report which says that you would need the speed of over 154 metres
8 per second in order not to be pushed back, but either to be stopped or at
9 a higher velocity to continue its forward movement, I have some
10 difficulties in understanding in which way your report contradicts - I'm
11 just talking about this element - the testimony of Professor Zecevic.
12 Could you answer to the following questions, the first one is:
13 When you commented on the findings of Professor Zecevic, do you agree with
14 me that what you told us his findings were does not correspond with what I
15 just read to you as part of the transcript?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have the transcript
17 of Mr. Zecevic. What you have read correctly that it's in another place;
18 however, to the question that was asked, "Does 60 metre per second that
19 you talk about is the velocity of penetration?" I'm reading the
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. The velocity of 60 metres per second, is it relatively
23 small or not?
24 A. Relatively high, very high.
25 That is his testimony in relation to the penetration of the
1 stabiliser that 60 metres per second is a very high velocity of
2 penetration. What has been said before is correct. Mr. Zecevic took
3 70 -- no, 170 metre per second as velocity of ejection and 60 metre per
4 second added, that's 230 metre per second which is the maximum velocity
5 that a shell in the lower end of angles would penetrate the soil.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just first find the other quote you made.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have here on page 10.354.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you. My paging is not exactly the same
9 as you. Could you please from that part read two or three words so I can
10 find it in my computer?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The previous question was: [In
12 English] "Another, we were speaking witness of the speed of penetration."
13 Answer, "Yes."
14 JUDGE ORIE: I will search for the word penetration. Yes.
15 Isn't -- I think I've found it. I think the question was, "So
16 when you mentioned 60 metres per second, were you talking about the speed
17 of penetration? Is it a relatively slow velocity or otherwise?" And then
18 he said, "Relatively high."
19 What did you understand that Dr. Zecevic meant by speed of
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is the speed, the velocity of
22 the stabiliser, so what he believed is that the velocity of 60 metres per
23 second is high velocity for the penetration of stabiliser; however, the
24 highest velocity of stabliser penetration which can be achieved during a
25 firing on the upper end of angles, 62 degrees, is 71 metre per second. 94
1 metres a second if the ejection velocity is 154 metre per second which is
2 what we went by.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So 60 would be relatively high as remaining speed of
4 penetration after the tail fin has undergone the back-pushing effect of
5 the detonation; is that correct?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, under the condition that it is
7 not linked up or related to the soil that the projectile hit. If it is
8 related, the penetration of the stabiliser with the situation in Markale,
9 and it is said, then 60 metres per second is very high velocity. That is
10 what's not corresponding here, because the soil, the surface on Markale,
11 as you have seen, demands much higher velocity.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I am going to stop you here. Your interpretation,
13 therefore, is that when he answered the question whether this was a high
14 velocity of penetration, that he was specifically referring to the soil in
15 the Markale market and that he was not, in general terms, referring to an
16 impact and a penetration velocity that could be produced by a 120
17 millimetre mortar shell. You would say it was --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But generally speaking, 60 metres
19 per second is high velocity compared to zero velocity of stabiliser, but I
20 believe the way that Zecevic was speaking, was speaking in reference to
21 Markale situation. About the penetration of stabliser in Markale, 60
22 metres per second velocity of the stabiliser is not very high.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, in order to penetrate the Markale soil, you
24 would say?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time you said that the maximum impact
2 speed, penetration speed, well, let's say starting the penetration speed,
3 would be 70 metres per second, that is the maximum speed of the tail fin
4 upon landing minus the result of the back-pushing power of the detonation.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's not what I said. I don't
6 think the interpretation is correct. What I said was the maximum velocity
7 that the stabiliser can achieve after the ejection 154 metres, as we
8 calculate it, could be 94 metres. In the situation, if we take that the
9 ejection velocity 170 metres per second that the maximum would be 78
10 metres but the maximum impact velocity of a shell is 248 with a 66.2
11 degrees angle -- 86.2 degrees angle.
12 JUDGE ORIE: My recollection was not correct as far as the exact
13 number was concerned.
14 Well, did you also consider the part I just read to you when you
15 contradicted Dr. Zecevic's findings? Did you take that into consideration
16 as well?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. As I have already said in
18 testifying on the other cases, on the basis -- from the report in terms of
19 the specific case of Markale, in terms of the report of the Security
20 Services Centre about the circumstances, causes of the Markale massacre,
21 we studied carefully the testimonies of Professor Zecevic and of Mr.
22 Higgs, and it is on the basis of that that we concluded it was on the
23 basis of their analysis and their examination, we saw that our analysis
24 had no reason to carry out any correction. We had already conducted our
25 examination and our analysis. We waited for the testimonies to end, we
1 had the materials, and after my presence here and discussing these matters
2 with Professor Stamatovic in Vukasinovic, we decided that there was
3 practically no -- there was no fresh material, no new moments in terms of
4 our expert report and that we did not need to change anything, to make any
6 JUDGE ORIE: May I try to find where you do agree with Professor
7 Zecevic. As far as I understand that from your report, and from the
8 testimony of Professor Zecevic, that in order to penetrate into the soil,
9 a tail fin should overcome the back-pushing power of the detonation upon
10 impact, you calculated that you would need a speed of 154 metres per
11 second to compensate that back-pushing power, and that therefore, you
12 would need a velocity higher than 154 metres per second in order for the
13 tail fin even to start with penetrating the soil on which the shell
15 Is my understanding of where you agree with Professor Zecevic
16 correct apart from your further calculation of surfaces, et cetera, et
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, we agree except that our
19 velocity, 154 metres per second has been calculated for our 120 millimetre
20 shell which has been filled with TNT and this 154 figure is a difference
21 because of the difference of these values of velocity. He said 140 to 170
22 and we established our value of 154 exactly for the projectile in
23 question. That is for a shell of 120 millimetre calibre of Yugoslav
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the Chamber noticed that there are slight
1 differences in the exact data on 120 millimetre shells as far as
2 explosives in it and the mass concerned, but thank you for these answers.
3 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well.
5 Q. Witness, I'm going to try and summarise all this because I'm
6 afraid I've lost you a little. You spoke on pages 42 and 43 in answering
7 one of the questions of the Chamber that in order to begin penetrating the
8 surface of Markale, that it should be higher velocity, you spoke of higher
9 velocity. What is the relationship, if we can establish that of the
10 residual velocity, what is the relationship between the -- your conclusion
11 and the conclusion of expert Zecevic and what I mean is what is the --
12 mathematically speaking, mathematical relation?
13 A. I presume that in terms of mathematical relation what you mean is
14 the values of the velocity. Do you mean the degree of velocity or do you
15 mean the way that we have calculated this, the method of calculation?
16 Q. No, Professor, no. To put it more simply, you have probably found
17 some figures. For instance, is this 50 per cent higher or 200 per cent
18 higher? Is your difference 200 per cent? I'm speaking about the
19 difference between your conclusion about the residual velocity on impact
20 on blast, to be more precise, and the conclusion of expert Zecevic?
21 A. Yes, now I have understood you. Our conclusion that the
22 stabiliser of the 120 millimetre mortar shell that is fired from a mortar
23 with the highest possible degree of -- angle of descent could be --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat -- could the
25 witness stop?
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Could you please wait for the
2 English booth? For the English booth, could you please repeat.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction. Could the angle of
4 descent be repeated for the highest possible degree of angle of descent?
5 A. What I said was the stabiliser of the mortar 120 millimetre shell,
6 when the shell impacts with the highest possible angle of descent, 85
7 degrees, after the ejection, after the stabiliser is ejected, it could
8 have the maximum velocity of 94 metres a second. That is the velocity
9 that the stabiliser could continue to have and continue to penetrate the
10 surface, that is the soil. However, according to our calculation, if the
11 surface in question is concrete, because the SNL laboratory had calculated
12 the formula and the coefficients, for the calculation of the penetration
13 into the concrete, for the stabiliser to penetrate that deeply into the
14 concrete, it should have double that velocity of the projectile compared
15 to what a shell could normally have.
16 So 120 millimetre calibre shell couldn't possibly penetrate
17 into -- to that depth if we're talking about concrete. If we are speaking
18 about macadam, then it is also evident that this velocity of 94 metres per
19 second is not sufficient for stabiliser to go 250 millimetres deep as it
20 was quoted in the report.
21 Q. Thank you. To be specific, did I understand you correctly if I'm
22 trying to summarise by saying in the fastest hypothesis that you've
23 considered which would be the most vertical shot at that moment, I'm
24 hypothetically speaking, in relation to the surface that you have
25 considered for your hypothesis, you consider this impossible to penetrate
1 to such an extent for the stabiliser body to penetrate the surface. Is
2 this what your answer -- the essence of your answer is? Professor?
3 A. Yes, just a moment. Even when we're speaking of the highest
4 possible degree, angle, the initial highest -- highest initial angle and
5 the highest angle of descent, the penetration of the stabiliser is
6 possible, its maximum penetration happens when it's the largest angle of
7 descent. The highest impact velocity is with the maximum charge which is
8 increment six. The highest velocity descent and the angle velocity can
9 only be achieved when, according to the firing tables, the firing has been
10 carried out from a range of 1.600 metres distance from the impact site.
11 The minimum range is 1.168 metres.
12 Q. Professor, what is the firing table that you are referring to
13 currently and is it included in your expert report, if so, give us the
14 page and the number and if not, put it on the ELMO.
15 A. Yes, this is the table. I have a larger table, a more expanded
16 table but the basic table is on page 5. It is on page 5.
17 Q. In English version?
18 Meanwhile, Mr. President, and in relation to the questions I'm
19 going to ask about the stabiliser, I would like the Prosecution to have a
20 look at this item that I'm holding in my hands.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin is having the tail fin, I
22 understand, yes.
23 THE REGISTRAR: For the record that is Exhibit P3624.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Madam Registrar.
25 Q. Professor, you're telling us therefore that the table on page 5 of
1 the expert report in English and that this table confirms your testimony?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Thank you. Very briefly, just to clarify, where do we find here
4 the number of metres that you mentioned here, the figure? For instance, I
5 see 1.168 metres but could you please expand on that?
6 A. That is in the very last row of table 2 on page 5 of the English
7 text where it says "that for charge 0 plus 6, which is the sixth increment
8 of a mortar charge, that is the maximum charge, the fired shell has the
9 angle of descent of 76.2 degrees."
10 Q. Professor, so that we can follow you well and methodologically,
11 could we please put this on the ELMO so that we can follow you on the
12 screen, obviously with the leave of Mr. President?
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter correction, not 76.2 degrees but
14 86.2 degrees.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, table that we have in our
16 expert report.
17 Q. Professor, page 5. Thank you. Now, could you please indicate on
18 this table -- we are listening.
19 JUDGE ORIE: In order to save time, it's, for the Chamber,
20 perfectly clear what the expert witness said.
21 I do understand, Dr. Vilicic, that you're referring to the last
22 line of this table where it is indicated that with the zero plus six
23 charges fired at the highest angle possible, the speed of the descent
24 would be 248 metres per second which we find in VC on the bottom line of
25 this stable.
1 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Yes. Could you just tell me what omega plus six in that degree,
4 what does that refer to? You have a sort of sign which is an omega or a
5 five, perhaps. It's the fourth column under the heading"trajectory"?
6 A. Theta C, that is the drop angle, the angle at which the projectile
7 hits the ground, 86.2.
8 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... where the
9 glossary is given.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Witness, since we are speaking about the penetration of the
13 stabiliser, I would like it to be returned to me now. Have you had the
14 opportunity of seeing this object, of having it in your hands? Professor,
15 have you ever had this item in your hands; yes or no?
16 A. Yes, I've had this stabiliser in my hands. I've measured all its
17 main dimensions.
18 Q. When? When did you examine it?
19 A. Well, while I was here at the Tribunal, while I was staying here I
20 did that.
21 Q. Very well. How much time did you spend on examining it?
22 A. The stabiliser -- we had photographs of this stabiliser, we
23 examined these photographs.
24 Q. No, Professor, please listen carefully to my questions and answer
25 them. How much time -- for how much time did you have this item in your
1 hands, two hours, three hours, a few minutes?
2 A. Well, no, not for very long. Well, I sketched that. As an
3 engineer, I did that very quickly. I have the sketches.
4 Q. Very well, Professor, I would like you to do the following: Take
5 a blank sheet of paper that the usher will give you in a second. No, take
6 the sheet of paper and listen to my question, Professor. Could you
7 examine very carefully the angle of dispersion -- the angle of the marks
8 on the body of the stabiliser above the number 6279. By using this piece
9 of paper that I have mentioned, could you indicate so that we can
10 visualise this what the angle of the markings are that we can see in this
11 area here of the scratches and then do the same exercise with the angle of
12 these scratch marks that we can see on the fin or on the fins with regard
13 to the point that you're going to examine.
14 To repeat this, this is so that we can visualise this on the
15 screen. Can you indicate this on the paper so that we can see the
16 direction and the direction on the body of the fins?
17 I want to do this in order to be able to examine certain
18 mechanical elements and the exercise will be more successful, Professor,
19 if you look to the right of the figure 6-9, I think I mentioned the number
20 a minute ago. 7-9, can you see the scratches? Take the sheet of paper,
21 please. Take a sheet of paper -- no, take a piece of paper and in this
22 manner, indicate the angle so that we can see this on the screen, the axis
23 so the exact axis of the scratches that you could see?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please put it a bit higher so that it's not
25 hiding behind the screen.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes.
2 Q. Professor, show the long side of the paper so that we can see it.
3 You're showing us the axis of the scratches on the fins. Very well.
4 And now, Professor, look at the axis of the scratches which are
5 along the small holes on the body and what is the axis of these small
6 scratches? Can you see them or not?
7 A. Yes, I can see the scratches, they are quite visible on the body
8 of the stabiliser. And what I have indicated is the angle of these
9 scratches with regard to the longitudinal axis of the stabiliser. In
10 relation to that axis, it's obviously a significant angle, over 65
12 Q. Professor, have a look at the holes you can see in the body of the
13 stabiliser; can you see it?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Above the figure that I mentioned - don't move it, Professor,
16 please - have a look at the area where you have the figures that I
17 mentioned, are there any scratches around the holes that you can see; yes
18 or no?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Professor, to the extent we'd like to be able to visualise this on
21 the screen, to the extent that there are scratches on the body of the
22 stabiliser, can you take a piece of paper and indicate the direction,
23 whatever it may be, so that we can all see this on the screen. Since we
24 only have one item, take the piece of paper, Professor, and put it on the
25 body, let's forget the fins, let's just have a look at the scratches on
1 the body. Professor, in other words, -- please sit down again. You can
2 sit down again.
3 A. This paper isn't firm enough.
4 Q. Do sit down, Professor, stop. My question is as follows: If you
5 can see them, the small scratches that we can see around or next to the
6 holes on the body of the stabiliser in the area that I indicated, are
7 they -- is that direction the same as those of the large scratches we can
8 see on the body of the fins; yes or no?
9 A. Yes. Yes. They are almost completely parallel, the angle is the
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like
12 you to see the stabiliser, to have it in your hands and to clarify this
13 matter because obviously there is a problem here and as we haven't been
14 able to work on this question, given that we didn't have the material, the
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... problem is
17 commenting on the testimony of the witness and is not allowed but could we
18 please have the stabiliser fin?
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, could I perhaps
21 have the stabiliser back since we're going to have to proceed in a
22 different manner? We're going to have to proceed like this.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I carefully looked at it and the position of your
24 questions may certainly not be sufficient to draw any conclusions in this
25 respect because there are so many scratches.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, in fact, you're correct.
2 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... first, you have
3 to know perhaps because I take it that's of importance for you where they
4 come from.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. President, as we
6 haven't been able to prepare these questions, given that the Registry had
7 the item, I'd like to do the following and if you don't think it's
8 acceptable, please stop me.
9 Q. Witness, I have the stabiliser in my hands. In this area where
10 the fins are we can see scratches which go in this direction. I think
11 that the Trial Chamber can visualise this, it's quite precise. On the
12 other hand, in this area -
13 MR. STAMP: In the nature of giving evidence.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, as a matter of fact, there are so many
15 scratches, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, that one can wonder whether this would
16 assist the Chamber and at the same time, where you said that you could not
17 prepare for this because the tail fin was in the hands of the Registry,
18 it's my understanding that Madam Registrar will always allow you access to
19 any of the exhibits, if necessary. Please proceed.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, quite right. Could the
21 witness be shown the stabiliser again and I would like him to comment on
22 it, to comment on the deformations.
23 A. You can see the following deformations on the stabiliser: The
24 holes for igniting increments have been deformed in a regular manner from
25 the top to the bottom of the stabiliser so that they have an elliptical
1 form now. This indicates that a stabiliser hit a very solid obstacle. In
2 our experience, on the basis of the experience that we have used in our
3 experiments, it hit a reinforced concrete surface which was very strong it
4 couldn't have been deformed if it had hit a softer surface. This is why we
5 concluded that this stabiliser couldn't have been involved in the Markale
7 Q. Professor, could you raise this item up so that everyone can see
8 it? Could you tell us something about what we call the cone, what is
9 technically called the cone?
10 A. Please take note of the following: The way this material here
11 has been fragmented, this is an example of brittle fragmentation and steel
12 can only be fragmented in this way, broken off if the obstacle it hits is
13 extremely solid and has sufficient resistance to cause the material to be
14 broken off. The deformation here on the fins also indicates that this
15 stabliser hit some very resistant surfaces because have a look at the
16 deformations on the fins. The deformations are not regular, it's as if
17 each individual element was deformed. If this stabiliser had become
18 embedded in a surface -- well, it's in contradiction with what happened.
19 It doesn't fit. It's not consistent with what happened to this stabiliser
20 when it fell on a certain surface.
21 Unfortunately, it wasn't possible, I wanted to bring a series of
22 these stabilisers with me, stabilisers that had been found on various
23 types of ground but I wasn't able to do so.
24 Q. Well who knows, Professor, but when you mentioned the fins, just
25 one observation with regard to the symmetrical and non-symmetrical aspect
1 of the deformation, is it possible to infer something from these factors
2 in relation to the drop angle, possible drop angle and please could you
3 continue to show the item to us?
4 A. Two couples of fins were significantly deformed, there are six
5 pairs of fins or a total of 12 fins. One pair of fins was affected,
6 started coming off as a result of the hit. Another pair of fins was
7 completely deformed. To cause such deformation, you need very significant
8 force. For material to be broken off in this manner, you also need great
9 force. When I say force, I mean it's necessary for the medium through
10 which this passes to be very resistant and this is not the case with the
11 resistance of a macadam surface.
12 Q. My question concerns the symmetrical nature of the deformations,
13 is this image of deformation compatible, consistent with a certain drop
14 angle or is it first of all one side that hits, the fin side, and then the
15 side that is diametrically opposed to it, unless we're talking about a
16 vertical impact at a degree of 90 -- at an angle of 90 degrees, what can
17 you tell us about this?
18 A. Well, this symmetry shows that the angle of impact was quite
20 Q. Can you be quite categorical with regard to this matter?
21 A. Well, this deformation, there are many scratches on this item,
22 it's the first time I've seen them. I paid attention to the scratches
23 after you asked me about them. They are quite consistent -- the scratches
24 on the fin are consistent with the scratches on the body of the stabiliser
25 and, well, to be specific, this deformation here and what have here, you
1 can see that it is regular.
2 Q. Professor, you mentioned regularity and you mentioned a
3 deformation, not a deformation that was identical that something that was
4 symmetrical, what are the possible deductions that one can arrive at
5 scientifically with regard to the drop angle and the distance from which
6 the shell was fired, if this is possible?
7 A. Well, first of all, I've already said as far as the deformation is
8 concerned that it's necessary for the shell to encounter great resistance
9 and what is surprising is the regularity of the deformations on this
10 stabiliser since these deformations are caused only by force by the action
11 of the remaining mass on a given axis so the regularity of these
12 deformations is not something that is usual. It has to go from greater to
13 a lesser value.
14 As far as the drop angle is concerned, as far as the distance from
15 which it was fired, all that one can conclude, all one can do is to relate
16 the drop angle to the distance, as I have already said. The greatest
17 penetration, the greatest impact velocity has a large drop angle and
18 maximum charges so you can see from the firing tables, the greatest drop
19 angle and the greatest impact velocity has six charges but one can't fire
20 it from a distance greater than 1.168 metres.
21 Q. Professor, in other words, if we assume that 120 millimetre shell
22 was fired, would such deformations correspond to the last column of table
23 5, charges 6 and the distance 1.168, this is on page 5 of your report? Is
24 that what I can conclude from your answer?
25 A. Yes, the greatest deformation -- the greatest deformation is
1 caused to greatest impact velocities and greatest impact velocities caused
2 greatest drop angles and with the greatest number of charges.
3 Q. Thank you. Thank you.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] With the assistance of Madam
5 Registrar and the usher, we can move on to another subject which we'll
6 have to do with the presentation unless ...
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I'd like you to finish at the
8 break. Perhaps you might have.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] What time.
10 JUDGE ORIE: In ten minutes, approximately.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't think
12 that the time is what you indicated the Chamber has put a lot of questions
13 to the witness, this took a lot of time and I think we have more time.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you have used five and a half
15 hours by now so even if you would calculate some time for the questions by
16 the Chamber and the same will certainly also happen, I take it, during
17 cross-examination, and I may remind you that you spent some time, for
18 example, on anti-armour weaponry which at least does not appear in the
19 recollection of the Chamber anywhere in the report which the relevance is
20 quite clear.
21 I may also draw a your attention that several very short questions
22 of the Chamber prevented very extensive answers and going back to tables
23 in order to make clear that the Chamber understood the report quite well.
24 So all on the balance, I would expect you to finish in some 12 or 13
25 minutes. Please proceed.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I
2 think that the Chamber asked questions for about half an hour.
3 Q. Witness, you'll see -- this will be -- appear on the screen, it
4 will correspond to Exhibit 60, et cetera. Have you seen these photographs
5 of shell fragments; yes or no? And could you please be brief answer
6 answering. Professor, Professor, you won't see these photographs but you
7 know them, these photographs of shell shrapnel. Have you seen them or
9 A. The photographs, yes, I have.
10 Q. Thank you. Professor, with regard to the shell shrapnel, the
11 image of the shell shrapnel which I spoke about yesterday, you spoke about
12 attacks; do you remember this?
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have a
14 translation problem.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I think you are talking French about filetage and I
16 think you meant to refer to thread, t-h-r-e-a-d, as far as I understand.
17 That's the winding of a screw, yes.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, exactly but I never
19 mentioned it, actually.
20 Q. As far as these -- this winding thread that we can see in 120
21 millimetre shell, can you tell us what the longest thread is in terms of
22 centimetres when constructing such an object?
23 A. The longest thread is 27 millimetres and this is the coil, the
24 stabiliser coil.
25 Q. Very well. With the assistance of the usher and Madam Registrar,
1 I would like to show the photographs we have mentioned on the ELMO. The
2 ones we mentioned during the pause and then we will prepare the tape, the
4 Professor, I'd be grateful if you could be as rapid as possible,
5 you're going to see two photographs on the screen, I would be grateful if
6 you could identify them.
7 Do you recognise these photographs?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Thank you. Professor, there are parts which are clearer, can you
10 see them? It's clearer on the original but we can see them here too?
11 A. I have the original in colour.
12 Q. Very well. Can you indicate the clearest parts on the screen,
14 A. Which items do you want me to indicate?
15 Q. The clearest parts.
16 A. Well, the clearest parts and they are not of steel, they are of
17 another material are -- I will point to them now. That's this item here,
18 this one, and this one.
19 Q. Thank you. Witness, the material that we can see that is clearer
20 in the photograph and you said that the material was of some other kind,
21 what were you referring to and what are the conclusions we can reach?
22 A. If these fragments or shrapnel of 120 millimetre calibre shell and
23 if such a part made of another material which is lighter cannot belong to
24 a standard 120 millimetre shell.
25 Q. Thank you. Witness, can you see to the extreme right of this
1 photograph, you will see a vertically -- it will be the third from the top
2 and also from the bottom, could you please point to that piece, to that
4 A. [Indicates]
5 Q. Thank you. The witness does so. What do we see there, please?
6 A. On this part? On this part, we can see some kind of coil, it's
7 like a part of a coil.
8 Q. Thank you. Witness, there are two fragments that are slightly
9 lower, slightly lower than this one. Can you please indicate them?
10 A. [Indicates]
11 Q. No, more to the right, please. Yes, this one and possibly the one
12 which is higher above the fragment that we saw earlier?
13 A. [Indicates]
14 Q. Yes, this one and the witness does so. Now, Witness, in relation
15 to this fragment that you mentioned, the longest of those, what do we also
16 see on top of it?
17 A. On this fragment on this part, you can see a coil there, you can
18 see a thread.
19 Q. Thank you. Witness, is there one --
20 A. On this part you can see the thread.
21 Q. Thank you. Witness, is there one possibility only for 120
22 millimetre shell to find in whatever part thereof a thread which are not
23 identical and we can see with a naked eye on these two fragments two
24 different types of thread.
25 A. Such a great difference in the thread on 120 millimetre calibre
1 shell does not exist if, on this part, on this fragment, the thread is 2
2 millimetres, then here, it is the -- the thread is much lesser.
3 Q. Very last thing, very briefly, Professor, you see here there are
4 two fragments that are semi-circular because they are fragmented?
5 A. Yes, it is two.
6 Q. Thank you. Very, very briefly, your conclusion about the internal
7 diameter of these two fragments in terms of compatibility with one single
8 piece? Meanwhile, perhaps the technical booth could prepare the launch of
9 the video.
10 MR. STAMP: I have to step out for a minute.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please use your microphone, Mr. Stamp.
12 MR. STAMP: I need to be excused for just a moment.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I take it it's uncommon because you'll do the
14 cross-examination. What we'll do is the following is we'll have a break
15 now for 20 minutes and Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I had further calculations on
16 the time the Bench took and let's forget about the time the Bench made you
17 save. We'll restart at ten minutes to 1.00 and then you'll have ten more
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a break now.
21 --- Break taken at 12:37 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 12:54 p.m.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, please escort the witness into the
25 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. We are
2 going to view the video, but meanwhile, could we have a look at 1848
3 exhibit with the assistance of the usher and of course with your leave,
4 Mr. President, if that can be distributed.
5 Now, could we have the first sequence from the technical booth,
6 thank you.
7 Q. Professor, Professor, please m could you please look at the
8 screen? You saw what happened. Yes. Now, Professor, first question, can
9 you please have a look at this item. What can you tell us, very briefly,
10 about the type of the perforations that we can see on this item?
11 A. Yes, we see here a series of impacts and fragments of different
12 forms. Of course I can see there were perforations and there were also
13 marks, impressions were left on this trolly. I presume this is a metal, a
14 tin cart.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] In that case, let us continue
16 the following image, please, technical booth, second one.
17 [Videotape played]
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Second sequence, please.
19 Please could we have -- okay. Very well.
20 Q. Professor, could you please focus on the type of perforations that
21 we can see on this box in the middle of the screen. My question is the
22 following: With the explosion of 120 millimetre calibre shell, would it
23 be possible to have this type of perforations, yes or no, and why?
24 Could we please just have the video playing a little, please?
25 Thank you.
1 A. This is probably a cigarette box and as you can see, they are
2 very, very small fragments that hit this cigarette box. It's not usual.
3 I don't know how far this cigarette box was from the centre of the blast
4 but it is obvious that it was his with very, very tiny fragments.
5 Q. Thank you. Very well. Thank you. The following sequence,
7 Professor, I would be very grateful if you could focus on the
8 perforations on the tables and on the stall roofing. We can stop here.
9 Professor, can you see this table and can you see the perforations
10 on this table?
11 A. Yes, yes. Perhaps if we could have just a closer image.
12 Q. Keep them in your mind, these images we are continuing. Stop.
13 Stop. Can you have a look at the panel, the panel of the roof covering?
14 A. On this yellow panel, the roofing panel which belongs to a stall,
15 we can see a couple of perforations. As far as I can see, it's a plastic
16 panel, plastic material.
17 Q. Can you please continue? Here, although the quality of the image
18 is not sufficient, so please could you please continue with playing the
19 tape because the quality of the image is not sufficient?
20 For the following images, Professor, can you please focus on the
21 soil surface quality as it may appear on these two images, following this
22 we have seen -- I would be very grateful if we could have the following
23 sequence. Stop here. Thank you.
24 Professor, here we have a view of the so-called Markale crater and
25 in relation to the surface, what can you tell us, very briefly?
1 A. On this screen, on this image, we can see a large number of small
2 impacts, traces of impacts of the projectile and you can see something
3 where there is the intersection of these three sticks, they probably
4 indicate the explosion site. Since it was said that this was the --
5 Q. Professor, I must interrupt you. My question was that having
6 looked at the videotape, what can you tell us about the quality of the
7 surface in terms of the crater? Let us forget about the sticks, please.
8 A. We can see that this surface that can be seen on the picture is
9 obviously asphalt surface, asphalt surface.
10 Q. Very well. Professor, before we see the very last picture, what
11 can you comment on the angle of dispersion of 57 degrees if it is a shell
12 in relation to the injuries spoke about -- that you spoke about in your
13 report of the -- in relation to the people who were injured and their
15 A. You interrupted me. I already said that before that the third
16 criteria that we used to check the reality of the events in Markale was
17 the effectiveness of the range of 120 millimetre shell. And in order to
18 get to a realistic number, we eliminated the presence in the calculations,
19 the presence of the stores that according to our assessment they were
20 taking up 260, 270 square metres and under the assumption that Markale is
21 30 by 35 metres wide, so 1.150 metres we thought that each one square
22 metre there was one person turned towards the centre of the explosion.
23 In such conditions under an angle of this 65 degrees, a maximum
24 number of injuries, and under the assumption that not a single person
25 resisted the fragments that were dispersing, so it would be the maximum
1 effectiveness of a shell which is almost impossible to achieve in real
2 circumstances because there is always resistance and that each body stops
3 a fragment or at least lessens its velocity, we came and we gave that --
4 came to the conclusion, to a figure of maximum of 100 people injured and
5 we gave that in the table.
6 So the figure of 69 dead and 191 wounded, these two figures
7 absolutely do not tally with our conclusion.
8 Q. Professor, my question is: How do you explain -- no, I'm sorry.
9 I'm going to wait for the interpretation. How do you explain the fact
10 that the injuries would have occurred mostly on the lower extremities of
11 the people who were injured; do you remember your explanation, your
12 comments, could you give us an explanation, please?
13 A. In the testimony of the expert it was also said that what was
14 characteristic for mortar projectiles was that it would hit the lower
15 extremities which is absolutely -- doesn't correspond to reality or the
16 experiments that we have carried out says that the angle of dispersion of
17 fragments from a shell is about 57 degrees which means that the fragments
18 move in a star-shaped directions under the angle of 57 degrees and you
19 could have concluded that yourself from what you have asked me that from
20 the location of the explosion, the fragments had perforated also -- not
21 just the stalls, but they've also perforated the roofing panels of the
22 stalls which logically indicate that the fragments were able and they do
23 go, when we're speaking about a shell, they are moving in the direction of
24 the angle of 57 degrees in all directions. But if it's not a mortar
25 shell, if it's a device which has a cylindrical shape and not a shell
1 shape, then we can just expect that there is a horizontal effect.
2 For instance, these devices that could have such effects, they are
3 so-called shells with specific directions which we had in the JNA, they
4 were on -- of concave form, it was explosive mixed with both and that is
5 the device which gave this kind of -- that had this kind of effect and it
6 had a horizontal direction and it would injure people on the lower
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, your ten minutes are over I will
9 allow you your last question.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 Q. The question is the following: You have this document 1848 before
12 you, you've just been handed it. On page -- or rather -- under numbers 5
13 and 6, under number 5 and 6, Professor, of this document, can you see the
14 photographs, the basis of which you, yesterday, formulated your answers in
15 relation to this other incident, that is, of the 1st of June, 1993?
16 A. Yes, yes. Photograph 6 is -- exactly corresponds to the
17 photograph that I showed and to which I added those arrows and those
18 lines. This is this photograph number 6. And I commented on it in
19 relation to the compass, the way it was positioned, and the map, the map
20 of Sarajevo that was also placed there.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Professor, the Defence would
22 like to thank you for coming here and testifying. Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
24 Dr. Vilicic, you will now be examined by counsel for the
25 Prosecution. Mr. Stamp, please proceed.
1 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Mr. President
2 Cross-examined by Mr. Stamp:
3 JUDGE ORIE: Before you start, the document just provided by the
4 Defence, would the -- is there any original available.
5 MR. STAMP: Yes, there is.
6 JUDGE ORIE: If it would be tendered by the Defence, then I take
7 it that you intend to do that, could we then not have the original rather
8 than a bad photocopy?
9 MR. STAMP: I'm afraid --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Not at this very moment but if you prepare for that.
11 MR. STAMP: I don't think we would be authorised to part with the
12 originals from the evidence vault. We could make them available for
14 JUDGE ORIE: At least that we have access to it and not have to do
15 with the bad photocopies. Yes, please proceed.
16 Cross-examined by Mr. Stamp:
17 Q. Now, doctor, I'd like to start very quickly by looking into the
18 methodology and the approach that yourself and your two colleagues used to
19 prepare your report. Firstly, you read and speak English, do you?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And the report that has been filed and presented in Court in
22 English, did you personally check that and having checked it, is your
23 answer that you stick by the one that you gave earlier in testimony the
25 A. Yes, I stand by that report and all the data that I gave in the
1 report and I think that in my testimony, I added some more information, I
2 particularly mean the tables that I presented, but objectively they fully
3 correspond and form part of our report.
4 Q. Okay. I'm going to ask you, because time is precious now to stick
5 to short answers to the questions I ask you. Part of the question was did
6 you check the one filed in court and presented to the Court; that is, the
7 English version, did you personally check it?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, at the time when you handed in your report, it was in the
10 Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian language?
11 A. No, no, we submitted it in English. We -- the -- immediately the
12 version that we did was translated into English and I personally compiled
13 this report. I put in -- inputted the photographs. The tables according
14 to the English text, that was done by the translators, and the English
15 text of the report was handed over to the Defence in three copies.
16 Q. Very well. You inputted the photographs and other material, did
17 you input also the sketches that were used and the maps that were used?
18 A. Everything, everything. I did all that personally.
19 Q. Did you draw these sketches?
20 A. Yes. And I have all this on my compact disc which I made on my
21 own computer.
22 Q. Doctor, try to remember it's very, very, very simple, just
23 restrict yourself to answering my question directly and the additional
24 information is not necessary now, please.
25 At page 24 of your report, you indicated that a member of the team
1 visited the localities in Sarajevo. Today you have testified that Dr.
2 Stamatovic went to the scene of the Markale incident. Did you visit any
3 of the localities --
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You did visit localities in Sarajevo?
6 A. I personally, no. No, no, I personally did not.
7 Q. You would have done your sketches on the basis of the information
8 that you got from Dr. Stamatovic and also the reports given to you by the
9 Defence, is that correct, by the Defence lawyers, I mean; is that correct?
10 A. Yes, from the reports, the documents that we received from the
12 Q. Did Dr. Stamatovic visit the scene of the shelling incident at the
13 football game in Dobrinja?
14 A. Yes, he did.
15 Q. Since you joined together in doing this report, did he describe
16 the craters, the relevant craters of this event to you?
17 A. Let me tell you. Dr. Stamatovic, we are such experts and we've
18 been working together for so many years, we don't have to do a specific
19 examination of the craters.
20 Q. Please, please, all I asked is whether or not he described the --
21 A. Stamatovic described the craters and the text of the description
22 given in the report, that's what he did on the basis of the report of the
23 security centre.
24 Q. It's a simple question. Did he describe the craters that he
25 examined in Sarajevo when he went there to you?
1 A. Yes, clearly. I don't know why there is anything to describe in
3 Q. Did he -- you say there was nothing to describe in particular,
4 tell us what he told you about those craters that he examined in Sarajevo?
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I object, Mr. President. I
6 think the Prosecution will have to explain which craters they mean. Is it
7 all craters, et cetera?
8 JUDGE ORIE: We are talking about a shelling incident at the
9 football game in Dobrinja. We are talking about the plural, craters. If
10 it would be -- there does not seem from the report that there were more
11 than two so if in the plural, it has no confusion whatsoever.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
13 MR. STAMP: And may I just add to that by asking this question
14 before I go back to my last question.
15 Q. In the sketch that you drew for the incident, you have two impact
16 sites there or do you have one?
17 A. Two, two. Two impacts.
18 Q. Okay. So I'm talking about those two impact sites that you put on
19 your sketch at page 28 of your report. What description of those two
20 impact sites is Dr. Stamatovic give to you?
21 A. I can say immediately in relation to this sketch that on the basis
22 of looking at -- watching a film that one of your witnesses described by
23 going on this terrain --
24 Q. Doctor, doctor, please --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Doctor Vilicic, may I ask you the following:
1 Mr. Stamp asks you precise questions. Would you please listen to those
2 questions very carefully and answer exactly what he asks you. Just to
3 give you an example, if I would ask you whether you came here by car, then
4 the answer would be yes or no. If you would respond I came in a blue car,
5 you are already adding information or if you say I didn't come by car but
6 I came with a taxi, or a tram, just answer the question and if there's any
7 further information needed, Mr. Stamp will certainly ask for it.
8 Please proceed.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I say something? May I just
10 say? The assessment -- may I just say?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The assessment of our work for one
13 incident of shelling is based on the fact, because Stamatovic was not able
14 what were the borders of the pitch. We knew that one shell had landed in
15 the middle of that space and that the second shell had fallen at a
17 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I'll stop you.
18 The question was quite simple: What description Dr. Stamatovic gave to
19 you, so not what he did write down in his report, nothing of that kind.
20 What description he gave to you, that was the question, nothing else. So
21 no need to say on the basis of what he got his information but the
22 question is quite simple. What did he tell you when describing the crater
23 site? That's the question. Could you please answer it.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Crater has exactly determined
25 dimensions that can be measured and there are just two dimensions, that is
1 the range of the dispersion of the front part of the shell and of the back
2 part of the shell.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I again interrupt you. Is that what Dr. Stamatovic
4 told you? Did he tell you the crater has exactly determined dimensions
5 and you can measure that, is that what he told you or is that your
6 explanation of what he -- about the crater? What I -- for example, I've
7 not been present, but I would consider that he would have said, "I went
8 there. I was amazed by the size" or "I went there and I measured the size
9 and I put it on paper," or that he said, "I went there and the crater was,
10 in my view, relatively deep," whatever, but tell Mr. Stamp what
11 Dr. Stamatovic told you, nothing else, please.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're asking me to answer something
13 which is not relevant for our approach to our reporting. I said at the
14 beginning that we --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Vilicic, what is relevant and what is not
16 relevant is a different issue. Just answer the question. Mr. Stamp finds
17 it relevant for unknown reasons until now but please answer his question.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, is it relevant for the Trial
19 Chamber whether they were marked with a red paint or not? For us experts,
20 that was not relevant or important at all, the dimensions were important
21 for us.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Vilicic, don't bother about what is relevant or
23 not, just answer the question. The question is: What did Dr. Stamatovic
24 tell you? Later on we might come to all red markings or no red markings
25 or a lot of details but at this moment, this is the question. Please
1 respond to it.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To tell you the truth it's hard to
3 answer a question relating to everything that he told me about this.
4 JUDGE ORIE: If you say --
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Myself and Professor Stamatovic, we
6 know Sarajevo very well. We went there many times. We know these
7 locations, we are familiar with the locations. We couldn't expect that
8 after seven years or six years that something would be that different and
9 that some facts would be relevant compared to the facts that were given in
10 the reports and that we thought were the basis for our expert report
11 because we assessed the reports from the security centre and the experts.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Vilicic, for the last time I ask you to answer to
13 the question. The question is if you say I don't remember what
14 Dr. Stamatovic told me or you say he hardly paid any attention to this
15 description of the crater, fine, no problem. If you don't remember, also
16 fine, but answer the question and nothing else, please. Yes? We'll come
17 to the other subjects later.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that I can't remember the
19 details. I'm not able to comment on this since we spoke at length about
20 all these matters.
21 MR. STAMP:
22 Q. Let's move on. You just told us that and I quote you, "We are
23 familiar with the locations." Let me ask you again, did you go to the
24 scene, this location of this incident in Sarajevo and either you did or
25 you did not?
1 A. I already said I didn't personally go there. I said that we knew
2 Sarajevo very well.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 A. I didn't go there.
5 Q. Okay. Do you know if Dr. Stamatovic did any measurements of the
6 craters that he viewed in Sarajevo in respect to this football game
8 A. No, I don't know.
9 Q. Did he indicate to you whether or not the craters, after a such a
10 long time, are sufficiently well-preserved for one to examine and make
11 findings about them?
12 A. As I've already told you, the condition of the crater after such a
13 long time can no longer be of relevance for the serious report, some
14 craters on the ground couldn't even be seen. Whether the crater at the
15 Markale market --
16 Q. I'm not talking about Markale market. I'm talking about two
17 craters at the football game. Am I to understand your answer that what he
18 told you that he could not examine the craters and take any measurements?
19 A. One crater, the one in the centre of the playground was in a good
20 condition, it corresponded to the photograph that was the basis of our
21 examination, the central crater, that one.
22 Q. ... you dispute the photograph and I'm not saying that we accept
23 the photograph necessarily, but if the crater was in good condition, did
24 Dr. Stamatovic take any measurements in respect to that crater?
25 A. He didn't take measurements of the crater but as far as I know he
1 said that that crater or rather the photograph that I showed you
2 yesterday, he said that that photograph was essential for assessing the
3 elements of that crater and told us what sort of answer we could obtain on
4 the basis of an analysis.
5 Q. Doctor, in light of the fact that you dispute the placement of a
6 map and a compass on that photograph, do you not think, as an expert that
7 goes to a scene who finds a good crater, he ought to have done
8 measurements of it?
9 A. I didn't dispute this, all I said is that it's not customary to
10 place a map. You don't position the north and south of the map in
11 accordance with the compass so that part was of no interest to us.
12 Q. The crater being a good crater, do you think, as an expert, it
13 would have been proper and useful for the member of the team visiting the
14 site to report back to the Court his observations of that good crater?
15 A. We don't believe that an analysis of a crater can be of any
16 relevance at all to the Trial Chamber after so many years have passed.
17 Q. Very well. So your answer is no. Very quickly, I'd like to have
18 a look at the map, figure 3.1 in your report, and that is at page 25, is
21 A. [In English] Yes, yes. Yes, sorry, I looked down.
22 [Interpretation] Page 25. It's 26, page 26 in the B/C/S version.
23 Q. Let's do this very simply and if you'll help me, Doctor, very
24 quickly do you see where you have put the lines in the Dobrinja area just
25 above or to the north of the N for UNPROFOR and just below the ST which
1 you indicated means Serb territory; do you see that, Doctor? That is a
2 question, please answer?
3 A. Yes, ST. Are you referring to the green line, the dotted green
4 line? Is that what you're referring to?
5 Q. Doctor, the papers in here are not in colour they are in black and
6 white. I'm speaking about the lines between the N for UNPROFOR and the ST
7 for Serb territory, do you see those lines?
8 A. Yes, yes.
9 Q. You prepared these maps, you said. Did you put them there?
10 A. Yes. Put them where?
11 Q. Put them where they are between the ST and the N for UNPROFOR.
12 A. Yes, yes. Yes, I drew those lines. I drew them.
13 Q. Could you put the map on the ELMO, please, with the assistance of
14 the usher.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Vilicic, would you please give the map to the --
16 yes, put them so that we can see them all, yes.
17 MR. STAMP: Could it be moved to the right, please.
18 Q. Doctor, do you see that the map you are using has a different
19 confrontation line than the one which is filed in Court?
20 MR. STAMP: Madam Registrar, could you hand him a copy of the one
21 which is filed?
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I must admit
23 that I don't understand the question which map is being referred to
24 because I don't know what is being referred to?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please indicate what card the expert should
1 compare the card which he used? We have approximately I think 30, 40 maps
2 now on -- in evidence.
3 MR. STAMP:
4 Q. Professor, look at the lines below ST on the map you have on the
5 ELMO and point to it.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, so that we can
7 prepare and if we have to compare this with another map, can we be told
8 which map is being referred to unless Mr. Stamp is going to withdraw this
10 JUDGE ORIE: Would it be the next page map or -- I mean.
11 MR. STAMP: Sorry. I'll tell you what I propose to do.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. STAMP: I propose to compare the map that we are told he used
14 to draw the lines with the lines in an important area with the map in
15 English with the lines on the original B/C/S version of the map and --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Of this map.
17 MR. STAMP: Which map?
18 JUDGE ORIE: You want the witness to compare the map with -- on
19 page 25 later on.
20 MR. STAMP: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: With another map. Where is that other map?
22 MR. STAMP: The map that he has just presented to the Court on the
23 ELMO. I asked him to compare it with the filed version of his report.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Are we then not looking to the filed version of
25 his report.
1 MR. STAMP: That is the one that he has produced from his attache
2 case. I wanted --
3 THE REGISTRAR: Mr. Stamp, do you have an extra copy of the filed
4 report I do not have the original filed report in court. It's with the
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, it's totally unclear to me --
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand that you want to compare the
9 coloured version which is on the ELMO with the black and white version we
10 have received as a copy of his report; is that correct?
11 MR. STAMP: Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I think that's clear enough. So
13 we are now looking at the map the expert produced himself at this very
14 moment, yes. Now it's clear to me.
15 MR. STAMP:
16 Q. Do you see a line that runs on your map from the number 2 going
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. That is where the confrontation line is on your map that you have
20 on the ELMO?
21 A. Can I be a little more precise, give you a more precise answer
22 with regard to this?
23 Q. Could you please point to the line I am asking about, please?
24 A. Is this the line you are referring to here?
25 Q. Yes. And could you point to the number 2?
1 A. Number 2.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Stamp please wait for the B/C/S
3 translation to finish. Thank you.
4 MR. STAMP: Sorry. I will comply.
5 Q. That is an area which I want you to comment on?
6 A. Your Honour, may I something with regard to this: These
7 demarcation lines on the map are not at all precise. They are very
8 roughly drawn and they only served as a sort of rough guide in our report
9 but not as lines to determine the distance of the firing positions or
10 rather to determine the distance of the conflict lines so these lines
11 probably, not probably, but they certainly do not correspond to the actual
12 situation on the ground.
13 Q. Very well?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes. You have explained that you do not
15 guarantee the correctness of these lines as we see it on the screen now,
16 at least not the full correctness. Yes, please proceed.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, not fully.
18 MR. STAMP:
19 Q. In your report, the one that you have brought here, could you look
20 at figure 3.8. Could you do it with the one on the ELMO, please? Could
21 we could all see?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please assist the witness to
23 have page 43 of the English report figure 3.8, not the one the witness
24 provided, not the coloured one.
25 MR. STAMP: The one that he has been using on the ELMO.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could we please have page 43 on the ELMO.
2 Mr. Usher, page 43.
3 Dr. Vilicic, we'd like to have this on the screen. Yes. Is that
4 page 43 of the --
5 MR. STAMP: The difficulty, Mr. President, I think he is using a
6 map which is not filed in court, the papers he's using is not part of the
7 report filed.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 Dr. Vilicic, may I ask you the following: Could the -- one of our
10 copies, as they have been provided to us, be shown to Dr. Vilicic.
11 Mr. Usher, would you please take this one and put it next to that one on
12 the ELMO. Could we zoom out a bit?
13 Dr. Vilicic, we are confronted with the problem that the black and
14 white version I just gave you which has been the version that has been
15 filed in this Court seems not to be the same as the version you are using
16 and I would like to ask you to pay specific attention to the confrontation
17 line your attention was just drawn to. Could you please look at the ELMO
18 and confirm whether they are different.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as the demarcation lines are
20 concerned, yes, the lines are different but this is what I wanted to
21 explain to you. With the B/C/S report that was provided, we also provided
22 four pages which included these changes, the changes of the photographs of
23 the images of the demarcation lines which, and I would like to repeat
24 this, were not at all relevant for our analysis because they weren't
25 drawing with precision.
1 So page 43 was provided, four pages were provided.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could at least the Defence provide us with --
3 on what basis are we working? On the filed report as I take it the
4 Prosecution relied and on which it's the only one the Chamber has, or on
5 the basis of a report that is in the hands of Dr. Vilicic.
6 Dr. Vilicic, may I ask you is the only change on maps or are there
7 other changes between the two versions?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the changes were a
9 result of the conflict lines on these maps and that was the only reason.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Try to listen to my question. I'm not asking for an
11 explanation why you changed it, I'm just asking whether the changes were
12 only on the maps or also in the text of the report.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, only in the maps and this only
14 has to do with the demarcation lines.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could we please be provided with those pages that are
16 different so that we know at least where the differences are and move to
17 our next subject for the time being having established that there are
18 differences between the maps used by the expert and the copy that has been
19 provided to the Chamber and the other party.
20 Apart from that, it's a quarter to 2.00.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, to answer
22 your question, the Defence only intends to base itself on what has been
23 provided, that is to say, on what results from the report that we have in
24 front of us in English.
25 JUDGE ORIE: The problem is that the witness seems to use another
1 copy and of course we should all use the same version. Yes, Mr. Stamp.
2 MR. STAMP: May I just ask one question before we break or --
3 JUDGE ORIE: If that would be very logical, then of course, please
4 do so.
5 MR. STAMP:
6 Q. What was the source of your information that you used to draw the
7 lines which you now tell us have been changed?
8 A. The initial lines we -- I drew them very roughly on the basis
9 of -- it was a rough line.
10 Q. We can't spend too much time on this issue. What was the source
11 of the information that you used to draw the confrontation lines, source,
12 I'm asking about?
13 A. Well, there's a large map, I think the scale is 1:50.000. It's a
14 map of the Sarajevo theatre of war. But as these lines kept changing,
15 when compiling our report, we didn't consider them to be important for
16 what we were doing.
17 MR. STAMP: Very well. We will leave it there.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll explore the matter further.
19 Dr. Vilicic, we'll adjourn until tomorrow 9.00 in the same
20 courtroom. May I instruct you not to speak with anyone about your
21 testimony until now and I would have an additional question for you that
22 would be the following: You, yesterday, gave us some tables or some
23 diagrams indicating a situation where the firing point was at a higher
24 level as the point of impact of a mortar shell; do you remember that?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember a drawing of any
1 kind that had to do with the dispersion.
2 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... to you.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, the translation was
4 dispersion, that's a firing table for a mortar shell.
5 JUDGE ORIE: It is a -- it is a drawing of trajectories for mortar
6 shell 120 millimetres where the shell travels below the level of firing
7 and ends at a lower level. Do you remember that? Yes.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Would it be possible for you since you said that
10 because of the gravity, the shell would even get a higher speed if
11 travelling longer and to a lower level, would it be possible for you to
12 calculate what the effect would be on the velocity of impact of the shell
13 for each 100 metres that the shell ends lower than the point of firing and
14 would you do the same for each level higher? So if the shell would be
15 fired and would land at a higher level and that, for example, for seven,
16 700, 800 metres higher and 700, 800 metres lower compared to the level of
17 firing? Would that be possible because you know the angle of impact you
18 know the gravity, especially you know the angle would allow you to make
19 the distinction between the forward speed and the downward speed, the two
20 elements of the speed? Would it be possible for you to calculate that so
21 we can ask further questions about that?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I could calculate the first part but
23 after the diagram of the original -- unfortunately, I don't have all the
24 firing tables and in our firing tables you don't have the values for
25 changes of velocity depending on the range, that is to say, on the
1 altitude. I can calculate the first part. I can calculate the increase
2 in velocity if the weapon is at an elevation of over 500 metres. I can
3 make a rough calculation, but to provide you with the precise answer I
4 would have to have a programme for calculating the trajectory in order to
5 calculate this with precision.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand. If you could give us a rough
7 impression, I think sines and cosines will certainly assist us in giving
8 this rough estimate. We'll then adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9.00.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.52 p.m.,
10 to be reconvened on Thursday the 27th day of
11 February, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.