Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 2612

 1                           Friday, 2 May 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

 7             Good morning to you as well, Mr. Anttila.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Good morning.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I would like to remind you that you're still bound

10     by the solemn declaration you've given yesterday at the beginning of your

11     testimony.

12             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Kehoe.

14             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

16             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

17                           WITNESS:  KARI ANTTILA [Resumed]

18                           Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe: [Continued]

19        Q.   Mr. Antilla, I would like you to look at a chart, and it's

20     1D190047, and I would like to bring this up via Sanction, Madam

21     Registrar.

22             Mr. Anttila, just by way of background I was just examining some

23     of the testimony yesterday both from me and from Judge Orie, and I would

24     just like to clarify some of the information transfer to Sector South

25     headquarters and then on to UNMO headquarters in Zagreb, and I have

Page 2613

 1     attempted to lay this out --

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Sorry, could counsel repeat the document number.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  Oh, I'm sorry.  It's 1D190047 via Sanction.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  By the way, I notice that I have forgotten, I think

 5     for the first time in seven years, to invite Madam Registrar to call the

 6     case.  It has to be done once, and it -- I should speak to myself about

 7     precision.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is the case

 9     number IT-06-90-T, the Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. KEHOE:  Thank you, Your Honour.

13        Q.   Mr. Anttila, if we could just look at this, this -- is it on the

14     screen?  I'm sorry.  It is on the screen.  Okay.

15             Mr. Anttila, just by -- just clarifying your testimony, and you

16     had seven teams that were providing information to you, and you noted for

17     us that they then put together a daily sitrep, situation report, as well

18     as a separate form that we looked at as P65; is that right?

19        A.   P65 was the form which -- by which they were, for example,

20     reporting the data on villages that they had visited, and then the

21     sitrep -- it's like in the drawing here, yes.

22        Q.   And -- but they had a sitrep that they also gave you?

23        A.   Sitrep would include findings on the -- of the patrols that would

24     be considered relevant to the situation in the area.

25        Q.   So with regard to the daily sitreps, and I'm looking at the

Page 2614

 1     bottom blue line, if a house was burning it would go in that sitrep, but

 2     if a house was found burnt it went in the form P65; is that right?

 3        A.   That could be the case, yes.

 4        Q.   And then from there if we follow the red line an entirely

 5     separate situation report with I think you told us not all the

 6     information from the team situation reports was sent on a daily basis to

 7     Zagreb?

 8        A.   That's correct.

 9        Q.   And then on one occasion, I believe we are talking about the

10     document P68, the sitrep reports that you brought out being sent to

11     Zagreb as well as P176, the data population; is that right?

12        A.   As far as I could follow the line of your explanation, yes.

13        Q.   Well, sir --

14        A.   Okay, it's -- there was a daily sitrep from the sector to UNMO

15     headquarters, which included the most important information coming from

16     the teams but not all the information coming from the teams, and it was a

17     separate list on the data collected from the villages.

18        Q.   Now, going back to the bottom, sir, the daily sitrep of the UNMO

19     teams as well as the form, why wasn't that just one document that was

20     provided to you as opposed to two?

21        A.   I'm -- I don't understand the question, no.

22        Q.   On the bottom portion on a daily basis, you've got a daily sitrep

23     from every team that had information concerning burnings, and then you

24     also had a form that we looked at as P65?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 2615

 1        Q.   So you had two forms.

 2        A.   Well, the -- the form P -- which is Exhibit P65, that was a

 3     separate task given to the teams to see the villages and see the damages

 4     in the area, And that was produced in the form of that form because that

 5     way we could keep track of what was covered and what was not covered.  So

 6     it was not reported on a daily basis; it was reported on --  whenever a

 7     certain place was visited.  So ...

 8        Q.   I'm sorry, sir --

 9        A.   No, I'm finished.

10        Q.   Oh, okay.

11             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, at this time I will offer the chart into

12     evidence.

13             MR. RUSSO:  No objection, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, that will be Exhibit  D171.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17             Mr. Kehoe, there is a difference in the arrows.  Some are

18     depicted as apparently being more important than others.  The blue are

19     thick; the others are thin.  Is there any meaning behind that which has

20     not been explored?

21             MR. KEHOE:  [Microphone not activated].

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.  Microphone, please.

23             MR. KEHOE:  I was attempting to demonstrate some consistency on

24     where one document comes from the other, and I can clarify this.

25        Q.   Mr. Anttila, the daily situation reports that you received on a

Page 2616

 1     daily basis, it was from those documents that you produced P68, which is

 2     the summary of humanitarian violations, isn't it?

 3        A.   It's coming -- yeah, that's correct.

 4        Q.   And the forms that you used in P65, they were in part with other

 5     information used to come up with the data compilations in P176; is that

 6     right?

 7        A.   That's right.

 8        Q.   I believe --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Although that's not fully depicted in the mixed

10     sources, but thank you for this further explanation.  D171 is admitted

11     into evidence.

12             Please proceed.

13             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, for the sake of clarity, I was trying

14     last night with the staff to try to get this as clear as possible for the

15     Chamber.  And I will gladly, if Your Honour wants to change it to a

16     different colour such as the arrow up to the right of P76 from yellow to

17     some other color because I believe in fairness to the witness, he said

18     that data compilation is not only made up of the forms but from other

19     information as well.  So I can do that --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  I think it's sufficiently explained at this moment.

21     Colours are not decisive.

22             Please proceed.

23             MR. KEHOE:  If I might have one moment.

24                           [Defence counsel confer].

25             MR. KEHOE:

Page 2617

 1        Q.   Now, sir, when -- on the form that we are talking about in P176,

 2     now if we could go back to the page 1 of P176.  If we could go to the

 3     next page.  I'm sorry.  Spin that a bit.  If we can leave it -- yeah.

 4     That's great.

 5             Now, on this sheet, Mr. Anttila, it notes that the definition on

 6     the top line of partially damaged, tell me how you define partially

 7     damaged.

 8        A.   Partially damaged would be, you know, something like burned,

 9     windows broken in, and things like that; totally damaged would be a house

10     that would be in a condition where it could not give a shelter to a

11     person.

12        Q.   But -- and then partially damaged is something that you almost

13     consider to be livable?

14        A.   That's something where you could get cover, yes.

15        Q.   And when you were sending people throughout there, there was a

16     degree of subjectivity by the individual UNMOs as to whether something

17     was partially damaged or not, wasn't there?

18        A.   That's obvious, yes.

19        Q.   Now, if we can stay with this form for one moment, and I would

20     like to turn your attention to, if I may, on this exhibit, and the P

21     number at the top is 8204.  If we could go to 00548204, which is two

22     pages up.  And I'd like to talk to Gradac, the third from the top from

23     the Sinj team?

24        A.   Mm-hmm.

25        Q.   Now, this notes as we go across the 70 buildings there and all

Page 2618

 1     damaged?

 2        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 3        Q.   And it notes here that probably from 1992?

 4        A.   Yeah.

 5        Q.   And you have many inclusions in there of property damage prior to

 6     Storm?

 7        A.   That's also true.

 8        Q.   So -- but you never backed those numbers out of the final number

 9     on damages, did you?

10        A.   Well, this is a compiled list of all the damages, not only from

11     Operation Storm.

12        Q.   Now, the document that is entitled here is:  "Data on population

13     left in Sector South and destroyed houses after Operation Storm," isn't

14     it?

15        A.   That's correct.

16        Q.   But you included it but didn't back it out?

17        A.   Yeah, well these houses are still -- were still damaged after

18     Operation Storm.

19        Q.   So based on that, sir, we as we go through here don't know --

20     you're looking at everything that you saw at Operation -- after Operation

21     Storm, and looking at these numbers, we don't know if this was damaged

22     from 1992 to 1995 or sometime after August 1995, to here November of

23     1995, do we?

24             MR. RUSSO:  Objection, Your Honour.  The document clearly states

25     which houses were believed to have been destroyed prior to or at some

Page 2619

 1     other period.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Whether that should be an objection to the question

 3     or just an observation that you exhaust all the information contained in

 4     this document is a matter to be seen, but some distinction can be made,

 5     Mr. Kehoe, that's clearly from this document.

 6             MR. KEHOE:  Well, I think we should -- I will clarify that yet

 7     further.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please do so.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  If we can say -- if we can just look at that grid

10     reference that we have on the screen of -- for Gradac is XJ0353.  And I

11     ask us to go to -- up to page 00548212.  And I asked us to look at Team

12     Sibenik and go down one, two, three, four, five, six, seven -- nine to,

13     again, the village of Gradac.

14        Q.   And do you see that, sir?

15        A.   Yes, I do.

16        Q.   And it's virtually the same grid reference although it's a little

17     tighter being -- as opposed to one kilometre square a hundred metres

18     square, right?

19        A.   That's correct.

20        Q.   Okay, but it is the same area?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And you again have 70 residences destroyed, same as the one for

23     the Sinj team when it mentioned Gradac, right?

24        A.   That's correct.

25        Q.   But there's nothing in the comments about this probably being

Page 2620

 1     from 1992, is there?

 2        A.   No.

 3        Q.   So if we look at this, number one, you would agree that that's

 4     double counted?

 5        A.   That's true.

 6        Q.   And number two, there is a discrepancy of the teams whether or

 7     not that damage took place after Operation Storm or going back to 1992?

 8        A.   Team Sibenik obviously did not assess that fact.

 9        Q.   Well, do you know whether these other teams, when they went

10     through and compiled these statistics, failed to assess that fact as

11     well?

12        A.   I know that Sibenik team has assessed damages on certain villages

13     to be prior to Operation Storm, but I don't have any information on

14     individual villages, how the assessment was made, when the damage was

15     done.

16        Q.   Well -- and you're talking about as you get down that page Team

17     Sibenik did, in fact, make that assessment in other villages?

18        A.   In other villages, yes, that's correct.

19        Q.   Well, clearly this is a disagreement among these -- the teams.

20     Did you, when you were going through this, attempt to reconcile this?

21        A.   I don't recall this individual case, and we tried to tell the

22     teams to be telling us -- giving us the information if the damage would

23     be prior to Operation Storm, but obviously in this case they failed to do

24     that in that respect.

25        Q.   Now, sir, let me talk to you a little bit about a couple of

Page 2621

 1     documents and a couple of these villages, and if we may I would like to

 2     turn to the second page of this document.  If we can flip back to

 3     00548203.  And I'd like you to go down about three, four to the page

 4     until we come to an insert for Rodaljice under Zadar-Benkovac team,

 5     R-o-d-a-l-j-i-c-e, with a grid reference WJ6277.  Do you see that, sir?

 6        A.   Yes, I do.

 7        Q.   In in that particular location, you have 701 buildings, 118

 8     destroyed, 230 damaged for a total of 348 buildings damaged and

 9     destroyed?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   I would like you to examine -- I would like to bring up 1D190006.

12             Now, sir, this is a --

13             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, this is from a larger volume.  It's a

14     translation from the population census taken by the Republic of Croatia

15     in 1991.  It is -- as you can see on the front page, it's population.  A

16     portion of it is dwellings and other installations.

17             And if we could just flip it to -- we can go one more page.  One

18     more page -- okay -- oops, I'm sorry, maybe it's another one after that.

19     It comes to this -- where in fact the statistics are begin.

20             Now, if we could just blow that up.  This is a page concerning

21     dwellings for permanent residences and settlement of persons.  Yeah, blow

22     that up.  According to the equipment of the dwellings with installations

23     and auxiliary premises.  Now, if we could just drift down a little bit to

24     the town of Rodaljice.  It is actually the ninth one down.

25        Q.   Do you see that ninth one down?

Page 2622

 1             MR. KEHOE:  I think it might be -- Your Honour, it might be

 2     easier for the witness to look at a hard copy.

 3        Q.   Do you see Rodaljice on there, Mr. Antilla?

 4        A.   Just barely, but yes.

 5        Q.   Okay.  Now, under the line of total number of buildings in the

 6     village, it notes 43, doesn't it?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And you in Rodaljice list 701?

 9        A.   That's correct.

10        Q.   So did you notice a tremendous building surge in that area

11     between 1991 and 1995?

12             MR. RUSSO:  Objection, Your Honour.  The evidence already from

13     the witness is that he didn't get to the area until August 4th of 1995.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Nevertheless, if the numbers are so different and if

15     the witness statement says that he used the 1991 population statistics,

16     then the question can be put to him.

17             MR. KEHOE:

18        Q.   Was there a big building surge in this area?

19        A.   To my knowledge, no.

20        Q.   Okay.  Let's stay with Rodaljice, and if we can just take this

21     document down from the screen and put up -- I'm going to go back to this

22     document, Judge, so I will move it into evidence after I'm finished with

23     it because there is some other items.  If we can put 1D190040, and I have

24     distributed paper copies to everyone in the courtroom.  And this is

25     another part of the population census.

Page 2623

 1             Now, sir, I would like you to as you page through this go to page

 2     3 of this document.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  Could we possibly put it on the ELMO to -- for

 4     assistance?

 5        Q.   Now, sir, this is a breakdown of nationalities in individual

 6     settlements in 1995, and as we see the breakdown -- excuse me, 1991, I

 7     apologise.  I stand corrected, for 1991.  And if we go to the Rodaljice

 8     line, the census reflects that in 1991 there were 162 people living in

 9     Rodaljice and 162 were Croats.

10        A.   Yeah.

11        Q.   Now, in your document you reflect that 348 structures were

12     damaged -- totally damaged or partially damaged in that village?

13        A.   That's what it says on the paper, yes.

14        Q.   Now -- and there is nothing in the line for comments if that was

15     done prior to Operation Storm or after Operation Storm, is there?

16        A.   No.

17        Q.   Now, based on that, is it your -- the assessment of the UNMOs and

18     human rights teams that the Croats, when coming back in after Operation

19     Storm, did this kind of destruction on the village, a village, where

20     Croats had lived?

21        A.   There is no assessment on that.  That's merely the numbers that

22     were found out and reported to us about damaged buildings.

23        Q.   So when you looked at villages, is it your testimony you never

24     made an assessment as to whether or not this was a Croat village or a

25     Serb village?

Page 2624

 1        A.   Well, you could see it on the map that it was obviously a Croat

 2     village, but there is no mention -- no remark on that fact, on the

 3     report.

 4        Q.   Well, let's move up the page.  Let's go back to P176, and then

 5     we'll flip back to -- if we can go back to P176 and go to 548203.  If we

 6     can leave this on the ELMO because we'll go back to it.  Now, if we go

 7     back -- I believe -- that's the page.  If you say the -- again the

 8     village of Lisane, it's about a quarter of the way down.  Do you see

 9     that?  Lisane by the Zadar-Benkovac?

10        A.   Mm-hmm.  Yes.

11        Q.   That was 180 structures?

12        A.   Yes.  140 totally damaged and 20 partially damaged.

13        Q.   Okay.  So that's 160 out of 180 structures either partially or

14     completely damaged, right?

15        A.   That's true.

16        Q.   Let's go -- and again, before we do that, there is no comment in

17     there that that was prior to Operation Storm, is there?

18        A.   No because it was our common knowledge that Zadar-Benkovac team

19     was working on the area where there were houses that had been destroyed

20     before Operation Storm.

21        Q.   So is it your testimony that this was destroyed prior to

22     Operation Storm?

23        A.   I have no information on that fact.

24        Q.   Well, you just said to us that it was your common knowledge that

25     the "Zadar-Benkovac team was working on the area that there were houses

Page 2625

 1     that had been destroyed before Operation Storm."

 2             So do we take it from that statement that you just made that

 3     everything that is included under Zadar-Benkovac is, for the most part,

 4     damage that took place prior to Operation Storm?

 5        A.   After 13 years, based on the information that I have in front of

 6     me, I cannot make that assessment.

 7        Q.   Well, let's go back to the document that's on the ELMO, 1D190041,

 8     and we go to that village of Lisane, and in that population sentence --

 9     census, pardon me, of 1991 it reflects that there were 892 residents, 884

10     national -- 884 all nationalities, 884 Croats, and if we flip all the way

11     over to the right-hand side to get the math straight if we can -- well,

12     take my word for it, it says eight unknown.

13        A.   That's correct.

14        Q.   Okay.

15             MR. KEHOE:  Just for the sake of clarity, Judge, it's all the way

16     over on the right-hand side.  You see the eight unknown, so the math

17     comes back out to 891.

18        Q.   So this village again where your records reflect 160 damaged

19     residences had been a Croatian village prior -- at least in 1991?

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

21        Q.   And again, you don't know -- well, do you know when this damage

22     occurred in Lisane?

23        A.   Well, if we look at -- if we would take up the grid reference on

24     the map, you could see the location, And by that then it could be

25     assessed whether it was -- it could have been done before Operation Storm

Page 2626

 1     or not.

 2        Q.   Okay.  And again, that's not reflected in this -- in the other

 3     column --

 4        A.   No.

 5        Q.   And you include it in the overall damage?

 6        A.   That's still damage.

 7        Q.   Well, let's --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Would you allow me to ask some clarification.

11             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Either from the witness or that you could give it.

13             The database contains approximately 360 entries, villages or at

14     least geographical entities.  That's what we find in the UNMO report.  In

15     this report, if I look at the 1991 and the -- then I see 60.  So

16     apparently the structure of this report in 1991 on the population and

17     what geographical entities were used by the UNMOs appears to be 106,

18     that's still unclear to me.  That could have several explanations, and

19     what the consequences exactly are I can't oversee at this moment, But I

20     am noticing that we are now comparing the data from a 360-entry document

21     with a 60-entry document, approximately 60.  That raises all kind of

22     questions in my mind, just for you to be aware of.

23                           [Defence counsel confer].

24             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, you are comparing the -- actually, this

25     particular census on both levels --

Page 2627

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 2             MR. KEHOE:  -- has -- I mean, it's a huge, huge book where every

 3     one of these villages is broken down.  I have just tried to separate this

 4     out.  The reason why I've tried to separate this out and give it a more

 5     tighter fashion so it's manageable, but if you look at these grid

 6     references here, Judge, I mean if we go to -- for instance, and we'll be

 7     talking about Korenica.  It's a grid reference of a kilometre by a

 8     kilometre where the report notes 3.000 buildings in a

 9     kilometre-by-kilometre grid reference.  Now, I gladly will provide this

10     entire book, but this particular census is very tightly set out village

11     by village.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I'm not saying that we can't draw any

13     conclusions; I just notice that at this moment we are at the one hand

14     looking at a document with a factor-6 multiplier number of entries, and

15     in the other it's different.  I don't know how to deal with that, but for

16     me just to try to understand.  If it's -- if the whole of the area is

17     covered, I do not even know that.  If the total number of population

18     matches or not, I have no opportunity yet to verify that.  But that

19     raises all kind of rather problematic arithmetic matters.

20             MR. KEHOE:  And, Your Honour, I tried to put this as tightly as

21     possible together and to contrast that with the information that's being

22     presented.  Obviously we had some of these villages that in 1991 were

23     virtually a hundred per cent Croatian with showing in this statistical

24     form massive damage.  And -- which raises the question of course not only

25     when it took place, putting aside the question of did the Croats when

Page 2628

 1     they all come back, destroy their own houses?  That's contrary to what --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, or that Serbs had taken over the houses and

 3     those were destroyed?

 4             MR. KEHOE:  Well, I mean --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  All kind of questions.  I just want you to know that

 6     these questions all come up in my mind and that until now, although I see

 7     your great effort to assist us, that it at this moment raises more

 8     questions than it answers.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  And, Your Honour, I mean -- I have no meaning to

10     resist the questions that Your Honour has raised --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  No, you couldn't.

12             MR. KEHOE:  I understand.  But in the spirit of discussion, I

13     think the questions that Your Honour raised is precisely what I'm trying

14     to bring to the surface.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Let's see to what extent you manage to do so.

16     I just want you to be aware - I think that's fair - if certain questions

17     arises in our minds that you're aware of it.

18             MR. KEHOE:  And I appreciate that, Judge.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

20             MR. KEHOE:

21        Q.   Let us go back and continue on this and stay with -- and go to

22     page 548213 of the same document, And let us look at Licki Osik, which is

23     approximately halfway down by the Otocac team.  Do you see that, sir?

24        A.   Yes, I do.

25        Q.   And in that insert you have 2.000 buildings with 250 totally

Page 2629

 1     damaged and 7 -- excuse me, 550 partially damaged for 800 buildings

 2     damaged.  Is that right?

 3        A.   That's correct.

 4        Q.   And now let's go back to the census -- excuse me, 1D190006.  And

 5     I believe you have a paper copy of that.  And in the grid reference that

 6     you have, the square-kilometre grid reference of 2.000 buildings, I would

 7     ask you to look at the top of the page, four pages in, and you see Licki

 8     Osik?

 9        A.   Yeah, I think so.

10        Q.   Okay.  And in that it reflects a number of 953 total structures,

11     doesn't it?

12        A.   That's right.

13        Q.   And you have listed in yours double those structures within that

14     grid -- that square-kilometre grid reference, don't you?

15        A.   Yeah, I have to clarify that.  Grid reference does not mean that

16     all of these houses were found within the same one-kilometre-by-kilometre

17     square.  It gives -- pin-points out the centre of the area which was

18     covered under that name.

19        Q.   Well, sir, let's go -- if we go back to page 1 of this document,

20     P176 -- I'm sorry, I'm back to page 1 of P176.  If we just scroll down --

21     I mean, let's just look, for example, on page 1.  All of those grid

22     references are grid references for -- towards the top under Team Sibenik,

23     they were all within a hundred metres by a hundred metres?

24        A.   That's correct.

25        Q.   I mean, These are very specific areas that you're talking to?

Page 2630

 1        A.   Yeah, but how do you produce a grid reference that covers larger

 2     area than, you know, than just 100 by 100?  I mean, that was the problem

 3     that we were dealing with, and these specific grid references, when you

 4     put it on the map they would fall into the centre of the area in

 5     question.

 6        Q.   I think your document answers that, if we could go two more pages

 7     up, and that would be 00548203.  And if we could go -- if you see the

 8     Borkovice --

 9        A.   Brtani.

10        Q.   -- Brtani.  What do you do there?  You had multiple grid

11     references --

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   -- which expanded the area of examination?

14        A.   That's true.

15        Q.   So you had available to you the ability to show larger areas in

16     the grids by simply doing what Team Sinj did, right?

17        A.   Yes, that's true.

18        Q.   Now, let us go back to one last item on this and if we can stay

19     on this document and go to 00548213.

20             And let's go to Korenica.  Do you see that, sir?

21        A.   Yes, I do.

22        Q.   Now, Korenica is also known as Titovo Korenica, isn't it?

23        A.   That's true.

24        Q.   Let us turn our attention to -- well, in that particular document

25     you have 3.000 buildings and 3.000 buildings being destroyed within that

Page 2631

 1     grid reference of a kilometre by a kilometre, right?

 2        A.   That's true.

 3        Q.   Let us go back to 1D190006, and if we could just go to -- and I

 4     think you have that paper copy in front of you - to Titovo Korenica which

 5     is ten down.  And in the paper copy that is before you where you put

 6     3.000 buildings, in 1991 the census reflects a total amount of buildings

 7     of 617, doesn't it?

 8        A.   Yeah, that's it.  What is the number below that 600?

 9        Q.   A different village, sir.

10        A.   There are two numbers on each of these villages.  What is the

11     number below?

12        Q.   The number below is -- it looks like 1.716.

13        A.   Yeah.  What does it reflect?

14        Q.   Are you familiar with the name of that village?

15        A.   No, I mean on top of Korenica there are two numbers --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, I think the witness is drawing our

17     attention to the fact that we always find two lines --

18             THE WITNESS:  On each --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  -- on each -- apparently on each village.  And he

20     asks what then we find on the first line and what we find on the second

21     line because it looks as if you are quoting from the first line only.

22             MR. KEHOE:  The document as I have before you, Your Honour, puts

23     on the total, and I certainly will go back and provide what other is in

24     that legend, but it is not immediately clear to me exactly what that

25     document --  that line is.

Page 2632

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  If you put to the witness that that says 600 and

 2     that would be one out of two lines, then you might confuse the witness.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  Well --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  And I would expect you to know the difference

 5     between what is the first line and the second line.

 6             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, that is fair enough.

 7        Q.   But even adding those together, sir, let's add those together and

 8     it takes us to something around 2.000 --

 9        A.   300 some.

10        Q.   -- 300.

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Where you have reflected in here 3.000 where every one of?

13     those -- the structures have been destroyed?

14        A.   That's what the team did.

15        Q.   Now, let me --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  By the way, is there any way of getting a better

17     legible copy uploaded because I --

18             MR. KEHOE:  I will, Judge.  I will get a better, more legible

19     copy of all these documents scanned in another fashion and uploaded.  It

20     is difficult to see, but that's the best I have right now.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             MR. KEHOE:

23        Q.   Now, Mr. Anttila, I ask you to take a look at P111.  Now?

24     Mr. Anttila, this is a situation report from 20 October 1995, and I ask

25     the usher to go to page 3 at the bottom of the page, please, Other

Page 2633

 1     Significant Incidents, Relevant Information.  Now, in that area it quotes

 2     a Slobodna Dalmacija article of 20 October 1995, a statement of General

 3     Cermak concerning the burned and destroyed houses in former Sector South

 4     was published:

 5              "We have told to the ambassadors that information proclaimed by

 6     UNCRO of 22.000 burned and destroyed houses in the former Sector South,

 7     in other words, 70 per cent of the objects in this area is completely

 8     untrue.'

 9             "According to our reports there is a number of 2 to 3.000 houses,

10     not 22.000 houses, General Cermak said."

11             Now, was there discussion -- were you aware of this particular

12     comment by General Cermak?

13        A.   I don't recall if that was brought up to me as it is in this

14     situation report.

15        Q.   So --

16        A.   But I know -- generally I know that that was the opinion that

17     Mr. Cermak had, yes.

18        Q.   And was there discussion in the United Nations concerning the

19     validity of General Cermak's claims while acknowledging that houses had

20     been burnt and destroyed, that the number that was being produced by

21     UNCRO was well in excess of what had actually happened?

22        A.   I don't recall such a discussion at that time.

23        Q.   Well, let's shift gears to another topic, sir, and I would like

24     to refer back to your statement of -- I believe if I can get the exhibit

25     number correct, I have the actual date.  And I'm talking about Exhibit

Page 2634

 1     P172, page 3, paragraph 3, and in that paragraph, sir, we are referencing

 2     you to a visit you took to Uzdolje concerning an incident that had taken

 3     place where several people had been killed.  Do you recall that, sir?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And you were there in November, weren't you?

 6        A.   That was in November, yes.

 7        Q.   And when you were there in November you heard the witness say

 8     that the individual that did the shooting had a carabine?

 9        A.   That struck me as odd, but yes, that's true.

10        Q.   It struck you as odd because the soldiers of the HV you thought

11     carried either Kalashnikovs or AK-47s or UZs?

12        A.   Yeah, that's true.

13        Q.   And you knew based on your experience that a carabine is

14     basically a hunting rifle?

15        A.   That's true.

16        Q.   Likewise, sir -- and that caused you to question whether or not

17     this person was an actual soldier, didn't it?

18        A.   That's true.

19        Q.   Now, let me change topics once again and I'd like to talk to you

20     a little bit about your statements, and I would like to turn first to

21     your 1997 statement.

22             MR. KEHOE:  If I might have one moment, Your Honour.

23        Q.   Now, in your statement at page 005831 you talk about restrictions

24     of movement.  Do you see that, sir?

25             MR. RUSSO:  I'm sorry, Your Honour, I think we got the page

Page 2635

 1     wrong.

 2             MR. KEHOE:  I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Mr. Russo.  It's 00548134.  I

 3     must have misspoke.

 4        Q.   Now, this is an incident the way you went there and you -- this

 5     took place on 15 August of 1995.  Do you see that?

 6        A.   I don't see the 15 August date --

 7        Q.   If you go about midway through.  It says --

 8        A.   I'm sorry.

 9        Q.   If you just go down on that page a little bit, if we could just

10     scroll that up a bit -- I'm sorry.  It's that paragraph on the bottom.

11     You're talking about going to the village of Zrmanja on the 15th of

12     August, 1995.

13        A.   Mm-hmm.  Yes.

14        Q.   And this is an incident where you note that there was houses

15     burning and soldiers and a bus?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Now, if I take a look at this -- that particular incident that

18     you have in your mind --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I have not found it yet.

20             MR. KEHOE:  It's the bottom paragraph on that --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Bottom paragraph -- yes, I see it.  Yes.

22             MR. KEHOE:

23        Q.   Now, that particular incident, that was something that was of

24     significance to you, I take it?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 2636

 1        Q.   Now, let's turn our attention to 65 ter 4703, and that is P115.

 2     And as you can see, this is a situation report of that same day, 15

 3     August 1995, and I ask us to move up four pages to 509827.

 4        A.   Is this --

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  The document has only one page.

 6             MR. KEHOE:  65 ter number -- it's P120.

 7             Your Honour, by way of clarification while we're pulling that

 8     exhibit up, that second line is the population line.  So for every

 9     village you have the number of structures, and the population is the

10     second line.

11             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

12             MR. KEHOE:  Now, if we can scroll down, just a little bit more.

13        Q.   You can see in this document, sir, that that is the insert of the

14     nine houses burning on 15 August in the area of Zrmanja.  Do you see

15     that?

16        A.   I see that.

17        Q.   There's no mention of any soldiers?

18        A.   No.

19        Q.   Likewise, sir, with the actual data compilation that you put

20     together in P68, when you were putting that information together, you

21     didn't include any information about soldiers being in there either, did

22     you?  And I'm talking about the summary of human rights violations.

23        A.   No.

24        Q.   Do you want to take a look at it?

25        A.   I mean, it's not in this report because it's not there.  I

Page 2637

 1     don't ...

 2        Q.   Now, I raise this for you, sir, on the issue of the restriction

 3     of movement, and you note in your statement that -- and I go back to

 4     P172, that last paragraph on P172, page 548134.

 5             MR. KEHOE:  We can scroll down on that page, please.

 6             Your Honour, I'm just waiting for the B/C/S to come up.

 7             Scroll down.

 8        Q.   Now, the second sentence in there -- starting with the second

 9     sentence -- well, actually, we start from the first.

10           "Speaking about the restriction of movement, I would say that from

11     the middle of August (the date of my arrival) until the end of August

12     1995 there were occasional cases of restriction of movement.  The Croats

13     explained such restrictions of movement by the necessity of conducting

14     so-called mop-up operations, when they were looking for rebels.  But very

15     often we had such thoughts that the Croats deliberately put such

16     restrictions just in order to have an opportunity to burn houses and loot

17     them without fear."

18             Now, sir, from the time that you were in Sector South, the UNMOs

19     were -- and you were doing humanitarian or HRAT work, right?

20        A.   That too, yes.

21        Q.   Well, the UNMOs were tracking troop movements of the HV, weren't

22     they?

23        A.   That's true.

24        Q.   And --

25        A.   That was the task that we had.

Page 2638

 1        Q.   So is it -- were you being told at the time that part of the task

 2     of the UNMOs was to continue to follow troop movements of the Croatian

 3     army?

 4        A.   When we were on patrol, that was obviously our paramount job, we.

 5        Q.   And your testimony that that was a job that continued even after

 6     Operation Storm?

 7        A.   That is one of the basic tasks of a military observer, so it

 8     continued all the way until the time when the sector was closed down.

 9        Q.   I mean, did that include tracking the Croatian army into, for

10     instance, Bosnia-Herzegovina, to see what they were doing there?

11        A.   That would be within the area of the -- where the UNMOs were

12     working, yes.

13        Q.   So was -- is it your testimony that the general understanding of

14     the H -- of the UNMOs was that they were allowed to go into Bosnia and

15     follow what the -- or report back what HV troops were doing as the

16     warring factions progressed?

17        A.   The UNMO operation was not limited to the borders of the

18     fractions inside that area.  The UNMO mission was inside former

19     Yugoslavia.  It was not only in Croatia or only in Bosnia.

20        Q.   And was that the general understanding --

21        A.   That was the general understanding.

22        Q.   Okay.  Let us move to --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask one clarifying question.

24             Several times you were asked whether it was your job to track

25     troop movements --

Page 2639

 1             THE WITNESS:  To report --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I beg your pardon?

 3             THE WITNESS:  Sorry.  To report troop movements that would be

 4     observed.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, yes.  That's exactly what I'm -- what is not

 6     entirely clear to me.  Tracking troop movements, from what I understand

 7     the word "tracking" could be, could be either if you see some troop

 8     movements you would follow them and you would see where they go and

 9     other -- at least in my understanding, another way of understanding

10     tracking troop movements is that you observe troops moving from A to B,

11     and you observe that they're going from A to B, you stay where you are,

12     and you try to link that information with others who might have reported

13     about similar troop movements between D and E.

14             Now, what -- if you're talking about tracking troop movements,

15     would you just observe what happens or would you actively follow those

16     troops in order to -- well, to find out where they would go, not by a

17     stationary observation but by an active and moving following those

18     troops?

19             THE WITNESS:  We would not drive behind a convoy after it.  We

20     would observe, for example, a convoy and then we would report it and then

21     maybe some other team would in their area respectively put up a patrol to

22     that direction, for example, where these troops were observed to be

23     moving.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So when you answered the questions about

25     tracking troop movements, this is how you understood the question and

Page 2640

 1     this the way in which you answered it?

 2             THE WITNESS:  That's right.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 4             Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.

 5             MR. KEHOE:

 6        Q.   Let us turn our attention to P170.  This is again a UN sitrep

 7     from 3 -- excuse me, 31 October 1995.  If we go to page 2, and we just

 8     scroll up just a bit.  That's good.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, I'm just waiting for the B/C/S, I don't

10     know if there is no -- there it is, okay.  And going to point D on the

11     B/C/S.  Yes.

12        Q.   Now, in this -- under "Other significant incidents and relevant

13     information."

14             It says:  "UNMO headquarters was informed by reliable UN

15     source ..."

16             Now, who could that be, sir?

17        A.   I have no idea.

18        Q.   Okay.

19             "... that they managed to enter Tito Drvar of the following:

20             Patrol was, when coming towards Tito Drvar from the south,

21     stopped in HV-MP," HV military police, "check-point.  Patrol was ordered

22     to turn back to Bosanski Grahovo.  Patrol was informed that they need

23     permission from military commander in Split (General Gotovina).

24             "Patrol managed to get into Tito Drvar by another route and

25     observed 10 guns, 6 HV trucks ...  all parked in a compound where

Page 2641

 1     markings with 141 Logistics Brigade was observed."

 2             Now, let me go to 1D190013.

 3        Q.   Now, sir, you see the circles, the circle to the left being Knin;

 4     the circle in the middle left being Strmica; and to the right Bosanski

 5     Grahovo; and the one on the top Tito Drvar.  Do you see that?

 6        A.   Yes, I do.

 7        Q.   Tito Drvar -- and the red line is the border, isn't it, between

 8     Bosnia and Croatia?

 9        A.   That's true.

10        Q.   Now, Tito Drvar is, of course, in Bosnia?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Now, are you saying, sir, that you or that UNMO patrols or -- let

13     me back this up.  Drvar was an area near the confrontation line between

14     the Bosnian Serbs and the Krajina Serbs and the HV-HVO, wasn't it?

15        A.   Yes, that's true.

16        Q.   And are you saying that UNMO patrols were authorised -- UNMO

17     patrols from Sector South were authorised in October of 1995 to travel

18     into Bosnia-Herzegovina and Tito Drvar to report back on what the HV

19     troops were doing?

20        A.   Based on the sitrep, it's not clear to me if it was an UNMO

21     patrol that made this report.

22        Q.   Well, I mean, putting that aside, are you independently saying

23     that UNMO patrols were permitted to do that?

24        A.   We had a task to report the troop movements, and to my

25     understanding we had authority to also go over to the Bosnian side.

Page 2642

 1        Q.   Well, sir, are you familiar with the agreement that took place

 2     and were the other UNMOs familiar with the agreement that took place

 3     between the UN and the Croatian government on August the 6th that

 4     permitted the UNMOs or permitted the UN to continue to operate in Croatia

 5     and what they were allowed to do?  Are you familiar with that?

 6        A.   I know of it.

 7        Q.   Okay.  Well, let's put it on the screen, D28.  Now, take a look

 8     at this, sir, and if you can just give a read through to yourself.  Tell

 9     me when you need to go to the next page, sir.

10        A.   I'm ready.

11             MR. KEHOE:  Would you please go to the next page.

12        Q.   Are you done, sir?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Just go -- this particular document allows the UN to monitor and

15     report on the human rights situation, doesn't it?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   There is nothing in this report that allows the UN to monitor and

18     report HV troop movements, does it?

19        A.   It's not mentioned there.

20        Q.   Now, let's move on to some other areas just as the last area that

21     we'll be discussing.  If we can bring up the P173, 2007 document, which

22     is a 2007 witness statement, paragraph 29.  Now, paragraph 29, if we

23     could scroll that up just a bit.

24             You note in there -- in that paragraph that:  "We could... see

25     men in military uniforms in the same area close to the burning

Page 2643

 1     houses ..."

 2        A.   Mm-hmm.

 3        Q.   In paragraph 30, if we could go to the next page, now note that -

 4     and we'll talk about this in a second - that:  "In remote areas," in the

 5     last sentence:  "In the remote areas, the Croatian military was burning

 6     and looting quite openly."

 7             Do you see that, sir?

 8        A.   Yes, I do.

 9        Q.   Now, sir, you knew at this time that burning, for instance -- and

10     let's just go to P154 and stay -- scrolling down on that page towards the

11     bottom, there is a mention in this document that looting and burning were

12     being done by soldiers and civilians.  Do you see that, sir, on the first

13     page?  On the paragraph highlights, the third one -- the second one down.

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And you received reports that the soldiers and civilians were

16     looting together, right?

17        A.   Could be the case.

18        Q.   Well, let us turn to another entry on this document if we can

19     just go up three pages to section E, I believe it's three pages, under

20     humanitarian aspects.  Okay.  Entry under (a) under Team Podkonje, that

21     was your team, right?

22        A.   Yeah.

23        Q.   And this is 19 September.  And it notes that on 19 September at

24     8.20 investigated one house on fire in Knin, gives the grid.

25             "No casualties observed.  It is assessed that the house was set

Page 2644

 1     on fire by neighbours returning to the area."

 2        A.   That's what it says.

 3        Q.   Okay.  And did you observe that to be a -- or was that a common

 4     understanding by many of the -- of the UNMOs that much of this burning

 5     was taking place by neighbours returning to the area to exact revenge?

 6        A.   Sometimes that happened, but it was not the case in all cases

 7     where houses were burning.

 8        Q.   Well, let's move down on this page under Team Sibenik in the last

 9     line.

10             "Patrol observed men in civilian and uniforms looting the

11     villages."

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Now, was it your understanding that the soldiers and civilians

14     were looting together?

15        A.   Based on this report, yes.

16        Q.   Now, how long have you been in the military?

17        A.   How long?  I have been in military for -- during my conscript for

18     11 months, and then after that two years I have spent in UN service as a

19     military person.

20        Q.   Well, the military doesn't normally conduct operations with the

21     civilians, do they?

22        A.   That's true.

23        Q.   Let's turn to the next page of this document, and we just -- this

24     is an entry from the UNMO HRAT reported and it's on the 19th and you

25     start -- you see that entry:  "191500 September."  Do you see that, Mr.

Page 2645

 1     Anttila?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Okay.  Let's just go down about midway through where it starts:

 4     "Earlier"?

 5        A.   Earlier I have been visited by --

 6        Q.   Okay.  Notes "Earlier" -- actually we can go to the line right

 7     before because I think it makes sense.

 8             "The remaining Serbs state that the area earlier have been

 9     visited by HV soldier that behaved in a correct manner ..."

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.    " ...  but they believe that the uniformed men visiting now are

12     not real soldiers ..."

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.    " ...  HRAT team when visiting Mokro Polje observed several

15     civilian cars (without registration plates) with trailers being loaded

16     with things looted from the houses.  The people looting the houses were

17     both in civilian and military uniforms."

18        A.   That's what it says there.

19        Q.   So with --

20             MR. RUSSO:  Objection, Your Honour, it says HV uniforms.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             MR. KEHOE:  I'm sorry.  HV uniforms.  I'm sorry.  "The people

23     looting" -- I stand corrected.  I apologise.

24              "The people looting houses were both in civilian and HV

25     uniforms."

Page 2646

 1             THE WITNESS:  That's right.

 2             MR. KEHOE:

 3        Q.   Now, was it frequent that you were being told by soldiers --

 4     excuse me, by civilians that the people -- that the soldiers that were

 5     coming in there they didn't think were real soldiers?

 6        A.   There were cases when that happened, yes.

 7        Q.   In fact, sir, if we go back to your 1997 statement, P172, page

 8     548135, the top paragraph -- I'm just waiting for the B/C/S version,

 9     Mr. Anttila.  I'm just waiting for the B/C/S.  I apologise.

10        A.   Yeah.  No problem.

11        Q.   The top of the page blown up, please, I'm sorry.  If we go to

12     that sentence -- and in addition to that, sir, you note in this first

13     paragraph, the first carry-over paragraph on the last sentence:  "Croats

14     were burning and looting Serb houses independently on their military

15     activity."

16             You mean independent of their military activity?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   So these Serbs -- these soldiers were doing it completely

19     independent of what their responsibilities were militarily, weren't they?

20        A.   That's what I have tried to say there.

21        Q.   Now, there were also instances where UNMO teams confronted people

22     in camouflage uniforms that were looting, and when they were -- after

23     they were confronted they stopped, didn't they?  Are you aware of that?

24        A.   I'm aware that they were confronted and then in cases they

25     stopped, yes.

Page 2647

 1        Q.   And after confronted by UNMO teams they stopped and went away?

 2        A.   That -- to my understanding, that happened, yes.

 3        Q.   And based on your experience and understanding, soldiers that are

 4     conducting operations that they're ordered to do wouldn't stop and go

 5     away if an UNMO team came and told them to stop, would they?

 6        A.   That's correct interpretation.

 7        Q.   Now, let me turn to P162.  This is an UNMO report from 2 October

 8     1995, just to get yourself oriented, and if we can go to the third page

 9     in, 64 -- yeah.  And under iv, towards the top of the page, sir, if you

10     read this with me.

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.    "The ongoing harassment and looting of remaining Serb population

13     the CALO," that would be the Croatian army liaison officer, "informed

14     that HV authorities are aware of the situation with the Serb population.

15     He also stated that Croatian civil police, CRO Civpol, can detain and

16     check all citizens of Croatia including servicemen.  Only HV and police

17     members in complete uniform and with proper authorisation can carry

18     weapons.  He asked UNMOs to pass all information concerning looting to

19     the nearest police station as soon as possible."

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Sir -- sorry.

22             Sir, were the UNMO teams who were gathering the information that

23     you put together in your statistical compilations, were they routinely

24     reporting this information to the nearest police station as soon as

25     possible?

Page 2648

 1        A.   To my understanding, after this was agreed, that that would be

 2     the case what happened, But I have not been in a position myself to do

 3     that and to witness it.

 4        Q.   And you don't know whether or not these UNMOs did it either, do

 5     you?

 6        A.   No.

 7             MR. KEHOE:  If I might have one moment, Your Honour.

 8                           [Defence counsel confer]

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, I don't have any further questions of

10     Mr. Anttila.  I would like to offer into evidence the map of Drvar and

11     other locales, 1D190031.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  That's the one with the four circles on it?

13             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, that will be Exhibit  D172.

16             MR. RUSSO:  No objection, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  D172 is admitted into evidence.

18             Please proceed.

19             MR. KEHOE:  And I would also like to offer into evidence the

20     population census as it regards the dwellings, that's 1D190006.

21             MR. RUSSO:  No objection, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Is that the whole of that census report or --

23             MR. KEHOE:  No, it's not, Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  -- just the pages?

25             MR. KEHOE:  Just the pages.

Page 2649

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Because I had an opportunity to look at it a

 2     bit more closely, and where I was talking about 60 entries, I was just

 3     looking at the two pages that were provided to us that was I think page

 4     51 and 53, where you see that the areas -- for example, Benkovac, is

 5     subdivided in -- in various, apparently, villages and hamlets.  And I

 6     think --

 7             MR. KEHOE:  Judge, just by way of correction, I think you're

 8     looking at the --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, I'm looking at the wrong one.

10             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  That's fine.  And then let me just -- are you going

12     to tender that one as well?

13             MR. KEHOE:  I am, Judge.  I just -- for the sake of clarity --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then I'll reserve my -- and again, the other

15     one was -- because I have to find it on my computer so that I know --

16             MR. KEHOE:  That's 1D1 -- excuse me, 1D1 --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I can't find it under those numbers.  I only

18     can find it if numbers have been assigned to it.  Perhaps after the break

19     I'll come back to that.

20             There are no objections; however, the Chamber reserves the right

21     to ask for more complete --

22             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  -- or more extensive information.

24             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  But with this proviso -- now, it just disappeared

Page 2650

 1     from my screen what the number was.

 2             Madam Registrar, could you please repeat it?

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour.  The next exhibit 1D190006 --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  No, the last number you gave.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  It was D172.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  D172 with this proviso.  That was the map.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  That was the map.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  And this one, 1D190006, that would be Exhibit

10     Number D173.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  D173, and I think Mr. Russo told us already that he

12     had no objections.

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

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Then D173 with the proviso I just made is admitted

15     into evidence.  Next one, Mr. --

16             MR. KEHOE:  1D190040, this is the population census, I believe,

17     Judge, that --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  With the 31 entries for each --

19             MR. KEHOE:  There are multiple entries attached --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but I see there's a -- on the top line we find

21     columns up to 31.  Is that --

22             MR. KEHOE:  Does it look like this, Judge?

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it looks like that.  And I think that we have

24     only one or two lines --

25             MR. KEHOE:  I only took two lines out --

Page 2651

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  -- translated into English, but that allows at least

 2     to read what the columns --

 3             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  -- are about, mainly about --

 5             MR. KEHOE:  Population nationalities.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  -- population nationalities.  Yes.  In respect of

 7     that one, I see on the pages you provided, which I already said are pages

 8     51 and 53, that the areas are subdivided.  For example, I think you

 9     quoted from one of the villages of Benkovac, if I'm right.

10             MR. KEHOE:  I do believe, Judge, that -- the two villages that I

11     talked about were Lisane and Orlici.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm just trying to find them.  Yes, I think it was

13     Lisane Ostrovicke.  Is that --

14             MR. KEHOE:  That's the same village.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's the same village.

16             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, we have not the full subdivision of Benkovac

18     here, so it makes it rather impossible for us to see how Benkovac is

19     subdivided and to what extent this subdivision corresponds with the

20     subdivisions in the UNMO report.  So therefore, at least for the villages

21     you mentioned we would like to have the whole of the area in which it

22     is -- the whole of the area in which it is -- in which this village is

23     mentioned as part of that area, in this case would be Benkovac.

24             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  So that we're better able to compare what kind of

Page 2652

 1     subdivisions have been made and to what extent there is any

 2     correspondence between those.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  And I will have to look at the other one to see

 5     whether a similar request would be there.  Just thinking aloud, it almost

 6     requires expert analysis of these documents to see to what extent the one

 7     is structured or is -- can be compared with the others.  Because you made

 8     it a -- well, quite an issue during your cross-examination that there

 9     were inconsistencies, but inconsistencies just on the basis of a name

10     given in an entry might not be sufficient to draw proper conclusions.  We

11     might come back to that.

12             Mr. Russo, I take it that there is some need to re-examine the

13     witness?

14             MR. RUSSO:  Yes, Your Honour.

15             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, I have some cross of this witness,

16     Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

18             And, Mr. Cayley?

19             MR. CAYLEY:  Nothing arises, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Kuzmanovic, we will first have a break.

21     We will -- yes, I think as a matter of fact we have not decided on the

22     last exhibit.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour, that will be  D174.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo.

25             MR. RUSSO:  No objection.

Page 2653

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  D174 with a similar proviso is admitted into

 2     evidence.

 3             Then, Mr. Kuzmanovic, could you give us an estimate on how much

 4     time you would need?

 5             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, I hope to be no longer than half an

 6     hour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  No longer than half an hour.

 8             We will then have a break and we will resume at five minutes past

 9     11.00.

10                           --- Recess taken at 10.38 a.m.

11                          --- On resuming at 11.10 a.m.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Anttila, you'll now be cross-examined by

13     Mr. Kuzmanovic, who's counsel for Mr. Markac.

14             Please proceed, Mr. Kuzmanovic.

15             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

16                           Cross-examination by Mr. Kuzmanovic:

17        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Anttila.

18        A.   Good morning.

19        Q.   Mr. Anttila, I would like to start by going back to an answer you

20     gave to Mr. Kehoe on page 13 of the transcript, line 11, you were asked

21     about the Zadar-Benkovac municipality, and your answer -- the question

22     was regarding damage prior or before Operation Storm in your evaluation.

23     The answer was:  "It was our common knowledge that Zadar-Benkovac team

24     was working on the area, that there were houses that had been destroyed

25     before Operation Storm."

Page 2654

 1             I'd like the registrar to please pull up P176 and go to page

 2     00548203.

 3             Is that on your screen, Mr. Anttila?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   The first two-thirds or so of that page include Zadar-Benkovac;

 6     correct?

 7        A.   That's correct.

 8        Q.   And in that Zadar-Benkovac evaluation I've counted the total

 9     damage as 1.174 and partial damage of 498 for a total number of 1.672.

10     There is no indication on Zadar-Benkovac as to whether or not any of

11     these municipalities had pre-Operation Storm damage; is that correct?

12        A.   That is correct.

13        Q.   And are you aware, Mr. Anttila, that the vast majority of these

14     Zadar-Benkovac municipalities had Croatian populations in them?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   So at least as far as damage is concerned, if one were to read

17     this document P176 and infer from it that the damage in it was caused by

18     the HV or by Croatian authorities after Operation Storm, it could be

19     misleading; correct?

20        A.   That is the case, yes.

21        Q.   I'd like you on the same document --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, Mr. Kuzmanovic.

23             Was the -- we're talking about teams and municipalities.

24             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Correct, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Was the Zadar-Benkovac team competent for the whole

Page 2655

 1     of the Zadar-Benkovac municipality, or were other teams also competent

 2     for parts of -- I mean, was the area of responsibility for the

 3     Zadar-Benkovac team exactly the same as the Zadar-Benkovac municipality?

 4             THE WITNESS:  No.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  No.

 6             MR. KUZMANOVIC:

 7        Q.   Well, explain that then.

 8        A.   Team areas were divided on the map, and they were based on the

 9     location where the team was accommodated; and then the area was set out

10     around that area.  So all the teams had -- in certain areas they would on

11     the map appear exact borders, but because of the roads and so on, you

12     would have to cross over to other teams' AOR while going to a certain

13     place, for example.

14        Q.   None of that is indicated on the survey, though, is it?

15        A.   No.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kuzmanovic, the survey talks about teams.

17             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Right.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  And about villages.

19             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Correct.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  And it doesn't say anything about the area of

21     responsibility of the teams, although they get the names apparently of

22     where they are approximately based, but perhaps it becomes too

23     complicated to further explore.  If you want to do that, fine, but it

24     might need some preparation.

25             MR. KUZMANOVIC:

Page 2656

 1        Q.   Mr. Anttila, the Zadar-Benkovac team, for example, didn't go into

 2     the Otocac area to survey, did they?

 3        A.   No.

 4        Q.   Okay.  And the Otocac team didn't go into the Zadar-Benkovac area

 5     of responsibility, correct?

 6        A.   That's correct.

 7        Q.   So for all intents and purposes, the Zadar-Benkovac team covered

 8     the area of Zadar-Benkovac, correct?

 9        A.   More or less, yes.

10        Q.   Okay.  So let's go to Otocac, Mr. Anttila, and I've got to find

11     my page reference.  It is on the same document, P176.  8213 are the last

12     four numbers.

13             Is that in front of you, Mr. Anttila?

14        A.   Yes, I can see it.

15        Q.   That's -- the whole page is Otocac; is that correct?

16        A.   That's correct.

17        Q.   And is it just a coincidence, Mr. Anttila, or is it a fact that

18     every -- that 97 per cent of the entries are numbers of buildings of

19     Otocac end in a 0 or 5, as in a multiple of 5?  Is that a coincidence, or

20     is that just the way the buildings were lined up in those villages?

21        A.   These are the numbers that were given by Otocac team.  I don't --

22     I don't know why they are multiple by 5 on this case.

23        Q.   Those appear to be estimates, don't they?

24        A.   That's what it looks like.

25        Q.   And estimates that may be rounded up or rounded down; we don't

Page 2657

 1     know?

 2        A.   Yes, that's true.

 3        Q.   So it's fair to state that at least the page concerning Otocac,

 4     the number of buildings, isn't particularly accurate?

 5        A.   That's a conclusion that you can draw from here.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. -- please proceed.

 7             MR. KUZMANOVIC:

 8        Q.   If you look on -- again, back on 8206, going back to

 9     Zadar-Benkovac, just Zadar-Benkovac alone which is the bottom third of

10     that page, 100 per cent of the entries are a multiple of 5 for numbers of

11     buildings, aren't they?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And that's another estimate, isn't it?

14        A.   It appears to be that way.

15        Q.   And again, it could be accurate; it's probably inaccurate, either

16     rounded up or rounded down, correct?

17        A.   That's correct.

18        Q.   There were seven UNMO teams, you say?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   How many vehicles did you have?

21        A.   I don't remember the vehicle -- number of vehicles we had in the

22     sector, but basically the teams were supposed to have three vehicles for

23     each team.

24        Q.   Three per team?

25        A.   Per team, yes.

Page 2658

 1        Q.   And then how many people would go out in a vehicle?

 2        A.   That would be anything from two to four.

 3        Q.   Were the areas of responsibility here -- when you look at P176

 4     you see Gracac, Zadar-Benkovac, were they all the same in terms of area

 5     of responsibility, or were some larger or some smaller?

 6        A.   Of course the sizes were not exactly the same.  They were

 7     different sizes, different areas.

 8        Q.   In your statement of 2007 - and the exhibit number escapes me,

 9     Your Honour - on page 9, P173, paragraph 47, you note that there were 389

10     villages and hamlets visited through 4 October 1995, correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And how many men -- I'm assuming the UNMOs were all men, were

13     they?

14        A.   Not all.  We had one female UNMO also with us.

15        Q.   Okay.  Of the UNMOs, how many did you have for this task to cover

16     389 villages through the 4th of October of 1995?

17        A.   I don't recall the exact number of UNMOs that we had in the

18     sector at that time, but basically there would be about eight UNMOs per

19     team, so that would come up to about 56 people, and then the headquarters

20     staff, so we would be somewhere around total number of about 70.

21        Q.   Okay.  So on October 4th you have a total of -- at paragraph 47,

22     a total of 389 villages and hamlets that you visited, and if we go to

23     P176, the last page, there's a total of 414 villages listed on P176 as of

24     November 4th, 1995; correct?

25        A.   Mm-hmm, yes.

Page 2659

 1        Q.   So from October 4th through and including November 4th, there

 2     were additional 12 -- 25 hamlets that were visited, correct?

 3        A.   That what comes up from the numbers.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kuzmanovic, did I understand the testimony well

 5     that there was some double counts?

 6             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Yes.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  So therefore --

 8             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I'm just -- I'm talking about the document in

 9     and of itself, not necessarily including the double counts, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Could you please pull up P63, Madam Registrar.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but if I could come back to it.

14             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Sure, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  In the statement, it says there were so many

16     villages and hamlets visited.

17             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, I do not know whether a correction has been

19     made for double counts or whether it was counted on the basis of these

20     documents.  Then it would include double counts and then your conclusion

21     that additional villages, because it seems to be a conclusion, were

22     visited during that period of time seems to be a reasonable conclusion,

23     whereas if, however, the double counts were already calculated in the 389

24     then it's not necessarily that additional villages were visited during

25     this period of time.

Page 2660

 1             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I'll cover that, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  It raises a few puzzles for me.

 3             Yes.

 4             MR. KUZMANOVIC:

 5        Q.   Mr. Anttila, other than P65, if we --

 6             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I'm sorry, Madam Registrar, if you could pull

 7     that up.

 8        Q.   Other than P65 -- and I'll wait until it comes up before I ask my

 9     question.

10             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Could you -- yeah, that's right.  Thank you.

11     Please pull up P65, Madam Registrar.  I'll get back to P63 in a minute.

12        Q.   P65 is the form that was filled out by each team daily in its

13     review of damages in conducting its survey, correct?

14        A.   When they visited a village, they would fill in a form like this,

15     yes.

16        Q.   And this is the only form that we have, is it not, that you're

17     aware of in this entire case that documents one particular survey done on

18     one particular day, correct?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   So there are seven UNMO teams, right?

21        A.   Right.

22        Q.   There -- each UNMO team is filling out P65, correct?

23        A.   That's correct.

24        Q.   So if there are -- and P65 is basically the guts of your survey,

25     is it not?

Page 2661

 1        A.   That is true, yeah.

 2        Q.   And if we can go to -- back to P63, I'll flip between the two for

 3     a moment, and I'll wait until the B/C/S gets up before I ask a question.

 4             P63 is dated 17 August of 1995, correct?

 5        A.   That is correct.

 6        Q.   And that's 1500 hours, so that's 3.00 in the afternoon?

 7        A.   That's true.

 8        Q.   So you would have started your survey, if at all possible, the

 9     next day, the 18th, correct?

10        A.   That is true.

11        Q.   And for all intents and purposes, the November 4th report, which

12     is P176, that report was compiled based upon the directive to do the

13     survey in P63, correct?

14        A.   That is correct.

15        Q.   Now, I've counted the number of days from August 18th until

16     October 31st, and that's 84 days.

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   So in 84 days of doing the survey and -- you know, I'm not a

19     mathematician, but I'll do my best here.  In 84 days, there are seven

20     UNMO teams, correct?

21        A.   That's correct.

22        Q.   And each team has one form that it fills in to give to you to

23     compile the survey?

24        A.   No, that's not true.  That's not the way it worked out.

25        Q.   Well, you tell me how it worked, then.

Page 2662

 1        A.   When they visited a village, they would fill in the P65, was it,

 2     the form, and hand in for each village.  So they did not -- they filed

 3     several files like P65.

 4        Q.   Per day?

 5        A.   For one day, for example, that's why P65 was -- the team was told

 6     to go back and do it different way because they included in that

 7     particular document several hamlets, and it was supposed to be done

 8     village by village, and these forms that we received, then, they were

 9     kept in the file, and we had a big pile of them.

10        Q.   Okay.  You're holding your hands about a foot --

11        A.   Well, okay, maybe one full filing --

12        Q.   Binder --

13        A.   -- binder, yes.

14        Q.   Okay.  Because it appears -- if we go back to P65.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Meanwhile I'll put one question.

16             When you're saying -- Mr. Kuzmanovic is counting days.  Did you

17     work seven days a week on this task?

18             THE WITNESS:  UNMO organization worked seven days a week.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Seven days a week.

20             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So no days off?

22             THE WITNESS:  No days off.  No Sundays.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

24             Please proceed.

25             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 2663

 1        Q.   We've got P65 back on, and it appears if you move the document to

 2     the right if it's possible -- I'm sorry, the other way.  There appear to

 3     be holes there where this document was in a binder of some kind, correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Okay.  So you said you had a full binder of these UNMO

 6     humanitarian rights section reports survey forms that was P65?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And the only document that we have from all of those forms is

 9     this particular one?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Now, would an UNMO team fill out this for each village that they

12     went to?

13        A.   That was the intention, yes.

14        Q.   So if I went to five villages and I'm an UNMO, I have five of

15     these P65s?

16        A.   Yes, to hand in, yes.

17        Q.   Okay.  So if I went to one village -- five villages in one day,

18     to be more clear, I would have five of these P65 forms?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   So theoretically, if there could be more than one UNMO survey

21     done a day by one UNMO team?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   So the -- my original calculation was 84 days with seven UNMO

24     teams and each UNMO team completing one form for a total of 588 forms.

25     It could have been more than double that, correct?  You could have had

Page 2664

 1     more than 500 of these P65s in your binder?

 2        A.   How come?

 3        Q.   Well, you said that if every UNMO team goes to a village, it

 4     fills out one of these survey forms, right?

 5        A.   Yes, unless that village has already been visited.

 6        Q.   Okay.  And we don't know that because we don't have these

 7     underlying UNMO forms, correct?

 8        A.   That's correct.

 9        Q.   So the only record that we have that you base your entire survey

10     on is one particular document, P65?

11             MR. RUSSO:  Objection, Your Honour, I think that that question

12     seems to suggest that the entire survey is based on the one example form

13     submitted by the Prosecution.

14             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  No, that's not what I suggest, Your Honour.  I

15     suggest that the only underlying document that's the guts of his survey,

16     that he said was the guts of his survey is this one document.  There are

17     many of hundreds of others of these documents that we don't have that

18     would enable us to verify the numbers that have been presented to us in

19     the survey.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             Now, Mr. Kuzmanovic, I think you're perfectly right that to

22     verify whether the data were transferred accurately on the database.

23     Even without all the calculations you made, you could have come to that

24     conclusion, isn't it?  I mean whether it was 588 or 629 or 432 doesn't

25     make a difference.  The forms are not there --

Page 2665

 1             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Correct.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  -- and therefore the forms do not allow us to verify

 3     whether the data on the forms were transferred accurately into the

 4     database.

 5             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Correct, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Despite on whether there were seven, nine,

 7     three UNMO teams, doesn't make any difference.

 8             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Understood.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed.

10             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

11             I will move on to P176, using P65 as a basis.  If we'll keep P65

12     on -- I'm sorry, Madam Registrar.

13        Q.   Now, there's a grid reference on P65 of 9390, correct?

14        A.   That is correct.

15        Q.   Could you explain to the Chamber what a grid reference is in

16     general.

17        A.   In general a grid reference is -- on the map the -- where the --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we do it the other way.  Could we -- if the

19     Chamber would try to tell you what the Chamber understands --

20             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I'll change it, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  -- to be a grid, then you can confirm.  It is a

22     map --

23             THE WITNESS:  It's a map and --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  -- that is divided into squares.

25             THE WITNESS:  Exactly.

Page 2666

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  And those squares bear numbers, and the grid

 2     references, if they are four numbers, then it's, I understand, a square

 3     kilometre, and if you give additional details giving it six numbers, then

 4     you are in squares of a hundred metres by a hundred metres.

 5             THE WITNESS:  That is correct.

 6             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  All right, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 8             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Could you please call up, Madam Registrar,

 9     1D190043.  Not there?  It was -- we were advised it was loaded up into

10     e-court.  Let's try through Sanction.

11        Q.   All right.  I'll direct your attention to the map there where the

12     grid reference is 9390?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   It's next to the Plavno municipality there, correct?

15        A.   That's correct.

16        Q.   Now, if we go to page 2 of that document, 1D190044, that's

17     obviously a close-up view of that grid, 9390, correct?

18        A.   Mm-hmm.  That's true.

19        Q.   Now, in P65 it's noted that in that grid, 9390, there are 263

20     buildings, of which 207 were damaged believed due to Operation Storm, at

21     least according to P65; is that correct?

22        A.   That is correct.

23        Q.   Now, I know this is a satellite image, but it doesn't appear to

24     me on this map that there are any homes in 9390?

25        A.   That is correct, and that is why -- like we discussed yesterday,

Page 2667

 1     that particular report was -- asked the team to be more accurate on

 2     reporting that.  But it ...

 3        Q.   And that was a clear miss, wasn't it?

 4        A.   That was a clear miss, yeah.

 5        Q.   Let's go back to P176 for a moment.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kuzmanovic.

 7             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I noticed that on the first of your maps Plavno is

 9     located rather close to the WJ9390, whereas on the other map it's just in

10     the right top corner --

11             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Yes, Your Honour --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  -- of that grid.

13             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  It is a Google map, Your Honour, so if there is

14     some -- Plavno in either respect -- in either of the photos does not

15     appear within the grid 9390.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  I do agree, but on different places --

17             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  It does --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  -- which surprises, as well, isn't it?

19             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  It is a little surprising, Your Honour, but it

20     is a close-up view, so I'm attributing that to the computer graphic

21     rather than any big margin of error.  May I proceed, Your Honour?

22             JUDGE ORIE:  You may proceed, but just for you to know that it

23     surprises me that on the first picture we find Plavno in the

24     south-western part of the adjacent grid, and on the next one we find it

25     in the north-eastern area.  At least that's --

Page 2668

 1             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I think, Your Honour, if --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  And at the same time, it could be that the first one

 3     refers to what appears to be a village, but at least the location where

 4     Plavno is indicated on the map is different.

 5             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Yes, I would agree with that, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed.

 7             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  If we could go -- we're at -- Your Honour, I'd

 8     like to move this -- these photos in evidence with the -- obviously with

 9     the stipulation that Plavno is not in 9390.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  The stipulation is different from tendering the

11     document into evidence.

12             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Sure.  I guess --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Because whether Plavno -- it might be - I could not

14     exclude for the possibility looking at it closer - that the Plavno

15     village is rather close to WJ9390, whereas the other grid reference, I

16     have not seen that it bears any other name yet.

17             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Certainly, and I'll get to that.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  So perhaps the stipulation is a bit early.

19             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Okay, Your Honour.  No problem.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo.

21             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, I have no objection to the document

22     being admitted for purposes of what it's been referenced to in the

23     transcript, so long as there is not some understanding that the objection

24     is somehow -- that a lack of objection is adopting the accuracy of what

25     this indicates.

Page 2669

 1             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  No, I don't have a problem with that.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Its admissibility.  So therefore, Madam

 3     Registrar.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, this will be Exhibit  D175.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  D175 is admitted into evidence.

 6             Please proceed.

 7             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 8             Back to P176.  Back to P176, please, and we'll go to page 548207.

 9     I'll just reference the last three numbers from now on.

10        Q.   The bottom, roughly a little more than a third of this document,

11     references the area of Plavno, correct?

12        A.   That is true.

13        Q.   Is there any grid reference here that is a 9390 grid reference as

14     referenced in P65?  I'll reverse that question.  There is no 9390 grid

15     reference for Plavno on page 207 of P176, is there?

16        A.   That's correct.

17        Q.   And the same thing for page 208, which is the following page, the

18     first three -- the first three entries are for Plavno, and there is no

19     9390 grid reference, correct?

20        A.   That is correct.

21        Q.   Now, if we look at Plavno, if we go back to page 207, the last

22     four columns starting from the right, it goes Other, Partial Damage,

23     Totally Damaged, Number Of Buildings and that's the column I want to

24     focus on for this moment.  If you go to Plavno, the third entry, Bradisi,

25     has the number of buildings blank.  It has 0 totally damaged buildings

Page 2670

 1     and 41 partially damaged buildings, correct?

 2        A.   That's correct.

 3        Q.   How do you figure a percentage of damage when you don't have the

 4     number of buildings in the municipality?

 5        A.   You cannot do that.

 6        Q.   The same goes for two further entries below, being Markelo entry

 7     as two totally damaged buildings, but we don't know how many buildings

 8     there are there, correct?

 9        A.   That is correct.

10        Q.   And the same thing for the village of Petkovi.  It has 22

11     partially damaged buildings, no totally damaged buildings, but yet we

12     don't even know how many total buildings are there?

13        A.   That is correct.

14        Q.   So statistically it is not possible using at least the figures

15     you have in P176 to come to an accurate percentage of damaged buildings

16     vis-a-vis total buildings, correct?

17        A.   That can be stated this way.

18        Q.   I am correct?

19        A.   You are correct.

20        Q.   I would like you to go to page 208, please.  We have the same

21     situation in the Team Podkonje in the Palanka area?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   There are seven entries in the top third or so of the page or the

24     top half of the page that have no buildings in terms of number of

25     buildings damaged or -- strike that.

Page 2671

 1             There are no entries for number of buildings, yet we have entries

 2     for total damage and partial damage, don't we?

 3        A.   Yes, we do.

 4        Q.   And it's impossible, then, to determine a percentage?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kuzmanovic, you have made your point.  Of

 7     course, what would interest the Chamber is what effect that would have on

 8     the whole.  I mean, if it is 1 per cent of the number of buildings

 9     missing, then if we look at the totally damaged and partially damaged,

10     then we could make a further assessment on what impact this has on the

11     totality, apart from of course from the apparent imprecisions which

12     appear clearly.

13             Please proceed.

14             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, there are 414 total villages, and

15     there are 333 villages with the entry number of buildings left blank, yet

16     showing totally or partially damaged buildings, which is 8 per cent of

17     the total.  So I'm sure the Chamber can --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  This clearly is something the Chamber would expect

19     that the parties could agree upon.  This is just analysis of a document.

20     Whether that document is in other respects reliable or not of course is a

21     different question, but at least we have an impression without going

22     through it in detail ourselves.

23             Is that something, Mr. Russo, you check whether you could share

24     the views of Mr. Kuzmanovic in this respect?

25             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, we're happy to get together and do that.

Page 2672

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please do so.

 2             MR. KUZMANOVIC:

 3        Q.   And the other percentage that is not reflected accurately at

 4     least in P176, Mr. Anttila, is the fact that the number of buildings that

 5     were destroyed prior to Operation Storm are not included in the total

 6     percentage and are not taken out, correct?

 7        A.   That is correct.

 8        Q.   And we've already shown that there were several entries of

 9     buildings in municipalities that were primarily populated by Croatians

10     were destroyed, yet the other column was not marked Damage Prior To

11     Operation Storm, correct?

12        A.   That is correct.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  If the parties could also analyse this and see

14     whether they could reach an agreement on what impact this has, then the

15     Chamber would be assisted by interpreting these documents, exhibits which

16     are in evidence, and of course we would have to properly analyse them,

17     and the assistance of the parties would be appreciated in this respect.

18             MR. RUSSO:  Absolutely, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

20             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

21             Can we go to D171, please.

22        Q.   Do you have that in front of you, Mr. Anttila?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   We have the yellow arrow on the right which is the form -- excuse

25     me, which is P165, coming from the UNMO teams basically to you at UN

Page 2673

 1     Sector South HQ?

 2        A.   That is P65.

 3        Q.   Yes.  If I misspoke, I'm sorry.  P65?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Those all came to you, correct?

 6        A.   They came to me.

 7        Q.   Okay.  And you told us already that P65 basically is the guts of

 8     your statistical analysis, correct?

 9        A.   That is correct.

10        Q.   And we only have one page of all of the hundreds of pages of P65s

11     for the analysis, correct?

12        A.   We only have one page out of the at least 414 which would be the

13     number of the villages included in the survey, yes.

14        Q.   And you already told us that P65 at least was done wrong,

15     correct?

16        A.   That particular one, yes.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I have no further questions, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

20             Cermak Defence still same position, no need to --

21             MR. KAY:  No questions, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Russo.  Yes.  Judge Gwaunza would have a

23     question for you first.

24             JUDGE GWAUNZA:  Yes, Mr. Anttila.  Going back to or referring to

25     the sitreps, daily sitreps, and their reference or references to

Page 2674

 1     buildings damaged or burning, can I ask would you know whether in giving

 2     those figures they would include, for instance, the number of buildings

 3     or structures that may have been burning or that may have been burnt

 4     within one homestead?  In other words, I'm asking whether if a team

 5     visited one homestead where there's a house in other smaller structures

 6     outside and they found that the house and the structures were burning, in

 7     their reports would they say five structures were burning or would they

 8     say one, referring to the homestead?

 9             THE WITNESS:  To my understanding, the teams were considering

10     houses as houses where people would be living, so they were not

11     considering sheds for the livestock and so on.  That was their task

12     anyway.

13             JUDGE GWAUNZA:  Thank you.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo.

15             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Your Honours.

16                           Re-examination by Mr. Russo:

17        Q.   Mr. Anttila, I just want to take you back through some of the

18     areas covered on cross-examination, and I'll try to work backwards.

19             Form P65, the data-collection form that we've referenced and

20     Mr. Kuzmanovic has indicated is the only one and clearly is the only one

21     that we here in evidence, you gave that to our office from where?  Is

22     that the only one that you kept?

23        A.   That is -- because that was not in the file where the ones that

24     the compilation of the data was kept, so I had -- that was an extra one

25     because it had been -- task had been returned back to the team, so that

Page 2675

 1     was not put into the file where the other ones were, and that's how I

 2     ended up having that particular one with me instead of it being in the

 3     files that were given in to -- in Zagreb to UN organization.

 4        Q.   Thank you.

 5             MR. RUSSO:  And if we could please, Madam Registrar, pull up

 6     P176, and move to the page ending in 8207.

 7        Q.   Now, Mr. Anttila, you were asked by Mr. Kuzmanovic whether or not

 8     any of these entries indicated the grid square reference WJ9390, and I

 9     want to focus your attention on, for example, the entry of Palanka in

10     Plavno, which is I believe the fifth one from the bottom there.

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And that entry indicates WJ937930.

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Can you explain how that relates to or if it relates to WJ9390 as

15     a location?

16        A.   Well, it's close to that.

17        Q.   Is it within it or near it or something like that?

18        A.   9390 is by the grid number that is three -- there is a

19     three-number difference between 90 and 93, so that would mean distance of

20     about 3 kilometres in that way.

21        Q.   Thank you.  You were also asked on cross-examination I believe --

22     this was pointed out by Mr. Kehoe regarding instances where UNMOs had

23     encountered individuals in uniform looting and that when confronted these

24     individuals simply stopped looting and went away.  Do you recall that?

25        A.   I recall that, yes.

Page 2676

 1        Q.   And can you give the Court any idea of the frequency of that type

 2     of occurrence as -- in relation to the number of times that individuals

 3     in uniform were witnessed looting?

 4             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, I would say with the caveat if he knows.

 5             MR. RUSSO:

 6        Q.   If you know.

 7        A.   I don't have information how many times that would have happened.

 8     It happened on occasions, but there were reports of occasions when there

 9     is no mention about what happened after these people were confronted.

10        Q.   Did you ever have any discussions with any UNMOs who in fact did

11     intervene in instances of looting?

12        A.   Yes, we did, and the reports -- or the discussions led to the

13     conclusion that I just said, that in some cases they stopped, and that's

14     hearsay information that in some cases they did not stop.

15        Q.   And were you given any specific instructions with regard to

16     whether or not UNMOs should attempt to intervene or not?

17        A.   Well, the information that we had was that we were allowed to

18     talk to people but we could not physically stop them from doing whatever

19     they were doing because we did not have the authority physically to do

20     anything.

21        Q.   Thank you.  You were also referred to a sitrep in which it

22     indicated that a Croatian army liaison officer on or about the 2nd of

23     October, 1995, requested information or requested that UNMOs provide

24     information about the crimes they were witnessing immediately to a local

25     police department.  Do you have any information about whether or not the

Page 2677

 1     Croatian army liaison officers asked UNMOs to do that prior to the 2nd of

 2     October, 1995?

 3        A.   I don't have any information on that.

 4        Q.   I'd also like to just clarify something at -- transcript at page

 5     19, I believe it's lines 14 through 17, and this was -- if I can move to

 6     it.  You were asked a question in regards to the UNMO damage survey.  It

 7     says:  "Let us turn our attention to -- well, in that particular document

 8     you have 3.000 buildings and 3.000 buildings being destroyed within that

 9     grid reference of a kilometre by a kilometre, right?"

10             And your answer was:  "That's true."

11             What I'm asking you to clarify is, are you saying that all 3.000

12     buildings were in a one-square-kilometre area?

13        A.   No.

14        Q.   What exactly do you mean by that?

15        A.   I mean by that that what is true there is that there -- in the

16     report there -- the numbers are correct.  The Korenica, which is the

17     case, was considered with that one grid reference to be included in that

18     general area of the grid reference.

19        Q.   Thank you.  You were also shown a population census document by

20     Mr. Kehoe, and that population census was from 1991.  Was that -- the

21     document you were shown, was that the one you were using with regard to

22     the UNMO damage survey, something from 1991?

23        A.   Well, this particular list is in a different format.

24        Q.   I believe your - and correct me if I'm wrong - your supplemental

25     witness statement, which I believe is P173, if we could turn to that,

Page 2678

 1     where it indicates at paragraph 39, and it is the second paragraph there.

 2     I would ask you to take a look at that once it comes up on the screen and

 3     tell me whether or not you recall if the survey you looked at was a

 4     survey from 1991.

 5             MR. KEHOE:  If I may clarify, Judge.  The survey is from the

 6     census of 1991, but the book itself is out of Zagreb in 1993.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  That's what we see at the cover page.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Russo.

10             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Your Honour.

11        Q.   And with that understanding, are you -- are you indicating --

12     well, is that the same survey that you used for this particular UNMO

13     damage survey?  I'm trying to find out if they're the same document that

14     we're talking about.

15        A.   It says there that, so to say, the official Krajina records,

16     which means that it probably was based on the same information but it was

17     produced in a way that it appeared to be by the former Krajina document.

18        Q.   Thank you.

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

20     P62.

21        Q.   Now, Mr. Anttila, while that document is being pulled up, you

22     were shown a map which indicated that Mr. Munkelien circled a different

23     area in Knin where he believes the crater analysis that the two of you

24     did together was performed.

25        A.   Yes.

Page 2679

 1        Q.   And I'd like you to please, if you can, assist the Court in

 2     trying to determine which area is correct, and what I'd like you to do

 3     is, if you're able and if you have a specific recollection of that

 4     particular neighbourhood where you say the crater analysis was conducted,

 5     were you familiar with it?  Is there anything there that sticks out in

 6     your mind?

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  I'm not clear on the question.  Are we asking to

 9     redraw the map that we had before after the witness has been shown that

10     Mr. Munkelien picked another location?  I mean, is counsel attempting to

11     impeach a prior witness?  I'm not certain where we are here, but I

12     thought there is a very clear record to contrast that Mr. Munkelien

13     picked out a location that was different than the location picked out by

14     Mr. Anttila.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Therefore, it's of utmost importance to see

16     whether we have any clue to find out who was right and who was wrong or

17     whether the two of them were wrong, not to say that the two of them were

18     right.

19             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, sir.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Russo.

21             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Your Honour.

22             And, Madam Registrar, if we could please enlarge the area

23     directly below where it says Knin General Supply, and just a bit more if

24     that's all right.  Thank you.

25        Q.   Mr. Anttila, you'll recall generally directly below where it

Page 2680

 1     indicates Knin General Supply, that neighbourhood is where you indicated

 2     the crater analysis was conducted, correct?

 3        A.   That is correct.

 4        Q.   And what I'd like -- and I understand Mr. Kehoe's concern.  I'm

 5     not -- certainly not going to be asking him to redraw a certain location.

 6     What I'm asking him if there is anything about that particular area if he

 7     has a specific recollection of what he saw during that crater analysis

 8     that could assist the Court to determine whether it was actually there or

 9     whether Mr. Munkelien may actually be correct?

10        A.   Well, I remember that the houses were high-rise apartment

11     buildings, so they had several storeys, and they were of a shape not like

12     a block but different balconies and, you know, parts coming from the

13     direct wall outside and -- so these houses in the middle of the picture,

14     to the best of my knowledge, is the place where we did the crater

15     analysis.  I don't know why Mr. Munkelien is of a different opinion, but

16     I'm still saying that to my recollection that was the place where we

17     were.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, is there any way that the witness could

19     be more precise because he circled the -- well, not to say a large area,

20     but at least quite an area.  Perhaps we could ask the witness to see

21     whether he has any recollection on how they -- I don't know whether you

22     went there coming from your headquarters or returning to your

23     headquarters, but if he would have come from the headquarters he might

24     have any recollection or as to how they drove when crossing the railway,

25     for example.  Is there -- do you remember whether it was upon

Page 2681

 1     returning --

 2             THE WITNESS:  Yeah, we were coming from the direction where

 3     Mr. Munkelien circled the area.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 5             THE WITNESS:  So we came past --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  So were --

 7             THE WITNESS:  -- the army barracks and then entered the

 8     residential house area, and when we drove there, we drove in -- into

 9     the -- between the houses, and it was a slope going a little bit down --

10     downwards going into the yard, so basically if you can -- if you can

11     still enlarge the picture a little bit more.

12             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, at this point I would ask for the

13     assistance of the court usher, and perhaps we can simply produce another

14     map which might indicate his route.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's a possibility, but perhaps we first

16     follow the suggestion of the witness.  If someone could put the cursor on

17     this photograph so to see -- if you could guide us, Mr. Anttila, with

18     more precision because you're now not just referring to an area but you

19     are saying that it was between the houses.  Could you assist the usher in

20     moving the cursor in such a way that we come as close as to where you

21     think the crater was found.

22             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  If you go directly downwards, stop, a little

23     bit up, about there.  That was -- I would say after all this time that

24     probably we were between those two houses.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

Page 2682

 1             Now, I might be mistaken, but it looks to me - but I've never

 2     been there - that you're now pointing to an area where there appears some

 3     trees between blocks of houses -- oh, no, it all --

 4             THE WITNESS:  These three houses that are in different directions

 5     than the ones on the top and on the bottom.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Is there any way that -- yes, I see at this moment

 7     the cursor being at the beginning of what appears to me to be a row of

 8     structures --

 9             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  -- with -- I don't know what's there on the roofs,

11     but might be chimneys or something else.

12             THE WITNESS:  Mm-hmm.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  And adjacent to it, it looks as if there's a place

14     with what looks to me to be three rows of trees.  Is that --

15             THE WITNESS:  No, those are houses.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Those are houses.  Okay.  That's fine.  So that's

17     one row, that's another row, and there we have three rows of houses.

18             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Of apparently irregular shape.

20             THE WITNESS:  Irregular shape.  Yeah.  That's one of the things

21     that if I close my eyes and think about that incident I can still

22     remember the look of the houses being about that type.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, do you remember whether you left the road

24     because from where Witness Munkelien indicated the crater impact was

25     going down to the place where you crossed the railroad, this seems to

Page 2683

 1     be -- do you remember whether you stayed on that road going to the

 2     railway bridge or whether you left that road?

 3             THE WITNESS:  Well, coming past the north barracks and then we

 4     turned left towards the -- on the road that I would say goes towards the

 5     text "Knin general supply," and then we turned from there to ride into

 6     that residential house area.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  And do you remember what made you make this detour

 8     more or less?

 9             THE WITNESS:  Well, we were generally looking for different

10     places.  We were going through the area, and we tried to cover area

11     that -- so that we could have some kind of impression of what would have

12     happened, and then you could see that there was some -- in that location

13     you could see that there had been some impacts and shrapnels had hit the

14     walls and so on, and we just got --  to my recollection we just got

15     interested to see what had happened there.  There was a car parked

16     outside there, a blue Jugo, which had been hit by the shrapnels and ...

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

18             Mr. Russo.

19             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Your Honour.

20             I have no further questions for this witness.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

22             Have the questions in re-examination raised any need to put

23     further questions to the witness?

24             MR. KEHOE:  No, Your Honour.

25             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, it has for me, just briefly.

Page 2684

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Kuzmanovic.

 2                           Further cross-examination by Mr. Kuzmanovic:

 3        Q.   Mr. Anttila, P176, page 207.  I'll wait for it to get up.  You

 4     were asked some questions about the Plavno grid references or the grid

 5     reference.  Mr. Anttila, can you explain why in Plavno there are out of

 6     250 total buildings listed, 271 are listed as totally or partially

 7     destroyed or damaged, meaning that there's more damaged or

 8     partially-damaged buildings than there are total buildings?

 9        A.   I cannot explain that.

10        Q.   Do you realize that your survey, Dead On Population Left And

11     Destroyed Houses After Operation Storm, was used and given to the

12     international community to put pressure and criticize Croatia about these

13     numbers?

14        A.   When compiling this information, that aim was not information

15     that was -- would have been with us.  So we did not compile that

16     information for that reason.

17        Q.   Okay.  Did you come back then and -- after -- did you ever

18     determine that it was used in that fashion?

19        A.   I would say that we got that information when the reports were

20     sent in that it was used in that fashion, yes.

21        Q.   Did you ever come back and say, Gee, we never subtracted the

22     amount of the buildings that were destroyed between 1991 and 1995 before

23     Operation Storm?

24        A.   We did not do that.

25        Q.   Thank you.  That's all I have.

Page 2685

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. -- could I just follow your arithmetics about

 2     the --

 3             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Certainly, Your Honour, about Plavno.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, about Plavno.  Could you explain what --

 5             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  On the bottom of page -- the last third of page

 6     207, Your Honour, under number of buildings.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 8             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  We have 170 --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Plus 80.

10             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  -- plus 80 is 250.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

12             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  And then if we go to the next page, there are

13     no -- in the first three entries no buildings listed for Plavno.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Then all I did was I added the totally damaged

16     or partially-damaged buildings in the Plavno entries and came to 271.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So what I'm trying to understand your point --

18             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  The list --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  -- the point apparently being where you earlier

20     referred to percentages, that you now say how could -- you take into

21     account destroyed buildings where no existing buildings are mentioned.

22             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Correct.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's the same point as you made before, that

24     if you do not know whether there is a building -- if, for example, in P

25     etkovi we have 22 partly-damaged buildings.

Page 2686

 1             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Correct.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  This is a kind of arithmetics, of course.

 3     What you're actually says is that you should not rely on a building being

 4     destroyed or damaged if you have not counted the number of existing

 5     buildings?

 6             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  That's correct, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Because no one would expect that you could

 8     destroy a building which doesn't exist.

 9             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Right.  And it's hard to figure out what the

10     final percentage is if you don't have --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, the percentage issue you have dealt with which

12     I think was fully understood, but now you're doing more or less the same

13     drawing out a conclusion from the same shortcoming.

14             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.

16             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  No other questions.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  No further questions.

18                           Questioned by the Court:

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I would have one question for you, Mr. Anttila,

20     and I would like to have pulled up D83.  There we -- it's the picture of

21     the shell with the two persons.  Do you see it?

22        A.   Yes.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Could it be enlarged a bit.  Yes.

24             Now, you have seen this shell yourself at the time?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 2687

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, I'm trying to see what, I would say, almost

 2     this sculpture.  What it really is if you put it on the market-place it

 3     would be art.  Could I have the assistance of the usher with the cursor

 4     on the picture.

 5             Could it be moved to the bottom of the shell?  That's the bottom

 6     of the picture but not the bottom of the shell.  Yes, thank you.

 7             Could you slowly follow the line left up of the shell -- yes, up,

 8     the centre of the shell.  Yes.  Could you now follow further up same

 9     direction.  Yes.  Could you now follow the bending piece of metal.  Yes.

10     And now a little bit up to -- yes, up to there.

11             You have seen the trajectory I've chosen on this shell.  Now, the

12     very end of it, do you remember whether it -- this part of the shell,

13     whether I have chosen the right direction or the right trajectory, or

14     should I follow the curl which appears - Madam Usher, could you please

15     turn a bit to the upper left, upper left, yes, that one - is that the end

16     of the part I just followed ?

17        A.   Yes, that would be the end of that part that you just followed.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

19             Now, the whole of that trajectory from the bottom up till this

20     point indicated by the cursor at this moment, could you give me on the

21     basis of your recollection and perhaps refreshed by this picture, could

22     you give me an indication as to what the length of that curl and then

23     going down to the bottom would approximately be?

24        A.   The whole length of the --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  The whole length up -- down from the end of the curl

Page 2688

 1     where the cursor now is, then going down, going up again, and then

 2     following the body of the shell up to the bottom of it where we started

 3     our trajectory.

 4        A.   Okay.  I would say that the length would be something like the

 5     total length would be something like this, like a metre plus something.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  A metre plus?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, we learned from the details of the -- of the

 9     shells that the one you identified total length, so apart from what part

10     would be destroyed upon impact, would be 83 centimetres, which more or

11     less disqualifies this shell as being of the type you determined.  Could

12     you comment on that?

13        A.   When doing the crater analysis, the first aim is to define the

14     calibre of the weapon used, and then based on the information that we had

15     that time that calibre could be determined, and I didn't even think about

16     that, you know, when the determination of the rocket type was given out,

17     whether it was this or that type because of the calibre was the main

18     interest in this case.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And you were not aware that there were two

20     candidates, so to say, for a 128-millimetre projectile?

21        A.   Yeah, I was not aware of that.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  You were not aware of that at that time?

23        A.   No.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  And it was on the basis of the calibre that you

25     determined the --

Page 2689

 1        A.   Basis --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  -- shell time?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you for that answer.

 5             Is there any question arising from --

 6             MR. KEHOE:  No, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo.

 8             MR. RUSSO:  No, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Then this concludes your testimony, Mr. Anttila.  I

10     would like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague --

11             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  -- and for answering questions put to you by the

13     parties and by the Bench.

14             Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Anttila out of the

15     courtroom.

16             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

17                           [The witness withdrew].

18             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber would like to deliver a decision.  From

19     what I understand, the booths have been provided with the second version

20     of it.

21             The Chamber would like to deliver its decision on the

22     Prosecution's motion for Witness 69's testimony to be heard via video

23     conference link.

24             On the 29th of April, 2008, the Prosecution made an oral motion

25     to hear Witness 69's testimony via video conference link.  On the same

Page 2690

 1     day, all three Defence teams stated that they did not object to the

 2     Prosecution's request.

 3             On the 1st of May, 2008, the Prosecution filed a recent medical

 4     report for the witness.  On the same day, the Chamber reached a decision

 5     to grant the motion and informed the parties accordingly through an

 6     informal communication.

 7             According to Rule 81 bis of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and

 8     Evidence, a Chamber may order that proceedings be conducted by way of a

 9     video conference link if it is consistent with the interests of justice.

10     If the witness is unable to come to the Tribunal, if the testimony of the

11     witness is sufficiently important to make it unfair to the requesting

12     party to proceed without it, and if the accused is not prejudiced in the

13     exercise of his or her right to confront the witness, the test of Rule 81

14     bis has been met.

15             The examining medical doctor found that the witness, who is in

16     his late 70s, suffers or has suffered from various illnesses and

17     accordingly advised that the witness not undertake any longer trips.

18     Having carefully reviewed the witness's medical report provided by the

19     Prosecution, the Chamber finds that the witness is unable to travel to

20     The Hague to testify.

21             Since the witness is expected to testify about one of the

22     scheduled killing incidents alleged in the indictment, the shelling of

23     his village, and the looting and burning of houses, the Chamber is

24     satisfied that his testimony will be sufficiently important to make it

25     unfair to the Prosecution to proceed without it.

Page 2691

 1             Finally, the Defence has not argued and the Chamber does not find

 2     that the accused would be prejudiced in the exercise of their rights to

 3     confront the witness.  Consequently, the Chamber finds that it is

 4     consistent with the interests of justice to grant the Prosecution's

 5     request to hear Witness 69's testimony via video conference link, and the

 6     Prosecution's motion is therefore granted.

 7             This concludes the Chamber's ruling on this matter.

 8             Are there any procedural issues to be raised at this moment?  And

 9     parties should keep in mind that we are not sitting next week, so if you

10     don't use the opportunity now, you have to wait for ten days.  Nothing,

11     nor of the Prosecution nor of the Defence.

12             That means that -- yes, Mr. Misetic.

13             MR. MISETIC:  I arise at the last minute.  I did want to just

14     alert the Trial Chamber.  I know the Trial Chamber is aware of the

15     problem that I raised earlier in private session.  If the

16     Trial Chamber -- I don't know whose court the ball is in, whether you're

17     awaiting a motion from me, or I would await instruction from the Chamber

18     if it's sufficient.  I don't know if you wish to review the documents --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I think that the Chamber is informed about the

20     matter.  You communicated your problems with the Chamber in a rather

21     informal way, and to act proprio motu on behalf of that information, not

22     even knowing exactly -- what exactly your problem is - I do understand

23     it's about documents redacted - then of course you're not satisfied by

24     receiving redacted documents.

25             MR. MISETIC:  Correct.

Page 2692

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  And then of course for the Chamber to act, at least

 2     what we would have to know is whether the -- whether the redactions are

 3     as such that the Chamber would support further complaints.

 4             MR. MISETIC:  Yes.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  So therefore, I think the Chamber would expect you

 6     to come with more details than just -- and then perhaps ask the Chamber

 7     to further deal with the matter.  In what way it the matter could

 8     appropriately be dealt with, of course, is still to seen.  There are

 9     several options, issuing orders, hearing persons.  There are various ways

10     of dealing with the matter, and perhaps suggestions from the Defence

11     might assist the Chamber in reaching a conclusion in that respect as

12     well.

13             MR. MISETIC:  We will file a motion, Your Honour.  The reason I

14     raise it is I'm also aware the Chamber every time a document is submitted

15     with redactions raises that issue, as well, so I thought the Chamber may

16     have an interest in it, as well, but I will file the motion and then let

17     the Chamber deal with it appropriately.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Perhaps we can compare with previous

19     experiences in this respect, but to act just on the basis of general

20     information might not be the appropriate way to proceed.

21             You're also aware that if you file a motion that there's a fair

22     chance that the Chamber would not see it for the next ten days.  Yes.

23     Although, if there are really urgent matters, at least some members of

24     the Chambers are always available to deal with them, and if that's not

25     possible we still have Duty Judges to deal with matters.

Page 2693

 1             Then we adjourn -- and now I have to -- always have to

 2     calculate - today is the 2nd of May - until the Tuesday, the 13th of May.

 3     Madam Registrar, would we be in this same courtroom?  In a courtroom

 4     still to be announced, and I think we are sitting in the morning, but I'm

 5     not quite sure about that.  I take it that you'll find that on the court

 6     schedule, and Legal Officer will communicate to the parties whether we

 7     are sitting in the morning or in the afternoon and whether we are in --

 8     in which courtroom we will sit.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  I think it's Courtroom II in the morning.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Courtroom II in the morning.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  I think.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  To be corrected.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, we adjourn to resume in Courtroom II in the

15     morning of the 13th unless you receive notice of another courtroom and

16     another time.

17                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.27 p.m.,

18                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 13th day of

19                           May, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.