1 Tuesday, 20 January 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
8 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, The
9 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 There are two matters I'd like to raise. The first one being
12 that the Chamber invited, as I said, if possible submissions by the
13 parties in relation to where we exactly now stand and what still should
14 be done in the 54 bis application.
15 I don't think we have received anything from the parties yet
16 although there was a related issue.
17 MR. RUSSO: The Prosecution made its submissions late last night,
18 Your Honour.
19 MR. MISETIC: The same is true for the Gotovina Defence.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then I should have checked that, but that's done.
21 Then there was -- I a number here, P1265, that is another
22 excerpt, I think, but I'm a bit in doubt about the number. I was just
24 The new selection from this Dutch military --
25 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Your Honour. The Prosecution will be offering
1 no additional sections.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think there were two issues. First is
3 whether you wanted to add anything, and the second is what the section
4 exactly was. And could you remind me about the number, because I thought
5 it was P1265, but I'm a bit --
6 MR. KEHOE: I believe that's it, Judge.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If I look at P1265 in e-court I find a Knin
8 photo presentation rather than an excerpt from ... and there's a
9 surrogate sheet.
10 MR. RUSSO: I believe it must be D1265.
11 JUDGE ORIE: D, yes that of course makes sense. Let me just
12 check what we have at this moment. Yes, Netherlands army publication.
13 I then understand that the -- I have a 103-page document, and I
14 think part of it was already in evidence. I think it was pages 19 to 22,
15 or something like that. And another selection would be made and
16 Mr. Russo would express his views as to whether to add something.
17 Well, there is not much to be added if all 103 pages are in
19 Mr. Kehoe, what is your selection.
20 MR. KEHOE: My selection, Your Honour, if I can upload it right
22 JUDGE ORIE: We will hear from you then later this morning.
23 MR. KEHOE: [Overlapping speakers] ... I can give you the
24 selection and then Mr. Russo.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then Mr. Russo, then you really can answer the
1 question whether you want to add something, yes or no.
2 Having dealt with that matter, I think that we are ready to
3 continue with the witness.
4 Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into the
6 [The witness entered court]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Konings.
8 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Same procedure as the other days. I would like to
10 remind that you are still bound by the solemn declaration you gave at the
11 beginning of your testimony.
12 And Mr. Kehoe will now continue his cross-examination.
13 Mr. Kehoe.
14 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 WITNESS: HARRY KONINGS [Resumed]
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe: [Continued]
17 Q. Good morning, Colonel.
18 A. Good morning to you.
19 Q. Colonel, we want to go back to where we left off yesterday in
20 talking about P1125 which is Judge Gotovina [sic] order of 1 August 1995
21 that you referred to - General Gotovina - his order of 1 August 1995
22 So if we could do that and put that up on the screen.
23 I would like to take to you page 4 of this document just as a
24 reference point before we go to another document, Colonel, so we can put
25 this in context and towards the bottom of that page we are talking about
1 the task of the Split Military District and talking about carrying out a
2 joint offensive going to the last two lines "after the following task":
3 "In a vigorous attack with intense artillery and air support of
4 several axes directed at the main military and political transportation
5 features in the enemy's operational depth."
6 Now you read that to mean when you are talking about in the
7 operational depth, in this instance that would have been the town of
8 Knin, wouldn't it?
9 A. Yes. I think certainly that Knin belongs to the enemy's
10 operational depths.
11 Q. Now let's put this particular reference in context, and I want to
12 show you a document that I'm not certain if you have seen before and
13 reviewed some of the documents but it -- I'm not certain if you have
14 received this.
15 MR. KEHOE: If we could bring up D956.
16 Q. Colonel, this is a directive coming from the HV Main Staff dated
17 26 June 1995
18 Operation Oluja, or Storm.
19 Have you seen this, sir? Let's just page through it and maybe
20 give it a little context. That's page 1 where the Main Staff and in this
21 instance this is signed by General Bobetko.
22 A. I'm not quite certain about it. I don't think have I seen it,
23 but I cannot give you the full 100 percent.
24 Q. Okay. I'd just like to give you -- apologies. A bit of a feel
25 for this document, Colonel. This is the front page, talking about the
1 military situation.
2 And if we could just page through this and -- as you glance at
3 it, Colonel, please if you want to stop at any point to review it more
4 thoroughly, please say so.
5 Next page as towards the top it gives the status of the enemy.
6 If we can go to the next page.
7 The deployment of forces.
8 Next page is the decisions of the Main Staff.
9 If we can go to the next page. As we can see in point 3 on this
10 page, going over to the next page, we are talking about specific tasks
11 for the Split Military District.
12 Now, this is a normal type of directive coming from a Main Staff
13 being sent down to a commander, such as General Gotovina, on the
14 operational level, is it not?
15 A. As far as I have seen, yes.
16 Q. Okay. And let me just turn your attention to item 7, which is
17 the artillery and rocket support.
18 MR. KEHOE: And if we can just read that.
19 Q. "Artillery and rocket support shall be provided by 14th and 20th
20 artillery and rocket battalions and an additional 203-millimetre battery.
21 "The support should focus on neutralising the Republika Srpska
22 Army Main Staff and the 7 Corps command post in Knin, the brigade [sic]
23 command posts, concentrations on enemy manpower, armour, and artillery in
24 the area of Knin and Benkovac, including ammunition and fuel depots,
25 while [sic] the supporting the main forces in attack and preventing an
1 enemy counterattack from the direction of Knin, Kastel Zegarski and
3 So looking at this, General Gotovina is being ordered by the
5 artillery and rockets against specific military targets, isn't he?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. And when -- in this instances and you're using these
8 artillery and rocket systems, you are trying to direct them towards
9 specific military targets, aren't you?
10 A. As it is -- as described here, yes, you are.
11 Q. Well, let's take it one step further. I mean, using artillery
12 and rockets I mean you say yes, their Main Staff is doing that because
13 artillery and rocket systems are capable of being directed against
14 specific military targets, aren't they?
15 A. They are -- can be directed against any target.
16 Q. Now, taking this, when this comes down to General Gotovina, he
17 then comes up with the actual plan as to how to executed what the
18 Main Staff wants, knowing that he has been ordered by General Bobetko to
19 direct his artillery against these military objectives that have been
20 listed in paragraph 7 of D956; that's correct, isn't it?
21 A. I assume that that were his thoughts when he received this order.
22 I don't know what he thought, but I assume that he has been reading this
23 order, the complete order, and not only on the artillery support and that
24 he analysed it and that he took from this order the general task that
25 were given him by the -- by the overall staff, yes.
1 Q. Well, okay. You don't have any evidence to conclude that
2 General Gotovina did not follow General Bobetko's order?
3 A. No, no. I have no -- I assume that he analysed what he received
4 in a way that a military commander does.
5 Q. Let's turn your attention back to 1125. And 1125, General, again
6 this is -- this is General Gotovina's order on the 1st of August. I hate
7 to throw these numbers out without putting it in context, but that's what
8 it is.
9 MR. KEHOE: And if we could turn to page 14 of the document.
10 Q. Now, looking at this item, we again note that it's the use of the
11 various artillery pieces that are at the disposal of the Split Military
12 District that is noted in the initial item.
13 And then we move down to the tasks of the artillery rocket
15 "Groups and organise the TS and TRS-2 along the main attack axes
16 focus on providing the artillery support to the main forces in the
17 offensive operations through powerful strikes against the enemy [sic]
18 front line, command posts, communications centre, artillery firing
19 positions, and by putting the towns of Drvar, Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac,
20 Gracac under artillery fire. Create conditions to secure the flanks of
21 the units that are involved in the offensive operations along the main
23 Now when we read that, we know that the directive coming from the
24 Main Staff is that it should be directed towards the military targets,
25 objectives that we discussed in D956, the order from the Main Staff. And
1 looking at this particular order, General Gotovina lists the specific
2 items of interest for the Main Staff, command posts, communication
3 centres, artillery positions.
4 Now do you know, sir, whether -- let's put Knin aside, whether
5 command posts, communication centres and artillery firing positions
6 existed in Benkovac, Obrovac, and Gracac?
7 A. I don't know. I haven't studied the specifics of those cities.
8 Q. You note in your report at page 14 of -- this is paragraph 16,
9 page 14 of P1259, that you were unhappy with the specificity in the order
10 because you say that:
11 "It would give the green light to use the effect of harassment at
12 a maximum by firing randomly into named cities."
13 Have you seen any evidence and we'll talk to Knin at some length
14 have you seen any evidence that the artillery groups under the command --
15 under General Gotovina in the Split Military District fired randomly at
16 Drvar, Benkovac, Obrovac or Gracac?
17 A. I haven't seen that but did not state that it happened. I said
18 that the point is that by putting this sentence specifically in the order
19 you create the conditions that you allow commanders to do that.
20 Stronger, you order commanders to do that.
21 That's -- that's the point. And the intention may even be worse
22 than the actual fact of doing that.
23 Q. Well, sir, have you no evidence that it happened?
24 A. I do not have that, no.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe the witness answered that the question.
1 MR. KEHOE: That was a preface to a follow-up question.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Because I don't know how long you wouldn't to pursue
3 this matter, but it is clear from the report that this witness has no
4 information, at least as far as I understand, about what actually
5 happened. He stopped at the point of where he -- for what it is worth he
6 analysed and looked at the reports and formed the opinion about that.
7 MR. KEHOE: My comment with that, Judge, with that -- and I was
8 continuing on with the question, so ...
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
10 MR. KEHOE:
11 Q. You know, with that lack of evidence, sir, what we are talking
12 about here is you don't think that this order was written well enough or
13 certainly not according to the doctrine that you were educated in. Isn't
14 that right?
15 A. First of all, this is -- the way this specific sentence is
16 phrased here is not only -- not according to our doctrine. It is a
17 sentence that -- and I specifically mean on the sentence:
18 "And by putting the towns of Drvar, Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac and
19 Gracac under artillery fire," that is in our view and I consulted some
20 time ago my colleague who is a legal officer in our organisation is an
21 illegal entry in a document because in the first -- in the complete order
22 of General Gotovina is -- everything is focussed on the use of military
23 means against military targets, and I stated over and over again, I do
24 not have any problem with that because it seems to be a quite normal
25 regular order written according to the standards of the Croatian army
1 which is somewhat different than in NATO but the intention is the same.
2 And if you read the task of the artillery groups, it is in the
3 first part of that tasks it directs the artillery support against enemy
4 front line, absolutely normally. Command post, absolutely normal, and
5 consistent with the orders from the higher staff. Communication centre,
6 artillery firing positions, that's all normal; and that should include
7 the cities of Knin, Drvar as well because if a command post, a military
8 command post is in Knin, then it belongs to that general sentence. And
9 then suddenly out of the blue, as an extra, because it says, "And by
10 putting the towns of Drvar, Knin Benkovac Obrovac and Gracac under
11 artillery fire," I would expect there the sentence, comma, in order to
12 attack command post or specific military targets.
13 There is no explanation where this extra sentence is there. That
14 is the point.
15 Q. Well, let us analyse what you just said, Colonel, because a fair
16 reading of this quite clearly could be that the artillery groups were
17 ordered to come up with target lists in Drvar, Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac
18 and Gracac that were directed towards the enemy's front line, command
19 post, communication centres and artillery firing positions.
20 Isn't that correct?
21 A. Why not putting in that here?
22 Q. I'm not saying it is a perfect order, General. But isn't the
23 interpretation of this order a valid interpretation of the artillery
24 group and in fact what they did was go and look at the enemy front line,
25 the command posts, communication centres and artillery firing positions
1 in Drvar, Knin, Benkovac Obrovac and Gracac --
2 A. No.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
4 MR. RUSSO: My apologies. I wasn't sure if he was asking if that
5 is in fact what he did or putting to the witness that is, in fact, what
6 they did.
7 JUDGE ORIE: No. The objection is therefore not formulated and
8 neither could it stand.
9 Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
10 MR. KEHOE:
11 Q. Colonel, that is a more than fair interpretation of this order
12 that those particular military objectives were in those cities and that
13 General Gotovina was directing his subordinates to come up with target
14 lists consistent with that for those locations; isn't that right?
15 A. Sir, with all due respect I don't think that this is -- I do not
16 have that opinion. I read this in the following way that it is put there
17 as an extra order on top of whatever -- what already has been said in the
18 same sentence command post, communication centre, artillery firing
19 positions because the phrasing is such putting a town under artillery
20 fire without any further explanation, without any reference to the rest
21 of the sentence, that it is and an extra order. And that order, at least
22 in the information that I have, is -- is on no place specified because in
23 order to means that you formulate a clear effect, and I have seen some
24 target lists, we have debated about that in the past days. Those target
25 list didn't gave also no effect, and I think we have to realise when you
1 put out an order that you have to put a town under artillery fire, that
2 you have to be very, very clear in what you mean by that. Because why
3 mentioning that powerful strikes should be done against command post,
4 communication centre, artillery firing positions, and then suddenly say,
5 And by putting ... why not specify it there? I think that's crucial.
6 Q. Sir, I understand that -- that you -- you're -- I understand that
7 you disagree with the terminology and I understand what you're saying is
8 that you if you, in the Royal Dutch Army, were doing this, you would have
9 been more specific, right?
10 A. We would never use the term put a town under artillery
11 cease-fire. No way.
12 Q. Would you be specific?
13 A. We would very specific.
14 Q. That's pursuant -- excuse me, General, we're going too fast.
15 And would you be more specific because that would be done
16 pursuant to both your doctrine and your rules of engagement; correct?
17 A. It has not only to do with doctrine and it has not only to do
18 with specific the rules of engagement. It has do with the way do you
19 your command. It has to do with the fact that once you make such generic
20 phrase in an order, in a mixed, in a complex situation like war is,
21 underlying commanders may understand wrong what is happening here, what
22 is meant from them. What is asked from them. Because specifically when
23 you translate this in a certain way, in this sentence, the order is
24 giving to fire at civilian targets.
25 Q. Were you aware that prior to this order that the towns of Knin,
1 Benkovac, and Obrovac and Gracac - put Drvar aside - those towns were off
2 limits to HV artillery, pursuant to their rules of engagement. Were you
3 aware of that?
4 A. You mine before the Operation Storm started.
5 Q. Before Operation Storm?
6 A. I did not know that.
7 Q. Okay. Now, if those towns were off limits this order is
8 specifically notifying the artillery officers that you're now getting
9 permission to fire on those towns that were previously off limits,
10 firstly; and secondly, that you are to fire on the military objective
11 listed in this paragraph?
12 A. Sir, with all respect it does not state it. It does not refer in
13 the whole order that restrictions are taken away and I would expect that
14 to be referred to at least. And it still gives very simple but putting
15 in the word "and by," gives the authority to shell a complete city. It
16 doesn't refer to the previous parts of that sentence because the word
17 "and by putting" is used.
18 I do not understand why such a sentence added to here without any
19 explanation as an extra to the already mentioned command post,
20 communication centre, and artillery firing positions because it
21 introduces in this task a new element, a non-explained element, which
22 again I told before, which has the possibility that artillery is directed
23 against non-military targets.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe --
25 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: We've --
2 MR. KEHOE: I'm moving to another subject.
3 Q. Let's take this order and let's go further.
4 As a commander and you as an officer and General Gotovina as an
5 officer, when you give an order you as a senior officer are entitled to
6 presume that your subordinates are going to carry out that order in
7 accordance with the laws of armed conflict; isn't that correct?
8 A. I presume I know it for the fact of my own organisation. I
9 cannot look into the head of General Gotovina or Croatian officers.
10 Q. Well, the General -- the General accepted military practical that
11 you're familiar with, not only in NATO but throughout the world, is that
12 a senior officer unless he has evidence that his artillery group in this
13 instance that been randomly shelling civilian targets he is allowed to
14 presume that they are operating in accordance with the laws of armed
15 conflict; right?
16 A. Then I do not understand why you -- why you create such a
17 misunderstanding or such a very vague order in order to avoid, as I said,
18 misunderstandings and complications in a complex operation.
19 Q. I don't mean to cut you off, sir, but that is not my question,
20 with all due respect.
21 My question is: And if we look back at -- I don't want to repeat
22 the whole thing, on line 14 it's on the screen there: That general
23 accepted military practice, that you're familiar with, not only in NATO
24 but throughout the world. Is that a senior officer unless he has
25 evidence that his artillery group in this instances has been randomly
1 shelling civilian targets he is allowed to presume that they are
2 operating according with the laws of armed conflict.
3 Isn't that correct?
4 A. I can only answer the question for my own army. I will -- so I
5 will not answer this question. I'm not able to answer your question.
6 Q. Well, let's look at what General Gotovina did because you didn't
7 discuss this in your report. We take this particular order and let's --
8 if we go two lines down, he notes that in line with the established
10 Do you see that?
11 "The chiefs of artillery in the operations group shall devise
12 artillery plans of use and plans of action each for the representative TS
13 artillery or for their MRL
14 So General Gotovina is giving them specific orders to come up
15 with an artillery plan that entails artillery lists tabular textual
16 lists, et cetera; is that right?
17 A. That's what the order says.
18 Q. Okay. Why don't you explain to the Court how this process goes
19 for the artillery group and the mapping, the coming up with the tabular
20 textual coordinates, et cetera, talk to us about that procedure that
21 General Gotovina is ordering?
22 A. Well, this in fact means that the underlying artillery groups,
23 and I expect in combination with manoeuvre forces, plan the whole
24 operation, which means they -- they go into the -- the expected enemy,
25 the expected enemy behaviour. They put against that their own courses of
1 action that they have planned to do, and by doing that, they start
2 preparing a list of planned targets, targets that are important that they
3 expect to see on a certain moment in time on a certain location, and they
4 start formulating for each of those targets what they want to do about it
5 in that phase of the operation.
6 And those targets are listed in what we call target lists or a
7 target matrix or whatever it is; and that list specifies the target, the
8 behaviour of the target, the elements of the target. It specifies most
9 and for all the effect that you want to achieve on that target, and it
10 can combine the delivery means that you want to use against it. It is a
11 broad target matrix what you achieve then. And those lists are used as a
12 basis forever the plan target because you also have the planned or
13 prepared targets but you have also unplanned target by opportunity and
14 that are the targets that pop up once are you in the battlefield and you
15 are fighting and something occurs that you didn't -- what you were not
16 able to plan for.
17 So what is said here in line with the established groups, the
18 chiefs of artillery and operating groups shall devise artillery plans of
19 use and plans of action, in itself, is a normal procedure.
20 Q. Now, you would expect from this -- by the way, before we go down
21 the process from there. I mean, do you have any evidence or have you
22 been shown any evidence that General Gotovina's subordinates
23 misunderstood this order to mean shell civilian targets or that they had
24 a green light to shell civilian targets?
25 A. Well, in the underlying artillery order they in a separate line,
1 not in the text but as a separate order they just repeated that, and in
2 the target list that have I been shown I haven't seen anything back of
3 that. I haven't seen any effects. I only have seen some targets that --
4 well, we debated that: Hospital, church, medical stations.
5 But when you give the order, shell the city of Knin, you don't
6 need to specify that.
7 Q. Okay putting aside this particular order you haven't shown any
8 other documentation or seen any other documentation that noted there was
9 some green light to attack civilian targets.
10 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I think that question has already been
11 asked and answered. I only say that this order could imply that.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
13 THE WITNESS: I'm not suggesting that. I'm not suggesting that.
14 I only say that this order could imply that. Sorry.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo wants to intervene then we should give him
16 an opportunity to do so.
17 Mr. Russo.
18 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I was just making the objection that
19 that question had been asked already an answered.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And -- well, the questions are slightly
21 different now and then but are apparently seeking similar or the same
22 answers, and I earlier indicated --
23 MR. KEHOE: We will move ahead, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and moving ahead means also making progress and
25 leaving behind you what is said.
1 MR. KEHOE: Yes, sir.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
3 MR. KEHOE:
4 Q. Now let turn to the document that was -- the Prosecution put in,
5 the map, P1274.
6 Now, sir, this is the type of planning map that you would expect
7 to see that indicates the general areas that you want to put indirect
8 fire into, and I'm talking about the squares; is that right?
9 A. Yes, that's right.
10 Q. And I think you focussed on the ones down that are down in the
11 Knin area and during cross we talked about many others.
12 Now within those squares you then would expect individual targets
13 to be identified with the grid coordinates; isn't that right?
14 A. This overlay is a part of the whole operational plan or the
15 artillery plan and you have at one hand an overlay and at the other hand
16 that's combined with the target list and the target list gives you the
18 Q. And what we do is we go from the macro, the large plan, and move
19 down the steps to the next item, which is P1271. Putting aside your
20 disagreement of the terminology on church and hospital, this is the type
21 of target list with the grid coordinates you would expect to take from
22 the larger map, down to a table that identifies the targets with grid
23 coordinates; right?
24 A. With the exception that in this type of list there is nowhere an
25 effect required mentioned. So I cannot really judge what -- what the
1 troops had to achieve here.
2 Q. Well, when you say effect, that's something that your doctrine
3 requires in an order. There is no law of armed conflict that requires an
4 order to have effect?
5 A. No.
6 Q. So just going down to this particular target list this is what
7 you would expect to see.
8 And then if we go to P1272, this is yet a further artillery prep
9 document with those coordinates and the time of actual fire.
10 So, Colonel, going back to P1125, page 14, towards the bottom of
11 the page, from the evidence that you saw, in fact General Gotovina's
12 subordinates did in fact follow his order and the chiefs of artillery
13 devised artillery plannings and use and plans of action for each of their
14 respective units or the artillery groups; isn't that right?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
16 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I'm going to object because the question
17 is based on the assumption that what he has been shown the map and the
18 two target lists were drawn up by the chiefs of artillery. I don't think
19 that has been put to the witness.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from that, Mr. Kehoe, what exactly are you
21 seeking? Are you seeking the witness to interpreter this document.
22 MR. KEHOE: Of course, [Overlapping speakers] ... that given what
23 he has been shown that he can conclude that General Gotovina's
24 subordinates followed his orders, came up with the artillery plan with a
25 map, tabular textual sheets that have grid coordinate, et cetera.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whether at least it was reported to him what
2 they done and that whether this witness agrees that this was in line with
3 the order given.
4 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could you answer the question. If you need more
6 time to read it, tell us. If not, please answer the question.
7 THE WITNESS: Everything you showed me, as far as my opinion is,
8 my judgement of the operational order is in line with the order with the
9 exception of any logic explanation of the sentence, and by putting the
10 towns of Knin under artillery fire. Because the task of the artillery
11 group is clearly stated, support main forces in offensive operations
12 through powerful strikes against the enemy front line, command post,
13 communication centres, artillery positions.
14 For that purpose, that is it clear enough because they are all
15 military targets. That is clear enough. For all that purpose, target
16 lists have been build, plans have been made, maps have been drawn.
17 That's all very logic. But those plans that I have been shown, those
18 artillery target lists that I have been shown do not reflect the point by
19 putting the towns of Drvar, Knin under artillery fire. I think that is
20 an extra, understand necessary order that is given in this and is not
21 reflected in the points that you showed me.
22 That is my opinion, whatever you think about that.
23 MR. KEHOE:
24 Q. So let's go to P64 for our final document on this score.
25 Once again, looking at Colonel Hjertnes's conclusions that the --
1 the general shelling was concentrated against military objectives and if
2 we look back -- and this is just for Knin. And if we look back at the
3 order, the order says to hit command posts, communication centres,
4 artillery positions. What in fact happened in Knin was that military
5 objectives, pursuant to this order, command posts, communication centres,
6 and artillery positions, were in fact hit by the HV and according to
7 General Hjertnes they were all concentrated -- not all. They were
8 concentrated around those targets; isn't that right, sir?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
10 MR. RUSSO: I object to this question because the P64 clearly
11 doesn't indicate and Hjertnes is not indicating that command posts,
12 communication centres, or artillery positions were hit.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, you're asking again, again to the witness
14 what happened. And I already tried to assist you in rephrasing your last
15 question because this witness apparently has no personal observation. He
16 can read the documents as we can do. And then, of course, you could ask
17 him whether this document is an indication for a report that is in line
18 with. That's something which could be understood.
19 But you ask him again and again, Isn't this what happened? He
20 apparently doesn't know.
21 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
22 JUDGE ORIE: But if you phrase your questions correctly, you will
23 certainly avoid any objections by Mr. Russo and, of course, the point is
24 perfectly clear what keeps you and Mr. Konings divided.
25 MR. KEHOE: I understand.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That point is perfectly clear. So --
2 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I understand and if I ask one last
3 question, I will sit down and you won't hear from for the rest of the
5 JUDGE ORIE: That's not what I'm aiming ago.
6 MR. KEHOE: I understand I'm just being --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, and I'm responding with just a similar
8 smile on my face as I see on yours.
9 Please proceed.
10 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
11 Q. General -- Colonel, apologies. You can be a General, I believe
12 you. Just promoted you.
13 A. Thank you very much.
14 Q. Colonel, isn't paragraph 2 in P64 an indication that when they
15 were firing on Knin, the firing was on command posts, communication
16 centres, artillery positions, such as was ordered by General Gotovina in
17 P1125. Isn't that an indication of that?
18 A. It is it only an indication that the fire was concentrated
19 against military objectives. I do not know which objectives. I really
20 don't know, and it also says that there is damage caused to civilian
22 And I would clearly like to disconnect this -- what happened in
23 practice, with the intention that I read in the order of General Gotovina
24 with that specific sentence.
25 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, might I just have one moment?
1 [Defence counsel confer]
2 MR. KEHOE:
3 Q. And one last question, Colonel.
4 Your knowledge concerning General Gotovina's intentions in these
5 regards are strictly what you read or what you have been provided by the
6 OTP. You don't have any other information on that, do you?
7 A. I do not have any other information.
8 Q. Colonel, thank you very much. You have been very patient with my
9 questions, and I appreciate it.
10 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President. I have no further questions.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kehoe.
12 No cross-examination by the Cermak Defence.
13 Mr. Kuzmanovic for the Markac Defence.
14 Mr. Konings, Mr. Kuzmanovic is counsel for Mr. Markac, and he'll
15 now cross-examine you.
16 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Cross-examination by Mr. Kuzmanovic:
18 Q. Good morning, Mr. Konings.
19 A. Good morning.
20 Q. Colonel, it's fair is it not to state that in the reports that
21 you were provided there is no opinion critical of, or even discussion of,
22 or an awareness of the Ministry of Interior special police and their use
23 of artillery in Operation Storm; that's correct, is it not?
24 A. That's correct, sir.
25 Q. Do you know who, if anyone, controlled the use of artillery for
1 the Ministry of Interior special police in its axis of attack?
2 A. No, sir, I do not know.
3 Q. Were you even aware that the Ministry of Interior special police
4 had artillery at its disposal in its axis of attack?
5 A. No, sir. I concentrated fully on those aspects that we discussed
6 before, the three days.
7 Q. It's fair to state that the Office of the Prosecutor in this case
8 never spoke to you about any specific issues relating to the use of
9 artillery in Operation Storm by the special police.
10 A. Not that I can recall now, no.
11 Q. Were you -- did the Office of the Prosecutor speak with you at
12 any point in time about the testimony of a gentleman by the name of
13 Josip Turkalj? Does that name ring a bell to you?
14 A. No, not at the moment, no. No.
15 Q. It's fair to say that you don't flow who Josip Turkalj is;
17 A. I have no include.
18 Q. Did the Office of the Prosecutor at any point in time discuss
19 with you the testimony of a gentleman by the name of Mile Sovilj?
20 A. No.
21 Q. And again it's fair to say that are you unaware of who
22 Mile Sovilj is; correct?
23 A. That's fair to state.
24 Q. Your report made a fairly long analysis regarding artillery use
25 in Knin. There is no analysis in your report of the use of artillery in
1 Gracac, Obrovac, or Benkovac; correct?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. As a result, you do not know whether or not there were any
4 civilian casualties as the result of artillery use in Gracac, Obrovac, or
5 Benkovac; correct?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. And you were not aware of what collateral damage occurred, if
8 any, as the result of the use of artillery in Gracac, Obrovac, or
9 Benkovac; correct?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. At no point in time during the course of the Operation Storm did
12 the military of the ARSK or their civilian authorities proclaim any of
13 the cities in Sector South, in particular, to be a free or open city;
15 A. I haven't been reading such a text in any of the documents that I
17 Q. Other than in Knin, did the Office of the Prosecutor make you
18 aware of any military targets in places like Gracac, Benkovac, or Otocac?
19 A. No.
20 Q. There was some discussion regarding Exhibit P1273, and for
21 purposes of my question, we don't need to pull that.
22 If you can recall, Colonel, that was the map of Poskok 93 with a
23 list of targets and there was some discussion regarding some of those
24 targets using a word "stacionar," which in some instances was interpreted
25 as a medical station.
1 Do you remember that discussion in your direct examination?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I'd like the registrar to please pull up
5 Q. This particular document is dated the 29th of July, 1995
6 isn't specifically related to artillery, but if you will see in
7 paragraph 3, on the B/C/S version of the document, there is the use of
8 the word "stacionar," and it is translated in this particular document to
9 mean stationary facility and not medical facility.
10 Were you given any information at all, Colonel, about whether or
11 not "stacionar" meant anything other than medical facility?
12 A. Well, as far as I can recall, we have never debated about the
13 word "stacionar." I have been shown the target list where the word
14 medical station came on, and I only have one explanation for the word
15 medical station.
16 Q. Okay. For example in paragraph 3 of this order, and I will read
17 it. It says: "After the handover of positions, the POB shall withdraw
18 to the Sveti Filip i Jakov stationary combatant accomodation with the
19 task of conducting preparations for occupying the pp."
20 In this particular context at least stationary combatant
21 accommodation is a place in which troops are quartered; correct?
22 JUDGE ORIE: You're reading apparently from a translation which
23 is not the same as I have on my screen.
24 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: You apparently are reading from a translation which
1 is not the same as I have on my screen.
2 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I will read it from the screen, Your Honour, if
3 it's -- I have a hard copy.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Especially because there is just one word that you
5 read, which might be relevant in this context.
6 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. Yes, the word is in my document, in my hard copy different from
8 the document on the screen, you're correct, Your Honour. I will read
9 from the screen.
10 "After the handover of positions the POB shall withdraw to the
11 Sveti Filip i Jakov stationary facility with the task of conducting
12 preparations for occupying the pp."
13 And I will get back to my previous question, Colonel. At least
14 in this particular order, "stacionar" is not referenced as a medical
16 A. Well, apparently it says here stationary facility which can mean
17 well, a lot of things.
18 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I'd like to tender this.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 Mr. Russo.
21 MR. RUSSO: No objection, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Registrar, the number would be ...
23 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D1269, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Exhibit D1269 is admitted into evidence.
25 I immediately add to that, Mr. Kuzmanovic, that resolving an
1 issue of interpretation but putting another document for which also
2 exists apparently, two different translations might add to the confusion,
3 rather than to resolve it.
4 What I would very much like to know, as a matter of fact, I take
5 it that Saint Filip and Jakov I think that's -- SV stands for saint, but
6 I'm not quite sure about that, would refer to an existing facility. I
7 don't expect them to invent new names.
8 Now, what I, of course, would like to know is what the facility
9 was apparently in this area which was known by the name Saint Filip and
10 Jakov rather than to further focus on confusing translation issues. I
11 don't know whether you come to that or not. But --
12 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I guess the whole purpose of using
13 this particular item was just to show the Court there are multiple
14 meanings to the word -- for the use of the word "stacionar. "
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if Saint Filip and Jakov was a medical
16 facility. I don't know. I've got no idea what they did there, whether
17 they were baking break or whether -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
18 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, that's a city. It's a city in
20 JUDGE ORIE: It's a city.
21 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I follow you now. I didn't quite understand.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Because in the translation it says the Saint Filip
23 and Jakov stationary. I don't know whether that was a name of a village
24 or of a stationary and then of course what stationary was referred to in
25 this document is at least from the mere reading of it not clear.
1 Apparently a stationary of whatever kind, now I understand within
2 this village. It -- the only thing it -- it makes it more complex and
3 not to blame you for making matters that are complex showing that they
4 are complex; but I think I invited the parties to see whether there was
5 any better linguistic approach but a very practical approach could help
6 as well.
7 MR. KUZMANOVIC: We could do that, Your Honour, and we haven't
8 had the chance to do that.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
10 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I apologise for the interruption.
11 Mr. Russo and I, as a matter of fact this morning, talked that we need to
12 resolve that issue as soon as possible. I do want to state, however,
13 what with respect to your asking what does stationary facility mean,
14 the -- in the context of Sveti, Saint Filip and Jakov, we'll certainly
15 look into that for you. However it is just our position that it just
16 means in a military context any fixed, hard facility which could mean
17 anything it could mean a school, it could mean a house, it could mean ...
18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's the issue whether it has the medical
19 connotation necessarily or not; I think that's the issue.
20 MR. MISETIC: Well, but -- from our perspective, Judge, obviously
21 in someplace, somewhere it could have meant a specific medical facility
22 that was being used for a military purpose, a fixed facility. What I'm
23 saying is it's a general term that can mean any facility that is fixed.
24 So here we could find out what was there in that particular
25 village but we would have to do it on a case-by-case basis.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Because Mr. Russo has presented us with a dictionary
2 which gives a more specific meaning. Whether or not that is a good
3 dictionary or not is still to be seen. That, of course, keeps you apart
4 whether it is a very general term or whether it has a specific
5 connotation, medical facility. And I don't know Saint Filip and Jakov,
6 whether it brings up any further or whether it throws us further back is
7 still to be seen.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. Colonel, you have no evidence or you have not received any
11 evidence any way with regard to whether medical stations were actually
12 hit by artillery in -- in Operation Storm; correct?
13 A. I have no information on that.
14 Q. Your CV is P1258 and I just have a general question about your
15 background, Colonel.
16 At least from my interpretation from the CV it is silent whether
17 have you commanded a field artillery unit in combat. Can you tell us
18 whether you did so or whether you did not? And maybe I misread the CV.
19 Have you ever commanded a field artillery unit in combat?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Has the Office of the Prosecutor ever given you any estimation
22 what the amount of civilian casualties were in any of the cities or
23 villages during Operation Storm as a result of artillery?
24 A. We might have touched on some figures. But I cannot recall that
25 now, it's apparently too long ago. I don't know that, so the answer is
2 Q. At least none of that is contained in your report; correct?
3 A. It is not contained in my report.
4 Q. And you said you were in Sarajevo
5 time; correct?
6 A. I have been in -- stationed in Sarajevo for nearly seven month,
8 Q. From when to when?
9 A. From April 1995 up to the end of October 1995.
10 Q. So during the course of Operation Storm, you were actually in
12 A. I was actually in Sarajevo
13 [Defence counsel confer]
14 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Colonel, I don't have any further
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kuzmanovic.
17 Mr. Russo, any need to re-examination the witness.
18 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
20 Re-examination by Mr. Russo
21 MR. RUSSO: Thank you.
22 Q. Colonel, just to address one of the last questions you got
23 Mr. Kuzmanovic asked you if you had ever commanded an artillery unit in
24 combat. Can you tell the Chamber whether the laws of armed conflict as
25 you understand them, and as you were educated in them, whether they apply
1 the same in combat situations and in non-combat situations?
2 A. Well, it depends on how you describe the word combat. I think
3 laws of armed conflict are -- are in -- in application throughout any
4 kind of conflict, and currently we don't make any difference anymore
5 between a combat operation or a peace support operation. We talk about
6 the involvement of military forces inside any operation in a conflict and
7 as far as my knowledge goes, the application of violence the application
8 of military means is subject to the laws of armed conflict, no matter you
9 talk about combat yes or no because the definition, the description of
10 combat is the application of military violence against a responsive
11 enemy. That's what we describe on combat.
12 So combat can occur inside a peace support situation. It is not
13 necessarily that we talk about a state to state to conflict in which
14 large armies are combatting each other. Combat also occurs in an
15 irregular situation, like in Afghanistan
16 be counterinsurgency.
17 So I think that -- that all is applicable -- to all the
18 situations the laws of armed conflict is applicable with my knowledge.
19 Q. Thank you. Now, Colonel, you were asked some questions by
20 Mr. Kehoe regarding the military advantage of destroying enemy cohesion
21 by means of fear, panic, shock, and surprise.
22 If you recall that, can you tell the Chamber whether artillery is
23 the only means by which one can achieve these effects against an enemy?
24 A. No, definitely not. There are much more means available.
25 Q. Would you mind giving the Chamber just an example or two of what
1 else can be done, other than the use of artillery?
2 A. Well, every weapon system that you have in your inventory that
3 can range from the use of small-arms up to the use of close air support
4 or even larger -- the use of larger air assets, like bombing planes,
5 everything have you in between, the use of lethal means will cause panic
6 or chaos and, of course, have you a whole variety of what we try to
7 summarise under the word information operations where you can use
8 psychological warfare or where you can try to use everything from the
9 non-lethal means that have you available to cause panic, to cause fear,
10 you can threat [sic] people. If people are sensitive for that, you don't
11 need to use your weapons. If you threat people that you will do such,
12 such and such when you come somewhere, people might panic already by
14 Q. Thank you. You were also shown some evidence about the use of
15 railroads by the ARSK to move ammunition sometime between the end of
16 July and the 5th of August, 1995.
17 None of this evidence included any reference to the ammunition
18 being actually in Knin itself or being moved through the town of Knin
19 itself --
20 MR. KEHOE: [Overlapping speakers] ... leading nature of this
21 question, Your Honour, if he wants to go into a particular document,
22 that's fine, but a speech by the counsel is not appropriate.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, would you please reformulate your
25 MR. RUSSO: Certainly, Mr. President.
1 Q. Now, in asking about the use of the railroads, Mr. Kehoe asked
2 you the following, and this occurred at 14684, line 2, to 14688 line 7,
3 this discussion.
4 Mr. Kehoe asked you:
5 "Now if in fact, Colonel, the ARSK was using these railway lines
6 to move ammunition and if in fact there was some activity in these
7 railway lines on the 4th, you would agree with me that the HV could
8 achieve a significant military advantage by attacking those rail lines
9 and preventing the ARSK from moving any of this ammunition. Isn't that
11 Your answer was to that that, yes, that was right.
12 What I'd like to ask you, Colonel, is if the HV could have used
13 artillery to attack the rail lines at choke points outside of Knin, which
14 were not in the direct environment of civilians why would it be
15 reasonable in your opinion for them to choose instead to shell the main
16 railway station and railway yards inside Knin?
17 A. Well, I don't know the background of the choice they made to --
18 to shell the main railway station and the reasons that were behind that,
19 but I look to it in the following way, is that when you try to destroy or
20 stop a -- an ammunition convoy on the train, first of all, you have to
21 realise that when do you that, you might cause a lot of devastation when
22 a train like such depending on the amount of ammunition is in there blows
23 up, and that happens inside a civilian-populated area you will have a
24 major disaster. That's the first thing you have to realise.
25 Secondly, when you choose -- no. When you decide to that on a
1 major railway station, you might destroy a significant part of that
2 railway station, including tracks, including infrastructure.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I think we're moving away from what the question
5 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
6 JUDGE ORIE: You were asked by Mr. Kehoe whether -- if railway
7 lines are used for transportation of ammunition, whether the HV could
8 achieve a significant military advantage by attacking those rail lines
9 and preventing the ARSK from moving this ammunition.
10 Now, what Mr. Russo asks you is would it be reasonable to attack
11 the rail lines in a city or would it be more reasonable to do it outside
12 the city, and you are introducing new elements such as trains exploding
13 and that appears not to be the focus of the question.
14 Please proceed -- could you please focus your answer on that
16 THE WITNESS: Then the answer is simple, I would do that outside
17 the city.
18 MR. RUSSO:
19 Q. And likewise with the Senjak barracks Mr. Kehoe showed you some
20 evidence that the ARSK had plans to move quartermaster materiel from this
21 location and told you that this was the main logistics supply centre for
22 the 7th Krajina Corps. This was at transcript pages 14677, line 23, to
23 14680, line 10.
24 Now again, Colonel, if the ARSK could have used artillery to
25 attack logistic supply convoys in an area outside of Knin, which did not
1 endanger civilians, would it be reasonable in your opinion for them to
2 choose instead to fire in the city or outside the city?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, your question is certainly confusing,
4 because the questions put by Mr. Kehoe was an attack to a fixed facility,
5 isn't it? And now you are introducing a new element that is convoys,
6 which are moving --
7 MR. RUSSO: I believe the evidence that Mr. Kehoe presented was
8 the destruction of trucks inside the Senjak barracks.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I think what he introduced was a report in which it
10 was said that three trucks were demolished but in such a way that it did
11 not suggest, and I'm just talking from the top of my head, it said three
12 trucks were destroyed but whether that was part of it, consequence,
13 whether it was an introduction to whether the destruction of these trucks
14 would have made it more difficult to perform the functions that was at
15 least rather unclear for me from that document.
16 So I'm -- I have some difficulties in putting questions on
17 attacking convoys to say isn't that -- if you are talking about the
18 function of supply, which is you have your supplies somewhere, then you
19 move them to a place where they are needed and what would be the best --
20 but it's now just as if you say, Do it outside the city, but then, of
21 course, you would have to wait until they start moving, isn't it? And if
22 the trucks are destroyed it might well be that there is no ability to
23 move them anymore.
24 So it's a rather complex matter, and if you want to deal with the
25 matter with the witness, fine, as far as I'm concerned. But then let's
1 clearly analyse on the basis of the documents what we exactly see, what
2 the question is, what the -- apparently what you're hinting at
3 alternative options, what they exactly are and not mix everything up.
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Mr. President.
6 Q. Colonel, what would be the military advantage in attacking a
7 logistics supply base in any event? What's the military advantage to be
8 gained from attacks logistics supply?
9 A. Logistics supply form the basis for -- for an operation, so
10 depending on the role of a specific logistical supply base, and the
11 amount of supplies that troop in the field have available, that can --
12 attacking a logistical supply base can have -- can mean a significant
13 military advantage.
14 Q. I'd like you to describe what -- how you achieve that. If the
15 supplies just stay in the logistics facility and they are not moved out
16 to anyone on the front line or anywhere what advantage is there in
17 attacking that facility?
18 A. Well, in itself, then there is no direct advantage to be achieved
19 in attacking that -- that logistical base. And then various factors come
20 into the decision-making process whether to do that, yes or no. You can
21 anticipate on what you expect that that logistical base will do in the
22 future and take nevertheless the decision that you want to destroy it.
23 That's very hard to give any exact meaning about without knowing any
24 further specifics.
25 JUDGE ORIE: You're using the word nevertheless. Let me try to
1 see whether I can understand.
2 I have a logistical supply base that I have to provide the units
3 wherever they are with whatever is in this supply base. Now wouldn't
4 that save a lot of efforts to destroy the supply bases rather to wait
5 until one truck is moving to the north, you have to hit it when it's
6 moving; another truck is going to the south, have you to hit it when it's
7 moving; then the next day new trucks come in and start transporting. I
8 mean, merely from a point of view of efficiency. If you paralyse the
9 supply system as a whole, you don't have to attack five or ten or 20
10 trucks trying to distribute the supplies.
11 THE WITNESS: It depends on the function of that specific
12 logistical base, Your Honour. If that is the only logistical base in
13 the -- for an operation of an army, then you are absolutely right. But
14 you can have -- in most times you have situation that logistical bases
15 are split up and that each subunit has its own smaller supply area and --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Which is then fed by the main supply?
17 THE WITNESS: Well, yes. But so if you dry up that main supply
18 area, but there are also situations that -- from a central airport, the
19 smaller supply areas are -- are supplied, and then the convoys are coming
20 in. What you see in Afghanistan
21 heel not the supply areas but convoys are the Achilles' heel in bringing
22 stuff from Pakistan
23 So it is both. I fully agree with you if you have a large supply
24 base. You can take that out for several weeks then you will hamper the
1 JUDGE ORIE: We were fed with evidence that it was the main
2 supply bases now. I can imagine that -- I try to understand what the
3 word quartermaster exactly meant. But from what I understand but please
4 correct me if I'm wrong. He can take care of the military uniforms and
5 the socks to be resupplied but also ammunition.
6 I mean, main supply, of course, is a rather generic term.
7 MR. RUSSO: I believe it was put to the witness that the Senjak
8 barracks was the main supply for the 7th Krajina Corps.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I still then do not know whether it is
10 about socks, whether it's about food, whether it's about ammunition,
11 whether it's about spare parts for vehicles.
12 MR. RUSSO: Again, Your Honour, I don't think that is something
13 that we can come to agreement on.
14 MR. KEHOE: Yes, I mean, I think that it is the main supply depot
15 for everything.
16 JUDGE ORIE: For everything.
17 MR. KEHOE: That's not to say that they weren't -- some of their
18 locations up near the front that the Colonel was talking about.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Only for you to know that in order to fully
20 understand the issue, it -- it might assist the Chamber in knowing what
21 was supplied from there.
22 MR. RUSSO:
23 Q. Now, Mr. Kehoe also asked you about the St. Ante monastery where
24 according to the facts you were asked to assume the headquarters of the
25 special police forces were located and this was at transcript pages --
1 page 14659, lines 18 to 22.
2 Mr. Kehoe also told you that 20 cases of ammunition were found in
3 that monastery after the operation. Now can you tell the Chamber whether
4 even assuming that those 20 cases of ammunition were in fact in that
5 monastery whether that would change the opinion you expressed in your
6 addendum regarding whether it would be reasonable to shell that
7 particular facility.
8 A. No, it will not change my opinion.
9 Q. Thank you. And Mr. Kehoe also read to you from the book of a
10 former ARSK officer, indicating that the Guards Brigade of the special
11 unit corps of the ARSK had abandoned their positions on the Dinara and
12 assembled in the norther barracks prior to Operation Storm and this
13 appears at transcript pages 14667, line 10 to 14668, line 1.
14 Now, Colonel, if this is what actually happened and more
15 importantly if this is what General Gotovina believed to have happened at
16 the time and believed that this unit had abandoned its position on the
17 Dinara and assembled in the northern barracks is that the kind of
18 information he would expected him to pass along to the artillery units
19 whom he was ordering to fire at the northern barracks?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, I take it that you would expect
21 Mr. Kehoe to object for leading is that what I understand from --
22 MR. KEHOE: What the -- the problem being raised by Mr. Misetic
23 is that the actual fact that counsel is referring to this Guards Brigade
24 in the northern barracks is actually in P1125 which of course I would
25 have raised again in redirect, but now that we're on the subject - I can
1 at the break - go and talk to my learned friend and show him where in
2 that order the actual Guards Brigade is listed as being in Knin.
3 MR. RUSSO: I'm happy to do that, Your Honour. I was actually
4 going to show the witness the order where --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- I do understand the concern about leading
6 and what you are putting to the witness. If you would ask him questions
7 about the documents that and then formulate them in rather neutral terms
8 that would be preferred.
9 MR. RUSSO: Sure. If we could have Exhibit P1125.
10 And we'll be going to page 3 in the English and also the same in
11 the B/C/S.
12 Q. Looking, Colonel, at the first paragraph where it indicates
13 information about the enemy, General Gotovina lays out whom they're
14 facing. It indicates in the area of responsibility of the Split Military
15 District the Operational Group north is confronted with the forces of the
16 7th Knin Northern Dalmatia Corps, the 2nd Drvar Krajina Corps, the
17 special forces corps and -- of the ARSK, and parts of the 1st Banja Luka
18 Krajina Corps and the Drnis corps with about 15.000 troops.
19 And then he lays out how those forces are grouped themselves.
20 MR. RUSSO: And if we move over to the next page, you will see up
21 at the top the second paragraph indicates that the combat group Dinara
22 comprised part of the forces of the 7 Knin Corps units, the Knin MUP,
23 Ministry of Interior battalion and part of the special forces or special
24 units that were indicated earlier.
25 Q. Now, if we move even further down to the paragraph where it says:
1 "In the area of Knin."
2 It says:
3 "In the area of Knin the enemy has the following reserve forces.
4 Part of the KSS
5 company up to 800 conscripts and on the right axis as an operational
6 reserve there is currently the 5th Glamoc," I believe, that it is light
7 anti-armour brigade, I'm not positive, LPBR.
8 In any case the following paragraph indicates that in addition to
9 the aforementioned units there will be support from the airport -- the
10 air force at Udbina and Banja Luka airfields and if we could move to the
11 last paragraph of that section you will see it indicates:
12 "In addition to the problems with personnel reenforcements in
13 this area, the enemy is also encountering problems with a lack of
14 equipment and ammunition manoeuvring impediments, inadequacy of the
15 command system, increasing defeatism a drop in morale, insecurity and
16 panic, particularly in Knin and Drvar."
17 Now, in laying out the forces whom they are facing and where they
18 are and particularly the information of who is in the area of Knin you
19 will see that it doesn't indicate the portions of the 7th Krajina Corps
20 or the -- I am sorry the special unit, Guards Brigade being in the
21 northern barracks --
22 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
24 I asked you to focus on the documents and you are now telling the
25 witness what is not in the document. We could ask him whether he sees
1 something in the documents, whether it's -- gives a clue. Then you can
2 ask him whether he has explanation or what he would expect. But you
3 are -- you have not finished your question, but you were at the risk to
4 suggest an answer, which, of course, makes the question a leading
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Mr. President.
8 Q. Colonel, is this where you would expect to find some information
9 regarding the location of the units that General Gotovina desired to
11 A. This part of an operational order in the paragraph of enemy is a
12 generic description. I would expect to see the more detailed
13 organisational aspects of this in annexes of this order, where you
14 describe the specific locations of enemy, with grids, et cetera,
15 et cetera.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I think it is probably time for a break
18 before I move to my next topic.
19 JUDGE ORIE: It is time for a break.
20 We will resume at 11.00.
21 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.
22 --- On resuming at 11.15 a.m.
23 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber apologises for the late start. At the
24 same time, the Chamber finds itself in a situation where time appears to
25 be left today which we had not expected then asked for some additional
2 Mr. Russo, please proceed.
3 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 Q. Colonel, you were asked a number of questions yesterday regarding
5 the military advantage of knocking out communications systems and
6 communications centres. And I'd just like to ask you, whether artillery
7 is the only means by which one can disable or disrupt the communications
8 systems of the enemy?
9 A. No. Artillery is definitely not the only means.
10 Q. And let's deal first with radio communications. Can you give the
11 Chamber some examples of how else one might disrupt or disable radio
12 communications of an enemy.
13 A. Other possibilities are the usage of other lethal means that you
14 have available, like depending on the value of that specific
15 communication system or station the use of aircraft with special -- with
16 guided missiles available, or you can also use non-lethal means I mean by
17 that germing or electronic war fare.
18 Q. Would destroying the radio relay stations of an enemy's radio
19 communication system would that knock out their long-range radio
20 communications capabilities?
21 A. Well, I cannot be specific in that. It depends on how the system
22 is laid out.
23 If in the case that this is the only -- if there is only one
24 long-range radio relay system, if you knock that out, you will bring down
25 the whole system.
1 Q. And with respect to land line communication systems -- first of
2 all how can you use artillery to disrupt a land line communication
4 A. As artillery has the capacity to destroy things or to neutralise
5 things, and if you are -- if have you available the information about how
6 the land lines are constructed and laid out in the terrain or
7 concentrated in a certain area, for example in a building then in itself
8 artillery can be one of the choices to try to take that out.
9 Q. Are there means other than artillery that you could use to
10 disable or disrupt land line communication systems?
11 A. Well, I think that every mean in your inventory is one, is one
12 possibility. You can use precision strike with aircraft to take out a
13 the concentration point of land lines, provided they are military. You
14 can send in a Special Forces team to destroy a very important crossing
15 point of land lines. So there are various possibilities.
16 JUDGE ORIE: May I invite Defence counsel from refrain from face
17 expressions which are not primarily an expression of a thorough
18 understanding and appreciation of what the witness tells us.
19 Could I ask for your professional attitude in this respect.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. I'd like to refer to one of the US manuals that was shown to you
23 by Mr. Kehoe.
24 MR. RUSSO: Madam Registrar, if we could please have
25 Exhibit D1264.
1 And if we could move to -- I believe it's the last page. The
2 last uploaded page was page 15.
3 Q. And concentrating there at subsection 2 which is towards the
4 middle of the page it indicates:
5 "The direct fire system is the most effective fire support in
6 built-up area. Once a target has been [sic] located in a building one or
7 two direct fire rounds can accomplish what entire salvos of indirect
8 artillery cannot."
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, you read, "has been located" where the
10 text is "can be located. "
11 MR. RUSSO: My apologies, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
13 MR. RUSSO:
14 Q. Colonel, do you agree with the information I have just read from
15 that manual?
16 A. I can agree with that.
17 Q. And can you tell the Chamber what direct fire systems in a
18 built-up area, what kind of direct fire systems are meant by this?
19 A. Well, some of them are already explained here. I think that BFV
20 stands for, I don't know the B but FV stands for fighting vehicle. That
21 is it an armoured fighting vehicle that's used by infantry troops.
22 Tanks is mentioned, Howitzers are mentioned, and it is meant to
23 be Howitzers when they are used in the directed fire role as a kind of
24 tank; but, of course, there were numerous other direct fire weapon
25 systems like anti -- various anti-tank weapon systems. Machine-guns,
1 light -- light guns that are in -- that most times are built in, in a
2 fighting vehicle like a 20-millimetre gun.
3 So there are a lot of possibilities.
4 Q. Thank you. And you were shown a fair amount of evidence by the
5 Defence during cross-examination and I'd like you to tell the Chamber
6 whether any of the evidence that you have seen or any of the evidence
7 that has been presented to you causes you to change any of the opinions
8 which you expressed in the addendum to your expert report?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
10 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, this is not redirect examination on
11 particular issues.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I think in the earlier stages and, therefore, I will
13 take over soon, I gave the assurance to Mr. Konings that if he would like
14 to add anything that he thought of importance, that he would given an
15 opportunity to do so. I'll do that at the end of his examination, and
16 that, of course, would include any further observation, in relation to
17 what was put to him and whether that would change his opinion. That's --
18 So, therefore, you don't have to answer this question at this
19 moment, and I will give you an opportunity to add anything to your
20 testimony at the end of -- at the end of hearing.
21 Mr. Russo.
22 MR. RUSSO: I have no further questions but I did wish to tender
23 a few additional items or a few items that were covered throughout the
24 course of the direct. The first being the video-clip, 65 ter 3759, and
25 for Your Honours' information, we did check the timing and this portion
1 does run from 1 minute 45 seconds to 5 minute and 52 second, and the next
2 one from 7 minutes and 2 seconds to 21 minutes, 35 seconds.
3 The other portion of this video which is in evidence as P59
4 covers a different time section of the same video, so I would like a
5 separate P number of this portion that was played.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just try to understand. What you said now is
7 that you tendering into evidence the -- those portions of what was played
8 which is not yet in evidence.
9 Is that ...
10 MR. RUSSO: That's correct, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because you're now tendering some four
12 minutes. The first portion, and the next one, did you say 7 minutes 2
13 seconds to 7 minutes 25 seconds?
14 MR. RUSSO: It was 7 minutes 2 seconds until 21 minutes 35
16 JUDGE ORIE: 21 minutes, 35 seconds, okay.
17 And that's the entirety of what you played.
18 MR. RUSSO: Correct, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I was a bit confused by the length of the
20 second portion.
21 Any objections against ...
22 MR. KEHOE: No, Mr President, we have no objection to the items
23 that were played in evidence, the video-clips.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that's true for other Defence teams as
1 Madam Registrar, the two clips because we'd like to have them
3 MR. RUSSO: Those can be together.
4 JUDGE ORIE: The portions played in court, Madam Registrar, would
6 THE REGISTRAR: The first portion would be Exhibit P1271 -- 78,
7 Your Honours, and the second portion would be P1279.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I think I created the confusion. Mr. Russo would be
9 happy to have them both under one number, that then would be P1278, Madam
10 Registrar; is that correct?
11 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, the two portion would be
12 Exhibit P1278.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, and that's the totality of close to 20
14 minutes of video. And P1278 is admitted into evidence.
15 Mr. Russo.
16 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Your Honour, the next thing are two maps which
17 underlie the Google Earth map overlay that the Defence placed into
18 evidence as D1260. Two of the maps in that presentation are not yet in
19 evidence. I'd like to move those in under their 65 ter numbers. .
20 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any objections against --
21 MR. KEHOE: No, Mr. President, we intended to do so, so counsel
22 would like to do it, that's fine. We were going to do that as a bar
23 table submission but we agree.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo do you have the --
25 MR. RUSSO: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- numbers, the 65 ter numbers.
2 MR. RUSSO: The first one would be 65 ter 5041, and the second
3 one would be 65 ter 7030.
4 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, if I just ask counsel or maybe we
5 could do it at a different point because I didn't have a 65 ter number
6 what I did on those documents was put the ERN numbers down at the bottom
7 of what we submitted. So maybe we can get together and coordinate what
8 those are. Whatever it happens to be ...
9 JUDGE ORIE: If you'd check that, that these 65 ter numbers that
10 they correspond with the ERN numbers.
11 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Mr. President, we were provided with the ERN
12 numbers by counsel's assistant and one of them had already been uploaded
13 as 65 ter 5041. We uploaded the other at 7030.
14 JUDGE ORIE: So that having been verified of course you can
15 always check and if there's any problem with that --
16 MR. KEHOE: If I can ask a question to the Chamber and counsel
17 would it be expeditious if we took that exhibit and replaced that exhibit
18 with the actual P numbers for those maps. It may ease the handling down
19 the line not preventing that the Chamber from -- or eliminate a step
20 because just go to a P document as opposed to some ERN.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The problem is they were introduced, and they were
22 admitted at the moment when no P numbers were assign to the underlying
23 map so that could create some confusion as to what happens here in court,
24 that P numbers are used already far in advance of them ever being
25 assigned, let alone being admitted.
1 MR. KEHOE: Yes, sir.
2 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore perhaps we leave it as it is, and it is
3 now clearly on the record that it has been verified, that the ERN numbers
4 appearing on the bottom of those maps are the ERN numbers which
5 correspond with the maps which are now tendered into evidence by
6 Mr. Russo under 65 ter numbers 5041 and 7030. That's on the record.
7 Madam Registrar, the map, 65 ter 5041 would be ...
8 THE REGISTRAR: Would be Exhibit P1279, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
10 65 ter 7030 would be ...
11 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P1280, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I -- yes.
13 P1280 is admitted into evidence.
14 Mr. Russo.
15 MR. RUSSO: Mr. President, with that I would simply move again
16 for the admission -- I don't know if the Court choses to defer again for
17 the admission of P1259 through P1262, which is the expert report addendum
18 corrigendum in terms of reference.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we will deal with that in a second, Mr. Russo.
20 They have been tendered and a decision was deferred by the Chamber.
21 MR. RUSSO: Apologies, Your Honour, there was one additional
22 thing I forgot to do.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. RUSSO: I need to vacate Exhibit P1264. It turns out that
25 that's a duplicate of P1200.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And that is what document, because numbers ...
2 MR. RUSSO: It was the report of the 134th Home Guard Regiment.
3 I have used it in direct examination.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, P1264 is vacated.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Kinis has one or more questions for you.
8 JUDGE KINIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Questioned by the Court:
10 JUDGE KINIS: I have some questions for you. As the first --
11 based on two requisites you know military doctrine its application of
12 principle of proportionality and military necessity. Could you please
13 explain competence of principle proportionality in military, sense in
14 military doctrine but in very short way.
15 JUDGE ORIE: You're reading the transcript, and I think that the
16 transcript is not complete on what you said. I think, Judge Kinis, that
17 you invited the witness to explain briefly in the military sense, the
18 military sense, the military doctrine, the principle of proportionality
19 to start with.
20 A. Yes, Your Honour.
21 That principle does mean that you if you are forced to apply
22 military violence that you do that in such a way that it is in accordance
23 with the effect that you want to achieve. That means that said in other
24 words that you have the intention to use as less violence as possible.
25 JUDGE KINIS: It is just only one indication?
1 A. That is the idea that we use in describing shortly
3 JUDGE KINIS: Paragraph 52 -- Article 52 on paragraph 2 from
4 Geneva Convention protocol, second protocol -- first protocol of
5 Geneva Convention which the times, what is a military target mentions
6 that it should be justified if there is an first place by military
8 Could you please explain whether between terms military necessity
9 and proportionality is possible to put equality?
10 A. Well, if you take a military target, if you have defined that a
11 target is a military target, even then, you have to take into account the
12 principle of proportionality, even then you have to take into account,
13 for example, in your targeting process, the best means to achieve the
14 effect that you want, and you can even consider in killing as much enemy
15 soldiers as you like; but have you another option, is to try to take them
16 as -- as prisoners of war and have various options in between, and that
17 depends on the overall effect that you want to achieve with an operation
18 and from there, I think you look what is proportionate to achieve your
19 end state.
20 JUDGE KINIS: But I would like ask you what is your opinion, what
21 is competence of military necessity in this particular case. If
22 attacking force wants to assess -- do assessment for military necessity
23 what kind of competence they should take into account.
24 A. Well, military necessity is linked to, first of all, to every
25 target in itself, what does that target bring to the whole of the
1 operation of an enemy, and once you have designated that from there you
2 build the picture how the combination of those military targets together
3 will bring that -- the end state that you want to achieve in an
4 operation. Because an operation may be used as a -- may be aimed at
5 total go destruction of an enemy but an operation may also be aimed at
6 separating two warring factions so everything you do in combatting
7 military targets has to do with the goal you want to achieve and that is
8 not something that is done purely by military. That is also something,
9 especially something that is directed to you by -- well, your political
11 JUDGE KINIS: Are you familiar with concept of critical
12 information infrastructure, the determination of critical information
13 infrastructure of the state.
14 A. I know the term. I'm not really familiar with that.
15 JUDGE KINIS: It means that there should be included all objects
16 which are very important for state security.
17 A. Yes.
18 JUDGE KINIS: My question is would be possible to get anticipated
19 military advantage without attacking objects of critical information
20 infrastructure like post, telegraph, radio, communications, and
21 et cetera.
22 A. Well that depends on how the critical information infrastructure
23 is connected to the military structure.
24 JUDGE KINIS: I mean in this particular case.
25 A. You mean in relation to Operation Storm?
1 JUDGE KINIS: Yes.
2 A. Well, apparently in this case, several of the critical
3 information infrastructures were used in one way or the other by the
4 military. And some of these critical infrastructures had a real critical
5 role because apparently they were the only one in the region that
6 provided communication or else, and then you come into a situation
7 that -- that this is, of course, real critical to take it out, yes or no;
8 and especially if that is a combination of military personnel and
9 materiel, and civilian personnel and materiel and civilian personnel and
10 materiel involved well, then this is a very hard solution to make or a
11 very hard decision to take.
12 JUDGE KINIS: But based on this information that you got
13 during -- during this court hearing, and based on this reviewing of
14 documents what would be your conclusion?
15 A. Well, when I look to the information that was given to me by the
16 OTP, then I can say that -- that I'll -- I'll keep to my -- my
17 conclusions that I made in my report and my addendum.
18 During the discussions of the past days, various scenarios were
19 described to me by -- by the Defence counsel and every scenario was a
20 different one, and once a scenario changes all the factors in such a
21 scenario or operation changes, and have you to -- that's one thing that
22 in a military operation is very important that a commander and his staff
23 analyse the operation continuously and take into account all new
24 information that you have. That's something I tried to do during the
25 past days as well, and if suddenly the situation changes from there is
1 hardly anybody in the barracks or in a location, towards there are --
2 there is an complete brigade in that location, well, that changes the
3 whole analysis, and due to the -- to the sometimes the lack of
4 information that I did not have, or that was not given to me, then it's
5 coming very close to impossible to say something very -- very specific
6 about that.
7 JUDGE KINIS: It means that you cannot state direct conclusion
8 whether it is possible or not.
9 A. I cannot say a direct conclusion no.
10 JUDGE KINIS: Okay. Based on documents what you reviewed, could
11 you draw conclusion that operation, this artillery attack to Knin,
12 creates collateral damage?
13 A. Well, first of all, as we said, I have not been there, so I don't
14 know that. I -- I -- and from -- given from the information the very
15 scarce information about the real results, I can come to the conclusion
16 that there was collateral damage.
17 JUDGE KINIS: And could you please specify something about this?
18 A. No. I cannot. And that's the point in that. We were reading
19 that UNMO report, where it stated that civilian property was hit and from
20 that I conclude there must have been some collateral damage but we also
21 said that, and I agreed with that, that there is no specific mention
22 about that and I have no information about that.
23 So everything beyond I say now from my side will be speculation.
24 JUDGE KINIS: Okay. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Konings, I have one question for you.
1 When I was listening to the sound on the video-clips, I thought,
2 but I'm not experienced at all in that area, I thought that I heard
3 different types of sounds, some of them being explosions but I think in
4 the first portion I also hard a kind of whistling sound rather than
6 Could you assist me in, first of all, whether I made this
7 distinction by listening well, whether you heard the same; and, second,
8 how I should interpret these different sounds. I heard the whistling
9 sound only once but I might not have been focussed enough.
10 A. Yes, Your Honour.
11 First of all, I think that you came to a correct conclusion that
12 there were different sounds and that is possible through the fact that
13 different calibres might have been used or different types of weapon
14 systems might have been used.
15 I give me -- maybe I can give you an example, that in the -- in
16 the -- in the war in Vietnam
17 because they could not see the point of impact of a projectile into the
18 jungle so they specialised in the sound of the exploding projectile and
19 that is a possibility; and I must say that I learned that in Sarajevo
20 well, in distinguishing between 81, 120 and 152 or 155 or rocket systems
21 that is very well possible. And you don't need to be trained for that to
22 hear the difference.
23 The whistling sound that you heard is -- means that was an
24 artillery projectile because artillery projectiles when fired and when
25 they pass you, you hear that. You may hear that sound, not in all cases.
1 Depends on where you are in -- in comparison with the projectile
2 trajectory. But normally that means it is an artillery projectile.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So do I then have to understand that where I heard
4 the whistling sounds that it must have been a projectile which passed
5 close enough to the microphone that was used so as to hear it pass rather
6 than to hear it explode from a distance, where it may have not passed --
7 where the trajectory may not have passed the area but where the
8 microphone was because I heard it only, as I said, once but -- I'm not
9 sure whether you heard that more.
10 A. I heard some more because I have seen a somewhat longer part of
11 that --
12 JUDGE ORIE: The part played. Everything else --
13 A. The part played. I know, I think I heard two or three times the
14 same noise. But normally it come through the fact that the projectile is
15 passing roughly above you. When it is passing on the side of you, you
16 might not hear that.
17 So that means that it is fired somewhere behind you, it's passing
18 on top you, and it will explode somewhere in the area before you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And it does not in any way indicate a different type
20 of weapon or it could be all artillery fire could create such a whistling
21 sound and if it would pass by other trajectory you might not hear that
22 whistling sounds.
23 A. Yes. The only thing you hear with a mortar projectile you hear a
24 similar sound but that is very close before impact. There is then only a
25 split second when you hear such a sound when a mortar is used and
1 immediately afterwards you hear the impact and you have to be quite close
2 otherwise you don't hear that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for those answers.
4 As I said before, I would give you an opportunity to add anything
5 and I'm not inviting you to repeat anything, but to add anything to your
6 testimony before I give a final opportunity to the Defence to -- to ask
7 further questions, triggered by the re-examination and the questions by
8 the Bench.
9 Is there anything that you'd like to add?
10 THE WITNESS: No, sir, everything has been said, so I have
11 nothing to add.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
13 Any need to put further questions to the witness.
14 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe:
15 Q. Just one question. The whistling that Judge Orie ask you about
16 that whistling on an artillery fire would be whistling either outgoing or
17 incoming, wouldn't it?
18 A. Yes that. Distinction is hard to make. You can connect that
19 whistling to either its incoming or outgoing when you are able to hear
20 the -- the actual fires of the Howitzer. Otherwise, it is very hard to
21 define where it coming from.
22 Q. Once against, thank you, Colonel.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Konings, there are no further questions for you.
24 I suggest to the parties that any further submissions or any
25 further argument to the extent needed on the question of admission of
1 1259 up to and including 1262 an issue that P1259 that can be dealt with
2 in the absence of the witness.
3 Then, Mr. Konings, I would like to thank you very much for
4 coming, usually I add to that a long way to The Hague, but that might not
5 be true for you. But for coming to this Court and for considerable time
6 having answered all the questions that were put to you by Prosecution,
7 Defence, and by the Bench. And this concludes your testimony. You are
9 Madam Usher.
10 [The witness withdrew]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Before we deal with a few procedural matters, I'd
12 first like to pay attention to the more general question on how will
13 you -- we will use the remaining time this week.
14 Is my understanding correct, Mr. Russo, or Mr. Waespi, or
15 Mr. Hedaraly, that there's one more witness to be called this week,
16 without protective measures, which would be Mr. Marker-Hansen. Is
17 that --
18 MR. HEDARALY: That is correct, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. He was scheduled for one half another in
20 chief, as a 92 ter witnesses.
21 MR. HEDARALY: That is correct, Your Honour. In the 92 ter
22 submission we had provided a revised estimate of two and a half hours,
23 but I am hopeful that examination will be concluded within a session or a
24 little more than a session, perhaps.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'm asking the Defence what the estimates are
1 at this very moment in relation to this witness.
2 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, I would estimate at most three-hours
3 from us, probably less.
4 JUDGE ORIE: That makes three sessions all together.
5 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, at least one hour from me.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That take it as a rough figure that makes four
8 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I would say at least three hours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Which makes it six sessions.
10 The reason why I'm explore is the following: We have a few
11 relatively simple procedural matters we could deal with today. The
12 Chamber is a bit surprised by the efficiency in relation to the last
13 witness, to the extent that, on the basis of the estimates, we expected
14 that we would finish this witness by today. I had planned to prepare
15 fully for the pending issues, MFI
16 with it after we finished this witness.
17 Now we have some time left. I'm not fully prepared. Other hand,
18 of course, the Chamber would like to avoid that the next witness would
19 have to stay over the weekend because we are running out of time.
20 Now, six sessions is two hearings. We have as a matter of fact,
21 nine sessions because we are scheduled Thursday, half a day, and Friday,
22 the whole of the day. Can I be confident that if the MFI list will not
23 take more than two sessions, I don't know exactly how much time it will
24 take, that we would nevertheless could conclude this witness if he would
25 start on Thursday because my calculation now is six sessions for the next
1 witness and that means that two or three sessions would remain.
2 MR. HEDARALY: Mr. President, the only thing that I would like to
3 inform the Court is that the witness did arrange a schedule to be able to
4 testify Thursday and Friday but he must leave at the end of the day on
5 Friday. I would suggest although we had expressed a preference earlier
6 to have the MFI
7 would prefer to call the witness on Thursday morning to ensure that he is
8 done and deal with the MFI
9 afternoon, if possible.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At the same time, I asked for the estimates in
11 order to make a calculation on whether we could do both. And I do see
12 your point, Mr. Hedaraly. The Chamber will consider it. But I would
13 urge the parties that where we have an estimate of six sessions for the
14 witness, and that my estimate for the MFI session would not go beyond two
15 sessions, and hopefully within one session, that we would deal with both
16 the issues, that is, the testimony of the next witness and the
17 housekeeping matters Thursday and Friday.
18 It, at least --
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ORIE: The information by the parties leads the Chamber to
21 decide that we'll not try in an unprepared way to deal with major
22 portions of MFI
23 do it all on Thursday and Friday.
24 Then I have a few -- yes, Mr. Hedaraly.
25 MR. HEDARALY: There is one procedural matter that we'd like to
1 address. We can do it later today.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I have a few if it is not dealt with by me, then, of
3 course, you're invited to raise the issue.
4 There was a request by the Cermak Defence to go beyond the word
5 limit on admission of a 300-page document, objections against admission,
6 at least I take it that it will be objections. I do understand that the
7 OTP does not oppose the limited extension of the word limit because the
8 issue was 3.000 or 3900.
9 Now, is that -- 3900 is that what you really need, I mean if we
10 would say 4.000, would that meet your request.
11 MS. HIGGINS: We have drafted the motion, Your Honour, as Your
12 Honour will be aware that the deadline is tomorrow. If the Chamber would
13 say 4.000 then that would encompass all the footnotes which we have had
14 to include to try and assist the Chamber with this determination which is
15 where the problem has really arisen.
16 JUDGE ORIE: So that would fully satisfy --
17 MS. HIGGINS: Yes, it would, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: The request is granted and the limit is set at 4.000
20 One second, please. Yes, the Chamber is informed that progress
21 was made although perhaps not the progress which we would finally need to
22 hear stipulations by the parties on the possible testimony of Mr. French.
23 Is that -- when do the parties think that they could conclude
24 their discussions on the matter because the Chamber, of course, if you do
25 not agree on the matter, then, of course, we would have to well, at least
1 consider our scheduling that time will be needed to call that witness.
2 MR. HEDARALY: Your Honour, the question actually is a little
3 more complex because it is not only about professor French, but other
4 witnesses that would testify about the 31 July transcript. We have
5 talked to the Defence on numerous occasions, and we were informed that
6 there would not be an objection to the report of Professor French coming
8 With respect to the other witnesses, we have received from the
9 Defence some issues that they have with that transcript. We just
10 received that this morning, so we will review and hopefully have a final
11 answer by the Friday hearing on -- because it will be related to
12 scheduling in any event.
13 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President, under Rule 94 bis we've have
14 had a chance to review the report and assess it and we no longer require
15 cross-examination under Rule 94 bis of Mr. French.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and for the other Defence teams as I said
17 progress has been made but whether that extends to all the Defence teams
18 is unclear.
19 MR. CAYLEY: We are in the same position, Your Honour, as
20 Mr. Misetic.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kuzmanovic.
22 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes, Your Honour, the same position as well for
24 JUDGE ORIE: Which means that -- let me just ...
25 That professor French, that his evidence, will be introduced
1 through an expert report and that the parties then, I take it, that there
2 is no -- it's not contests that he qualifies as an expert because that
3 is, of course, the first question; and then the second question whether
4 is there any need to cross-examine him. I do understand that it is not
5 needed. So, therefore, the expert report is ready to be decided upon as
6 far as admission is concerned. And that for other witnesses, the
7 situation is still unclear but that the Chamber most likely will hear by
8 this Friday whether the parties could come to an agreement as far as the
9 need to hear the testimony of those witnesses or the way to introduce
10 their evidence.
11 Is that correctly understood? Then that's clear.
12 Then there is -- I do understand that the parties would agree
13 that a witness statement could be tendered. Let me just check whether
14 there is in the confidentiality there.
15 Could we go into private session for a second.
16 [Private session]
18 [Open session]
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
21 Let me just verify one thing on my computer.
22 Yes, the Chamber was informed that the further selection to be
23 made by you, Mr. Kehoe, of the Royal Netherlands Army publication that we
24 could expect that tomorrow or at the -- that would mean that we --
25 effectively we will hear about it on Thursday.
1 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: If, however you could already give an indication to
3 the registrar so that it can be -- or did you uploaded the selected
4 portion so that we don't have to spent too much time on it.
5 Then the one remaining issue then at this movement would be the
6 admission of the expert report by Mr. Konings, of the addendum, the terms
7 of reference, and the corrigendum, and the P numbers provisionally
8 assigned to them were P1259 up to and including P1262.
9 The Chamber would like to give a brief opportunity to the parties
10 to make further oral submissions on the matter, but it is not seeking any
11 repetition of the arguments that were already put before the Chamber and
12 which were considered in the -- in the decision on the expert report and
13 addendum of Harry Konings which was given on the 18th of December and the
14 parties are invited to focus primarily on the issue that was raised in
15 paragraph 12 of that decision where it said that the Chamber expects the
16 Prosecution to establish this expertise - the qualification as an expert
17 of Mr. Konings on the record - at the outset of the testimony of Konings.
18 We added to that that with this proviso the Chamber is satisfied that the
19 expert report and addendum are prima facie relevant and probative.
20 A practical way of dealing with the matter would give a brief
21 opportunity to make further oral submissions on the matter. Mr. Russo is
22 here. Mr. Kehoe is here. I don't know whether the other parties would
23 like to make submissions as well, Mr. Kuzmanovic; you are nodding yes.
24 Mr. Cayley is nodding no, which doesn't come under the present
25 circumstances as a surprise.
1 I would suggest that we spend the next 15 minutes to add anything
2 and I would say three times four minutes, first round and then second
3 round of three times one minute.
4 Mr. Kehoe, I think it would be appropriate that you start. Then
5 Mr. Kuzmanovic, then Mr. Russo.
6 MR. KEHOE: Yes, thank you, Mr. President.
7 I will be very brief and we're not certainly going to repeat the
8 arguments that we set forth before. But I think two things are very
9 clear at this juncture. Number one, going through an expert report, any
10 opinions that the expert was not an expert in international humanitarian
11 law nor an expert in law of armed conflict. So any opinions he rendered
12 that remotely touch on either one of those issues should not be
13 considered by the Chamber because he is not an expert in that regard.
14 What he has given us is quite clearly what his assessment of the
15 situation is pursuant to either doctrine or the rules of engagement for
16 NATO and/or for the Royal Dutch Army which for his purposes is perfectly
17 fine. It is not fine for what's to be considered by this Chamber where
18 the standard is the laws of armed conflict.
19 So on the first stage, anything that remotely touches the laws
20 on -- international humanitarian law or the laws of armed conflict should
21 not be considered his area of expertise and should not be considered by
22 the Chamber.
23 I think probably the more disturbing and difficult issue is the
24 94 bis issue, and I know Your Honours touched on this to some degree when
25 Your Honours were talking about the addendum which is P1206 [sic] but
1 going back to Rule 94 bis, the Prosecution was required to give us their
2 entire expert report, and what Colonel Konings told us during the course
3 of the cross-examination was that when his initial report was presented
4 it was contemplated that he would provide yet another report which is the
6 Now, without rearguing some of the items in the report, Judge, it
7 is a very disturbing issue because the items that were set forth in his
8 addendum go directly to targeting issues for instance and actions by our
9 client, General Gotovina, which because of a conscious decision by the
10 Prosecution not to provide us with that information precluded us from
11 addressing some of those items with witnesses such as Captain Berikoff,
12 such as Colonel Williams, such as a variety of different witnesses,
13 individuals who were actually present at the -- present on the spot.
14 Now, that is with all of those witnesses who talked about targets
15 and that the Prosecution brought in here, we were prevented from
16 cross-examining any of those individuals based on this report because
17 they made a decision not to give it to us. Not to do it until well into
18 the case, knowing full well, according to Colonel Konings, that when they
19 did the first report, there was going to be a second report.
20 Now, that frankly, Your Honour, is one of the most difficult and
21 disturbing things when one considers what exactly transpired here because
22 quite clearly it violates Rule 94 (a) bis, which is the specific
23 provision. But it significantly hurt the Defence because we missed this
24 opportunity to cross-examine based on these statements, and I can go
25 through a list of witnesses that that applies to.
1 So again without repeating what we did before. I don't want to
2 do that, Judge.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Like you say, there is a new factual element in the
4 testimony of --
5 MR. KEHOE: And we now know what this witness was told that sheds
6 an entire different light on this.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
8 Mr. Kuzmanovic.
9 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, the only thing I would add to that
10 is with respect to opinions that he had regarding shelling of civilian
11 areas outside of Knin, he had no information although he commented on the
12 specific order he had no specific information relating to what the damage
13 was, what the sites were, what the targets were, and in that regard, I
14 mean, that would be the only further submission that I would have with
15 regard to his testimony.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kuzmanovic.
17 Mr. Russo.
18 MR. RUSSO: First of all, Your Honour, with respect to the
19 qualifications to Lieutenant-Colonel Konings, I believe we covered that
20 to some extent during the beginning of direct examination. It is clear
21 that he has significant expertise in the use of artillery, the
22 application of artillery in the field, the rules regarding the use of
23 artillery, and he did give some information of his understanding of
24 international humanitarian law. It is clear that the doctrine, as he
25 also indicated, the doctrine which he learned and can you see from his CV
1 in fact teaches to other members of the Royal Netherlands Army is
2 informed by the considerations of international humanitarian law.
3 So I don't think it is appropriate to say that anything which
4 remotely touches on, which I'm not sure of the preciseness of that
5 standard, anything in the report that remotely touches on international
6 humanitarian law or the laws of armed conflict should be immediately
8 In any case, I think General Konings -- I'm sorry,
9 Colonel Konings's report is quite specific in terms of what it provides
10 to the Court and that is the first report being an understanding of the
11 general nature of artillery, the use of artillery, and the applications
12 of artillery in civilian-populated areas as well as his interruption as
13 an artillery officer and as someone with significant experience in the
14 application of artillery his interpretation of the orders in the case.
15 The addendum clearly addresses from a military perspective the
16 considerations that the Court needs to take into account in determining
17 whether or not the artillery attack was illegal. That is one whether a
18 military advantage is there to be gained from attacking a particular
19 target given all the information and to what effect it would have on the
20 civilian population in order to apply both the rules of proportionality
21 and the principle of distinction.
22 So I think his qualifications to address those have been clearly
23 been established, so I don't think there is any reason to strike anything
24 either in the report or from the testimony he has offered here in court
25 over the last few days.
1 The argument with respect to putting or the loss of the chance to
2 put the report to other witnesses, I don't think that first of all that
3 that bears out under the practice. In fact, the expert report which
4 indicates his interpretation of the order of General Gotovina and several
5 other orders including the general principles of the nature of artillery
6 how it should be used in civilian-populated areas questions regarding
7 those specific areas were asked of a number of fact witnesses, a number
8 of UNMOs, a number of other UNCRO people about how you should artillery
9 in civilian-populated areas, and General -- Colonel Konings's report was
10 never put to him. His original expert report does address those
11 concerns. They never asked any of the witnesses whether they would agree
12 or disagree with those conclusions that he has come to.
13 In any case, asking them whether they agree with
14 Colonel Konings's assessment of the military advantage of a particular
15 military target certainly wouldn't necessarily be relevant for this Court
16 in terms of either evaluating the evidence of Mr. Konings or the evidence
17 of that particular witness. So I don't think that's a valid argument to
18 put forward in terms of --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo. Yes, I was about to invite the
20 Prosecution also to find someone who keeps an eye on your speed of speech
21 as is so done in the Gotovina Defence at this moment which is highly
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. RUSSO: My apologies, Mr. President.
25 The addendum, of course, addresses the military advantage to be
1 gained versus the risk to the civilian population of particular
2 establishments. Now there were other witnesses in the case who testified
3 with respect to many of those locations and again the addendum for
4 Colonel Konings was not put to -- or the expert report was not put to any
5 of them to address the issues the conclusions that he draws about whether
6 artillery should or should not be used in civilian-populated areas. They
7 were never put to those witnesses.
8 So I think that that is in essence a red-herring argument for
9 this Court. It doesn't really bear on the admissibility of either the
10 expert report or the addendum.
11 Therefore, I think his qualifications to offer the opinions which
12 he does offer in both the expert report and in the addendum are fully
13 supported by the qualifications which he has testified to and the answers
14 to the questions he has given before this Chamber.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
16 MR. KEHOE: May I respond very briefly.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you may briefly respond.
18 MR. KEHOE: Mr. Russo interestingly never addressed the issue as
19 to why the Office of the Prosecutor violated the rule. The rule says
20 that we were supposed to have the report. I heard no explanation as to
21 how they violated the rule, why they violated the rule.
22 Now for them to argue that we didn't put the first report to
23 these witnesses is an argument that is specious at best. The article
24 is -- that report is 99.9 percent doctrine. His addendum, and I mean
25 Colonel Konings's addendum, 1260 is the list of items that the Colonel
1 maintains shouldn't have been attacked in a rhetorical nature would you
2 not think, Mr. President, that we would have asked somebody like Captain
3 Berikoff or Colonel Williams or General Forand whether or not they
4 considered the northern barracks as Colonel Konings put it in his report
5 that we got in November of a low military value? An item that was the --
6 the headquarters for the 7th Krajina Brigade. I mean, that's just one of
8 Let's say the telegraph office. No military target, don't you
9 think, the communications that the ARSK had going through those
10 facilities that with that information we would have asked the senior
11 officer like General Forand whether or not that would have been something
12 that we would have -- would have been a military target that should have
13 been engaged? I mean that's just two. I mean, there are 30 different
14 items. I can go down each one of them.
15 And the fact that the Prosecution has made a decision not to give
16 us that report, and we did not have the opportunity to ask senior
17 military officers about all of these items, and Mr. Russo has failed to
18 explain to this Chamber why. Why they didn't give it to us. The
19 burden -- there is a clear violation based on what Colonel Konings said.
20 The burden is on the Prosecutor to tell us why. And I harken back to
21 what Mr. Russo just finished saying. He said nothing about it.
22 Thank you, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kehoe.
24 Mr. Kuzmanovic, anything to add.
25 MR. KUZMANOVIC: No, Your Honour, thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo any need to respond.
2 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Mr. President.
3 The reason I didn't address what Mr. Kehoe terms the violence of
4 the rule is simply because there was no violation of the rule. We
5 certainly don't agree that there was a violation of the rule.
6 Mr. Konings seems to recall being told or mentioned to him that he would
7 have to create an addendum at the time of the expert report. That's not
8 the recollection of the OTP. We certainly weren't planning on springing
9 an addendum on the Defence at the last moment.
10 In any case, again, that argument goes to what the Defence has
11 already argued in terms of good cause as to why addendum should not have
12 been received into evidence. The Court, I believe, has already found in
13 its decision there was no good cause established for why an addendum
14 couldn't have been submitted earlier, but that nevertheless the Court
15 decided to consider the admission or that would hear the admission of the
17 Therefore, the issue of good cause having already been
18 established irrespective of the OTP's disagreement as to the facts of
19 whether or not the rule is violated, that issue has already been resolved
20 by the Chamber.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, if I just may intervene for one second.
22 I think that we established that there was a new element in this -- in
23 this debate and that is that it had been -- it was -- that the need for
24 another report was already considered when the first report was -- was
25 drafted. I think that's the new element, and I very much asked Mr. Kehoe
1 to focus on new matters and we established that this was at least a new
2 piece of information; and I haven't heard much about that because if you
3 refer to our decision, at least that piece of information was not
4 available to us at that moment. Not to say what consequence I'm not --
5 I'm inviting to you specifically address that matter as well.
6 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Mr. President.
7 The OTP did not intend at the time the original expert report was
8 solicited from Colonel Konings. There was no intent to later seek an
9 addendum. I'm not sure why Colonel Konings seems to recall a discussion
10 of that with Mr. Tieger. In any case we did provide to the Defence at
11 their request all communications that we had with Colonel Konings, since
12 the beginning of his involvement with the trial team, and those in fact
13 reflect that there was no intent to seek an addendum at the time his
14 original report --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Doesn't it then come as a surprise that as far as I
16 remember you did not put any question to Mr. Konings on this subject in
18 MR. RUSSO: I didn't believe that was a matter which the Court
19 would have invited testimony on.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you are now challenging the testimony of the
21 witness in that respect without it having been put to him.
22 MR. RUSSO: That's correct, Mr. President. I certainly didn't
23 think that it was necessary to do that.
24 In any case, that is our position, that the communications do in
25 fact support the OTP's position, that this wasn't discussed with him and
1 certainly wasn't contemplated at the time.
2 MR. KEHOE: And I would like to see those communications. I
3 received communications from the early summer, but there is no
4 communications that we received concerning contact with Colonel Konings
5 early on when he was developing his first report.
6 MR. RUSSO: Mr. President, I believe we provided all
7 communications that we had with Colonel Konings. I'm not sure what else
8 there is to provide.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then I suggest that apparently you are hinting
10 at communications and the inter -- such that it gives Mr. Kehoe the
11 impression that -- that it is communication is he not aware of, and if
12 you would sort that out, to start with, so that we know what we're
13 talking about and what keeps you divided.
14 MR. KEHOE: And I will supplement that to one degree. I do
15 believe that the witness noted that his oral communications on this score
16 were with Mr. Tieger. I can go back and check the transcript. But I
17 seem to recall that is what he said.
18 JUDGE ORIE: At least he was in touch with Mr. Tieger, I would
19 have to check that as well.
20 Could I leave the rather factual issue of what the communications
21 had been. We've heard from you Mr. Russo. Mr. Kehoe would like to seek
22 verification on the basis of any recording of such communications. It
23 doesn't seem to me to be a subject which could be fruitfully further
24 explored at this moment in Court.
25 If there is anything that comes up in relation to this specific
1 issue not anything else, then the Chamber would like to be informed
2 tomorrow, noon
3 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, tomorrow noon.
5 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then this then concludes the --
7 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I'm sorry. I didn't address the
8 remaining arguments that remained.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed. Yes, I interrupted you.
10 MR. RUSSO: Also the issue about what could have been presented
11 to earlier witnesses, first of all, whether General Forand or
12 Mr. Berikoff or whomever what they think of Colonel Konings's opinion
13 about the military advantage to be gained from shelling the northern
14 barracks or any other establishment is simply not relevant. They can be
15 asked themselves as they were what they believed the military advantage
16 was to be gained or not gained and why. Asking one witness to offer an
17 opinion about the validity of another' witness's evidence about that
18 simply doesn't assist this Chamber in any way, and that would have been
19 objected to by the OTP, in any case.
20 I'll just slow down for the translation.
21 And again, Your Honour, as I indicated the -- this argument that
22 the addendum would have been put to other witnesses is clearly
23 contradicted by the fact that the addendum was filed and given to the
24 Defence prior to the testimony of witness 40, Kosta Novakovic, the ARSK
25 officer who provided firsthand knowledge with respect to many of the
1 installations which Colonel Konings addresses. They did not put the
2 addendum to him. And he is the one to testify here who has the most
3 direct knowledge about what the military advantage would or would not
4 have been.
5 MR. KEHOE: If I can respond to --
6 MR. RUSSO: I'm not finished I'm waiting for the translation.
7 MR. KEHOE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let Mr. Russo first finish. The second round was
9 one minute Mr. Russo and you were the one who took most time in the first
10 round so would you please --
11 MR. RUSSO: I have nothing further to say, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's -- then unless there is something
13 totally new. I think we started with Defence, Prosecution, Defence,
14 Prosecution; so before I give you an opportunity, Mr. Kehoe, then first
15 explain why it would be appropriate to give, again, an opportunity to the
16 Defence, rather than to stick to as it is said in Latin, litis finiri
17 oportet. There has to be an end to submission or to debate to
19 MR. KEHOE: I guess my first point is I just know you wanted to
20 hear my eloquence for yet a few more minutes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I can play the audios as much as I want to,
22 Mr. Kehoe.
23 MR. KEHOE: It is quite simple with regard to getting into
24 objections as to what would have been allowed or not allowed. That is
25 completely up to the Trial Chamber whether or not those things could have
1 been confronted.
2 What our overall position is that we were precluded from even
3 attempting to that, and it would have been up to the Chamber as to how it
4 would have been allowed.
5 Mr. Russo's idea of cross-examination is quite limited in these
6 terms because certainly throughout cross-examination, we asked Witness A
7 based on something else that Witness B would have said and to say that
8 the Chamber would not have been assisted by the testimony of professional
9 officers who were there at the scene while this was taking place --
10 JUDGE ORIE: We do understand. Mr. Russo is thinking for us but
11 this Chamber finally will do the thinking itself. And --
12 MR. KEHOE: I do have the page reference where Colonel Konings
13 said he spoke to Mr. Tieger. It's at 14494, line 6.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that.
15 Then we'll conclude for the day. I had forgotten to mention that
16 in my estimates for Thursday and Friday, of course, also some time should
17 be reserved for brief submissions on timing for the future. But I take
18 it that that would not consume more than, all together, I would say 20
19 minutes. It's just a brief information to the Chamber. We would need so
20 much for that, we would need so much for that, and that would not heavily
21 influence our time scheduling for Thursday and Friday.
22 The parties should prepare whether we do it at the beginning,
23 Mr. Hedaraly, or at the end of Thursday and Friday's sessions, but the
24 parties should be prepared to respond to all the outstanding issues on
25 the -- on the pending issues list, and I take it that this will be
1 updated, if possible, even this afternoon so that the registry can
2 distribute all the issues which we still have to deal with.
3 Then we adjourn for the day and we we'll resume on a Thursday,
4 the 22nd of January, 2009, at 9.00 in the morning, Courtroom I.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.34 p.m.,
6 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 22nd day of
7 January, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.