080501IT

Page 2508

1 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. May I

2 invite you to stand and to make that solemn declaration of which the text

3 is now handed out to you by Madam Usher.

4 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you. I solemnly declare that I will

5 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Anttila. Please be seated.

7 English is not your native language. If you have ever any

8 problem either in understanding or in expressing yourself in that

9 language, please address me.

10 THE WITNESS: Yes, okay.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, are you ready to --

12 MR. RUSSO: I am, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

14 MR. RUSSO: Thank you.

15 Examination by Mr. Russo:

16 Q. Mr. Anttila, could you please state your full name for the

17 record, please?

18 A. My full name is Kari Juhami Anttila.

19 Q. Thank you. And do you recall giving four statements to the

20 Office of the Prosecutor in connection with this case?

21 A. Yes, I do.

22 MR. RUSSO: Your Honours, with your permission I'd like to

23 provide the witness with paper copies of his statements.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so.

25 MR. RUSSO: Thank you.

Page 2509

1 Q. Mr. Anttila, taking a look at those, can you tell us whether

2 those are the statements that you made to the ICTY?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Thank you. And to be clear, the statement of 18 December of

5 1995, that is 65 ter 4774, the statement dated 8 January 1996, is 65 ter

6 number 1052. The statement dated 16 October 1997, is 65 ter number 4804,

7 and the final statement dated 12 December 2007 is 65 ter number 4805.

8 Now, Mr. Anttila, did you have a chance to review all of those

9 statements prior to coming to court today?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And can you tell the Court whether the information contained in

12 each of those statements is true and accurate to the best of your

13 knowledge?

14 A. That is a fact.

15 Q. Thank you. And do those statements, do each of them accurately

16 reflect what you said?

17 A. To the best of my knowledge, yes.

18 Q. And if asked the same questions here in court today, would your

19 answers be the same as in those statements?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Thank you.

22 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I would move for the admission of each

23 of these statements and I can repeat the 65 ter numbers if necessary.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Was that 1052?

25 MR. RUSSO: That was the 8 January 1996 statement, Your Honour,

Page 2510

1 yes.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and I may just -- but let's start with the

3 first one. I think we start with 4774.

4 MR. RUSSO: That's correct, and --

5 JUDGE ORIE: 18th of December 1995.

6 MR. RUSSO: If you'll recall that's the same statement as

7 Mr. Munkelien.

8 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, that's P60.

9 JUDGE ORIE: That is already in evidence.

10 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Your Honour, I wasn't sure how the court would

11 prefer to proceed. I thought it would be best to have this in addition

12 to since it is a statement of both of them but --

13 JUDGE ORIE: I think if the one is in evidence and if the witness

14 here now testifies that he would give the same answers and that the

15 statement is to the best of his knowledge in accordance with the truth,

16 then I think there's no need to have it admitted again. So that P60 is

17 the 18th of December statement.

18 Let me just check one second. Yes.

19 Then the next one would be P1052. Any objections?

20 MR. KEHOE: No objection, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE ORIE: And that's true for all the Defence teams.

22 Madam Registrar, that would be number?

23 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit P171, Your Honours.

24 JUDGE ORIE: P171 is admitted into evidence. The next one is

25 P4804. Any objections?

Page 2511

1 MR. KEHOE: That is the October '07 -- excuse me, 1997. No

2 objection. Obviously, Your Honour, my objection is with regard to

3 admissibility and not to weight, but when I say no objection it's on the

4 admissibility score.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the October 1997 statement would

6 be?

7 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit P172, Your Honours.

8 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, if I could just correct it. I mean I

9 think -- I don't know if I misspoke. I said my objection is not with

10 regard to admissibility, but I obviously the issue that I take -- to the

11 extent I take issue it's to weight, but I do believe that either I

12 misspoke or it was written incorrectly in the prior transcript at line 25

13 going into line 1.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You said my objection is with regard to

15 admissibility, not to weight, it was just the other way around.

16 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE ORIE: P172, since there are no objections, is admitted

18 into evidence.

19 Then 4805. That is the -- that is the 12th of December, 2007.

20 No objections?

21 MR. KEHOE: No objection, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Then I take it you've spoken for all Defence teams,

23 Mr. Kehoe.

24 Madam Registrar.

25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be Exhibit P173.

Page 2512

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And P173 is admitted into evidence.

2 Mr. Russo, am I mistaken when I said that there was another

3 statement as well but you do not tender that?

4 MR. RUSSO: You are not mistaken, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then please proceed.

6 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Mr. President and Your Honours. At this

7 time I'd request permission to read a brief summary of the 92 ter

8 statement.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Anttila is informed about the procedure

10 that -- Mr. Anttila, it's for the public to know what is in all these

11 statements that are admitted into evidence, that a brief summary will be

12 read.

13 Please proceed, Mr. Russo.

14 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Mr. President.

15 Mr. Anttila was a United Nations military observer assigned to

16 Team Podkonje in Sector South from 14 August until 27 November of 1995.

17 Mr. Anttila participated in assessing the damage in Knin caused by

18 shelling operations, burning and looting, and also performed a crater

19 analysis of six impacts from a 128-millimetre multiple barrel rocket

20 launcher system in a residential area of Knin. Mr. Anttila sometimes

21 performed the functions of the duty or operations officer for the UNMO

22 teams and on occasion drafted UNMO sitreps either for his UNMO Team

23 Podkonje or for the UNMO HQ in Sector South.

24 In addition to his responsibilities as an UNMO, Mr. Anttila also

25 participated in patrols as part of the Human Rights Action Teams in

Page 2513

1 Sector South. He was also tasked to prepare summaries of the

2 humanitarian violations reported by the UNMO teams in their daily sitreps

3 and to create reports detailing the information collected during the

4 comprehensive damage survey conducted by all UNMO teams in Sector South

5 which recorded the number of houses destroyed or damaged in over 400

6 villages in the Krajina.

7 That concludes the summary, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.

9 MR. RUSSO: Thank you. Madam Registrar, if we could please pull

10 up Exhibit P64, please.

11 Q. Mr. Anttila, looking at Exhibit P64, can you tell me if you

12 recognise this document?

13 A. Yes, I do.

14 Q. Okay. And did you participate in the damage assessment upon

15 which this report is based?

16 A. I -- excuse me. I participated on that one during that day, and

17 there were also other people who were taking part in that assessment.

18 Q. And who were those other people? Were they members of your UNMO

19 team?

20 A. They were members of the UNMO Team Podkonje.

21 Q. And can you explain how the assignment to conduct this damage

22 survey came about?

23 A. Well, on that day we were -- for myself we were tasked to -- to

24 conduct the crater analysis on those rocket impacts in the -- in the

25 area, and while we were doing that we were going through the area,

Page 2514

1 driving through the residential area and doing the assessment along the

2 way.

3 Q. And can you please tell the Court where the -- the assignment

4 came from to conduct that assessment?

5 A. That came from the SMO, the senior military observer of the

6 sector.

7 Q. And did the senior military observer give you this assignment

8 verbally or was it in writing?

9 A. In that case it was given verbally.

10 Q. Okay. And if you could please just briefly explain to the Court

11 exactly how the assessment was carried out by yourself as well as your

12 fellow UNMO team members.

13 A. The assessment was carried out in a way that we left from the

14 sector headquarters. We drove by car to the locations which each of the

15 teams were assigned to, and we were assigned to go to -- to that certain

16 residential area to collect the information about the impacts, and on the

17 way we did not go directly to that area. We were going through the parts

18 of the town where there were residential buildings. So -- so we -- we

19 went there directly without any hesitation and any waiting, but we went

20 through some areas where -- where things could be observed.

21 Q. And how long did this damage assessment take on that day?

22 A. For myself and for the part of tour, what we did was -- it was an

23 afternoon task so it took a few hours.

24 Q. And do you know how long the other members of your UNMO team took

25 to conduct their portions of this damage assessment?

Page 2515

1 A. Well, they also had only that afternoon to -- to conduct the --

2 the survey originally tasked to them.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 MR. RUSSO: Madam Registrar, if we could please pull up -- I

5 believe it is P62. Thank you. And if we could please just enlarge the

6 sort of middle downtown section. That's fine. Thank you.

7 And, Your Honours, if I could please ask for the assistance of

8 the court usher.

9 Q. Mr. Anttila, could you please mark or circle the areas where UNMO

10 Team Podkonje searched for the damage on the afternoon of 17 August 1995.

11 A. Okay. Myself and Mr. Munkelien, we were around about that area.

12 Q. Mm-hmm.

13 A. And the other -- I think it was -- at the time it was three

14 different patrols who were going around this area in -- in general this

15 area, and about this area.

16 Q. Thank you. And if you could please just next to each one of

17 those circles mark the letters PA?

18 A. PA.

19 Q. PA.

20 MR. KEHOE: If I -- just to making it clear, could we have a

21 different designation for the particular area that Mr. Anttila looked at,

22 so when we're looking at this down the line we have the other areas and

23 then the specific area that Mr. Munkelien and Mr. Anttila looked at.

24 MR. RUSSO: Thank you. That's a good idea.

25 Q. Why don't we please if you could mark the area where yourself and

Page 2516

1 Mr. Munkelien searched as A, and mark the other areas where the other

2 teams searched as B, C, and D.

3 A. [Marks]

4 Q. Thank you. And --

5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, yes. The B is not easily.

6 THE WITNESS: Yes, I know.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Could you make the B even better? There's a way of

8 removing what you've written. Yes.

9 THE WITNESS: Okay.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please make the B --

11 THE WITNESS: Okay.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.

13 MR. RUSSO:

14 Q. And at the time you conducted this damage survey what was your

15 understanding of what the military targets in the town were?

16 A. The only military target that I was aware of was the north --

17 what we called north barracks in this area.

18 Q. And if you could, please, place a circle around that area you're

19 talking about and mark that as E.

20 A. [Marks]

21 Q. And did the other members of Team Podkonje indicate to you or

22 consider during this provisional assessment any other locations in Knin

23 that they considered to be military targets?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Okay.

Page 2517

1 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, at this time I would move for admission

2 of this marked photograph.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.

4 MR. KEHOE: No objection.

5 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Madam Registrar.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be Exhibit P174.

7 JUDGE ORIE: P174 is admitted into evidence. Please proceed.

8 MR. RUSSO: Thank you. And if we could just have one additional

9 copy of P62 brought up. And if we can also focus again on the same area.

10 And once again if we could just briefly have the assistance of the court

11 usher.

12 Q. Mr. Anttila, you indicated that you performed a crater analysis

13 also on this day. Can you please circle the location where yourself and

14 Mr. Munkelien performed that crater analysis.

15 A. [Marks]

16 Q. Thank you.

17 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, at this time I would move to have this

18 admitted as a separate exhibit.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections?

20 MR. KEHOE: Yes, I guess I need some degree of clarity, Your

21 Honour, from the standpoint of is this different from what we had as A

22 the area where he searched. It seems to me, and I may be mistaken, but

23 it looks like exactly same.

24 MR. RUSSO:

25 Q. Is that correct, Mr. Anttila?

Page 2518

1 A. That's right.

2 Q. Did you search the same area?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 MR. KEHOE: So I have --

6 JUDGE ORIE: If the witness says the area he marked A, although

7 is this the same size? Is it larger or is it smaller. I would have to

8 compare.

9 THE WITNESS: That would be my hand.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, we're talking about a crater which is of

11 the size of perhaps one or two metres. Then of course we have a few

12 streets here so it doesn't add anything. It was within the area given

13 the letter A in the previous exhibit. Therefore, Mr. Russo, does it add

14 anything?

15 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, no, it doesn't add anything.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Then I think it's of no great use to have this

17 admitted into evidence. Please proceed.

18 MR. RUSSO: Thank you.

19 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that you withdraw tendering it.

20 MR. RUSSO: That's correct, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.

22 MR. RUSSO: We no long are require the assistance the court

23 usher.

24 Q. And just to confirm, Mr. Anttila, as the Court indicated, the

25 area that you marked as A in the last exhibit, that is also the area

Page 2519

1 where you conducted the crater analysis; is that correct?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. Thank you. Now, going back to the provisional assessment, was

4 there any record made during that assessment of -- other than the crater

5 analysis which you just mentioned, was there any record made of the exact

6 locations of every shell impact that was found on the afternoon of 17

7 August 1995?

8 A. No.

9 Q. And to whom did Team Podkonje report the findings of that

10 provisional assessment on that afternoon?

11 A. We reported all the findings directly to the SMO.

12 Q. And was that at a briefing? Was it in a report? How did you do

13 that?

14 A. Basically it was in the briefing after the afternoon patrols had

15 come back.

16 Q. And how did you indicate to the senior military observer the

17 areas where you found the damage?

18 A. We were indicating them by pointing them out on the map in the

19 room.

20 Q. I'm sorry, is there -- was there map in an office or --

21 A. Or -- okay. That was the operations office of the UNMO

22 headquarter Sector South, and there was of course a map of the area on

23 the -- on the wall. So these -- these areas that were covered were

24 indicated on the map.

25 Q. And did you do that simply by pointing to the areas?

Page 2520

1 A. More or less, yes.

2 Q. Thank you. And did the UNMOs during this afternoon search of

3 Knin, did they collect any information on the damage done to the military

4 targets themselves?

5 A. Well, we were not allowed to enter the north barracks, so we

6 could not assess any damages inside that area, and ...

7 MR. RUSSO: Now, if we could please, Madam Registrar, bring P64

8 up again. And if we could turn, please, to the second page and focus on

9 paragraph 7.

10 Q. Mr. Anttila, looking at paragraph 7, if you can see where it

11 indicates that: "The survey continues to get a more accurate picture and

12 better assessment. Detailed report to follow within a week."

13 To your knowledge was there a detailed report that followed

14 within one week?

15 A. No.

16 Q. And referring to your statement of 8 January 1996 you indicate

17 that you found more areas where shells had landed and it was obvious from

18 these later observations that the shelling did not concentrate on

19 military targets --

20 MR. KEHOE: I object to leading, Your Honour.

21 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I'm simply directing him to the portion

22 of his statement where this information is contained.

23 JUDGE ORIE: If you then perhaps point to the paragraph.

24 MR. RUSSO: That would be paragraph 3 of the 8 January 1996

25 statement, which is now Exhibit P171.

Page 2521

1 JUDGE ORIE: If you can ask the witness to read for himself the

2 paragraph first and then put questions to him.

3 MR. RUSSO:

4 Q. Mr. Anttila, referring -- if you could look at paragraph 3 of

5 your 8 January 1996 statement.

6 A. Mm-hmm. Yeah.

7 Q. The first sentence of that statement where it says that it was

8 possible to find out more locations where artillery and mortar shells and

9 rockets had landed, does that mean that you found more damage than was

10 originally reported in the provisional assessment?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And can you tell the Court whether or not some of that damage was

13 located in the same areas where Team Podkonje searched on the 17th of

14 August?

15 A. Definitely, yes.

16 Q. And was some of that damage found in areas which were not in the

17 close vicinity of military targets?

18 A. Well, these findings were found out in areas which I just pointed

19 out, which were in a way driven through during the provisional

20 assessment, and then later on when the debris and everything was cleared

21 out you could find out impacts of -- of shelling later on.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, you are aware that your question suggests

23 a common understanding of the military targets, where they were.

24 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Your Honour, and --

25 JUDGE ORIE: So I take it then is this limited to what the

Page 2522

1 witness said before, northern barracks or --

2 MR. RUSSO: If I could clarify that for a moment.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.

4 MR. RUSSO:

5 Q. And looking at your 8 January 1996 statement, again at paragraph

6 3, Mr. Anttila, where it says: "Craters could be found clearly in

7 residential areas and also in first assessment factories, et cetera, were

8 considered military objectives. This cannot be confirmed afterwards."

9 Earlier you indicated that the only military target which was considered

10 at the time was the northern barracks.

11 A. Mm-hmm.

12 Q. This makes reference to factories, et cetera. Can you tell me,

13 were there additional facilities other than the northern barracks which

14 were considered military objectives for purposes of the provisional

15 assessment itself?

16 A. Okay. Having been in the area for just a couple of days, not

17 everything was clear when we were making the provisional assessment.

18 Later on those few production facilities within the area of downtown Knin

19 were sometimes referred as military compounds or whatever, and then later

20 on we had discussions about whether they were of that nature and -- and

21 anyway, the point is that with the crater I'm -- I was referring to the

22 crater analysis conducted on the 17th of August while writing this down,

23 and that at that time the closest military objective was the north

24 barracks, and no matter which of those later may be considered to -- to

25 be military objectives, they would not be any closer than the north

Page 2523

1 barracks to the area where the rocket impacts had landed.

2 MR. RUSSO: Madam Registrar, if we could please again pull up the

3 aerial photograph P62.

4 Q. Mr. Anttila, looking again at the aerial photograph of Knin.

5 You've already indicated where the northern barracks was. I'd like you

6 to please indicate where the factories, et cetera, that you reference in

7 your 8 January 1996 statement.

8 A. [Marks]

9 Q. And were there any other facilities that you indicated that you

10 had discussions with your fellow UNMO team members that they thought were

11 military targets at the time?

12 A. Yes. Sorry. So anyway, the case is the area of this.

13 Q. And so these two facilities, in addition to the northern

14 barracks, were there any other facilities considered by UNMO Team

15 Podkonje to have been military targets in Knin?

16 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Your Honour. I would object.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.

18 MR. KEHOE: I would object to the comment about what Team

19 Podkonje thought was military targets, because as you see from the

20 provisional assessment, it was written by the SMO with quite a different

21 tilt. Now, if what the witness wants to talk about he considered to be

22 military targets, that's a different subject.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's how I understood your testimony. When

24 you're talking about military targets, you're -- as a matter of fact, as

25 the witness explained were the potential military targets he discussed

Page 2524

1 with his colleagues as -- that's well understood.

2 Then please proceed.

3 MR. RUSSO: Thank you. If we could have this exhibit, please,

4 marked as a separate exhibit.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, we had the -- I think the first -- let me

6 just check. The first marking was about the factories, isn't it? Could

7 you please put an F to the first circle you put there, and an M for the

8 other one, which is what you --

9 THE WITNESS: Which is a compound of -- okay.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you considered it possibly --

11 THE WITNESS: Yes, we were discussing about this.

12 JUDGE ORIE: And then you were discussing about this as a

13 military target.

14 THE WITNESS: Whether it was a military target or not.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's understood.

16 Then you want to tender that into evidence.

17 MR. RUSSO: Yes, please, Your Honours.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections? No objections.

19 Madam Registrar.

20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be Exhibit P175.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Exhibit P175 is admitted into evidence.

22 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, madam court usher. I think we're done.

23 Q. Mr. Anttila, other than the locations which you've indicated on

24 this map and on the previous map as military targets, in your subsequent

25 patrols through Knin did you find shelling impacts in areas not close to

Page 2525

1 any of those areas?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And can you tell the Court whether or not you found more than

4 five impacts in those areas not close to any of the military targets

5 you've indicated?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And was the senior military observer made aware of the fact that

8 you found additional damage in areas not close to these military targets?

9 A. Yes, he was.

10 Q. And was there any discussion amongst your team regarding the

11 accuracy of the provisional assessment?

12 A. Yes, there was, so to say, in front of him and also when he was

13 not present with the discussions.

14 Q. And to your knowledge did the senior military observer ever

15 produce a follow-up report indicating that the provisional assessment

16 report was subsequently found to be inaccurate?

17 A. In terms of saying that the provisional assessment was inaccurate

18 in terms of being too low or -- or anything like that, I don't know

19 anything about that kind of report, but the fact is that based on these

20 first findings we were tasked to make the survey on the whole sector, and

21 that led into the reports that have been taken into evidence later on.

22 Q. And along with what you've just mentioned, if --

23 MR. RUSSO: Madam Registrar, if we could please pull up Exhibit

24 P63.

25 Q. Mr. Anttila, taking a look at Exhibit P63, can you tell me if

Page 2526

1 this is what you just made reference to?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And if you can recall when exactly it was that this document was

4 drafted. Was it given to you before you conducted the provisional

5 assessment or sometime afterwards?

6 A. Well, you can see on the date and group on the top that we were

7 probably out doing the actual crater analysis when it was sent out. So

8 this was done the same day but after provisional assessment teams were

9 sent out, and that's simultaneous action that was taken by SMO, and this

10 was sent to other teams within the AOR, and at that time the Podkonje

11 or -- or the people in Knin were out already conducting the surveys.

12 Q. And can you recall when the first report based on this

13 instruction was produced?

14 A. The first reports based on this order were produced after it was

15 given out in two or three days' time. So the provisional assessment was

16 not based on this order.

17 MR. RUSSO: Madam Registrar, if we could please pull up Exhibit

18 P98.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, could -- could I ask some clarification

20 from the witness.

21 Mr. Anttila.

22 THE WITNESS: Yes?

23 JUDGE ORIE: You said earlier that the area where you found the

24 shell impact was not any closer to any of the objectives, possible

25 military objectives you identified later, than they were to the northern

Page 2527

1 barracks.

2 THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I have great difficulties in understanding this

4 in relation to your last marking, and I'm not talking about the F marking

5 but about the M marking.

6 THE WITNESS: Marking.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Which if I compare that with the area where you

8 found the shell impact seems to me if not closer than at JordBat's not

9 further away from the northern barracks.

10 THE WITNESS: The thing is that --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, I have difficulties to reconcile these

12 two elements of your testimony.

13 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I -- I, too, have that problem, because we

14 were discussing this area being possible military target. I had not been

15 there before Operation Storm, and to my -- to the best of my knowledge

16 that area during the time that I spent there was in no way -- the marking

17 M was in no way a military area.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

19 THE WITNESS: Yeah. And -- okay. Like I -- like I said, we had

20 discussion about that --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

22 THE WITNESS: -- and --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Now I understand. Those objectives that you

24 discussed to be possibly military targets were not included in your

25 answer when you said that it was not closer to the northern barracks.

Page 2528

1 THE WITNESS: Exactly.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. Please proceed.

3 MR. RUSSO:

4 Q. Mr. Anttila, do you recognise this exhibit, P98?

5 A. Yep, I do.

6 Q. And is -- was this report prepared pursuant to the instruction

7 that you just saw on the screen?

8 A. Yes. This is what came out.

9 Q. And can you tell the Court who prepared this report?

10 A. I prepared this report with the numbers, can the columns, with

11 the lines, but the information came from the different UNMO teams within

12 the sector.

13 Q. Okay. Before we get to the basis for this report and where you

14 received the information from, I want to first focus on the amount of

15 damage which was reported in Knin.

16 MR. RUSSO: Madam Registrar, if we could please turn to the third

17 page and focus on the first three entries where it's indicated on the

18 left-hand side "Podkonje." And if we could move that over just a bit to

19 get the numbers. A little bit more. A little bit more. Actually, I

20 think we'll have to move out a bit so we can capture both the areas and

21 the numbers.

22 Q. And if you can follow along with me, Mr. Anttila. It indicates

23 here that in Knin north-east, 41 houses totally damaged, 261 houses

24 partially damaged. In Knin north-west 6 totally damaged, 94 partially

25 damaged, and in Knin south-west 22 totally damaged, 236 partially

Page 2529

1 damaged.

2 And I'm going to hope my calculations are correct, I'm sure Your

3 Honours would correct me if they're not, that would equal a total of 69

4 houses totally damaged and 591 houses partially damaged.

5 A. Mm-hmm.

6 Q. Making for total overall of 660 houses totally or partially

7 damaged.

8 Now, out of those 660 houses can you tell the Court an

9 approximate percentage based on your observations of how many of those

10 houses were damaged by shelling?

11 A. It's very hard to say, but it's -- maybe I would say percentage

12 maybe about 40 -- maybe 40 per cent of the houses were damaged due to

13 shelling.

14 Q. Thank you. And now getting back to this damage survey report and

15 what it's actually based on, can you explain to the Court where the

16 information that you entered onto this spreadsheet came from?

17 A. This information, all of it, came from different UNMO teams which

18 conducted patrols within their AOR to -- to survey what was the damage

19 done in the area. In certain areas where the UNMO team was placed on the

20 Croatian side prior to Operation Storm you can see that there are damages

21 reported that were assessed to be during the war or the fighting while --

22 while the so-called Krajina area was established, and the rest of it

23 is -- is based on the information that came out from the teams based on

24 the order to survey the area.

25 Q. Thank you. And how exactly did the UNMO teams convey this

Page 2530

1 information to you?

2 A. It was conveyed -- basically the aim was to convey my daily

3 sitreps and their special information packages that they gave in when

4 they came for the team leaders meeting or something like that, when they

5 arrived at the -- at the headquarters. So it was not released via

6 electronical means in that way. It was physically taken into the

7 headquarters with the paper sheets and stuff like that.

8 Q. Thank you. And to be clear, is -- did the information which was

9 entered into this report by you, did that only come from UNMO team

10 sitreps?

11 A. It did not come only from UNMO sitreps. Like I said, it was

12 hand-delivered or by other means, also electrical -- electrical with the

13 floppy disk and things like that delivered to the -- to the headquarters

14 and then compiled there by myself.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 MR. RUSSO: Madam Registrar, if we could please pull up Exhibit

17 P65.

18 Q. Mr. Anttila, looking at Exhibit P65, can you tell us whether or

19 not some of the UNMO teams used a form like this to convey the

20 information to you?

21 A. This is a form that was presented out to -- to be the basis on

22 the information that should be delivered to -- to the headquarters about

23 the different areas of where the damage was assessed. This particular

24 report is just an example.

25 Q. And did the UNMO teams on occasion use other means of

Page 2531

1 communicating the information, any other kinds of reports or compilations

2 of information?

3 A. Basically, yes. They did use different means by telling that,

4 for example, compared to this report they would say that -- in their

5 sitrep that row A such-and-such village, row B grid and then so on. So

6 they could use this format even when reporting with their sitreps.

7 Q. And looking at this particular data collection form, you provided

8 this to the OTP; right?

9 A. This was provided by Sector South UNMO headquarters to the teams.

10 Q. I mean, you gave it to our office. Isn't that right?

11 A. That's right, yes.

12 Q. And with regard to the information which entered on this

13 particular form, can you explain why some of the villages which appear at

14 the top in the "Comments" field in row A, can you explain why some of

15 these villages don't actually appear in the survey report which we look

16 at earlier?

17 A. Okay. Then -- then we are talking general area of Plavno, which

18 is something that you can find on the map. Then you have different

19 hamlets there which are Jovici, Stojakovici, and et cetera, which later

20 on were compiled within a certain area, and a team had to make an

21 assessment and a definition on which hamlets would be put under one name.

22 Q. Are you indicating that some of the hamlet names which appear --

23 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Your Honour. At this point I just object

24 to the leading.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe -- Mr. Russo, would you to the best of

Page 2532

1 your abilities refrain from leading. I don't know whether to what extent

2 you were leading already, but if you rephrase your question certainly in

3 a non-leading way, then please proceed.

4 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honour.

5 Q. Can you please explain what you said just a second ago about the

6 selection of areas to be reported? I'm not sure I understand that.

7 A. Okay. Okay. You -- okay. It says -- in this particular report

8 it says village name Plavno, and Plavno is an area where you have

9 different groups of houses which in -- which are included in "Comments"

10 column where it says: "Including Jovici," and et cetera. This is the

11 general area of Plavno, and this is just information to record that we

12 are talking about the hamlets of Jovici, Bajinac, Torbice, Grmuse,

13 Stojakovici, et cetera, to have information that there might be some

14 other hamlets that have not been visited yet.

15 So just as well as the grid reference is a pretty rough one, that

16 was at the time a way to keep track of which places were visited and

17 which not.

18 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you then a question. "Et cetera" gives

19 the possibility to identify [Overlapping speakers] --

20 THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay. In this particular case these hamlets

21 mentioned on the exhibit were visited and there could be some other

22 hamlets in the general area of Plavno were not visited on that patrol.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you didn't know which ones.

24 THE WITNESS: We don't know which ones.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.

Page 2533

1 MR. RUSSO:

2 Q. And getting back to the actual report, the spreadsheet that we

3 looked at earlier, how many versions of that report did you prepare?

4 A. Well, it was updated. After it was created it was updated daily,

5 on daily basis. Official reports that went out into UN archive, I think

6 there were three versions of that.

7 Q. And were the subsequent versions, in your opinion, more accurate

8 than the previous versions?

9 A. That's the point of all -- all this work, that while the work

10 proceeded the information was more accurate in terms of more villages

11 being visited, more areas being covered and so on.

12 Q. And to your knowledge did the UNMO teams ever go back to a

13 village that they had originally checked and recheck it?

14 A. Yes, they did.

15 Q. Okay. Did you ever ask any of them to go back and clarify some

16 of the information that they gave to you?

17 A. The information was constantly updated so that in a certain area

18 the first visit would give out a certain report, and later on when the

19 team would visit the same area again they would recheck the information

20 that they gave out the first time, and if there was any change that

21 change would be reported and then it would appear on the final report

22 compiled by myself.

23 Q. Looking at the -- the data collection form here, receiving a form

24 like this where it indicates several villages -- or several hamlets

25 inside of a general area and saying "et cetera," is that a level of

Page 2534

1 specificity with which you were satisfied?

2 A. No. This is a -- this is a preliminary report that -- in this

3 particular case I recall that we gave the -- the team the order to be

4 more specific on the hamlets that they have included in the -- in the

5 report and so on. So later on that's why in the final version you cannot

6 find all of these names, for example.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 MR. RUSSO: Madam Registrar, if we could please pull up 65 ter

9 1587. If we could please turn to the second page of that report.

10 Q. Mr. Anttila, looking here at 65 ter number 1587, the date appears

11 as 4/11/1995. Can you tell the Court whether or not this was the final

12 report that you prepared?

13 A. That is the last version that was submitted into a UN system as a

14 report.

15 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, at this time I would move for the

16 admission of 65 ter 1587.

17 MR. KEHOE: No objection. No objection.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Madam Registrar.

19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be Exhibit P176.

20 JUDGE ORIE: P176 is admitted into evidence. Please proceed.

21 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honours.

22 If, Madam Registrar, we could now pull up Exhibit P68.

23 Q. Mr. Anttila, looking at Exhibit P68, can you tell me if you

24 recognise that document?

25 A. This is a -- yes, I do.

Page 2535

1 Q. Can you tell the Court, please, who prepared this document.

2 A. This document was prepared by myself based on the daily sitreps

3 coming from the teams to the Sector South UNMO headquarters.

4 Q. And can you explain to the Court why this summary does not

5 contain all of the information about the houses burned in the survey that

6 we just looked at?

7 A. Well, this -- this is -- like I said, it's based on the daily

8 sitreps. So this information is compiled from the information that was

9 observed by the UNMO teams when they were on patrol. So if there was a

10 house burning somewhere in the area, maybe the UNMOs were not present at

11 that location at that time. So that's why in this -- this -- in this

12 compilation of the sitreps you cannot find all the amount of houses being

13 burnt, for example, that are in the -- in the list where you have the --

14 where -- when the teams were checking the -- the areas where -- where

15 these happenings took place.

16 Q. And you indicated that the information from here came from the

17 UNMO sitreps. What -- what level of sitrep are we talking about? Can

18 you explain that to the Court?

19 A. Okay. First of all the teams would report to -- to UNMO

20 headquarter in Sector South in this case, and then Sector South would

21 report the significant happenings and findings to UNMO headquarter in

22 Zagreb. That means that the information coming from the teams was not

23 included in sitreps going to Zagreb, not all of it, only what was at that

24 time, at that date, considered significant for the time being. So there

25 are a lot of information that came out from -- from the teams that was

Page 2536

1 not reported to UNMO headquarter Sector South or -- excuse me, I have to

2 correct. That was not reported to UNMO headquarter in -- in Zagreb,

3 rather than it was considered as general information and -- and with the

4 reports given as a certain paragraph of, let's say, looting or -- or

5 burning houses and so on.

6 Q. And can you tell the Court which sitreps you pulled the

7 information for this violation summary? Was it from the team level

8 sitrep or from the HQ to Zagreb level?

9 A. Okay. When this compilation of -- of -- like it said -- says,

10 daily sitreps from 7 August to 4 September. This is the sitreps coming

11 in from the teams to Sector South headquarters. So this information --

12 not all of this information can be found in the sitreps going to Zagreb.

13 So everything -- or anything going to Zagreb was filtered from this

14 information, and this information is not a compilation of everything that

15 was in the sitreps. So it's only taking into account the matters that

16 were supposed to be included in this type of report.

17 Q. Thank you. And did you prepare --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, just for my understanding. In the last

19 answer you said, "And this information is not a compilation of everything

20 that was in the sitreps." When you said "this information," were you

21 talking about the information that was sent to UNMO headquarters Zagreb,

22 or were you talking about information we find in the summary of

23 humanitarian violations?

24 THE WITNESS: What I was referring is that this report does not

25 include all the information coming from the teams to Sector South UNMO

Page 2537

1 headquarter.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.

3 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Q. Mr. Anttila, did you prepare other kinds of reports in connection

5 with humanitarian rights violations?

6 A. Other kinds. Well --

7 Q. I'm sorry, perhaps that was a --

8 A. I don't quite get the point.

9 Q. What I'm trying to find out is if you participated in creating

10 any additional reports with respect to human rights violations.

11 A. We -- officially we did not -- apart from these reports that are

12 included here, we did not present any other official reports. Of course

13 we had contacts with the other UN organisations, and on a verbal level we

14 were discussing these matters, but official reports are included in these

15 proceedings.

16 MR. RUSSO: Madam Registrar, can we please pull up 65 ter number

17 1586.

18 Q. Looking at 65 ter 1586, Mr. Anttila, can you tell me if you

19 recall this report?

20 A. Yeah, I do.

21 Q. And can you please tell the Court what this report is based on?

22 Where did the information come from?

23 A. Well, this is based on the information that we looked at

24 previously. So it's based on the reports coming in from the teams about

25 the damages and -- it's based on the same information.

Page 2538

1 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, at this time I would move for the

2 admission of 65 ter 1586.

3 MR. KEHOE: No objection.

4 JUDGE ORIE: No objection.

5 Could I ask you one clarification. You said this was based on

6 the same information. Did you mean based on the same information

7 strictly speaking, or are you talking about the same source of

8 information?

9 I have not reviewed the document, so I do not know whether --

10 when it seems to --

11 THE WITNESS: Okay. This is based on the reports coming from the

12 UNMO teams in the sector that -- the reports that we received in the

13 headquarters, and this information coming from the teams included all the

14 information based on which the compilation was done. So in that way I'm

15 referring that it was based on the same information coming in as the

16 previous document.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I'm asking this for the following reason.

18 If you make a compilation, you make a selection from the information that

19 reaches you.

20 THE WITNESS: Yeah.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Now, was it that this report was based on the same

22 information that reached you, or was it based on the same selection of

23 information that reached you?

24 THE WITNESS: I would say that this could be a cover page for

25 the -- for the -- for the compilation of information that was presented

Page 2539

1 previously.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That sounds very much as rather the

3 information -- the selected information for the other reports.

4 THE WITNESS: Yes.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Mr. Russo, you're about -- you wanted to

6 tender this. Mr. Kehoe said already he had no objections, speaking for

7 all Defence teams.

8 Madam Registrar.

9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be Exhibit P177.

10 JUDGE ORIE: P177 is admitted into evidence. Please proceed.

11 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honours.

12 Q. Mr. Anttila, you can see in the "From" line here it indicates in

13 addition to UNMO HQ Sector South, it indicates "Human Rights Activities

14 Team (HRAT)." Were you part of a Human Rights Action Team?

15 A. Yes, I was.

16 Q. And can you explain to the Court basically how your

17 responsibilities were divide between your UNMO tasks and the HRAT tasks?

18 A. Okay. At that time in November myself, Major Peter Marti, and at

19 the time Captain Ivan Valduranove from the Czech republic, we were part

20 of the human rights team. Our task -- our main task was to compile the

21 information given from the from the UNMO teams into these type of reports

22 and to patrol together with the other UN organisations within the area.

23 So we were not limited into the area of, let's say, Knin only.

24 The area of the human rights team was the whole area of Sector South, and

25 we would patrol in -- in groups of three people, which would include one

Page 2540

1 person from UNCIVPOL, one person from UN Civilian Affairs, and then one

2 person from -- from the military observing organisation.

3 Q. Did you share any of the information that you gathered about the

4 UNMO damage survey, was any of that information shared with the HRAT team

5 organisations or other organisations?

6 A. Okay. There was -- at the time there was a human rights

7 organisation in the UN organisation coming down all the way from at

8 JordBat's the mission area level, but the actual fact was that the

9 information that we had was available for the other participating parts

10 of the human rights organisation.

11 Q. And can you tell the Court who those other participating parts

12 were?

13 A. Well, like I said, from my point of view at that time I was not

14 very much concerned about -- okay. I was told that there was somebody

15 from civilian affairs, from the UN organisation, coming to the patrol.

16 For me at that time it was enough to know that civilian affairs, CIVPOL,

17 and UNMOs were patrolling together. So I don't know exactly the

18 organisational level or the positions that the persons were holding that

19 were on the patrols.

20 Q. Did you ever attend any meetings at which the information

21 collected on humanitarian violations was discussed?

22 A. We were having daily briefings in the afternoon after having

23 patrols, and in the daily briefings there was a specified representative

24 of human rights team present in the sector. So sometimes it was myself,

25 sometimes it was somebody from other UN organisations and so on. So --

Page 2541

1 and later on -- in the beginning it was more or less a task that we took

2 up, and then later on it was passed over to CIVPOL and -- and UN civilian

3 affairs to be responsible for reporting those things.

4 Q. And were representatives from ECMM present at these meetings?

5 A. Normally ECMM representatives would have access to -- to these

6 daily briefings, yes.

7 Q. I'm not sure I understand what "have access to" means. Did they

8 attend?

9 A. They attended when they were in -- in the location. When they

10 were somewhere else they could not, of course, attend. But they were not

11 restricted from attending the meetings.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 MR. RUSSO: Your Honours, I have no further questions.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Russo. We're close to the time where

15 we usually have the break. I suggest that we have the break now. We

16 will resume at 10 minutes to 11.00.

17 --- Recess taken at 10.22 a.m.

18 --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, from the fact that you're standing I

20 deduce that you're the first one to cross-examine the witness.

21 Mr. Russo, you're standing, as well, so you're not

22 cross-examining the witness.

23 MR. TIEGER: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I have a minor matter not

24 related to the cross-examination and I'll speak cryptically.

25 During the break we attempted to provide the Court with a

Page 2542

1 courtesy copy. I just wanted to make sure that was received.

2 JUDGE ORIE: At least as far as I'm concerned, you were

3 successful.

4 Yes. You were in every respect successful, Mr. Tieger. We'll

5 try to deal with the matter today.

6 Mr. Kehoe -- Mr. Russo.

7 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you. I neglected to -- with

8 respect to the very last exhibit which was admitted into evidence, that

9 was P177, I neglected to have -- asked to have that admitted under seal

10 as it contains the names of several of the victims discovered in Sector

11 South.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Madam Registrar -- I take it there are no

13 objection against it being admitted under seal. Madam Registrar, P177

14 was admitted but is now admitted under seal.

15 Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.

16 Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe:

17 Q. Good morning, Mr. Anttila. I would like to ask you some

18 questions not only about what you talked about this morning but also

19 develop some of the issues that came up during the course of your several

20 written statements, okay? And I'll try to direct you to those statements

21 as much as possible, and I do believe that you have written copies before

22 you, but if you don't at any point please let us know. Okay?

23 A. Okay.

24 Q. Mr. Anttila, I think you noted for us, at JordBat's initially,

25 that -- and this is in P171, in paragraph 1, that you were a construction

Page 2543

1 or are a construction engineer.

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. And that --

4 A. That's my -- I have been in college, and that's my civilian

5 training.

6 Q. And you also noted for us in that statement that you were not a

7 professional military officer.

8 A. That's true.

9 Q. Now, when you arrived in Knin on the 14th of August, you had

10 never been there; is that right?

11 A. That is correct.

12 Q. And you were unfamiliar with the area?

13 A. That was my first time in that area, yes.

14 Q. Now, before we go into what you talked about, at JordBat's

15 initially on the provisional assessment and your testimony in that

16 regard, I'd like to bring up on the screen Exhibit P60. And if we could

17 go to the -- I guess it would be the third page of this.

18 And, Mr. Anttila, that is the statement that you wrote on -- or

19 was offered to the Trial Chamber on the 18th of December, 1995. Do you

20 recall that, sir?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Now, Mr. Anttila, tell us the circumstances of this. Where were

23 you when this was written?

24 A. Where was I when this was --

25 Q. Well, let me withdraw that. Who wrote it?

Page 2544

1 A. I wrote it.

2 Q. You wrote it?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And where were you when you wrote it?

5 A. In Zagreb.

6 Q. And who else was with you?

7 A. In that particular moment, I was asked to make a statement about

8 the crater analysis that we performed, and at that moment in the office

9 where I physically wrote it was nobody else present.

10 Q. Okay. And did you type it up?

11 A. I typed it up myself.

12 Q. And did you sign it at that time?

13 A. I signed it at that time, yeah.

14 Q. And who asked you to prepare this?

15 A. This question was brought up by the -- by the Tribunal

16 investigator. I think it was the Danish -- what's his name.

17 Q. Let me help you there. Would that have been Joakim Robertson?

18 A. Probably, yes.

19 Q. Now, was he present when you were typing this up?

20 A. No.

21 Q. When you went through the information, for instance, and got the

22 grid references, et cetera, did you go to a map or did you have that

23 information with you?

24 A. Of course I had the map on the wall in the office where I was

25 working at that time.

Page 2545

1 Q. And you examined it at the time?

2 A. Well, I was -- I was looking at the map, and the -- yeah. The

3 grid reference is a general area where -- like it says here it's -- it's

4 a four-digit grid reference, which means that it's not pinpointing things

5 out. It's, rather, giving the area where it happened.

6 Q. And the four-digit grid reference is one kilometre by one

7 kilometre, isn't it?

8 A. Exactly.

9 Q. And when did Mr. Munkelien sign this?

10 A. That I don't have information on. I don't know when he signed

11 it. He was not there at the moment when he -- when he -- when he -- I

12 did not see him signing this.

13 Q. Now, sir, this particular document, had you talked to

14 Mr. Munkelien about this before you prepared it?

15 A. We talked about this incident. We talked about the crater

16 analysis after we conducted the actual analysis individually, both of us,

17 and at that time we came to the conclusion that this was what was -- had

18 taken place, that the findings were the same, that we both came to the

19 same conclusion.

20 Q. Okay, sir. Now, when you -- I mean, did you sign this? I think

21 your cover sheet says that you signed it on the 18th of December, 1995?

22 A. Yeah.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, may I ask one clarify question.

24 I'm not a native speaker, Mr. Anttila. Neither are you, but we

25 conducted the actual analysis individually, both of us. Do I have to

Page 2546

1 understand that you analysed the crater and Mr. Munkelien did analyse the

2 crater, that you came to your own conclusions and then found out that you

3 shared the same --

4 THE WITNESS: The same conclusion.

5 JUDGE ORIE: The same conclusion. So you did not come together

6 to a conclusion in a conversation.

7 THE WITNESS: No.

8 JUDGE ORIE: But each separately came to this conclusion.

9 THE WITNESS: I went there. He went there. There was six

10 impacts. He was studying the three on that side. I was studying the

11 three on that side, and we met in the middle, and we had reached the same

12 conclusion.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.

14 MR. KEHOE:

15 Q. Now, if I may -- by the way, this piece of paper is on the Sector

16 South letterhead. Sector South letterhead didn't exist at this time, did

17 it?

18 A. Sector South was terminated before that time, but we did not have

19 any other basis to use at that time.

20 Q. Mr. Anttila, we've had a lot of information about Sector South

21 ending, and I just wanted to clarify that.

22 A. Yeah.

23 Q. Sir, you noted for us in your statement and I refer to the

24 December 2007 statement, 172, at -- excuse me. That would be 173, at

25 paragraph 6, that you had had artillery training as well as the crater

Page 2547

1 analysis training with the Finnish armed forces; is that right?

2 A. That is correct. I'm -- I'm trained to be the mortar or

3 artillery firer, aiming position in my military training.

4 Q. And obviously prior to that -- when you were conducting that

5 training and you were being instructed, you were taught that when you do

6 this type of analysis it's important to be as precise as possible, isn't

7 it?

8 A. Yeah, normally. Yes.

9 Q. And by the way, when -- before you went to Sector South, had you

10 had training in HV weaponry as well as ARSK weaponry?

11 A. We were given information about the -- the weaponry normally used

12 in -- or available for the parties in this area, which were the weaponry

13 that was available for JNA prior to all this happened and then what

14 was -- what was brought in later on. So we had a book or a booklet --

15 rather, a book where all the weapons were described, and we had several

16 different types of -- of ways of defining what the weapon used would be.

17 Q. Now, if I may, sir -- if I might have one moment.

18 So it would be accurate to say that most of the training that you

19 received was on weaponry that had been used by the JNA?

20 A. It was not specified as to be used by JNA. It was general

21 information about the weaponry available in this area, and it was -- it

22 was not based on JNA information.

23 Q. Okay. Now, you noted for us when you went through this

24 statement -- or prior to this statement you and Mr. Munkelien were in the

25 same area and examined the impact area and then came together and came --

Page 2548

1 and drafted this particular memo or voluntary statement that we have in

2 P60. Is that accurate?

3 A. Mm-hmm. Well, that -- like it says in the cover sheet, that was

4 drafted on the 18th of December, which is far beyond the time when we

5 actually were on the spot.

6 Q. Okay. And -- but it was consistent with the conclusions that you

7 made back on the -- I guess the 17th --

8 A. 17th of August, yes.

9 Q. Let me bring up 1D19 -- or, before I do that, I mean, you note

10 that the grid reference here is WJ9778; is that right?

11 A. 9778, yes.

12 Q. Can we bring up 1D190034. And, Madam Registrar, we'd like to

13 show this to the Court via Sanction.

14 If I can just move to -- if I can just change that to 0035 first.

15 Now, if you can take a look at this, Mr. Anttila, and I direct

16 your attention to the upper right-hand corner which has the grid

17 reference of 9778.

18 A. Mm-hmm.

19 Q. Is that -- you have to say --

20 A. Yes, yes. I can see the grid reference.

21 Q. Now, let me take you down to the other grid which is 9677, and in

22 the small red circle, that's the approximate area that you told us was

23 the impact area for these -- these rockets, wasn't it?

24 A. Yeah, that's correct.

25 Q. So the grid -- was the grid reference that you put in your report

Page 2549

1 of December the 18th incorrect?

2 A. This is correct. The grid reference is incorrect. I agree with

3 you with that. So -- and the reason for that was that at the time when

4 making this statement we did not have the maps available with the -- such

5 specific grids where you could determine exactly the point where you had

6 been. And like I said, it's more or less to give the general area which

7 we are talking about.

8 Q. Well, in the area that's 9778 is the area where the hospital is,

9 isn't it?

10 A. Exactly.

11 Q. Now, you told us during direct examination that when you went

12 back and reported to Mr. -- or Colonel Hjertnes --

13 A. Mm-hmm.

14 Q. -- you pointed to the area on a map?

15 A. Yeah.

16 Q. And that map was on a wall?

17 A. Yeah.

18 Q. And that map had grid references, didn't it?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Now, if I may, sir, let me turn your attention to M -- excuse me,

21 P70.

22 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, at this time I will offer 1D190035 into

23 evidence before we move to P70.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.

25 MR. RUSSO: No objection, Your Honour.

Page 2550

1 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

2 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit D166, Your Honours.

3 MR. KEHOE: If I might have --

4 JUDGE ORIE: D166 is admitted into evidence. Please proceed.

5 MR. KEHOE: If I might have P70.

6 Q. Now, Mr. Anttila, Mr. Munkelien testified here on the 15th of

7 April. On page 1502, lines 12 to 14, Mr. Munkelien was asked by

8 Mr. Russo to locate the area where he conducted the crater analysis and

9 place an A next to it. And you see the location where the A is located

10 on the left-hand side of this exhibit, don't you?

11 A. Yeah. I do.

12 Q. Now, that location is different, quite different, from the

13 location that you selected, isn't it?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. And both locations, if we can, and let's turn our attention to

16 1D190034.

17 MR. KEHOE: And, Madam Registrar, again, if we could show this to

18 the Court via Sanction.

19 Q. And I have taken the liberty of circling the area at the top

20 where Mr. Munkelien circled.

21 A. Mm-hmm.

22 Q. Neither one of the locations that you and Mr. Munkelien circled

23 is in grid 9778, are they?

24 A. You are correct there.

25 Q. Now, when this comes to --

Page 2551

1 MR. KEHOE: And, Your Honour, at this time I will offer 1D190034

2 into evidence.

3 MR. RUSSO: No objection, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

5 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit D167, Your Honours.

6 JUDGE ORIE: D167 is admitted into evidence.

7 MR. KEHOE:

8 Q. Now, Mr. Anttila, you would agree with me that when rendering a

9 decision on fire being directed towards a military target, having the

10 precise location of those impacts is crucial, isn't it?

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. Now, let us turn our attention, if you will, to the actual

13 weaponry involved. You note here that it's an M-63 128. And I'm reading

14 from P60, by the way. That's your exhibit. And you note that -- at the

15 middle of the page that the patrol was able to recover one body of a

16 rocket from an impact hole and was able, therefore, to determine

17 definitely the calibre of the weapon used.

18 A. Mm-hmm.

19 Q. Now, you determined the calibre by measuring the bottom of the

20 particular piece that was recovered, didn't you?

21 A. Yeah.

22 Q. And you came to the conclusion based on that that it was a

23 128-millimetre, didn't you?

24 A. Yes, we did.

25 Q. Now, if I can turn your attention to -- let me, if I can pull

Page 2552

1 this, and I can bring up Exhibit D83.

2 MR. KEHOE: I'm sorry, is that D83? I think that's P83,

3 Madam Registrar.

4 Q. Now, you previously told the Office of the Prosecutor that this

5 is one of the shells that you recovered from the area; is that right?

6 A. That's correct.

7 Q. And you also noted in your statement that -- and this is P173 --

8 by the way, who are the individuals in this photograph? Do you know?

9 A. This is Major Scott from Canada and Major Simon Coley from UK.

10 Q. Okay. And I'm referring to P173, paragraph 8. You note -- if

11 you can turn to that. That's the December 2007 statement, Mr. Anttila?

12 A. Yeah.

13 Q. Do you have that, sir?

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. Now, you said that: "In our report we mentioned that rocket

16 shells were fired from the direction of 20 degrees north by north-east.

17 I do not have any photographs or notes to confirm the assessment,

18 although at the time we made notes."

19 By the way, did you take photographs at the time?

20 A. No.

21 Q. And the notes that you made, where are they?

22 A. They were in a -- in a scrapbook, which was later on destroyed

23 or -- you know, I don't have it any more. So it's not available.

24 Q. Now, you note that the directions can be determined by the

25 markings within the crater.

Page 2553

1 A. Mm-hmm.

2 Q. I.e., the fins and the detonator make certain markings with the

3 crater. Now, as you can see from the document that's on -- excuse me.

4 The photograph that's on the screen, the shell that you had did in fact

5 have fins on it, didn't it?

6 A. No. This is -- when we talk about fins, we are not talking about

7 actual fins of the ordnance which is exploding. We're talking about the

8 impact area where -- when the detonator detonates the rocket, the

9 artillery shell, or a mortar grenade, it creates a certain type of impact

10 area, and in that area you can see the fins, which I refer to in this

11 document.

12 This particular -- or this particular rocket, there were

13 something wrong with this one because it did not explode the way it was

14 supposed to be. You're not supposed to find a rocket shell like that

15 after it has impacted the area where it's hitting.

16 Q. Now, we will go into that in one moment. I mean, you did note in

17 your P173 statement at paragraph 3 that with regard to this incident

18 that -- and this is the last line: "Major Munkelien is better placed to

19 provide more detailed explanation of the analysis than myself." Is that

20 right?

21 A. Well, in that respect that Major Munkelien has or had at that

22 time, been on several UM missions before, and as a military observer, for

23 myself at that time that was the first time as I was acting as a military

24 observer within the former Yugoslavia area in this respect.

25 Q. Did he also have --

Page 2554

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, if you don't mind.

2 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE ORIE: If we are talking about fins, you still now say that

4 in that area you can see the fins. Are we talking about stabiliser fins

5 and what do you mean by --

6 THE WITNESS: We're not talking about any physical fins. We are

7 talking about markings on the ground. So if I draw a picture --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We are both not native speakers, but I think

9 you call that a swatch. Is that -- that is a current --

10 MR. KEHOE: Splash.

11 THE WITNESS: Splash or --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Splash nor -- but that has several parts.

13 THE WITNESS: There are -- okay. When the ordnance hits the

14 ground then there are typical markings on the ground based on which type

15 of artillery weapon is used, whether it's a mortar, whether it's a

16 cannon, whether it's a rocket, and then --

17 JUDGE ORIE: But it's sure that's most important for me at this

18 moment is we are not talking about stabiliser fins being found --

19 THE WITNESS: No.

20 JUDGE ORIE: -- or leaving any marks. It's rather the shape of

21 the impact that you find on the ground.

22 THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers] Impact that you can find on

23 the ground.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. Please proceed.

25 MR. KEHOE:

Page 2555

1 Q. By way of clarity, when you talk about fins you're talking about

2 the impact on the ground?

3 A. Mm-hmm.

4 Q. But let's look at what you said in your statement at paragraph 8

5 at 173 -- at P173. You note that the direction can be determined by the

6 markings within the crater, i.e., the fins and the detonator make certain

7 markings within the crater.

8 A. Yeah.

9 Q. So you -- when you were talking about fins on that issue, you

10 were talking about the stabilise be fins --

11 A. No.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, I asked this question to the witness a

13 second ago, and he clearly answered it.

14 MR. KEHOE: I understand, Judge, but --

15 JUDGE ORIE: But fins are not physical things but are forms or

16 shapes of the impact on the ground. So fins, of course, I have to look

17 in the dictionary, but it may have different meanings and otherwise we

18 have to understand on the basis of the testimony of the witness that the

19 way in which he expresses himself in English on this respect would not be

20 hundred per cent. We find some other examples of that in the statement

21 as well.

22 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour, and I was just taking the witness

23 back to at that statement.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and then you put the same question as I had put

25 already to him and which he answered already.

Page 2556

1 MR. KEHOE: I understand.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

3 MR. KEHOE: If we can go back to the photograph that was on the

4 screen, and if we could blow-up the bottom portion of that, please, if we

5 can, if it doesn't blur.

6 Q. Now, sir, taking a look at this do you see the markings that

7 are -- well, there's one looking directly at the photograph. Do you see

8 that in the bottom portion of the shell?

9 A. I do see it, yes.

10 Q. Okay. And that was a stabilising fin for the 128, wasn't it?

11 A. I don't get the point here. I don't understand the question.

12 JUDGE ORIE: There is still confusion now as far as markings are

13 concerned. Could you please be specific on your question? Perhaps we

14 could use --

15 MR. KEHOE: If I could use the usher.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The usher will certainly assist you and

17 perhaps then using the cursor in a particular way that you can precisely

18 tell the witness what the markings were that you included in your

19 question.

20 MR. KEHOE: If I may, Madam Usher. On the shell -- could you go

21 to the bottom portion with the marker.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's not to be marked. We should use the

23 cursor here, rather, so let's take out this -- yes, and now could we just

24 move the cursor or even that thing. We just had to remove other things.

25 The tiny little circle can be used.

Page 2557

1 Yes. Now we have the cursor there. Mr. Kehoe, please guide the

2 usher and --

3 MR. KEHOE: [Overlapping speakers] Just take that cursor up just

4 a little bit. To that line. No, no. Just within the same general

5 there. No, where you were before. Just over to the right just a bit,

6 and you see that line.

7 Q. Do you see that line, sir, where it's pointing to?

8 A. Yeah. Yeah, just barely. Yeah.

9 Q. That particular line was where the fin for the 128 had been that

10 broke off, wasn't it?

11 A. Mm-hm. Could be.

12 Q. Now, let us turn our attention, sir, to this particular shell, if

13 we can. You note in your statement that this is a 128.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And if I could go to Defence Exhibit 83. I'm sorry. It is 85.

16 I'm sorry. I apologise.

17 Now, you told us that you measured the bottom of the ground to

18 determine -- to definitely determine what the calibre was; is that right?

19 A. On which statement that is stated?

20 Q. If you look at P60.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Your statement. And you don't say the measuring, but you noted

23 that you definitely determined the calibre.

24 A. Exactly. That's correct.

25 Q. Okay. And did you determine the calibre by measuring the bottom

Page 2558

1 of the rocket across?

2 A. To the best of my knowledge and what I can remember, that's the

3 way it was done, yes.

4 Q. Now, did you have training on the -- and I believe the M-63 128;

5 is that right?

6 A. Excuse me, I --

7 Q. Yes. Did you have -- you had training with regard to the M-63

8 128?

9 A. I have not been trained to use this kind of a multiple-rocket

10 launcher. No, Finnish army does not have these kinds of weapons.

11 Q. Were you trained as to the characteristics of the M-63 128?

12 A. Yes, during my UNMO training.

13 Q. Now, if I turn your attention to the map -- excuse me, the

14 exhibit that's on the screen. Do you recognise this as the M-63 128

15 shell?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Do you know where the propulsion system is in this weapon?

18 A. The propulsion system is in the back.

19 Q. And this particular 128 M-63 does not have any wings on it for

20 stabilisation, does it?

21 A. To my knowledge, no.

22 Q. So if the shell that you recovered on the 17th of August, 1995,

23 with Mr. Munkelien had wings on it, then the shell that you recovered was

24 not from an M-63 128, was it?

25 A. Like I said before, I could agree with you that you could barely

Page 2559

1 see some markings on the shell that we recovered. I don't know if there

2 were any fins attached to that ordnance when this came out, and I cannot

3 determine whether that marking was made by something that was attached to

4 that part or if it was made by something else hitting on the side of

5 the -- of the shell.

6 Q. My simple question, Mr. Anttila, was if that shell had wings,

7 stabilisation wings, it was not an M-63 128, was it?

8 A. Okay. We don't know if it had it. I'm not speculating on this.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, that's what happened if you say if this

10 had happened that would be the consequence. It's a matter of logic.

11 I'm counting superfluous and -- questions. I'm above ten, now,

12 so would you please. I could mention them, but I -- you were done the

13 subject.

14 MR. KEHOE: If I may, I'm trying to take the witness through it

15 as logically as possible so the witness can follow through. I

16 understand, Your Honour, that --

17 JUDGE ORIE: It's your logic and the witness in the last two

18 questions --

19 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE ORIE: -- had to correct you twice.

21 MR. KEHOE: And, Your Honour, I understand that. I'm just trying

22 to take the witness through it as logically as possible and as quickly as

23 possible.

24 JUDGE ORIE: And I'm saying that you're --

25 MR. KEHOE: I mean, I'm not trying to -- [overlapping speakers].

Page 2560

1 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore I count and ten -- and that's got nothing

2 to do with logic. I mean, it's about -- whether he was a construction

3 engineer. That so clearly appears from his statement. What's the use to

4 ask him again? There are -- that's in evidence. Well, I could give you

5 questions like whether he was taught to be as precise as possible. We're

6 all always be taught to be as precise as possible. I mean, these are

7 really superfluous questions. Please proceed. We waste even more time

8 if we continue.

9 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I must take issue with the last one

10 because the witness said that the grid reference that he gave was an

11 approximation. I mean, that was the point on that. So I will move on.

12 JUDGE ORIE: And do you think that is because he was taught to be

13 unprecise or is it just that he was unprecise, which clearly appears from

14 the other questions which are very interesting. Please proceed. And the

15 answers. Questions and answers, the others ones are very interesting.

16 Yes.

17 MR. KEHOE: Well, that's refreshing, Judge.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.

19 MR. KEHOE:

20 Q. If I may, sir -- now, sir, when you recovered this particular

21 weapon, you went back, did you not, to a book that you had received that

22 allowed for recognition of the M-63, didn't you?

23 A. Yes, we did.

24 MR. KEHOE: Now, if I could bring up on the screen D84.

25 Q. Is that the book, sir? You can look at the next page if we may?

Page 2561

1 A. Yeah. Yeah. Well, the cover looks like the one I have with me

2 still.

3 Q. And if we could just spin that. And that appears to be the entry

4 in there with regard to the M-63?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Now, did you examine any other weapon systems in that book

7 concerning 128s other than the M-63? Do you recall?

8 A. Well, I don't recall. Of course when it was clear to us that it

9 was a rocket impact, we looked at the rocket launchers and so on. So --

10 anyway, I don't recall during that time to have specifically examined all

11 the contents of the book, but we -- and I went through the rocket

12 launchers where from I made the conclusion that it would be M-63.

13 MR. KEHOE: If I could bring up 1D0015, and paper copies have

14 been distributed. 1D190015. If we could put that on the ELMO if we

15 could.

16 Q. Now, Mr. Anttila, this is a photograph from the same book, and

17 turning to the next page, this book notes the weapon system of an M-77.

18 Do you see that?

19 A. Yes, I do.

20 Q. And that is likewise a 128?

21 A. That's correct.

22 Q. And were you instructed during or prior to going down to that the

23 JNA had these weapon systems in their arsenals?

24 A. I had the information that they -- this could be available within

25 the area, yes.

Page 2562

1 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, at this time I'll offer this document

2 into evidence.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.

4 MR. RUSSO: No objection, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D168.

7 JUDGE ORIE: D168 is admitted into evidence.

8 MR. KEHOE: If we could put D86 on the screen. I'm sorry.

9 Q. Now, Mr. Anttila, are you familiar with this weapons system?

10 A. I have seen it in the pictures. I have never come across

11 physically with it.

12 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, if I might have the assistance of the

13 usher. If we could just put the ELMO down. I think it's a little

14 difficult for the witness to see me. If I can -- we are done with the

15 ELMO at this time.

16 Q. We go to -- I'm sorry. If we can go to D85.

17 And by the way, with regard to the M-77, were you aware that the

18 army of the Serb Krajina had the M-77?

19 MR. RUSSO: I would -- objection, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.

21 MR. RUSSO: I'm sorry. I just want to clarify. The witness was

22 shown two different documents, both indicating an M-77. One is an M-77

23 YMRL; the other is the M-77 Ogani. I'm not sure if the question refers

24 to one or other of those, or if he's asking if they're the same thing.

25 MR. KEHOE: I'm just asking generally if he knows if they had an

Page 2563

1 M-77.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Then if there are several times of M-77, then of

3 course we would have to find out and if there are relevant differences

4 between the two of them in respect of what we're looking at.

5 MR. KEHOE: Yes.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Colour might not be the most important thing.

7 MR. KEHOE: Yes.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.

9 THE WITNESS: I had the information this this M-77 could be

10 available within the area, yes.

11 MR. KEHOE: Now, if we could just turn to D87.

12 Q. Now, sir -- and if we could just highlight that just a bit.

13 During the course of your training and being instructed on the

14 M-63 as well as the M-77, were you made aware of the differences in the

15 shells?

16 A. We were not trained on a specific details of each type of rocket

17 that would exist in different types of weaponry. We're trained on the

18 calibre determination and things like that, how to determine the

19 different impacts of the different types of weapons. But particular

20 details of each weapon were not, of course, conducted in the training

21 that we had.

22 Q. Well, just taking that one step further and going to the

23 photograph that's on the screen, the photograph on the bottom, do you

24 recognise that as an M-63 shell?

25 A. Yep.

Page 2564

1 Q. And if we look at the photograph on the top and we look at the

2 longer shell, do you recognise that as an M-77 shell?

3 A. As far as I understand, that should be an M-77, yeah.

4 Q. And the M-77 shell, if we look towards the back -- excuse me, to

5 the right-hand side of that photograph, that particular shell has the

6 stabilising wings to it, doesn't it?

7 A. Well, it seems to have them, yes.

8 Q. Now, let us go back to D83. Now, looking at the shell that you

9 took from the ground and looking at how it collapsed after impact, as you

10 sit here today, sir, does that appear to be an M-63 shell or an M-77

11 shell?

12 A. To my understanding it should be an M-63.

13 Q. And tell us what happens to an individual rocket on impact.

14 What -- how much of it is destroyed on impact and how much remains?

15 A. Well, normally you cannot find any remains of the rocket after

16 the impact. That's what happened with the other impacts of the rocket.

17 When it explodes properly, you cannot find at the impact zone these kind

18 of remains.

19 Q. And during the course of your training were you instructed that

20 after impact -- during the course of your training were you instructed

21 that the length of the impact -- excuse me, that the length of the

22 original site after the impact, after the impact now, the length that's

23 remaining is approximately one-third the size of the original shell?

24 Were you taught that?

25 A. To answer your specific question, no.

Page 2565

1 Q. So if we went through the mathematics of the length of the M-77

2 and how much would remain as opposed to the M-63 on how much would remain

3 after impact, you wouldn't have any idea about that?

4 A. That's not what I was saying.

5 Q. Just explain to me, then.

6 A. The shell that is in the picture is something that comes from an

7 ordnance that did not explode properly. Normally you would not find this

8 kind of a -- if the explosion happens the way it's supposed to happen,

9 you will not find this kind of an ordnance in the area.

10 Q. Now, you also noted for us, and I'm going back to P60, that the

11 approximate angle of fire was 20 degrees north by north-east.

12 A. Mm-hm.

13 Q. Is that right?

14 A. Yeah.

15 Q. And if I may put 1D190011 on the screen, and if I can just do

16 this via Sanction, Madam Usher.

17 Now, Mr. Anttila, looking at this particular map and taking the

18 location from the area of impact and going 20 degrees, it points towards

19 the area of Strmica, doesn't it?

20 A. Yes, it does.

21 Q. And, sir, let me ask you, when you went through this did you do

22 any examination or any questioning as to who was doing the shelling on

23 the 4th and the 5th of August?

24 A. What do you mean by that?

25 Q. Which parties -- what party was doing the shelling?

Page 2566

1 A. Did I do any examination?

2 Q. Did you ask?

3 A. Ask? Who? Who could I have asked?

4 Q. Well, just to take your question, sir, were there UNMOs that had

5 been present during the 4th and the 5th of August?

6 A. Okay. Okay. Okay. Now -- okay. So prior to that, and I'm

7 still standing with the statement that I -- that I made at that time is

8 that we observed on the ground that these impacts came from this

9 direction, and I did not have any discussion about who should or would

10 have been the actual shooter in this case.

11 Q. Okay. So you have no idea who actually shot this --

12 A. No. I was just looking at the impacts.

13 Q. Well, let's go to D86.

14 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, at this time I will offer 1D19011 into

15 evidence. 0011 excuse me into evidence.

16 MR. RUSSO: No objection.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D169.

19 JUDGE ORIE: D169, which, by the way, does not appear on the

20 screen. Yes. D169 is admitted into evidence.

21 MR. KEHOE: Just if we can go to D89. Now, if we go to page 4,

22 paragraph 2. Now, if we can just bring that up a little bit and just go

23 down a little bit more.

24 Q. If I can look at that paragraph. You see at about 051500 hours.

25 Do you see that, Mr. Anttila?

Page 2567

1 A. Yeah.

2 Q. And it notes that ARSK soldiers of unknown strength were seen

3 occupying defensive positions in general area of Strmica a with a grid

4 reference. Tanks and mortars were seen at the same positions. At 051815

5 they fired 12 rounds of artillery from Strmica towards Knin."

6 Were you aware of this, sir?

7 A. No. This is the first time I see this document and this report.

8 Q. When you were travelling around and trying to find out houses

9 that were damaged, houses that were hit by shelling, did you ask anybody

10 back at UNMO Sector South headquarters who was doing the shelling in this

11 area?

12 A. I did not interrogate the UNMOs in that respect. I did not ask

13 them these types of questions at the time.

14 Q. Let me just direct yourself quickly to D120. If I may just

15 scroll up just a bit. And the third paragraph down, and this is an

16 article from the Toronto Star of the 5th of August. It notes that: "The

17 Croats are very close." There's a quote by then Colonel Leslie. "Croats

18 are very close. Tanks are returning fire right outside our compound and

19 artillery is impacting inside Knin."

20 During -- again more specifically with this particular comment

21 did you interrogate the -- not interrogate, just ask. Not the course of

22 interrogation. Just ask the UNMOs about --

23 A. I did not have any information about this. This is the first

24 time I see this kind of document, and I did not have information about

25 Colonel Leslie's comments.

Page 2568

1 Q. Now, sir, if we can go back to your particular map, which is 174.

2 Now, the -- if I can just pull that up. Now, A being the area

3 that you examined, but the areas that you said that the -- that the other

4 members of Team Podkonje examined were B, C, and D.

5 A. Mm-hmm.

6 Q. Isn't that right?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. And just to give us a reference, I mean, you weren't a team

9 leader on Team Podkonje, were you?

10 A. No.

11 Q. You were just one of the members?

12 A. I was one of the members who had been given a special task by the

13 SMO.

14 Q. Now -- and the team leader was a Felix --

15 A. At that time it was Felix Anglada.

16 Q. Okay. Now, the areas that we look at here, B, C, and D, they are

17 most heavily populated areas in Knin, aren't they?

18 A. To my understanding, yes.

19 Q. Okay. And based on that, if we can turn to P64. P64. And could

20 we blow that up, and paragraph 1.

21 Now, it notes -- if we could just blow that up a little bit more

22 in paragraph 1. It notes in paragraph 1 that the "UNMO Team Podkonje has

23 made a provisional assessment of the damages caused by the HV ops, 04-06

24 August '95 in the town of Knin. The report is based on a rundown of 70

25 per cent of the Knin town and gives a brief overview of the situation."

Page 2569

1 Now, the 70 per cent of the Knin town was the residential areas

2 that you just picked out in your chart, isn't it?

3 A. That's what -- I had pointed out that those areas were the areas

4 where these patrols went into.

5 Q. And based on that, if we go to -- to 2: "In general, shelling

6 was concentrated against military objectives. The damages caused by the

7 shelling to civilian establishments is concentrate to close vicinity of

8 military objectives." And then it notes "only few impacts is observed in

9 the other urban areas."

10 Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the conclusion that was made at

11 the time was that after looking at areas where most of the people lived

12 that the conclusion of Colonel Hjertnes was that all -- the fire was

13 basically directed towards military targets. Isn't that right?

14 MR. RUSSO: Objection, Your Honour. The document speaks for

15 itself, and it indicates that the damage is to the close vicinity of

16 military targets. It doesn't make the conclusion Mr. Kehoe has

17 referenced.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, this was number 11. Please proceed.

19 MR. KEHOE:

20 Q. Now, when you gave a statement in January of 1996, you noted that

21 you agreed with that assessment totally, didn't you?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Then when you changed your opinion, did you learn about what the

24 military targets were?

25 A. The thing is that this statement and -- and this report is made

Page 2570

1 on the 18th of August, 1995, and things did not stop from happening on

2 the 18th of August. There were further things that happened later on,

3 and also at that time with the experience that I had from the area I

4 could agree with this statement, but later on I learned more about the

5 area and other things also.

6 Q. Now, let's take what you learned. Did you learn about particular

7 facilities and as to whether or not they had been used by the army of the

8 Republic of Serb Krajina?

9 A. I still have -- we had this discussion with -- with the team

10 members and the headquarters staff whether a certain location was used by

11 RSK or not, but at that time I did not have this information. The only

12 military objective at that time that I knew of was the north barracks.

13 Q. Okay. So you don't know, sir, for instance, I think on the

14 Senjak barracks, whether or not it was used militarily or not, do you?

15 A. Which is --

16 Q. The particular -- let me go back to your chart. If we can go

17 back to 174.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, may I ask some clarification from the

19 witness in the following respect:

20 You said, "This report is made on the 18th of August, and things

21 did not stop from happening on the 18th of August." That is a rather

22 unclear answer --

23 THE WITNESS: Okay.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Let me ask you. Did you suggest that any of the

25 damage caused by shelling could have resulted from shelling after the

Page 2571

1 18th of August --

2 THE WITNESS: No. No.

3 JUDGE ORIE: -- or was it things to be happened is what you

4 learned and what you observed?

5 THE WITNESS: When we talk about things happening after the 18th

6 of August, that was clearly something that was not caused by shelling.

7 It was -- it was --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but what --

9 THE WITNESS: Then we are talking about looting and burning and

10 stuff like that.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but that seems to be a rather separate issue --

12 THE WITNESS: Yeah.

13 JUDGE ORIE: -- from what we find in this document, so it's a bit

14 of unclear --

15 THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers] Yeah. On the 18th when the

16 teams went out, not all the things were cleared out, and you could not

17 access all the roads within these areas, and then later on when you went

18 into -- deeper into that area rather than just driving through them --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you're not talking about the town of Knin

20 at this moment, are you?

21 THE WITNESS: In Knin.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Outside Knin -- inside.

23 THE WITNESS: Inside Knin, for example, the areas which have been

24 pointed out, you could not go to all the roads because there was debris

25 on the road, and when this was cleared then you could find there were

Page 2572

1 some impacts of shelling and later on, so not all the information was

2 available on the 18th. That's the point that I'm trying to --

3 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just trying to understand what you meant by

4 other events happening.

5 THE WITNESS: Yeah.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.

7 MR. KEHOE:

8 Q. Now, sir, it's important to -- when making a decision whether or

9 not something is a military target, it's important to know whether or not

10 it's being used for military purposes at the time --

11 A. Yeah.

12 Q. -- isn't it?

13 A. That is something that normally -- yeah, that's true.

14 Q. So let us go to P74. Excuse me. I'm sorry. P174.

15 Mr. Anttila's map. I apologise. P174.

16 Now, the area that you circled did not include in the area that

17 you had some question about and must be in the next document, which is I

18 believe P175. I'm searching for the document where you circled the

19 barracks. Yeah. This one.

20 Now, the area that you had, P175, and you have noted with an M --

21 A. Mm-hmm.

22 Q. -- as opposed to the F with the factory, that was the area that

23 you had some question about, correct?

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. Now, if we could turn to D161, page 6. Now, that area you had as

Page 2573

1 M is known as the Senjak barracks, isn't it?

2 A. Senjak barracks for me as a name is not familiar, because we --

3 Q. Just turning our attention --

4 A. -- we did not use that name for that area at the time when I was

5 there.

6 Q. If I could turn to page 6. Page 6 of the English.

7 JUDGE ORIE: The pages are a bit confusing here, Mr. Kehoe. On

8 the bottom we find 6 out of 10. On the top we find 3, for example.

9 MR. KEHOE: I'm perplexed, as well, Judge, because of course I

10 don't read Croatian or B/C/S. If I can just get a reference from my

11 colleague. I do believe, Judge, it is the 1820, or the 1620. If you can

12 see that designation on the right-hand side. Do you see that, Judge?

13 Okay. If you see the 1620. If you almost go straight across to the 1620

14 in the B/C/S. Up on the top. Higher, higher. 1620. Higher. Yeah.

15 And if we go across at the -- at the -- into the B/C/S, it likewise has a

16 1620.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

18 MR. KEHOE: If I can just get the date reference on the prior

19 page, on 5 of 10. And if -- by way of reference, Your Honour, this is

20 the -- this is the -- the diary of the chief logistics of the RSK. And

21 if we note the date at the top, 2 is dealing with the attack on 4 August,

22 1995.

23 Q. Do you see that, sir?

24 A. Yes, I do.

25 Q. And we can flip to the next page. And if we can scroll that up.

Page 2574

1 It notes "at 1620 hours I went to the PMK rear command post Senjak

2 barracks, had a short meeting with senior officers and deployed them as

3 follows," then gave a list of individual officers.

4 A. Mm-hmm.

5 Q. Now, I understand that you don't know that was called the Senjak

6 barracks, but would you agree looking at that that this facility

7 described in this document, this barracks described in the document on

8 the screen would in fact be a military facility?

9 MR. RUSSO: Objection, Your Honour. The document doesn't seem to

10 indicate what facility. I mean, it indicates a Senjak barracks. I don't

11 see how that relates to a picture --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to clearly distinguish between what the

13 witness can tell us and what his exegesis is of documents. Sometimes

14 counsel are even better than witnesses in exegetic exercises, and whether

15 or not the Chamber is good at that is still to be seen.

16 Please proceed.

17 MR. KEHOE:

18 Q. Looking at this screen, Mr. Anttila, would you agree with me that

19 the officer in charge is at the Senjak barracks giving instruction to

20 other officers?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Now, going back to the Senjak barracks, the area that you noted

23 in P175 -- go to P175. P175.

24 The area that we have circled as an M -- which you circled as an

25 M, what information did you receive that suggested that that facility was

Page 2575

1 not a military facility?

2 A. On the date -- on the 17th, I did not have any information about

3 that area.

4 Q. When you did your examination, did you go back to UNMO

5 headquarters and ask people at Sector South headquarters what that

6 facility was?

7 A. No, I did not. I went back, and when we performed the crater

8 analysis, we did the analysis on spot. We went back to the headquarters.

9 We gave the information in, and I had -- I did not have any information

10 about the area of -- which has been marked with M to be a military

11 objective.

12 Q. Now, sir, Colonel Hjertnes had been in the area long before you

13 got there, didn't he?

14 A. To my understanding, yes.

15 Q. And to the extent that you were giving him the information, were

16 you relying on his superior knowledge in the area on the 17th of August,

17 1995, to make decisions concerning targets or non-targets, which could be

18 military targets or non-military targets?

19 A. Well, at that time I was -- I was deployed there, and I was

20 serving under his command. So I would expect that he would have more

21 information and more basis for making judgements and such things.

22 Q. Now, then, you noted for us in this provisional assessment that

23 Colonel Hjertnes got this information from various people on Team

24 Podkonje, right?

25 A. Mm-hm. Yes.

Page 2576

1 Q. And were people in Team Podkonje examining some of these

2 locations prior to the 17th to your knowledge?

3 A. Well --

4 Q. Or do you know?

5 A. I don't have any information about whether they were on patrol,

6 but I would -- that's all making assumptions.

7 Q. I see. So you don't know.

8 A. Yeah.

9 Q. So -- but you do know that he was the central repository for that

10 information.

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. And based on that information, he then filed the provisional

13 assessment.

14 A. To my understanding that's the way it worked, yes.

15 Q. And you knew about the provisional assessment at the time, didn't

16 you?

17 A. I knew about it, that he was giving the information further on to

18 the system, yes.

19 Q. And that had been sent up the -- to Zagreb as well.

20 A. Yes, I would expect also.

21 Q. And did you ultimately learn that -- if I could just take a look

22 briefly at P90 -- D90. Excuse me.

23 Now, sir, this is a United Nations Security Council report of the

24 23rd of August, report of the Secretary-General, and if we could move to

25 paragraph 5, page 2, first sentence. And in that particular line it says

Page 2577

1 that: "On 4 August, 1995, the Croatian army launched the attack in

2 sectors north and south and Knin fell on 5 August following concentrated

3 shelling."

4 Now, you know of no report issued by the Secretary-General which

5 noted that there was any type of indiscriminate shelling on Knin, do you?

6 JUDGE ORIE: That's number 14, Mr. --

7 THE WITNESS: Well, I was not there at that time, so I don't have

8 any information about this time. I arrived on the mission area on the

9 4th of August. I stayed in Zagreb until the 14th and so on, so I don't

10 have any information about this time.

11 Q. Well, you don't know of any other UN report by the

12 Secretary-General after that, do you?

13 A. No. I'm not that much familiar with the Secretary-General.

14 Q. Now, with respect to the final report, in P64 it notes that the

15 survey continues to get a more accurate picture and better assessment.

16 Detailed report to follow within a week.

17 A. Mm-hmm.

18 Q. Were you informed that Colonel Hjertnes has informed the

19 Prosecutor that I recall that Team Podkonje - he's talking about the

20 final report - "Team Podkonje's report was consistent with the

21 provisional assessment. I do not recall anyone voicing a different

22 opinion." Have you been told that?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Now, you noted during the course of your testimony that you

25 believe, looking at the figures presented by counsel, that 660 houses

Page 2578

1 were destroyed, and you noted that 40 per cent were by shelling.

2 A. That's a rough figure that was -- it's an estimate. Yeah.

3 Q. Now, when you make that determination, that is without a full

4 knowledge of the military targets that were in Knin, isn't it?

5 A. That number, 660, is later number from the 18th of August. It's

6 coming in November, and then by that time there was a lot more

7 information that I had gathered from the area than on the 18th of August.

8 Q. My question is this, sir: You noted that 660 houses were either

9 damaged or destroyed --

10 A. Yeah, that's in November. That's the number in November. We are

11 not talking about the same number as in the report on the 17th or 18th of

12 August. 18th of August was a brief overview, and in November when we are

13 talking about 660 houses, then we are talking about the thorough

14 investigation or assessment which has been made during that time with

15 several patrols in the area.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Anttila, there are two issues. The one is

17 additional knowledge in November compared to August as far as damage or

18 destroyed houses is concerned. That's one.

19 The second element of this question is whether you gained

20 additional knowledge about potential military targets between August and

21 November. Your answer is about the damage, apparently, whereas Mr. Kehoe

22 apparently seeks to find out whether you had any additional knowledge

23 about potential military targets gained between August and November.

24 Could you -- so you have dealt with the first part to some extent. Could

25 you please deal with the second element of the question.

Page 2579

1 THE WITNESS: So I -- I received some information from -- from

2 the UNMOs within the sector about the fact that, for example, in that

3 area marked with M could be a military target in that sense, yes. So --

4 so I gained more information about possible military targets that would

5 have been there in the area before the Operation Storm, after the 18th of

6 August.

7 JUDGE ORIE: I leave it to Mr. Kehoe to find out what level of

8 detail you gained additional information.

9 MR. KEHOE:

10 Q. Can you tell us the level of detail that you got and who you --

11 A. We went driving past the area, and then, okay, we stayed the --

12 the house where I was staying at was on the road going out past this area

13 marked with M, and while we were driving past that, for example,

14 Tchernetsky was telling me that, okay, there used to be some RSK guys

15 over there prior to Operation Storm, but it was never very specific

16 information about whether it was a barracks or if it was just something

17 that they were staying at.

18 JUDGE ORIE: But isn't it true that we are still talking about

19 this one piece of -- on the map which was marked with an M, did you gain

20 any knowledge about logistical centres, about communication centres? Did

21 you gain any information apart from that specific spot, what was

22 identified, I think, by the Defence as the Senjak barracks.

23 THE WITNESS: Apart from that spot, I don't -- I could not tell

24 you where the RSK was keeping their troops, where they had their

25 compounds, other than north barracks, and then I have a suspicion that

Page 2580

1 with the -- within the area which is marked with M there could have been

2 some.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. At the same time, by giving this

4 explanation, it appears that you have a rather limited conception of what

5 a military objective could be, that is, troops being there. That's the

6 reason why I asked for the other matters like logistical centres,

7 communication centres, transport issues, government-related offices in

8 relation to the military.

9 THE WITNESS: Well, when I'm referring to military objectives,

10 and we are talking about military being involved in those objectivities.

11 So I did not consider at that time, for example, the railway station to

12 be a military objective, even though I can understand that you could --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

14 THE WITNESS: -- consider one like that.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, please proceed.

16 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour, if I may.

17 Q. If I can take you back, if I -- for one moment, based on your

18 answer, to P63.

19 If we can blow up the top of that, and if we go into the

20 "Classifying the damage on buildings," do you see that sir?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And it notes "Classify damage of buildings as follows.

23 1 not damaged.

24 2 minor damage (looted with broken windows and doors)."

25 And for some reason the numbers are transposed. I don't know

Page 2581

1 why.

2 MR. KEHOE: Do you see that, Your Honour? It's a 3 and a 2.

3 THE WITNESS: And 1, 3, 2.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see that. That's logic as well.

5 MR. KEHOE:

6 Q. 2. Is damaged. Roof, floor, and construction.

7 Under that, Factories and official buildings are not to be

8 included.

9 Now, did that indicate to you that Colonel Hjertnes had assessed

10 factories and official buildings to be legitimate targets?

11 A. I did not think about that at that time in that way.

12 Q. Well, did you inquire to anybody why we're not looking at

13 factories and official buildings?

14 A. I do not recall.

15 Q. Well, what -- what did you think that a -- when you read this,

16 what did you think that official buildings were?

17 A. Official buildings would be administration buildings where the

18 authorities would have their offices and, like, police stations and

19 government buildings and stuff.

20 Q. So did you examine them during the course of -- of your survey

21 throughout Knin?

22 A. We did not survey those buildings specifically, no.

23 Q. Well, do you know where they were?

24 A. I -- I knew that they were along the road where we -- we knew the

25 places where they were in -- in -- in downtown Knin, but during the

Page 2582

1 investigation or the patrol on the 17th, when we went out to do the

2 crater analysis, which is the provisional assessment, we were not looking

3 for that area. We were going through the -- just driving past the area,

4 and this order has been issued out while we were on patrol on the 17th.

5 So this was not information that we would have had while we were going

6 out.

7 Q. Well, let's bring up P175 again. P175.

8 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, if I mark on this, I mean, do I make

9 another exhibit? How do ...

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Usually if there is any additional marking

11 where this exhibit is admitted into evidence, then it should get a new

12 number, although it could be on the basis of this already-marked exhibit.

13 MR. KEHOE: Yes.

14 Q. Sir, where the police station? If you could mark it.

15 A. Okay. I don't recall the exact location, but I would put it

16 round about there. In this area of the town.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Now we're using a blue pen, which is reserved for

18 the Prosecution. Therefore, if we could take it out and --

19 MR. RUSSO: Actually, Your Honour, I believe the red is for the

20 Prosecution.

21 JUDGE ORIE: The red is for the Prosecution. Yes. Yes, you're

22 right. I'm mistaken.

23 MR. KEHOE:

24 Q. And were you informed where the former headquarters were for the

25 army of the Republic of Serb Krajina?

Page 2583

1 A. At that time, no.

2 Q. Were you informed of facilities where officers and staff of the

3 ARSK had resided?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Were you -- other than the F location, were you made aware of any

6 other factory facilities that were targets?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Was there a police station in the area where you were patrolling

9 on the 17th of August? The area that you -- if we go back to the map, it

10 would be 174. If we can go back to --

11 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, we'll move this particular document into

12 evidence, and we can go back to P174.

13 MR. RUSSO: No objection, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit D170.

16 JUDGE ORIE: D170 is admitted into evidence.

17 MR. KEHOE:

18 Q. The area that you were patrolling in A, which you said where you

19 did the impacts.

20 A. Mm-hmm.

21 Q. Was there a police station there?

22 A. I don't have any recollection of seeing a police station there.

23 Q. How about around C? Was there a police station there?

24 A. I don't know because I was not patrolling through that area at

25 that time.

Page 2587

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So that at JordBat's one thing is for sure,

2 that we'll finish with this witness --

3 MR. KEHOE: Absolutely.

4 JUDGE ORIE: -- by tomorrow. Yes. That was my only matter of

5 concern at this moment.

6 We'll have a break and resume at five minutes to 1.00

7 JUDGE ORIE: -- by tomorrow. Yes. That was my only matter of

8 concern at this moment.

9 We'll have a break and we'll resume at five minutes to 1.00.

10 --- Recess taken at 12.34 p.m.

11 --- On resuming at 12.57 p.m.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, please proceed.

13 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.

14 Q. Mr. Anttila, welcome back.

15 A. Thank you.

16 Q. If we can look back at P176 and turn to 5 -- page 548207. And

17 just below that ...

18 Now, if you could just orient -- can you see that, Mr. Anttila?

19 I know that's a little tough, but if we could just look at that line

20 about halfway down. I do believe this is the listing that Mr. Russo was

21 talking to you about, and if you see the Knin north-east, north-west,

22 south-west, and if we take those numbers over to the right and you count

23 the numbers up of the 41, 622, which comes to 69, and the 251, 94, 236

24 that comes to 591, the 591 and the 69 or 660, is that the methodology you

25 employed?

Page 2588

1 A. Yeah, that's the total number would be those numbers added up.

2 Q. And it's your testimony that 40 per cent of those, some 240, were

3 destroyed during Storm -- or excuse me there was shell damage from Storm?

4 A. Yeah. That would be the assessment, yeah.

5 Q. Now, let me turn to the front page of this document, which is --

6 this is P176, 00548202. And you have a column that notes, and this is

7 one, two, three, four -- five over, "Population after 4 August." Now,

8 this is -- if I am correct, this is the population in these villages that

9 were there after the end of Operation Storm; is that right?

10 A. That is the names that had been recorded by the UNMOs in that

11 area.

12 Q. As being in those villages after Operation Storm.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Okay. And I see that you have here that the title of this

15 document is "Data on population left in Sector South and destroyed houses

16 after Operation Storm."

17 A. Yeah, that's what it reads there.

18 Q. Okay. Now, where in this document -- and if I may, if this

19 document is dated to destroyed houses after Operation Storm, where is

20 there a designation or is there a designation in this document as to

21 houses that were damaged or destroyed during Storm?

22 A. There is no designation about whether the houses were destroyed

23 during the Operation Storm. So basically what -- what it says here,

24 that -- that is what could be found on the ground when doing the survey

25 at a certain time in these villages and hamlets and so on.

Page 2589

1 Q. You noted for us on direct that 40 per cent of the houses were

2 damaged or destroyed as a result of shelling.

3 A. That was in Knin.

4 Q. In Knin. And -- so that's approximately from the number of 660,

5 approximately 260.

6 A. Yeah.

7 Q. Where is the itemisation of those houses that were either damaged

8 or destroyed as a result of shelling? Where is that?

9 A. That does not exist.

10 Q. Now, when you make a decision about whether or not -- well, I can

11 just withdraw that.

12 By the way, are you familiar with the concept of dual-use

13 targets?

14 A. Sorry, I don't understand the -- the phrase.

15 Q. I understand. I mean, it's -- I realise that English is not your

16 first language and I speak quickly. And by the way anytime you don't

17 understand anything I say, please --

18 A. I will do that.

19 Q. The concept of dual-use targets, are you familiar with that?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Are you familiar with the concept of mobile targets?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And truck -- military trucks and mechanised units you would put

24 in military targets?

25 A. Yes.

Page 2590

1 Q. So when assessing type of damage as a result of shell-fire, for

2 instance, it's important to know, for instance, if there were mobile

3 targets in the area, isn't it?

4 A. Yeah. It's -- it would be important to assess the aim of the

5 fire. Doing the surveys like this afterwards, it's not possible to

6 determine whether that area -- area you had any mobile targets in it.

7 Q. Now, going back to this document, you -- and I'm talking about

8 P176, if we could go to the last page.

9 Now, just looking at these numbers, you note that there are

10 22.213 buildings, 863 totally damaged and -- excuse me, 8.063 totally

11 damaged, and 9.207 partially damaged in Sector South.

12 A. Mm-hmm.

13 Q. Now, I know the rough math of that is that 78 per cent of the

14 buildings in Sector South were either destroyed or damaged. Is that your

15 assessment?

16 A. The assessment is that out of the 22.000 buildings checked, this

17 number of buildings were destroyed. This does not include all the

18 buildings in the Sector South. There is more buildings than 22.000

19 buildings that sector, in that area.

20 Q. So there is yet a -- so you decided to include some buildings in

21 and not include others?

22 A. No. This includes the villages and the hamlets that have been

23 visited by UNMO teams doing this survey.

24 Q. So is it your testimony that there are other villages and hamlets

25 that haven't been visited, that are not part of this?

Page 2591

1 A. There is a possibility that not all the hamlets and villages

2 within the sector would have been visited by UNMO teams.

3 Q. Well, how do we know whether or not a village was visited or not?

4 A. Each team kept a record of -- of the villages in their area of

5 responsibility which they visited, and it was their responsibility to --

6 to cover the area as well as possible during the time period given to the

7 task.

8 Q. Excuse me. And when they told you about a village you wrote it

9 down here.

10 A. Of course they would give a report that, okay, they have visited

11 this village and such-and-such things were found out there. So that's

12 how this report and the lines in the -- in the -- in this report came up.

13 Q. Well, let's go -- let's go to P65 and talk a little bit about

14 your answer.

15 Now, P65 is the document that you discussed on direct examination

16 that had a listing of villages in the Plavno Valley.

17 A. Mm-hmm.

18 Q. Right?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And if we look at those, Jovici, Bajinac, Torbice, Grmuse,

21 Stojakovici, and now it says "et cetera." That was supposed to give you

22 an idea of the villages that they saw; right?

23 A. That was supposed to give me an idea of the amount of work that

24 they have done. What was important to me when I was putting up these

25 reports was that in the general area of Plavno they had visited these

Page 2592

1 certain hamlets and not all of these hamlets appear on the -- on the list

2 because, okay, like I said before, this is an example of the document

3 that was sent in, and this particular document we went back to the team

4 saying that you have to be more specific on which hamlets you have been

5 visiting, but, okay, in general this is the basis for the information

6 that was given to compile this report.

7 Q. Well, let's go back to P76. P176, excuse me. 176. Page 548207.

8 Now, we note if you look in the Plavno Valley notations that

9 there is a Grmuse listed. And if we go to the following page there is a

10 Stojakovici listed as well as a Torbice, but no Jovici or Bajinac. Isn't

11 that right, sir?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. So if we look at this, there is no reflection that these

14 particular villages were in fact visited, does it?

15 A. There is no reflection of those hamlets being visited, and they

16 are included in later reports in other hamlet names.

17 Q. I understand, Mr. Anttila, but if you look at this document, you

18 wouldn't know that they had visited those little hamlets, would you?

19 A. From this document I would not know that. Yes. That's correct.

20 Q. And if you look at these numbers that were in the Plavno Valley

21 by these villages that were damaged by storm or minor damage -- excuse

22 me, damaged or totally damaged from P65, the numbers don't match up with

23 the numbers that you have set forth for these villages, does it? And

24 let's just look at -- you have 207 residences totally damaged or minor

25 damaged, and if we can look at the villages in Grmuse, there is no

Page 2593

1 partial damage, no total damage, no buildings whatsoever.

2 A. Can I have the previous page, please where the Grmuse is

3 appearing.

4 Q. Yes, I apologise. I apologise. I'm looking at -- in Grmuse?

5 A. Mm-hmm.

6 Q. There is no report of any total damage or any partial damage;

7 right?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. And we go to the following page and we look at Stojakovici and

10 Torbice -- I apologise it's Stojakovici. We have five totally damaged

11 and five partially damaged. Do you see that?

12 A. Mm-hmm.

13 Q. Do you see that?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And for Torbice we have no damage and no buildings. Well, it's

16 no buildings but no damage.

17 A. Yeah.

18 Q. Now, the document P65, if we can go back to that. I'm sorry,

19 P65. That reflects 263 buildings in the villages and 207 -- it says,

20 "Damaged believed due to Operation Storm." So the numbers that you have

21 in November don't match what is in this particular document, do they?

22 A. No. And that is because like I said before this is an example of

23 a report where we went back and we asked for additional information, and

24 we did not put into the reports that we filed in information that was in

25 a way that we interpreted it inaccurate or did the not -- okay. 207 does

Page 2594

1 not appear there. It could have been included there if we would have

2 been not trying to be precise. So what this particular report caused was

3 that the team was given information that this is not enough or accurate

4 enough to put into the report so we will not include this information in

5 the report, and that's why the number of damaged buildings does not

6 appear on the final report on the 4th of November.

7 Q. So when we take the 207 damaged buildings from Operation Storm in

8 P65, when your report came out, that was reduced -- and if we go back to

9 P176, page 548207, and again we look at Grmuse that's got no partially

10 damaged and no partially damaged. And if we go to the next page and we

11 look at Stojakovici and Torbice, we see that the only insert on damages

12 in Stojakovici which is five totally damaged and five partially damaged.

13 A. Yeah.

14 Q. So we look at the village damage that we can ascertain. When we

15 look at those villages, we have reduced the number of partial or total

16 damage from the report you received of 207 to 10.

17 A. That is what we could report, that we can confirm. Originally

18 the damage seen in that area was in 207, and we said to the team that,

19 Okay, you have been going out there doing the survey, but this is not

20 accurate enough. So you need to be more specific when you do this

21 report.

22 And that's why it looks like from -- from this -- this report

23 that they never gave in a specific report about Torbice, for example,

24 about the buildings and so on later on. So we did not include anything

25 that would be something that we could not determine specifically, you

Page 2595

1 know, that could be observed and confirmed later on.

2 Q. So --

3 A. But we tried to be as specific as possible.

4 Q. So who -- who's reviewing the work of this team that was going

5 out there to do this?

6 A. The team leader, of course. And then the teams were sending out

7 patrols. Patrols were tasked to go into a hamlet, to review the village,

8 to make a report, and then that report was submitted into the sector

9 headquarters where I would receive it, and then the human rights team

10 would make an assessment on -- if the information; for example, in this

11 particular case when we are talking about the example of the report, that

12 was not specific enough to be included as it was in the report.

13 Q. And just taking what you're saying, I believe you said on direct

14 examination that you have just back at Sector South headquarters

15 gathering this material from the teams; right?

16 A. I was not visiting all these villages. I was there getting the

17 information and putting it together.

18 Q. And when you received this P65, this -- this report from Team

19 Podkonje --

20 A. Mm-hmm.

21 Q. -- you concluded that this information was inaccurate, didn't

22 you?

23 A. Because -- yes, I concluded that the information was not accurate

24 enough. I did not conclude it inaccurate.

25 Q. Now, Mr. Anttila, you give us this P65. Where are the rest of

Page 2596

1 these records that were filled out by these teams?

2 A. These records were kept in the headquarter Sector South, and when

3 the -- when Sector South was terminated, then they were handed in into a

4 UN headquarters in Zagreb, in -- actually in Pleso. We took all the

5 files to -- to a container. That's how much I know about that, because

6 they -- that's where we were assigned to take the files to have somebody

7 to take them over with.

8 Q. You don't know what happened to them.

9 A. I don't know exactly what happened to them afterwards and so on.

10 I don't have them with me.

11 Q. Now, the -- you also collected this information in P68. If we

12 can bring that screen up.

13 Now, this is -- this is a document that you put together, I take

14 it.

15 A. Yes. This is one of the three ones that I have submitted.

16 Q. Now, is it your testimony, sir, that the information concerning

17 burnings was not included in situation reports that was sent up to

18 Zagreb?

19 A. My conclusion is that not all of the information that came from

20 the teams was included in sitreps going to Zagreb.

21 Q. Well, let me -- let me change that just for a second. Was

22 information concerning burnings included in sitreps that were being sent

23 to Zagreb?

24 A. You cannot answer that question yes or no. The --

25 Q. You're welcome to explain, sir.

Page 2597

1 A. Okay. The information coming from the teams was included in the

2 sitrep when the operations officer saw it as important to the situation

3 at the moment. So we got information from the teams about burning and

4 looting coming in which was not reported to Zagreb at a certain time.

5 Sometimes that was when it was going on on a larger scale. Then it was

6 something that would be reported as a -- as part of the sitrep as an

7 example in a way.

8 I don't know if I can --

9 Q. I'm trying to find out from this sitrep. You would agree with me

10 that there are literally scores of instances in these reports that you

11 put together in P68 with a situation report that had been sent to Zagreb

12 discussing house that is were burning and houses that had been burnt.

13 A. Mm-hmm.

14 Q. Right? You have to say yes or no.

15 A. Yes. Yes.

16 Q. And you are saying to me that the information sometimes was sent

17 to Zagreb concerning burning and sometimes it wasn't?

18 A. That's why we -- in the organisation we have the operations

19 officer to make the assessment which part of the information is important

20 to be reported up -- upwards in the -- in the organisation. If we would

21 have included all the things coming from the -- from the teams, the

22 sitreps to Zagreb would have been huge. And that is the job of the

23 operations officer to make the assessment what will be reported and what

24 will not. So the reports to Zagreb do not include all the information

25 coming in from the teams to the sector.

Page 2598

1 Q. Now, you do realise that Zagreb was relying on the information

2 that had -- you were presenting to them to make decisions not only about

3 the UN mission in the former Yugoslavia but also information that had

4 been passed back to New York?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And is it your testimony here that all of the possible human

7 rights violations as it pertains to burnings, for instance, wasn't given

8 to them on a routine basis?

9 A. It's the same thing as it is with, let's say, if there is a case

10 of shelling you don't report all the impacts. You report the shelling.

11 And the same thing happened here. So not every single piece of

12 information coming from the teams was sent to Zagreb.

13 Q. Well, there was a difference after you received the order from

14 Steinar Hjertnes to go out and do this damage assessment. There was a

15 difference in the format of the sitreps, wasn't there?

16 A. Mm-hmm.

17 Q. I mean, prior to the 17th there was no humanitarian --

18 A. Aspect, inspection.

19 Q. -- aspect to the sitrep; right?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. And after that there was an entire separate section of the

22 situation report that had do to with the --

23 A. That's correct.

24 Q. -- humanitarian area. And that was the information that was sent

25 up.

Page 2599

1 A. Yes. Again, that is a matter of how you put up a sitrep. You

2 compile the information that you gather within the area and then you

3 report it as it -- either by incidents or -- the other way is to -- to

4 report as a general information.

5 Q. Well, let's look at the information that had been sent up, if we

6 may, and let us take it in the sequence that you have laid out in these

7 documents, and the first is between -- and this is the front page of 7

8 August 1995 to 4 September 1995. Have you reviewed these, sir?

9 A. Yes, I have.

10 Q. And in these there are a hundred entries that have burnings to

11 them and 31 that do not.

12 A. That is possible, yes.

13 Q. Okay. And of these situation reports from 6 August to 4

14 September, we have approximately 740 houses partially or totally

15 destroyed.

16 A. That is possible.

17 Q. Moving on with your document -- by the way, sir, did you -- did

18 you go through these and see any of the double counts that were in here?

19 A. Well, I -- I haven't found double counts to my knowledge, but it

20 is -- may be possible.

21 Q. Turn to page 25, I think I just saw one. Page 25 of this

22 document. And page 25, if we look at the -- you know, on the 30th of

23 August at 1555?

24 A. Yeah, Dukici.

25 Q. We have Dukici, three houses burnt, and then two lines down,

Page 2600

1 that's a double count.

2 A. Yeah, that's a double one. That's a copy-paste error.

3 Q. And go down a little further on the 30th in Gracac. We have nine

4 houses burnt. And if we go down one more, we have the same grid

5 reference with nine houses burnt. That's a double count as well?

6 A. Yeah. And it could have been observed by two different patrols,

7 but, you know -- anyway, the grid reference and the day time group gives

8 the -- out the information that you can spot out these things.

9 Q. Well, just look at that grid reference. The grid reference for

10 Gracac is the same, isn't it, WK6106?

11 A. Yep. Yes.

12 Q. So that's clearly a double count?

13 A. Yeah.

14 Q. Now, just staying with this document --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.

16 MR. KEHOE: Yes.

17 JUDGE ORIE: You're raising the issue of double counts which of

18 course is a very relevant issue. Now, you have pointed out two or three

19 double counts. The document is 70 pages. Now, what the Chamber is

20 interested in is whether this document is disqualified by double counts,

21 and it would assist the Chamber not only to have one or two or three or

22 four mistakes on 70 pages, but, rather, to receive information, and it

23 appears a matter that you could easily conclude upon with the Prosecution

24 to say, Well, here and here we find same grid references, same number of

25 houses, et cetera. That really assists the Chamber far more than just to

Page 2601

1 have some human failure, incidentally. So if you could provide the

2 Chamber with that, that would certainly help. That's not a comment on

3 the relevancy of these questions, not at all, just you raised our

4 interest in knowing more about the matter. Yes.

5 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I will do that and it certainly is -- I

6 understand that with the amount of information that Mr. Anttila was

7 putting together that this happens. It just is --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We're all humans. Please proceed.

9 MR. KEHOE: Yes.

10 Q. Just staying with that particular issue, during that particular

11 time frame were you reporting a much larger number of houses damaged and

12 destroyed? I'm talking about through September of 1995.

13 A. Sorry, I didn't get the question.

14 Q. I'm sorry. So this particular document, just staying with the

15 time frame 7 August 1995 through 4 September 1995, and I think from the

16 numbers in that particular time frame it is approximately 740 damaged

17 partially or totally destroyed.

18 A. The numbers and the reports are two different things.

19 Q. I understand, sir. But --

20 A. So the -- the file where you have the villages and their grid

21 references and that information is a different file from this one, and

22 that file was not based on these -- this information. It's based on

23 separate visits to the village and -- villages and so on.

24 Q. I --

25 A. So I --

Page 2602

1 Q. I understand, but what I'm asking you is this: The information

2 that you gave in your first iteration of this P68 that's on the screen

3 goes from 7 August 1995 to --

4 A. Till 4 --

5 Q. -- to 4 September 1995, and in that information that you provided

6 to the UN in Zagreb, one -- if one in Zagreb went through here they would

7 reflect a number of 740 --

8 A. Cases of --

9 Q. -- damages of -- damaged or destroyed?

10 MR. RUSSO: Excuse me, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.

12 MR. RUSSO: I believe the witness's testimony on direct was that

13 this information was copied from the team sitreps which went from the

14 teams to the HQ Sector South and not taken from the sitreps which went

15 from Sector South to Zagreb, so I'm not sure that there's -- this

16 document is one that was sent to Zagreb for that purpose.

17 MR. KEHOE: If I may, Judge, the information that's in this P68

18 is information that was sent to Zagreb. Mr. Anttila took it out of the

19 sitreps and --

20 THE WITNESS: Coming from -- [overlapping speakers].

21 MR. KEHOE: -- systematically and put it into this report.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and that information that was sent to Zagreb

23 was --

24 THE WITNESS: This information as it appears on the screen was

25 sent to the UNMO headquarter in Zagreb as a report. Not all of this

Page 2603

1 information was found on the daily sitreps sent to Zagreb. So it was

2 gathered from the sitreps coming from the teams to the sector UNMO

3 headquarter and then compiled and sent to Zagreb as a separate file, not

4 as a part of a daily sitrep or daily reporting procedure to Zagreb.

5 MR. KEHOE:

6 Q. Well, sir, the information that is in these reports as we noted

7 during this first time frame is 4 September 1995, and the information

8 that you compiled as of 13 September 1995, and this is P98 -- and we go

9 to -- if we can just go to the front page and get the date. If we can

10 just shift left just a bit. And that's of -- as of 13 September, 1995,

11 some nine days after the first iteration on violations.

12 And can we go to the last page, page 548189. So -- if we can

13 blow that up.

14 So, Mr. Anttila, the information that is -- that is sent to

15 Zagreb reflects 740 burnings, but the -- or partially damaged or damaged

16 house, but the numbers that you compiled during that time frame are well

17 in excess of 13.000.

18 A. Yes. That's correct. These sitreps and the clippings of the

19 sitrep resemble the number that was observed burning by the UNMOs, and

20 the number excess to 13.000 is a number that was found on the ground

21 where nobody was there to observe what was going on when it was going on.

22 Q. So the difference is houses that are burning and houses that are

23 burnt?

24 A. Burning and burnt is two different things.

25 Q. So you sent up the information on the burnings, but if it had

Page 2604

1 been burnt you didn't send it up?

2 A. That's gathered here on the other report, on the database where

3 the villages are listed in and so on.

4 Q. Let's go back to P68. And if -- let's talk about the first

5 reference. It's in 06 at 10.30. Last line of that first insert. "The

6 previous office of the UNMO team" -- talking about the house had been

7 burnt to the ground.

8 A. Mm-hmm.

9 Q. Let us go down two, three more on the 7th. Midway through.

10 Midway through it says: "They saw that all buildings and cornices that

11 seem to be demolished by artillery bombs, Lika headquarters was burnt

12 down, and Lika Graf factory was also burned out."

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Let's go to page 3. The third to last insert. You see that, the

15 third to last insert starting "UNMO Headquarters," the last line: "The

16 patrol could also observe approximately the same number of houses already

17 burnt down."

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Anttila, I think if we would go through this

19 document, and these are just the first few pages, that often reference is

20 made to houses burning or sometimes called houses on fire, and sometimes

21 houses burnt, sometimes even larger numbers. That's what Mr. Kehoe is

22 putting to you in relation to your last answer.

23 THE WITNESS: Yeah.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, I take it that you have questions.

25 MR. KEHOE: Exactly.

Page 2605

1 JUDGE ORIE: We don't have to go through the whole of the

2 document.

3 THE WITNESS: Yeah. So the reports as they are on this document

4 are reports of UNMOs observing the houses actually on fire, or in certain

5 cases like -- like it says. When it says the houses were burnt, then

6 they were not burning that time. You have to read it as it is on the

7 text.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, what I think Mr. Kehoe is mainly

9 interested in, in where you reach far higher numbers in this survey

10 compared to this report, where your first explanation was that the

11 smaller numbers in this report were explained by UNMOs observing houses

12 on fire burning rather than houses burnt, that that explanation seems not

13 to satisfy Mr. Kehoe.

14 A. Okay. Okay. Okay. The -- the happenings that took place at the

15 time were reported on the daily sitreps, and on occasions things that

16 were observed about certain place being burnt down, or certain houses

17 being burnt down, could be reported on a sitrep, but it was not always

18 done that way. And that assessment was a different task from the daily

19 reporting, to go through the villages inside the area and to report as

20 thoroughly as possible the scale of the damages done in different --

21 different places.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Let me try to understand and see whether I

23 understood you well. What you're saying is that the burnt houses were

24 not systematically reported in the sitreps.

25 THE WITNESS: Exactly.

Page 2606

1 JUDGE ORIE: Whereas there was an attempt to systematically

2 report them in the survey.

3 THE WITNESS: Yes, and that's the other --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

5 MR. KEHOE:

6 Q. Sir, the Human Rights Action Team leader at the time, Mr. Edward

7 Flynn. Do you recall him?

8 A. Yeah, I recall the name.

9 Q. And he testified here back on April 11, 2008, page 1314, line 4:

10 "Question: You were asked to give an estimate of the houses

11 destroyed," and your answer is:

12 "When I mentioned the estimate of 500 houses destroyed, I'm

13 referring to house that were destroyed in a couple of weeks or two or

14 three weeks after operation storm.

15 "Answer: Yes.

16 "Question: I understand the number is not intended to be a

17 precise figure, but is that the general number of homes you recall during

18 the month of August that had been burnt.

19 "Answer: Well --"

20 I'm just waiting to catch up, Judge. I'm trying not to go too

21 fast.

22 "Answer: --"

23 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, no.

24 MR. KEHOE: Sorry, I thought that was a signal to go.

25 JUDGE ORIE: It was, but I missed that the interpreter in B/C/S

Page 2607

1 tried to take a breath. She certainly needs one.

2 MR. KEHOE: The answer in line 12:

3 "Answer: Well, that's my own estimate. That's my own estimate

4 and I think I said somewhere else. I have always tried to be

5 conservative in these estimates because I'm conscious that by

6 exaggerating I would affect mine and others credibility. But when I gave

7 the statement of 500, that seemed to me an entirely realistic and if

8 anything conservative estimate of the number of buildings that had been

9 destroyed by the end of the third week."

10 Now, the end of the third week is almost the beginning of

11 September. Can you tell explain to the Trial Chamber how during almost

12 the same time frame, Mr. Flynn --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, it's almost 1996, isn't it? 4 and 5th

14 plus 21 makes 25, 26.

15 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

17 MR. KEHOE: I think I was talking towards the end of August.

18 JUDGE ORIE: No. You said the end of the third week was almost

19 the beginning of September. That's a way of phrasing it. We're talking

20 about quite clearly 25th, 26th of August.

21 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

23 MR. KEHOE:

24 Q. Now, by the 25th or the 25th of August, Mr. Anttila, Mr. Flynn

25 believes that the estimate -- estimates are approximately 500 houses.

Page 2608

1 Can you explain to the Trial Chamber how that number diverges so

2 wildly -- so drastically from the 13.000-plus figure that you have set

3 out in P98?

4 A. Mr. Flynn did not have a chance to visit all the areas at that

5 time, and like he said, he was being conservative, and he was talking

6 about the numbers that he knew, that he could pinpoint out or whatever.

7 I don't know why he came up with that number, because I don't have his

8 mind here.

9 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour --

10 THE WITNESS: But I still believe on the number that the UNMO

11 teams have reported, because it has been at that time basically more than

12 50 people going round in the sector doing this survey rather than just

13 one person.

14 MR. KEHOE: And when you were coming up with this number of

15 13.000 and you -- there were meetings with the HRAT teams and UNMO teams

16 at the end of the day, were you telling Mr. Flynn about these numbers?

17 A. We were telling that this is the number of houses being damaged.

18 We are talking about different things that if we talk about damaged

19 houses or burnt houses. So it's also something that by using different

20 phrases you can -- you can get the different appearance coming out from

21 the -- from the statement, but what we -- what I believe to the best of

22 my knowledge is that all the UNMO teams within the sector went out to

23 these villages and they found 13.000 houses that had been destroyed

24 partially or totally.

25 Q. And you were conveying this information to Mr. Flynn?