1 Thursday, 27 February 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus
7 Stanislav Galic.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 Mr. Mundis, I'm informed that you would like to address the
10 Chamber about a motion filed yesterday by the Defence. That's correct.
11 MR. MUNDIS: Yes, Mr. President, if I could briefly address you on
12 that, I would appreciate it.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But if you would please do this quickly.
14 MR. MUNDIS: As the Chamber is aware yesterday, the Defence
15 yesterday filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the amount time
16 allocated to the direct examination of the expert Radinovic. The
17 Prosecution notes in that filing or in support of the Defence position in
18 that filing certain matters that perhaps are beyond the scope of expertise
19 of this witness, there are matters which appear not to be covered by the
20 Rule 65 ter summary with respect to this witness, and there are also
21 references to videotapes which it's unclear if those are previously
22 admitted videotapes or new videotapes, there are certainly no videotapes
23 on the exhibit list.
24 Leaving those matters aside, Mr. President, the Prosecution has
25 consistently taken the position that this witness may require a
1 significant amount of time on cross-examination and as you're well aware,
2 we have in the past requested more time than the Defence has been allotted
3 for direct examination. That position remains the same and if I may
4 provide a basis for our request that we be permitted additional time
5 beyond that for the direct examination, I point out that it will be
6 necessary to cross-examine this witness on his lengthy statement, to
7 cross-examine him on any issues outside the scope of that statement to
8 which he testifies viva voce in the courtroom and it will also be
9 necessary to cross-examine this witness with respect to the apparently
10 large number of documents which the Defence intends to tender through this
12 So I simply raise those issues, Mr. President, so that the
13 Prosecution position with respect to time allotted for cross-examination
14 of this witness is clear. Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Mundis.
16 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. President. I
18 see that the Prosecution wants more time for its cross-examination but
19 it's not contesting the fact that we are likewise requesting more time so
20 it seems to me that for both parties, this witness is quite important. I
21 just like to note that the Prosecution doesn't contest the fact that we
22 need this number of additional hours and we think that this would be
23 useful and necessary given the issue of command responsibility. Thank
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the Chamber has not had an
1 opportunity to yet consider the matter. We'll do that as soon as
3 If there is no other issue to be -- procedural issue to be
4 discussed at this very moment, madam usher, would you please escort the
5 witness into the courtroom.
6 [The witness entered court]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning or should I say dobradan, Dr. Vilicic.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
9 JUDGE ORIE: May I remind you although it might sound superfluous
10 in your ears that you are still bound by the solemn declaration you've
11 given at the beginning of your testimony.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp you may continue your cross-examination.
13 MR. STAMP: Thank you. Could the witness please be given the
14 document that is filed as his report in this Court. Thank you.
15 WITNESS: JANKO VILICIC [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 Cross-examined by Mr. Stamp: [Continued]
18 Q. Witness, I'm going to ask you not to consult any documents for the
19 time being. We are just going to deal with two documents now.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp. Although you've asked to bring the file
21 document, unfortunately it's not there at this very moment. If the
22 parties would --
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't know
24 exactly what Mr. Stamp is referring to if he could more precise and tell
25 us what he is referring to, this would assist us, thank you.
1 MR. STAMP: The Defence filed pursuant to Rule 94 bis a statement
2 some time before it was an expert's report for this witness and two other
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. STAMP: His testimony --
6 JUDGE ORIE: You are referring to the report as it has been filed
7 in this Court.
8 MR. STAMP: Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we could work on the basis of your copy and
10 whenever it's on the ELMO we can check because everyone has his own copy
11 available and --
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, before we waste
13 a lot of time, I'd simply like to know whether Mr. Stamp intends to
14 develop this problem of differences between that because if that is the
15 case then I would like to ask the expert witness to leave the courtroom
16 and I would like to address you in order to save time for all of us.
17 Thank you.
18 MR. STAMP: I do intend.
19 JUDGE ORIE: You intend to further explore the issue you started
21 MR. STAMP: As quickly as I'm allowed but I would accept my time
22 begins when the witness returns.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, madam usher, could I please ask you to escort
24 Dr. Vilicic out of the courtroom since Mr. Piletta-Zanin ...
25 [The witness stands down]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very briefly, Mr. President, I
3 have seen that there are differences, we have all seen that there are
4 differences between the two maps and in the English version of the
5 document, which is the one that was filed with the registry, I'd like to
6 know the reason for these differences. I haven't discovered them yet but
7 I don't think it's necessary to look for this reason for a long time.
8 As far as I can remember from Ms. Pilipovic, I think, this witness
9 addressed directly but we're not certain of this but I think this is what
10 Ms. Pilipovic says, I think that he showed certain maps to the Prosecution
11 and we weren't able to check these maps. They were given by the expert
12 directly to the Prosecution. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding when
13 the Prosecution and the witness were in contact or discussed matters
14 together and it's possible that that's where the origin of the problem is
15 but in any event, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Problem could we
17 perhaps --
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Exactly that's what I wanted
19 to say. The problem in our opinion is not important, because this
20 material is preliminary material, in a certain sense anterior to the
21 document that we elaborated. We are basing ourselves on this document if
22 these maps mistake and let's ask the question to the witness, let's ask
23 whether this has an affect on his final conclusions that's -- it's as
24 simple as that in my opinion.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. STAMP: Whatever judgement is made about whether the maps are
2 mistaken or otherwise, whether there are changes, the reasons for the
3 changes ought to depend on what the witness says. He's already said he
4 prepared the English copy of the report which is filed and he prepared
5 that from his B/C/S version he was the one who did it in respect of maps,
6 sketches, et cetera. But what my friend is asking is that judgements be
7 made now about things which can be easily clarified which the witness if
8 he's asked the questions and if he answers them quickly and I don't know
9 if it's a matter for submissions.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I mean what exactly -- I now do understand that in
11 the B/C/S versions there are maps where the confrontation lines which are
12 very roughly put into that map are a bit different. Is that -- or is
13 there more?
14 MR. STAMP: May I make it very plain?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. STAMP: In the B/C/S version of the map, the map for incident
17 one in Dobrinja where the Prosecution alleges that the projectile came
18 from the east, south-east it has the confrontation line in accordance in
19 the manner in which it is presented by the Prosecution in its evidence and
20 in accordance with the lines on the map, the VRS map which the Defence
21 says he uses.
22 In the map for the second Dobrinja incident where the Prosecution
23 says that the projectile came in from the west north-west, it moves the
24 line in the direction of fire according to their map two to three
25 kilometres out.
1 JUDGE ORIE: So you just want to clarify this -- these two maps
2 and the lines as specifically in respect of these two incidents.
3 MR. STAMP: Indeed.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. STAMP: Three incidents because there is another Dobrinja
6 incident in which the line is brought back to the position that
7 corresponds with the Prosecution, with the VRS map and then there are the
8 maps which will become clear to the Court which have been filed, in which
9 all the lines are moved away and correspond now with the lines that are
10 with respect to incident two.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, if I may
13 intervene again, unless Mr. Stamp has not finished yet, I don't know, if I
14 may intervene again, Mr. President, it's for the following reason: The
15 error was caused directly when there was an exchange between this witness
16 and the Prosecution. We had no control of this and this concerned our own
17 witness. We can control the English text and that's what will be provided
18 as evidence and everything else is additional and we are not in control of
19 this. This is -- it's the Prosecution and the witness who were in contact
20 so let's not waste any time. Thank you. For the English transcript, it
21 was a sort of shadow.
22 MR. STAMP: May I just say that we did not meet at any time with
23 this witness.
24 JUDGE ORIE: No, it must be -- you said, -- according to the
25 translation, that it was the Prosecution and the witness who were in
1 contact; is that what you meant to say?
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] One minute, please.
3 [Defence counsel confer]
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, to the extent
5 that -- yes, Mr. President. Yes, but it came through the registry so the
6 intervention that I made should be changed, thank you.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Came through the office, interpreter's
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, I've got -- the Chamber has one --
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, the Chamber wonders, was it by accident
13 that the witness used this map that you noticed it or how do you know that
14 the B/C/S version -- has it been filed?
15 MR. STAMP: It has not been filed. We requested through the
16 Defence a copy of the B/C/S version to -- because at that time, we wanted
17 to analyse certain things in the language in which we thought it was
18 written originally.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And then you noticed that there were differences.
20 MR STAMP: Then in the analysis it was noticed that there were
21 differences which we think should be brought to the attention of the court
22 and the witness ought to be given an opportunity to explain.
23 JUDGE ORIE: So, it has been disclosed to you on your request.
24 MR STAMP: Yes.
25 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Mr. Stamp, was it disclosed by the witness?
1 MR. STAMP: No, we had no contact with the witness. We requested
2 it through defence counsel and arrangements were made to have it provided
3 to us. Maybe I could confirm that.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That's right, that's right,
5 Your Honour, I apologise. The witness did it directly from the Belgrade
6 office. The witness prepared this, he came to the Belgrade office and
7 forwarded it from Belgrade. He did this by using one of the discs that he
8 showed us yesterday. So contact wasn't established between the witness
9 and the Prosecution. We weren't able to control this, it was done through
10 the office and I apologise if what I said was imprecise. Thank you.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Stamp, you can ask questions in respect of
13 the differences to the witness. Perhaps in order to save time, we noticed
14 that often it takes some time to get the witness to the point you would
15 like to ask questions about. There would be no problem in doing this in
16 such a way that it becomes sufficient rather than --
17 MR. STAMP: I intend to get directly to the point because I have a
18 huge variety of issues to go through with this witness and I would ask if
19 the witness is not cooperative in answering - I don't like to whine and
20 plead with the Court with regard to the witness - but I would need help
21 that I could move on in the cross-examination in the variety of evidence.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, to save time,
23 could you perhaps ask these questions directly?
24 JUDGE ORIE: I haven't seen the other maps. I do not know exactly
25 what the differences are but if I have the feeling that intervention by
1 the Chamber would speed up the proceedings, I certainly will intervene.
2 Madam usher, could you please escort the witness into the
4 MR. STAMP: What I propose to do by starting is handing out to the
5 Court and the parties is copies of the B/C/S maps.
6 [The witness entered court]
7 MR. STAMP: Could these be shown to the Defence counsel and a copy
8 given to the Court.
9 Q. Witness I'm going to show you what I have which appears to be
10 photocopies of the maps in your -- in the report in your original language
11 in which I have just circled a part of the confrontation lines that you
12 drew in red.
13 MR. STAMP: Could you give the witness a copy which is circled in
14 red, please.
15 JUDGE ORIE: And could you put it on the ELMO.
16 MR. STAMP: Could you put the one Slika 3.1 on the ELMO.
17 Q. Witness, you have with you your original B/C/S -- when I say B/C/S
18 I mean Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian copy of your report, do you not?
19 A. You mean here, you mean my copy.
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. Your Honours, can I just explain something with regard to these
23 JUDGE ORIE: First questions will be put to you and if there is
24 any further explanation then needed, then of course you will be given an
25 opportunity to do so. I will do that if necessary but please first answer
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 the questions.
2 MR. STAMP:
3 Q. Is that map on the ELMO to your right a photocopy of your figure
4 3.1 in your original or in the version of your report in your own language
5 with the exception that there is a red circle around part of the line?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Could you point to the red circle, please?
8 A. [Indicates].
9 Q. This map in your original report was in respect to incident one,
10 the football game incident, wasn't it?
11 A. This map relates to all the incidents.
12 Q. You --
13 A. May I explain?
14 Q. No, I just want to confirm what they are and then you will get an
15 opportunity to explain. Rely on me, you will have an opportunity to
17 Have -- could the witness be shown the document marked Slika 3.4.
18 Do you -- well, firstly is that a copy of the map that was in your
19 original version of your report?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And that map is in respect to shelling incident 2?
22 A. This is photograph 3.4, yes.
23 Q. And it was in respect of shelling incident 2?
24 A. Yes, the water line.
25 Q. In shelling incident 2, you understand that the Prosecution
1 alleges that the projectile arrived from the west north-west direction.
2 A. Yes, north-west.
3 Q. Do you notice that the line where it is circled in red and could
4 you point to it, please?
5 A. [Indicates]
6 Q. Thank you. Do you notice that it has moved or it is not the same,
7 and it has moved some distance to the west, that is, to the direction of
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, here I don't
10 understand very well. Change between what and what? Move between what
11 and what? Could we have the document again on the ELMO?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, asked you about the change in the
13 confrontation line drawn on the one map and on the other map.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, Mr. President, but
15 we were speaking about 3.4 and 3.4 then --
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... They are talking
17 about the two maps shown to the witness and the maps indicate in the area
18 of Dobrinja confrontation lines and that's what the question is about.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Between the two that were on
20 the ELMO earlier.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I know that these are -- you mean -- I take it that
22 we have seen Slika 3.1 and that we are now looking at Slika 3.4, yes.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. But Mr. President,
24 what I wish to say was that the 3.4 is exactly the same in English as we
25 see now, so the error is an internal one I wanted to just --
1 MR. STAMP: That is not a proper comment.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Do not interfere in cross-examination just on the
3 basis that you do not understand what Mr. Stamp wants to ask the witness.
4 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
5 MR. STAMP:
6 Q. Have a look at the document marked Slika 3.8. Is that a photocopy
7 of the map that you use in your B/C/S report for your analysis of incident
8 4 with the exception of a red circle around part of the lines you have
10 A. This is the sketch of a map, this is not the map that I used, but
11 is true that the incident number 4 is just marked here.
12 Q. Very well. On this sketch -- witness, let's just confirm the
13 basic facts then we'll move on. On this sketch of the map, do you agree
14 with me that the line, the position of the line where it is circled in red
15 is different from the position of the line on the map marked Slika 3.4
16 which refers to incident 2?
17 A. Yes, but it doesn't --
18 Q. It doesn't what, matter? Are you saying it doesn't matter? Is
19 that what you said? Did you say it doesn't matter?
20 A. May I just --
21 Q. You will get a chance to explain. Did you say it doesn't matter,
22 Witness, that's all I'm asking?
23 A. What I said is that this is the sketch for incident number 4.
24 Q. Very well. According to the scale on Slika number 8 and I'm not
25 suggesting your scale is in any way correct, you are saying 1 kilometre is
1 represented as 80 millimetres on this map. I suggest to you the
2 change - that if that scale correct - moves the line of confrontation
3 three to four kilometres in the direction of fire for incident number 2;
4 do you agree with that?
5 A. Incident number two in the direction that was pointed --
6 Q. Would you please answer the question I'm asking. All I want to
7 know is if the difference in the position of the line where it is circled
8 on Slika 3.8 when compared to Slika 3.4 in respect to incident 2 according
9 to your scale amounts to two to three kilometres in the direction of fire
10 for incident 2?
11 A. No.
12 Q. How much, according to your scale, approximately?
13 A. This sketch has not been done in such a scale so that you can
14 assess how far the lines are.
15 Q. You put a scale of 1 kilometre to 80 millimetres on 3.8, is it
16 your evidence that that scale is meaningless?
17 A. No, it has no relevance.
18 Q. Very well. Could you agree with me that in the map that you have
19 filed --
20 JUDGE ORIE: May I just ask you just for my clarification,
21 Mr. Stamp, you say it moves approximately -- you said three to four
23 MR. STAMP: I think I said two to three, I hope I said two to
25 JUDGE ORIE: That would mean that you would have it moved on the
1 map 16 to 24 centimetres; is that correct?
2 MR. STAMP: Yes. Thank you. No, no, 16 --
3 JUDGE ORIE: It's 80 millimetres, 80 millimetres is 8 centimetres,
4 isn't it?
5 MR. STAMP: I beg your pardon, no, I withdraw that. That is an
6 error and I'm very grateful for your guidance, Mr. President.
7 Q. Now, you will agree with me that in the maps that you have filed
8 with the English report, all of the lines for -- in respect of these three
9 figures correspond to the lines as in Slika 3.4?
10 A. May I just see 3.4, please? Yes, yes.
11 Q. You said earlier that you drew your lines from the 1:50.000 VRS
12 military map; is that your evidence that you drew the lines on the basis
13 of a 1:50.000 scale VRS map?
14 A. 1 to 5.000, I have never had such a map. 1 to 5.000?
15 Q. 1:50.000.
16 A. Yes, yes, of course. Then obviously the interpretation was
18 Q. May I show to the witness, with your leave, Mr. President, an
19 extract from a map already in evidence, C-2. This was a map which was
20 disclosed by the Defence and has been indicated to being, by the Defence,
21 as a map which the expert refers to in his the report as the one he used?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so.
23 MR. STAMP:
24 Q. Is that a copy of the map you used to draw your line, to draw the
25 confrontation lines?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. Yes, more or less, yes.
2 Q. And do you see a part of it that is circled in red?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Can you point to it on the ELMO, please?
5 A. [Indicates]
6 Q. That is in the vicinity of Dobrinja where the lines are also
7 marked on the other map, other maps that I showed you.
8 A. According to this map, the incident number 2 took place on the
9 Serb territory the way that this has been sketched, drawn.
10 Q. I'm just asking simply, is that the map you used to draw your
12 A. More or less, yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, the Chamber has been provided with -- let
14 me just have a look.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Maps with and without red markings, it's a bit
17 confusing for us. I apologise, it's the Chamber itself who marked the
18 map. Please proceed.
19 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I just wanted
21 to say something, that I am rather handicapped in terms of the transcript
22 if I could have some technical assistance. Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the technical booth will certainly assist you.
24 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. Stamp.
1 MR. STAMP:
2 Q. Witness, notwithstanding that the lines on the VRS military map
3 that you used are a little broad, I suggest to you that they correspond to
4 the lines that you have used in Slika 3.8. Slika 3.8 is your original
5 B/C/S map. Could you be shown Slika 3.8, please.
6 Witness, you are looking at the wrong document. There it is.
7 A. According to this map, the enlarged map, practically incident
8 number 2 occurred on the Serb territory which is not logical.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Stamp wait for the interpretation,
11 MR. STAMP: I have to interrupt because I want to move through
12 this quickly, very quickly.
13 Q. I suggest to you that what you are saying is not correct that
14 according to that map that incident 2 occurred on Serb territory but all
15 I'm asking you now: Doesn't that line in that area on that military map
16 that you say you used correspond to Slika 3.8? That's the question.
17 A. I don't know what to answer because here, the map is so roughly
19 Q. Witness, you used this roughly-drawn map according to you, to draw
20 your lines. I'm asking you a simple question: Does the lines, as you see
21 them on that map which you used to draw the lines that you presented to
22 Court, correspond with your lines in Slika 3.8?
23 A. May I be allowed to answer and to explain? You won't let me
24 answer the question. I have to explain.
25 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Explain, please, I need you
1 to answer the facts.
2 JUDGE ORIE: First, you answer the question and then you will get
3 an opportunity to explain, but you first should answer the question. And
4 the question is whether the roughly-drawn line on the military map,
5 whether that line corresponds with the line you have drawn on Slika 3.8.
6 That's the question.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it doesn't correspond.
8 MR. STAMP: Very well.
9 Q. Witness, I suggest to you that the lines in your English report,
10 the one that is filed, are not the correct lines of confrontation in the
11 Dobrinja area, that you changed them to fit incident 2?
12 A. It is true that the lines do not correspond.
13 Q. Well that is true, good. I'd like you to have a look at your
14 English report. We have your English report, that is one to your right
15 there. Please look at page 36. That page is part of your analysis of
16 shelling incident number 2 and you will see that paragraph 2 on that page
17 begins by saying the data presented show lack of logic and is not
18 convincing. And you go on to catalogue what you consider areas which lack
19 logic and are not convincing.
20 Three lines from the end of that paragraph, you have catalogued
21 one of the reasons why it lacks logic and is not convincing because you
22 say, "Both the ballistic" -- I beg your pardon, "Both the official or
23 ballistic expert reports make no mention of the position of the line of
25 Now in light of your obvious recognition of the importance of the
1 position of the line of conflict in respect to incident 2, would you
2 explain to the Court of the changes which that have been made resulting
3 ultimately in what the Prosecution submits is -- are maps with incorrect
4 lines being presented to the Court?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Vilicic, you now have been given an opportunity
6 to explain so ...
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I now explain?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you were asked to explain. Please do so.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In our analysis, in our expert
10 report, as far as the distances were concerned, we used distances and
11 ranges only from the data that was given in the official reports or other
12 documents and we compared it to the witness statements and other
13 statements that we couldn't take for authentic because of the subjective
14 assessment of some witnesses who gave these statements.
15 In all of our examinations and analyses, we never said precisely
16 where exactly the firing position could be nor were we able to establish
17 that. In other words, we were never able to precisely say exactly what
18 distance was in question. We mentioned distances only from the aspect of
19 the assessment of the angle of descent from the aspect of the impact point
20 of the projectile. So if we're talking about incident number 2, then the
21 assessment was carried out only on the basis of what was established on
22 the site itself with the reports, with the on-site investigation with we
23 agreed bearing in mind the traces on the fence, the projectile exploded
24 above ground, that it was probably a very large angle of descent
25 considering the number of people who were hit, and it was on the basis of
1 that that we then proceeded to analyse from which range this projectile
2 could have been fired.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that you are explaining something,
4 but you are not explaining what you were asked to explain. You were asked
5 to explain why, on the different maps, we find different confrontation
6 lines marked, whether it's relevant or not, whether you used it, whether
7 you used mainly other sources is a different matter. You were asked to
8 explain the difference in the marking of the confrontation lines on the
9 maps. That's the only thing you were asked to explain.
10 Would you please do that?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, let me just explain.
12 When we handed over the Serb version on the CD-ROM together with it, we
13 attached the four pages of these maps with the corrected lines. It is
14 obvious that the Chamber did not receive this paper. Because there were
15 some problems to reproduce the Serb version, I contacted the Prosecution
16 associate by e-mail to tell her how to do this and I also said that apart
17 from the Serb text, we have also attached four new corrected maps and I
18 gave the pages, the pages that you're just quoting now, but I have to
19 stress that in all of our examinations, it is not relevant this, line that
20 I have put in, because the line has been inputted imprecisely. What I
21 mean to say is that it doesn't correspond to reality. It had a large
22 objective error because it wasn't our objective to actually draw that line
23 precisely. It's been drawn as precisely to place the incident that it
24 would be within that - for instance this incident number 2 is within the
25 Muslim territories of course - there were no movement of lines so that we
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 would get a better conclusion because we gave both maps.
2 Here, on this CD, I have, if it is possible, I can have copies
4 MR. STAMP:
5 Q. I've heard your explanation for the change in the lines in respect
6 to incident 2, that is on the record. Quickly, have a look at your sketch
7 in respect to incident 3. And that's at page 40 of the filed version of
8 your report. You may remove the B/C/S copy of your report now, we're not
9 going to be using it until later. Page 40.
10 Professor, you may close the B/C/S version of your report, we are
11 dealing with the one which has been filed which you said you prepared, the
12 English version. Thank you.
13 Do you see where the impact spots are marked on this map?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Are they the correct location of the impact locations?
16 A. No. No. The photograph is inverted, you have been given a
17 different photograph. That's on page 40. On that CD that I'm talking
18 about there is also this correction that's included.
19 Q. Very well. It has been inverted. And also in the report that you
20 filed, the English version of the report that you filed and you said you
21 checked yourself, have a look at the photograph that you used in respect
22 to incident 2 and that is at page 35 of your report, photo number 1. Is
23 that the photograph you used to analyse the incident?
24 A. Yes, that's the Skoda that was damaged as a result of the shell,
25 that's from the official documents.
1 Q. Do you have the original -- the photograph that you used here in
3 A. No, I don't have it here. But just a moment, as far as I can
4 remember, I turned this photograph around by 180 degrees so that the
5 direction from which it was taken corresponded exactly to the position of
6 the vehicle in the street, as far as I can remember.
7 MR. STAMP: Could the witness be shown Exhibit 1386. It's a
8 recall of a document already in evidence.
9 JUDGE ORIE: It saves time, Mr. Stamp, if you indicate before.
10 THE REGISTRAR: He did.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I'm sorry then, I apologise.
12 MR. STAMP:
13 Q. Have a look at photo 0028269707.
14 A. Yes, as I said, I rotated it like this because it was more logical
15 for me for it to be placed in that way.
16 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Logical to reverse the
17 position of the photograph so that the car appears to be east of the gate
18 instead of west of the gate or, sorry, the car appears to be west of the
19 gate instead of east of the gate? What is the logic in reversing the
21 A. It was because the projectile came from the north and
22 exploded -- it exploded in front of the vehicle. If you take this
23 photograph as it is, the projectile came from the south but in the report,
24 it states that the projectile came from the north and exploded in front of
25 the vehicle and it hit a woman at the entrance.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, that you get a
2 bit confused --
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: Mr.--
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- with the names of counsel for the Prosecution I do
5 not. I asked Mr. [Microphone not activated] once what this means. Yes,
6 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, you were
8 speaking about elevations and it's the only answer I can give you but at
9 this stage, if the Prosecution could provide us with the original negative
10 of the photograph in question, if it has this negative so that it can be
11 checked subsequently in order to save time, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Yes, but let's
13 just hear what the witness tells us. He says that his recollection is
14 that he changed it from 180 degrees and you should not interfere at this
15 moment. You could, during the break, or offer to say if it would be of
16 any help we could -- but please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
17 MR. STAMP:
18 Q. Very quickly witness, I heard your explanation. You used this
19 reversed photograph, did you not, in your analysis, to make or to
20 speculate that the direction of fire could have been from the other side,
21 from the other direction without in the report indicating in the report to
22 the Court that you had reversed the photograph?
23 A. No, we didn't change the direction, we did the opposite in order
24 to make sure that the photograph corresponded to the direction from which
25 the projectile came.
1 Q. Very well, you have answered. May I proceed? I'm trying to move
2 quickly; I'm not being impolite. I just wish to suggest to you that where
3 you manipulate exhibits in a report, you ought to indicate to the persons
4 to whom the report is addressed the manipulation and the reasons for it;
5 would you agree with that as an expert witness?
6 A. I don't agree that I manipulated anything.
7 Q. When you --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Vilicic, the question is the following: If you
9 turn a photograph 180 degrees because it becomes more logic with one
10 version of the event, that takes away, for anyone who reads the report,
11 the opportunity to notice such an inconsistency or such an illogic
12 difference between photograph and the version of the event. The question
13 now is that you should do that on your own without telling those who read
14 your report that you did it and why you did it, and whether this would not
15 be improper to do even if you might have done it with the best intentions.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, this change, in my opinion,
17 doesn't change anything with regard to the conclusions about the place
18 where the projectile exploded and the altitude, the elevation and it
19 doesn't change the direction from which the projectile came.
20 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Say the
21 photograph is illogic in view of the version given to you of the event,
22 would it not have been proper to draw the attention to this illogic rather
23 than by turning the photograph for 180 degrees to adapt to the version of
24 the event of the version that was presented to you it might have been of
25 importance to this Chamber for example not to believe one of the versions
1 that appear in not your report, but in other reports.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When you have the negative of a
3 photograph, you can print it in both ways.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the Chamber is aware of that.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Our intention was not, by any means,
6 to change the meaning but just to make sure that the description
7 corresponded to the position of the vehicle. It's stated that the vehicle
8 was in front of the entrance and that Zorka Simic was standing in front of
9 the entrance, the projectile hit her, it exploded and caused damage,
10 deformation and given the position of the street, where the vehicle was,
11 this photograph corresponds to the situation.
12 JUDGE ORIE: You turned the photograph for 180 degrees because you
13 thought that would fit better into what you had read about the cause of
14 events; is that true?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's true.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please then move to your next subject.
17 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Q. Witness, quickly have a look at your sketch in respect to incident
19 4. That is at page 45 of your report. You said you drew those sketches
20 yourself. Look at the impact marks on those sketches. Have you
21 represented in your report the correct locations of the impact mark to the
22 top left of the picture? And that is the one on Oslobodilaca Sarajeva
24 A. Yes, that's how we marked those two impacts.
25 Q. On what basis or information did you put the impact on
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Oslobodilaca Sarajeva street on that side of the street on that building?
2 A. From the map of Sarajevo -- well, I found these streets in the map
3 of Sarajevo. And as far as I can remember, it said that a projectile fell
4 in the Oslobodilaca Sarajeva street and the other one on the surface
5 behind the building.
6 Q. Professor, you have presented a report which I'm sure yourself and
7 your two colleagues took care in presenting to the Court. Are you aware
8 that the Prosecution alleges that the impact on the building on the window
9 frame in Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street came from the east?
10 A. Well the direction of fire is indicated as being from the east.
11 The direction of fire is from the east.
12 Q. Is it possible for a projectile arriving from the east to hit a
13 ground floor window or wall on that side of the street of
14 Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street?
15 A. Do you mean the building in the Oslobodilaca Sarajeva street was
16 possible if it came from the direction that has been indicated, why not?
17 It is quite possible for it to hit that building.
18 Q. I'm not speaking of the building I am speaking of a part of the
19 building. Are you aware that it is a the Prosecution's case that the
20 impact on the building on Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street occurred at the
21 corner of a window and the wall of a ground floor apartment, are you aware
22 of that?
23 A. That's what it says in the documents, that's not in dispute.
24 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Aware of that?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Where you have put this impact on Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street,
2 look at it, is it possible for a mortar projectile -- the question is: Is
3 it possible for a mortar projectile arriving from the east to hit the
4 ground floor or a window of an apartment on that street, on that side of
5 the street where you have put this impact mark?
6 A. This is not at all the mark for the impact on the building, this
7 circle here doesn't refer to the window in the building being hit, it
8 refers to the field, to the ground, the fall of the shell on the ground.
9 The projectile hitting the window of the building couldn't have provided a
10 basis for any assessment. One could have used it to assess the direction
11 from which it came but it couldn't have been the basis of any other form
12 of analysis.
13 Q. I take your answers that you are representing --
14 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Mr. Stamp, I'm sorry, -- I'm sorry, I lost the
15 line. Just a minute, please. Line 20, page 25, you said the following:
16 "Are you aware that the Prosecution alleges that the impact on the
17 building, on the window frame in Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street came from
18 the east?" Is that correct?
19 MR. STAMP: Yes, generally from the east. If I -- may I refer to
20 the evidence in respect to that?
21 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: No, no, it's not necessary. I wanted to be
22 sure of that.
23 MR. STAMP:
24 Q. Your explanation, witness, is that it represents a shell which
25 fell on the ground in which case I'd like you to have a look at Exhibit
1 P2245 -- 47, I beg your pardon.
2 But before you do, let me ask you another question. You said that
3 that impact mark to the top left was in reference to a -- okay, withdrawn.
4 Have a look at the exhibit and I wish to direct your attention to
5 photo number -- here it is, the first one 00268245 which is a photograph
6 that you have used on your report?
7 A. Yes, that's the projectile that hit the ground.
8 Q. And you have correctly shown the angle from which it was taken on
9 your sketch?
10 A. I have to say that the angle -- yes, according to the photograph,
11 that would logically be the direction.
12 Q. And it is correct. Please just answer the question simply, there
13 are many points of agreement. The photograph that you examined had
14 arrows, did it have a caption to it which you see there on the photograph,
15 which read, "Wide angle of scene area between Oslobodilaca Sarajeva and
16 Dz. Nehrua streets were two 120 millimetre shells landed" - I am slowing
17 down - "nine people were killed and many wounded in the explosion, arrow
18 marks where the shells landed."
19 MR. STAMP: Perhaps, Madam Registrar, a copy of Exhibit 2247.1,
20 which is a translation of the caption could be handed to the Court.
21 Q. What I'm suggesting to you, witness, is this, that a conscientious
22 examination of the photograph which you used for your report would have
23 indicated that both impacts on the ground were in the courtyard. If you
24 were careful in your assessment of the evidence and the photographs, then
25 this photograph that you have used clearly shows that both impacts on the
1 ground were in that courtyard shown in the photograph.
2 A. According to the report which was provided, there were two impacts
3 in front of the underground garage and there were craters which were 97
4 centimetres deep which we used in the analysis and this impact in the
5 ground was not used, or rather only a comment was made.
6 Q. In other words, you don't think it is important where you put
7 impact marks in sketches which you are presenting for the Court's
8 consideration? It doesn't really matter what you put down there.
9 A. That's not what I said.
10 Q. Very well. Quickly, the last issue I want to deal with in respect
11 to methodology, may I take you to your -- to the English version of your
12 report, page 46. You said in the middle of the page in the last paragraph
13 before -- maybe I should just count it I withdraw that, you said in the
14 middle of the page in the passage beginning, "The fact," and I will read
15 it, "The fact that two mortar shells and one unidentified projectile have
16 hit a site of limited dimensions within two --
17 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow down while you are
19 MR. STAMP: I'm so sorry. I apologise.
20 JUDGE ORIE: We all go quicker if we read. Could you please slow
22 MR. STAMP: "The fact that two mortar shells and one unidentified
23 projectile have hit a site of limited dimensions within through to three
24 minutes only can be considered accidental. If, at the distance of about
25 100 metres from this locality, Oslobodilaca Sarajeva number 3 (statement
1 of Witness number 1) barracks of the Muslim forces were situated it is
2 possible that they were the target to the weapons located in different
3 positions at different ranges from the barracks."
4 At page 44, in the middle of the page, you indicate Witness number
5 1 is Zahida Kadric, you also indicate that you analysed the statements of
6 witness number 2, Azra Omerspahic.
7 In your conclusions at reference 3.4, that's your conclusion at
8 page 59, you say there is lack of reliable evidence that the locality
9 affected was intended target of fire since military object housing Muslim
10 forces also the dividing separating lines of the conflict were situated in
11 close vicinity.
12 In other words, witness, you have drawn conclusions and made
13 statements on the basis of what Zahida Kadric is supposed to have said in
14 her statements. The question is did Zahida Kadric say in her statement
15 that there were military barracks 100 metres from the incident? Witness,
16 would you prefer if I give you a copy of her statement, the B/C/S
17 versions, original versions of her statements and after the break you can
18 tell us whether or not she said that?
19 A. I have it.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I object both
21 the fact that the Prosecution itself asked the witness not to examine his
22 document insert and the tone seems a little rough to me, Mr. President.
23 MR. STAMP: I apologise if my tone seemed a little rough. The
24 thing is that I wanted to move through this area in 45 minutes and it has
25 taken a little over that.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it is -- I think your apologies will be accepted
2 by the witness.
3 MR. STAMP: It's a simple question -- well, I'm sorry,
4 Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: The question is that where you refer to a certain
6 witness, whether in the statement of this witness, there appears anything
7 about the presence of military barracks.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have all the material here,
9 all the entire statement but the statement was such, there was such a
10 statement. And the assumption that that could have been the target, that
11 was concluded on the basis of the fact that shells were fired from a great
12 distance. And in a fairly short period of time, two projectiles were
13 fired, only these projectiles from analysed.
14 MR. STAMP:
15 Q. We will get into that later. I'm just trying to understand the
16 methodology that you have used in writing, preparing, and presenting this
17 report. You have said that on the basis of the statements of a witness
18 who has not testified --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, it's 10.30. I'd like to have a break but
20 I would first like to ask madam usher to escort the witness out of the
21 courtroom. We'll adjourn for half an hour, Dr. Vilicic.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, we can spend a lot of time on this issue
24 but I'd like to draw your attention to two different ways of reading page
25 46, the paragraph you were referring to where it says, "If, at the
1 distance of about 100 metres from this locality (Oslobodilaca Sarajeva
2 number 3, statement of Witness number 1), barracks of Muslim forces were
3 situated. It is possible that they were the target to weapons located in
4 different positions," et cetera.
5 The reference to the statement of Witness number 1 of which you
6 said that on page 44, evidence is summarised that there were no military
7 objects in the settlement, could be to the presence of barracks and then I
8 fully understand what your problem is. If, however, the reference to the
9 statement of Witness number one would refer to locality, and locality is
10 the place where the event happened, the locality "Oslobodilaca Sarajevo
11 number 3 statement of witness number 1," I haven't, in my mind, the
12 statement of that witness but if the witness said that it all happened on
13 Oslobodilaca Sarajevo number 3, then we might spend a lot of time and have
14 a lot of confusion on a contradiction or an imprecision which might not
15 exist. Could you please keep this in mind.
16 MR. STAMP: I'll keep that in mind, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And we'll adjourn until 11.00.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, could you
19 provide the necessary instructions to the Prosecution so that we can have
20 the negative of the photograph. We would like to check something if this
21 is possible.
22 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... The Chamber if
23 the negative of the photograph does exist then the Chamber would also be
24 interested too but I take it that it's a picture from a report which has
25 been delivered without negatives.
1 MR. STAMP: We do not have the negatives.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll adjourn until 11.00.
3 --- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam usher, could you please escort the witness into
6 the courtroom.
7 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
8 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. Witness, in respect to the photograph that you indicated you
10 reversed for the purpose of enhancing logic, may I suggest to you that the
11 expert report or the investigative report of the analyst, which is in
12 evidence before the Court, refers to a green Skoda motor car facing east
13 and that is how it appears on the photograph which is in evidence and
14 which is taken from the north. By your reversal, it is suggested you have
15 put it facing west and making it inconsistent with the report of the
16 expert. Do you agree or disagree?
17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the witness, please.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Madam usher, could you please put on the
19 microphone -- your microphone is off, Dr. Vilicic, and we don't want to
20 miss a word of you. It's on now, yes.
21 MR. STAMP:
22 Q. Witness, at page 8 to 17 of your report, you speak about the
23 effectiveness of mortar rounds, the likelihood of casualties.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't know
25 whether this is important that the answers are given to the questions of
1 the Prosecution but I clearly said -- heard what the witness said and
2 the -- that would have to bear in the transcript so could we please --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Vilicic, did I understand you well that you
4 disagreed with which -- what was put to you by Mr. Stamp?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.
6 MR. STAMP:
7 Q. And in calculating the probability of victims being hit, you have
8 used certain formulas.
9 You don't need to show him, madam usher, thank you very much.
10 Is that correct?
11 A. Yes, yes.
12 Q. And the formulas that you used are partly based on a theoretical
13 construct with certain assumptions including persons are spread one square
14 metre apart on horizontal terrain; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You also have indicated in your report that the that will radius
17 of the 82 millimetre round is 18.6 metres; is that correct?
18 A. 82 and 16.1; 18.6, 120. Table 6, first row. First row.
19 Q. 16.1 metres is the lethal effect for the 82 millimetre mortar and
20 18.6 for the 120 millimetre mortar?
21 A. Yes. Yes.
22 Q. I'd like to ask you what is the maximum distance from the
23 explosion that the fragments can cause injury to any person who might be
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, I withdraw that.
1 A. The effective range is the range when the energy of an impact is
2 100 joules per 1 centimetre square, that is --
3 THE INTERPRETER: One metre square, interpreter's correction.
4 A. And some fragments, depending on the size of the fragment and the
5 initial velocity can go to different distances but the issue is
6 about -- is their energy is reduced with distance so some fragments can go
7 50, 100 metres, but then you will not have that energy that will be
8 sufficient to cause injury, lethal injury. A lethal injury is 100 joules
9 per centimetre square.
10 Q. I would just like to remind you to simply answer my question. You
11 have indicated that fragment particles can go 50 to 100 metres they can
12 cause injury but they are not necessarily lethal. I'd like you to have a
13 look at a sketch -- please could the witness be shown this document, this
15 And while that is being done just for the record, you agreed that
16 up to 100 metres the amount of particles still travelling might cause
17 injury but not lethal injury?
18 A. Some fragments, but practically speaking, from the point of view
19 of effectiveness and calculations, standards say that 82 millimetres would
20 be 120 metres maximum, that would be the effective range. That would be
21 against troops and that would be --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness slow down, please.
23 MR. STAMP: Could you please slow down.
24 JUDGE ORIE: The interpreters ask you to slow down, Dr. Vilicic.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When we are carrying out
1 calculations for effectiveness, the necessary number of projectiles in
2 order to destroy the target.
3 MR. STAMP:
4 Q. I know that there are a variety of calculations for different
5 purposes. Simply you're saying 120 metres with the 82 millimetre mortar,
6 the fragments can cause injury. How far for the 120 millimetre mortar can
7 the fragments cause injury?
8 A. No, no. No. No, I didn't say that 82 millimetres can be 120. We
9 had -- in practice we had one case of injury, light injury at 80 metres so
10 it cannot go that far, the fragments do have such energy to be dispersed
11 so far. Small fragments lose energy very quickly they have a small mass.
12 Q. How far can fragments from the explosive burst of the 82
13 millimetre cause injury, what's the maximum distance; do you know?
14 A. What I'm telling you is that according to military standards, that
15 in calculating the range of effectiveness for 82 millimetre shell, you
16 calculate that 20 metres and 120 millimetre shell, 30 metres.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let me try to take away some confusion. You're
18 talking about, Dr. Vilicic, about calculations you'd make about
19 effectivity. Mr. Stamp is asking you what would be the maximum distance
20 from the point of explosion where you might find injuries? I think you
21 answered that question in respect of 82 millimetre mortars where you said
22 that it -- that once you found a light injury at 80 metres which, as far
23 as I understand, was relatively exceptional in your view.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: So approximately the maximum where you would find
1 even a small light injury. Could you answer that same question in respect
2 of 120 millimetre mortars? At what distance would you possibly find
3 someone lightly injured by a 120 millimetre mortar shell that exploded?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That range is lower than the minimum
5 range for an impact of a shell. If you have a look at the table, 120
6 millimetre shell, minimum range is 85 metres, and for a -- to be
7 absolutely precise for 120 millimetre shell that would be about 100 metres
8 or so but I would have to look at the table. Otherwise, one's own troops
9 would be destroyed with mortars.
10 JUDGE ORIE: What table were you referring to exactly?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 5 for 120 millimetre mortar and
12 page 3.
13 JUDGE ORIE: No, certainly we are talking about the distance from
14 the point of impact so I would say it comes closer to what you described
15 in table 6, I would say, where you say that the lethal radius is 60 metre
16 or 80 metres but we are not talking about the radius as such but what
17 would be the maximum, I take it that the radius is also an average of the
18 distances on which you would still find people to be killed, what, and I'm
19 therefore asking you where you said that you once found someone lightly
20 injured at 80 metres by an explosion of an 82 millimetres --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Metres, metres --
22 JUDGE ORIE: I think I said metres. No. 80 metres by an
23 explosion of an 82 millimetre mortar shell, yes.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: What was the longest, the -- what was the greatest
1 distance that you found from someone being injured by a 120 millimetre
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We didn't look into this. We assess
4 the effectiveness of a projectile in an arena and arena's radius maximum
5 is 20 metres, the outer would be 40. It would depend on the calibre.
6 It's an arena, you check it that segments are positioned, two or three
7 inch planks are positioned and that's how you can assess the number of
8 perforations and traces. These traces or scratches would mean how much
9 this would be hit and that would be equal to an injury so it
10 would -- that's how we would measure the effective energy and in those
11 arenas, we never examine how far fragments could travel how far they could
12 fly but these distances are smaller than the minimum distances that are
13 supposed to be hit with those mortars. But because mortar is normally
14 used from above, then -- then on the ground they are used vertically then
15 the crews themselves would be injured.
16 MR. STAMP:
17 Q. Witness, have a look at the diagram on the ELMO. Does the
18 theoretical formula that you used to calculate hit probability take into
19 consideration fragments like the one indicated by the arrow above the line
20 and the arrow above the head of the man standing?
21 A. Yes, it's used standing person in these analysis, that's about
22 half a metre of width and two metres of vertical height, that's what it's
23 used as a standard everywhere in the world for a standing figure of a man,
24 half a metre by two metres.
25 Q. So the analysis --
1 A. You don't calculate anything else over that, fragments that fly
2 over two metres are not taken into consideration.
3 Q. You -- would you agree with me that the positions of the persons
4 in respect to the impact site, in reality, would be very important to
5 factor into any assessment as to hit probability?
6 A. I didn't understand. Perhaps it's a problem of interpretation. I
7 didn't understand your question well. I'm now listening in English.
8 Q. If one should analyse an report upon an incident which actually
9 happened, it is important to factor in the positions where persons are in
10 respect to the explosion. That is, the position of the persons in
11 relation to the site of the explosions.
12 A. Yes, yes. Yes, that's what's needed to be known. Yes. But in
13 these specific situations, this was not known.
14 Q. Well, we had evidence about the positions of victims in respect to
15 each of the scheduled incidents before you submitted your report in
16 September; is that correct?
17 A. Yes, yes, but --
18 Q. Take incident number 1.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. The -- are you aware that the football game was being played at a
21 corner of a car park which was near to a residential building?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Are you aware that the ground to the east of where the impact site
24 occurred rises up to go into the residential buildings? That the ground
25 to the east of the impact site would be about a metre higher than the
1 impact site itself.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Are you aware that at the southern side of where the football game
4 was being played, the ground also rises?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Are you aware that the evidence is that on the other side of the
7 football game there were persons, including children, spectators, sitting
8 atop parked vehicles watching the game?
9 A. Very well. Yes, all right.
10 Q. Would you agree with me that having regard to the difference to
11 the relative positions of these people in that they are higher than the
12 impact site, a theoretical formula which is based on uniform horizontal
13 ground could not apply to predict how many people would be hit because
14 persons in elevated positions would be within the area where they could be
16 I'd like to withdraw that question and put it one part at a time.
17 Would you agree with me, having regard to the difference in the
18 relative positions of the people at the football game in that they were in
19 elevated positions as spectators, a theoretical construct based on
20 horizontal ground would not apply to predict --
21 A. No, no.
22 Q. Could you explain to the Court how it is that you would --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Go on.
25 A. Because what we assumed is that all the persons were on the pitch,
1 on the level of the pitch. That means that they were practically along
2 the lines of the pitch. That means that persons were in the least
3 favorable position, the closest to the impact of the explosion. I think
4 you can see that on the sketch for incident number 1 on page -- English
5 text, let me just find it, on page 32. This rectangle, there are two
6 rectangles, the outside rectangle represents that all the people watching
7 the game were within this rectangle, that means that they were positioned
8 around the pitch. That is the least favorable position considering that
9 the shells exploded on the surface of the pitch.
10 Much more unfavourable --
11 Q. That is your explanation that you assume that the victims are on
12 the ground around the pitch at the same level or elevation as the
14 A. Yes. That's the least favorable situation.
15 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... That couldn't apply in this
16 particular incident. Let's look at incident 2 where you also apply this
17 theoretical construct. Have a look at the diagram I showed you. You
18 see --
19 A. Which diagram, on the ELMO?
20 Q. On the ELMO, please. You see to the left of the diagram where I
21 have -- where it is drawn the impact site?
22 A. This, yes.
23 Q. Your theoretical construct certainly would not take into
24 consideration fragments which were going downward.
25 A. It does take it into consideration, it's taking into consideration
1 everything from zero to two metres of height, all the fragments, even
2 those that ricochet.
3 Q. Zero is the impact site on the ground; is that correct?
4 A. Yes, yes.
5 Q. Does it take into consideration anything, any fragment which could
6 be going below the ground downward?
7 A. I'm not sure whether you understand.
8 Q. Please, I am putting to you that your theoretical construct does
9 not take into account fragments which go downward.
10 A. Unfortunately, I have to come to the conclusion that you are not
11 familiar with the methodology of determining the effectiveness of
12 projectiles, to determine the effectiveness of projectiles you have to
13 take into consideration all --
14 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Understand to be -- by
15 answering my questions. In your theoretical construct which includes the
16 assumption that the shell explodes on horizontal ground, you would not
17 take account of any fragments that would be going downward into the
19 A. All fragments that ricochet are taken into account because it is
20 by this means that you determine the density of the fragments for each
21 projectile and that is one of the main values that is used when creating a
22 model for calculations.
23 Q. Which ricochet off the ground and go up, you would not take into
24 account fragments which go down into the ground. I wonder if I'm making
25 my --
1 A. A fragment that penetrates the ground can't be taken into account,
3 Q. Simply. In incident 2, are you aware that the impact occurred
4 approximately one metre above the ground?
5 A. Yes. Yes.
6 Q. Are you aware that it occurred at a gate leading to a yard which
7 was further -- which was lower, much lower -- let me withdraw "much,"
8 which was lower than the street level?
9 A. Am I aware of that, yes. Not much, but about 70 centimetres, the
10 two steps that led into the courtyard, as far as I can remember.
11 Q. Are you aware that many of the witnesses who testified in court
12 were injured while they were in that courtyard which would be out of the
13 consideration of your theoretical construct because they were below the
14 point of explosion?
15 A. No, that's not correct. Your conclusion is not correct. Because
16 the calculation models include the density of fragments which is typical
17 for each projectile, which is different for each projectile so that such a
18 conclusion cannot be reached.
19 Q. The question is are you aware that some of the persons who were
20 injured in that explosion were sitting in a yard or were at a pump in a
21 yard which was below the position of the explosion?
22 A. I think that you are forgetting the fact that the projectile
23 exploded in the air and that --
24 Q. I'm not forgetting that fact. Witness, simply, were you aware
25 when you did your report that some of the persons injured were positioned
1 at a lower elevation in relation to the site of the explosion? Were you
2 aware of that when you did your report?
3 A. Only in the direction of the pump, only in the direction of the
5 Q. So your answer is yes --
6 A. That's a lower altitude, it's lower down.
7 Q. And I say it that your theoretical construct and mathematical
8 simulations would not apply to those persons who were injured?
9 A. You're forgetting the fact that we came to the conclusion that the
10 results of ours corresponded to the number of people who were wounded and
11 you're forgetting that fact. Have a look at table 2.5.
12 Q. My suggestion to you, sir, if you just answer is that your
13 theoretical construct does not take into account the spatial distribution
14 of fragments downward so it would not take into account the persons who
15 were located at a lower elevation to the impact site; do you agree or do
16 you disagree? That is all I am putting to you, witness.
17 A. I don't agree because it's completely incorrect. Our results show
18 a greater number of people who were hit than the actual number, sir, and
19 the number was greater than the actual number.
20 Q. Witness -- sorry, Professor, are you aware of the number of people
21 who were inside that yard around that pump in the front yard? It's a
22 simple question, you don't need to refer to your report, witness, let's
23 move quickly.
24 A. Mustn't I look at the report? Am I not to look at the report?
25 JUDGE ORIE: If you --
1 MR. STAMP: Answer the question.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you need to look at the report to answer the
3 question please do so and if you can do without but ...
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just had a look to remind myself
5 of the names of the witness who mentioned the number of people in the
6 queue for water. Enver Taslaman in his first statement said that there
7 were 120 men in the queue and he -- when testifying before the Trial
8 Chamber he said there were 150.
9 MR. STAMP:
10 Q. I'm sorry to interrupt you witness I'm not talking about the
11 people queueing for water that is not what the question is about, the
12 question is about the amount of people who were in the yard with the pump.
13 Do you know how many people were there?
14 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you, Mr. Stamp, is it your position that if
15 people are a little bit lower than ground level that you would get a
16 higher or lower number of injured people or casualties? May I just ask
17 you what your position is because the Chamber has great difficulties, I
18 checked with the other Judges, to understand that if persons are a bit
19 lower, they are not any higher anymore so if you take into consideration
20 the -- that some extra fragments could hit people at a lower level, there
21 are more fragments then at the same time these people are missing at a
22 higher level to receive the fragments that are flying there.
23 You understand what I mean? And therefore we have great
24 difficulties in understanding your line of questioning and we noticed that
25 the witness also has.
1 MR. STAMP: The position is that the -- perhaps the witness should
2 be sent out, of course.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we can ask the witness just to leave for one
5 [The witness stands down]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just -- before you explain, what my
7 understanding, and I take it also the understanding of the other Judges is
8 that of course if a person is at a lower level as the point of impact, the
9 down-going fragments could hit that persons and on the horizontal level
10 they would not be calculated. At the same time, all the fragments that
11 are flying horizontally and that would hit that person if it was not at a
12 lower level is not there anymore to be hit. So I don't know whether you
13 calculated this all in because it -- but this is, I'm not an expert, but
14 on the basis of, I would say, of normal reasoning it would see what you
15 gain as possible area below the level you will miss it at a higher level.
16 MR. STAMP: Yes, if I may, Mr. President, briefly.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. STAMP: The purpose of the cross-examination is to indicate
19 that the theoretical model the witness is using does not apply. One has
20 to relate the evidence of this witness that persons, that two metres up,
21 above two metre doesn't apply -- may I withdraw that and rephrase. His
22 formulas would not apply to structures or persons higher than two metres.
23 The explosion occurred one metre up. According to the witness it is about
24 70 centimetres down, centimetres or -- 17? He did give a figure.
25 JUDGE ORIE: 70.
1 MR. STAMP: Which is less than two metres so horizontal particles
2 would be hitting persons standing in the garden and the particles which
3 his formula discounted that go downward would also be hitting persons
4 sitting in the garden as is the evidence of Rasim Mehonjic.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes but at the same time the particles that would fly
6 I would say up 50 centimetres that would normally hit a person if he was
7 at the same level finds no person there anymore to be hit so
8 therefore -- the witness was talking about the density of fragments.
9 MR. STAMP: Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And I think that's the whole issue. He says we find
11 a density of fragments at a certain distance which is there or there.
12 Then of course you need objects to be hit by those fragments, whether they
13 are low, so that the fragments did not end into the earth but could
14 continue to fly or whether these person are a bit higher, perhaps you
15 asked the witness whether it would influence the density of fragments
16 because that's the whole issue and we really have great difficulties in
17 following you -- apart from what the mathematical consequences of that
18 would exactly be that if I have an explosion here and the people all a bit
19 lower, then of course there might be a slight difference but they will be
20 hit by the particles flying down but they will not be hit anymore by the
21 particles flying horizontally so therefore the -- it's a -- you are
22 entering into a very, very detailed discussion on which the witness seems
23 to have no clue how to handle it and therefore I thought it wise to --
24 MR. STAMP: Very well I'll move on but as I -- I'll move on. As I
25 indicated though we still maintain that even on his evidence, those flying
1 horizontally would be effective.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but only for -- let's say 20 or 30 centimetres
3 perhaps that part of the body that would be high enough to catch the
4 horizontal flying fragments.
5 MR. STAMP: Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. STAMP: The head.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, for example -- yes. I can imagine that.
9 MR. STAMP: Very well, I will move on.
10 JUDGE ORIE: We see that the witness cannot cope with this and I
11 understand why.
12 MR. STAMP: I will try to proceed as it pleases the Court.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, to avoid any
14 problems with regard to this issue, I heard the Professor's testimony, he
15 spoke about 70 centimetres and then two steps. We know that two steps,
16 that's about 36 centimetres, that's twice 18, according to the norms so I
17 would like to see the photographs now, perhaps to see whether this
18 concerns two steps or not and to ask him this question because there is a
19 significant difference here.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I take it that you will be able to find them
21 during the next break and then you of course can put them to the witness.
22 Please, madam usher, could you escort the witness into the
24 [The witness entered court]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
1 MR. STAMP:
2 Q. Witness, going back to my last question, are you aware of the
3 amount and density of people who were at the gate and in the vicinity of
4 the pump in the yard?
5 A. We're aware of the total number from these testimonies, on the
6 basis of these testimonies, it's between 100 and 150. That was the
8 Q. Where were these 100 to 150 people?
9 A. Well, they were said to be in the water queue and then in the
10 calculation you can see that we used.
11 Q. Very well, I was asking about the gate and the area of the pump
12 but I will move on.
13 I'd like to ask a few questions about what you said in respect to
14 the Markale incident. You said it was clearly an impact detonation,
15 that's what you said yesterday?
16 A. As far as the explosion is concerned, yes, yes. Yes, I said it
17 was an explosion.
18 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Occurred on the surface of
19 the ground?
20 A. Yes. Which is what all the other witnesses stated.
21 Q. Yes. Can you have a look at your figure 2.1 in your
22 report -- 2.21 at page 20.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. In other words, it was not an explosion like that, it was not an
25 on-the-ground explosion?
1 A. The figure 2.21 is a graphic depiction of the values used in
2 calculating the depth of penetration of a projectile. It has nothing to
3 do with -- it has no direct connection with Markale. It has to do with
4 the calculation of the penetration depth.
5 Q. Very well. When the mortar shell explodes, according to the page
6 12 of your report there is a frontal swathe which comprises two part, the
7 first part being particles of the fuse and of the shell case, front ogival
8 part near the mouth and the second part being fragments from the remaining
9 portion of the case ogival and you show that in figure 2.13 that there is
10 a frontal swathe of fragments.
11 A. Yes, that's what it looks like. That's for under 120 millimetres,
12 it's figure 2.13. It's for 120 millimetre shell, yes.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 A. That's the zone of lethal fragments for various drop velocities.
15 Q. Witness, I'd like to show you a photograph with the assistance of
16 the usher. This is a high-speed x-ray photograph of the burst and
17 fragmentation of a high-impact projectile. Is that a high-speed
18 photograph -- x-ray photograph of the burst of a high-speed projectile?
19 A. This is not a mortar shell, this is an artillery shell and it
20 disintegrates, disperses in a way that is totally different in which a
21 mortar shell disintegrates.
22 Q. What I am asking basically -- very well, it is an artillery shell?
23 A. This is a photograph of an artillery projectile, a shell, that's
25 Q. Now what I wish to ask you is whether or not in the process of the
1 shell bursting in what you describe here to be an artillery projectile you
2 see in the photograph to the right the body of the projectile swells
3 before it bursts?
4 A. To the left, this is the projectile before it bursts, before it
5 explodes and here, we have the stages when the process of explosion has
7 Q. Now, I agree with you that an artillery shell disperses in a
8 different way to the mortar shell, but wouldn't you agree with me that the
9 mortar shell also expands, the jacket swells and expands before it bursts?
10 A. Yes, that's such a rapid process, a few thousandths of a second
11 but the basic thing you must know is that the photograph of a shell which
12 is in the process of exploding isn't the same because an artillery
13 projectile because of high acceleration, it's -- the thickness of the case
14 increases at the bottom and in the case of the mortar shell, the
15 dimensions of the body are smaller and in the photograph that I provided
16 you with, you have the exact dimensions, they decrease.
17 Q. For the area of the fuse in the right photograph of the shell just
18 before it explodes, you see the fuse also swells slightly. Would that
19 also apply in respect to the burst of a mortar projectile?
20 A. Fuse? No, that's impossible.
21 Q. In respect to the artillery shell here, you can see the fuse has
22 expanded slightly.
23 A. In the case of some artillery fuses that have a larger diameter,
24 there can be deformations because of the shock wave, it can expand but in
25 the case of mortar fuses, especially the M-62 which is used a lot in the
1 former Yugoslavia, this can't happen. It can be ejected. The shock wave
2 can eject it frontally, this happens very often. That's why we have such
3 a clear impression of the fuse.
4 Q. Right. I suggest to you that on explosion, in respect to the
5 mortar shell, the fuse swells -- the fuse expands as well and is distorted
6 by the blast of the explosion in a mortar shell; do you agree or disagree?
7 A. Just a moment. I just want to check the translation because --
8 it's as I said: If the diameter of the fuse is slightly greater, if it
9 has the central part to penetrate but it will be affected by the shock
10 wave because it's an aluminum construction so it would not really swell,
11 it would not really expand. This is made of aluminum, the fuse is made of
12 aluminum, the body of the fuse which is wound on.
13 MR. STAMP: The photograph can be removed. Thank you very much.
14 Q. You said the shell at Markale exploded on the surface. Can you
15 tell us what caused the crater?
16 A. Every explosion results in the creation of a crater. If you put a
17 shell on the -- an anti-tank shell on a concrete surface it will also
18 cause a crater to be produced. If you're asking me about Markale.
19 Q. No, no, I'm talking about -- I'm referring to your --
20 A. Generally speaking.
21 Q. When a shell explodes on impact on the surface, what causes the
22 crater? And maybe you could assist us in explaining that by looking at
23 your figure 2.13.
24 A. The crater is caused by a explosion of a mortar shell, if we're
25 talking about a mortar shell. When the projectile impacts on the ground,
1 on the surface, a crater is created primarily because of the effect of the
2 front part of the fragments around the fuse and the fuse. That is the
3 first impact which leaves the trace. And the second part is the part of
4 the body, the fragments of a fragmented body of the shell will disperse
5 and they will leave traces on the surface, that will depend, of course, on
6 the type of the surface so there will be either more pronounced or less
7 pronounced traces. So that will depend on the effect of the fuse. The
8 crater could be of greater or lesser depth. That will depend on the fuse.
9 If it is an instant fuse it will make a very, very small crater, very
10 small crater. That will depend on the speed of the fuse and also how hard
11 the surface is. If it is a very hard surface, the crater will be shallow.
12 If it is softer than the crater will be deeper as I explained it
13 yesterday, you can also see it on that photograph.
14 Q. You have explained very well, thank you. So you know of
15 Professor Vukasinovic's research into the explosion of mortar projectiles,
16 you would be aware of it? You would be, yes or no, please?
17 A. Well, not only do I know that, but I was professor of Vukasinovic
18 and I spent my entire working life with him, I mean, we worked together
19 and also while he was doing his doctoral thesis, I helped him with some
20 consultations, Professor Stamatovic was his mentor and we jointly
21 conferred in some things and he did his Ph.D thesis extremely well and
22 he's known to be as one of our best experts in this area and I believe
23 also in the world because his works are also accepted in America.
24 Q. Yes. We'll get to his published work later. Would you agree with
25 me that the crater of an impact or a contact detonation on the surface is
1 caused by the frontal swathe of the products of a detonation as referred
2 to at page 12 of your report, which is taken almost verbatim from some of
3 his work?
4 A. Yes, yes.
5 Q. So with an instant fuse as in the Markale incident, would you
6 agree with me that the stabiliser does not penetrate the area where the
7 crater -- or may I rephrase.
8 In an explosion of a mortar shell with an instant fuse, if the
9 stabiliser should lodge, it does not penetrate the top surface which is
10 blasted away by the products of the detonation?
11 A. Coming back to the question what was the velocity of the
12 projectile if the velocity of the -- the impact velocity of the projectile
13 was higher than the velocity of the ejection of the stabiliser, then the
14 stabiliser will continue to go in that direction; however, if the impact
15 velocity was lesser, then the stabiliser would be ejected backwards.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I'm afraid, Dr. Vilicic, that you did not understand
17 the question. The question is that if a tail fin finally ends because it
18 continues its trajectory, ends in the ground, that it will not be
19 confronted by the resistance of the soil or whatever surface it is that
20 has already been removed by the forces produced by the detonation.
21 MR. STAMP: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Do you understand that the first part of the path has
23 already been paved by the explosion and will not create any resistance to
24 the tail fin anymore. That's the question.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, the interpretation was
1 inadequate. I read the English transcript and your explanation now. So
2 in the first part of the penetration, up to the instant fuse effect, the
3 stabiliser is not involved in that stage. Later on, the stabiliser
4 continues to move in that direction and hits that surface, the depth of
5 the crater because of the fact that of the shell is not part of the
6 stabiliser penetration. These are two separate functions.
7 However, the crater, so that the stabiliser can go more deeply
8 then the crater has to be deeper, if we measure the depth of penetration
9 of the stabiliser depending on the surface, then the stabiliser, in order
10 to penetrate deeply has to have higher velocity and has to have this depth
11 of penetration will depend on the quality of the surface, of the
12 resistance of the surface.
13 Your question wasn't very clear. What did you want to know so
14 that -- to clarify it?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Vilicic, I think that you did not fully
16 understand actually what Mr. Stamp wanted to know. Mr. Stamp wants to
17 know whether the top layer of the surface on which a projectile lands has
18 been blasted away already by the explosion itself so that it will not
19 create any resistance once the tail fin, if it arrives with high enough
20 speed, comes to the ground level.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. As I said, the stabiliser and
22 the projectile, these are two different stages. The crater caused by the
23 projectile and the crater, the penetration of the stabiliser through the
24 crater, these are two different -- two separate functions.
25 MR. STAMP:
1 Q. I just want to make it absolutely clear, witness, I'm using your
2 report --
3 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has no unclarities in respect to the
4 answer of the question just put first by you and -- if you get my meaning.
5 MR. STAMP:
6 Q. For clarification, you gave us in table 4 of your report the
7 muzzle velocity of fragments. While I suggest to you, and -- I suggest to
8 you that the muzzle velocities that you have here are much lower than the
9 muzzle velocities?
10 A. Yes, the velocity of the dispersion of the fragments, the average
11 velocity of the fragment dispersion, table 4.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, I do not understand your last question,
13 but "while I suggest to you and I suggest to you that the muzzle
14 velocities that you have here are much lower than the muzzle velocities."
15 MR. STAMP: Than the real time muzzle velocities for the 82
16 millimetre mortar -- I'm sorry the witness is not hearing. You just
17 indicated that you didn't hear me.
18 THE WITNESS: I didn't hear you.
19 MR. STAMP:
20 Q. Let me suggest to you that the actual muzzle velocities for the 82
21 millimetre high explosive shell and the 120 millimetre high explosive
22 shell are about two to three times higher than what you have here. Do you
23 agree or disagree?
24 A. [Interpretation] No, no.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just -- to -- in order to avoid whatever
1 confusion, table 4 gives mean values of muzzle velocities, I don't know
2 whether you are referring to mean values or to maximum or minimum or...
3 MR. STAMP: Mean values.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mean values, yes. So Mr. Stamp puts to you that the
5 mean values indicated on page 9, table 4, are two to three times lower
6 than they actually are.
7 THE WITNESS: Higher, not smaller.
8 MR. STAMP: He's quite right.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so therefore that the --
10 MR. STAMP: Oh, I see, the question was quite properly put, I beg
11 your pardon.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well there's -- in reality, there are two or
13 three times higher and therefore represented the two to three times lower.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the detonation
15 explosion measured in our laboratory for TNT is 6.000 metres per second.
16 That is the velocity of the shock wave. Now, the mean velocity of the
17 fragments is calculated on the basis, on the basis of classification and
18 the representatives of the group of fragments. When we have a projectile
19 fragmenting, dispersing, the fragments are taken for calculation are taken
20 for fragments that are of mass 1 gram to 50 grams, that's the group of the
21 fragments depending on the calibre.
22 What's calculated is value for the mean fragment and it is the
23 value of that mean fragment is this mean velocity. Fragments move in
24 different -- at different velocity.
25 Q. All right. Let us assume that you are right and I am wrong.
1 Would you agree with me though that at velocities that you have given
2 here, the products of detonation would have created the crater before the
3 stabiliser arrives?
4 A. First of all, stabiliser is together with the projectile. The
5 blast of the projectile, if the velocity, drop velocity is higher than the
6 ejection of the stabiliser velocity, the stabiliser will continue its
7 direction of movement or it will go back if the velocity is lower.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Try to -- I'm -- I think what Mr. Stamp asks you is
9 whether the fragments that result from the explosion of the shell, that
10 the fragments have such a speed that they will create the crater, that is,
11 that they will damage the soil on which the projectile lands prior to the
12 arrival of the tail fin at that same surface. So that they are there
13 first do the damage cause a crater and only afterwards the tail fin would
14 arrive at that spot. Would you agree with that?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, I agree with that. First
16 the fuse hits and then there will be the frontal swathe of the fragments
17 would hit because of the blast, they will create the crater. After that
18 the stabiliser would arrive if it's velocity is higher as I've already
20 JUDGE ORIE: It's not blown back.
21 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
23 MR. STAMP:
24 Q. So a lot of the analysis has to do with the fuse setting. Now, at
25 page 3 and at page 5 of your analysis, you indicate the fuse settings for
1 the 82 millimetre mortar, there is impact and superquick and at page 5,
2 for the 120 millimetre mortar, impact, superquick and delayed.
3 A. Yes. Yes.
4 Q. And at page 18 of your report, you give us the specifications
5 according to Yugoslav or JNA tests for a superquick fuse: "In
6 modern" -- and I'm reading from the English version of your report, "In
7 modern impact percussion fuses of superquick action, sensitivity is
8 defined as target resistance that will surely activate the fuse"?
9 JUDGE ORIE: You are reading Mr. Stamp. That means you are quick.
10 MR. STAMP: I will start again. "In modern impact percussion
11 fuses of superquick action, sensitivity is defined as target resistance
12 that will surely activate the fuse. Usually it is a fir board about 25
13 millimetres thick and fuse reaction time is most frequently about one
15 Q. Is that a correct rendition of what you have written?
16 A. Yes, yes, that's stated in the footnote, you have the literature
17 is given that it's been quoted from.
18 Q. Now, would you agree with me that Krsic, Nikola Krsic was the only
19 Yugoslav who has done research into fuse speeds or has written a book
20 about it?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Okay. Your figure of one millisecond comes from his 1967 work?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you used his estimation of time of one millisecond to apply to
25 a modern impact percussion fuse of superquick action. That's what you
1 did; is that so?
2 A. Sir, on page 19 in the formula of the real penetration, if you
3 take less time than one millisecond, you would get lower values for the
4 depth of penetration. In other words, if we had taken the values that
5 you're suggesting, we would have achieved even smaller craters, lower
6 values in respect of the fuse effect.
7 Say it's half a millisecond, then you will see how much the depth
8 of penetration is lessened by that. That would be 0.5 thousandths of a
9 second you will get much lower depth of penetration a much shallower
10 crater when a shell explodes. In other words, we used less favorable
12 Q. I'm simply asking you that your fuse activation time is a
13 millisecond and that is based on Krsic's research.
14 A. It's not just that. We carried out a large number of experiments.
15 We examined, analysed fuses, we have x-ray, we have a lab for ballistic
16 examinations and analysis. If you -- if I had known that you needed such
17 photographs, I would have brought photographs and x-rays of shells that we
18 had done as well as of fuses.
19 Q. I'm speaking of fuse speeds, fuse speeds. Listen to me carefully
20 it's very important. Listen to me. Listen to me, Professor, please.
21 A. What do you mean by fuse speed? [In English] Reaction time of --
23 Q. The speed of one millisecond you use in your calculations to
24 formulate tables 7 and 8 at page 21 of your report?
25 A. Yes, one millisecond.
1 Q. And when you use one millisecond, your results are that a 120
2 millimetre mortar at a relatively low-impact velocity of 121 metres per
3 second would penetrate the ground to the extent of .63 metres before it
4 explodes. Do you see that?
5 A. 7 centimetres, 7 centimetres it would penetrate 7 centimetres.
6 The depth of penetration would be 7 centimetres. Under the angle of 47.3
7 degrees, it would be the impact velocity 121 metres per second, the depth
8 of penetration without the fuse being activated, without an explosion, it
9 would go 15, with the explosion it would go 10 deep and under the angle,
10 the depth of penetration would be 7 centimetres.
11 Q. Let's go through it a little bit more slowly. Look at table 7.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. The third column from the left, what does that column signify?
14 A. These are impact velocities, drop velocity of the projectile, that
15 is, VC metres a second, these are drop velocities for 82 to 120, 122,
16 impact velocity.
17 Q. And the column to the right of that, with TR, that is a fuse
19 A. That's the time of one millisecond.
20 Q. The fuse activation speed?
21 A. Yes. Yes. Time activation speed, reaction time of fuse.
22 Q. The column to the right of that LP, what is that?
23 A. That's the depth, LP, the depth of penetration [In English]
24 Penetration without function of fuse.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, just one
1 intervention, the transcript of the interpretation, the witness made it
2 very clear, he made his position very clear by distinguishing the reaction
3 and the activation and what's missing, there are two negative reactions in
4 the transcript. We shouldn't confusion the notions. I think it's very
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I take it then that we have paid proper
7 attention to that and even someone who reads the French transcript will
8 now read this observation.
9 Please proceed then, Mr. Stamp.
10 MR. STAMP:
11 Q. You were telling us what the column with IP at the head means?
12 A. Yes, that's the depth of the penetration of the projectile without
13 the functioning of the fuse. If the fuse malfunctions, that would be the
14 depth of the penetration in the surface, in the soil. However, because it
15 encountered resistance, the reaction happened after one millisecond, the
16 realistic trajectory wouldn't be 18 it would be 6 centimetres because the
17 fuse reacted and the projectile penetration then stopped.
18 Q. And --
19 JUDGE ORIE: In order to create no confusion, Mr. Stamp, where you
20 said IP, I particular it that you are referring to LP, I think it's LP if
21 you would look at figure 2.21, you see it's written there with --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it's LP.
23 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much.
24 Q. So at what point does a fuse activate and the explosion occurs in
25 this table?
1 A. The fuse is activated at the moment -- let's take your example,
2 120 millimetre mortar. 47.3 drop angle, 121 metre per second velocity, it
3 would go without the fuse to the depth of --
4 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear.
5 A. -- But the complete projectile would go 12 centimetres into the
6 soil so that the depth of the penetration is 9 centimetres, the depth of
7 the crater would be 9 centimetres in that case.
8 MR. STAMP:
9 Q. In other words, the projectile would penetrate the soil to the
10 degree of 9 centimetres and then explode?
11 A. Yes. Yes. It would create that crater, yes.
12 Q. Which is a different type of crater to the one where it explodes
13 on impact on the surface.
14 A. I don't understand, what do you mean that that will be different?
15 Q. A crater --
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in order to
17 avoid confusion, I don't think that certain things were heard well and are
18 not in the transcript because of interpreters and I'm referring to
19 page 62, line 23, what I said was that in the English transcript, there
20 are two negative answers of the witness. It's exactly the opposite
21 negative answers missing [In English] Missing thank you so much.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's 12:30, we'll have a break for 20 minutes.
23 Mr. Stamp, I got the feeling that on your last few questions,
24 there was great misunderstanding between you and the witness. Perhaps you
25 could -- either he didn't understand you well or you didn't understand his
1 answers well, but I got the feeling that there was great misunderstanding.
2 Perhaps you could formulate your questions in such a way that we
3 avoid -- I know that it's witness and those who examine the witness
4 together but let's try to avoid confusion.
5 MR. STAMP: Very well. I would endeavour to articulate my
6 questions with clarity. Thanks.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll adjourn until ten minutes --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I just say
9 something? Yesterday, you gave me a homework to -- if that's possible, to
10 make a drawing of the change of velocity with the height and I did that
11 with a lot of pleasure but with the limitation because I didn't have
12 all the calculations and the right table. What I did is that I made an
13 approximate drawing but if you need it in ten days or so I can send it, a
14 computerised calculation but if you want I -- this can be copied for you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I would certainly have come back to that because I
16 asked you so I -- if you would please give it to madam usher so that it
17 can be copied and I already thank you very much for assisting us also in
18 this respect.
19 We'll adjourn until ten minutes to 1.00.
20 --- Recess taken at 12:36 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Madam usher, could you please escort the witness into
23 the courtroom.
24 [The witness entered court]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Vilicic, these are long days but we have to
2 Mr. Stamp.
3 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 Q. Witness -- I'm sorry, Professor?
5 A. [In English] No problem.
6 Q. Would you agree with me that the resistance to penetration of a
7 fir board is lower than the resistance to penetration of concrete?
8 A. [Interpretation] Yes. Can I explain? A board, a fir board is
9 used when developing a fuse. It's the minimum resistance provided that a
10 fuse should react if the projectile goes through the board and the fuse
11 isn't activated then that means that the fuse isn't functioning properly
12 and those sort of fuses are rejected but this is something that we use in
13 the course of developing new fuses. This has nothing to do with -- it
14 hasn't direct [Realtime transcript read in error "has indirect"] relation
15 with subsequent events. It's a matter of changing the time of reaction,
16 the fuse reaction time. It's a one-inch fir board.
17 Q. 24.5 millimetres fir board?
18 A. Yes, one saw, one inch.
19 Q. Let me see if I understand what you just explained. In the tests
20 for the fuse sensitivity, it would have to explode, detonate the mortar
21 before it passes through the fir board, that's how it is tested.
22 A. No, sorry. That's the minimum pre-condition for fuse to be sure.
23 When it hits such a board it mustn't react at the time and this is only
24 checked when you are deciding whether to adopt a certain fuse to
25 use -- accept certain fuses.
1 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Professor, Professor, please. Have a look on
2 page 65, line 9, it says, "This has nothing to do with -- it has indirect
3 relation." I think the translation was: "It hasn't direct relation".
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it doesn't have a relation.
5 The characteristic of the security of the fuse.
6 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you.
7 MR. STAMP:
8 Q. The purpose of the test is to ensure that the fuse is surely
9 activated before it passes through that fir board, if I understand you
11 A. No, the purpose of this test is that at a certain distance from
12 the barrel muzzle, the projectile mustn't react when hitting the board.
13 This confirms that it is functioning properly so that it should not
14 explode, the shell should not explode in the barrel, et cetera. You asked
15 me whether the resistance of the board was greater or equal to that of
16 concrete and that's why I said that the two things had nothing to do with
17 each other. A fir board is its resistance to the action of fragments, a
18 one-inch fir board is used to test how many fragments can penetrate it and
19 if a one-inch fir board is penetrated by these fragments then one
20 concludes that the resistance is of a certain kind.
21 Q. I'll read part of your report and ask you to explain what it
22 means. "In modern impact percussion fuses of a superquick action,
23 sensitivity is defined as target resistance that will surely activate the
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Stamp please slow down.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You are reading, Mr. Stamp and I think we'd like to
2 have the page reference.
3 MR. STAMP: Page 18, I beg your pardon. Page 18, line 7.
4 Q. "In modern impact percussion fuses of superquick action,
5 sensitivity is defined as target resistance that will surely activate the
6 fuse. Usually it is a fir board 25 millimetres thick." What does that
8 A. This is a manner of testing how sensitive the fuse is. The board
9 corresponds to the energy that is needed to activate the fuse.
10 Q. In other words, the fuse, if I may put it that way, successfully
11 passes the test of being a superquick or a fuse of superquick action if it
12 surely activates before passing through that fir board?
13 A. Yes. If it is activated when coming into contact with the board,
14 yes, but there are two concepts that we must distinguish. One is testing
15 the safety of the fuse to ensure that it is safe when in the barrel and
16 the second function is on a board in front of the muzzle six, seven, eight
17 metres, it mustn't be activated and afterwards, after that it has to react
18 when it comes into contact with the one-inch board so that from moment in
19 time it means that the mechanisms are functioning, they were active so
20 that the next time a superquick fuse hits a board it has to react. At a
21 distance of 8 metres it has to pass through such a board and at a distance
22 of 15 metres, it has to be activated, the fuse has to explode.
23 Q. Before it passes through the board?
24 A. Yes, yes. When it comes into contact with the board, it
25 penetrates the screen in any event but ...
1 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Back to your tables at page
2 21 and that is table 8. You will see in the rows for the mortar shell of
3 120 millimetre that your calculation of depth or depth up to the point of
4 explosion which is in the right column, the furthest right column indicate
5 penetration depths all of which are greater than the 2.45 millimetres for
6 the fir board test.
7 A. Well, table 8 has nothing to do with fir boards, this has to do
8 with concrete. It's the depth of craters when the surface is a concrete
9 one. You have to make a distinction between the sensitivity, that is the
10 time at which something is activated and the time when this happens. When
11 hitting this board, one hasn't defined where the projectile was when the
12 explosion occurred. All that was requested, all that was requested was
13 that it should be activated. These two things cannot be related to each
14 other, cannot be linked up.
15 Q. What does column -- the right-hand column in table 8, the furthest
16 right column in table 8 speak to?
17 A. It indicates the -- let's say the altitude of the depth of
18 penetration, the distance from the lowest point, the distance of the
19 lowest point from the surface since the projectile entered at a given
20 angle and this first example, it's 46.5 degrees, that's the drop angle so
21 for a trajectory of 10 centimetres, when you divide the altitude with the
22 drop angle with the sinus, you get the altitude, go back to the image you
23 asked me about, figure 2.21.
24 Q. Is this column to the right, furthest right of table 8 indicating
25 the penetration depth in concrete before the fuse activates and the
1 projectile explodes?
2 A. No, that's the total penetration depth, the elevation H. H is the
3 total number of -- in metres of the depth of penetration when the fuse was
4 activated because H is calculated LPR through sine, LPR and the sine of
5 this factor you can see that H through LP, LPR is the sine of the drop
6 angle that is this Delta C.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I think
9 that the attitude of the Prosecution which seeks to affirm something
10 different from what we can see quite clearly in the expert report, I don't
11 think this attitude is acceptable. One can cross-examine is fine but to
12 simply claim the opposite in our opinion this is not acceptable.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I have the feeling that there's some misunderstanding
14 as to the table, the understanding of the table, Mr. Stamp. May I try.
15 Do I understand you well that that the last column on page 21,
16 table 7 indicates the depth of the hole that is caused by a mortar shell
17 landing and exploding and has got nothing to do which whatever is left in
18 the soil but just the depth of the hole created by the explosion.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: That's what we see on several pictures we see apart
21 from markings of several fragments we see in the centre just a small hole
22 and this is the depth of the hole once the projectile has landed and has
23 exploded irrespective of whatever could be still found, has got nothing to
24 do with that, whether later a tail fin or the fuse would, I take it that
25 the fuse would be destroyed also but --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Is that clear -- is that clarifying anything,
3 Mr. Stamp?
4 MR. STAMP: Yes, to some degree, yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I hope it did. Please proceed.
6 MR. STAMP:
7 Q. Do your tables here in respect to the 120 millimetre mortar shell
8 here in this column indicate the depth of penetration before the fuse is
10 A. No, they don't. LP, the LP column corresponds to the depth of
11 penetration of the projectile if the fuse fails to activate, if the fuse
12 doesn't function properly. [In English] Longer of penetration, not depth,
13 longer of penetration, LP, highest depth of penetration, longer of
15 Q. And LPR, that column, what is that column showing?
16 A. [Interpretation] Given the time reaction of the fuse, it indicates
17 that if the fuse is functioning, the projectile will, for example in the
18 column instead of penetrating on the ground 15 centimetres it will
19 penetrate to a depth of 10 centimetres because it will explode
20 at -- after having covered 10 centimetres and that will be the depth so
21 that is the trajectory of the projectile up until the time in which it
23 Q. So --
24 A. So if the depth of penetration is smaller when the fuse is
25 activated than when the projectile penetrates the ground without the fuse
1 being activated so the depth of penetration is not as great as when the
2 fuse is activated.
3 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter's correction, when the fuse
4 fails to function properly.
5 MR. STAMP:
6 Q. So LPR tells you the depth that the projectile will travel until
7 the fuse is activated?
8 A. [In English] It's not depth, it's --
9 Q. Or the measurement of penetration then that the projectile will
10 travel before?
11 A. It's longer of penetration, longer of penetration.
12 Q. Length?
13 A. Longer of penetration. Depth of penetration is H.
14 Q. I see.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could you, Dr. Vilicic, I have to correct myself
16 first because everyone correctly says Professor Vilicic. I should have
17 done that during the last two days as well.
18 THE WITNESS: No problem.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's because of the name. Professor Vilicic,
20 could you please, on a piece of paper, just draw what LPR is because I
21 have no difficulty understanding H, no difficulty in understanding LP, but
22 LPR is still ...
23 If you could do it on the ELMO, we could follow you, so if it's
24 not too inconvenient.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the surface, ground surface.
1 The projectile falls at an angle theta C, from this point in time it
2 starts penetrating the ground. If the fuse is not activated, let's assume
3 that the projectile reaches this point and this is the length, the LP
4 length. It depends on the resistance and characteristics of the ground.
5 If, as is usual, the fuse is activated, the fuse will be activated after
6 one millisecond. If it is activated after an even shorter period of time
7 then the depth will be even smaller. Let's say this is when the fuse
8 exploded. This length represents the length of the penetration, LPR, this
9 is where the explosion occurred, and this is the real depth of the crater
10 so this is the point that the projectile reached if the fuse activated.
11 If it failed to activate then it would have penetrated to this point.
12 LPR, this value is given in the formula on page 19 and you can see
13 it's -- the drop velocity, the time of reaction of the fuse, so it's VCTR
14 through 4 LP, one minus VCTR to 4 LP if this is reduced then the LP, if
15 the LP is reduced you can see what the calculation is, the impact
16 velocity, this is VC.
17 If in this equation you reduce TR, then the value for LPR is also
18 reduced. In other words, if we had taken a long period of time, well, in
19 fact we took a less favorable case when analysing the penetration than
20 would have been the case with the superquick modern fuse which would have
21 been activated after 5 milliseconds.
22 JUDGE ORIE: What you tell us as a matter of fact --
23 A. After half a millisecond.
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- Which each is I would say the projection, the
25 length of the projection upwards to the surface of LPR.
1 THE WITNESS: Vertical.
2 JUDGE ORIE: The vertical distance.
3 THE WITNESS: Vertical distance.
4 JUDGE ORIE: To the surface whereas LPR is the real distance as
5 the fuse has travelled before exploding and what is --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Projectile, projectile. I'm sorry.
7 [In English] Before explosion.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Before explosion.
9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And what is confusing a little bit is that LP on your
11 sketch is relatively short where it is approximately 6 to -- 6 times
12 longer than LPR usually according to your -- according to your table or at
13 least a couple of times it's only a little bit longer on your sketch.
14 Mr. Stamp, is it clear to you now what LPR is?
15 MR. STAMP: Yes, very clear. Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed. And may I ask you one
17 additional question because I take it that it's all about that, the
18 quicker the fuse activates upon reaching the soil, the smaller the value
19 of LPR and therefore also of H will be; is that correct?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, that's correct, yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp.
22 MR. STAMP:
23 Q. I have it that you said: "If in this occasion you reduce TR then
24 the value for LPR is also reduced. In other words if we had taken a long
25 period of time well in fact we took a less favorable case when analysing
1 the penetration than would have been the case with superquick modern
2 fuses which would have been activated after 5 milliseconds."
3 A. Yes, yes, clear. The shorter the time, the less penetration there
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, there is a
6 problem of interpretation or reading. It's 0.5 milliseconds not 5
7 milliseconds as the Prosecution states now.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, we are talking about one millisecond or
9 half a millisecond which is --
10 MR. STAMP: That is why I reread the transcript to him to correct
12 THE WITNESS: Half a millisecond.
13 MR. STAMP:
14 Q. In other words the superquick fuses reaction time are faster than
15 the times in these tables. The superquick fuses -- you nodded, could you
16 answer verbally? The superquick fuses reaction times are faster than the
17 ones used for these tables; is that correct?
18 A. Superquick fuses, yes, but they have a completely different
19 structure to these fuses. They are completely different fuses, not these
20 fuses we are talking about here, these are mechanical fuses that are
21 installed on the projectiles but the superquick fuses are used for
22 projectiles and they are electrical fuses. On Yugoslav shells you don't
23 have such fuses. On shells, mortar shells of such manufacture there is no
24 such fuses there are other fuses that can be activated during the
25 trajectory but this is -- there are not such fuses used.
1 Q. I know. When you say superquick fuses being one of the things is
2 that can be used for the 80 millimetre and 120 millimetre mortar round,
3 are you referring to a fuse that impacts on contact, that is, on contact
4 with a surface without penetration?
5 A. As we explained it in our expert report, it depends on the surface
6 resistance. For the fuse to become activated for normal fuses, you need
7 the certain amount of energy to be created to have the fuse becoming
8 activated. In superquick fuses, the thing is also there has to be a
9 contact with the surface but on mortar shells there are no such fuses.
10 These are mostly the fuses that are on anti-tank projectiles, anti-tank
12 Q. I suggest to you that the superquick fuses which you refer to at
13 page 18 which will surely activate before they penetrate a 25 millimetre
14 board are fuses that were used by the JNA in the former Yugoslavia.
15 A. Our official name for our fuse is ultra instant fuse which is
16 UTM62. It's a quick fuse but it's not the most modern fuse. You spoke of
17 superquick fuses. You commented on Krsic's data but our fuses are the
18 ones that are relevant for those norms and that was the criteria for us
19 for a superquick fuse. That was our criteria.
20 Q. I suggest to you that the Yugoslav superquick fuse which must
21 surely activate before it penetrates a 25 millimetre fir board activates
22 at a much faster speed than one millisecond.
23 A. That's very good if that's so, then all our calculations will have
24 lesser depth of penetration instead of these values, you have lower
25 values. The H and the LPR will be lower. I said that we used one
1 millisecond and we could have reduced that if we had wanted it. If we had
2 said that we had the most modern fuses but we know that our series of
3 manufacture of fuses particularly old ammunition, they worked for one
5 JUDGE ORIE: Professor Vilicic, may I ask you one question just in
6 between? You said, "That's very good if that's so," good for what, good
7 for whom? Would you explain what you meant by saying, "That's very good,"
8 if that was so?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The gentleman said that the lower
10 time for the -- the functioning time is less than one milliseconds, 0.5
11 milliseconds now if we take 0.5 milliseconds then there would be less
12 depth of penetration so the results would be even more favorable from the
13 aspect they would be more favorable for -- when I mean favorable, let me
14 just explain. What I mean by favorable is that you will have lower values
15 so there will be less depth of penetration, everything will be lower in
16 that sense it will be more favorable.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, why would that be good or bad? I mean why are
18 lower values any better than higher values?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, there would be less depth of
20 penetration automatically. That would mean there would be just shallower.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Why -- let me just ask you what -- why is less
22 penetration better than more penetration?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the point of view of the
24 effectiveness of a projectile, it is greater if the projectile, for
25 troops, if it explodes on the surface so if it is instant explosion when
1 it touches, impacts on the surface, that's better. The effectiveness of
2 projectile is better when it penetrates you have less depth of penetration
3 because the higher depth of penetration, the less is the projectile
4 effective but ...
5 JUDGE ORIE: So the answer to my question is that is good for the
6 effectiveness of the shell landing.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
9 Please proceed.
10 MR. STAMP:
11 Q. In other words, Professor, your table 7 and table 8 --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- On page 21 do not apply, the fuses that detonate on impact?
14 A. What do you mean "do not apply"? Because they apply as soon as
15 there is one millisecond, these are calculations for the assumption that
16 the time functioning of the projectile is one millisecond and these values
17 apply for that.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Also, in order to avoid confusion, what you are
19 telling us that if you change TR in your tables, that the other columns
20 will give different values.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What will change will be the LPR and
22 H, they will be smaller. They will be lower values if TR is lower.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
24 MR. STAMP:
25 Q. I further suggest to you that, as you have said, a mortar round is
1 more effective for persons -- well, effective against persons in the open
2 when it explodes on impact and that was the normal fuse setting in the JNA
3 and in Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, impact.
4 A. I don't understand this question. I don't know what you meant.
5 Q. Very well. When a fuse -- when a mortar projectile detonates on
6 impact, it is more effective against troops in the open and that is why
7 you said it was good?
8 A. If it penetrates to a lesser degree, yes, the depth of
9 penetration, the length of penetration reduces the effectiveness of the
10 projectile but, I'm sorry, but I have an impression that you are confusing
11 something. The table 7 and 8 are to do with craters with the length of
12 penetration. These lengths, these depths are not related with the
13 effectiveness of the projectile. These are the values for the length of
14 penetration. They would be lower --
15 Q. What I'm suggesting to you is that there were impact fuses in use
16 by the JNA in the early 1990s and by impact fuses, I mean fuses that
17 exploded on contact with the ground.
18 A. No, no one's contesting that.
19 Q. Very well. And these are the superquick fuses that, in your
20 report, at page 3 and 5 you say are applicable to mortars?
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, there seems to be a great confusion and
22 I'd like to interfere. If you are talking about detonating upon impact,
23 you are putting this as being exactly the same as superquick detonation,
24 et cetera, et cetera. We have heard a lot of evidence which means the
25 distinction between detonation on impact and for example delayed
1 detonation so therefore I would put the following question to you,
2 Professor Vilicic, when we are talking about fuses with a TR time of half
3 a millisecond or one millisecond or a little bit higher or a little bit
4 lower, would you still call all these fuses fuses used for detonation upon
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are fuses that are used,
7 UTU-M62 or UTU-M78, these are impact instantaneous fuses, that's what we
8 call them, they are superquick, that's how it was translated into English.
9 Ultra instant fuses. They can be ultra quick and with a time delay so
10 they have a double action, that's what we call them, that would be the
11 ultra instantaneous or if the relevant tap is turned on the fuse then this
12 is done for a purpose, for the shell to penetrate more deeply into the
13 soil, and that function of the fuse is used on 120 mortar shell fuses when
14 we want to have -- to destroy something, this is not used for troops, this
15 is used when we want to dig in.
16 JUDGE ORIE: But you would still talk about detonation upon impact
17 if you would use any of the fuses you just mentioned.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Both fuses have this instant,
19 instantaneous function.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] English transcript, previous
22 page line 15 so that the methods are clear, the witness said in the first
23 part of the answer the opposite of what appears in the transcript.
24 JUDGE ORIE: What the witness said at line 15, as a matter of
25 fact, I did not only listen to the translation but I also looked at the
1 witness when he said that, it should be checked in the original tape
2 before it could be accepted that he said something different and perhaps
3 that should be done if you claim that it's wrongly translated.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I'm simply talking about the
5 first word, the rest of the reply it can be deduced, the rest of the
6 answer is correct that he said that no one contested or something like
7 that but the first part.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I understood: "No, no one's contesting that." That
9 is that -- but if you say that the answer is that no one contests that
10 then let's forget about the first no because that --
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: It was "yes, no one contest".
12 JUDGE ORIE: That's then clear. I think everyone understood it in
13 that sense.
14 No, Mr. Stamp, I am looking at the clock but if you --
15 MR. STAMP:
16 Q. My suggestion is that when using fuses that detonate the mortar
17 projectile on impact without penetration, the fuse time is much faster
18 than those that you have used in this table.
19 A. What's the problem?
20 Q. Do you agree with that?
21 A. It could be a shorter time.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I object, Mr. President for
23 the simple reason that the witness just gave us a technical information on
24 the changeable character of such a fuse; therefore, we cannot ask a
25 general question.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you could ask a question because there's one
2 value used in the table so therefore, if there is a variety of possible
3 fuses and if you use one in a table you can ask a question about the
5 Let me just ask you, Professor Vilicic, what Mr. Stamp wants to
6 know from you is whether the 1.0, the one millisecond you used in table 7
7 and table 8, that that is not the time which would be valid for the
8 quicker or the quickest fuses used in the former JNA and that was used in
9 mortars used during the conflict.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is the time that we officially
11 used. This value is our value. This is a time constant which was used
12 for ultra-instantaneous fuse function.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let me ask you the following: Are there any quicker
14 fuses -- were there any quicker fuses used during the conflict, the armed
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, this fuse
17 function, this time for functioning time is measured when the new fuse is
18 adopted, when it is created, when it is established, and we had that at
19 the institute and our mean value for that was one millisecond. I don't
20 know that in --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just -- the question is quite simple. Were
22 there any fuses used in mortar projectiles that had a quicker TR than the
23 one you used in this table?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For mortar shells, this is the
25 functioning time of the fuse that were manufactured in the former
1 Yugoslavia and with which the mortar projectiles manufactured in
2 Yugoslavia were equipped with and I am surprising where this data comes
3 from because this is what we did at the institute. Where does this data
4 come from that Yugoslavia had some other quicker fuses than these ones?
5 JUDGE ORIE: So, Professor Vilicic is no, there was no quicker
6 fuses used than the one with TR of one millisecond.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
8 JUDGE ORIE: That is your answer.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I just say
10 something, mechanical fuses, this has to be said, because there are also
11 electrical fuses but not for mortar projectiles, the mechanical fuses for
12 Yugoslav projectiles for mortar shells had this functioning time of one
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, there are no quicker ones as you told us used in
15 mortar bombs.
16 The original of your homework may be returned to you but I would
17 have one additional question. Could this, and it's available for the
18 parties as well, could this be put on the ELMO just for one second?
19 Professor Vilicic, I tried to set out a bit clearer what I asked
20 you to do. I might have been not very clear so therefore I thought it
21 better to write it down. You understand what is on this drawing? Your
22 answers --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, completely.
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- Yes as they appear in the homework product you
25 gave to us uses an increase of Y, you have increased Y with 500 metres and
1 then you have answered the question of the velocity. Yes?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is a heightened velocity if
3 the weapon is 500 metres higher.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that there is a relation between the
5 two but I would like to have the difference in velocity expressed as a
6 function of X rather than a function of Y because you said with an extra
7 500 metres Y you get this velocity and what I would like to know is with a
8 100 metres or 200 metres or 300 metres higher point of -- I know that they
9 are related, but we, as lawyers, are not smart enough to translate what
10 you gave us into the values we need.
11 So if you could do the homework again, but not by referring to an
12 extra trajectory Y but by extra trajectory X. Would that be possible or
13 minor ...
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would request, I said that before
15 and I would like to say that the equipment that I have doesn't allow me to
16 do this at the moment because I only have a calculator, I don't have a
17 computer to calculate the trajectory. If you need precise values, this
18 can be done and then it can be forwarded through the Defence to the Trial
19 Chamber. Here, on the table that I gave you, it will be possible to
20 provide for each charge that would be a function Y of the drop velocity
21 and dependent on the curve change, I extrapolated the curve and you've
22 asked me for 500 metres. I made it for 500 metres negatively so that the
23 weapon is higher than the target but if the weapon is below the target
24 then this curve will go instead of right it will go to the left 500 metres
25 and this is how you will get that velocity value.
1 I don't have the original here to show on the ELMO.
2 JUDGE ORIE: To be -- I understood your homework to be that you
3 added 500 metres to the longitudinal trajectory and what I would like to
4 have and I know that the values are related, I would very much like to
5 have the difference in velocity when the level of impact would be higher
6 that of course also would shorten the Y.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think we are misunderstanding each
8 other. This is Y, meaning 500 metres of altitude, not longitudinal, not a
9 trajectory, it's a vertically 500 metres vertical.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then you did exactly what I asked you and at least
11 the confusion has now been stopped.
12 Yes, Professor Vilicic, as you might have noticed we have not
13 finished yet, we will try to finish your testimony tomorrow and we'll
14 adjourn until then, until 9.00 in the morning, same courtroom.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
16 at 1.55 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday
17 the 28th day of February, 2003, at
18 9.00 a.m.