1 Friday, 14 December 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
7 Mr. Nicholls, please continue.
8 MR. NICHOLLS: Good morning, Your Honour. Actually, having gone
9 through the transcript and discussing things, I have no further questions
10 at this time.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Nicholls.
12 WITNESS: LUKA DRAGICEVIC [Resumed]
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, do you have any re-examination?
15 [Defence and accused confer]
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just a moment, your Excellencies.
17 Bear with me. I did not expect that I would be invited to do so
19 Yes, a few short questions. Good morning, Excellencies. Good
20 morning everybody. Good morning Colonel, sir.
21 Re-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
22 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Colonel.
23 A. Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning to everybody.
24 Q. First of all let me ask you about the procedure to report crimes
25 to the prosecutor's office? Who is it who reports crimes to the
1 prosecutor's office, which structure in a unit?
2 A. Pursuant to our rules as far as I can remember at this moment,
3 but I believe that I will be right if I say that from the company
4 commander down to every officer is duty-bound to draft a report and to
5 hand it over to the prosecutor's office if they have a legal expert in
6 their unit, i.e., in their command. It is that legal expert who drafts
7 that report. Every officer who learns of a crime is duty-bound to
8 examine it if possible, but he has to report it. It has to be done by a
9 professional in that unit.
10 Having done that, they have to report to their superiors about
12 Q. What is the role of the military police in that?
13 A. I can't give you any details. However, in that case the military
14 police are used by the security organ of the command. I know
15 approximately, but I don't want to go into detail of what the police need
16 to do. In any case, it has -- the police have to follow the orders of
17 the commander and investigate the case.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 A. I apologise. If the report has already reached the prosecutor's
20 office, the prosecutor will be in charge -- in charge of the
21 investigation process.
22 Q. Thank you. You were shown a telegram by Colonel Masal, and you
23 saw how he interpreted the verbal words of General Mladic. Every ethnic
24 community over there has some derogatory terms. How were we referred to
25 by Muslims?
1 A. We are referred to as "vlasi."
2 Q. Thank you.
3 A. There are many such terms which are customary, but they do not
4 reflect the gist. It all depends on the objective which people want to
5 achieve. In our documents issued by the organ for moral guidance, there
6 are also elements of propaganda based on the truth. In other words,
7 there are very few instances -- or, rather, it is not very realistic. It
8 is somewhat coloured.
9 Q. Are all Croats Ustasha for us or some are not?
10 A. No. The Ustasha are only those who were soldiers in the
11 Independent State of Croatia, i.e., in the state which was based and
12 which arose from the traditions of the Independent State of Croatia.
13 Q. Thank you. When it comes to the Turks, Skender Kulenovic, Mesa
14 Selimovic, Osman Karabegovic, are they Turks?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Who are Turks in colloquial terms?
17 A. In colloquial terms --
18 Q. Does this refer to civilians or soldiers?
19 A. It refers to soldiers.
20 Q. Is there another even worse derogatory term which is used for
21 Muslim civilians and soldiers?
22 A. I believe that you're referring to the term "balija."
23 Q. Thank you. One more question. I believe that some of the
24 confusion arose with regard to the question as to whether the aerial bomb
25 was launched from the ground or from the lorry. Did you make a
1 distinction when you said that you didn't know whether it was from the
2 ground or from the lorry?
3 A. I did not see where it was launched from and how. I never saw
4 that launch. Therefore, I don't know where the launch is mounted,
5 whether it is mounted on a lorry, on a platform, on the ground. In any
6 case, it is not mounted on an aircraft.
7 Q. Thank you. Colonel, sir, this is all I wanted to ask you.
8 A. Mr. Presiding Judge, may I say something?
9 JUDGE KWON: About what, Mr. Dragicevic?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, first of all, I would like to
11 thank you for having intervened yesterday about the event in Gojcevic
12 village. However, last night I had problems because I believe that it
13 was not completely elucidated. Those were people who originated from
14 that village and who left for Croatia before 1991 and since there was a
15 census, they declared themselves as people who hailed from that village,
16 but it is only certain that they left before 1991. In other words, the
17 information about the number of people does not apply to the village of
18 Gojcevic who lived there in 1993 and in 1994.
19 And let me tell you that no single house was torched. There was
20 no need to torch any houses over there.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nicholls, would you like to pose further
23 questions with respect to comments he made right now?
24 MR. NICHOLLS: No, Your Honour. Thank you.
25 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Then that concludes your evidence,
1 Mr. Dragicevic on behalf of the Chamber I thank you for coming to The
2 Hague to give it. Now you're free to go.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 [The witness withdrew]
5 THE ACCUSED: If I may, Excellencies, just while witness is
6 outside, that is wrong with those censuses from Croatia. It says that
7 inhabitants of Croatia originating from Bosnia. [Interpretation] I could
8 have stated that in Serbian as well. The fact is that this creates
9 confusion. There are original documents, there are original census
10 documents in Bosnia, as well.
11 JUDGE KWON: Very well. You can use that later on.
12 Before -- yes. We'll bring in the next witness. In the
13 meantime, I was informed by the Registry that the translation of
14 Exhibit D2634 MFI has been uploaded, so I note that that would be
15 admitted in full.
16 The next witness is Mrs. Andjelkovic Lukic?
17 MR. ROBINSON: That's correct, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE KWON: And Mr. Karadzic, you will lead live this expert
20 MR. ROBINSON: That's correct.
21 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
22 JUDGE KWON: He was supposed to -- I was told that he was
23 supposed to arrive at the Tribunal at quarter to 10.00. We will rise and
24 then as soon as he arrives, if we could be informed accordingly.
25 We'll rise.
1 --- Break taken at 9.15 a.m.
2 --- Upon commencing at 9.46 a.m.
3 [The witness entered court]
4 JUDGE KWON: Would the witness take the solemn declaration.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
6 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic. Please be seated
8 and make yourself comfortable.
9 WITNESS: MIRJANA ANDJELKOVIC LUKIC
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, for the purpose of scheduling, you
12 will take about an hour for your examination-in-chief?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe that I won't take more
14 than that.
15 JUDGE KWON: Then we'll have a break after the -- your
16 examination-in-chief is over, and then we'll have the -- we'll hear the
17 cross after the break.
18 Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Karadzic.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Excellency.
20 Examination by Mr. Karadzic:
21 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic.
22 A. Good morning.
23 Q. Did you provide us with a copy of your CV?
24 A. Yes.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have 1D21079 in
1 e-court. Could we have the English version as well, please.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Could you please briefly present your CV to us. First of all,
4 tell us what your education is and what your profession is based on that
5 training, what your doctorate was, what kind of work you did.
6 A. I have a degree in technology and engineering. I graduated in
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The witness will have to
9 speak slower.
10 JUDGE KWON: Doctor, since your testimony is to be translated, if
11 you could slow down a bit more and put a pause between the question and
12 answer, and could you kindly repeat your answer, Doctor.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the way it is: I graduated
14 from high school, and then I graduated from the University of Belgrade.
15 It was the Faculty of Technology and Metallurgy, and I got my Masters
16 Degree at the department of organic chemistry, and I got my doctorate in
17 the field of explosives. I worked at the military technical institute
18 from 1974 until 1989. That's when I got my Masters Degree. And then
19 from the Military Technical Institute I went to work in another research
20 institute. In the military technical institute I was involved in
21 studying new explosives and new technologies, the processing of
22 explosives, then their elaboration into weaponry and explosives, TNT, and
23 studying their characteristics. So this was research based on knowledge
24 about explosives.
25 Then I went in 1989 to work up until 2000 when I retired in the
1 technical experimental centre. Over there I worked on the verification
2 and testing of various weapons containing explosives. At the technical
3 experimental centre I received my doctorate. For many years I was a
4 member of the scientific council and I continued my research work. I
5 wrote several monographs in the field of explosives, and also quite a few
6 professional publications that I presented in my CV.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. I believe that it doesn't say here in line 4 that this scientific
9 council was also the scientific and teaching council. Can you tell us
10 what the difference is?
11 A. Well, it's not a technical and teaching -- or, rather, it is not
12 research and teaching. If it were the VMA, which is also a teaching
13 institution, that would have been different, but I was member of the
14 scientific council of the centre and before that also at the VTI.
15 Q. Thank you. What did this have to do with practical questions of
16 applying your knowledge concerning weapons? How was this used in the
17 Yugoslav Army?
18 A. Members of the scientific council were - how shall I put this? -
19 eminent scholars from these institutions, and for the most part they
20 based their work on the development of new scientific methods and also
21 developed various resources. Also, they were mentors for people who were
22 getting their masters and doctoral degrees.
23 Q. Thank you. This component experimental, did that have any kind
24 of concrete -- concrete effect on the Army of Yugoslavia?
25 A. This experimental or testing institute was a pre-eminent
1 institution for testing weapons. All new equipment that was supposed to
2 be commissioned in the JNA had to go through this channel. Not a single
3 piece of equipment could be used in the JNA unless it had been seriously
4 and extensively tested at the Technical Testing Centre.
5 Now, what does this involve? Technical documentation,
6 construction documentation, all standards that have to do with each and
7 every detail.
8 Q. Doctor, could I just ask you, please, to speak a bit slower,
9 because we would really like to have each and every word of yours
10 recorded in this transcript.
11 A. I do apologise.
12 Q. So what was done finally? You say that no piece of equipment
13 could be -- well, what did this imply?
14 A. Once a piece of equipment is tested very extensively, then a
15 special licence is issued -- or, rather, a special document introducing
16 this piece of equipment into the weaponry of the JNA at the time.
17 Without this kind of extensive testing for all components of each and
18 every piece of equipment, no piece of equipment could have been included
19 in the JNA weaponry; that is to say, the weapons they had available to
20 them, if I can put it that way.
21 Q. Thank you. How was this reflected on the possibility of
22 manufacturing this?
23 A. As far as manufacturing is concerned, there was the military
24 industry, product specific as it was called. It was highly developed in
25 the then SFRY. It had units that co-operated with the military technical
1 institute and -- and they co-operated with the military technical
2 institute and developed certain assets regardless of whether it's
3 ammunition or vehicles.
4 Then before they would test a particular piece at the Technical
5 Testing Centre, they had their own facilities where they would test a
6 particular piece of equipment, and once they had done that, then it would
7 be brought to the centre where preliminary testing would be conducted,
8 and then it would be checked. If everything was all right, then it could
9 be studied in its final stage. So this was a rather serious procedure.
10 Q. Thank you. What was the international reputation of the Yugoslav
11 military industry at the time?
12 A. The military industry of the SFRY was among the best in the
13 world. It was a renowned institution, and I think that it ranked fifth
14 among weapon exporters in the world, especially artillery, ammunition,
15 vehicles, tanks, the M-84 tank, for instance, that was the crown, if you
16 will, of the then military industry of the SFRY. So it enjoyed quite a
17 reputation both in Europe and beyond.
18 Q. Thank you, Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, may I tender
20 this CV? Can it be admitted.
21 MR. GAYNOR: No objection.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
23 THE REGISTRAR: It shall be assigned Exhibit D2661.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic, can you tell us what the Defence team
2 asked you to do for the Defence, what kind of research?
3 A. The Defence team asked me a while ago to carry out, of course in
4 co-operation with my colleagues, a review and analysis of two reports of
5 my colleague Berko Zecevic that pertained to the use of bombs in urban
6 areas in Sarajevo. One of these reports is from 1995, and the other one
7 is from 2007.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please call up 1D6820 in
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Is this your report Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Was anything redacted here? All right. Sorry. Sorry. We did
15 that. Actually, we redacted things that were not contained in the
16 indictment against me because they were unnecessary. However, the
17 indictment was amended several times, and that's why all of this
19 Can I ask you whether it is correct that Mr. Zecevic, in his
20 findings, presented the following thesis: That classical explosive
21 charges of air-bombs that the JNA and the Army of Republika Srpska had
22 and that were Yugoslav made, that these classical charges were replaced
23 by the so-called RAE explosive, and could you tell us in simple terms
24 what this report of his contained, the one that is being challenged by
25 the Defence, and then I will put some specific questions regarding these
2 A. The thesis of my colleague Zecevic was that air-bombs were used.
3 I'm sorry, I seem to have lost the thread.
4 Q. How were they manufactured, these bombs, or, rather, how were
5 these explosive charges changed?
6 A. Ah, all right. First of all, as far as air-bombs were concerned,
7 those that already existed in the weaponry of the JNA, TNT was used as a
8 charge, and that is how they were manufactured, filled with TNT. It was
9 physically impossible to replace this TNT and to put air explosives in
10 there quite simply because these casings of air-bombs are much thicker
11 than the casings of containers that contain air explosives. So it is
12 quite impossible that warheads could be an aerosol explosive.
13 Q. We'll get to that. I just wanted to ask you something. What was
14 supposed to be done to a bomb, what was supposed to be modified on the
15 bomb, on the warhead itself, in order to replace this?
16 A. Well, the assumption is -- the assumption is, but it is highly
17 unlikely, to get the explosive out, to melt it, if you will, and then
18 when this warhead or casing is cleaned in this way, if you will, then you
19 put ethylene oxide inside. That's the aerosol explosive that is most
20 often referred to. And then in the middle a cylinder called charge
21 should be put in with classical explosives, say 10 to 15 per cent of the
22 mass of the overall explosive. And then there would be a detonation of
23 this middle charge which would open the warhead, and then this aerosol
24 would be released. And that is absolutely impossible in the case of
25 casings of warheads of air-bombs because they are so thick.
1 Q. Did I see a sketch somewhere in your report of what you described
2 to us just now, and can you help me with that?
3 A. Can I get my paper out of my bag now, please?
4 Q. I hope that the Chamber will --
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I?
6 JUDGE KWON: By all means, Doctor.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Could you please assist the Registry and tell us the page where
10 that can be found.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise to the interpreters.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is an image, image 29. Image
13 29. In my report it is on page 57, and in Mr. Zecevic's report it is --
14 do I have to provide you with that page as well or is it enough if you
15 have my page? But I think that the -- there is a discrepancy of one or
16 two pages in respect of my report. In any case, it's image 29.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have that image on the
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, now, what was your question?
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. My question was this: Here we can see a charge. What charge is
23 A. The -- based on the particles that were found belonging to an
24 air-bomb, Mr. Zecevic here drew an image of a rocket projectile with a
25 warhead, and he assumes that the charge was aerosol explosive. The
1 warhead depicted in this way is a warhead which corresponds to the casing
2 of an air-bomb. So this cannot be a container filled with liquid
3 explosive because there is a thickening at the top, as you can see.
4 There is a thickening at the bottom, and on average the thickness of a
5 casing in bombs is about 10 millimetres in the narrowest part and then
6 towards the top this increases by two or even by three times. I don't
7 know much about that but I know that the increase in the thickness is
8 significant at the top as well as at the bottom.
9 In the middle what you see as a darker part is a classical
10 explosive charge. What is the function of that classical explosive? The
11 function is as follows: The middle part of the classical explosive at
12 any given moment when a bomb comes to -- to a certain distance, there's a
13 special way of functioning of that bomb. It does not function as an
14 aircraft bomb that is thrown and detonated. This is a bomb which has
15 special demands in terms of altitude. It has certain measuring devices
16 which determine the height and the distance of the bomb from the ground
17 which is 5 to 10 metres depending on the target.
18 And then the inner part explodes, that inner part, and the
19 explosion is aimed at breaking up the container which contains the
20 aerosol explosives. And when that container is broken, then the aerosol
21 explosive which is liquid at 0 degrees centigrade and at 20 degrees is a
22 gas, that becomes a cloud, and then there's a special detonator which
23 initiates the explosion, enters the cloud and it initiates the explosion.
24 The size of that cloud is about 20 to -- 15 to 20 metres in diametre.
25 The pressure in that cloud according to literature is about 20 to 30
1 bars, and I calculated based on the speed of the detonation of 1500 to 20
2 or even 3000 metres in a second. My calculations say that the pressure
3 in that cloud is between 5 and 20 bars. I have to say here that
4 according to literature, referring to explosives and their action, and
5 which is something that I learned in my profession, and I noticed it very
6 well, are not always in correlation with the experiment. They are always
7 higher. I really don't know why.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to slow down.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know when I dealt with my
10 explosives and when I examined the speed of detonation, when I had all
11 the conditions that were present in literature --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly slow down. The witness is speaking very
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- the speed of detonation, so I
15 believe --
16 JUDGE KWON: Could you slow down again. It's very difficult for
17 the interpreters to keep up with you, in particular we are dealing with
18 such expert matters. Shall we --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. I apologise again.
20 JUDGE KWON: Could you repeat your --
21 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter's note: We did not miss
22 anything, but we kindly ask the witness to slow down.
23 JUDGE KWON: So could you start again from the speed of
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well. I'll try and slow down.
1 When that cloud spreads, a special initiator of the explosion enters the
2 cloud and initiates the explosion in the cloud, which means what we get
3 is an explosive cloud. The speed of detonation of that cloud, i.e., the
4 speed by which the chemical reaction spreads through that cloud is
5 between 1500 and 3000 metres per second, and the pressure of the
6 detonation is between 20 to 30 bars. However, when I calculated based on
7 the thickness of the ethylene oxide which was 89 at 20 degrees, and based
8 on the speed of the detonation according to literature, I obtained a
9 pressure of detonation ranging between 5 and 20 bars, i.e., the median
10 pressure of 11 bars.
11 I must intervene at this point, and I must say that what we find
12 in literature is never in correlation with what we obtain in experimental
13 situations, and I know that very well from my own experience.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Thank you. First of all, I would like to ask you this: How
16 would it be possible to empty the casing from TNT and replace the content
17 by partially hard and partially liquid explosives as is represented in
19 A. Yes. Air-bombs contain liquid trotyl. That trotyl melts at 82
20 degrees. Thus melted, it can be transported into the casing of a warhead
21 and then its manufacture is finished. In order to pour out, i.e., to
22 melt that trotyl from the warhead which weighs between 100 and 250
23 kilogrammes and which contains between 39 to 105 melted trotyl, requires
24 a lot of work and effort. That warhead has to be lifted to an elevated
25 position, the lower part has to be unscrewed, and water steam which has
1 to be heated up to 90 degrees centigrade, the trotyl has to be melted
2 layer by layer. It has to be collected in a container and then it has to
3 be removed. It is a very painstaking job which doesn't pay at the end.
4 It is pointless at the end of the day. And then those empty casings are
5 filled with containers with aerosol explosives. Again, this doesn't make
6 too much sense because I've just told you -- I've just explained to you
7 the techniques of the casing of an air-bomb in -- on average -- on
8 average is about 10 millimetres, which means that in -- that the central
9 charge which is in the middle of liquid explosive would not have enough
10 power and strength to break up that casing in the first place, because
11 the container in which liquid explosive is placed, its thickness is about
12 2 to 3 millimetres, and that's a big difference in terms of the casing of
13 the warhead.
14 Q. Thank you. You mentioned a certain height. What did you mean
15 when you say that at a certain height this aerosol bomb will explode?
16 How does that reflect on the point of contact with the soil?
17 A. Aerosol bombs are primarily constructed to make passages through
18 jungles, for example. When the Americans first arrived in Vietnam and
19 Cambodia, they did that. The principle of action of this air-bomb is as
20 follows: An aircraft drops an aircraft bomb at a certain level or a
21 certain height. A parachute opens. Those are such manipulations to
22 allow the aircraft to get away from the bomb as quickly as possible. A
23 parachute thus opens, and at the same time the altitude metre switches
24 itself on, and after a certain time that determines at which height or at
25 which level the central charge will be detonated. That bomb usually
1 comes 5 to 10 metres away from the target, and it all depends on what the
2 target is, whether it s a bunker or making a road through a minefield and
3 so on and so forth.
4 When that bomb opens after the central charge explodes and when
5 the container opens and bigger fragments of tin start falling out, then
6 from special places on the warhead which sometimes can be a tail fin near
7 the parachute, the fuses ignite a fire in the cloud, and that cloud falls
8 onto the ground and with its pressure it prompts certain actions.
9 This is primarily made to destroy personnel, to destroy bunkers,
10 and that bomb is made in such a way to leave larger facilities intact,
11 but at the same time it destroys the enemy forces in the pockets around
12 those facilities such as bunkers and trenches and so on and so forth.
13 There is no way to save yourselves from that cloud. When it
14 falls on the ground, all the living beings are damaged by that cloud.
15 They can suffer major injuries from that cloud, which means that its
16 lethal properties are active in three-quarters of its diametre. Usually
17 the casualties are affected by the blast effect. The temperatures are
18 high, up to 3.000 degrees centigrade, and injuries consist of burns and
19 similar injuries. And if the impact area is near a building, you can see
20 charred windows and doors. Unfortunately, I had an opportunity to be an
21 expert witness for explosions from methane which is also an aerosol that
22 is used as a charge for such bombs.
23 Q. Thank you. Before we deal with the effects, I wanted to ask you
24 whether the ratio between the charge and the thickness of the casing,
25 does it also influence the fragmentation of the casing?
1 A. Of course. One always has to be borne -- take into account that
2 there is about 30 to 40 per cent of the explosive with respect to the
3 weight of the casing. In aircraft bombs the situation is the same. For
4 example, when the weight is 100 kilogrammes, there is 39 kilogrammes of
5 explosive. So the ratio is some -- between 30 to 40 per cent.
6 I get carried away. 30 or 40 per cent of explosive with respect
7 to the weight of the casing. What happens with the destructive bombs?
8 When the secondary explosive explodes in the casing, i.e., when trotyl
9 explosive explodes, the casing is fragmented due to the chemical reaction
10 which happens in the explosive when it is initiated. That means that the
11 explosive is initiated when it receives a heat impulse from the primary
12 explosive, from the propellant. A very quick chemical reaction develops.
13 It advances through the explosive and releases a high quantity of warmth,
14 and warm, hot gases are developed under pressure. They destroy the metal
15 body, and they have a destructive effect when -- and that casing also has
16 a lethal effect due its fragments.
17 Q. Thank you. Can you help us with this: It seems to me on the
18 basis of your remarks so far that the explosion of liquid explosives
19 happens only after fragmentation -- or, rather, the breaking of the
20 container. Does the liquid explosive take part in fragmentation or does
21 this happen after -- after, you know, what you said, when the liquid gas
22 got out?
23 A. Yes, the basic difference in terms of how these classical
24 explosives function and these liquid explosives is as follows: Trotyl,
25 now I'm speaking about that, has sufficient energy in it, its molecules
1 have sufficient energy, so it can react on land, in air. It doesn't need
2 oxygen. It reacts within the casing and fragments the casing. This
3 air-bomb consists of compounds that have one or two atoms of oxygen,
4 C2H4O specifically in this case, that's the structural formula. It
5 doesn't have enough oxygen; therefore, it cannot burn.
6 When the container is opened, I mean as far as fuel-air
7 explosives are concerned, the role of the casing is not the same as in
8 cases of classical bombs, that is to say including fragmentation. Here
9 the casing is used only as clothing, if you will, for liquid explosive,
10 and then when it is opened, then this liquid explosive has to be
11 triggered off in some way in order to take oxygen from the air and then
12 start burning. So that's the difference. Solid explosives do not need
13 oxygen. This is an adiabatic process, but the case of liquid explosives,
14 that is not the case. There has to be oxygen for it to react. Those are
15 the basic differences.
16 Q. Let me help the interpreters. And you can help, too. Adiabatic,
17 line 5, would you translate it that way?
18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note: That's what we said.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That is a situation when
20 there is no exchange of energy with the environment. The change occurs
21 within the body itself without the participation of the external
22 environment. That is an adiabatic process.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us what happens if the quantity of
25 explosive that is supposed to fragment a casing is smaller than
2 A. This container with the liquid explosive; right? Well, nothing
3 can happen. I mean, well, if it is less than what is prescribed, there
4 cannot be fragmentation. There's simply not enough strength.
5 Q. Thank you. Did you come across any information to the effect
6 that the Army of Republika Srpska was technically and technologically
7 capable of replacing these two explosives, replacing TNT with this liquid
9 A. Something like that did exist in the SFRY, in the JNA, only in
10 one particular overall institution. It was an institute in Tivat. It
11 was called Sava Kovacevic, and nowhere else. Otherwise, it would have
12 been very, very risky to embark on any such thing. They had all the
13 necessary technical equipment for doing something like that. Otherwise,
14 I did not know of any capability of the army of the Republika Srpska to
15 do something like that. That is a very painstaking job, and ultimately
16 it is unnecessary.
17 Q. Thank you. When you said that it doesn't really pay off, what
18 did you mean?
19 A. I meant energy consumption. Also, if there is a proper piece of
20 ammunition, why would one make something different with a very uncertain
21 outcome? I mean, what would be the point of all of that? I don't see
22 the actual point of something like that.
23 Q. Thank you. In Yugoslavia, either the SFRY or in the
24 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were air-bombs fully researched, and were
25 they ever introduced as a standard weapon of the JNA or, rather, the VJ?
1 Aerosol, I mean. Oh, it said here air-bomb, whereas I said aerosol.
2 A. Since I spent my entire career working with explosives and during
3 the second part of my career I also tested quality, I can say with a high
4 degree of responsibility that something like that never reached my desk.
5 Why? At the Technical Testing Centre I was the only expert for
6 explosives. As I said a moment ago, in order for a piece of equipment to
7 be admitted into the JNA, it had to go through all the necessary testing
8 starting with documentation, construction and technical documentation.
9 That is to see how the piece was constructed, what the standards involved
10 were. Each and every expert had their own fields. I covered the field
11 of explosives. So everything that had to do with explosives had to reach
12 my desk. It could go no further until I initialed it. During my career
13 until the year 2000, I did not receive any such thing at my desk, and I
14 can say with full responsibility that something like that did not exist
15 in the weaponry of the JNA.
16 Q. Thank you. In line 18 did you say that you were the only expert?
17 A. Yes, I said I was the only expert.
18 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us what the consequences would be shown
19 by a pathology or postmortem on a living creature who would fall victim
20 to one of these explosives and if you would compare that to someone who
21 would be a victim of another explosive rather than the one we're talking
23 A. I'm a layperson, but I think I can describe that. Destructive
24 bombs, lethal weapons with thick casings, have a lethal -- or, rather, a
25 destructive effect and are lethal as far as personnel are concerned.
1 That is shrapnel, different open wounds and so on. Everything that can
2 be assumed what can happen to a human being when hit by a metal object
3 that is moving at such high speed.
4 On the other hand, as far as aerosol explosives are concerned, or
5 fuel-air explosives, primarily they have a blast effect on human beings
6 more than is the case in the former. So there are injuries sustained by
7 internal organs, the brain, ears, lungs, heart. The lungs and heart can
8 stop altogether. Air can penetrate veins and so on. So wounds from
9 fuel-air explosives are usually due to a blast effect.
10 Also, there can be burns, because this cloud is very hot, 2000 to
11 3000 degrees. So in my view, one of the dominant effects of this cloud
12 are actually burns, and I had occasion to see that when I was an expert
13 witness with regards to such explosives.
14 Q. Doctor, thank you. Can we just explain this, transcript page 22,
15 line 11. It says that you're a layperson. What is it that you're a
16 layperson for?
17 A. Layperson as far as wounds are concerned. I'm not a physician.
18 So when I talk about wounds, injuries, I am saying that as a layperson.
19 I'm not a doctor. I'm not a physician. That's how I meant that.
20 Q. Secondly, you mentioned eyes and the transcript does not reflect
21 eyes. What happens with eyes in case of these two explosives?
22 A. As far as these classical explosives are concerned, the wounds
23 are as if they were inflicted by a bullet, let me put it that way. And
24 as far as these liquid explosives are concerned, these wounds are due to
25 pressure. That is to say that there is pressure. The eyes can fall out
1 of the sockets. Then there can be -- then lungs can also be injured. I
2 mean, all of these are the effects of the blast effect. Because the
3 pressure in that cloud is -- well, 50 to 20 bar, and literature says 20
4 to 30 bar, but I just did the calculation now. All right. This
5 pressure, when compared to the pressure when a -- when classical
6 ammunition explodes, classical TNT explosives, it's much less. When
7 trotyl explodes, it is 200 kilobar. Imagine 200 times 10 to the third.
8 So the pressure of fuel-air explosives is up to 20 bar. But this goes on
9 a bit longer, this pressure, a few milliseconds. When compared to the
10 pressure from classical explosives, that is much shorter. And that is
11 what I have to say about the blast effect of these fuel-air explosives.
12 Perhaps it's more pronounced than as far as classical explosives are
13 concerned, although it does exist there as well but if they are closer to
14 the centre of explosion.
15 Q. Thank you. How do these explosives behave in relation to
16 physical solid obstacles or, rather, shelters, if a human being, a living
17 creature were to be behind something like that?
18 A. The diametre of their clouds is from 17 to 20 metres. My
19 colleague mentions the diametre of even 30 metres. There is no shelter
20 there for human beings, none whatsoever. Why? Because this explosive --
21 this explosive cloud, this cloud that exploded if I can put it that way,
22 penetrates everywhere. If in one area there is a cloud and if it
23 detonates, then no one can be saved from that. You cannot stand behind a
24 pillar, for instance, because it sinks everything like a fluid or liquid
25 does, whereas in the case of classical explosives, a shelter can be found
1 from the blast. You can stand behind a pillar, behind some kind of
2 concrete shelter, and then the blast can just pass -- or, rather, bypass
3 that obstacle. And then if a man is sheltered or is hiding there can
4 remain unharmed. Things like that have happened. That's the difference
5 between the two blast effects.
6 Q. Thank you. Did you have an opportunity of seeing for yourself
7 and recording any kind of pathology findings or postmortems or
8 descriptions of a site where such an explosion took place involving high
9 temperatures, what the effects were on the environment and also were
10 there pathology findings for human beings or other living creatures that
11 would confirm that this fuel-air explosive had been used in Sarajevo?
12 A. First of all, I would like to start by dealing with physical
13 remains of an explosion. The primary thing is when a container with
14 fuel-air explosive explodes, large parts of the metal casing are
15 separated, 300 by 400 millimetres. That is to say it's like pieces of
16 tin that would be on site. That was not found anywhere. This was not
17 even reviewed theoretically in the reports that I looked at, the
18 fragmentation of a casing with fuel-air explosive. Nowhere in these
19 materials did I observe that in addition to destruction effects were
20 shown of burning, combustion. These are dominant effects in addition to
21 destruction, in addition to the blast effect. There's also burning. I
22 didn't see that anywhere.
23 As far as these post-mortems are concerned, I did not have an
24 opportunity of seeing that anywhere. I didn't see any burns, any cases
25 of burns. I saw two or three cases. I didn't see more. But there was
1 no reference to any person who had been wounded or killed had suffered
2 burns, and that would have to happen if there was a burning cloud, if I
3 can put it in such picturesque terms. That is what this explosion is
4 called when that kind of explosive explodes.
5 Q. Thank you, Doctor. Did you correct anything, or did you amend
6 your basic findings?
7 A. Yes, I did. I added something. I sent that addition to you.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I like to call up 1D6816 in
9 e-court. And I will tender both documents after we have finished with
10 them. 1D6816.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I have that. It has three
12 pages, and I have them all.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Can this errata be replaced by the word "addendum"? The title is
15 "Errata." Did you correct anything or did you add anything?
16 A. In my copy the title is an addition to the expert analysis. I
17 don't know how this was admitted.
18 Q. It was translated as "errata."
19 A. Well, that's okay. I have no objection to that.
20 Q. Can you tell us briefly what your addition was?
21 A. You can see in figure 1 that my colleague in his report that he
22 drafted in 2007, on page --
23 Q. Which colleague is that?
24 A. Mr. Berko Zecevic, my colleague who drafted a report in 2007, on
25 page 06067086 showed a photo in his report - it's image 99, and in my
1 addendum it's image 1 - and he described the differences, and he also had
2 some footnotes about the remains of the propellant of the modified bomb
3 FAB-250 found when the building in Dositejeva Street was targeted. He
4 doesn't mention the number of that building.
5 Q. In the same document.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] To help the participants in the
7 proceedings, the reference is 1D6838, page 73 in e-court. That's the
8 reference for the expert's words, and that's the Serbian version. And
9 the doctor provided the ERN page. Page 73 in the Serbian version,
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. I apologise, Doctor. Please continue. I just wanted the
13 participants to be able to follow you.
14 A. Thank you. The rocket engines in my figure 1 is something that
15 Berko Zecevic found in Dositejeva Street according to him. Figure two
16 depicts the same object from a different angle and that was found in
17 Geteova 5 or Cetinjska 5 in Sarajevo. On the following page of my
18 supplement figure 3 depicts the remains of the engine that was found in
19 Dositejeva Street number 4A. What we see in figure 3 and in figure 1,
20 those things do not resemble each other at all.
21 In my expert report, what you see under figure 3 are the remains
22 of rocket engines in Dositejeva Street. In -- this is what is found in
23 Berko Zecevic's report, and this is how the engines look when they're
24 separated, whereas in figure 1 he put them together, and they resemble --
25 not only do they resemble, but they are the same engines that are found
1 in figure 2, and that is what exists in the 1995 report that concerns
2 Geteova Street.
3 Furthermore, on the following page is a figure from his document,
4 figure 99, and you can see footnote 8, the remains of the propellant of
5 the modified bomb found when a building in Dositejeva Street was
7 And below that you can see the racketised [phoen] bomb, FAB-250.
8 The photos were taken by the Dutch unit of the SFOR where you can see the
9 warhead FAB-250, and my colleague Zecevic in his report expressly claimed
10 that it was charged with fuel-air explosive and not only FAB-250 but also
11 FAB-100 which you can see in my report here, and he says in his report
12 that it is a pity that one could not find a single bomb that could be
13 de-elaborated or deconstructed in order to identify the explosive within.
14 And in his reports -- in both of his reports, in several places
15 he shows the FAB-100 bomb which was found as an unexploded, and now the
16 FAB-250 bomb which also was not activated, and my question to my esteemed
17 colleague Berko Zecevic is this: How come the warheads of those rockets
18 that were found were not reconstructed in order to establish or to refute
19 the opinion that it contained fuel-air explosives?
20 Q. Thank you. When we talk about modified air-bombs, is something
21 really modified on the bomb itself?
22 A. In this case that we considered here, the only thing that was
23 modified was the propellant. The bomb was not thrown from an aircraft,
24 but, rather, something was mounted to that bomb, certain motors or
25 engines which propelled it to the place where it was supposed to explode,
1 and that was the modification that was made. Those modifications did not
2 constitute the replacement of a solid explosive by fuel-air explosive.
3 At least based on the findings that I analysed here. I didn't find any
4 such thing, nothing to that effect.
5 Q. Thank you. On page 69, i.e., on Mr. Zecevic's report page, can
6 you look at the words ODAB and KREMA in the right-hand side part of the
8 A. Yes, I can see that.
9 Q. As 082.
10 A. The previous page, please. Is this it?
11 Q. There is a comparison between the FAB-250 and ODAB-500 and in the
12 photo itself it says, "KREMA the rocket rear view"?
13 A. You know what? Despite my best intentions, despite all of my
14 efforts, as I was reading his report I could not understand what my
15 colleague, Berko Zecevic, understood when he used the term "KERMA." I
16 understand the ODAB-500, it's a Russian air-bomb which is thrown from an
17 aircraft and just a while ago we saw its image, but when it comes to
18 KREMA I really could not understand what he was talking about. I don't
19 know because that word does not ring a bell. I don't know what he meant
20 when he used the term "KREMA."
21 There was a hint to the Russian-made bomb, the Russian KREMA. I
22 really did not understand from his report what he was alluding to, and I
23 even put that as part of my report, that his explanation of KREMA really
24 didn't mean anything to me.
25 Q. Just one word, Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic. In his report, did
1 Dr. Zecevic provide any evidence that fuel-air bombs were used during the
2 war in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
3 A. Based on my research and examination of those two reports, I did
4 not find anything that would have been typical of an explosion of
5 fuel-air explosives. In other words, in his reports, he did not describe
6 even the fragments of such a destructive bomb. He stated that there were
7 no fragments, and based on that he concluded that all the bombs were
8 fuel-air bombs. My colleague Zecevic's claims that those were fuel-air
9 bombs was based on the absence of fragments. However, if the fuel-air
10 bombs had been used, one would have had to find at least a few larger
11 fragments of containers, because those are light particles whose speed is
12 not very high because the fuel-air explosive does not have such a high
13 speed in order to be able to propel those particles very far. So the
14 particles of that container if fuel-air explosives had been used should
15 have had to have been found. Absolutely they would have had to have been
17 On the other hand, in the facilities where FAB destructive bombs
18 were used, in addition to the destruction effects which should not have
19 had been so large as I saw them, one would have also had to have noticed
20 some charred remains of wooden surfaces such as furniture and doors and
21 windows to show that there was flame, because flame is one of the
22 dominant features of fuel-air explosives. I claim that with full
23 responsibility because I had occasions to see the effects of explosions
24 of natural gas in residential homes which has the same destructive effect
25 as fuel-air explosives. So -- another thing, burns were not noticed on
1 people who were injured. No big tin particles were found, and they
2 should have been. And that is my conclusion. Based on those very
3 significant pieces of evidence, I can say that fuel-air bombs were not
4 used in Sarajevo. And he confirms that himself in a written form in one
5 part of his written report.
6 JUDGE KWON: Just for the record, where do we see the word
7 "KREMA" in Mr. Zecevic's report?
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, on the left side
9 of the screen, the bottom right photo it says on the photo itself,
10 "KREMA-4, rocket rear view."
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. One more question, madam. We see the term ODAB-500 here. What
14 is the weight of that Russian-made air-bomb?
15 A. They weigh over 500 kilos, and together with -- actually, their
16 mass is 520 kilogrammes, and the charge weighs about 200 kilos of
17 fuel-air explosive. The thickness of their casing is up to 3
18 millimetres. The casings are thin. Therefore, they are thrown from an
19 aircraft. They have a parachute, and they have everything that I already
20 described, altitude metre, the secondary fuse that are activated within
21 the cloud and detonate it. But they are much bigger, of a bigger size,
22 and they are much, much more destructive and lethal. That asset is
23 rather lethal.
24 Q. That weight, would it require a somewhat different propellant if
25 it was not thrown from an aircraft but, rather, launched from a launcher?
1 A. I never reflected on that. Its weight is much too big to be
2 launched from a launcher. Under bullet point 9, Mr. Zecevic in one place
3 says that its weight without fuel is 706 kilogrammes, and in another
4 place it says that ODAB-500 weighs about 250 kilos. You see, he
5 frequently changes the characteristics of that bomb. At places it's 706
6 without fuel and in other places 520.
7 However, be it as it may, it's a very heavy bomb, and if you were
8 to add engines or motors to it, it would weigh even more, and I don't
9 know what kind of a launcher it should -- should it be to launch it.
10 Those would have to be very special launchers that would be able to carry
11 such a huge weight.
12 I believe that it could not be launched from the ground,
13 although -- well ...
14 Q. Thank you, Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, may I tender the
16 redacted report, the redacted expert report by
17 Dr. Mirjana Andjelkovic Lukic which is 1D6820 here, as well as its
18 supplement which is 1D6816.
19 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Gaynor.
20 MR. GAYNOR: No objection, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We will admit both.
22 THE REGISTRAR: The report should be assigned Exhibit D2662, and
23 the corrigenda shall be assigned Exhibit D2663. Thank you.
24 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. We will have a break for half an hour
25 and resume at 11.35.
1 --- Recess taken at 11.03 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 11.35 a.m.
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Gaynor, please proceed.
4 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Gaynor:
6 Q. Good morning, Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic.
7 A. Good morning.
8 Q. Now, Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic, you told us earlier that you worked
9 at the Technical Testing Centre from around 1989 until 2000 or was it
11 A. Until 2000. I was retired in 2000.
12 Q. Your CV says 2002, but I'll take 2000. So during those 11
13 years --
14 A. Wait a minute. Let me see. Just a moment, I need to see. Maybe
15 it was a slip. Yes. I'm sorry. Until 2002.
16 Q. Thank you. Now, during those 13 years you were undoubtedly
17 involved in the testing of many different kinds of weapon systems and
18 many different kinds of munitions.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And in your evidence today, you -- as you put it, not a single
21 piece of equipment could be used in the JNA unless it had been seriously
22 and extensively tested at the Technical Testing Centre.
23 A. That is correct, yes.
24 Q. In your evidence earlier, you described some of the steps of the
25 testing process, and in your report you also refer to other steps. You
1 refer to prototype, you prefer to test production run, you refer to
2 testing of batches for consistency. Could you help me understand the
3 process of testing of any new weapon system from the moment when an
4 initial blueprint is produced until it is approved for service in the
6 A. Let me try to explain. First of all, the time of development
7 from the idea to develop this idea until it is developed takes seven to
8 eight years. That's an optimal amount of time during which you make all
9 the documentation, test all the materials, and there are a lot of steps
10 in between until you make an initial sample that needs to be tested on
11 the testing ground of the factory itself. They have such testing grounds
12 also, but they also use the grounds of the Technical Testing Centre if
13 they don't have their own for such an asset. So the factory that
14 produces the asset registers them first as sample pieces. That is
15 usually 10 to 20 samples. It could be more if it's profitable for them,
16 but it's not often the case, because the production is very expensive and
17 you try to be as rational as possible. Those are sample pieces on which
18 testing is done.
19 The testing is for efficiency and for their fitness to technical
20 requirements. That means effect on the target, how it acts on the
21 target, it be an ammunition or another type of weapon. Now I'm talking
22 about explosives. Whether the explosive is well placed in the asset,
23 whether it gives good results in terms of penetration, et cetera.
24 When you finish the testing with sample pieces and the
25 documentations, because it's not only the asset itself, it's a huge
1 amount of documentation documenting the construction. For instance, if
2 it's an artillery round or a bomb or a cumulative article with optimal
3 penetrating force, all this has a complete documentation, and for every
4 document in that set you have a standard. If it's about steel, then what
5 kind of steel. If it's tested. If it's an explosive, what type of
6 explosive. What its characteristics are, pyrotechnics of it,
7 anti-corrosion protection, so all the elements that can affect the
8 efficiency and the life of this asset. All that is recorded in the
9 technical documentation. We even have a standard for paints. It has to
10 be anti-corrosive. It must not produce any effects when exposed to
11 light, et cetera. It goes into the greatest detail.
12 Then later when you check all that, when the experts from the
13 Technical Testing Centre see that this construction and technical
14 documentation is all right, that the asset produced on the testing
15 ground, the effects that have been envisaged, then we can think about
16 multi-series -- sorry, zero series. After the testing follows the zero
17 series, which means that the production has been mastered, the asset goes
18 to the factory and is definitively produced there. After that, it goes
19 back for testing to the Technical Testing Centre so that if certain
20 shortcomings have been noticed on the sample pieces, and that usually
21 happens, we have to see whether these shortcomings have been redressed
22 and removed, and if that is the case, we proceed with the zero series and
23 make a final assessment. It happens that an asset is rejected because it
24 is not good or it needs to be improved. That means that it did not
25 produce the desired required effects. However, usually it is approved,
1 and when the zero series is approved, then it goes into production. That
2 is the usual lengthy process.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I help with the transcript? On
4 this page 35, Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic said Pala series, and then she said
5 that the time for development is five to seven years, whereas the record
6 says seven to eight years.
7 JUDGE KWON: Doctor, do you confirm that?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Five to seven years, yes, yes. It
9 takes five to seven years. That means a total number of seven years or a
10 total number of eight -- seven years.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] "Pala series" should be "failed
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please
14 confirm the name of the first series. We heard it as zero series. We
15 don't understand the Pala series.
16 JUDGE KWON: Will you take that up.
17 MR. GAYNOR: Certainly.
18 Q. Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic, you referred to in your evidence zero
19 series; is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic, this entire process that you've
22 described, does that take place prior to a phase of test firing of the
23 weapon system in order to create firing tables?
24 A. As far as the firing tables are concerned, I told you that I've
25 never done that. I've never even come close. The only thing I can tell
1 you is that sample pieces precede the zero series. The zero series is
2 the one that confirms that the asset has met all the requirements,
3 tactical and technical requirements, and also in terms of construction
4 and technical documentation. As for the rest, it is understood that all
5 that is all right, and if you say firing tables, I have never dealt with
6 that. I am an expert in explosives. I only looked at the effect on
7 explosives in the asset in which it is placed, whether it functions in
8 the way that I expected it to from the construction documentation.
9 Q. Now during your service at the JNA Military Technical Institute
10 between 1974 and 1989 and your further 13 years at the Technical Testing
11 Centre, you unquestionably became aware of the concept of firing tables;
12 is that right?
13 A. That is something that my colleagues in artillery and ballistics
14 do. I have nothing to do with it. Of course I know they exist and they
15 are necessary, indispensable, but I really have nothing to do with it. I
16 deal exclusively with explosives. I'm somebody who worked to study
17 explosives and their characteristics and monitored how those explosives
18 act when fired on a plate on the testing ground or when fired from an
19 artillery weapon, but I know nothing about these firing tables. That's
20 not what I'm expert in. I'm a technologist, a chemical engineer. I
21 didn't even have that as a subject at the university.
22 Q. You'll nevertheless accept on the basis of your very extensive
23 experience in the JNA that new munitions and new weapon systems were
24 subjected to hundreds and in many cases thousands of test firings in
25 order to create comprehensive and reliable firing tables?
1 A. I have to tell you this again: As far as firing tables are
2 concerned, I cannot provide you with any information because I don't know
3 even approximately how many times something needs to be fired. I'm not a
4 ballistics person, but I know when you test an asset, we always try to do
5 it in the most economical way as far as my line of work is concerned,
6 because testing is expensive. We try -- in fact, we tried to spend as
7 little money and resources to get as accurate results as possible, but I
8 really don't know anything about ballistics, and I cannot tell you
9 anything that could be relevant to this trial. I'm really, really sorry.
10 Q. Now, I think you confirmed in your evidence in chief, but it's
11 right, isn't it, that a new weapon system would not be deployed by the
12 JNA without going through this comprehensive testing system as well as
13 test firings; is that right?
14 A. Let me tell you one thing. When you test a large system like a
15 new artillery weapon or a vehicle, a whole team of people is engaged in
16 it. We experts are little cogs in the wheel. I for instance am one who
17 contributes to the process, but overall speaking, there is one main
18 person surrounded by a team who manages the whole system. And of course
19 not a single asset was included in the arsenal before passing through
20 very comprehensive research and testing. At least while I worked in the
21 Technical Testing Centre that never happened. I don't know what the
22 situation is now.
23 Q. I want to move to the subject now of air-bombs generally
24 speaking. You're familiar with the FAB-100 and the FAB-250?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, I'll just quickly go through a few matters that I think we
2 can agree on. First of all, they were both unguided air-bombs, that is,
3 there was no GPS or laser or any other kind of guidance system?
4 A. Those bombs are unguided air-bomb like modern air-bombs which can
5 have GPS, laser guidance, and other guidance, remote guidance, but I
6 believe in most armies today there exist those unguided bombs that are
7 launched, dropped by an aircraft on a target; such are FAB-100 and
8 FAB-250, they are unguided air-bombs.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Line 14 should read "unlike modern
10 bombs," not "like modern bombs."
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
12 MR. GAYNOR:
13 Q. Now, Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic, we can agree, I think, that both the
14 FAB-100 and FAB-250 are designed to be dropped from the aircraft and to
15 strike the ground at a near vertical angle?
16 A. Yes, of course. That's how they were designed.
17 Q. Now, the casings of these bombs can be made of different metals
18 with different densities; is that right?
19 A. No, because those casings of bombs have a precisely prescribed
20 composition, because they had passed through certain testing that I
21 talked to you about earlier, and they have a specified type of steel
22 which I cannot name now, but it's all clearly written in the
23 documentation. It cannot be just any old metal. It has to have certain
24 solidity and specified percentages of steel and carbon and all the other
25 additives, and it has to have prescribed sturdiness. You cannot put into
1 that composition whatever you like. There is a specified composition and
2 that's it. There are no deviations. So that they have clearly defined
3 composition of metal that has to be a constant. It's prescribed and
4 specified. There can be no departure from that.
5 Q. Can we agree that the FAB-250 comes in more than one variety?
6 For example, the FAB-250 M-72 contains 96 kilogrammes of TNT, and the
7 FAB-250 M-79 contains 105 kilogrammes of TNT.
8 A. Yes. One of them is an older modification with less explosives,
9 97, and the other one has 105 kilos of explosive. That's FAB-250.
10 That's a later generation, and you are correct, it's 105 kilogrammes of
12 Q. Now, in the Military Technical Institute in Belgrade, did you
13 occasionally test and approval air-bombs for use?
14 A. The testing of air-bombs was finished in that year when they were
15 nominated in 1979 and 1972, and that was finished then and it's no longer
16 tested. Let me tell you why, because every factory -- I'm sorry.
17 Q. We're under a little bit of time pressure so I'd just like to
18 carry on if I can. Could you just tell us briefly, would a FAB-100 or
19 FAB-250 air-bomb, generally speaking, be intended for dropping onto a
20 predominantly civilian urban area?
21 A. You know if that is your intention -- what do you mean dropping
22 it on an urban area?
23 Q. What I mean is are they approved for use for dropping from an
24 aircraft onto a predominantly civilian urban area?
25 A. These bombs fall under destructive bombs and they are designed
1 for easily determined targets. That means bunkers, fortifications, for
2 creating a passage, perhaps, for certain military targets. So that these
3 bombs have exclusively the nature of being designed for destroying enemy
4 fortified facilities. Not in terms of underground warehouses but surface
5 fortifications like depots storing certain equipment or bunkers.
6 Q. Now, I'd like to move on to the subject of modified air-bombs.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In line 9, it's not "easily
8 determined," but "easily fortified" or "lightly fortified." I do not --
9 I believe that the better translation would be "lightly fortified."
10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We are pretty sure that
11 we've heard correctly the witness.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The word was "lako utvrdjeni." I
13 don't think the translation is correct. The problem is that this word
14 may mean both "determined" and "fortified" in our language. The verb
15 "utvrdjeni" means "to determine," but it also means "to fortify."
16 JUDGE KWON: Doctor, do you follow? Did you say that the --
17 these bombs were designed for easily determined targets, or could you
18 clarify what that means?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Shall I say it?
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Easy to note targets or lightly
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Shall I answer? Am I to answer?
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Doctor.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are very well military
25 fortified targets such as underground depots that you cannot destroy with
1 one bomb. You cannot even damage them with one bomb. But there are
2 other surface fortifications that can be neutralised by such bombs. So
3 the latter depots, to put it in military terms, are more lightly
4 fortified. But these are depots that have a certain strength. They are
5 not built like residential buildings, but they have a certain sturdiness
6 because they house military equipment. So we can call them lightly
8 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. Now, I'd like to move on, as I said, to the subject of modified
10 air-bombs. From your report and from the report which you contributed to
11 along with Mrs. Subotic and Mr. Poparic concerning modified air-bombs,
12 and from the report that you contributed to along with Mrs. Subotic and
13 Mr. Poparic concerning the evidence of Berko Zecevic and Richard Higgs, I
14 think we can agree in 1994 and 1995 the VRS fired modified FAB-100 and
15 FAB-250 air-bombs at the very least into the city of Sarajevo using
16 ground launched rockets that were attached to those air-bombs?
17 A. In my report I did not contest that. Of course, these things
18 existed and you can see that from the report. However, yes --
19 Q. I think I'll move on. You also do not contest that these weapon
20 systems existed in different configurations. For example, there was the
21 FAB-100 with one rocket motor or three rocket motors. There was the
22 FAB-250 with different numbers of rocket motors.
23 A. Yes. FAB-100 was mainly with one rocket motor, but they could
24 occur with three motors which is in my report, and you can see it in
25 Mr. Berko's report, and it was with three rocket motors.
1 Q. And these different systems have different weights and different
2 propulsive forces, don't they?
3 A. As for explosive force, it is contained in the bombs, in FAB-100
4 and FAB-250. That is, its explosive force.
5 Q. And my point was that the propulsive force is different.
6 Obviously if its being propelled by three rockets, the propulsive force
7 would be different than if it was propelled by two rockets or one rocket.
8 I'm sure we can agree on that.
9 A. You know what? According to some technical logic I could agree
10 with you, but I cannot say anything more about that to you because this
11 is really not my field. I'm not a ballistics person. I mean, there is a
12 technical logic, yes.
13 Q. I want to go back to your periods working in the testing and
14 approval of munitions. If you were asked to approve for use an unguided
15 air-bomb to be propelled in a rocket-assisted configuration, you would
16 expect that kind of system to be thoroughly and extensively tested before
17 being approved for use?
18 A. My role was not to deal with the entire system. I explained to
19 you a moment ago that there were these so-called system engineers who
20 were in charge of the system. They were the ones who decided whether
21 they would apply this in this way or that way. My task was only to see
22 whether the explosive in the asset had certain irregularities that could
23 lead to an undesirable explosion or to some kind of excessive thing so
24 that people who operate these pieces might fall victim in some way. I
25 wanted to see whether the trotyl was properly charged, whether there were
1 any voids. Sometimes I even had to X-ray all of this to see whether
2 everything was done properly.
3 So really, I cannot give you the kind of answer that I would like
4 to give you from the point of view of a scientist, if you will.
5 Q. Now, do you accept that if an institution as sophisticated as the
6 Military Technical Institute in Belgrade were to be presented with a new
7 weapon system such as a modified air-bomb where that weapon system came
8 in different varieties with different weights, different numbers of
9 rockets, different types of rockets, the proper thing to do would be to
10 rigorously test each and every one of those variations, including
11 hundreds of test firings, before it could be approved for use?
12 A. When I spoke previously, I said -- I explained this to you, what
13 the procedure was when studying a particular piece of equipment. This
14 procedure does not differ greatly from one asset to another. If it was
15 an expensive asset, efforts were made not to squander any money, because
16 all of this does cost money. So when these systems were being tested -
17 how do I put this? - this was done part by part. The warhead would be
18 studied first by the artillery experts, and I would also be in these
19 teams that, say, worked on warheads. Then also the propulsion,
20 colleagues who work on gunpowder and other such materials, then also the
21 fuse was studied by colleagues whose line of work that is, and so on. So
22 all of this is done gradually to get to the final testing, and all of
23 this with a view to economising, not squandering resources, not to fire I
24 don't know how many projectiles in order to test something that --
25 Q. Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic during your period at the
1 Military Technical Institute and in the course of your conversations and
2 dealings with your colleagues at the Military Technical Institute, did
3 you ever hear of the testing of modified air-bombs by that institute?
4 A. I will tell you the following: In the reports compiled by
5 Mr. Berko, my distinguished colleague, I found a reference to 50 bombs
6 with fuel-air explosives in Pretis. There is one illogical thing that I
7 have to draw your attention to here and that's the following: In the
8 opinion of my colleague Berko this was 1991 or 1992 when they were made,
9 and in his CV my colleague Berko says that in 1988, he talked to
10 Mr. Zoran Maksimovic who worked in Vinca, and in 1989, he left his work
11 on these fuel-air explosives because the experiments did not yield
12 expected results.
13 Q. Doctor, I'm -- my question is about the testing of modified
14 air-bombs systems. I would like you to answer with a simple yes or no
15 whether during your period at the Military Technical Institute and in the
16 course of your conversations and dealings with your colleagues at the
17 Military Technical Institute, did you ever hear of the testing of
18 modified air-bombs by that institute? I need a verbal response, please.
19 A. No. No. No, I did not, because it is certain that if I had
20 heard about that or if that had been done, it certainly would have come
21 to me for verification, or I would have been made aware of it. I never
22 had that on my desk. That is a fact.
23 Q. Now, during the course of your preparation of the three reports
24 to which you contributed and during the course of your duty at the
25 Military Technical Institute, did you ever hear of the extensive and
1 proper testing of modified air-bombs systems in Bosnia or anywhere in
2 Serbia outside your institute?
3 A. Again, I don't have an answer to this question. I have not heard
4 about this. I don't know anything about this, because from 1989 onwards
5 I worked at the Technical Testing Centre and there was no mention of
6 that. I really do not know anything about that.
7 Q. Now, I'd like to move, if I may, to the question of the ODAB. In
8 your report, at paragraph 6.18, which is on page 64 of the original and
9 page 72 in English. You say that during the war in Bosnia and Croatia,
10 the Croatian Army possessed the Russian ODAB-500 fuel-air bomb and fired
11 such a bomb from a MiG 21 towards forces of the ARSK, I think it is.
12 A. As for the forces of the Republic of the Serb Krajina, the Knin
13 Krajina, the Croats did that during Operation Storm against them. And
14 then it says here -- it is written here this was recently made public on
15 the 14th of April, 2012, that they have these bombs, and that near
16 Petrinja above Serb positions during Operation Storm from a MiG 21 such
17 bombs were ejected. In the early 1990s, these bombs were obtained in the
18 area of the former USSR.
19 Q. Now, you clearly accept that the Croatian Army had access to the
20 ODAB-500 fuel-air bomb, but you appear to exclude the possibility that
21 the VRS also had access to the ODAB-500 fuel-air bomb.
22 A. Yes, but I also quote a Croatian paper here as well,
23 Mr. Ivo Pukanic is the person I quote.
24 Q. Yes. Sorry. Let me say -- are you in a position to absolutely
25 exclude the possibility that the VRS also had an ODAB-500 at the same
1 time that the Croatian Army had an ODAB-500 fuel-air bomb?
2 A. I exclude that because they were opposing sides. I do exclude
3 that. I wouldn't believe that.
4 Q. All right.
5 MR. GAYNOR: I want to bring up, please, P1313.
6 Q. Now, this document is dated the 23rd of July, 1995, and it's to
7 the SRK corps command. Now, this refers to at the -- the manufacture at
8 the maintenance and repair depot Hadzici of an air-bomb launcher for up
9 to 500 kilogrammes, which is of a much higher quality than any so far?
10 JUDGE KWON: Why don't you zoom in a bit further so the doctor
11 can see the content.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, please. I do thank you.
13 MR. GAYNOR:
14 Q. I'd like to ask you a couple questions about this. First of all
15 it talks about making a launcher at the maintenance and repair depot in
16 Hadzici. Now, that doesn't sound like a standard production line method
17 for producing a precise launching device, does it?
18 A. No. Hadzici did not manufacture launchers.
19 Q. Well, according to this document that's where they were creating
20 this document which is described as being a --
21 A. Please, I -- I'm not in a position to see this properly. Oh,
22 yes, now --
23 JUDGE KWON: For the moment why don't we collapse the English.
24 Yes. Okay.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Fine. Excellent. Thank you.
1 Well, let me tell you. I did not really have any connections
2 with Hadzici, to tell you the truth. And what is the year? Let me just
3 take a look. '90-something -- no, it's 1995. No, at that time I was at
4 the TOC. So I really do not have anything to do with this, but I do not
5 exclude the possibility that that was done. I really have nothing to do
6 with this and cannot really say anything about this.
7 Q. We certainly can't exclude the possibility that the VRS was
8 preparing a launcher for modified air-bombs much bigger than the FAB-250
9 or the FAB-275?
10 A. No. No. Just a moment, please. Can I have a look at this
11 again. It says here set up a commission --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpret's note: We can no longer hear the
13 speaker. Can the witness kindly speak into her microphones, please.
14 JUDGE KWON: Doctor, we'll print out this document and hand it
15 over to you. It may be easier to you. And you are kindly requested --
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 JUDGE KWON: You are requested to speak to the microphones.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. Yes.
19 As far as I can see, what is stated here is that technically the
20 launcher was not approved. It had not been improved either, but it is
21 being suggested here by way of an order that someone should issue an
22 order to set up a commission and to see what the consumption of FAB-100
23 or 250 should be and then to be deployed in one of the units. So this is
24 not only a reference to a 500 kilogramme launcher. Obviously it was not
25 all right. Obviously it did not pass the test. Obviously it says here
1 that it has to be checked further in terms of its function. So obviously
2 this was not right, and --
3 Q. My point is simply this: On the basis of this document you are
4 not in a position to exclude the possibility that the VRS was preparing
5 to launch modified air-bombs much greater than the FAB-100 or the
7 A. But it cannot be asserted either that that launcher had been --
8 well, you cannot see it from here. It was part of the intention, but you
9 do not see from here that it had been completed. I cannot see it from
10 here, because something else needs to be tested; right?
11 Q. I'd like to move on, please.
12 MR. GAYNOR: Could we have, please, 65 ter 24351, please.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Line 13, the doctor said the
14 launcher had been mastered. They did not hear it or they did not
15 understand it, so perhaps she should explain it.
16 JUDGE KWON: Do you confirm that you said the launcher had
17 been -- had not been mastered well?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is what is written here.
19 I'm just reading what is written here.
20 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Please continue, Mr. Gaynor.
21 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. Now, Mr. -- sorry. Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic, on the screen in front
23 of you you see a photograph of some objects. Do you -- can you tell us
24 what those objects are?
25 A. Well, these objects look like some kind of bombs, and there's a
1 man -- or, rather, two men that are doing something around them, and
2 there's some motors on them, and that would be it.
3 Q. Can I ask you to hazard a guess as to what kind of bomb that is?
4 I'm referring to the bomb section.
5 A. I have to say here that this is a photograph from a newspaper
6 article that speaks about the destruction of these assets, but I don't
7 know exactly where this is or what this is. I just know that this was
8 written in a periodical, that these assets were written about in this
9 periodical. That is what I can say by way of my own information.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we kindly ask for the
11 provenance of this photograph? Can Mr. Gaynor provide us with the
12 provenance of this photograph?
13 JUDGE KWON: We'll come to that.
14 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, we'll come to that in a moment.
15 Q. Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic, can you just look at the black part of the
16 air-bomb. Tell us on the basis of your extensive experience
17 approximately what weight is that air-bomb?
18 A. Well, on the basis of the photograph, I cannot say exactly. I
19 cannot say exactly. In relation to this man, it doesn't seem too big to
20 me either to tell you the truth. Well, it's a photograph. I cannot say
22 Q. Would you be able to tell us, for example, whether it's a 250,
24 A. Well, perhaps 250, perhaps. That's what it looks like. But I
25 cannot tell you exactly. I mean, you know, this is a photograph.
1 Q. Now --
2 A. It's not a technical drawing.
3 MR. GAYNOR: Can I pull up, please, 65 ter number 24350. This is
4 only available in the English language, so I'm going to tell you what it
5 is, Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic. This is a press release from an organisation
6 called UXB International Inc., dated January 24th, 2011, relating to the
7 destruction in Bosnia of, among other things, F-58 areal-fuel bombs,
8 FAB-275 and areal-fuel rocket modified bombs RFAB-275 M-91, and for the
9 benefit of everyone, this is an English language point, Doctor, the word
10 "areal" is spelled a-r-e-a-l, which mean pertaining to an area.
11 Doctor you do accept now that these are FAB-275 fuel-air bombs,
12 modified for delivery, using rockets?
13 A. I would just like to say something here. I have seen this
14 article. I am familiar with this article. There are 68 pieces referred
15 to here that are prepared to be destroyed, and since there are so many of
16 them and Mr. Berko said that there were 50 of them and that they had been
17 developed, what about the rest? Where are the rest? This is to say that
18 obviously these were the ones that were not good out of the 50 that
19 Mr. Berko mentioned that were there in the depot in Modrica or Glamoc or
20 wherever and that they were destroyed. This is a newspaper article that
21 I have seen. I know about this article. So there were 68 there that
22 were destroyed. That is to say that all of those that had been
23 manufactured, and Mr. Berko wrote here that there were 50 of them, they
24 had been destroyed because obviously they did not yield certain results.
25 That is my opinion about that.
1 Q. When I asked you to hazard a guess as to what size that bomb was
2 you said it was probably a 250. In fact it's a 275. That's a forgivable
3 error, would you accept?
4 A. Well, perhaps plus, minus 20 kilogrammes.
5 Q. It's a mistake that one can easily make when looking at an
6 unexploded bomb.
7 A. Yes, yes.
8 Q. It's a mistake which one can even more easily make when looking
9 at the remnants of an exploded FAB-275?
10 A. No. I've already explained this. If that is it as it is, and
11 they said that it's the 68 -- I mean, I don't know that. I told you that
12 that did not reach my desk. That means that it was done somewhere else.
13 Maybe that is what Mr. Berko is speaking about. However, the difference
14 is in the casing. Over here the casing cannot be -- well, you see here
15 that it differs physically from the casing of an air-bomb. That is
16 not -- well, this is something different. It's not an air-bomb. If it
17 were to detonate then there would have to be bigger fragments left and
18 also this white particle would have to be found, what you see on it, but
19 I did not find that anywhere in these reports or in this what I did.
20 This was not found anywhere. No photograph that is even close to what is
21 depicted here.
22 You know what? Had it detonated, it would have had to leave
23 larger fragments, say this big, like this piece of paper or half of it,
24 but none of that was found on the ground on the basis of the reports that
25 I looked at.
1 Q. Well, I put it to you that somebody looking at the exploded
2 remains of a FAB-275 modified air fuel bomb could very well actually
3 mistake that for a FAB-250 areal bomb filled with a fuel-air mix, by
4 areal in this sense I mean by a air-bomb.
5 A. You believe that there could have been a confusion between an
6 air-bomb and this if somebody is looking at it? If somebody is looking
7 at fragments? No. No way. That could not have happened. Why? Because
8 as I said a moment ago, an air-bomb, a FAB-250, it has thicker walls, if
9 you will, and these thick walls cannot be broken by a central charge.
10 That is to say it is impossible for a FAB-250 with trotyl to be filled
11 with these containers with this FAE explosives. I mean, this is just a
12 newspaper article. It was written just like that in a rather
13 sensationalist manner. But you cannot see that here. You cannot see the
14 same form of a warhead as in the case of a 250 warhead. The difference
15 is considerable.
16 Q. You're --
17 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President, I'd like to tender photograph and the
18 press release at this stage.
19 MR. ROBINSON: No objection.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We'll admit them.
21 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 24351 --
22 MR. GAYNOR:
23 Q. Dr. Andjelkovic --
24 THE REGISTRAR: -- will be assigned --
25 JUDGE KWON: No, just a second. Shall we give the number now.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Shall be assigned Exhibit P6052, and the article
2 24350 shall be assigned Exhibit P6053. Thank you.
3 MR. GAYNOR:
4 Q. While we're on this point, Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic, you referred in
5 your evidence in chief to the fact that fuel-air bombs are usually
6 delivered using a parachute in order to allow the aeroplane to escape the
7 danger zone before detonation of the fuel-air bomb.
8 A. Yes, that's right.
9 Q. Now, a parachute in that kind of environment would unquestionably
10 be tested with the intention that the bomb be dropped from an aircraft
11 onto the ground; correct?
12 A. Everything that is put into weaponry, parachutes included, I
13 mean, I assume this is done by any army, JNA included, yes, it has to be
15 Q. And do you accept that parachute tested in that kind of
16 environment is therefore tested for a vertical drop? It is not tested
17 with the intention that the air-bomb be used as a surface-to-surface
18 weapon describing a parabola from the point of firing to the point of
19 impact? Do you accept that?
20 A. What do you mean, the point from where it is fired on the ground?
21 Q. My point is this --
22 A. Yes. Go ahead.
23 Q. The parachute on a fuel-air bomb is not designed to be used in a
24 surface-to-surface configuration, is it?
25 A. Well, I -- no, I really cannot give you an accurate answer to
1 that. It's used from a plane, but as for ground to ground, surface to
2 surface, I really could not say. I really don't know.
3 MR. GAYNOR: I'd like to call up now, please, 1D25159.
4 Q. This is a report authored by Zorica Subotic in co-operation with
5 you and Mile Poparic.
6 MR. GAYNOR: Can we go, please, to page 43 in English and page 45
7 in B/C/S.
8 Q. Now, do you accept veracity of the report that you co-authored?
9 MR. GAYNOR: Sorry, the page numbers are page 43 in English and
10 page 45 in B/C/S.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Will I accept what?
12 MR. GAYNOR:
13 Q. Do you accept the veracity of that report?
14 A. Yes, of course. Yes, I accept it.
15 Q. I'd like to read out a portion of it says:
16 "Several years before the war broke out in BiH, the Pretis
17 factory began developing FAB-275 fuel-air bombs. Just before the start
18 of the war in BH, production of the first 60 bombs was completed, but due
19 to the war beginning they were not tested. During the war, a number of
20 these bombs were fitted with four Grad rocket motors each."
21 Now, I would like to put to you a few conclusions that we can
22 draw from that. The first is that Pretis had the ability before the war
23 even started to produce FAB-275 fuel-air bombs.
24 A. That is what Mr. Berko wrote, that 50 were produced in 1990 or
25 1991. Whether he was correct in the figure, whether it was really 50, I
1 cannot go into that.
2 Q. I think -- I think it's common ground essentially that Pretis had
3 the capacity, the technical capacity, to create fuel-air bombs. It did,
4 in fact, create fuel-air bombs. A number of those fuel-air bombs were
5 fitted with Grad rockets, and those bombs were used during the conflict
6 even though they had not been properly tested.
7 A. I did not see in the report any evidence about that, any evidence
8 that they were produced. I told you that that never passed my desk in
9 the Technical Testing Centre, because in 1991, 1992, the JNA was still in
10 existence, and if it had been done in those years, it would have, I
11 believe, passed my desk, but I never saw it.
12 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. I'm not sure if Doctor is aware that
13 this is part of her report.
14 MR. GAYNOR: I'll -- can we go to page 1 of this report in
15 English and B/C/S. Thank you, Mr. President, for pointing that out.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. Yes.
17 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
18 MR. GAYNOR:
19 Q. You confirm that we are looking at your report?
20 A. Yes. It's a part of my report that I wrote in co-operation with
21 my colleagues, but probably -- yes, this is my report.
22 Q. And you accept --
23 A. But this passage that was inserted was done without my knowledge.
24 I'm not denying it. I'm not saying I don't accept. I just overlooked
25 it. It passed me by.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see that if perhaps this is
2 a quotation from some other paper? Where are the sources for this? Can
3 we see the footnotes?
4 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, then it is for -- that matter is
5 something you should take up in your re-examination.
6 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Q. Now, I think your evidence, Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic, on fuel-air
8 bombs is that they have a much thinner casing than a conventional
9 air-bomb. That's your position.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So a weapon which is designed as a fuel-air bomb such as the
12 FAB-275 cannot be used as a conventional weapon, I assume you accept.
13 A. Of course it cannot be used as a conventional weapon.
14 Q. Can --
15 A. You cannot --
16 Q. Can we deduce then that the FAB-275 fuel-air bomb was exclusively
17 a fuel-air bomb and not a conventional bomb?
18 A. We can deduce that, but we can also deduce -- we can also
19 conclude, in fact, that fragments of it have not been found or recorded
20 in these reports that I studied.
21 MR. GAYNOR: Can I pull up please P2652.
22 Q. As you see, Doctor, this is documents dated 17th of November,
23 1994, and it is type signed by Ratko Mladic. It states under the
24 paragraph marked 1:
25 "A vehicle with launcher for launching FAB-275 is to be sent
1 immediately to the Pretis enterprise.
2 "Once the launcher is available, the crew is to report to
3 Major Krsmanovic latest by 0830 hours on 18 November 1994."
4 You accept that this shows that the FAB-275 was, in fact,
5 employed by the VRS?
6 A. From this we can only see that they prepared it, not that they
7 launched it.
8 MR. GAYNOR: Could I call up, please, P1296.
9 Q. This is a document dated the 19th of April, 1995, and it appears
10 to be addressed to the command of the 27th Logistics Base and Pretis
11 holding company, and it comes from the centre for logistics of the VRS
12 Main Staff.
13 If you look down the document, you can see in the second last
14 typewritten line there is a reference to six units of the FAB-275, and a
15 little below that you can see handwriting which says "FAB-275." Do you
16 see that?
17 A. We can see FAB-100. That much I can see. And there is also --
18 it's good now. FAB-250 --
19 Q. Could you --
20 A. When I click it, it's moving. I suppose, so there is also --
21 JUDGE KWON: Please do not click it. We have printed it out
22 again for you. It is coming to you.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 MR. GAYNOR:
25 Q. Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic, you can see that in this document the VRS
1 Main Staff has ordered Pretis to begin producing adapters and slides for
2 all of these air-bombs, including the FAB-275, which we know to be a
3 fuel-air bomb.
4 A. Is that the document I've just been given? "For their
5 completion" it says, so that three be built into one FAB and then the
6 amount of motors needed for their completion. FAB-275, six pieces.
7 "Their transport for completion will be regulated later."
8 Q. Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic, I put it to you on the basis of the
9 document you've seen that you are not in a position to exclude the
10 possibility that the VRS used FAB-275 air -- fuel-air bombs in the
11 Sarajevo area, are you?
12 A. I exclude that possibility because I've never seen evidence of
13 it. Why? Because I never saw those white markings or the thin casings
14 or the burnt fragments. None of that is recorded in the Berko Zecevic
15 report. Based on that, I can say they were not used.
16 As far as the rest is concerned, I haven't seen anything but the
17 two reports of my colleague Berko Zecevic, and based on that I can say
18 that I have never encountered the use of FAB-275.
19 Q. Now, I just want to clarify the nature of your knowledge and
20 expertise. You've clarified that you are an expert exclusively in the
21 explosive properties of substances that explode, including fuel-air and
23 A. As an explosive expert, I am familiar with phenomena of
24 explosives, not only the classical one, TNT, but also liquid explosives,
25 because I've had occasion to see on site what it looks like when I
1 studied the causes and effects of explosions of natural gas in a house,
2 and I did that not once but several times. So I am familiar with the
3 effects of gas explosives.
4 Q. Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic, can I ask you, have you ever in fact
5 filled an empty FAB-250 bomb casing with a fuel-air mix and attempted to
6 explode it?
7 A. I don't understand what you're asking. Did I personally fill a
8 FAB-250 and tested it? Could you please clarify?
9 Q. That's my question. Have you personally been involved or heard
10 of the testing of a FAB-250 bomb casing filled with a fuel-air mix,
11 anywhere, any time?
12 A. Your question -- I'm sorry, but I do have to clear up what, in
13 fact, you're asking. Is the casing of FAB-250 -- or, rather, was that
14 casing filled with fuel-air explosive, or did I see that? I really don't
15 understand the question. I apologise.
16 Q. Let's go through this fairly -- fairly swiftly, hopefully, you
17 were aware that Pretis produced large quantities of the FAB-250 air-bomb;
19 A. Yes. That was in its production programme.
20 Q. Do you accept that Pretis would have had within its stocks large
21 quantities of empty FAB-250 bomb casings?
22 A. No. Pretis never had empty casings. And not just Pretis. It's
23 not the practice to stock empty casings. They are immediately filled
24 with trotyl and stored. Why? Because trotyl has the capacity to remain
25 stable for ten or so years, and there's no need to keep -- to stock empty
2 Q. Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic, your evidence has focused on the question
3 of whether TNT could have been removed from a 250 casing and fuel-air mix
4 could have been inserted instead, and I'm asking you to consider an
5 alternative scenario where you take an empty 250 casing and you fill it
6 with fuel-air mix.
7 A. Oh, now I understand. No, that's impossible for purely physical
8 reasons. I said a moment ago that the casings are of different
9 thickness. The middle part of the explosive is in too small an amount to
10 be able to break through the casing of an air-bomb, so that this
11 possibility, to the best of my knowledge, does not exist. How could you
12 fill that casing with fuel-air explosive? You would have to add a
13 container inside. It could not be filled directly with fuel-air charge.
14 It's really an improbable situation. You would need to fill one
15 container and put it in another container, or devise a container in the
16 same shape as the casing and then hermetically place it inside. This
17 does not sound logical or acceptable to me. No, I don't think that would
18 have been possible.
19 Q. Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic, I'm entering the final phase of my
20 questions, but I simply want to put it to you that you are not in a
21 position to exclude the possibility that the VRS took empty FAB-250
22 casings, may have filled them with a fuel-air mix, and may have used
23 fuel-air mix within an empty FAB-250 casing. You have not provided any
24 evidence to exclude that possibility?
25 A. I have said a moment ago the thinnest 10 millimetre casing, and
1 there are also those of 20 millimetres, cannot be broken by a charge like
2 that, which is just 10 per cent of the whole mass. It does not have the
3 strength to break through that casing. It was impossible to fill such a
4 casing with fuel-air explosives. That's all I can tell you.
5 Q. And as for the breaking of the bomb, we don't know if your theory
6 is correct because nobody's ever done that experiment in your weapons
7 facility to your knowledge. Isn't that right?
8 A. You know, theory guides experiments. All my knowledge about the
9 strength, the force of this explosive, this -- this explosive is
10 relatively weak compared to trotyl. Physically it is really impossible
11 to fill those casings with fuel-air explosive, to operate it that way.
12 It is just from the point of view of physics impossible because of the
13 thickness of the casing, because of the force of the explosive, because
14 of the way it would have to be packed inside. It cannot be placed
15 directly into the casing. I don't know. It sounds completely
16 inconceivable to me, illogical, and impossible ultimately.
17 Q. My last few questions on this. You were -- you can answer this
18 just with a yes or a no. You were in Belgrade for the duration of the
19 conflict in Bosnia; is that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You have never had an opportunity to inspect any unexploded
22 modified air-bombs that landed in Sarajevo during the conflict?
23 A. I don't understand. Of course I had no occasion to see them with
24 my own eyes, but you can make conclusions based on --
25 Q. You did not have the opportunity to inspect any remnants from
1 exploded air-bombs either?
2 A. I did see exploded bombs on the testing ground, a large number of
3 them. Exploded in what sense? Of course I saw their effect, the
4 fragments --
5 Q. Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic, I'll modify my question. You did not
6 inspect any remnants of exploded modified air-bombs fired onto Sarajevo,
7 did you?
8 A. I couldn't, because I wasn't in Sarajevo in 1995, and these
9 reports that were written, I look at the reports. I looked at all the
11 Q. Doctor -- Doctor, as I said, you can answer these with a yes or a
12 no as the case may be.
13 JUDGE KWON: Just one -- let's clarify one of her answers.
14 Doctor, you said that you didn't have any occasion to see the
15 unexploded modified air-bombs with your own eyes, but you could make
16 conclusion based on what? It was not reflected in the transcript.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Based on documents. But let
18 me just say one thing here. It's not an issue of unexploded bombs,
19 because when they're unexploded, you can see all of it. When it's
20 exploded, you can only see the destruction.
21 I don't understand the question about unexploded bombs. I've
22 never seen them, and in the reports I only read about exploded bombs, one
23 FAB-100 and one FAB-250 that Mr. Zecevic keeps mentioning in his reports,
24 but he never tested that explosive to make sure that it's indeed the
25 explosive he claims was inside.
1 MR. GAYNOR:
2 Q. Now, Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic, in your report you analyse a great
3 number of specific incidents. Is it correct that you did not carry out a
4 site visit to any of those incident sites?
5 A. That's correct. I did not. It's in Sarajevo. I didn't go
7 Q. It follows that you did not personally have access to or test any
8 of the material gathered from those incident sites?
9 A. This report written by Mr. Berko was written in 2007. That other
10 report was written in 1995. In both reports, there are a lot of
11 inconsistencies that Mr. Berko himself, who was on the site, recorded
12 inconsistencies in his 2007 report. So based on his report and the other
13 reports of -- that were written and all the photographs, I could conclude
14 what it was all about without going to the site.
15 Q. And you did not interview any persons who were present at the
16 incident sites at the times of those incidents?
17 A. I said I didn't. I only studied both reports in Belgrade. I had
18 no personal contacts in Sarajevo.
19 MR. GAYNOR: No further questions, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Do we need to have a break or would you
21 like to continue?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will need 15, perhaps 20 minutes.
23 Maybe we should have a break before that?
24 JUDGE KWON: How long do you think you need for your
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Not more than 15 to 20 minutes at
2 the most.
3 JUDGE KWON: Then shall we break for 15 minutes in order to
4 conclude a bit earlier than usual?
5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
6 JUDGE KWON: I was advised to take at least 20 minutes' break.
7 We will resume at 25 past.
8 --- Recess taken at 1.03 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 1.27 p.m.
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 Re-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
13 Q. [Interpretation] Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic, can you tell the
14 Trial Chamber whether there are any other lethal weapons that are fuel
15 rocketed within the armament of Yugoslavia? What kind of rockets are
17 A. I really wouldn't know that. I can't tell you because that is
18 not within my purview. There are rockets such as the one on the M-84
19 tank, but that's a cannon ammunition. There are also zoljas. There are
20 Osas, but that's beyond the scope of my expertise. I wouldn't be able to
21 tell you exactly what kind of rockets there were.
22 Q. Was there a Grad rocket as well as a Luna rocket?
23 A. Yes, there were such things.
24 Q. Globally speaking, what does a rocket of that kind consist of?
25 A. It has a warhead and it has a motor that propels it to a certain
1 target. That's as much as I know as a technical expert.
2 Q. Of these two parts, which part is your concern?
3 A. Only the warhead with explosives.
4 Q. Who is the one that tests the propellants?
5 A. They are tested by people who are concerned with propellants,
6 either gunpowder or other types of fuel. This is a special profession, a
7 special line expertise.
8 Q. You never tested anything like that?
9 A. No. No, that was not what I did.
10 Q. You were asked whether you ever tested modified air-bombs, and
11 you said that such modified air-bombs has never appeared on your table.
12 Could you please be more precise? What would it be that would be
13 modified in a bomb of that kind?
14 A. If you consider that a modified bomb, which is a bomb with liquid
15 charge and an explosive charge, if that is what you consider when you say
16 a modified bomb, I've never seen any such thing, and I have never tested
17 any such thing. I've never reviewed documents to see whether everything
18 is according to standards. I had never encountered such assets.
19 Q. Does that mean that a bomb with rocket motors is a modified bomb?
20 A. That doesn't have to be the case. Although the answer would be
21 yes. How shall I put it? Artillery weapons that I'm familiar with as a
22 result of my profession have warheads and have rocket propellants, and if
23 such an air-bomb has a rocket propellant, it can also be considered as a
24 modified bomb, but only in those terms. That would be the only element,
25 the rocket motor that is attached to it. It cannot be considered as a
1 modified bomb if the only thing that differs is the kind of explosive in
2 it. Then it's an entirely different thing.
3 Q. Were you ever asked -- was there any need for you to test the
4 well-known air-bomb in which the only thing that was changed was
6 A. There was no need to test an air-bomb that has already been
7 tested, because all the fragments for its construction, which means all
8 the elements of its construction starting with the body, the detonator,
9 the explosive, all that exists in the construction documents, and every
10 time when a new bomb was manufactured, all those elements had to be
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And now can we look at 1D25159.
13 The Serbian page that I want is 43. I don't know whether the English
14 page was the same. We saw that document only awhile ago. The Serbian
15 page 45, and I don't know whether the English page corresponds.
16 Q. In this passage, it says that there were some bombs FAB-275.
17 Could you please read the last sentence and could you read it aloud.
18 A. "In December 2011, 58 FAB-275 aircraft bombs were destroyed in
19 Glamoc. These rockets had been fitted onto 24 bombs. So out of the 60
20 FAB-275 aircraft bombs produced, 58 were destroyed in 2011 while no more
21 than two were used in the war, and neither of these two bombs were used
22 in Sarajevo."
23 Q. Thank you. Do you adhere by the claims in this report?
24 A. Yes, I do, because in the report that I drafted I never said that
25 there were aerosol bombs in Sarajevo.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And now I'd like to call up P6052.
2 It's a P document, P6052. The record is correct. Can we zoom in on the
3 tail fins.
4 Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic, have you ever encountered such remains in
5 the documents that you studied and reviewed? Have you ever encountered
6 such remains of an air-bomb that was launched in Sarajevo?
7 A. I've already told you that I have not encountered any such things
8 in the documents that I reviewed.
9 Q. What would these motors be, do you know?
10 A. Really, I can't tell you. I'm not familiar with these motors, so
11 I wouldn't be able to tell you what kind of motors these are.
12 Q. Thank you. I'm not going to ask you to speculate, although
13 Mr. Gaynor did ask you to speculate.
14 The central barrel, could it contain a parachute? Could this be
15 an original fuel-air bomb?
16 A. Really, it's very difficult to say that based on a photo. I
17 would be speculating, whatever I told you. I really can't see anything.
18 Q. Fair enough. Just one more question in that respect. Did you
19 know -- do you know that before the war and during the war in Republika
20 Srpska whether there were some testing grounds where artillery weapons
21 could be tested and where rockets could be tested as well?
22 A. The JNA had a lot of testing grounds in the former Yugoslavia.
23 There were some in Macedonia, and there were some in Bosnia-Herzegovina
24 as well. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, there's a large testing ground known as
25 Kalinovik. Its equipment was modest, but the conditions there were quite
1 good for testing artillery ammunition. That's where they tested tank
2 ammunition, 125 millimetres. I remember that.
3 Q. You're talking about things that happened before the war.
4 A. Yes, before the war.
5 Q. Thank you. Do you know who controlled Kalinovik during the war
6 in Bosnia?
7 A. As far as I remember, Kalinovik was under Muslim control, but I'm
8 not sure. I wouldn't be able to tell you, because I really don't know.
9 Q. Before the war was there any testing near Glamoc?
10 A. Well, these are some grounds -- I don't know. I just know about
11 the big ones, Kalinovik, the ones in Macedonia, Krivolak. I know of
12 Nikinci, then Centa was mentioned, but really, I don't know of others.
13 That is what I know as far as these testing grounds are concerned and
14 that's where I went myself, but for the rest --
15 Q. Thank you. For your information, Kalinovik was always under our
17 A. I really don't know.
18 MR KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
19 Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic for your contribution to these proceedings.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 JUDGE KWON: Doctor, Judge Baird has a question for you.
22 Questioned by the Court:
23 JUDGE BAIRD: Doctor, in the course -- in the course of putting
24 his case to you, Mr. Gaynor put a suggestion, and I didn't get your
25 response. I shall repeat that suggestion for you. He put to you:
1 "As for the breaking of the bomb, we don't know if their theory
2 is correct, because nobody has ever done that experiment in your weapons
3 facility to your knowledge?"
4 Do you recollect that suggestion?
5 A. As far as I can remember, the question was whether an F-250
6 casing can be fitted with fuel-air explosive. My answer was no, because
7 the central charge that initiates the fuel-air, that's how it goes out,
8 it is too weak. It cannot break this strong steel casing.
9 JUDGE BAIRD: Well, I don't think that was exactly the suggestion
10 that I was after. I shall repeat it:
11 "As for the breaking of the bomb, we don't know if your theory is
12 correct because nobody has ever done that experiment in your weapons
13 facility to your knowledge?"
14 A. Such an experiment, that is to say to put into the casing of a
15 FAB-250 air-bomb, to put this kind of explosive and to -- well, that
16 would be unacceptable, let me put it that way. Let me not say anything
17 else. It is unacceptable because in advance one knows that this casing
18 was not meant for a fuel-air explosive because of its physical
19 characteristics, because of the thickness of the metal and the type of
20 steel used that has to be appropriate for trotyl.
21 JUDGE BAIRD: Fair enough. Thank you.
22 THE ACCUSED: May I? Just one question on the basis of --
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Judge Baird suggests to allow you to put that
25 question. Yes. Please go ahead, Mr. Karadzic.
1 Further Re-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic, a moment ago you responded to
4 His Excellency Mr. Baird that it is well known that this is not
5 sufficient. Now I am asking you about experience with air-bombs with
6 classical charges that were insufficient or of poor quality or was the
7 explosive of poor quality and what happens then?
8 A. I have to say that when there are charges with explosive, then
9 the requirements are very strict for the quality of the explosive,
10 because if the explosive is not good, that is to say if it has some
11 shortcomings, cracks, and so on, there can be incomplete detonation. So
12 one knows in advance that the explosive has to be absolutely properly put
13 into the casing so that there would be no failure during targeting. That
14 means, for instance, if an air-bomb was not to be exploded properly, if
15 it could not function properly, if there could be the so-called
16 deflagration, that is to say insufficient detonation. So that is well
17 known and that is why this is taken into account. And also, it is
18 therefore well known that if this kind of charge were to be put in an
19 air-bomb, it would not yield the kind of effects that are expected. It
20 is quite senseless to put into such a bomb that kind of explosive.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 JUDGE KWON: Well, that concludes your evidence,
23 Dr. Andjelkovic Lukic, and I appreciate your coming to The Hague to give
25 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
1 JUDGE KWON: Now you are free to go.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 [The witness withdrew]
4 JUDGE KWON: There are a couple of matters I'd like to deal with
5 now. The first thing is Prosecution's motion to exclude in part the
6 evidence of Mirko Sosic, requesting that the Chamber order the exclusion
7 of certain paragraphs.
8 The accused filed his response stating that he does not oppose
9 the motion and that he would delete the said paragraphs and relevant
10 associated exhibits. So in light of this response, I'm wondering whether
11 the Prosecution is minded to withdraw its motion.
12 MR. TIEGER: Yeah. We consider that a resolution, Mr. President.
13 Thank you.
14 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Second issue relates to the accused's
15 motion for videolink for Miroslav Gagovic, filed on the 12th of December.
16 Probably today -- yes, today the Prosecution filed its response not
17 opposing the motion.
18 Having been satisfied with the inability of the witness to travel
19 to The Hague due to his health condition and the relevancy of his
20 expected testimony, the Chamber will grant the motion and instruct the
21 Registry to take all necessary measures to implement this decision.
22 Are there any matters to raise at the moment? Then otherwise --
23 MR. TIEGER: No, Mr. President. Thank you.
24 JUDGE KWON: The hearing is adjourned.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,
1 to be reconvened on Monday, the 17th day
2 of December, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.