1 Friday, 28 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 I'm informed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, that you would like to address
10 the Chamber. I already can tell you that if it's urgent we'll listen to
11 it now. On the other hand, we'd like, if possible, to finish with
12 Dr. Vilicic, so if it's a matter that could wait for a second then
13 please ...
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It is urgent but it will be
15 brief. First thing, copies of tapes, we would just like to have it on the
16 record that we perhaps were not able to ask certain questions of expert
17 Vilicic. I say perhaps because it's not sure because practically when the
18 copies were -- when the copies were made, and this is not a reproach, the
19 time that elapsed, we were not able to do what we wanted to do during the
20 examination-in-chief. That is when we were asking our questions, that is
21 the first point.
22 The second point, Mr. President, and this is very important, when
23 I say it's urgent we think that it should be dealt with straight away to
24 do with the decision that was passed yesterday by the presiding judge of
25 Trial Chamber I, unless I'm miss taken in relation to the issue that we
1 asked him.
2 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I take it, just
3 an order to have matters clear. Please, yes.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Now, the case is the
5 withdrawal -- this was to do with the lacuna in the law directly
6 communicated to the Appeals Chamber and today we find ourselves in a
7 specific situation, the following: The withdrawal was requested, the
8 cases before the Appeals Chamber and in this type of situations there is a
9 quasi-legal lacuna received by the judge who passed the decision in
11 Now, this is to do with a domestic jurisdiction that when such a
12 situation is presented, that is, when there is a withdrawal, that is, when
13 it is to the level of the appeals authority or the text itself, what
14 happens is that --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel slow down, please.
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... The Defence
17 would like to request that the proceedings will be stayed as long as the
18 Appeals Chamber is dealing with the matter of the accusation.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That's exactly it.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Especially since you refer to many legal systems,
21 this is an important legal matter, I would say, which is very much to be
22 dealt with in written form. So if there are any submissions to be made, I
23 mean today or these three hours will not considerably change --
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, but the reason why I'm
2 intervening now is following the observation of the Judge and his order so
3 that the Defence is not reproached with a belated request to do with the
4 suspension. Now, we are intervening immediately just to in limine litis
5 on this point and if you tell us that we can formulate that in writing at
6 a later date we will do that but from this very moment we have formulated
7 it. The -- our position is suspension of all procedure and if we continue
8 to question this witness and others, this is -- we're taking this with a
9 reserve so that our position is clear.
10 JUDGE ORIE: It's perfectly clear that you object against the
11 continuation of the proceedings at this very moment. When I said it's
12 something for written submissions, especially because you referred to
13 systems of law and that of course is not something that could be explained
14 easily just by orally informing us but precise sources would be needed to
15 better study your argument. When you say the later date, of course the
16 matter is such that the Defence should do that as soon as possible and not
17 just leave it too long so that we have your argument, written argument,
18 available, as soon as possible.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, is there any other issue to be raised?
21 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President, I have some issues to raise but I
22 heard you say earlier that you preferred to complete the evidence of this
23 witness unless it's urgent. The matters that I have are not so urgent so
24 perhaps I could make my points at a later time during the day if that's
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if that would be possible if there is a later
2 time today available for us because we have to leave this courtroom at
3 exactly quarter to 2.00.
4 I have a few decisions and observations. The Defence has asked
5 for more time for the examination of the expert witness Radinovic, the
6 Chamber initially granted three hours then the Chamber granted four hours;
7 both four hours for the Defence and four hours for the Prosecution. The
8 Chamber will consider, depending on how the parties proceed in the
9 examination and cross-examination to add one hour to those four hours for
10 both parties and it will depend on the efficiency the parties demonstrate
11 during examination of the expert witness.
12 There has been another issue which needs some attention and that
13 is whether there would be any breaks and how to deal with rebuttal
14 evidence if there is any request for rebuttal evidence. Of the
15 Prosecution should indicate as soon as possible from now on whether they
16 want to present rebuttal evidence. They should specify what rebuttal
17 evidence they would use unless, upon good cause shown, the Chamber would
18 decide that for a specific part of the rebuttal evidence you have in mind
19 that you would not have to provide further details as to what statements,
20 what witnesses, et cetera, but in general, we are at such a stage of the
21 proceedings that the Prosecution is in a position to disclose to the
22 Defence what it intends to seek - this is not a decision of the Chamber
23 that it will be admitted - so that the Defence can start preparing for the
24 cross-examination of rebuttal witnesses and again if there's any specific
25 reason or a specific subject why it would unfair -- why it would be unfair
1 to the Prosecution to present this data, the Prosecution can apply for an
3 The final list of the final request of rebuttal evidence, because
4 there might come up new things, you never know, should be filed
5 immediately after the close of the Defence case, on that same day
6 immediately. The Chamber then will take presumably four days to hear the
7 other party on that request and give a decision. It can be expected that
8 the Chamber will give an indication of rebuttal evidence that will be
9 admissible right after the hearing of the other party even if it's not a
10 complete decision yet on the request as a whole, but if there are elements
11 on which we can decide immediately, we'll do that so that the Prosecution
12 is in the position to further prepare for calling that evidence. That
13 would also mean that we'll start with the presentation of rebuttal
14 evidence if any is required not certainly -- certainly not later than five
15 working days after the close of the Defence case. So we'll have a break
16 of presumably four, perhaps five days.
17 The same procedure will apply as far as evidence in rejoinder is
18 concerned, that means that after the close of the rebuttal evidence, the
19 Defence should immediately file whether they want to present any further
20 evidence. We'll then also take four to a maximum five days to hear the
21 Prosecution on that request. We'll also give a decision as soon as
22 possible so that the Defence can prepare for travel arrangement for
23 witnesses, if necessary.
24 The parties should be aware that the rebuttal evidence and
25 evidence in rejoinder is presumed not to take much time and certainly not
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 more than five days. You should stay well within these limits, of course
2 as far as the Chamber can oversee now because we are giving a decision not
3 knowing exactly what the parties will request but this is just as guidance
4 to the parties.
5 If that is -- yes, Mr. Ierace.
6 MR. IERACE: Thank you for that, Mr. President. I should indicate
7 that the issues that I will be raising a.m. Some stage during the date are
8 likely to take in the order of 20 minutes and in my respectful submission,
9 it would be appropriate for the Trial Chamber to hear these matters today
10 rather than Monday because some of them concern the witness Radinovic and
11 incidentally, Mr. President, I think you said Radovanovic, I expect you
12 meant Radinovic.
13 JUDGE ORIE: That was the military expert.
14 MR. IERACE: Yes. We've received further correspondence from the
15 Defence this morning which concerns us greatly about his evidence.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. IERACE: So I would be grateful if, Mr. President, it would be
18 possible to indicate a time that I could return and raise these matters.
19 JUDGE ORIE: It depends. During the first break, I'll try to get
20 more information on whether there would be a possibility to deal with that
21 matter perhaps later during the day because we really would like to finish
22 with Professor Vilicic. That does not mean that if we would not meet in
23 this courtroom before a quarter to 2.00 that the matter could not be
24 discussed in whatever way by the parties, it's a practical matter.
25 MR. IERACE: One of the matters, Mr. President, should be on the
1 record, and it doesn't concern Mr. Radinovic.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It might be that we find another courtroom. I
3 still have to investigate how to deal with it and that's -- may I also
4 make clear that the parties should really work as efficiently as possible
5 with the expert witness Vilicic and I already can announce that the
6 Chamber has quite some questions for Professor Vilicic.
7 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Just to
9 allow everyone to save time, the Defence and I'm speaking here about
10 Ms. Pilipovic, is offering to Mr. Ierace to have a meeting if there are
11 any problems to do with this witness. It could be this weekend, it could
12 be Sunday to shed some light on these problems, so we can resolve
13 everything, thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Whatever can be resolved between the parties is to be
15 preferred and let's -- the Chamber is still optimistic about the potential
16 of the parties to resolve their own problems.
17 Madam usher, could you please escort Professor Vilicic into the
19 [The witness entered court].
20 JUDGE ORIE: Since you understand English, Professor Vilicic, I
21 don't have to say dobradan, but just good morning may I remind you that
22 you are still bound by the solemn declaration that you gave at the
23 beginning of your testimony.
24 Mr. Stamp, please proceed.
25 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, just so we have
2 an idea how much time does the Prosecution have left.
3 JUDGE ORIE: It's just -- Madam Registrar is computing it.
4 MR. STAMP: Before my time begins to run, Mr. President, may I
5 just ask how much there is.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Madam Registrar is just -- total time used until
7 now is three hours and three quarters of an hour that would leave another
8 one hour and 45 minutes.
9 MR. STAMP: Very well, Mr. President.
10 WITNESS: JANKO VILICIC [Resumed]
11 [The witness answered through interpreter]
12 Cross-examined by Mr. Stamp: [Continued]
13 Q. I would like to return to the Markale incident. At page 53 of
14 your report, you determined the drop angle from the record on measurements
15 of the traces, the mechanical damage to the ground and you used the
16 formula that was published by Dr. Vukasinovic to measure the angle of
17 descent or all of you used it. In that paragraph, you used the figures 26
18 centimetres and 56 centimetres. Were those numbers taken from the report
19 of the crime analysts who examined the crater?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Dr. Vukasinovic's theory or formula proceeds on the basis that if
22 the angle of descent of a falling shell forms an angle of less than 90
23 degrees to the horizontal surface of the ground, the peripheral
24 star-shaped and elliptical traces of the damage to the ground around the
25 crater are more distinct and longer on the side of the crater than the
1 shell came from and he applied mathematical procedures to that premise.
2 A. No, no, no. Again, I don't think that you understood.
3 Vukasinovic here is looking at the trace of the front part of the
4 projectile, that is, of the frontal ogival part. During the explosion it
5 forms two circles, one circle which is around the fuse and the other which
6 is going from the frontal part of the projectile. What is probably
7 confusing for you that there is no the back trace which is logically,
8 depending on the direction where the projectile came from the fragments of
9 the other part of the projectile, from the central part towards the
10 stabiliser, those fragments create that trace in the -- going in the
11 direction of where the projectile come from. This has probably caused
12 confusion for you because this frontal part AO is longer than OB. I think
13 you can see that the drawing is made in such a way that you can see it on
14 the sketch that the projectile came from the direction where the trace is
15 lesser but that has nothing to do with the other part of the trace which
16 appears when the projectile hits the ground.
17 I can show you this in a better way when you see the picture at
18 the very beginning of the report.
19 Q. Is whether or not if the shell impacts at an angle of less than 90
20 degrees on a horizontal surface of the ground, the traces would be longer
21 and more pronounced in the direction from which a shell came, and I think
22 you've answered the question. That's all I wanted to ask you.
23 Indeed, Doctor, although you have used the mathematical formula in
24 the Markale case, any expert artillery officer can look at a crater and
25 from the mechanical damages, from the splash marks of the fragments on the
1 ground, I'm on to a different question, the question is this: That any
2 artillery expert could look at the splash marks on the ground and come to
3 an assessment of angle of descent on the basis of the dimensions of the
4 splash mark. And as a matter of fact, you have done so in respect to
5 incident one. At incident one at page 31 --
6 A. Yes, yes, every artillery expert can give a rough assessment of
7 the direction just like us. We were also not able to assess precisely the
8 direction of fire. We have just done so approximately, and if it's
9 necessary, I can explain why.
10 Q. We'll get to explanations in due course. So Doctor, the -- are
11 you aware of the evidence of Professor Zecevic that when he measured the
12 crater, he found that the drop angle was just about 60, it was between 55
13 and 65 so that is basically in agreement with the results of your
14 mathematical methodology? You have to answer verbally, you just nodded.
15 A. Yes, yes.
16 Q. Are you aware that there were two other UNPROFOR personnel from a
17 specially-organised team of experts who measured the angle of descent?
18 A. I'm aware of the fact that a number of UNPROFOR members assessed
19 the drop angle in the direction in the UNPROFOR report that I have with me
20 here, you can see that they checked this on three occasions. After the
21 on-site investigation that was carried out by the SJB, the public security
22 centre and then the following on-site investigation carried out by Zecevic
23 and at that time the crater had already been changed. I listened to the
24 testimony of Zecevic here. I heard how he determined the drop angle.
25 Q. Just answer the questions. I understand that you disagree with
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 the methodology but you have agreed with me that the results of Zecevic's
2 methodology basically corresponds with yours. What I'd like to ask you
3 now if you are aware that the UNPROFOR members of that special team that
4 measured the angle of descent found it to be in a range of 950 to 1.100
5 mils, which corresponds to 53 to 61 degrees. Are you aware of that?
6 A. Yes, I know that John Hamill Brendan -- I know that eight
7 measurements were taken from those various data.
8 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Efforts to measure the angle
9 of descent correspond and they were independent of each other.
10 A. [In English] I am looking to see what you asked me.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please pause before asking a
13 MR. STAMP: I apologise.
14 THE WITNESS: Because they didn't translate to me what you asked
16 MR. STAMP:
17 Q. Okay, we can agree -- I'm just finding some points of agreement
18 quickly. We can agree that the measurements of the angle of descent,
19 yours, Zecevic's and the UNPROFOR experts correspond between 53 to 65
21 A. [Interpretation] I must say that in the report, that we have here,
22 we stated that the best examination was carried out by the team led by
23 Professor Zecevic. It was the most complete report.
24 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... All part of the analyses,
25 yours, Zecevic's UNPROFOR, all the angles correspond. Generally speaking
1 would you agree with that?
2 A. I agree with Zecevic's but not with UNPROFOR's because they are
3 very different. And it's true that UNPROFOR determined itself on the
4 basis of those measurements because the crater was so damaged that they
5 were not in a position they weren't able to do it precisely and some of
6 them didn't do it at all. Out of the eight, on three occasions, I think I
7 can even remember this, I think it was on the 11th of August, the --
8 sorry, the 11th, 15th or 16th of February 1994 I have it in the report.
9 Q. The last question on this point. I suggest to you that the two
10 members of the UNPROFOR team who measured it had the same results as
11 yourself and Zecevic.
12 What document is that, please?
13 A. This is the UNPROFOR report on explosion at the market in Markale
14 dated 5 February 1994.
15 Q. So you consulted to answer my question. I am simply trying to get
16 the points of agreement you will agree that all persons who measured the
17 crater, you using your scientific methodology that was published by
18 Dr. Vukasinovic, Zecevic, by placing the fin back in the hole although you
19 don't agree with that methodology, and the UNPROFOR members came to the
20 same conclusion. That is all I want you to answer in respect to angle of
22 A. I'm sorry. I can't confirm that like that because if you have a
23 look at the results reached by UNPROFOR. UNPROFOR didn't determine the
24 same angles. I had to have a look at it because they are given in mils,
25 not in degrees; it's between 950 to 1.400. Share that with 16.7 and you
1 will obtain the angle, divide that by 16.7. I didn't do that, I didn't
2 divide it because UNPROFOR claims here that these results are not exact,
3 are not reliable and -- I apologise. Because the measurements were made
4 on a crater which was significantly damaged in relation to the initial
5 state of the crater.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Professor Vilicic, you have reviewed all the findings
7 just mentioned by Mr. Stamp, I take it. Is any of these findings in
8 contradiction with the drop angle you calculated?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Yes. Captain
10 Verdy on the 5th of February, Verdy his measurement was greater than 83
11 degrees, Russell took a measurement and it was more than -- just a minute,
12 Russell measured 71 for the low one up to 1.300, 71 to 77 degrees, Hamill
13 made measurements and it was 950 shared with 16 -- divided by 16.7, Hamill
14 was close to that result.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Is that last one contradicting? 950.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. No. That one
17 corresponds to the figure, that's why I said that only Mr. Hamill,
18 Hamill's results corresponded to Zecevic's results and to --
19 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just asking. So Captain Verdy is the one who is
20 in contradiction with your calculation, and the other one was Russell?
21 THE WITNESS: [interpretation] Major Russell.
22 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Other
23 contradiction in the --
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With regard to the angle, you mean?
25 MR. STAMP: Yes, angle of descent.
1 Q. There is no other contradiction, is there?
2 A. No, there isn't. That's why I said not all of them, that some and
3 I emphasized the fact that Hamill's results were correct.
4 Q. And may I just indicate to you for future reference, I asked you
5 about the members of the UNPROFOR team of experts. Captain Verdi and
6 Major Russell were not members of that team although their results were
7 recorded here. The two members of the team were Major Hannes [phoen] And
8 Commander Hamill who did results.
9 So what I want to ask you now, doctor, is it agreed also that a
10 120 millimetre shell will only lodge in the ground if it is fired on
11 charge 3 and above; is that agreed?
12 A. Even with the first charge, it will lodge in the ground if it's
13 been translated correctly. No, no, that's not correct. Each charge
14 results in the projectile lodging in the ground but if the charge is
15 greater, it penetrates to a greater depth and if the charge is smaller, it
16 penetrates to a lesser depth.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have to
18 object here because either we're talking about Markale and then it
19 involves the Markale surface or it's a general question and then we have
20 soft surfaces, hard surfaces et cetera so the question is not sufficiently
21 precise, thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: The way in which the question was put is whether it
23 could lodge at all on whatever surface if it would land -- if it would
24 have been fired at a certain charge.
25 MR. STAMP: The thing is in the report, so I can move on.
1 JUDGE ORIE: But Mr. Stamp, I ask you, you were talking about a
2 projectile lodging in the ground, did you refer to the tail fin or to the
3 projectile because that caused the confusion.
4 MR. STAMP: Yes, if the transcript has it correctly I thought I
5 referred to the tail stabiliser fin, but maybe I could just rephrase the
6 question and it's in the report at page 53, we --
7 Q. Professor, at 0 plus 3 or greater charges -- withdrawn.
8 If a 120 millimetre mortar is fired and has a drop angle of 53 to
9 65 degrees and it is fired from charges 0 plus 3 or greater, what would be
10 the range, according to your knowledge of the range tables?
11 A. It depends on the initial angle for the drop angle if that's what
12 interests you if it's between 55 and 65 degrees since I assume that that's
13 what you are referring to. For that drop angle, the range should then be
14 greater than 5.700 from ten metres, if it has five charges. If it has
15 three charges, then it would be from 3.900 metres and with six charges,
16 6.500 metres, 6.444 according to the fire tables because these are drop
17 angles from a minimum of 55 degrees.
18 Q. So Doctor --
19 A. Those would be the maximum ranges.
20 Q. Doctor, within that angle of descent, or for that angle of descent
21 at charges 3 and higher, what would be the minimum distance?
22 A. Two to 3.700, if the drop angle was 85 degrees with three
23 charges. You asked me what the minimum ranges are.
24 Q. The drop angle is not 85 degrees. I'm asking for a drop angle
25 between 55 and 65 degrees. For charge 3, what is the minimum distance?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. The three charges, it could be about 4.000 metres. With five
2 charges about 5.000 metres and with six charges, 6.400 metres these are
3 the maximum ranges. The minimum ranges -- please allow me. I don't have
4 a complete firing table here I only have a graphic firing table here.
5 With three charges, the drop angle could be small. If we
6 increased the number of charges, the drop angle has to be greater because
7 the velocity is greater. You asked me whether it was for four, five, or
8 six charges.
9 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Time on this question. I'm
10 asking you now at angle -- drop angle of 55 to 65 degrees, what is the
11 minimum range for the 120 millimetre mortar fired at charge 3, 0 plus 3?
12 A. It's difficult for me to be precise but if the drop angle remains
13 constant, you have to increase the initial elevation. The same drop angle
14 with one charge if you have the same drop angle in one charge, you can't
15 fire from different ranges. One drop angle and one charge corresponds to
16 one range. Another drop angle and another charge corresponds to a
17 different kind of range but if you have an angle of 55, even if you use
18 six charges, two or three charges, you can't obtain this; do you
20 The rule for the trajectories, curvature of trajectories is still
22 Q. Professor?
23 A. [In English] Yes.
24 Q. For the last time, 120 millimetre on charge 3 angle of descent 55
25 to 65 degrees, what's the minimum range, in your estimation? If you can't
1 give me that precisely, give me an estimated figure?
2 A. [Interpretation] I need a minute or two to obtain this angle from
3 the graphic table.
4 Your Honour, can I show you this on the ELMO? This is the
5 table -- these are the tables for the 120 millimetre shell.
6 JUDGE ORIE: If that assists you in giving an answer to the
7 question, please put it on the ELMO so that we can see it and answer the
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the third charge, this is
10 the line for the third charge. The drop angle for the third charge is
11 here for the maximum range. To answer your question, I have to increase
12 this angle so that it's an angle of 55 or 65 degrees and then by turning
13 this around, I'll tell you what the exact range is. Very roughly, I can
14 tell you but it's a matter of improvisation, the angle has to be 55
15 degrees. The rule for rotating the trajectory, if you put the compass
16 here, turn this line, rotate the line, I get a range of about 3.000 metres
17 according to these graphic tables.
18 MR. STAMP:
19 Q. Very well, doctor, thank you.
20 A. I mean I should have a full firing table, the complete firing
21 tables in order to answer this question, the complete firing tables for
22 120 millimetre mortar shells.
23 Q. Now, Doctor, you are aware that a shell impacting in Markale
24 market from a direction of 18 to 23 degrees -- I beg your pardon from a
25 direction of 18 degrees and travelling a distance a minimum of 3.000
1 metres would have been fired from deep within Serbian-controlled
2 territory; would you agree with that?
3 A. No. Because in the report, it states everything, there's the
4 assumption that the projectile came from that direction so that it's
5 impossible to determine.
6 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Just some premises, some
7 assumptions, assume they are true, just some assumptions and apply your
8 expertise to your opinion. The simple question: In the north-east, 18
9 degrees to the north, at a distance of 3.000 metres from Markale market
10 and beyond, you are within Serb-controlled territory; do you agree?
11 A. Yes, but according to the statement, the demarcation line is about
12 2.500 metres in that direction, I think. One of the officers in that --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp has limited time so you answered the
14 question by the first yes, and if Mr. Stamp would need further
15 explanation, he'll certainly ask for it. Yes.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. STAMP:
18 Q. As I suggest for the record that the confrontation line in that
19 direction was approximately --
20 A. Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Professor Vilicic.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, please, I said 2.200, I
23 didn't say 3.000 metres. I said 2.200 metres.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Whatever, that's where the confrontation lines are is
25 not specifically something an expert in ballistics would know as a fact.
1 MR. STAMP:
2 Q. So Doctor, for the time being, just please focus on my questions.
3 Please. What you have done in your report, Doctor, --
4 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I'm sorry, Mr. Stamp, I would like to ask
5 something. When you say that you said 2.200 metres and not 3.000 metres,
6 you are referring to the range or to the distance of the confrontation
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the documents that are here, this
9 is the distance that I saw, the demarcation line, according to an UNPROFOR
10 officer was 2.200 metres in that direction. That's what I was referring
12 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you.
13 MR. STAMP:
14 Q. So, Doctor, I suggest to you that it is having regard to these
15 obvious and agreed upon truths that we just went through that the mortar
16 shell must have come from deep within Serb territory, that you have raised
17 this issue of penetration depth by using a Sandia study to suggest that
18 the incident did not occur as alleged. Do you agree or disagree, it's a
19 yes or no --
20 A. Allow me, because the translations are not adequate, the
21 translations of your questions. Our entire study is based on analysing
22 the impact location. We didn't analyse the demarcation line, et cetera.
23 Our main task was to determine the projectile used and attempt to
24 determine, on the basis of the effects of that device, to try and
25 determine whether it was possible for such a projectile to be used and our
1 conclusion was that this was not correct and you are insisting on these
3 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... In your report, in your
4 report, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but you base your conclusions that it
5 was not possible in this report that you prepared on the -- your use of
6 the Sandia study. May I just read page 54 your report the third to last
7 line, "This analysis," referring to your report, "Uses the latest results
8 in testing the penetration of natural obstacles and concrete conducted at
9 the Sandia National Laboratories in the United States." And having
10 analysed the findings using the Sandia results, you conclude that the
11 Sandia study proves that from what the evidence at Markale indicates that
12 there is no known mortar of such ballistics and you make that conclusion
13 at page 56.
14 A. Yes, in the case of concrete. In the case of concrete.
15 Q. Did you bring your source with you, the Sandia study? Do you have
16 it with you now in your attache case?
17 A. No, no. No, I didn't bring it with me.
18 Q. Would you object if I -- maybe I could ask the Court if -- I will
19 just proceed, I'm sorry.
20 I have a copy of the report from the Sandia National Laboratories
21 which I propose to tender into evidence.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] First thing, as usual, as it
25 happens, can we please have the Serb version; yes or no? Yes or no?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Whether there's a Serbian translation of this
3 MR. STAMP: No, Mr. President, we --
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Why not.
5 MR. STAMP: The document is a document which is used in the
6 Defence study it is the basis of their report. We are entitled to take it
7 that the Defence has their own resources.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let me ask you --
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. It's not a
10 problem. I thought you were referring to an additional document.
11 THE REGISTRAR: For the record this is document P3801.
12 MR. STAMP:
13 Q. The Sandia National Lab, Professor -- Professor, Professor, I'm
14 not asking you to read the report or to look at it as you have read it and
15 used it for your report. Usher, could you please take the document.
16 Thank you very much.
17 The Sandia National Lab, Professor, is considered generally and
18 clearly by you to be the leading researchers in the penetration of
19 projectiles into various materials. I'm awaiting an answer,
20 Mr. President.
21 A. [In English] Is it question for me.
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. Yes, I do know.
24 Q. And they are --
25 A. I gave you the address thereof.
1 Q. In their latest work, "Penetration Equations", are there
2 limitation for the conditions for these equations to apply?
3 A. If you please, do you have the report, the Sandia report 980978,
4 there are two reports here, not just one. [In English] "Simplify a
5 analytical model for penetration for lateral loading," Sandia 980978.
6 Q. Are there any limitations, that's a question, for the application
7 of the Sandia study?
8 A. [Interpretation] For this case, no, the one I mentioned, no, but
9 let me just tell you Vukasinovic did exactly this, he personally did this
11 Q. Did you do the calculation, do you understand the calculation?
12 Doctor, please just answer my question, did you or did you not, time goes?
13 A. I am prepared to show you, yes, yes, yes, I can show you the
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, there is one
16 question asked in this tone, asking the Professor if he understands a
17 calculation. I'm afraid that is really rather rude.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I notice that there is some irritation. I'm
19 not going to give you my observations as what caused it but may I ask you,
20 Professor Vilicic, to strictly limit your answers to what you have been
21 asked and Mr. Stamp, the more gentle you ask something, the better the
22 chance you get the answer you want.
23 MR. STAMP: I apologise to the Court and to the witness. I never
24 mean to be impolite, it's just that I'm trying to press along as quickly
25 as possible.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could I please -- Mr. -- If there is any need to
2 consult it should be done at such a level of ...
3 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
4 MR. STAMP:
5 Q. Doctor --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, would you please wait until the Defence
7 has had the opportunity to consult with General Galic.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in order not to
9 waste time, what we will do at the end, which I hope will come soon, at
10 the end of the cross-examination by Mr. Stamp we will need to confer for a
11 few moments. These are difficult technical questions to do with
12 General Galic and we really need to confer. If you will allow us, of
13 course. Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we will continue.
15 MR. STAMP:
16 Q. Could you have a look at page 6 of the study? Did you use those
17 equations there, equations 3.1 and 3.2?
18 Perhaps it would be easier if we look at appendix 2, the authors
19 have changed the figures in appendix 2 to the metric system just for
20 clarification, in the early part of the document, at page number V the
21 report is written in U.S. units but in the nomenclature in appendix A they
22 are written in international units.
23 Did you use these equations, equations A 3.1?
24 A. Can I have it back on 3.1, please? This calculation, this formula
25 does not correspond to our formula. These are given in the English system
1 of measurements so these coefficients that are mentioned here do not
2 correspond to the metric system.
3 Q. Are you looking at appendix 2?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just -- you turn back now to page 5, didn't
5 you, Professor Vilicic, you're looking at page 5? Could we just look on
6 the ELMO what page --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, page 6.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You will find the equivalent in continental
9 measures on page A2. That is the first appendix, appendix A, second page.
10 There you find the values expressed in the metric system.
11 MR. STAMP:
12 Q. Do you see it?
13 A. That formula, yes, A-3.2, that's the one that we used, 3.2.
14 That's the one that we used.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 A. LP is D. For the velocity of penetration higher than 61 metres
17 per second.
18 Q. Right. They have two formulas, one for velocity higher than 61
19 metres and one for velocity lower than 61 metres and you used the formula
20 for velocities equal to or lower than 61 metres per second which is A-3.2,
21 I understand you to be saying that.
22 A. Higher than 61.
23 Q. Very well.
24 Now, there is a modification to the equations for lightweight
25 penetrators and I'd like you to have a look at your report at page 54 in
1 English or without doing that, tell us which modification you used?
2 A. Yes. We did it according to the formula 3.2, 3.2, the formula 3.2
3 calculation from the report.
4 Q. Let me read immediately below 3.2, "The modifications to the
5 equations for lightweight penetrators are," and they give for soil and
6 soft target and for rock and concrete targets.
7 Now, was the modification you used for the mortar 2 stabiliser
8 fin, being a lightweight projectile, the modification at A-3.4? You can
9 look at your report.
10 A. KX is this value here, A-3.4 formula, KX.
11 Q. Now, you used the modification for concrete and for hard
12 targets --
13 JUDGE ORIE: May I just ask for a clarification.
14 Professor Vilicic, you said you applied equation A-3.4; is that correct?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's E-3.4 because the --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please point at it? Would you please point
17 at which one you --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This KX 0.46 times H 0.15 but that's
19 irrelevant if --
20 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, I'm not asking for an explanation at this
21 moment. I'm just asking when you applied, you say it's A-3.4. I do read
22 on that line that M is equal to or higher than 182 kilograms. Stands M
23 for the mass?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, that's what it says here,
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You used an equation for a mass of over 182
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just one coefficient KX is 0.46,
4 it's not a calculation, it's just a coefficient, it's a value, a formula
5 for the coefficient.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand but doesn't it say just above
7 that the equations have to be adapted in one way or another for
8 lightweight and perhaps also for heavyweight objects?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what it says here.
10 JUDGE ORIE: A-3.3, could you point at it? Yes. Doesn't it say
11 that that would apply if the mass is less than 27 kilograms?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a mistake. This is our
13 mistake but we made this mistake in a sense that we get a lower result
14 than we would get with this other formula because --
15 JUDGE ORIE: May I just stop you. Are you telling us that you
16 made a mistake but you did that in order to get a more favorable result
17 from your calculation?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A more favorable.
19 JUDGE ORIE: More favorable to --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this, you get a favorable, more
21 favorable result in terms of length of penetration because if we had
22 applied this coefficient we would have had, as a result, a shorter length
23 of penetration. May I just --
24 JUDGE ORIE: May I just ask you, you are telling us that it would
25 not harm the Prosecution's case since it would only be better for them,
1 the equation you used. Yes, please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
2 MR. STAMP:
3 Q. Just for the record, please note that the modification you use
4 also is for rock as is written in the middle of the page and concrete, in
5 brackets hard targets.
6 Now, overall, the equation, the Sandia equations are there
7 limitations on the conditions of use for these equations and when I say
8 overall, are there guidelines in which you are told that in some
9 situations they are not to be used?
10 A. They probably exist but you want me to know all the documents from
11 A to Z and I don't have this document on me. Please, Your Honours, may I
12 just say something, Your Honours, may I just say something very briefly?
13 So far, I have always stated that what we've used as a basis for
14 obtaining results, we used Berezansky formula which gives the deepest
15 length of penetration and it is according to the Berezansky formula which
16 gives higher results for the length of penetration compared to the Sandia.
17 JUDGE ORIE: You explained that. You have explained that the
18 Berezansky formula is the most favorable one for the Prosecutor's case.
19 You said that at the beginning of your testimony.
20 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
21 MR. STAMP:
22 Q. Look at page 5 of the study, section 3 which introduces a study.
23 And you will see at the sixth line, the following are assumptions or
24 limitations which apply to all the penetration equations. And you will
25 see at number seven below, the minimum penetrator weight about five pounds
1 for soil, ten pounds for rock, concrete, ice, and frozen soil.
2 They give the mass in international units in the appendices. Five
3 pounds being two kilograms, and ten pounds being five kilograms. What is
4 the weight, the mass of a stabiliser fin that you have recorded in your
5 report at page 55, I'm sorry, could you look at it?
6 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I'm sorry, if five pounds are two kilograms
7 but ten pounds cannot be five kilograms but four.
8 JUDGE ORIE: It's not the most difficult part of the mathematics
9 we deal with these days, Mr. Stamp.
10 MR. STAMP: I think you are quite correct, Your Honour, but I'm
11 referring to the figures used by the scientists in the appendix.
12 Q. What is the mass of a stabiliser fin, isn't it 1.2 kilograms?
13 A. Minimum, minimum 1.2. Average.
14 Q. The size you used, according to your report in the equation was
15 1.2 kilograms; is that correct?
16 A. Yes, that's correct, in all the calculations according to all
18 Q. As a scientist, giving an expert report to a Court, wherein that
19 report you say you rely on a particular study and analysis to form a
20 conclusion that an incident as important as Markale is a hoax, couldn't
21 have happened, wouldn't it be prudent to indicate to the Court all of the
22 situations in which you have applied the study outside of its own
23 limitations and conditions? In other words, you have given us a lot of
24 mathematical figures in your equations, shouldn't you have told the Court
25 about these figures and give an explanation why you did not abide by the
1 researchers and scientists at the Sandia National Lab?
2 A. First of all, first of all, what you are insisting on insisting to
3 discredit me as a scientist, I'd like to thank you.
4 Q. I'm not doing that. I apologise.
5 A. Second thing, before this Chamber, before this Chamber I have
6 said, stated from the beginning, and I'm saying and stating this now, what
7 I suggest, if this is possible, according to the least favorable
8 Berezansky formula we can assess the events on the Markale market and you
9 can see, you will see that Berezansky formula confirms this, Sandia
10 formula is not the basis. We have also quoted the Sandia laboratory but
11 it gives lower results for the length of penetration compared to the
12 Berezansky's formula.
13 Q. We will get to the Berezansky formula later. You can rely upon
14 that. But you use a Sandia report in the document that you have written,
15 prepared yourself and given to the Court and that is why I'm asking
16 questions about it.
17 I don't know if this is an appropriate time?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes I think it would be an appropriate time for a
19 break. You would have half an hour left approximately.
20 MR. STAMP: Pardon me.
21 JUDGE ORIE: You would have half an hour left.
22 MR. STAMP: Mr. President, I would respectfully apply --
23 JUDGE ORIE: If you would more efficiently put your questions to
24 the witness, it could be done in approximately half that time, Mr. Stamp.
25 Clear questions give clear answers and as you noticed, whenever the
1 witness goes on paths you did not invite him to go on, the Chamber
3 MR. STAMP: The problem is it appears sometimes impolite and it to
4 some extent text interrupts the work of the interpreters if I interrupt
5 him every time he goes off on a tangent and that is -- there is a huge
6 mass of material which the Court should be at least brought to the
7 attention of the Court.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, we'll consider the matter but please keep
9 in mind that according to our calculations you have 35 minutes left.
10 MR. STAMP: Very well, Mr. President, I will try to proceed as
11 efficiently as I can.
12 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam usher, could you please --
15 MR. STAMP: Before the witness is called into court, may I
16 indicate to the Court that having regard to the time that has been
17 indicated, there would be quite a variety of matters which this Court
18 ought to be aware of, matters involving the fuse, the components of a fuse
19 which is a very important consideration, the fragments from 120 millimetre
20 mortar, the issue of the absence of 82 millimetre mortar stabiliser fins
21 which the expert in his report has used to draw conclusions, and some
22 other conclusions that he has drawn in respect to other incidents need to
23 be explored.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand, I do understand, Mr. Stamp. On
25 the other hand, the Defence was given such time, I mean sometimes it can
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 be really done far more quickly so please start and we'll see where we end
2 but as a starting point, you've got 38 minutes left.
3 MR. STAMP: That's another thing that --
4 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, I do not agree, I see that the Defence took a
5 little bit over the five and a half hours granted, they used as a matter
6 of fact, five hours and 46 minutes, that would then add to your 38 minutes
7 remaining another 16 minutes.
8 MR. STAMP: 52. I'm told.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, makes 54 minutes. Otherwise you will have to
10 prioritise. We might not be able to go into every single detail of every
11 part of the report.
12 MR. STAMP: Very well, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please escort the witness into the
15 [The witness entered court]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
17 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Q. Doctor, could you have a look at page 54 of your report, I'm
19 sorry, page 55 of the English version of your report.
20 A. [In English] Yes, I'm looking.
21 Q. And look at the penultimate line in which I will say the values of
22 the coefficient KS is 0.9.
23 A. [Interpretation] Yes, I can see that.
24 Q. Now, the S, the KS factor is the factor that relates to the
25 resistance of the target material or the surface to penetration?
1 A. Yes, two co-efficients S and K.
2 Q. And you use 0.9?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Have a look at the body of page 11 of the Sandia study at page 11.
5 You are aware that the Sandia institute is a military research laboratory
6 and when they speak of concrete and hard material, they include reinforced
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, in the middle of page 11, there is a sentence, and I'll read
10 it, "In those cases where insufficient data exists to permit calculating
11 the S number for concrete, a default value of S equals 0.9 is
12 recommended." And that is the one you used. Please answer verbally,
14 A. That's right. That's correct. That's the value.
15 Q. Would it also give assistance in the S number for soil in the
16 section beginning on the same page, going over into page 12?
17 A. For soil, yes, but I don't know what that has to do with concrete.
18 Q. They recommended among these S numbers 8 to 10 for soil fill
19 material with the S number range depending on compaction. You see that?
20 A. For S it says from 15 to 5.
21 Q. Do you see in the middle of page 4.2 on page 12 where it
22 recommends an S number of 8 to 10 for soil fill material with a S number
23 range depending on compaction?
24 A. Yes, various values are given here for S.
25 Q. I suggest to you --
1 A. And in our case, it would be between 2 and 4, that would be more
2 or less what Borko Zecevic said the ground at Markale was such.
3 Q. Firstly you did not use 2 to 4 you used 0.9, secondly the evidence
4 is that the dirt under the asphalt --
5 A. For concrete, sir.
6 Q. At Markale, I suggest to you, that the evidence is --
7 A. Sir, we took the value of 0.9 for concrete, concrete isn't soil.
8 Q. I suggest to you that by using the S factor of 0.9 for concrete
9 and applying that to the Markale situation where there was soil and the
10 recommended S factor is 8 to 10 depending on the compaction of the soil is
11 effectively reducing ten-fold the depth that you would arrive at in your
13 A. That's not correct. First of all, the ground wasn't soil, it
14 wasn't compact soil. The first time we heard what kind of ground it was
15 was from Zecevic. It says clearly that it was macadam, expert Higgs said
16 macadam. I said also that unfortunately Markale was covered and that it
17 wasn't possible to determine with precision what was beneath the asphalt.
18 In any event, on the photographs, in the photographs, you can see small
19 stones, there was stone down below.
20 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... First of all you say you
21 weren't able to determine with precision the condition of the surface.
22 I'd like you to have a look at the Sandia report, very quickly, please at
23 page -- if I could find this quickly, --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Before doing so, what was the composition of the
25 surface, in your view, according to Professor Zecevic? What did he say
1 about it?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Zecevic said that it was a
3 macadam surface and Higgs said that. Macadam, in English, is tarmac.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please listen to me very carefully. I only asked
5 Zecevic. How thick was the asphalt layer, according to Zecevic?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't say exactly, two to three
7 centimetres, I don't know, I'd have to have a look. I haven't remembered
8 that part.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I will read to you, that's perhaps useful for your
10 next answers, that Professor Zecevic said, "There was a layer of asphalt
11 probably two centimetres thick and the underneath there was sand and small
12 rocks, gravel, small stones."
13 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
14 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 Q. And for future reference, the UNPROFOR report, there was a force
16 engineer with that type of specialty who said that below the asphalt it
17 was soil and pebbles, that is written in the report by Sergeant Jeff Dubon
19 You said that you did not have precise information, Doctor, about
20 the quality of the surface. Have a look at page 13 of the Sandia study
21 quickly, please. Page 13. Section 5 speaks about the accuracy of the
22 equations and it says, it is virtually impossible to differentiate between
23 the accuracy of the penetration equations and the accuracy of the S
24 number," and the S number is what applies, the surface. If you are using
25 these equations, and as you have said you did not know what the surface
1 was about, should you not have advised the recipients of your report about
2 this accuracy factor? Do you think it would have been prudent to have
3 noted in your report the accuracy issues?
4 A. For the Trial Chamber, yes.
5 Q. It also says that when the term for a lightweight penetrators is
6 applicable, which you -- I'll just read. You said -- not you, the report
7 indicates that when the term for lightweight penetrators --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Stamp, plead read out slowly.
9 MR. STAMP: The report indicates that when "a term for a
10 lightweight penetrators is applicable, KH, KS, the inaccuracy is likely to
11 be greater." It also says that the "equation for the S number for a rock
12 has an inaccuracy of 20 per cent when the data is very good to as much as
13 100 per cent when the data especially the Q value is little more than a
14 guess." Do you think it would have been prudent to indicate that there
15 was these considerations that would have applied to the use of the
17 A. I think that the value, the -- at the moment, I think that we
18 should have mentioned everything relevant so that the Trial Chamber could
19 have all the information, but it doesn't make -- it doesn't introduce any
20 significant changes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I just ask you whether a 100 per cent
22 deviation would not make a significant change to the outcome of the
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, an error of 100 per
25 cent is still such that it would not have an effect on our conclusions.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE ORIE: No, I'm not asking you -- I mean it would have an
2 effect on the numeric outcome of your calculations I take it, but I do
3 understand that --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: That you take it that it would not make any change to
6 the conclusion as to whether, in this particular case of the Markale
7 market whether the projectile would have been fired from one side of the
8 confrontation line or from the other side; is that right, witness?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It wouldn't have changed the
10 conclusion that the stabiliser, the normal mortar shell can penetrate to
11 such a depth in the ground, regardless of the fact that we didn't know,
12 given the information that we had, certain factors.
13 JUDGE ORIE: What do we not know?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we didn't know with
15 were precision what the nature of the ground was in order to use the
16 nature of the ground you need to use a special procedure.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you and try to better understand your
18 testimony. I understood your testimony to be that for a tail fin to be
19 embedded in the ground at a depth of 20 to 25 centimetres that it could
20 never have landed there, on the basis of your calculations, it could never
21 have been embedded there as a result of firing that the projectile by a
22 120 millimetre mortar. So your calculations exclude for the
23 possibility --
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Such a depth of penetration.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and you say that we have some uncertainties
1 about the exact composition of the soil but whatever that would be, you
2 could exclude even if that K value would be -- well let's say
3 significantly deviant from the one you used; is that your testimony?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, for the Sandia National
5 Laboratory equations.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I then perhaps put a few questions to you
7 in this respect in order to clarify the issue and could I perhaps ask you
8 to follow me in a few assumptions.
9 Madam usher, could you please put this document on the ELMO for
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have also prepared
12 some sketches that relate to the explanations I'd like to give.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please look at this sketch? It represents
14 more or less in the sketch what is the Prosecution's case. The
15 Prosecution's case is that it is alleged that the mortar was fired
16 somewhere from the hills in -- near the area of Mrkovici and landed on the
17 Markale market. So what I'm now trying to find out together with you,
18 whether your calculations would exclude for certain that this could be
19 true even if there was a deviation of the K value of 100 per cent, as you
21 I'll try to explain what I did write down on this sketch, and
22 please correct me immediately if there's any specific reason that I'm
24 I took, as a matter of fact, the speed, the velocity at firing for
25 a high charge, that would be 0 plus 6 that would cause a speed of 322
1 metres per second at firing. Is that correct?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: That would result, as far as I understood your
4 calculations, you were so friendly to make on my request, at a velocity of
5 impact of 258 metres per second if the shell would land at an altitude of
6 500 metres less than the altitude on which it was fired. Is that correct?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, more or less.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Then, upon explosion, the tail fin would be pushed
9 back at a speed of 154 metres per second, according to your report, if I
10 understood it well.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct.
12 JUDGE ORIE: What would then be the speed at the start of the
13 penetration of the tail fin in the soil? What would be the velocity of
14 that tail fin? Am I correct if I calculate that at 104 metres per second?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you for asking
16 this question. Mr. President, I will show you on the sketch what the
17 velocity would be --
18 JUDGE ORIE: I would just like you to answer my questions and then
19 you get full opportunity to explain whatever you want. I am just trying
20 to verify whether my understanding of your report and of your tables is a
21 correct one. If there's any need to explain anything else, please do so
22 after we have finished this exercise.
23 What would be the speed at the start of penetration? I would
24 calculate that at 258 metres per second minus 154 which makes 104 metres
25 per second; is that a correct understanding?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, you did not. 154 metres per
2 second is the velocity of the ejection of the stabiliser because of the
3 effect of the gases, propellant gases. And it's not in correlation with
4 the initial velocity.
5 JUDGE ORIE: No I'm not saying that it is in relation. Please
6 listen to me carefully. I started on the assumption of a shell being
7 fired at a certain speed which produces a speed, a velocity at arrival at
8 a level of 500 metres lower which is related to the velocity of firing.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Now we have an unrelated factor to that and that is
11 that the --
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The difference of velocity is 104
13 metre per second, that's what you said. That is not the velocity that the
14 stabiliser is going at when it is penetrating, it is lower and let me
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please explain where I did not understand you
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if the shell exploded
19 instantaneously at the very surface, there would be no penetration and you
20 saw from the tables that the shell, although the fuse will function, it
21 will penetrate. Here, I have made a diagram. At the moment of the
22 impact, the projectile has this velocity that you've put 258 metre per
23 second. The projectile goes for a while through this trajectory when the
24 fuse functions. At the moment when the projectile explodes, then it
25 stops, the velocity is zero. The stabiliser follows the projectile
1 trajectory until the moment of the explosion and it has the velocity of
2 the projectile itself because the projectile, as it is penetrating, it is
3 reducing its speed.
4 Let us assume that at the moment when the projectile exploded, it
5 had the velocity of zero but now, since the stabiliser got detached from
6 the projectile, it still has the inertia that we are following. Now, what
7 is the velocity of the stabiliser at that moment? It has this value here,
8 you see, proportional to the length of penetration. From that moment,
9 this is when we calculate the velocity of the stabiliser and how it
10 continues to penetrate into the soil, into the surface so I've already
11 mentioned this several times.
12 We took the least favorable case that the shell disappeared at the
13 moments when it impacted the surface so there was no penetration of the
14 shell itself. The stabiliser has the velocity that you have mentioned,
15 104 metres a second. It will have the highest possible penetration. With
16 this realistic velocity stabiliser has less of a penetration that is why
17 we state that when you add up the depth of penetration of the shell up to
18 the explosion and the continuation of the penetration of the stabiliser
19 together with the velocity --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Would you just allow me to reread the last part of
21 your answer so that ...
22 So you do agree that once the stabiliser has separated from the
23 exploded body of the shell, it has a speed of 104 metres per second; is
24 that correct?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no, no.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE ORIE: So that we took the least favorable -- the stabiliser
2 has the velocity that you have mentioned, 104 metres a second, that is
3 when --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Please read
6 everything. Do I understand you well that the stabiliser loses some of
7 its velocity because the shell, the front end of the shell penetrates the
8 soil for a very short while before it explodes so we would have to deduct
9 from the 104 metres per second first the decelerating effect the
10 resistance of the soil on the front end of the shell up until the moment
11 of explosion?
12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Where do I find this exactly in your report? Because
14 as far as I can see, on page -- would you please look with me on page 56
15 of your report. You have there added the velocity needed to penetrate for
16 18 centimetres in the ground and you have added the 154 metres per second.
17 Let's then, at this very moment, forget about the decelerating effect of
18 the first small moment of impact and let's go a different way. We'll come
19 back to this point later, I'm not forgetting about it.
20 Could you please take in front of you the table you gave as an
21 extra which reads, "Comparison the penetration of stabiliser of a mortar
22 shell in concrete and" -- no, I'm using the wrong one. You gave the new
23 one with the yellow lines in it where you calculated. Yes.
24 Could we start with an impact penetration of 20 centimetres just
25 as for calculation reasons. If the 20 centimetres would be 2 centimetres
1 of asphalt and 18 centimetres of soil, ground and stone, what would be
2 needed to -- what velocity would be needed to embed at such a depth in the
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Higher than 114.4. It will be
5 slightly higher. That would depend on the quality of the asphalt, whether
6 it was old or new, old asphalt is softer than new asphalt,.
7 THE INTERPRETER: The other way around, the other way around,
8 interpreter's correction.
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... 116, 117, well
10 let's just assume, slightly over because the first two centimetres are
11 asphalt and not ground. Okay. Now, if that would be needed for
12 penetration of 20 centimetres, using the addition you used on page 56 of
13 your report, what would have been needed as velocity at the start of
14 penetration, that is 116 and I see that you add then 154 because that's
15 the power that pushes back, at least the effect of the power of the
16 detonation that pushes back. That would be 154 and that would be how much
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That will be over -- let me have a
19 look at the table plus 114, that would be 268, around 270 metres if we
20 take into consideration the asphalt as well or a lesser depth of
21 penetration if we eliminate --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Do you know whether Professor Zecevic, when he
23 measured 20 to 25 centimetres, what he exactly measured? Did he measure
24 up until the surface of the market?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't recall exactly. I was
1 present during his testimony. What he explained that he said he measured
2 two depths, that is there was a hole and he mentioned two depths and I
3 think he said 2 to 240 millimetres, 20 to 24 centimetres, I think I have
4 the data somewhere exactly.
5 JUDGE ORIE. [Previous translation continues] ... Said that 200
6 millimetres to 250 millimetres he said between 20 centimetres and 24
7 centimetres. Next question: Do you know how he measured that? Did he
8 measure that under the angle or did he use the height as you took it for.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I remember that Professor Zecevic
10 said that when he placed the stabiliser inside, he took a protractor to
11 check the slope and he saw that it was somewhere between 20 and 30 degrees
12 and on the basis of that angle, in this way he measured the angle of
13 descent would be between 60 and 70 degrees, I remember that's what he said
14 and he also mentioned these two values. You corrected me, I thought it
15 was 20 to 24 you said 20 to 25 centimetres but I don't think that he
16 explained in detail as far as I can recall of course, I have notes that I
17 took during his testimony so I don't know exactly, I don't know exactly
18 the measurements or rather how, the method that he used to make those
20 JUDGE ORIE: So we do not know whether he took the measure
21 diagonally or that he, as a matter of fact, reduced what he measured to
22 the vertical depth, the, as you call it, H? We do not know exactly
23 whether he used LP or H; is that true?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Two points. I know that he said he
25 measured two points, probably that this 20 was the nearer point and 25 was
1 the further point but as far as I understood, the stabiliser that's 44
2 centimetres diameter but really if it's a question of a tunnel, if really
3 the stabilisers remained embedded in this tunnel, if this tunnel remained
4 the way that the stabiliser fell in, he probably measured --
5 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... That's a
6 different matter. He explained 20 centimetres, 25 centimetres, one point
7 to the next point. If the tail fin was embedded in the ground, and if he
8 would have projected the depth he measured to the vertical standard,
9 would, at an angle of approximately 60 centimetres, would that create a
10 difference of 5 centimetres? You understand what I mean, otherwise
11 I'll ...
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do understand, yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: You need the diameter of the tail fin, I take it?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no -- it's the sine of the
15 angle. That will be the depth for 25 centimetres and if you did it like
16 this then it would be 21.5. If he did it vertically and if the angle of
17 descent was 60 degrees and it was measured from the top, that would be 25
18 centimetres then it was this -- this height was 21.5 centimetres.
19 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Do not know for
20 sure at this very moment whether, when comparing the measurement of
21 Professor Zecevic, whether we should compare that with 21 centimetres or
22 even the projection of 20 sine centimetres which would bring us even
23 considerably below 20 centimetres; is that correct?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, we cannot have the depth one
25 25 and the other one 20 and then to have a height which is the total
1 height lesser than that. If it's at an angle then this side could be 25
2 and this 20, then the --
3 JUDGE ORIE: We'll come to that later. But there is at least a
4 question mark here in the measurement of Dr. Zecevic; is that -- do we
5 agree on that?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We agree on that. Here I have the
7 transcript of his testimony and marked it in red, this part in relation to
8 his testimony.
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It wasn't stated precisely how the
11 measurement was done.
12 JUDGE ORIE: So that creates some uncertainty. I take you back to
13 where we calculated that you need a speed of 268 metres per second in
14 order to arrive at the penetration as we found it using your tables as you
15 gave them to us. First of all, would we agree that the value of 268 is
16 quite different from the value of 528 you gave us in your report on page
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is in relation to
19 the velocity measured, impact velocity measured for concrete.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is true that it is different,
22 yes, it is different because it's -- this is not concrete, it's logical
23 that there is a difference, we're not talking about concrete.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not saying that it's not logical, I expect you to
25 be logical and hope that I am logical as well. Two hundred and
1 sixty-eight metres per second, you said that no mortar could fire a
2 projectile such that it would land at a speed of 528 metres per second.
3 Now, if we forget about concrete, and if we talk about two centimetres of
4 asphalt and other centimetres of soil, stones, we are talking about a
5 velocity of 268, would there be a mortar that could fire a projectile that
6 would land at the level 500 metres lower than the level of firing with an
7 arrival speed of 268 metres per second?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That could be, Your Honour, which is
9 what I said when I gave you this value 268, that was calculated
10 approximately together with the trajectory but yes, it is possible. Of
11 course that the speed goes up and 268 is acceptable, yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: So do I understand that you say that your calculation
13 on page 56 which led you to the conclusion that a mortar could never fire
14 a projectile that would land with the speed you indicated, that if we
15 replace the 528 metres per second by 268 metres per second, and if we take
16 into consideration that the landing speed would be higher because of the
17 difference in altitude between firing level and level of impact, that then
18 a mortar could approximately cause such a velocity at impact? I noticed
19 that you gave as a value 260 as a maximum in your homework, 258 for one
20 trajectory, 260 for the other, that's the homework you did for me and this
21 is plus two or three per cent.
22 Would you also agree with me that if the calculations would give a
23 variation of 10 per cent, that these two values are not, per se,
24 incompatible, that means that the value for the maximum speed of impact at
25 the level 500 metre lower and the velocity you would need for an impact of
1 20 centimetres, 20 centimetres H and not LP, would you agree with that? Is
2 my reasoning correct?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In principle, yes, but Your Honours,
4 268 is for the top end of the angles, we saw that 268 to 248 and 20 extra
5 would come to 268. When we have an angle of descent, 56 degrees, the drop
6 velocity of the shell is 235 metres per second and we add this velocity on
7 it to it and that would be about 258 metres per second you have that in
8 the table, 258. So, 104 metres per second is the difference -- sorry,
9 yeah, yeah, that is the difference as if we take this velocity.
10 JUDGE ORIE: If we make all these adjustments and if we keep in
11 mind that there is some uncertainty as to the way Professor Zecevic
12 measured diagonally or on the vertical difference between surface, and if
13 we take into consideration that we do not know the exact composition of
14 the soil which would also be able to create perhaps a variation of 10 per
15 cent or even as the Sandia report says up to 100 per cent, would you agree
16 with me that your conclusion just related to this element, I'm not talking
17 about the damage done to the -- I'm just excluding the other elements, of
18 course, you've taken into consideration as well -- would you agree with me
19 that it is not obvious that just on the basis of these ballistic
20 calculation that it's not obvious that the stabiliser did not play any
21 part in the claimed penetration?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that we have to
23 bear in mind the fact that this surface was covered with a 2 centimetre
24 layer of concrete, that's what Mr. Zecevic said and this can be seen in
25 the photograph.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just say, yesterday, when shown the
2 photograph, you said that it was clear of -- or from the video, I do not
3 know, you said it was clear, that it was asphalt surface. The testimony of
4 Dr. Zecevic - I just read that out to you - is that it was a layer of
5 asphalt probably two centimetres thick, but of course if it would have
6 been concrete or if -- well, there are a lot of other variables we could
7 think of but I'm just trying to understand whether your expertise with the
8 as you write it obviously exclude for a scenario as we find it in the
9 Prosecution's case? That's what I'm trying to establish. And of course
10 there are still a lot of uncertainties, we do not know exactly what the
11 soil was we do not know exactly how thick the layer of asphalt was, we do
12 not know exactly how Dr. Zecevic measured the depth if he did it
13 diagonally, it might considerably change. We do not know exactly what the
14 impact would be according to the American report, what deviation it would
15 give, 20 per cent, 10 per cent, 5 per cent, 100 per cent, but you told us
16 before that it would make no difference whatsoever to your conclusion
17 whether 100 per cent deviation in the values assumed would occur.
18 I have some difficulties in understanding this when I see that you
19 confirmed that a projectile could land under the circumstances given, at a
20 speed of 260 metres per second and you would need 268 metres per second to
21 achieve the penetration. So I have some difficulties.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, please, with regard to
23 the 100 per cent deviation, I said that that related to the calculations
24 based on the Sandia laboratory formulations. If we increased these
25 results by 100 per cent, our conclusion would still be the same because
1 it's a far lower value than what is in the report on what the measurements
2 in the report on the length of penetration.
3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... And if you would
4 reduce them by 100 per cent they say that there's imprecision up to 100
5 per cent it could be more, it could be less, isn't it?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the basis of these firing tables,
7 the depth of penetration of the stabiliser calculated on the basis of the
8 Sandia method, the penetration depth ...
9 JUDGE ORIE: Are you looking for the comparative table of
10 stabilisers --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the comparative table for
12 stabilisers. I have the Serbian version here.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is it true that there are no values known for
14 the laboratory you're just referring to because I see six arrows saying,
15 "Not calculated for penetration in macadam."
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Macadam isn't included here. We
17 just did this for concrete.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but we don't know it for macadam.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the data we at the time, no
20 macadam was mentioned there. Soil was mentioned and various types of
21 soil, soil with little stones, soil which had sand in it and so on.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Since you have this table in front of you before
23 I -- we continue, I'd like to ask you one further question. You have told
24 us several times that by using the Berezin formula, you used the most
25 favorable approach, and I did understand favorable for the Prosecution's
1 case. May I ask you to compare for macadam the values calculated
2 according to the Berezin formula and according to the Gabeaud formula for
3 macadam. I'm just asking you to compare these two.
4 Am I correct when I read that from the six figures given for
5 macadam, that Gabeaud gives higher values in five out of six?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For greater angles.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, greater. All the figures given for macadam and
8 comparing the Berezin and the Gabeaud, I see that Gabeaud, to speak in
9 your terms, gives, on five out of six situations, a more favorable outcome
10 for the Prosecution's case, that is, more penetration at the same speed of
11 impact; is that correct?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, in terms of the numbers, yes,
13 but the Gabeaud method is a method established at the beginning of the
14 20th century and the Sutterlin method was based on the most recent
15 research in the 60s carried out in France. So when I said that, that was
16 in relation to Sutterlin and Young and Berezin's method was far less
17 favorable but we excluded Gabeaud because his method was at the end of the
18 19th and beginning of 20th century.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I will stop you there. I come back to that in a
20 second. Do you agree with me that where you presented different methods
21 of calculation that Berezin not in all situations gives the most favorable
22 outcome for the Prosecution's case on the basis of these figures you
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In relation to contemporary methods,
25 it gives less favorable methods. Sutterlin and Young were the main
1 methods and that's what Zecevic referred to, that's why we introduced
2 this. Gabeaud's method is an old one.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand. Berezin is even older as far
4 as I see on the -- let me put one more question to you what exactly
5 explains the huge differences in the different systems?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, how this is determined depends
7 on the methodology. They all started from one methodology, Jacob Dema
8 [phoen]. In fact it was done on the basis of penetrating armour and then
9 these methods were modified and on the basis of experiments, they
10 determined the co-efficients for soil of this kind. I have a table here
11 of all the possible values for each method in question and that alone
12 provides an explanation.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see that the values are quite different. And
14 you said it's a matter of methodology, I'll not put at this moment to you
15 what exactly the difference in the methodology is. Would the most recent,
16 what you refer to as Young SNL USA 1997, what in the methodology makes
17 that -- the ...
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] More favorable?
19 JUDGE ORIE: What -- no, let me put the question differently to
20 you. These methodologies, would they generally result in a higher outcome
21 or a lower outcome according to the material --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The new methods give lower values,
23 the values that they arrive at are significantly lower.
24 Your Honour, with regard to the mistake we made, M 015 we took
25 0.46 times N.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the numbers.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- did you make a mistake in this table or were
3 you referring to --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I'm returning to that formula,
5 you know, where we made a mistake. We made a mistake with regard to the
6 length of penetration. We got a depth of penetration that was twice as
7 great than if we had taken the right coefficient because 048 times 04
8 equals 0.7, if you multiply this.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I want to concentrate now on this table rather than
10 seeing what the consequences would be for the mistake you made. I see
11 that you said the newest methodology would give a lower outcome. When I
12 compare Gabeaud with Young, then I see that generally, Young, although
13 newer, has a higher outcome than the old Gabeaud. Would you agree with
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, for concrete surfaces, I would.
16 JUDGE ORIE: We have no figures for macadam as far as Young is
17 concerned. So the -- your testimony I just heard that the new methodology
18 brings lower outcomes is not generally true but is, for example, true when
19 you compare Berezin to Young but would not be true if you compare Gabeaud
20 with Berezin.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, please, the problem has
22 to do with the resistance than is say with concrete. 19th century and
23 20th or 21st century concrete. These -- various times are concrete are
24 quite different. When you are examining the resistance of concrete,
25 you're not examining the resistance of concrete in a street or the
1 resistance of a building's concrete, you are examining the resistance of
2 reinforced concrete, concrete used in bunkers or in shelters and the
3 concrete used for these structures is far better and so you get a lower
4 values for the penetration of certain projectiles.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. Do I understand you well that your
6 testimony is that if you do not have detailed knowledge of exactly the
7 composition of the surface and the layers below the surface, that it would
8 be very difficult to draw conclusions with a sufficient level of
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. If the quality of the ground
11 is better than the -- what we assumed, the calculations as you can see
12 were made, greater length of penetration were obtained only in marsh
13 land. You could see that in the tables.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
16 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, all of this
18 raises three problems. The first one is can the Defence have a copy of
19 your scheme, of your sketch the first one shown on the screen which shows
20 an elevation point?
21 JUDGE ORIE: It could be marked for identification. It was just
22 based on assumptions that seem to come close to what the Prosecution
23 alleges has happened.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] The second problem is that the
25 time that your Trial Chamber has taken and it appears it's benefited the
1 Prosecution to a great extent, it hasn't benefited us much, it means that
2 we will have very little time or not enough time. And the third matter
3 that I would like to raise, Mr. President, is -- and for two reasons, is
4 as follows: We haven't asked this witness about the difference of
5 altitude in relation to the highest elevation held by the Muslim forces
6 above Markale and I think that it would have been absolutely necessary --
7 MR. STAMP: I have to object.
8 JUDGE ORIE: We are just theoretically looking at what a
9 difference would be at 500 metres. If the Prosecution thinks it came from
10 Mrkovici which has been said several times, at least from the direction of
11 Mrkovici, I think that does not establish in whatever way, where it came
12 from Mrkovici, you -- in order to draw whatever conclusion you should know
13 at least what would be the level of the Markale market in order to
14 calculate any difference so that's -- but we are talking now with an
15 expert witness which I do not expect to have established facts which are
16 not specifically within his field of expertise.
17 So I would agree that if someone would like to draw conclusions
18 from it, that you would need to know more and apart from that, the Chamber
19 has decided that this is a very important expert witness. As I told you
20 before, the Chamber would have some questions and since it came up it was
21 related directly to what the witness was asked about, that was the reason
22 why I sought to clarify things, not in the benefit of the Prosecution, not
23 in the benefit of the Defence, but, as I hope, in the benefit of the
24 search for the truth.
25 Therefore, if there would be no more time needed, we might not
1 finish with this expert witness today, but that, of course, creates
2 another problem.
3 Professor Vilicic, if we would not be able to get all the answers
4 we would like to have today, would you still be available next Monday to
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I'm concerned, yes, but
7 can I just say something?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the direction of 18 degrees with
12 relation to the north, up to Mrkovici you don't have a single elevation
13 which is higher than 1.000 metres. Markale is at an altitude of about 600
14 metres above sea level so we don't have an altitude of 500 metres above
15 sea level, not in that direction.
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... No one asks you
17 to know exactly what the levels are. I take it that your expertise is not
18 mainly on saying that the Eiffel tower is 300 metres high although you
19 might measure it but you didn't do it and I think the questions put to you
20 did not ask from you exactly how high what hills were around Sarajevo
21 neither what would be the level of the city of the Sarajevo so so you say
22 I do not know whether there could be a level difference of 500 metre exist
23 in the area. Yes.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think that I
25 expressed myself badly and what I would like to say is the following: In
1 order for you to be able to ask questions about the residual velocity
2 before impact, on a lower point, you asked the witness to make
3 calculations regarding a difference of 500 metres. And unfortunately the
4 Defence is not in a position to do these calculations for other
5 distances. What we do know is that there were Muslim positions which were
6 at an altitude and as a result if these calculations aren't made by the
7 witness, since we can't contact him, we are handicapped and I'm saying
8 this because if we had regarded the position of the Prosecution we would
9 also have had to take into consideration the highest possible elevation of
10 the so-called Muslim forces and then carry out these calculations to
11 obtain the results.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if you would have listened well,
13 when I asked the witness to do the homework, I asked, as a matter of fact,
14 calculations, steps of 100 metres higher and lower. Even made a small
15 sketch there where you find both firing uphill as firing downhill. The
16 expert witness presented 500 metres downhill where I asked for 100 -- so
17 that's what we got and therefore on the basis of that, I put the questions
18 to him. But certainly there will be a way even if the parties would sit
19 together and say could we ask someone who knows about this, could
20 calculate for us the different levels there would be of course this
21 or -- I don't think that there should be any problem that if it's of
22 importance for the Defence to calculate that.
23 There might be 500 metres difference in level for Muslim positions
24 as well. I do not even know if there is a 500 metres difference level for
25 Serb positions. I do not know. It's up to the parties to establish the
1 necessary facts.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. President, but
3 I just like to say that I doubt that I'll find a professor of mathematics
4 over the weekend who has the same competence of Mr. Vilicic, someone who
5 could help me to make these calculations but I will try to find one or two
6 experts over the weekend to help me do this. Thank you very much.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps once Professor Vilicic has finished his
8 testimony in this Court where he said that he has a little instrument that
9 allows him very well to make the precise calculations, that perhaps then
10 afterwards he could be of assistance.
11 Mr. Stamp, we'll follow the same procedure that questions put by
12 the Bench were not calculated for the Defence nor will they be calculated
13 for the Prosecution unless, Mr. Stamp, you would say that it is a time for
14 the break and then we'll have a break until quarter to one. Yes. Then
15 we'll adjourn until a quarter to one.
16 --- Break taken at 12:25 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 12:53 p.m.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Madam usher, could you please escort the witness into
19 the courtroom.
20 [The witness entered court]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
22 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Q. Professor, you stated that the maximum -- and that is at page 54
24 of your report, you stated that the maximum theoretical speed of tail
25 stabiliser throwing is 154 metres per second?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Didn't Dr. Vukasinovic in his published work presented to the
3 symposium of the military institute of the JNA go -- and this is in 1997,
4 go further to do a more precise calculation of the maximum speed of
5 stabiliser throwing?
6 A. This is the latest calculation. He did this personally.
7 Q. Did you see his paper that he presented in respect to this matter
8 with all the charts, graphs or calculations or -- I withdraw that.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, so that there
10 is no confusion, in relation to the way the question was phrased on page
11 57 at the end, speaking about the maximum theoretical speed of the
12 stabiliser, what I would like is could the Prosecution clarify this, can
13 they be more precise? Can they just say where this is indicated on page
14 54 of the report.
15 JUDGE ORIE: The witness responded yes, but Mr. Stamp, your
16 question was that the witness stated that the maximum theoretical speed of
17 tail stabiliser throwing is 154 metres per second.
18 MR. STAMP: And I think I referred to page 54 of the report in the
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did you refer to the speed or at least to say
21 the negative speed or the deceleration of a tail fin upon explosion of a
22 mortar because that's what I find on page 54. And that's not exactly the
23 same as the maximum speed. It's by which speed a tail fin -- the speed of
24 a tail fin will be reduced by the detonation results; is that what you
25 meant to say?
1 MR. STAMP: Yes. And it is referred to in the report as a maximum
2 theoretical speed of tail stabiliser throwing.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Throwing, yes. Yes. Where do we find exactly this
4 term because it's a bit unclear to me, Mr. --
5 MR. STAMP: Page 54.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. No, it's not true, Mr. Stamp, you're
7 making a mistake. The sentence before the equation is, "In order that a
8 stabiliser can penetrate to the depth of it shall possess the minimum
9 impact speed which is the sum of the speed obtained by solving the said
10 equation for calculating" -- no, no, I do agree. You're right. I have to
11 apologise, it's the second part of the equation.
12 MR. STAMP:
13 Q. In Dr. Vukasinovic's work, did he say that the maximal theoretical
14 velocity at which a stabiliser is propeled backward is the same, 154
15 metres per second?
16 A. I don't know exactly, to tell the truth, but this calculation,
17 what's in the report, this was done Vukasinovic himself.
18 Q. All right. I suggest to you that Dr. Vukasinovic in his published
19 work went on to do a more precise calculation of the speed of the
20 throwback and concluded that on the basis of a numerical assimilations,
21 the velocity of the stabiliser body at the end of the process of expulsive
22 propulsion is 140.5 metres per second?
23 A. 154, you mean 154 -- 145?
24 Q. 140.5.
25 A. Since 1997, at that time, Vukasinovic was not a doctor, he was
1 doing his Ph.D thesis and he conducted a bunch of experiments and what you
2 see in the report is his very last research work with was from his Ph.D,
3 checked with dozens of experiments. What you have is you have data from
4 his published work which is 145 metres but Zecevic himself spoke that
5 there could be different values depending on which author is referred to.
6 Q. Very well.
7 A. I think it states very clearly in the report that it was
8 Vukasinovic himself who conducted this analysis. He is number three on
9 this list and he is also somebody who did this report.
10 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Is about 14 [Realtime
11 transcript read in error "40"] metres per second higher than the figure
12 that he gives in his published work; yes or no?
13 JUDGE ORIE: The transcript reads 40 metres whereas I take it that
14 you said 14 metres per second.
15 MR. STAMP: 14 metres.
16 A. So you also want to discredit and disqualify Dr. Vukasinovic,
17 saying this value is not the right one that he said here. This is the
18 correct value. This is the correct value acquired and published in the
19 Ph.D thesis of Dr. Vukasinovic. Vukasinovic did this on the basis of much
20 more precise data of detonation speed and the materials that are used and
21 according to this formula as you can see, the main parameter which
22 influences this speed is detonation speed of the explosive, depending on
23 what was used as the charge the projectile and here he used for 6.870
24 metres he used detonation speed that was measured and he came himself to
25 this conclusion that the speed was 154 metres per second.
1 MR. STAMP: Very well with your leave, Mr. President, and with the
2 assistance of the usher could I show to the witness a photograph.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
4 MR. STAMP:
5 Q. Witness, is this a standard slow motion -- well, is the section on
6 the right a standard photograph of the fragments obtained from the
7 explosion of a mortar shell?
8 A. This is a picture of the fragments of an 82 millimetre shell from
9 the prospects of the federal administration, from the brochures for an
10 enterprise that is involved in special production of Yugoslavia.
11 Q. And the fragmentation, witness, could you -- Professor, please,
12 the fragmentation of the 82 millimetre mortar shell is substantially the
13 same in respect to the shape of the fragments as the 120 millimetre mortar
14 shell; do you agree? Yes, I see you have the same photograph, do you
16 A. In principle, in principle, generally speaking, you can also make
17 this kind of photograph for the 120 millimetre shell it's a question of
18 the size of fragments but there is a difference depending on the
19 coefficient of charge so-called, also the quality of the steel, the
20 material, and if I may say, I know that there was the MA that is done.
21 Fehmia Shahir [phoen] has conducted this work on recommendation upon
22 Stamatovic and myself and he did a master's thesis regarding this issue.
23 Q. I see. And to the left of the photograph, you see at the top the
24 fragment shards that would emanate from the side of the shell?
25 A. Yes, this is the evidence that the material is poor, that the
1 quality of the material that the shell is made of is poor. If you are
2 asking my opinion, this is a very poor way that a shell has fragmented.
3 Q. And you notice that in the -- on the left below there are
4 fragments, chunkier fragments, if I could use that expression, indicating
5 the particles from the front ogival part of the shell?
6 A. Well, I couldn't confirm that on such a poor photograph, not
7 according to the form, you couldn't even say that it comes -- originates
8 from the frontal part. That's a very provisional assumption.
9 Q. Well, do you see the chunkier-looking shells in the centre of the
10 photograph to the right? Sorry, not chunkier-looking shells but
11 chunkier-looking fragments?
12 A. You mean these fragments here?
13 Q. No, no, photograph of the --
14 A. In these fragments here.
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. Do you mean that this was a photograph that was made on the basis
17 of the fragmentation in length of the shell? You mean that it goes from
18 the centre to the periphery.
19 Q. Yes, I understand that it goes from the centre. I'm just asking
20 whether --
21 A. These are standard-size fragments.
22 Q. Very well. Thank you very much.
23 MR. STAMP: Could you remove that, please? This photograph or a
24 document containing two photographs of cross sections of a mortar fuse.
25 Q. The top photograph shows a cross-section of the UTU-M78 fuse which
1 uses both the 120 and 82 millimetre mortar shells and the bottom
2 photograph shows the UTU-M78 fuse binding and the M62 P3 120 metre shell
3 front ogival part. I understand you have those photographs. But look at
4 the photograph. And look at the bottom one.
5 A. Only fuse UTU-M78.
6 Q. Both of them?
7 A. [In English] Both of those are views of UTU-M78.
8 Q. Would you agree with me that within the fuse, there are several
9 subsystems which are connected by screw fittings of different sizes so
10 there are different thread sizing for circular subsystems within the fuse?
11 A. The translation is not correct. Not correct. [Interpretation]
12 The thread, he said the thread is different, yes, there are different
13 threads, yes [In English] There is different filetage exist.
14 Q. Thank you. And I will express to you that during the explosion
15 process, because the jacket of a shell and also the fuse stretches before
16 it explodes, all of these parts are distorted.
17 A. [Interpretation] It's normal.
18 MR. STAMP: Thank you. Could that photograph be removed. Could
19 the witness be shown this document with your leave, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I ask for something? Can we
22 have that photograph back so that you can see that there is no reductor on
23 that shell?
24 MR. STAMP: We agree that there are sometimes reductors used and
25 sometimes not.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You do agree. You want to point out to us that there
2 is no reductor on the photograph, that is not in dis --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, very precisely, the fuse
4 UTU-M78 when it is used for 120 millimetre mortar shell does not have the
5 reductor because diameter of the hole of the opening is large enough. It
6 is only used for the fuse UTU --
7 JUDGE ORIE: I just stop you there seems to be no disagreement on
8 that, so thank you for your clarification. Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
9 MR. STAMP:
10 Q. Just -- I have shown you that document because I want to
11 understand what you were explaining to us about the tests that were done
12 and again, I think I've given up all the documents and not retained a
13 copy. Is there a spare copy? Thank you.
14 Do you see on that document if you --
15 A. That's what I told you yesterday that the checking of the fuse
16 safety is done by horizontal firing on to an obstacle in which it's not
17 supposed to be hit with. It's a check for the safety. It's at that
18 distance when you fire a mortar, for instance, through the forest, when
19 the -- during the projectile of the trajectory this should not hit the
20 branches and become activated because otherwise the crew that is firing
21 the mortar would get killed.
22 Q. Oh, yes, yes, yes. And also tests the fuse for instantaneous
23 action and delayed action.
24 A. In both. Please, obviously I have to explain the function of the
25 fuse in this sense. The fuse, even set for instantaneous and with a
1 time-delay function must have safety at the barrel so that it doesn't
2 explode when it leaves the barrel. That's why it's been checked, five of
3 them for the time delay -- for the instantaneous and then five for the
4 time delay, that's been checked and that's for a barrel that's been placed
5 to fire horizontally.
6 Q. Yes, Professor, and this document indicates that the fuses are
7 also checked for the instantaneous action and the delayed action?
8 A. Yes, safety in front of the barrel so that it doesn't explode at
9 the certain distance away from the muzzle because at that moment, the
10 elements that can initiate the explosion of the shell are not yet in
11 the -- they haven't left the safety position. They later come into the
12 safety position that would enable them for when the shell hit a hard
13 obstacle then explosion would occur.
14 Q. Now, do these protocols also indicate that the shells -- sorry,
15 the fuses are checked to see whether or not they activate instantaneously
16 if checked on instantaneous action and with the delayed effect if set on
17 delayed action?
18 A. This protocol, you mean this protocol? This protocol is only
19 checking for the safety of the fuse in front of the muzzle as it leaves
20 the muzzle and even some fuses have been vibrated and then they are
21 mounted and then this is checking for transport conditions when ammunition
22 and fuses are being transported and shaken so what is done to ensure the
23 safety that after this period of shaking when they are then -- when they
24 are placed upon the shells that they do not explode. That's arming so
25 it's the fuse that arms the weapon, that arms the shell.
1 Q. Very well. But would you agree with me that the fuses are checked
2 to see whether or not they activate before penetrating a board one-inch
3 thick when the impact velocity is 121 metres per second and I'm not
4 suggesting that that arises from the protocol but that is as far as you
5 understand that the instantaneous action of the fuse?
6 A. Mr. Stamp, you haven't understood this issue at all. This is the
7 velocity for O plus one charge, first increment charge why is this
8 checked? Because this is the minimal speed at which the mortar fires.
9 These are also minimum accelerations. With minimum accelerations, we
10 check whether the fuse function is safe. It has nothing to do with 101
11 metre per second drop velocity. These are two completely separate issues.
12 This is just a muzzle velocity.
13 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Could you take away the
14 document, please. What I'm asking you now and this is an issue that you
15 know that the tests are for the instant action of a fuse the criteria is
16 whether or not at 121 metres per second it will explode before it
17 penetrates a board one-inch thick?
18 A. Well, it's not 121 metres if you are talking about the criteria
19 it's a bit greater, 117 to 123, that's what the velocity is said to be of
20 each shell -- for each shell to be accepted -- to accept that the fuse has
21 been tested and to accept that it's correct. If there's an explosion at
22 121 then it means that that series of fuses doesn't correspond to the
23 standards that are used and then it is sent back for re-examination. This
24 is the form of the fuse that is accepted it has nothing to do with
25 sensitivity in the field, this is the safety that you need at the muzzle
1 of the barrel.
2 Q. Doctor, doctor, one minute. You have told us that they have tests
3 to see whether or not the fuse activates and is the standard for passing a
4 fuse as instantaneous whether or not it activates before it passes through
5 a wooden board one-inch thick when fired at 117 to 1 -- when approaching
6 at an impact velocity of 117 to 121 metres per second standard that is
7 what is used in the test.
8 A. It's obvious that you don't understand what the problem is. From
9 120 metres at a certain distance we penetrate a board without the fuse
10 reacting but if we'd someplace a screen at 10 metres from that screen then
11 the shell should explode. In other words, you are correct when you say
12 that 120 metres is the velocity at which you check the safety and the
13 muzzle barrel and the safety of the fuse and the time-delayed fuse so this
14 test is one to check the quality of the fuse or rather to check that
15 safety is adequate in the muzzle of the barrel.
16 JUDGE ORIE: May I just interfere and see whether I can take away
17 whatever confusion.
18 Professor Vilicic, I do understand that you and Mr. Stamp agree on
19 what is the criteria, what is the value on which a fuse should activate
20 and that this report is a test that, at this speed, with this thick plank,
21 it would not yet activate if it's placed so close to the barrel, it should
22 only activate if that plank would be at a further distance from the barrel
23 and therefore, the report says no fuse acted on impact with the obstacle
24 or immediately behind it because it should not act at this short distance.
25 Is that a correct understanding? I hope it assists you Mr. Stamp, I don't
1 know, but ...
2 MR. STAMP: Yes, to some degree.
3 Q. So we understand that. Now, separate and apart from that
4 document, and the issue of fuse safety, there are also quite different
5 tests that are used to check the -- whether or not the fuses will react
6 instantaneously and that test really is whether or not the fuse reacts
7 before penetrating a board of one-inch thick.
8 A. Yes, but not at this distance that we have here. This is positive
9 because it didn't react at a greater distance it has to react.
10 Q. Thank you. Doctor, do you know of any published scientific work
11 in respect to the 82 millimetre mortar tail fin remaining on the scene,
12 the impact site, and could you give us a reference so we could check it?
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, can I ask for
14 some more information because I don't think it's clear. I don't
16 JUDGE ORIE: I think the question is -- but please correct me,
17 Mr. Stamp, is whether you know of any publication which refers to a 82
18 millimetre mortar tail fin remaining on the site of the impact, not
19 embedded or embedded or not embedded, Mr. Stamp, or both?
20 MR. STAMP: Embedded.
21 JUDGE ORIE: So the question is whether you know of any
22 publication of a 82 mortar tail fin after the explosion found embedded in
23 the surface.
24 MR. STAMP: Right.
25 Q. And could you give us a reference so we can check it?
1 A. I don't know, there are so many works, but they're not often
2 accessible but from all our conclusions, yes, a stabiliser of an 82
3 millimetre can remain in place under certain conditions. If the velocity
4 is 190 metres it will he remain but if it's 80 it will be ejected in the
5 direction which is opposite to the direction from which it came. In the
6 case of 82 millimetre and 120 millimetre shells, we have various factors
7 given the small mass of the stabiliser, the performance is quite
8 different, it can't lodge in that way.
9 MR. STAMP: Are you objecting, sir.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, for the
11 transcript it was very fast. I'm not sure that I understood correctly,
12 190 and 80 on the other hand, it was at page 69, line 4, I don't know if
13 there was a mistake but it was going very fast.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether it was a mistake.
15 THE WITNESS: 70 metres, instead of 80 because it's muzzle
16 velocity of basis charge for mortar bombs of 82 millimetres.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand you well that the dynamics are the
18 same but the values are different from those calculated in respect of 120
19 millimetre mortars?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, ten minutes left.
22 MR. STAMP:
23 Q. Doctor, I'm going to make some propositions to you which I will
24 call suggestions. If you agree with me, say yes. If you disagree with
25 me, say no. I suggest to you that the propellant used -- I beg your
1 pardon, the explosive used in the 82 millimetre mortar?
2 A. Gunpowder.
3 Q. The gunpowder, because it is IDX [phoen] or a mixture of TNT or
4 CH-50 it has a greater push on the stabiliser fin of a 82 millimetre
5 mortar than a 120 millimetre mortar, would you agree with that yes or no?
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President -- no, I
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If the explosive charge is such then
9 it has a greater velocity than if all that is used is TNT. It's a mixture
10 a 50/50 mixture of TNT and CH-50. This is used with the last models of
11 shells that were produced after the conflict in Yugoslavia.
12 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I told you, Doctor, just
13 answer me yes, if you agree and no, if you don't and you have given that
14 information at page 3 of your report.
15 At table 9 of your report, and that's on page 9, you show the
16 values of the velocity of the fragments on the detonation of a shell and
17 you notice that because of this different type of explosive, the speed for
18 the 182 [sic] millimetre fragments is 109 metres per second faster than
19 the 120 millimetre fragments?
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would be
21 grateful if Mr. Stamp could slow down, we're told about page 3 table 9 and
22 Ms. Pilipovic has to check in the text and none of these references seem
23 to correspond what I can see.
24 Let's mention which pages and which tables we are referring to.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, I have some difficulties in finding table
1 9 on page 9.
2 MR. STAMP: Table 4, page 9.
3 THE WITNESS: Table 5, table 5, page 9.
4 MR. STAMP:
5 Q. In the English report, it's table 4 at page 9.
6 JUDGE ORIE: The velocity of the fragments do I see them -- yes, I
7 see them that's for fragments dispersions, yes.
8 MR. STAMP: Yes it's 109 metres per second faster than the 82
9 millimetre shell.
10 Q. Could you have a look at some of the drawings that you did or that
11 you reproduced from other published work at page 12? Look at figure 2.1
12 and 2.2 -- sorry, I beg your pardon, figure --
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Again, Mr. President, we don't
14 have the references.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp was about to correct himself.
16 MR. STAMP: Figure 2.12 at page 11 and figure 2.13 at page 12.
17 Q. You will agree with me that in the dynamics at the explosion and
18 Dr. Vukasinovic has proven that in the dynamics of the explosion of the 82
19 millimetre shell as compared to the 120 millimetre mortar shell a greater
20 proportion of the fragments are pushed backwards in the 82 millimetre than
21 in the 120 millimetre, would you agree with that; yes or no?
22 A. How can there be a greater number of fragments since the case of
23 the shell is four times lighter than that of 120 millimetre shell.
24 Q. I didn't say a greater number. I said a greater proportion of the
25 fragments of the 82 millimetre mortar shell is pushed backwards than for
1 the 120 millimetre and that is clear from Dr. Vukasinovic's work. Do you
2 agree? Do you agree, yes or no, doctor, please, let's move quickly.
3 A. The velocity is greater, the fragments of the same mass will go
4 further, that is what is correct because if the projectile has CH-50, its
5 velocity of the fragments is greater than for that of 120 millimetre shell
6 which is filled with TNT.
7 Q. I suggest to you that not only is the velocity pushing it backward
8 much faster but the proportion, proportion of the fragments going backward
9 is also much higher than in the 122 millimetre shell, agree or disagree.
10 If you agree please say yes, if you don't, please say no.
11 A. I disagree. It's not the same value.
12 Q. I suggest to you that the speed of stabiliser detachment in the 82
13 millimetre mortar is much faster than its maximum impact velocity of 194
14 metres per second and therefore, unless it is stopped by an obstacle, it
15 never remains at the site of the explosion. It is always blown back.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I apologise but
17 what is the maximum velocity of 194, 194?
18 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Decisive issue.
19 The question to you, Professor Vilicic, is whether the back-pushing power
20 of the explosion in an 82 millimetre mortar would always be such that it
21 is higher, that it causes a higher velocity backwards than the velocity of
22 the tail fin at that moment and therefore, it cannot ever land embedded in
23 the ground.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It does not become embedded in the
25 ground. It remains where the crater is located. It never becomes
1 embedded not because the ejection speed is great, but because the mass of
2 the stabiliser is fairly small.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
4 MR. STAMP:
5 Q. I therefore -- following from that, I suggest to you that all of
6 your conclusions that you have made in your study in respect to the
7 absence of the 82 millimetre stabiliser fin have no foundation in
8 scientific research because it is always blown back unless stopped by an
9 object. Yes or no.
10 A. No. No. That's not correct. That is totally wrong. You have
11 information that is totally wrong.
12 Q. In your report in respect to incident 4, it is suggested that you
13 improperly used a close-up photograph of a lodged stabiliser fin to
14 determine angle of descent when you, as a scientist, know that you can use
15 the fragment traces on the ground to come to an accurate assessment of
16 angle of descent and you have done it in respect to the Markale incident.
17 A. First of all, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that you
18 are constantly referring to me, trying to discredit me as a scientist and
19 secondly have a look at the photograph of the 120 millimetre shell that
20 hit the path.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Professor Vilicic, you are not to comment on the
22 approach of the Prosecution. The Prosecution may test your report, they
23 may put questions to you. At the end of your testimony, I'll give you an
24 opportunity, the Chamber will give you an opportunity to explain whatever
25 your thought was unexplained of course within certain limits as far as
1 time is concerned so therefore, you have the an opportunity but the
2 Prosecution is under time restraint and therefore, they are allowed to ask
3 you just to say whether you agree or disagree with the certain position
4 taken by the Prosecution.
5 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] What I wanted to know is
7 whether Mr. Stamp was referring to -- with regard to what he calls the
8 close-up photograph, I think that those are the terms that he used. Is he
9 referring to the photograph that we have on page 45 or is he referring to
10 some other photograph in relation to the stabiliser because I'm afraid
11 that I'm not following this. That's my only question.
12 MR. STAMP: Look at the report by the witness which was tendered
13 on -- which the Defence intend to tender, it's their production.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I think it was just on the ELMO, I think the
15 photograph you referred to. Could you please put it back what you just
16 had on the ELMO, is that the photograph you are referring to, Mr. Stamp?
17 MR. STAMP: No, no. Could we quickly get exhibit 2245 -- 2247.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Professor Vilicic, would you please let the usher put
19 the photographs on the screen. Yes, thank you.
20 MR. STAMP: Photograph 00268248.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think this should be the photograph you're
22 referring to, Mr. Stamp.
23 MR. STAMP: Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, while waiting,
1 I think that the bell has rung.
2 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Quite clearly at
3 the beginning of the session that we cannot sit any longer than quarter to
4 2.00 so you may finish this question and then.
5 MR. STAMP:
6 Q. I suggest to you, Witness, that you can never use a close-up
7 photograph to judge angle of descent and to conclude that it is
8 approximately 90 degrees when you yourself know of and have used more
9 scientific procedures to determine angle of descent. Yes or no? Yes or
10 no, please?
11 A. No.
12 MR. STAMP: One suggestion, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I said that was your last question and I keep to
14 that, stick to that. If there is really an issue that should be raised,
15 we'll see whether the Chamber would be willing to grant leave but as it
16 stands now, same time for you as for the Defence.
17 MR. STAMP: Very well, Mr. President, as it pleases the Court.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Professor Vilicic, we will adjourn for the day. We
19 have not yet finished your examination so we'd like to see you back in
20 this Court next Monday in the afternoon, that is, at a quarter past 2.00.
21 May I instruct you not to speak with anyone about the testimony you have
22 given and you are still about to give.
23 We'll adjourn until Monday at quarter past 2.00.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
25 at 1.46 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday
1 the 3rd day of March, 2003, at
2 2.15 p.m.