1 Thursday, 1 May 2008 2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone. Madam Registrar, would
7 you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
9 number IT-06-90-T, the Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Mr. Anttila, I think we have to deal with a few procedural
12 matters so if you will have a bit of patience.
13 Mr. Mikulicic.
14 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes. Thank you, Your Honours. I would just like
15 to suggest that Exhibit D133, which was introduced into the private
16 session should be admitted under the seal.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
18 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, is that on the record, that D133,
20 as the Chamber now decides, is admitted under seal. Yes. That's
22 If there's no other matter, good morning again, Mr. Anttila.
23 WITNESS: KARI ANTTILA
24 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence in this court the Rules of
25 Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that you
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.
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
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,
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?
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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,
1 driving through the residential area and doing the assessment along the
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
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?
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
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.
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
25 Q. Mr. Anttila, taking a look at Exhibit P63, can you tell me if
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
12 report that you prepared?
13 A. That is the last version that was submitted into a UN system as a
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.
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
23 included in sitreps going to Zagreb
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
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
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
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
16 MR. RUSSO: Madam Registrar, can we please pull up 65 ter number
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.
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
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
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
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
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 --
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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 --
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
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,
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.
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
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 --
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
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
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.
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
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
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
25 Q. Did he also have --
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:
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
24 JUDGE ORIE: And I'm saying that you're --
25 MR. KEHOE: I mean, I'm not trying to -- [overlapping speakers].
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.
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?
1 A. Yeah. Yeah. Well, the cover looks like the one I have with me
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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?
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
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.
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
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
25 per cent of the Knin town and gives a brief overview of the situation."
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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.
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
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
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.
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
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. And based on that information, he then filed the provisional
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
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
1 that: "On 4 August, 1995
2 sectors north and south and Knin fell on 5 August following concentrated
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
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
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.
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
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
1 with the -- within the area which is marked with M there could have been
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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.
1 Q. Now, let us just address ourselves back to your statement
2 concerning the damage. You said that 660 facilities in Knin were damaged
3 and 40 per cent by shelling. Do you recall that?
4 A. That is a statement that I have compiled from the reports coming
5 from the UNMO teams, so it's not observed by myself. It's -- it's a
6 compilation of the reports from the teams.
7 Q. If we look to P66. This is your document that was previously
8 discussed during direct examination, and if we could go to -- the page
9 number is -- six pages in. It should be 548207.
10 MR. RUSSO: Objection, Your Honour. The -- and I think this is
11 just a misunderstanding. The document which was shown to him on direct
12 examination was a later version of this document.
13 MR. KEHOE: I apologise. Well, this is the 4/11/1995 one that
14 was put in -- placed in evidence previously as P66, so ...
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's either try to avoid confusion on
16 different versions of the documents.
17 MR. KEHOE: That's my apologies.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Hmm?
19 MR. KEHOE: My apologies, Judge. I thought we were looking at
20 this from November 4th.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is now proven as such. I mean, whatever
22 is in evidence you can put to a witness, but I think if you want to test
23 the accuracy of the final result of an exercise, then better use the last
24 version. If there is any intermediate period you would like to examine
25 in detail, then of course you could use another version, but --
1 MR. KEHOE: I think this version is exactly the same, Judge, so
2 if I could just -- on this particular score turn to this particular page,
3 and it is one that was --
4 JUDGE ORIE: What's the other one? Then I'll check -- I'll find
5 the other one. The newest version, Mr. Russo, is?
6 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I believe -- I'm sorry. I believe that
7 was moved in as 176, P176.
8 JUDGE ORIE: P176. I'll get it on my screen so we can confirm.
9 Please proceed.
10 MR. KEHOE: Yes. If I just get -- what is the date on 176,
12 MR. RUSSO: I believe the one which was admitted today was the
13 4/11/95, and I think P66 may be the 4 October 1995.
14 MR. KEHOE: No, P66 is dated 4/11/1995. If we look at the first
15 page of P66, it's dated 4/11/1995
16 MR. RUSSO: I'll have to check which one was admitted this
17 afternoon was what was -- 65 ter number 1587. I'm sorry. I'm not trying
18 to create confusion. I just want to make sure there we're talking all
19 about the same exhibit.
20 JUDGE ORIE: What we see is the number you just gave, Mr. Russo,
21 page 176 has as its date 4th of 11, 1995. So if you check the other one
22 to see what is the --
23 MR. TIEGER: I hope this helps and doesn't -- I'm looking at it
24 on e-court, that is P66, and I have a heading data on population left in
25 Sector South in destroyed houses after OP storm 4/10/1995.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So 176 now is 4/11. Please proceed on the
2 basis of the most recent version.
3 MR. KEHOE: Actually, the document that I'm dealing with
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that's P176.
6 MR. KEHOE: I'm going to go into this in some detail. I don't
7 know if this is a good time for a break, Judge?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it would be, but let me just check one other
9 thing. Yes. This is a good moment for a break, but we'll first ask
10 Mr. Anttila to follow the usher, to leave the courtroom so that we have a
11 second for a small procedural matter.
12 [The witness stands down]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could the Defence parties give me any indication
14 about time still needed?
15 MR. KEHOE: I am the only person that's going to cross, Your
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I may -- depending on what happens,
19 I may have 15 minutes at most.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, 15 minutes.
21 MR. CAYLEY: Nothing arises from the Cermak Defence team at the
22 moment, Your Honour, thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Kehoe, how much time would you still need?
24 MR. KEHOE: I do believe that certainly the balance of today,
25 Judge, and maybe about an hour tomorrow morning.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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
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
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
1 partial damage, no total damage, no buildings whatsoever.
2 A. Can I have the previous page, please where the Grmuse is
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;
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
23 operations officer to make the assessment what will be reported and what
24 will not. So the reports to Zagreb
25 coming in from the teams to the sector.
1 Q. Now, you do realise that Zagreb
2 that had -- you were presenting to them to make decisions not only about
3 the UN mission in the former Yugoslavia
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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 --
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
4 A. Till 4 --
5 Q. -- to 4 September 1995
6 to the UN in Zagreb
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
16 document is one that was sent to Zagreb
17 MR. KEHOE: If I may, Judge, the information that's in this P68
18 is information that was sent to Zagreb
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
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
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
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
24 A. Burning and burnt is two different things.
25 Q. So you sent up the information on the burnings, but if it had
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.
1 JUDGE ORIE: We don't have to go through the whole of the
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
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.
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
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
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.
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?
1 A. That information -- I do not recall personally conveying this
2 information to Mr. Flynn, but this report was made available for human
3 rights teams also.
4 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I'm about to go into another area and I
5 do believe the clock is --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the clock, although there is no Chamber coming
7 this afternoon, there is a -- I wouldn't say that is in a hurry. We have
8 to finish anyhow.
9 Mr. Anttila, we'd like to see you back tomorrow.
10 THE WITNESS: That's fine.
11 JUDGE ORIE: The 2nd of May at 9.00 in this same courtroom.
12 THE WITNESS: That's fine with me.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I would invite Madam Registrar -- Madam Usher to
14 escort you out of the courtroom. May I instruct you that you should not
15 speak with anyone about the testimony you've given today or testimony
16 still to be given tomorrow.
17 THE WITNESS: That's understood.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
20 [The witness stands down]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Before we adjourn for today the Chamber would like
22 to deliver a decision and ask for the -- it will not take much time.
23 It's actually not a decision, but these are the reasons for the Chamber's
24 decision on the Prosecution's first motion for trial-related protective
1 On the 22nd of February, 2008, the Prosecution applied for the
2 protective measures of pseudonym and face distortion for the first
3 witness to be called to testify in this case. According to the
4 Prosecution, the witness's fears were objectively grounded as an
5 atmosphere of hostility exists in Croatia towards Prosecution witnesses
6 and towards the Croatian-Serb minority. All three Defence teams
7 responded and requested the Chamber to deny the motion. On the 29th of
8 February, 2008
9 granted. On the 6th of March, 2008, the Prosecution filed a reply to the
10 Gotovina Defence's response. On the 13th of March, 2008, the Chamber
11 heard the witness on the matter of protective measures. On the same day,
12 the Chamber granted the Prosecution's application for pseudonym and voice
13 distortion. The witness was assigned the pseudonym "Witness 136."
14 For protective measures to be granted, the case law of this
15 Tribunal is that the mere expression of fears by a person is not
16 sufficient. The party seeking protective measures for a witness must
17 demonstrate an objectively grounded risk to the security or welfare of
18 the witness or the witness's family should it become known that the
19 witness has given evidence before the Tribunal. This standard can, for
20 example, be satisfied by showing that a threat was made against the
21 witness or the witness's family.
22 Witness 136 informed the Chamber that she does not live in
24 property close to Knin. She also has relatives living in Croatia.
25 Witness 136 further informed the Chamber of comments heard by another
1 Prosecution witness, referred to by the Prosecution as Witness 55, about
2 potential witnesses in this case. Witness 136 and Witness 55 were former
3 colleagues. The comments were made by Witness 55th's neighbours -- I
4 said 55th, 55's neighbours in Croatia
5 According to Witness 136, these comments described Witness 55's
6 neighbours wondering which Serb witnesses were brave enough to testify in
7 this case and whether these witnesses would dare to return to Croatia
9 According to Witness 136, the comments made Witness 55 unwilling
10 to testify before the Tribunal and also instilled fear in Witness 136 for
11 her own safety, as she drew emotional support from the fact that Witness
12 55 would testify in this case as well. Witness 136 stated that she had
13 not been threatened but believed that this was due to the fact that
14 nobody was aware that she was going to testify.
15 The Chamber found that the Prosecution has demonstrated an
16 objectively grounded risk to the security of Witness 136 or her family.
17 And this concludes the Chamber's reasons for its decision to
18 grant protective measures for Witness 136.
19 We adjourn until Friday the 2nd of May, 9.00, same courtroom.
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.52 p.m.
21 to be reconvened on Friday, the 2nd day
22 of May, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.