1 Wednesday, 7 June 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Lieutenant, I know you may remember, but it is my
7 job to remind you that you are still bound by the declaration you made
8 yesterday to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but the
9 truth. Is that okay?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's fine.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
12 Mr. Milovancevic.
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 WITNESS: JOZEF POJE [Resumed]
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Milovancevic: [Continued]
17 Q. Good morning, Mr. Poje. We are going to continue where we left
18 off yesterday and we were discussing the expert report of yours.
19 We reached chapter 3.5 which is titled "artillery ammunition,"
20 page 17 of the B/C/S or page 13 of the English. When you talk about
21 artillery ammunition, you stress in the first paragraph underneath the
22 heading that the important thing is that in the weapons system there is a
23 projectile which has to be launched at a target at a certain distance for
24 the purpose of carrying out a task. When you say that, you are speaking
25 generally, are you not, and dealing with the situation when you use
1 conventional artillery and when you're using a multiple-barrelled rocket
2 launcher. Is that correct?
3 A. Yes, that is correct. In fact, I'm talking about a projectile
4 which was either launched with a gunpowder charge from the conventional
5 artillery barrel or a projectile which has its own in-built motor, that is
6 to say a rocket system.
7 Q. Furthermore, you go on to explain in that same chapter that this
8 projectile with propulsion elements and guidance and stabilisation and
9 with effects on the target is an -- is a form of ammunition for one system
10 of weapons relating -- and that also relates to the Orkan M87
11 multiple-barrelled rocket launcher, does it not, Mr. Poje?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, when you deal with the topic of artillery ammunition further
14 on in the chapter, you say that as opposed to the other systems and
15 elements in the weapons system, ammunition represents an energetic system,
16 the effects of which are short. And I assume -- short-lived effect,
17 single-use energy devices with a short-lived effect. So I assume you
18 refer to a charge, a motor, and the explosive that if -- hits the target.
19 Is that right, Mr. Poje?
20 A. Yes. The projectile that I looked at, you have this motor section
21 that puts the projectile into motion, that's one group, propulsion; and
22 the other with the gunpowder charge that is activated upon impact. So
23 what you said is roughly correct, yes.
24 Q. Thank you. Now, in that same chapter entitled "artillery
25 ammunition," under point 3.5.1, the title there is "conventional
1 projectiles." And in that paragraph you say that regardless of the type
2 and calibre of the type of artillery weapon, an artillery shell has the
3 following constituent parts: A projectile, a gunpowder charge, cartridge,
4 and primer. Now, when you say that, you're referring to conventional
5 artillery, are you not, Mr. Poje?
6 A. Well, yes, for the most part. All types of projectiles with --
7 and all the ammunition were just dealing with the energy propulsion by the
8 projectile, because it is separately packaged into little bags or it can
9 be a component part of the projectile itself, as is the case with rockets.
10 Q. Thank you. Now, further on you go on to say that the projectile
11 is the most important element of a shell, as it produces an effect on the
12 target with its bursting charge and jacket fragments. Now, in that
13 respect, the question is: Do the bomblets that we saw yesterday, an
14 example of the bomblet, is that a projectile of an artillery rocket of the
15 Orkan type?
16 A. The projectile in this case is the rocket itself with its cluster
17 warhead, whereas the bomblets are just one of the elements of a cluster
18 warhead, which instead of the cluster acts on the target or the explosive
19 charge in convention [as interpreted] artillery. So it's not the rocket
20 that targets, it is its individual parts to be found in the cluster
21 warhead that have the destructive effect.
22 Q. Now, I feel that it is necessary to stress at this point, as a
23 general characteristic of artillery ammunition and artillery projectiles
24 or shells, is what you say here in fact, that an artillery projectile
25 affects the target with its bursting charge and jacket fragments. Now,
1 the question is: Is that what every artillery projectile does, including
3 A. In principle this is how it works with conventional projectiles
4 where the cluster war -- where the warhead -- in a classical projectile
5 the warhead hits the target or obstacle upon impact. The fuse is ignited,
6 there is initial charge which is activated, and in conventional weapons it
7 is this warhead which impacts on the target itself. But with the Orkan
8 rocket system the warhead, the cluster warhead is activated at an altitude
9 of approximately 800 metres. It opens up in a very specific way and
10 ejects from that warhead 288 bomblets. And in fact, what affects the
11 target is not the warhead of the rocket itself but it is these bomblets
12 which are to be found in the cluster warhead itself and which then fall
13 freely after the cluster warhead opens, fall towards the target or
15 Q. Thank you. In order to understand the term "projectile"
16 or "artillery projectile," it would be a good idea to look at the diagram
17 on page 22 of the B/C/S text and page 18 of the English text. And this
18 diagram is -- represents a rocket projectile with high explosive -- with a
19 high explosive warhead. Now, can we say that this schematic, this
20 diagram, in principle, is what an artillery projectile looks like in
21 general terms, whether it is a conventional weapon or if we're dealing
22 with the multiple-barrelled rocket launcher. That is the shape of an
23 artillery shell. Is that right?
24 A. Well, this diagram in fact shows a projectile, we can say, of the
25 conventional type, a conventional projectile, with a warhead and with the
1 fragmentation effect.
2 Q. Am I right in saying that point 1, under 1, in this diagram we
3 have the fuse?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Am I right when I say that that fuse, when the projectile impacts
6 the target, activates the warhead and brings about the explosion or what
7 the projectile is supposed to do, explode?
8 A. Yes. However, the primer, the fuse, can be a delayed-fire fuse.
9 In the first case it activates the warhead upon impact; in the second
10 example, if we're dealing with a tank fuse, there's an explosion which is
11 delayed, an explosion along the trajectory itself.
12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Poje. Now, with respect to the type of fuses, the
13 primers, the delayed-fire action, and so on and so forth, we'll deal with
14 that later on, but I'd just like to dwell on a diagram. This diagram,
15 number 4, is explosive charge, and that is the top part of the projectile
16 with the dotted area. Now, I want to ask you this: In principle does
17 every artillery projectile in its first part, whether it is a conventional
18 shell or a rocket projectile, has this explosive charge? Are the
19 explosive charges the same in the initial part of the projectile?
20 A. If we're talking about the conventional type of fuge projectile,
21 then every projectile or its warhead does have this type of explosive
22 charge, which is shown under number 4 of the diagram, and it is the dark
23 line, the shaded part of the warhead. What we see here, however, does not
24 relate to the Orkan rocket system because you can't see a cluster warhead
25 here. This is just a conventional warhead which, according to the design
1 of the projectile, has a different effect than does a cluster warhead.
2 Q. Now, with respect to that last answer of yours, instead of point 4
3 here, the dotted, shaded area, with Orkan we have the cluster warhead
4 which is composed of the 288 bomblets that we saw instead of this
5 explosive charge. And then those bomblets at a certain altitude above the
6 target disperse because the rocket opens -- its outer layer opens up?
7 A. Yes. So in a cluster warhead, instead of the explosive charge
8 shown under number 4 on this diagram, what we have is the 288 bomblets.
9 Q. Thank you. And since we're dealing with this diagram, if you look
10 at number 7 there's a dark grey area and that comes below this explosive
11 charge and that would be the rocket powder or the energy propulsing [as
12 interpreted] the rocket?
13 A. Yes, it's the fuel, if you like to call it, or the energy that
14 gives energy to the projectile, sets it off on its trajectory.
15 Q. Can we then say that the Orkan rocket system is, in fact, a
16 conventional artillery projectile whose explosive charge has a cluster
17 shape or, rather, is -- consists of 288 bomblets?
18 A. Yes. The Orkan rocket is a classical or conventional projectile,
19 but the difference is that instead of having just a conventional warhead
20 it has a cluster warhead which contains the 288 bomblets.
21 Q. Thank you. Now, under point 3.5.2, page 20 -- that is to say we
22 go back two pages. Chapter, point -- 3.5.2 is entitled "rocket
23 projectiles." And in that chapter you are, in fact, saying what you told
24 me a moment ago: A rocket projectile has all the properties of ammunition
25 and that one of its properties is that it is launched from a launcher
1 instead of a gun barrel and that these can either be tubes or tracks?
2 A. Yes. The difference between a conventional system, a Howitzer
3 system, a gun Howitzer system, these conventional weapons is that the
4 projectiles are ejected from barrels or tubes in a specific way, based on
5 the charge placed in the gunpowder section, whereas the rocket systems
6 launch their projectiles, which means that the projectile which is being
7 launched contains a rocket motor which supplies the kinetic energy to
8 them. And so the rocket projectiles have an energy group or charge group,
9 which propels them, whereas classical or conventional ammunition most
10 frequently do not have this part which is separate, this charge part
12 Q. Thank you. Now, further on in the text, when you mention the
13 Orkan system you say that regardless of the difference in the type of
14 launching, an artillery projectile, for example with guns projected --
15 ejected from a tube or barrel, whereas the rocket launcher launches this
16 from tubes or tracks. So regardless of this difference you say that the
17 trajectory of a multiple rocket launcher projectile is set in advance, and
18 to all intents and purposes is no different from the conventional
19 projectiles. Is that right?
20 A. Yes, that's right, precisely. Because the elements for launching
21 are determined beforehand, depending on the position, the position of the
22 target, meteorological and ballistic conditions, firing, the elements for
23 firing are calculated, and then these positions are adjusted on the
24 launcher. There is a time-fuse on the projectile itself, and it is these
25 elements which launch the rocket towards its target, or projectile towards
1 its target.
2 Q. In the continuation of the text you tell us how the rocket flies
3 to its target, and you state that the basic difference between a
4 conventional projectile and a rocket projectile lies in the fact that a
5 rocket projectile has its own built-in flight projectile control
6 electronic systems and motor, whereas a conventional projectile is ignited
7 through a gunpowder charge in the cartridge?
8 A. Yes, that is true. We have the gunpowder charge which is either
9 in the cartridge or is freely filled. There are two types of charge and
10 the way the projectiles are filled with the charge. Some do have
11 cartridges, others do not; they have free gunpowder charges. So in a
12 conventional projectile the fuel, if you like to call it, is in the form
13 of gunpowder charge, which is either in a cartridge or is placed --
14 several of these charges are placed in the gunpowder chamber. If you're
15 dealing with a rocket projectile of the Orkan type, then this projectile
16 has an energy motor and gives it an initial velocity.
17 Q. Regardless of the type of charge, am I correct in saying, when I
18 quote from your report, when you say that the principle of the trajectory
19 flight is the same regardless of what set it off, whether it was set off
20 by a rocket motor or a gunpowder charge. The trajectory is always the
21 same, just like a conventional projectile, and it cannot be influenced
22 once it discharged. Is that right?
23 A. Yes. When you fire a projectile or launch a projectile, whichever
24 word you like to use, you can have no more influence during the flight,
25 the trajectory and flight. That is true of Orkan as well. The only
1 difference is that Orkan has the rocket motor which sets it into motion.
2 And this rocket motor launches the projectile, giving it its initial
3 velocity, which is 4.3 seconds of burning. After the 4.3 seconds, the
4 projectile gains its own initial velocity and follows its flight and
5 trajectory just like any other conventional projectile would do.
6 Q. When we say that the projectile flies in the same way as a
7 conventional projectile, and you say that you cannot influence its flight,
8 does that mean that you cannot correct, make any corrections of the
9 trajectory in flight or guide the rocket in any other way towards the
10 target. Is that what you mean?
11 A. Once the rocket is launched, you can have no more influence on the
12 trajectory in flight. All that can affect it are the meteorological
13 conditions which occur along the trajectory when the trajectory is in
14 flight, but the crew, Orkan's crew, for example, or some other artillery
15 system crew can have no further influence on the flight or the trajectory
16 of the projectile that has been launched towards a target.
17 Q. Thank you. Now, with respect to the explanation you've just gave
18 what is interesting to note is this: You say that with the Orkan rocket
19 system there is a camera which films the active portion of the rocket's
20 flight and automatically corrects elements for the next projectile, for
21 the next rocket. Now, a -- conventional artillery projectiles don't have
22 that type of camera, do they?
23 A. No. Orkan was the only system to have this camera, which in fact
24 filmed the projectile's flight, filmed from the launcher and from the
25 neighboring launcher. You can film the active portion of the projectile's
1 flight from the moment it is launched out of a barrel for the 4.3 seconds
2 that the rocket motor is in operation.
3 Q. Thank you. Now, in respect of this answer you go on to say --
4 what you've just said, actually, that with the conventional type of
5 artillery as well as with the other two multiple-barrelled rocket
6 launchers which were part of the weapons of the Serb army in Krajina, the
7 M-63 Plamen system and the Oganj system, the correction was done by
8 guidance, reconnaissance and guidance, whereas Orkan has this camera. So
9 it's only Orkan that has the camera. Is that right? Is that
10 indisputable, Mr. Poje?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. That will be -- that will suffice, thank you, your answer yes.
13 Now, the existence of the camera recording the active section of
14 the flight has as its task to automatically correct the data for the next
15 rocket. Does that, in fact, mean that this was a modern solution to the
16 rocket which enables very precise artillery firing, as precise as
18 A. The system for calculating the trajectory, theoretical trajectory
19 calculations on the basis of data coming in, ballistical data,
20 meteorological conditions, all this incorporated, as such it has memory
21 and memorises the trajectory in that way.
22 When a rocket is launched, that rocket, its active -- the active
23 section of the flight is recorded by the camera while the rocket motor is
24 functioning. The system compares the theoretical trajectory with the
25 actual trajectory, the trajectory in flight. And it is able automatically
1 to correct even before the next rocket is launched, to correct and adjust
2 the calculations so that the trajectory of the rocket is improved. And we
3 must also bear in mind that regardless of the exactitude of the firing
4 elements, even if you determine them very precisely, all the elements of
5 firing, does not guarantee that this calculated theoretical trajectory
6 will correspond to the actual trajectory because errors -- there will be
7 errors in the theoretical calculations of probability, just as you have
8 dispersion, and there are errors that are made in preparing the initial
9 elements so that we cannot say that we have calculated the trajectory
10 which would be 100 per cent correct.
11 Q. Thank you, Mr. Poje. That was a very detailed answer, but the
12 sense of my question was this --
13 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Before you go on, Mr. Milovancevic, and this had
14 occurred to me before. Based on what you have said, Mr. Poje, what is the
15 margin of error? Can you say here?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's like this, Your Honour. To
17 prepare the initial elements you would have to gather data and information
18 for firing, the processing of that data and information as well, and then
19 to adjust this on the launcher, incorporate this information on the
20 launcher itself. When you're doing all these three things there are
21 errors, and these errors will depend on a number of elements. The
22 construction, the design itself, the tolerance when the system is
23 designed, the way in which the measurements are taken, the instruments
24 that you're using to make these measurements. All these have margins of
1 When you have a lot of these errors, you come to what we call a
2 summary error, which is in the initial errors. There are some errors that
3 we cannot influence that are relatively small. We don't know the
4 direction or the size exactly because it is the theory of probability that
5 deals with elements of that nature.
6 The theory of firing, according to Zivanov, speaks about these
7 errors in the preparation of these input elements. The most exact way of
8 preparing your input is by conducting full and complete preparation, and a
9 better way is to correct your elements, correcting the elements, making
10 corrections with your input elements. So we come back to the preparation
11 stage. Complete and full preparation is the best way of determining the
12 initial elements for firing, which incorporate exact coordinates, exact
13 ballistic information, and exact meteorological information. And
14 regardless of all this, even if you have all these very exact data, a
15 summary element in the preparation is from .08 to 1.2 per cent of the
16 distance or range of firing. So that's the margin of error. And we have
17 turned that into Vd values, and I'm talking about dispersion in line,
18 which is equal to 2 Vd, dispersion in range --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So even if you have the most exact
21 way of preparation, the margin or error is 2 Vd. The overall image of
22 error or error chart is plus/minus 4 mean errors, or average errors, which
23 means that errors in the initial elements is relatively large, there's a
24 relatively large margin of error, and that means at long distances, long
25 ranges, you have to undertake a correction in firing.
1 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you very much.
2 Mr. Milovancevic.
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Now, with respect to the correction and the camera that we
5 mentioned and the question that the Judge asked you, we're talking about
6 one basic topic. The basic condition in artillery firing is to hit the
7 target with a projectile. Right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, to hit the target successfully you say we need to have full
10 and complete preparation, and you also said that for that precision the
11 correction of firing is very important. Now, with the Orkan system, this
12 is done automatically by using a camera. A camera records the active
13 section of the flight and automatically corrects the data of the next
14 rocket. Now, my next question is that the most up-to-date modern solution
15 that you found?
16 A. Well, you can have classical correction with the Orkan as well,
17 conventional correction. All you have to do is to see how you have fired
18 and whether you have hit the target. So, as we say, we can use a camera.
19 That's the difference. You can use a camera to record the trajectory and
20 then make automatic corrections, on the assumption that you have
21 calculated the correct trajectory because if the -- if we have not taken
22 into account all the parameters, all the initial firing data, the
23 topographical data, the meteorological data, and if you have calculated
24 your trajectory wrongly, then when the camera is used the actual
25 trajectory will give you a false record, a false trajectory, if I can put
1 it that way, call it a false one.
2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Poje. You've explained that to us in great detail,
3 and my question boils down to this: This is automatic correction during
4 flight and that that is made possible by electronics, the camera, the
5 recording camera, with the sole aim of ensuring as precise targeting and
6 firing as possible. Is that right?
7 A. Yes. But may I just add this with your permission, that
8 regardless with the correction, automatic correction, there is still
9 corrections that are made but they are 50 per cent less than the errors
10 you would be making in the initial firing data, .08 to 1.1 Vd or
11 dispersion in range.
12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Poje.
13 Now, on page 23 of the B/C/S, or 19 in the English, you talk about
14 a rocket projectile and state that it impacts on the target with a warhead
15 and the principle is not -- no different from a classical projectile
16 because just like a conventional projectile the rocket projectile as well
17 contains a warhead which has its fuse, explosive charge, and all the rest
18 of the elements. Isn't that right?
19 A. Yes. And if you look at the bottom it says: Modern projectiles
20 have cluster warheads with cumulative bomblets and the other fragments.
21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Poje, that deals with my next question. But in
22 relation to that answer of yours, we come back to a question we raised
23 yesterday, and this is this: Orkan as a multiple-barrelled rocket
24 launcher has two types of rockets when we look at the warhead and both
25 rockets have cluster charges. Is that right?
1 A. Yes. As far as I know and on the basis of the literature I've
2 studied, Orkan does, indeed, have two types of warheads, one rocket with
3 two types of warhead, the cluster warhead with the bomblets, and the
4 cluster warhead with armoured shells.
5 Q. Let us just repeat. The warhead that was used in the targets in
6 Zagreb was the cluster warhead with cumulative cluster fragments, whereas
7 the other has anti-armoured mines which weren't used, nor would there have
8 been any sense in using this in targeting certain features in Zagreb.
9 Isn't that right?
10 A. Yes. Because the cluster warhead was used -- it affected live
11 force, whereas the cluster warheads are used to lay minefields at a
12 distance. And they were mostly used to prevent armoured vehicles and
13 units with armoured vehicles breaking through along certain axes
15 Q. Now, in relation to that answer of yours, am I right in saying
16 that the only rocket which you could use for targets in Zagreb was
17 precisely the type that was used, with this kind of warhead?
18 A. According to the data that I had at my disposal, what was launched
19 on Zagreb were cluster warheads, rockets with cluster warheads containing
20 the bomblets. No other type of rocket was launched. That was the only
21 type of rocket launched.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: What were the targets in Zagreb? The question is
23 put to you, Mr. Milovancevic, because I don't think the witness knows what
24 the intended targets were.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can answer this
1 in two ways. I can give you a direct answer, but I think that will
2 influence the course of my cross-examination of this witness. But I will
3 be asking very specific questions to the witness about that which will
4 give you an answer. If you're not satisfied with my questions and the
5 witness's answer, I will give you a direct answer, but that's the only
6 reason I'm a bit reticent in jumping the gun and talking about that now.
7 It would have a material influence on the contents of the witness's
8 further testimony during the cross-examination and my questions that are
9 to follow.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, let's find out. Now, your question was: In
11 relation to that answer of yours, am I right in saying that the only
12 rocket which you could use for targeting Zagreb was precisely the type
13 that was used with this kind of warhead?
14 Now, before this witness can answer, I would like to be satisfied
15 that he knows what the target is because otherwise how does he answer this
16 kind of question?
17 Mr. Poje, do you know what the targets were in Zagreb? Just --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't really know which the
19 specific targets were. On the basis of the information I was given and I
20 had at my disposal, I just dealt with the location these projectiles were
21 activated and the areas where these bomblets from the cluster warheads
22 from the rocket fell on Zagreb. Now, what the actual target or targets
23 were when Zagreb was targeted, I don't know.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: You see the problem? This witness can't answer
25 that question unless he knows the intended target.
1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't think
2 there's any problem, actually, because the witness in his expert report
3 said that a possible target was the civilian population, for instance,
4 according to the police reports.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now you --
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] So if he has said that, my
7 question to him would be linked to that statement of his, so that is why I
8 said a moment ago that I would like to leave these questions to a later
9 stage of the cross-examination, not to avoid having him answer your
10 question. And with your permission might I be allowed to continue my
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're not allowed just yet. He tells us "possible
13 targets." Now, possible -- he's obviously guessing based on the type of
14 rocket that was used. You are telling him that the targets that were
15 intended to be hit could only be hit if you used this type of rocket.
16 Now, you've got to tell him what were the intended targets. He's telling
17 us what the possible targets were. Therefore, until and unless he knows
18 what the intended target is, there is no way he can answer that question.
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm starting out
20 from the allegations made in the indictment, according to which the
21 expert's statements are taken into account where he says that in his
22 opinion the targets were the civilian population. Now, if that answer of
23 his is something that is contained in his expert report, my question to
24 him was: Can you attack a civilian population with anti-tank shells or
25 some other type of projectile?
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: The target you're talking about is the target he is
2 talking about in his report, that -- namely, the civilian populations.
3 Say that to him. Then he will be able to answer the question.
4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] That is not what I am saying,
5 Your Honour. I am claiming that that is not so.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then what are you saying? You're saying he is
7 postulating a possible target in his report and that is -- because he is
8 postulating that that is what you are asking him about. Now tell him:
9 That in your report you are postulating this kind of a -- this kind of
10 target and could that target be struck only by the use of this kind of
12 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Also your question before, in transcript 15,
13 line 6, you asked if this wouldn't be the only instrument to make any
14 sense in using this in targeting certain features in Zagreb, and this was
15 also a little unclear; therefore, the question: Is this right, was to me
16 also disturbing. And the answer: Yes, didn't say very much. This is the
17 same line of problem I would see there.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't think
19 there's a problem in the transcript. I'm going to withdraw my previous
20 question for us to be able to deal with the normal cross-examination of
21 this witness according to the order that he follows in his expert report.
22 And then I'll ask the other question later on with your permission and
23 indulgence so that we don't come into a situation where I can, by my
24 answer, pre-empt -- by my question can pre-empt an answer. So with your
25 permission, may I continue along the lines my cross-examination was
1 following which was following the order set out in the witness report.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: By all means for as long as you are not going to
3 ask the witness to answer questions which -- about which he needs to have
4 data first before he can answer. And you're asking the question without
5 supplying him with the data, okay, and the data being the target here.
6 You may proceed. So that question is disallowed.
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Yes, I
8 withdrew the question and I do accept your ruling. May I continue?
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may.
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 Q. Now, on page 24 of the B/C/S of your report, or page 20 in
12 English, in footnote 6 you talk about the fragmentation effect of the
13 projectile and that you say that this is the effect which is gained by the
14 lethal fragments of the shell or projectile.
15 THE INTERPRETER: May we have a reference, please, for footnote 6,
16 interpreter's note.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Every projectile, anti-tank shells,
18 do have the fragmentation effect, the only difference being that this
19 fragmentation effect is achieved with the casing of the projectile itself
20 or part of the casing in conventional weapons or with the balls or pellets
21 from the bomblet in the Orkan example.
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Thank you. In the next paragraph underneath this you talk about
24 the fragmentation effect upon delayed fire. You mentioned delayed fire
25 yesterday and you explained that with -- in order to achieve fragmentation
1 effect at impact, the fuse is adjusted to this effect -- slowing down
2 effect --
3 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please give the interpreters a
4 reference because we don't seem to find it on the pages.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, the witnesses are asking for
6 assistance from you -- I beg your pardon, the interpreters are asking that
7 you give them a reference, please. They are not able to follow what you
8 are doing -- what you are saying.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, at the beginning
10 of my question, and I apologise if I wasn't precise enough, I said it was
11 page 24 in the B/C/S or --
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Or page 20 in the English, but page 20 -- and at
13 page 20, we don't see any footnote 6 and that is why the interpreters are
14 having difficulties.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, Your Honour, thank you.
16 JUDGE HOEPFEL: You could say in which chapter we are, the chapter
17 number --
18 MR. BLACK: Your Honours, just looking between the two versions,
19 the original and the translation, it looks like the English version
20 footnote 7 should be footnote 6, so that may be an error in the
21 translation. In any effect, I believe what counsel is referring to is the
22 bottom of page 19 in the English and moving to the top of page 20.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. That may very well be so because footnote 6
24 is at page 13, very far from where you are in the English --
25 MR. BLACK: I think that's an error in the translation, Your
2 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And this footnote in fact corresponds with
3 footnote 6 in the B/C/S version. Thank you.
4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, thank you.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. I hope the interpreters are now
6 in line with you.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Thank you, Your Honour, yes.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. As I was saying we were dealing with chapter 3.6 entitled
11 "fragmentation effect of a projectile." And we're dealing with
12 paragraph 7 of that chapter.
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] And I'd like to ask the Court
14 to bear in mind that there really does seem to be a difference in the
15 footnotes, the numbers in the B/C/S and the English, and that is
16 unfortunate, which is the reason for the misunderstanding. So it wasn't
17 an intentional thing on my part, or mistake on my part, just to understand
18 the position.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Nothing of the sort is suggested, Mr. Milovancevic.
20 You -- it is understood it was not your fault. Thank you.
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. That's
22 not what I meant. Yes.
23 Q. Now, in that chapter you're talking about the fragmentation effect
24 of a projectile, let me repeat the question because there's been quite a
25 lot of time gone by, that that can be with -- fuses set instantaneous
1 action or delayed action and the fuse is adjusted accordingly. The fuse
2 is set for instantaneous action or delayed action, is that right, for
3 impact and time fire?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. May we look at page 28 now in B/C/S.
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] That should be in English
7 page 23, Your Honours.
8 Q. On this page in the B/C/S we have a paragraph beginning "time
9 fire." And above that paragraph about time fire, there's a sentence that
10 I'm interested in. You say that: "In order to increase the effect in
11 addition -- or rather, time fire can be used to increase the fragmentation
12 effect of a projectile."
13 And you go on to explain that that time fire is delivered with a
14 delayed-action projectile which enables projectile bursts on the
15 trajectory at a certain height above the target. So is that the essence
16 of this time fire in artillery firing?
17 A. With a conventional projectile time fire is delivered with a fuge
18 projectile and a fuse, a time-fuse, in such a way that the explosion
19 occurs at a certain height above the target. That is what we mean when
20 we're talking about conventional artillery time fire.
21 If we look at the Orkan system, on the other hand, we have to
22 differentiate between two types of fuses.
23 Q. May I interrupt you, Mr. Poje --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I just interrupt you -- may I interrupt you,
25 Mr. Milovancevic. You've quoted something to the witness and you said
1 what you are quoting is above the paragraph starting with "time fire."
2 And I am desperately trying to find what it is you are trying to quoting.
3 The quotation reads: "In order to increase the effect in addition -- or
4 rather, time fire can be used to increase the fragmentation effect of a
6 Now I'm trying to find that. "In addition to ricochet fire and
7 unconcealed personnel, it is also possible to use time fire to increase
8 the fragmentation effect." That's what I see on the sentence above "time
9 fire," which is not what you said to the witness.
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah. Now, the -- I would like to be with you. I
12 would like to know what it is you are quoting to the witness so that I
13 follow your argument.
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand your dilemma,
15 Your Honour. May I explain this through questions to the witness, please?
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, no, just refer -- no, no, just refer me on the
17 page to what it is you were quoting.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] The sentence you just read out,
19 Your Honour. "In addition to ricochet fire at unconcealed personnel, it
20 is also possible to use time fire to increase the fragmentation effect."
21 That is the sentence --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, that's not what is quoted here on the
23 transcript, Mr. Milovancevic. What is quoted on the transcript says: "In
24 order to increase the effect in addition -- or rather, time fire can be
25 used to increase the fragmentation effect of a projectile."
1 There's no mention of ricochet or personnel or unconcealed thing.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, and that need not
3 be mentioned because the sense of my question was along those lines, and I
4 was referring to the topic of time fire. So I just referred to that
5 portion of his text which was in -- we were interested in. So I wasn't
6 referring to ricochet fire but time fire. Ricochet fire wasn't the point
7 I was interested in. The material sense of time fire, why it is used.
8 That's what I wanted to ask the witness, and that is why I just read out a
9 part of the sentence, the part of the sentence that I wanted to focus on,
10 not the first part with ricochet fire. But I can reformulate the question
11 to make the transcript clearer, so there's no misunderstanding with
12 respect to the actual text in the expert report and the other words used
13 in the transcript.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: The only problem is when you do quote, quote
15 correctly, then we know where you are and what you're saying. Don't
16 paraphrase and then put quotation marks because there are quotation marks
17 in here.
18 You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Mr. Poje, I apologise for this break. I partly paraphrased and
21 partly quoted, in the belief that I was not actually misinterpreting the
22 text before we; however, I will be more precise following His Honour's
24 Let me repeat my question. Can one say that it's also possible to
25 use time fire in order to increase the fragmentation effect?
1 A. Time fire is used to neutralise personnel out in the open, and
2 it's more effective than impact firing. A combination of impact and time
3 fire is often used to neutralise unconcealed personnel.
4 Q. Thank you. When speaking about time fire used to increase the
5 fragmentation effect, you say in your text that it is delivered with a
6 delayed-action projectile with a time or proximity fuse, so that the
7 projectile bursts on the trajectory at a certain height above the target.
8 Is that what time fire is used for?
9 A. Yes. Using a fuge warhead and a time-fuse, this is used with the
10 aim of having an explosion, a burst, at a certain height above the target
11 which causes fragments to fall on the personnel on the ground or the live
12 force on the ground.
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is precisely
14 why I asked this question. This automatically leads us to figure 11,
15 portraying time fire, and it's on page 23 of the text in English and on
16 page 28 of the text in B/C/S.
17 Q. Do you have this photograph before you with the title "time fire"?
18 The slanting line with a little cloud at the end of it is supposed to
19 represent a trajectory of projectile adjusted for time fire. Is that
21 A. Yes. You can see the trajectory, and at the end of it above the
22 target you see the explosion of the time projectile which takes place
23 because of a certain adjustment of the delayed-action fuse or --
24 Q. You say that time fire is done in such a way that the explosion is
25 at the most favourable possible height above the target and that this
1 produces an effect which is three times stronger. Is that what you say?
2 A. Let me repeat. When using conventional artillery ammunition in
3 time fire, using delayed-action fuses and proximity fuses, the dispersion
4 at a height is very small, both theoretically and in practice. And this
5 increases the efficacy two or three times against personnel.
6 Q. As the very purpose of this kind of firing is to have an explosion
7 at a certain height above the target, and we can see this in figure 11,
8 let me remind you of Exhibit 771, showing a similar trajectory of an Orkan
9 projectile opening at the certain height above the target, 800 to 1000
10 metres higher. These are two completely different things, are they not?
11 A. Yes. Speaking about time fire here, we are talking about the
12 conventional type of time fire. In the Orkan system we have two kinds of
13 fuses. In the rocket itself, there is a time-fuse which makes it possible
14 for the warhead to open at a certain height, 800 to 1.000 metres. That's
15 one kind of fuse. The other kind of -- the first kind is in the warhead
16 itself. And the second kind of fuse is found in every bomblet. It makes
17 it possible for every bomblet to be set off on impact. So those are
18 impact fuses. There is -- in the cluster warhead itself is one fuse, and
19 there are impact fuses in each bomblet in addition, which set the bomblet
20 off on impact.
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we show Exhibit 771,
22 please, on the monitor?
23 Q. So what we see before us on the monitor is a situation when the
24 casing of the rocket opens up and bomblets fall out. But this is not the
25 explosion we see in figure 11, in the case of time fire. Is this beyond
1 dispute, Mr. Poje?
2 A. Yes, precisely so. These two diagrams, figure 11 in the report
3 and figure now on the monitor, are different. What we see on the monitor
4 is a fuse, the task of which is to open the cluster warhead, to open it
5 up, and release, so to say, 288 bomblets, which are supplied with impact
6 fuses. These bomblets are activated by these impact fuses. They explode
7 on impact with an obstacle.
8 Q. To round off this topic, which I think is very important, does
9 this answer mean that what we have in Exhibit 771 on the monitor shows the
10 dispersion of the bomblets which takes place at a height of 800 to 1.000
11 metres, and this is not the explosion of the bomblets in the Orkan. Is
12 that correct?
13 A. What we have to understand is that the explosive charge which is
14 activated in the cluster warhead is such that it only opens the warhead
15 and releases the bomblets. This is not the conventional fuge charge
16 because the warhead is filled with bomblets, that's a cluster warhead. So
17 the explosion is only sufficient to open up the warhead and release the
18 288 bomblets which fall towards the target.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel not overlap with the witness,
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When the bomblets fall on any kind
22 of obstacle, the impact fuse is activated, it causes the explosion of the
23 bomblet. And then the double effect is achieved. The action of the balls
24 and the action of the cumulative blast piercing the obstacle.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Thank you, sir. Let's move on to the next topic. The next
2 chapter deals with the Orkan system, and we've already said that it has
3 two kinds of cluster warheads. You explained the number of cumulative
4 fragmentation bomblets in the cluster warhead equipped with bomblets. And
5 you also said that the calibre of a bomblet is 40 millimetres and that it
6 pierces armoured steel, which is 60 millimetres thick. That is very high
7 piercing power.
8 A. The cumulative blast pierces the armour of every modern tank from
9 above -- from on top.
10 Q. Can such bomblets with their impact blast and destructive action
11 also destroy buildings?
12 A. It's possible, it's possible. Although they are primarily
13 intended to pierce tanks, armoured personnel carriers, armoured vehicles,
14 other projectiles are used to hit bunkers, dug-outs, fortified buildings,
15 and so on.
16 Q. Are all these goals against which the Orkan rocket can be used?
17 A. Yes. For the most part, these are all the targets that are
18 targeted by such weapons, armoured vehicles and other targets.
19 Q. In chapter 3.7, which deals with accuracy of artillery fire, it's
20 page 30 in B/C/S, you say when dealing with the concept of artillery fire
21 that it: "Is the action of artillery projectiles on the target for the
22 purpose of producing desired material and moral effects."
23 When you define artillery fire in this manner, does this
24 definition also apply to the Orkan rocket system?
25 A. Yes, certainly. Any projectile action is aimed at producing
1 desired material and also moral effects.
2 Q. When you speak about the moral effects or the psychological
3 effects, is it demoralising for the opposite side because of the forceful
4 sudden precise artillery action, in this case of the Orkan rocket?
5 A. We have to say that in the case of artillery fire, including
6 Orkan, there are material effects, but we know that not every projectile
7 hits its target. However, a vast number of explosions is produced, a lot
8 of smoke. And in any case this is demoralising for the people in the area
10 For example, on the Slunj training field we fired on the
11 resistance point of a platoon which was defending the area, and we
12 established that there were relatively few direct hits, but when we looked
13 at the effect of this fire, everything was shaking, everything was
14 smoking, burning, and this had to have a huge demoralising effect for the
15 people. Of course there were dummies there, not real people.
16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Poje.
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think this
18 might be a convenient moment for a break.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is a convenient moment for a break. Thank you
20 very much, Mr. Milovancevic. We'll break until quarter to 11.00.
21 Court adjourned.
22 --- Recess taken at 10.15 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 10.46 a.m.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. We left off at chapter 3.7 entitled "accuracy of artillery fire,"
2 and we spoke about the action of artillery projectiles to produce desired
3 material and moral effects. You go on to say that the purpose of an
4 artillery firing is to carry out the following combat tasks:
5 Neutralisation, destruction, demolition, interdiction, and harassment.
6 And you go on to say that artillery fire must be sudden, accurate,
7 powerful, and brief. Are these the general rules of artillery fire which
8 also applied to the Orkan?
9 A. Yes, they applied to all artillery and therefore they applied to
10 the Orkan as well.
11 Q. A few pages before that on page 34 in B/C/S and -- you say -- you
12 speak about artillery fire. You say that artillery fire has three stages,
13 the preparation of initial firing data, correction, and group firing. The
14 preparation of the initial firing data makes it possible to have elements
15 as precise as possible to begin correction and to begin group firing.
16 Does this also refer to the Orkan?
17 A. Yes. This is both for -- this also applies to the Orkan.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters have a precise reference,
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. You then go on to say --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, you referred the witness to
23 page 34 I think of the B/C/S, and the interpreters want to know a correct
24 reference I suppose in the English.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. This
1 is the text above 3.7.2, and the title is "accuracy of artillery fire." I
2 will check the page number in English. Just a moment.
3 MR. BLACK: It's the bottom of page 27 in the English, Your
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm grateful to my learned
8 Q. On page 27, when you speak about adjustment, you say that a fire
9 adjustment eliminates errors in preparing initial data and provides the
10 most accurate possible data for a group firing.
11 I will remind you of one of my previous questions. I wish to know
12 whether the adjustment in the case of the Orkan system is carried out by
13 means of the camera which is in the rocket and which sends back data for
14 the automatic adjustment of the following projectiles. Is that correct?
15 A. Yes, compared to other conventional artillery weapons in which
16 adjustment is carried out from observation posts, the Orkan, with its
17 system, makes it possible to carry out adjustment without carrying out
18 observation, from an observation post. A camera is used which films the
20 Q. Thank you. I apologise for interrupting you, but this is
21 repetitious now. Thank you.
22 In chapter 3.7.2 entitled "accuracy of artillery fire," you deal
23 with the precision of artillery fire and you speak about accidental or
24 inevitable errors which have multiple causes, and it is not possible to
25 observe and analyse them fully. My question is: Is this a characteristic
1 of all artillery fire, including Orkan?
2 A. Yes. It's a characteristic of every fire because there are very
3 many accidental errors on which we can have no influence.
4 Q. In connection with these errors, Mr. Poje, on page 36 of
5 the B/C/S, which is page 29 of the English text, you give a table showing
6 the errors in preparing data for a group firing. On the left-hand side of
7 the table, the heading is "method for determining data," and on the
8 right-hand side the title is "mean error," or the heading. And you link
9 these two elements. Do you see the table before you?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you. In the method for determining data, the three last
12 columns or rows are full preparation, shortened preparation, and simple
13 preparation. When you compare these with the figures in the right-hand
14 column, is it clear from this table that the fuller the preparation the
15 more precise the fire, or vice versa? The simpler the preparation, the
16 less precise the fire. Is that correct?
17 A. The correctness of the elements for fire depend on the data. The
18 fuller the preparation, the smaller the mean error, and out of the three
19 methods that can be used in firing, the most precise is in the case of
20 full preparation and the least precise is in the case of simple
21 preparation. The mean error is the smallest with full preparation and the
22 highest with simple preparation of initial firing data.
23 Q. Thank you, sir. The general rules for the use of artillery, do
24 they provide that full preparation of initial firing data is always
25 required at distances longer than 20 kilometres? I think you wrote
1 something about this in your wrote.
2 A. At distances up to six kilometres one can use simple preparation.
3 At distances of up to 20 kilometres, full preparation is required but
4 shortened preparation is also possible. Over 20 kilometres, full
5 preparation of initial firing data is mandatory. When firing at distances
6 of over 20 kilometres, the initial firing data must be done so that there
7 is full preparation.
8 Q. Thank you. On page 29 there is another diagram showing the
9 probability that the mean error in preparation and so on, and underneath
10 is a text which says that the: "Artillery rules of preparation say that
11 full preparation is mandatory at distances over 20 kilometres" and that
12 this also applies to the Orkan.
13 A. It applies to all artillery system. If the firing distance is
14 over 20 kilometres, the full preparation of initial firing data is
16 Q. Thank you. In the next chapter you speak about - and that's
17 3.7.3 - you speak about the influence of various factors on the
18 effectiveness of a firing. And the chapter that follows this is
19 entitled -- well, it's 3.7.5, and the title is "effectiveness of a
20 firing." That's page 41 in the B/C/S. I'll try to find the page
21 reference in English.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's page 33, Mr. Milovancevic.
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you for your assistance,
24 Your Honour.
25 Q. When discussing the effectiveness of the firing, you say that it
1 depends on a large number of factors, the most important of which are, and
2 I will point to some things, the dimensions, shape, and nature of the
3 target. And then in one of these bullet points you say that the
4 effectiveness of the firing also depends on the appropriate selection of
5 the type of projectile, fuse, charge, trajectory, shape, and the type of
6 firing. Do these general provisions also apply to the Orkan?
7 A. The effectiveness of firing, these apply to artillery in general,
8 not a particular artillery piece. The effectiveness of firing depends on
9 all the factors listed here.
10 Q. Thank you. In your expert report in chapter 3.7.5, discussing the
11 effectiveness of firing, and when we come to the end of this chapter, at
12 the very end of this chapter, which is page 44 of the English text, before
13 you go on to 3.8, "purpose and main characteristics of the Orkan," you
14 discuss an example of firing from an Orkan. Do you see the page where it
15 says: Example 2, the firing conditions are as in Example 1. Example 1
16 discusses battery firing. And you say that the target is partially
17 concealed. And then you go on to say, I quote: "In view of the type of
18 ammunition" --
19 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Milovancevic, I regret having to interrupt
20 but I'm not there with you. I'm -- I'd like to know what page it is in
21 the English version, because at 3.8, the heading is "purpose and main
22 characteristics of a VBR," and there is a 3.8.1 which doesn't have the
23 caption that you have referred to. Could you help me, please, to get to
24 the point where you are with the witness.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I regret having
1 caused this confusion. We are on page 36 of the text in English, and this
2 is just before the text dealing with the Orkan. So this is page 36 of the
3 text in English. On this page, 36 of the English text, there is
4 discussion of Example 2, and the two last paragraphs referring to
5 Example 2 are the topic we are dealing with now, Your Honour. I believe
6 that we have now oriented ourselves. I omitted to mark every B/C/S page
7 with the equivalent English page, and that's my mistake.
8 Q. Mr. Poje --
9 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you for your assistance.
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 Q. -- when dealing with example 2 you say: "The same type of
12 ammunition may be used," you're referring to the Orkan rocket system, "for
13 both personnel and weapons under cover," and you say -- or "unconcealed."
14 And you say: "Unnatural, artificial, including armoured personnel
15 carriers, armoured and other vehicles, buildings, et cetera."
16 Does this mean that this warhead, cluster warhead, containing 288
17 bomblets is effective both against personnel and against armoured vehicles
18 as well as against buildings and so on?
19 A. Yes, that's what it means.
20 Q. Thank you. The next page refers to --
21 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please switch on his microphone.
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. -- the Orkan system. Excuse me.
24 The next page refers to the characteristics of the Orkan. And you
25 say that this was a system developed by the end of 1985 by Yugoslav and
1 Iraqi experts. Where did you get this information about the Iraqi
3 A. The Orkan was tested in Iraq. A large number of projectiles were
4 fired there, and I have mentioned the source of my information here.
5 Q. Is this source the Pentagon?
6 A. Yes, that's the source.
7 Q. Am I right in saying that the fact that a system was tested in
8 Iraq need not automatically mean that it was developed in collaboration
9 with Iraq. Would you agree?
10 A. I would agree in part, but if a country participated in the
11 testing of a system then most likely its experts were working on this
12 system as well.
13 Q. Is there any sense in which the participation of Iraqi experts
14 influences the technical and tactical characteristics of this system in a
15 negative way?
16 A. No. Because regardless of which experts worked on it, the Orkan
17 was developed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia and the leaders of
18 this development were Yugoslav experts. As the Orkan was tested in Iraq,
19 most likely Iraqi experts also participated in developing it.
20 Q. Thank you. And you say on the first page where you deal with the
21 Orkan that the prototypes were tested by the end of 1985 and two years
22 later the Orkan was introduced into operational use in the JNA. This
23 period of development and testing from 1980 to 1987 was a period when the
24 democratic west supported Iraqi armed operations against Iran, and that
25 France, Great Britain, and the USA were on the Iraqi side in that
2 A. As far as I know, in one stage western Europe and Yugoslavia as
3 well supported Iraq in its fight against Iran, and it was probably at that
4 time that the Iraqi army was supplied with western arms systems. As far
5 as I know and in my conversations with the experts dealing with the Orkan,
6 Orkan was supplied to the armed forces of Iraq.
7 Q. Thank you. We will now move on to talk about the technical
8 characteristics of the Orkan. And you say on the next page: "The M87
9 Orkan self-propelled long-range multiple rocket launching system has the
10 function of providing fire support to corps-sized and army-sized units."
11 In view of the fact that this is a long-range system, does it also
12 act against shorter ranges, 1 to 50, 50 to 200, and 200 and above?
13 A. We said that the Orkan is in between medium-range and long-range
14 weapons. It's at the end of the medium-range scale and at the end of the
15 long-range scale.
16 Q. When you speak about its range, you say that it can effectively
17 neutralise all kinds of targets and provide anti-armoured barrage fire,
18 firing rockets with a cluster warhead containing anti- armour mines. This
19 is a general characteristic of the Orkan. Is that correct?
20 A. Yes. When we discussed the Orkan as a system, in view of the fact
21 that it has two kinds of warheads, one kind with bomblets intended to
22 neutralise and destroy personnel and equipment, and another kind which
23 contains anti-tank mines and it can be used to combat tanks and other
24 armoured vehicles.
25 Q. In the next paragraph you go on to say that bearing in mind the
1 relatively large dispersion pattern of the Orkan, it is not a particularly
2 suitable weapon for use against populated areas. When you say it is not a
3 particularly suitable weapon, does this mean that its use against an
4 inhabited area is excluded or is it possible?
5 A. In view of the fact of the large dispersion pattern, the selection
6 of targets in an inhabited area has to be very thorough. This does not
7 exclude the possibility of using the Orkan against military targets in an
8 inhabited area. Military targets also have to be carefully selected, and
9 firing on such targets must be such that there are no hits outside those
10 targets. The selection of the target is crucial in the case of firing an
12 Q. Thank you. Now, in continuation of that text under the heading
13 of "Orkan multiple rocket launcher," you talk about its tactical and
14 technical features and so on and a system for leveling, assuming
15 positions, for setting into motion launchers, and you say that everything
16 is linked with digital commands and that all these systems can be handled
17 by the crew in the launcher. Now, do these characteristics speak of its
18 computerisation and maximum effectiveness in the sense of technical
19 solutions, the ones set out here?
20 A. Orkan, but we're just talking about a launcher here, which is a
21 modern weapon, which include -- which means that you can take up your
22 firing positions quickly and that you have all the possibilities of
23 effecting proper firing from the cabin itself. The crew does not have to
24 leave its cabin and prepare the weapon to go into effect.
25 Q. Now, when you spoke about the technical characteristics you said
1 that there was a command vehicle or the fact that each vehicle can --
2 could be used as a commander and computer centre, and that is the
3 characteristic of Orkan, is it not?
4 A. Yes. Every Orkan unit has a vehicle which houses the computer or
5 computer system by means of which it is possible on the basis of initial
6 data that I've already mentioned to calculate the -- on the basis of
7 algorithms, initial elements and so on, they are conveyed to the launcher
9 Q. Now, in continuation of the text we have figure 14 on page 49 of
10 the B/C/S text, and figure 49 [as interpreted] is the trajectory passage
11 of adjustment rocket launched through a reference plain in space. And in
12 continuation of the text, about Orkan can you say that a television
13 adjustor, which consists of a television camera, which functions in the
14 visible and closed infra-red range and has a monitor and a computer
15 enables automatic adjustment. That is the automatic adjustment that we
16 spoke about earlier on.
17 A. Yes. We talked about the camera, that it records the active phase
18 of the flight of the rocket and trajectory, and by comparing both
19 trajectories is able to correct the trajectory for the following rocket,
20 next rocket, to be launched.
21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Poje. Now, in continuation of that text you look
22 at the rocket for the rocket system of Orkan. You look at the rocket
23 itself. Now, since we dealt with that topic, I don't want to waste time.
24 I think we've seen to that. Then you talk about the system -- the
25 direction of fire, and you show us the component parts of the individual
1 units of the system. We have the picture of a truck that looks like a
2 very ordinary truck; it is page 54 of the B/C/S.
3 THE INTERPRETER: May we have an English reference, please?
4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. So that with respect to these tactical and technical
6 characteristics of Orkan, I'm not going to ask you any more questions
7 about that.
8 Now, after the Orkan, and it is 3.8.3, the next chapter, 3.8.3,
9 you deal with the 128-millimetre M-63 Plamen multiple rocket launcher.
10 I'm not going to follow the text in detail there; I'm just going to ask
11 you one question. It is a multiple rocket launcher, which is one of the
12 weapons that the Army of Republika Srpska Krajina had, and the rocket
13 range is about eight kilometres. Is that right?
14 A. 8.600 metres.
15 Q. Right, 8.600 metres. Thank you. Now, in addition to that Plamen
16 multiple rocket launcher, which is on wheels and has 32 rockets, you also
17 dealt with the Oganj weapon, which is also 120 millimetres but with a
18 longer range. Is that right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And that Oganj has a 120-kilometre range. That is also one of the
21 weapons that the Republic of Srpska Krajina had. Is that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. I'd like to draw your attention for a few moments on chapter 3.9,
24 Mr. Poje, entitled "artillery groups, command and control." Page 63 of
25 the B/C/S and it says "artillery groups" and "control and command" --
1 "command and control."
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is page 53 of
3 the English text.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. We're not going to go through all the individual sections of that
7 chapter. I'm just interested in the beginning of the following -- or
8 rather, I'm interested in point 3.9.2, "command and control," and it comes
9 underneath a table. So it is 3.9.2, "command and control," page 64 of the
11 In that chapter, 3.9.2, you explain who it is who is in command of
12 the artillery fire, and you say that commanding the artillery is the task
13 of the commanders and commands of joint tactical and operational units and
14 the commands of artillery units. Is that so? Is that right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, in continuation of that same chapter, 3.9.2, paragraph 2, you
17 emphasise that the artillery is commanded by the commander of a joint
18 tactical and operational unit directly or through his chief of artillery.
19 So that's a general provision about the functioning of the artillery, and
20 does it correspond -- does it apply to Orkan, too?
21 A. Yes, as a branch of the army.
22 Q. Now, in connection with that answer of yours my next question is
23 this: Can we therefore say that the artillery never acts alone? It
24 functions within the framework of a set composition, and it is commanded
25 by the commander of a joint tactical or operational group directly or
1 through the chief of artillery to which orders are issued?
2 A. May I be allowed to explain?
3 According to the rules of artillery, there are rules governing the
4 command and control of firing, and that is a component part of command and
5 control which relates to firing itself. That is in the briefest possible
7 Now, what happens to the management, or how firing is determined,
8 you determine fire assignments and tasks and their effects on individual
9 units and artillery units to be deployed. Artillery units, infantry
10 units, armoured vehicle units.
11 Now, who is in charge of fire? It is the commanders of the
12 support units who are in charge of the fire.
13 Now, handling fire means the firing itself. In simple terms, it
14 is the execution of the firing itself. So the commander of the support
15 unit issues assignments. If I am the commander of an artillery unit, I am
16 duty-bound, on the basis of my professional capabilities and the equipment
17 I have, to effect firing.
18 Now, who handles the firing itself? It is the commanders of the
19 artillery units and leaders of the artillery units and observers,
20 reconnaissance men, who are trained to do so.
21 Q. Thank you. Now following on from your answer there you go on to
22 quote provisions on the use of the VSK 1995 and orders by the Main Staff
23 of the Serb Army of Krajina about raising combat-readiness. Now, from
24 those two documents you draw the conclusion and say that: "We can see
25 that the Orkan department received assignments from the command of the
1 Main Staff of the R -- SVK, or rather, Colonel Djilas." In the form of
2 Colonel Djilas.
3 So my question is: Could Orkan have gone into operation only
4 pursuant to the command of the Main Staff or Colonel Djilas?
5 A. According to the documents that I had at my disposal, they are
6 three documents, you mentioned two of those documents, the directive and
7 raising combat -- increasing combat-readiness, and moving the Orkan to a
8 new location was the third document. In all these three documents it says
9 that the assignments to Orkan are issued by the Main Staff commander, the
10 commander of the Serb Army of Krajina, and I think in two documents it
11 says "or Colonel Djilas." So the Main Staff SVK commander or Colonel
13 Q. Thank you. Now, on page 68 of your report, or 58 of the English
14 version, we come to chapter 4, and the title of that chapter is "doctrine
15 of using fire support." And then within the frameworks of chapter 4 you
16 address planning artillery firings. And you say that: "The planning of
17 artillery firings includes a number of activities performed by artillery
18 commands and other commands to ensure the most successful action of their
20 And further on under point 4.2 you say that: "The commanders of
21 joint tactical and operational units have the sole right to use artillery
22 in combat," and that applies to Orkan, too. Is that right?
23 A. Yes. As I've already said, the deployment of the artillery and
24 artillery assignments as well as other support units, orders come from the
25 commander of the support unit.
1 Q. Thank you. So that was chapter 4.2.
2 Then one page later we come to chapter 4.3, "target selection."
3 And you say that: "Target selection includes determining the purpose of
4 using artillery," and you explain that by saying further down in the text
5 that: "Inflicting the greatest possible losses on the enemy, especially
6 losses in personnel, must be the main measure for selecting the target."
7 Does that apply to all artillery, including Orkan?
8 A. Yes, that is true for all artillery.
9 Q. And finally for the purpose of using the artillery, in the last
10 sentence it says: "A good selection of artillery targets should inflict
11 direct and gradually possible losses on the enemy thereby breaking its
12 combat capability and defeating it and destroying it completely."
13 So that includes all the combat activity, including artilleries?
14 A. Yes, and the actions of the units to inflict as many losses on the
15 enemy as possible with respect to breaking his combat capability and make
16 it impossible for the enemy to act in future.
17 Q. Now the next chapter, chapter 5, "use of artillery support in
18 populated areas." Under 5.1, on page 70 of the B/C/S, you refer to the
19 provisions of the combat rules of the artillery of the former JNA, of
20 which you were a member of, were you not, Mr. Poje?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In continuation of the text you explain that: "The action of
23 artillery during an attack on a populated locality is affected by a number
24 of factors."
25 And then in the following paragraph you say: "The action is
1 mainly delivered through direct fire in a populated locality."
2 And you go on to explain that to neutralise and to destroy a large
3 number of targets it is necessary to cause partial damage to buildings and
4 other structures. That then is the characteristic of direct fire for all
5 artillery systems. Is that right?
6 A. When you use direct fire on a populated area, you have to know
7 that most often the targets are -- or rather, that the personnel and the
8 vehicles or -- are usually obstructed by buildings. So the features and
9 buildings are destroyed in the process, and the rules speak about this.
10 Q. Yes, thank you. And below that we see that: "Indirect fire in
11 populated areas is limited by difficulties in organising observation
12 activities, monitoring combat development, and maintaining
14 And that is the characteristic of every artillery indirect fire.
15 Right, Mr. Poje?
16 A. Yes. If you are attacking a populated area, then those are the
17 problems the artillery encounters when it opens fire on a populated area
18 of that type.
19 Q. Now, four paragraphs below that you state, and that is page 71 of
20 the B/C/S, that: "The units of the Army of Srpska Krajina did not conduct
21 an attack on the city of Zagreb. This means that the Orkan had no need to
22 conduct direct support operations but was conducting general support
24 And when you say that, you mean the effects of the 2nd and 3rd of
25 May, 1995. Is that what it's about?
1 A. We said yesterday that there were two types of support, direct
2 support and general support. And direct support is support which directly
3 affects the operations of a unit on a battle-field; a brigade attacking,
4 for example. All the firing conducted for the needs of that brigade to
5 carry out its assignment successfully. That is direct fire.
6 Then we have the other type of general artillery support, which is
7 resorted to against targets which are not demonstrating -- or rather, are
8 not firing at the units on the front but could at some other point in
9 time, a day or two later, or later on, can attack or fire at the unit in
10 question, which means that on that 2nd and 3rd of May we could say that it
11 was general support that was being given.
12 Q. In continuation of that paragraph where you speak about general
13 support of Orkan against targets in Zagreb, you say: "Most probably that
14 was used to instill fear in the population, its property, and the
16 When you say most probably that was so, does that mean that you
17 didn't have a document on the basis of which you were able to establish
18 what the real object of the operation was?
19 A. I think that we discussed that already today. Realistically
20 speaking, I did not have any information or data as to what those military
21 targets were and what targets were targeted in Zagreb. All the
22 information I had told me where the projectiles were located or, rather,
23 where parts of the rocket projectiles were located and where the bomblets
25 Now, what the actual target was, in my final conclusion I state
1 that I don't know what the military target was in fact, but I claim
2 something else, and that is that even if military targets were aimed at,
3 were targeted, that it was risky to target them because the dispersion
4 pattern is very large and that in examples of this kind it was to be
5 expected that the targeting would have its effect on the civilian
6 population as well as buildings, vehicles, et cetera.
7 Q. All right. Thank you.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: What -- can I just ask. What kind of artillery
9 could have been used to avoid that wide dispersion result?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's very hard to say. It's very
11 hard to say what could have been used and what the Serb Army of the
12 Krajina had at its disposal at the time. To attack military targets in a
13 populated area, the best weapon to use would be only guided missiles,
14 because their dispersion pattern is very narrow and they hit either the
15 very centre or very close to the centre of the target point. Any other
16 kind of artillery used at long range has a very wide dispersion pattern,
17 and this applies especially to multiple-barrelled rocket launchers, which
18 by their nature have a very wide dispersion pattern.
19 So let me repeat: In order to aim at targets in a populated area,
20 only guided projectiles or self-guided projectiles should be used. Those
21 are the best kind of projectiles to use.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Any of the projectiles you have discussed in
23 this report could be used, apart from the multi-barrelled one?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In view of the range, which is 40,
25 45, to 50 kilometres, the Orkan was an artillery piece that can be used at
1 such a large distance. As for other artillery pieces, I don't know
2 whether they had them or not.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's not the question. The question is: What
4 could have been appropriately used. Whether or not they had them is -- we
5 don't know. You also don't know.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wish to point out once again that
7 in such a case the most effective and best projectiles to use are
8 self-guided or guided projectiles.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: But the Orkan, although it could be used, it would
10 have the effect of a very wide dispersion area?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As we've already said, the
12 dispersion pattern of the Orkan is very great. This means that when
13 firing at a military target in a densely populated area, such as Zagreb
14 for example, it was to be expected that some of the projectiles would fall
15 outside the target itself. This is what the theory says, and this is why
16 in my text I mention that the choice of the Orkan to fire on targets in
17 Zagreb was not appropriate.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
19 Mr. Milovancevic.
20 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'm sorry. Whilst we're there, might I just ask
21 you a question. It may appear to be overly simplistic, but on page 60
22 that first sentence: "The Serbian Krajina army units did not conduct an
23 attack on the city of Zagreb."
24 Now, my understanding is that there was an attack on the city of
25 Zagreb. What is your scientific basis for reaching the finding in that
1 sentence, to get me to understand what you meant? Are you talking about a
2 general attack on Zagreb, as opposed to specific targets in Zagreb, and
3 what the intention was? Or what is it? What is your scientific basis
4 also for this finding? It may already be there, but please give it to me
5 in what is the substance.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I was speaking about fire
7 support, to go back to the attack itself, the units of the Serbian Army of
8 the Krajina did not launch an attack on Zagreb. Their units did not move
9 in the direction of Zagreb in order to attack it. All they did was carry
10 out general fire support, and we said that general fire support implies
11 artillery firing on enemy targets, and they were not firing at their
12 units. It's not firing on enemy units; it's firing on enemy targets which
13 at a later point could act against the units of the Army of Serb Krajina.
14 In other words, there was no organised attack by brigades or corps on
15 Zagreb. Only artillery fire was used against Zagreb, only the Orkan, and
16 this is general fire support. In order to attack the city of Zagreb,
17 which is a very large town, one would have had to have huge numbers of
18 units moving towards Zagreb. As far as I know, this was not done. All
19 that was done was this general artillery fire with the Orkan on targets in
21 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you. I think you've put it very, very
22 clearly. I understand. Thank you.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Q. Mr. Poje, we are now dealing with the use of artillery in a
1 populated area. You answered Their Honours' questions referring to the
2 use of artillery in a populated area. So I will ask you about chapter 5.2
3 entitled "selecting weapons and targets." Chapter 5.2 says that:
4 "Multiple rocket launchers are used to carry out powerful, sudden, and
5 rapid strikes against targets of exceptional importance and large
6 dimensions and that as such they are unsuitable for firing on targets in
7 populated areas."
8 You give an example in the form of a table where you show the
9 firing distance and you compare the effects. You have H203 millimetres.
10 Is that a gun?
11 A. It's a Howitzer.
12 Q. And underneath you have SRL, is that the Orkan system?
13 A. Yes, that's the Orkan system.
14 Q. When you compare the effects of these two systems, you first make
15 a comparison when firing at 15.000 metres, where the dispersion is marked
16 as 27 in the first weapon and 38 in the second. So the dispersion is
17 higher in the case of the Orkan than it is in the case of the Howitzer.
18 Then you go on to talk about the dispersion in the range of 16.000 metres,
19 and again in the case of a Howitzer it's higher than in the case of the
20 Orkan. Is that clear?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You then go on to speak of ranges of 20.000, 30.000, and 40.000
23 kilometres, and you give the Orkan dispersion, but you don't provide any
24 dispersions for the Howitzer. Is this because the Howitzer cannot be
25 fired at such long ranges?
1 A. Yes. The range of the Howitzer is 16.000 metres or a little bit
2 more, which is why I was able to give these figures for the Howitzer only
3 up to 16.000 metres. Beyond that range the Howitzer is not effective. It
4 cannot be fired at that range, so I could not draw the comparison.
5 Q. Yes, that's just what I was about to ask. And in connection with
6 the title of this chapter, "selecting weapons and targets," the fact that
7 the Howitzer does not have this range, and apart from the Orkan this was
8 the highest calibre weapon that the Army of Republika Srpska Krajina had,
9 does this mean that at a distance of 30.000 or 40.000 metres only the
10 Orkan can be used? And is this what actually defined the selection of the
11 artillery piece to be used?
12 A. When selecting an artillery piece to be used, the type of target
13 is one of the elements to be taken into consideration; and the second
14 element to be taken into consideration is the range. If the range exceeds
15 30 kilometres, then I have to use the artillery piece which can be fired
16 at that range. This of course in relation to the weapons that the Army of
17 Republika Srpska Krajina had means that only the Orkan system could be
19 Q. Thank you. In answering the Prosecutor's question you explained
20 that the Orkan was fired from a distance of 47 to 50 kilometres. And my
21 question in relation to this is the following: Did the Army of
22 Republika Srpska Krajina have any other artillery system which it could
23 have used in order to fire on Zagreb, in view of the range, apart from the
25 A. I cannot give you a precise answer to this, although in one of the
1 documents I read there is also mention of a Luna ground-to-ground
2 projectile system, but I don't know whether at that point in time, the
3 2nd and 3rd of May, the Serbian Army of the Krajina still had this
4 ground-to-ground Luna rocket system at its disposal and whether it could
5 have been used. I assume that the Orkan was used because at that point in
6 time, in that location, the Serbian Army of the Krajina did not have the
7 Luna at its disposal.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is the range of the Luna?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can recall, the
10 ground-to-ground Luna rocket system - and I was present only once when it
11 was fired - has a range of approximately 70 kilometres. There are several
12 types, so I can only say approximately what types of the Luna system were
13 within the Serbian Army of Krajina's equipment. I don't know whether
14 there were any such systems in the vicinity of Zagreb on the 2nd and
15 3rd of May and whether they could have been used.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it multi-barrelled?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. The ground-to-ground Luna
18 rocket system is a rocket. It's not multi-barrelled. It's a single
19 rocket which is launched.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
21 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'd like to ask a question right there, please.
22 I'm sorry, Mr. Milovancevic.
23 But could that Luna have been used in those circumstances by the
24 RSK without injury to the civilian population under the same circumstances
25 at the end of the day?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's very hard to say because I'm
2 not an expert on ground-to-ground Luna rocket systems. What I can say is
3 that in the artillery training centre where I taught the artillery rules
4 of firing, we did not even mention firing the Luna rocket system.
5 Therefore, any discussion on the dispersion pattern and so on would be
6 very difficult now without the appropriate tables. It would be hard for
7 me to give you relevant information. Therefore, I feel it's better for me
8 to refrain from commenting on the efficacy of that system or its
9 dispersion pattern when fired.
10 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, you may proceed.
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
13 Q. Mr. Poje, now that we mentioned the Luna rocket system, that's a
14 ballistic rocket of tactical range, a 70-kilometre range. It's a single
15 rocket on a launching vehicle. It's launched under an angle. Its
16 diameter is 60 to 70 centimetres. It's length is six to seven
17 centimetres. It has a very powerful warhead. Would the use of such a
18 system in Zagreb have represented a disaster?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions about that.
21 When firing on a populated area - I have only a few questions to
22 go - we have considered the use of a multi-barrelled system on a populated
23 area. This is a terrible topic, but we are talking about war. Is there a
24 single fire weapon, even a pistol, an automatic rifle, a hand-grenade, a
25 machine-gun, is there any weapon that can be used in such a way that the
1 civilian population is completely safe in a populated area?
2 A. Well, in a populated area, any use of weapons is dangerous for the
3 civilian population as well.
4 Q. Thank you. When discussing projectiles which are guided and those
5 which are not guided, the Orkan rocket system is not guided?
6 A. Yes, that's correct.
7 Q. One of the logical questions is: Would the use of guided rocket
8 projectiles have produced the number of victims. So I will ask you the
9 following. The NATO pact fired 1.500 cruise rockets on the -- on
10 Yugoslavia, and there were 2.500 dead and many wounded. Does the use of
11 such guided missiles exclude civilian victims?
12 A. Probably not.
13 Q. Thank you, Mr. Poje. Let's move on to the next chapter, the use
14 of the Orkan on the 2nd and 3rd of May by the Army of Serbian Krajina.
15 Under point 6.1, you say that the directive or ordered Gvozd,
16 G-v-o-z-d, determined that the artillery system Orkan should be moved to a
17 firing position in the broader area around Korenica. And you state that
18 it is the aim of the Orkan system deployed in the Korenica region pursuant
19 to the Gvozd directive had the special assignment of preventing enemy
20 reserves from being brought in an organised fashion along the axis. Is
21 that right?
22 A. That's what it says in the directive on the deployment of the Serb
23 Army of Krajina.
24 Q. Does it also say that bringing in the Orkan system from one area
25 to another, from one locality to another, for example into the area or
1 region of Korenica, was -- that it should be ready to carry out strikes
2 against sectors and axes in accordance with developments on the ground,
3 depending on how the situation developed. Is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, you go on to speak of an order of the Serb Republic of
6 Krajina dated the 2nd of March, 1995, and this is on page 74 of the B/C/S
7 text, in which you quote under one of the items that: "The Orkan unit is
8 part of the 7th Mixed Artillery Regiment and its use can only be approved
9 by the commander of the Main Staff of the Serbian Army of Krajina," that
10 is Mr. Celeketic. Is that right?
11 A. That is what it says in the document, yes.
12 Q. Thank you. Now, furthermore, when speaking about the quantity of
13 ammunition for multiple-barrelled rocket launchers, you say that: "The
14 Orkan system had a total of 160 rockets, of which 40 pieces in the
15 7th Corps and 76 pieces in the 75th Anti-Armour Battalion."
16 Does that mean that the total arsenal of rockets intended for this
17 multiple-barrelled rocket launcher was 116 rockets in total?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 Q. Then you go on to quote an order to raise combat readiness issued
21 by the Main Staff, and it is dated the 1st of May, 1995. And you quote
22 the order. Under number 1: "The Orkan squad must be ready to be deployed
23 pursuant to an order of the command of the Main Staff."
24 Second, that: "The Orkan's system from Knin should be transferred
25 to Vojnic where it will deploy personnel and materiel."
1 Under number 3 you quote the order as saying that: "The command
2 of the 21st Corps will select an officer to receive personnel and materiel
3 and take in the units."
4 And then in point 4 you say who was in command of the system, and
5 you quote the order and say: "The commander of the Orkan squad will be
6 deployed at the command post of the 21st Corps ready to receive tasks from
7 the commander of the Main Staff of the Army of Serbian Krajina or Colonel
8 Djilas." And General-Lieutenant Celeketic signed this order.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Is there any dilemma whatever that the -- this is commanded by the
11 commander of the Main Staff or Colonel Djilas? Is there any room for
12 doubt on the basis of this order?
13 A. No. We can conclude on the basis of this order that the
14 deployment of Orkan, the decision to deploy Orkan is taken by the
15 commander of the Main Staff of the SVK or Colonel Djilas.
16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Poje. Now, this is the order of the 1st of May,
17 1995, whereas Orkan went into action on the 2nd and 3rd of May, 1995. Did
18 you have any other document or evidence which would indicate that somebody
19 else, apart from these individuals, commanded the system? For example,
20 Mr. Martic?
21 A. All the documents that I received and I had and quoted in my
22 document show that the competence and authority for the deployment of
23 Orkan lay with the commander of the Main Staff or Colonel Djilas.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] May we have the direct [as
1 interpreted] on the deployment of the Army of SVK on the -- on e-court,
2 please. And the number of the directive is 188710. I don't know if I've
3 got the number of the document right. May I just take a moment to check,
4 please. Thank you.
5 I'm doing my best to have this directive placed on the monitor on
6 the deployment of the SVK. It is the directive on Gvozd. We've already
7 used it during the examination-in-chief. Perhaps the Prosecution can help
8 me out to save wasting time. I'd be very grateful to them if they could.
9 Thank you.
10 MR. BLACK: I think the 65 ter number, Your Honours, is 1887. I
11 don't have the exhibit number handy, but I'll check and if this is not
12 enough I'll check.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic said 188710.
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that the
15 number provided by the Prosecutor is correct. I have the 65 ter number as
16 being 1887. Here it is, directive on the deployment or use of the Serb
17 Army of Krajina.
18 Q. Mr. Poje, do you recognise the directive of February 1995?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] May we have the first page of
21 the directive?
22 Q. In the upper right-hand corner it says: "State secret." The code
23 name is Gvozd. And the official name is: "Directive on the use of the
24 Serb Army of Krajina."
25 Is that right, Mr. Poje?
1 A. Yes, that's what it says.
2 Q. Thank you. Are you acquainted and familiar with this directive?
3 A. Yes, I've read the directive.
4 Q. Does this directive elaborate the variations of the aggression of
5 the Croatian army on the Republic of Serbian Krajina?
6 A. Well, it says when it was written, although I don't see the reason
7 for the 2nd and 3rd of May, this directive.
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] May we have on the monitor
9 page 4 of the directive, and the digits at the top are 815, number 815 at
10 the top.
11 Q. Point 3 on page 815, there's a title: "The probable way to solve
12 the aggression and axes of action."
13 And below that we have a text saying that: "An aggression by the
14 Republic of Croatia against the Republic of Serbian Krajina would probably
15 take three stages and that the third stage would be an attack operation
16 with radical -- with a radical goal."
17 Is that right, Mr. Poje?
18 A. Yes.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, just a second. We are lost. When you
20 say "815," I see 8.950, and then where do we go from there?
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was referring to
22 page 4 in the B/C/S, which in the upper right-hand corner has the digits
23 02119815, so I was referring to the identification of that page in the
24 B/C/S text. At this point in time I regret to say that I don't know what
25 the equivalent page in English is.
1 MR. BLACK: Your Honours, I believe it's page 5 in English. The
2 ERN number at the top ends in 8954.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: 8954?
4 MR. BLACK: That's correct, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: That was the page?
6 MR. BLACK: I believe that's the page.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, 89 -- what is the heading you are dealing
8 with, Mr. Milovancevic?
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is point 3,
10 probable or possible ways in which an aggression can be carried out and
11 the axis of operation. That's the text I had in mind. So this is a
12 directive which provides for the possibility of further action in the
13 development of events.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: We have found it. Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Have you found the page?
16 And may we go ahead two pages -- or rather, back to point 2 which
17 refers to "our forces." This is the directive of the Serb Army of
19 Q. So "our forces," Mr. Poje, does that refer to the forces of the
20 Army of Serbian Krajina?
21 A. In view of the fact that it was signed by the commander of the
22 Army of Republika Srpska Krajina, then it does refer to -- when it
23 says "our forces," it refers to the forces of the Serbian Army of Krajina.
24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Poje. Now, just before the break one short
25 question in this regard. In the first chapter, at the end of the first
1 paragraph, where it says "our forces," it says: "Bearing in mind the
2 aforementioned, the Serbian Army of Krajina has the following assignment:
3 To prevent sudden aggression by persistently defending the features and
4 preventing penetration in depth and to liberate occupied territory."
5 Now, does this text refer to the possible tasks of the Army of
6 Republika Srpska Krajina if there is an aggression against them by the
7 Croatian forces?
8 A. Yes. Should an attack be launched on the area of the Republic of
9 Serbian Krajina, then that's what the army would have to do in case of an
10 aggression of that kind.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think this is a
13 good time to break. It's 12.00.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. We'll take a break and we'll
15 come back at half past 12.00.
16 Court adjourned.
17 --- Recess taken at 12.02 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 12.31 p.m.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, your time is up. How long are
20 you still likely to be with the witness?
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, not much longer,
22 half an hour at the outside. A little patience, with the Court's
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's --
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I'll try and be as efficient as
1 possible. That would be the outside limit. May I go ahead?
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may go ahead.
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 Q. We left off discussing the 1995 directive. And in that directive
5 may we take a look at chapter 5, which is titled "the tasks of the units."
6 In B/C/S the page number is 02119820. It's page 9. We have the page in
7 front of us -- or rather, before that page comes up on the screens, may we
8 have the whole page?
9 Referring to unit tasks 5.1 mentions the 11th Corps; then
10 the -- 5.2 is the 18th Corps, the 39th Corps, the 21st Corps; 5.5 is the
11 15th Corps; and 5.6 of this directive refers to the 7th Corps. Now, with
12 respect to those corps, is it correct, Mr. Poje, that these were all corps
13 of the Serbian Army of Krajina?
14 A. That's what the directive says.
15 Q. Thank you, Mr. Poje. Now, for each of these corps, the ones that
16 I enumerated, in each of these points, it says, for example, that the
17 11th Corps, in the case of an aggression, will set up a decisive defence
18 in Baranja in order to prevent the breakthrough of Ustasha forces. For
19 the 18th Corps it says that under all conditions it will set up a resolute
20 defence to prevent the breakthrough of Croatian forces. For the
21 39th Corps, once again, resolute defence and prevention of the advance of
22 enemy forces. The same is for the 21st, the 15th, and the 7th Corps of
23 the Army of Republika Srpska Krajina. When it comes to the 7th Corps it
24 says: "Decisive action to prevent the breakthrough along the axis of
25 Benkovac, Knin and Sibenik, Drnis to Knin, and from Sinj and Vrljika
1 towards Knin," along those axes.
2 Now, in connection with all the provisions of this directive, is
3 it absolutely clear that this is a directive which looks at the defence
4 plans of the Republic of Srpska Krajina and its army in case of an
5 aggression by the Croatian army?
6 A. I would like to say first and foremost the following. I'd like to
7 tell the Court this first. The subject of my expert report was not to
8 deal with military action from February, when the directive was written,
9 up until May. What my task and assignment was, that on the basis of the
10 information I was given, I should calculate the dispersion pattern during
11 the shelling of Zagreb. So I didn't deal with tactics, operation tactics,
12 or the deployment of the units themselves on either side, one or the other
13 side. That was not the task I was given or the assignment I was given. I
14 have read through all the documents of course, I have all the documents,
15 but it was my task and assignment that on the basis of the information I
16 had at my disposal to calculate the dispersion pattern during the shelling
17 of the 2nd and 3rd of May, 1995, to determine the dispersion pattern, and
18 to see what area is covered by that military operation.
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Poje --
20 A. But let me answer your question. We're talking about defence,
21 yes, organisation of defence of the Republic of Srpska Krajina, that's
23 Q. Thank you. I won't insist on that topic. And the last question
24 linked to directive. 5.8 relates to artillery, and point 2 of that
25 chapter, you quoted the directives that Orkan be deployed along the firing
1 positions in the region of Korenica. That means if there were an
2 aggression that is where Orkan would be placed. Is that right?
3 A. Yes, preparations for defence. The directive represents
4 preparations for the defence of the -- of Srpska Krajina by the army of
5 Srpska Krajina.
6 Q. Thank you. You also quote an order which shows us that on the 1st
7 of May, 1995, that system, Orkan, the Orkan system, was moved into the
8 area of responsibility of the 21st Corps and that that is where it was
9 positioned at the point you showed us on the map. Is that right,
10 Mr. Poje?
11 A. Yes. Pursuant to that order, Orkan was moved from the locality it
12 was in to a new locality.
13 Q. Would you say that it was correct that the deployment of Orkan in
14 a new location on the 1st of May came at the time of the Croatian
15 aggression under -- on the zone protected by the United Nations under the
16 term Bljesak, or Operation Flash, Croatian Operation Flash? Did you read
17 paragraph 80 of the indictment where it says that the Flash Operation was
18 on May the 1st?
19 A. Yes, I read that, too.
20 Q. On the penultimate page or the last page of your report you state
21 under 6.2.2: "Impact dispersion during the firing on the 2nd and 3rd of
22 May, 1995." That's the title of 6.2.2, that from the documents, on the
23 basis of the document, which relates to the attack on the town of Zagreb
24 on the 2nd and 3rd of May and the records of the 30th of May on-the-spot
25 investigation, you -- on-site investigation report, you established that
1 the casualties did not include soldiers or military equipment, and you
2 conclude on that basis that the target was not military facilities or
3 military units.
4 Now, in relation to that assertion I want to ask you: Is it only
5 basis of that police report, what was established on-site and the on-site
6 investigation report, that you're able to conclude what the target of the
7 firing was?
8 A. As I didn't have any other information, and we have already come
9 to the conclusion that I did not dispose of the targets, I didn't know
10 what the targets were, the targets that had been planned, I had to use the
11 report that I was given about the casualties of the shelling of Zagreb.
12 And on that basis I was able to conclude - and I'm sure you studied that
13 document, too - in that document no mention is made of military
14 casualties, that is soldiers or military equipment or military units. The
15 report only contains civilian casualties and damages done to civilian
16 buildings, the infrastructure, and so on.
17 Q. In relation to that answer of yours, does that mean that the
18 documents that the Prosecution showed you make no mention of any military
19 targets, the military targets that might have existed?
20 A. I supposed -- I assumed that there might have been military
21 targets, but I didn't get any information specifically as to the targets
22 that were being aimed at.
23 Q. Yes, thank you. I'm just cutting you off, Mr. Poje, to save time,
24 no other reason. So I do apologise for having to do that.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] May we now have a look at
1 Exhibit 95, please.
2 Q. 95 is a document, a Prosecution document, which has been produced
3 during the trial and has been provided to the Defence, and it is a report
4 on the security of the Main Staff of the SVK of the 2nd of May, 1995. On
5 the first page -- and you have the document in front of you, can you see
6 the document?
7 A. Yes, I can.
8 Q. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of this document, it says that in the Pakrac
9 pocket 5 to 6.000 people --
10 THE INTERPRETER: What was the verb there, please?
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. In the afternoon hours of the 2nd of May an infantry artillery
13 attack started from Vljestina [phoen] launched by Ustasha forces attacking
14 Pakrac which made it difficult for people in the Pakrac pocket, especially
15 children and elderly persons. So does that talk about the combat
16 operations going on in part of Western Slavonia during Operation Flash?
17 A. It does talk about Croatian forces operations against the Serb
18 army of Krajina, although I don't see what that has to do with Zagreb.
19 Q. Mr. Poje, we'll get to that in due course. Now, in the last
20 paragraph on that same page it says that the Serbian army of Krajina shot
21 down a MiG 21, and that was done by the 18th Corps of the SVK. I don't
22 know whether you know in that connection that the pilot of that MiG plane
23 was a very well-known JNA pilot, Rudolf Perisin, who during Croatia's
24 secession fled to Austria in 1991 and here we have him back again in 1995
25 to launch rockets against Serbs?
1 A. I don't know, although I didn't hear of a pilot who had fled to
2 Austria, but I don't know who the pilot was or what he did after he fled
3 to Austria.
4 Q. Thank you, Mr. Poje.
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] May we have a look at page 2 of
6 this document, please.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel kindly slow down. Thank you.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you hear that, Mr. Milovancevic? You are being
9 asked to please slow down.
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Yes, I
11 will bear that in mind. I speeded up a bit when you asked me how much
12 time I needed, but I'll do my best.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ...
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. On page 2, paragraph 1, speaks of targets, and it says that at
16 10.30 hours artillery units of the SVK fired from Orkan and now the
17 targets with mentioned, Banski Dvori, that is the presidential palace, the
18 Ministry of Defence and the Pleso airport using eight rockets. In
19 continuation it says: According to our sources, the Ministry of Defence
20 in Krizancevo Street was hit and then the collateral damage is mentioned
21 as well.
22 In the next paragraph it says that according to Reuters that the
23 building of the Main Staff was hit as well as the Hotel Esplanade was
24 confirmed that that is what happened when the Orkan was used.
25 And in this connection my next question to you, Mr. Poje, is this:
1 The deployment of Orkan, targeting these military targets, that is to say
2 Banski Dvori, the presidential palace, the Ministry of Defence, and Pleso
3 airport, would that be aiming at targets which can be termed to be the
4 targets for which Orkan was intended to act against, that is to say large,
5 important military targets and facilities? Would that be right?
6 A. As we said previously, because we're dealing with general fire
7 support and the targets you mentioned Banski Dvori, which is the
8 presidential palace, the Ministry of Defence, the General Staff of the
9 Croatian army, the airport, and so on, are possible targets which you
10 could target with the Orkan system. They fall in that category.
11 Q. Now, as military targets then in Zagreb, we have the presidential
12 palace listed, the Ministry of Defence, Pleso airport, all of which were
13 hit, can we say and conclude that these were operational or strategic
14 goals even, and that as such those targets represented the target of this
15 indirect artillery fire as provided by Orkan?
16 A. Yes, they were the possible targets in line of the general fire
17 support that Orkan was used for, a different weapon could have been used,
18 but in this case it was indeed Orkan.
19 Q. So these three targets that were enumerated, according to the
20 rules of the artillery profession, are military targets are they not,
21 Mr. Poje?
22 A. Yes, they are military targets.
23 Q. Thank you. In the third paragraph of this page, of this report,
24 it says that there is reliable information that citizens of Zagreb are
25 leaving the city in large numbers and are moving towards the Republic of
1 Slovenia, which has closed its borders to fleeing civilians. And
2 according to another assessment, as many as one-third of the citizens of
3 Zagreb are moving outside the city.
4 Another part here says that Tudjman, the president of the
5 republic, left Zagreb in the afternoon and went to Brioni for unknown
6 motives, and it is assessed that along with General Tudjman members of the
7 Main Staff left, along with him. This effect of the Orkan system, is this
8 the demoralising effect on the enemy that you spoke about when discussing
9 the effects of Orkan activity, materiel, and demoralising activity?
10 A. I don't know whether these things really happened. These are just
11 assessments by a body or an organ after the attack on Zagreb, and I cannot
12 say whether this actually happened or not.
13 Q. I'm not asking you, Mr. Poje, to confirm that this was actually
14 the case, but rather to comment whether in your understanding if this did
15 happen, this would have been a result of the demoralising effect of using
16 such an artillery system?
17 A. Yes, that's one of the methods of action. It's possible. It's
18 possible for this to happen.
19 Q. Is this demoralising effects on the general population or the
20 president of the republic and members of the Main Staff?
21 A. Well, you mentioned movements of the civilian population, you
22 mentioned movements of the leadership of Croatia, so the answer would be
24 Q. In relation to this document which I have shown to you, Mr. Poje,
25 I have another question. Is the aim of every military operation, every
1 combat operation, to protect territory and to protect the population in
2 general from physical destruction by enemy fire? Can one say that?
3 A. Could you repeat your question.
4 Q. My question, Mr. Poje, was: Is the main point of every defensive
5 fire, whoever carries it out, in whatever kind of fighting, in principle
6 protection of territory, preventing the enemy from taking territory, and
7 also preventing the slaughter of the population being defended, the
8 civilian population?
9 A. I think the person carrying out the attack has to take into
10 account when firing on military targets that there will also be civilian
12 Q. Mr. Poje, that's clear to every layperson. I asked you something
13 else. We are now speaking of general artillery support to the Serbian
14 Army of the Krajina in the fight it is waging in Western Slavonia. This
15 fight during Operation Flash, or any other operation, because my question
16 is a general one, was defensive fighting have as its aim the protection of
17 territory and the protection of one's own population?
18 A. Well, that is the task of every army.
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Poje. That was my question, that answers it.
20 As the Office of the Prosecutor has not shown you a single
21 document relating to military targets which may have been the targets for
22 the Orkan --
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm so sorry, your learned friend is on his feet.
24 MR. BLACK: Objection, Your Honour. The documents that were
25 provided to Lieutenant-Colonel Poje are mentioned at the beginning. And I
1 can just name one, Exhibit 94 makes reference to a number of documents, so
2 I think it's a mischaracterisation of the evidence to suggest that we've
3 somehow neglected to give him a full range of documents identifying
4 military targets.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, any response?
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] The answer is very brief, Your
7 Honours. The expert said that he had not received a single document which
8 would speak of any possible military targets. And my question had to do
9 with the following. About two years ago we received such a document which
10 was in the possession of the OTP, but the military expert has not received
11 it. I will leave out the preamble to my question. I will withdraw my
12 question and reformulate it in order to avoid wasting time.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Your preambles are the ones that you have been
14 warned against right through this trial, Mr. Milovancevic. Let me say to
15 you that -- were you not in this court when Mr. Black showed the witness
16 Exhibit 94 that he's talking about? I'm asking you a question.
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I don't know what exhibit this
18 is, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't know either, but he tells you that it's
20 a -- it's a document that talks about military targets. In any case, you
21 should know what the documents are that the Defence -- the Prosecution
22 showed the witness and what they identify.
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness has
24 just stated that he did not see any such documents, and under Rule 94, as
25 far as I understand, the Prosecutor stated that the expert listed the
1 documents he used in his report. That has nothing to do with my question.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: What about Rule 94?
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: What about Rule 94?
5 I'm sorry, interpreters.
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Referring to the rule mentioned
7 by my learned friend --
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Your learned friend has not mentioned any rule;
9 your learned friend has mentioned an exhibit.
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the expert report
11 is submitted under a certain rule of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
12 I believe this is Rule 94. When the witness submits his report, the
13 report --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Rule 94 deals with judicial notice,
15 Mr. Milovancevic.
16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm referring to the situation,
17 Your Honour, which my learned friend had in mind just a moment ago, and I
18 wanted to explain that my question had to do with the expert's statement
19 that he did not receive from the Prosecutor a single document pointing to
20 possible military targets. That is --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm saying to you, Mr. Milovancevic, your learned
22 friend says he showed the witness Exhibit number 94 in which, amongst
23 others, military targets were pointed out. Now, you -- and hence I asked
24 you the question: Were you not in court at the time when that happened?
25 And if you were in court and you were aware what is contained in
1 Exhibit 94, you can just tell the witness that in fact you did receive
2 these documents, you look at Exhibit 94 which the Prosecutor showed you,
3 and you will see these documents -- these targets there. It's simple as
4 all that without having to go into any argument with the witness.
5 Anyway, your learned friend is on his feet.
6 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, I apologise. I hope I didn't misspeak
7 before. I didn't -- did not use Exhibit 94 in court, but it's one of the
8 documents that is referred to in the report as one of the ones that was
9 provided to him. It's a subtle distinction, but I don't want Your Honours
10 to be under the impression that I was saying that we used Exhibit 94 in
11 court, but rather it had been provided to the witness.
12 While I'm on my feet, if I could, Your Honours, what the witness
13 said on page 63 of the transcript today is that: "I didn't get any
14 information specifically as to the targets that were being aimed at."
15 What he's saying is he didn't know the intended targets. He's not said
16 that he got no documents about the impacts. Quite the contrary. I
17 believe he said that he did receive documentation about the impacts. I
18 mentioned Exhibit 94 because it makes reference to Pleso airport, for
19 instance, which is one of the suggested targets I believe that
20 Mr. Milovancevic has mentioned.
21 Perhaps more to the point, Exhibit 95, which we're looking at
22 right now, is a document prepared by the SVK. This -- the documents that
23 we've provided, that we thought relevant to this report were documents
24 about the actual impact prepared by the UN or by the local authorities
25 that dealt with the actual impacts on Zagreb, not about what the SVK had
1 to say about its attacks, and I hope that explains why certain documents
2 were provided. Obviously we didn't provide all the documents that we had
3 relevant to this. We tried to provide the ones that seemed most important
4 and most relevant.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Black.
6 First of all, Mr. Black has now explained that Exhibit 94 was not
7 used in court. For that the Bench retracts what it had said about that.
8 Secondly, he now also explains the kind of documents that he gave
9 to the witness and that this document that you are talking about is a
10 Defence document and not -- well, it's a document prepared by the SVK, not
11 by the Prosecution.
12 Having cleared that situation, what was your question,
13 Mr. Milovancevic?
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I asked Your
15 Honour's leave to rephrase my question, to put it anew, afresh, and to
16 eliminate any suggestion of anything from my question. So I withdraw the
17 question and I will rephrase it.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Please do rephrase it. And maybe if you can
19 eliminate all those prefixes every time you ask questions, that would be
20 very helpful. 30 minutes is running out.
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Please can we have Exhibit D1D0011 on the monitor. Could we have
23 it turned right way up. Thank you.
24 Q. Mr. Poje, this is a report from Sector West of the civilian UN
25 police, and in the third -- it's dated the 2nd of May, 2005 [as
1 interpreted], and in paragraph 3 it says that on the way to Novska many
2 ugly signs and at least 50 dead bodies were observed on the road. These
3 were both Serb soldiers and civilians. Many houses were destroyed by
5 Does this report of the 2nd of May indicate to you that there was
6 combat going on in Western Slavonia on the 2nd of May?
7 A. Yes, it does.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at the next Defence
10 document, please. It's 1D0012.
11 Before we see this document, Your Honours, I wish to tender this
12 document as evidence.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it be
14 given an exhibit number, please.
15 THE REGISTRAR: That will be exhibit number 782, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
17 Yes, Mr. Milovancevic.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. You have before you a document dated the 4th of May, 1995, and
20 it's a statement by Mr. Yasushi Akashi, the special envoy of the
21 Secretary-General and the special representative. And it says that in
22 spite of the agreement achieved on the 3rd of May about a complete
23 secession of hostilities, Mr. Akashi expresses his deep concern because
24 fighting is going on in several areas near Pakrac and so on and so forth.
25 Does this report by Mr. Akashi of the 4th of May also indicate that there
1 was ongoing fighting in Western Slavonia?
2 A. Based on this report one can see that --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Black, sorry --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- there was still fighting.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I just say to the interpreters that when
6 opposite counsel stands you've got to stop because he's actually objecting
7 to what you are interpreting being said at all. Okay. Thank you very
9 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour. I usually refrain from saying
10 objection so as not to ask the interpreters to interpret two things at
11 once, but maybe in the future it would be help if I do say objection right
13 My objection, Your Honour, is I don't see how fighting on the 4th
14 of May can have any relevance whatsoever to the shelling of Zagreb on
15 the 2nd and 3rd of May. It's simply irrelevant.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, any response?
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. It's
18 relevant for the -- it's irrelevant for the Prosecutor, but the attack is
19 said -- on Western Slavonia is said to have taken place on the 1st of May,
20 and Zagreb was shelled on the 2nd and 3rd of May. We, however, are trying
21 to show that on the 4th, 5th, and 6th of May there was also fighting. So
22 the claim of the Prosecution is completely incorrect. This is relevant
23 for the Defence, and at the end of the proceedings we shall see which of
24 these is the truth.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I thought you are saying that -- you have said to
1 the witness that whatever action was being taken in Zagreb was defensive
2 action. Am I right in that?
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Of course, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, if defensive action was taken on the 2nd
5 and 3rd of May, how does that become defensive action against action that
6 is taking place on the 4th of May?
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the purpose of
8 this question, if it said in the indictment when Operation Flash began and
9 when it ended, we don't have this. So any conclusions drawn would be
10 pre-empting things. These are facts which have to be established in these
11 proceedings, and the Defence is attempting to do so. The expert is able,
12 possibly, to assist us.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: The expert has been telling you all afternoon, too,
14 that he doesn't see how activities in Slavonia -- Western Slavonia affect
15 any action in Zagreb. He has told you this, and you have finished your 30
16 minutes of extra time that you asked for which were already extra on the
17 extra that you had. And now you're asking questions that are not relevant
18 to the indictment and you want the indulgence of the Court to give you
19 time to ask questions that are not relevant to the indictment.
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with all due
21 respect, I must remind you that the only three paragraphs dealing with
22 Operation Flash and targeting Zagreb are paragraphs 50, 51, 52 I think,
23 and 54. The entire operation, the disaster, is explained by the
24 Prosecutor in four sentences, four lines. What is clear --
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not --
1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] -- to the Defence -- excuse me,
2 Your Honour, please let me finish my sentence -- is that any conclusion
3 about what was happening on the ground is impossible at this time because
4 the Court does not have the material on the basis of which it can
5 establish what happened and what did not. Such a conclusion can be drawn
6 only at the end of these proceedings. This witness has told us that he
7 did not see any documents about military targets. I'm now trying to put
8 questions to him and show him materials which will give him a basis for
9 saying ultimately why and under what circumstances Zagreb was targeted.
10 If the Defence is not able to do this with such an expert, then we have
11 nothing to do here.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: The way the question is ruled out of order is
13 irrelevant. You may proceed.
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please look at exhibit
15 number 112.
16 Q. Before this document comes up, sir, it's an UNCIVPOL and UNPROFOR
17 document dated the 5th of May, 1995, showing that on the 4th of May, 1995,
18 in the presence of Brigadier General Denar [phoen] and the Brigadier
19 General Matalon and the entire UNPROFOR staff the artillery of the
20 Croatian army hit the village of Gavrinci, especially civilian targets, at
21 a point in time when all these high representatives of UNPROFOR had
22 arrived in order to prevent precisely such a development. This is the
23 document before us now, and what I have just told you is in the first and
24 second paragraphs of this document, points 1, 2, and 4 -- or rather --
25 yes, they say that at 1355 heavy shelling with artillery, mortars, and
1 automatic weapons is being aimed at the village of Gavrinci. All those
2 present are under fire including the UNPROFOR generals.
3 I won't show you any other documents, but my question in
4 connection with this document is the following: Does this document, in
5 your view as a military expert, show that on the 4th of May in the area of
6 Western Slavonia there was still activity by the Croatian army against the
7 army and population of the Republika Srpska Krajina?
8 MR. BLACK: Objection, Your Honour. Excuse me.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Black.
10 MR. BLACK: I have the same objection to relevance, Your Honour.
11 It seems to me that it's essentially the same question, that's it's about
12 things that happened on the 4th of May. And for more background on this I
13 note that some time ago in this trial Defence counsel, and the transcript
14 cite is transcript 3822, Defence counsel explicitly said that Operation
15 Flash is not a justification for Zagreb.
16 Now, it seems that that's not the thrust of the cross-examination,
17 but I don't -- given the law of this Tribunal on the doctrine of reprisal,
18 specifically the Kupreskic trial judgement and even the Rule 61
19 proceedings in this case, I don't see how the allegation that this -- that
20 what happened to Zagreb was retaliation or reprisal for Western Slavonia
21 could possibly be justified and accepted. And consequently I don't see
22 any relevance to these documents and the questions regarding Operation
23 Flash. If it has some relevance that the Defence counsel could explain,
24 that's fine, but I just don't see it at this point, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're on your feet, Mr. Milovancevic. You want to
1 respond to that?
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
3 An assessment or position that the shelling of Zagreb was
4 retaliation or reprisal for Operation Flash is what the Prosecution has
5 claimed, and I don't understand this position taken by the Prosecution. I
6 feel a little sick over it. The only thing that was done was to avoid
7 establishing the real facts. Now, should I link up this conduct with the
8 situation that the Prosecution is trying to side-step his own
9 responsibility for not accusing someone for this operation in Western
10 Slavonia and the 168 dead that their witness Grujic spoke about and the
11 expulsion 15.000 people that UNCIVPOL speaks about in their reports. So
12 to claim something about something in advance and say that it is not
13 relevant in advance and that it has nothing to do with the subject of
14 discussion without giving the Defence an opportunity to ask questions
15 linked to that subject matter is something that is completely unacceptable
16 to me and represents a obstruction to the Defence's work and is doing harm
17 and detriment to the interests of justice.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, I will warn you now from the
19 Bench that if the 168 people died somewhere, it is for this Tribunal to
20 charge those people. And if you want to lay the fault at the feet of your
21 learned friend for having not charged those people, you can do so but
22 outside this court. In this court you are going to speak relevantly and
23 relevantly to the charges that are before us and stop making disparaging
24 remarks about your colleagues.
25 And on that basis -- I beg your pardon, not on that basis but on
1 the reason that this document is irrelevant, your question is ruled out of
2 order and this document is ruled out of order.
3 The objection is upheld. You may ask further questions that are
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] If I have understood Your
6 Honour, asking any question which could be wrong, incorrect, or whatever
7 about the cause and effect between the Operation Flash and the shelling of
8 Zagreb on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th of May is irrelevant. I think --
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic -- can I interrupt you,
10 Mr. Milovancevic? I've ruled. Ask the next relevant question.
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 Q. Mr. Poje, there is an UNCIVPOL report which says -- which talks
13 about a total massacre of the Serb population which in refugee columns
14 during Operation Flash which lasted on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and
15 6th of May, that the Serb population was massacred, killed, while they
16 were in civilian vehicles, tractors, trucks, trying to save their own
17 lives. During all that time there was fighting in the area. And my
18 question is: Do you have any material on the basis of which you would be
19 able to state your views about the military justification or lack of it of
20 having general artillery fire support in the form of firing at military
21 targets in Zagreb, such as the defence ministry, such as the presidential
22 palace, such as the airport, and similar features?
23 A. I'm not interested in military operations or in Operation Flash.
24 My task was not to monitor and assess and analyse military operations
25 during the material time of Operation Flash. I'll state this once again.
1 What was my task is this: That on the basis of the information I was
2 provided with to calculate the dispersion pattern of hits when the Orkan
3 artillery system was used, and on the basis of that, to draw my
4 conclusions, whether it was right and proper to target military facilities
5 in Zagreb, given this high dispersion. That was my task, not to look at
6 the general situation.
7 I saw Operation Flash and followed Operation Flash on television,
8 so that's all I can tell you. I can talk about what I write about in my
9 report, and that means that on the basis of the information to draw a
10 dispersion pattern. Now, if the Ministry of Defence building is 100 times
11 150 metres or 100 by 100 metres, that means that if the centre of the
12 dispersion pattern passes through the central point of the ministerial
13 building, it is not even 1 Vd, and on the basis of that I concluded that
14 there was a high probability that when military targets or possible
15 military targets are targeted, you mentioned some of them, that's what I
16 meant, because there weren't any other military targets or military
17 facilities in Zagreb. So when rocketing facilities of that kind, there
18 would be civilian casualties.
19 Let me repeat again. Yesterday I calculated the dispersion
20 pattern for 50 kilometres, it is about four hectares in area, the surface
21 area is four hectares. It's a vast surface area. And so you must have
22 foreseen in advance that in addition to the damage caused to a military
23 facility you would have civilian casualties as well.
24 So what you're asking me about now, what happened, how it
25 happened, the operations and the units I know nothing about that. Nothing
1 about operations, nothing about units.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, Mr. Milovancevic, no further irrelevant
3 questions. That was an irrelevant question. You are going to ask
4 relevant questions only. Proceed.
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. You said that general artillery support was the action in Zagreb.
7 To whom was this support given, which units and where were the units
8 active -- working from?
9 A. The Serb Army of Krajina.
10 Q. And where was it operational?
11 A. Well, as far as I can see, somewhere in Western Slavonia.
12 Q. So it was general artillery support to the Serbian Army of Krajina
13 which was functioning in Western Slavonia. Was that during
14 Operation Flash?
15 A. Probably. I can't say. I don't know. As I say, I don't know
16 anything about Operation Flash.
17 Q. Yes, your answer will suffice, Mr. Poje. Thank you.
18 I have one more question linked to the very beginning, and I asked
19 you when you left in 1991 the army you were lieutenant-colonel, and I
20 asked you how long you were going to be a lieutenant-colonel for. And you
21 said, quite rightly, that this isn't a question that I should be asking
22 you, Mr. Poje.
23 A. If you want to, I can answer.
24 Q. But I'm going to ask you a new question now, another question, and
25 it is this: Do you think that had you stayed in the JNA that you would
1 have been a general long ago, judging by your years of service, your
2 experience, your professional duties as a teacher and trainer and the work
3 you were doing?
4 A. I don't think so, no.
5 So let's go back to your first question, the one you asked me
6 first yesterday. As you know, I am head of the department for artillery
7 in the centre for doctrine and development, and that is the highest
8 position of that kind in the artillery, the highest artillery position in
9 the Slovenian army, and you must be aware of the fact that the Slovenian
10 army has 6.000 soldiers, professional soldiers.
11 Q. One more question. How old were you when you became a
12 lieutenant-colonel in the JNA?
13 A. I became a lieutenant-colonel -- well, I don't know if it's
14 relevant, but I became a lieutenant-colonel in 1989.
15 Q. Thank you. Mr. Poje, I have no further questions for you. That
16 completes my cross-examination. Thank you.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
18 Mr. Black.
19 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour. I do have some questions and
20 I'll try to go through them as quickly as I can.
21 Re-examination by Mr. Black:
22 Q. Firstly, Lieutenant-Colonel Poje, a couple times, I think
23 yesterday and today, you were asked about the possible effect of the
24 bomblets on buildings. Do you remember those questions?
25 A. Yes, I do remember them.
1 Q. Ordinarily, what kind of damage to a building would -- could you
2 expect from one of these bomblets?
3 A. We said that on impact the bomblets impacting on an obstacle, an
4 explosion takes place. The fuse leads to explosion when the pellets or
5 small balls are released in a circle of a diameter of, let's say,
6 10 metres approximately. The second part of the operation is the high
7 explosive effect which means that this cumulative spray or beam that is
8 caused through the explosive charge of a special shape pierces the
9 obstacle, and what is created is a subpressure which affects the
10 environment. In most cases, all these little balls or pellets which are
11 released remain outside the obstacle, that is to say, when the bomblet
12 hits or impacts a target or obstacle, they fly off and those pellets or
13 little balls do not do the piercing of the obstacle themselves. They
14 disperse in the air.
15 Q. Let me ask you now a question about this television camera
16 adjustment that you were asked about today. Do you remember those
17 questions about the TV adjuster on the M87 Orkan?
18 A. Yes. Every Orkan has a camera which records the active phase of
19 the flight of the trajectory, of the rocket, and it has a computer which
20 is automatic, and comparing two trajectories is able to launch the next
21 projectile better with the deviations recorded by the camera and
22 calculated by the computer.
23 Q. How long is that active phase of the flight of the rocket?
24 A. The active phase of the flight of the rocket is 4.3 seconds, after
25 which the motor, what we call a motor, is extinguished, ceases to work,
1 and then from that time on the rocket flies just like any other projectile
2 that has been released from another weapon.
3 Q. So does the television camera or in any other way does the M87
4 Orkan observe the impact points?
5 A. Could you be clearer, please --
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Milovancevic.
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] The witness not once mentioned
9 a camera that records the effects of the rocket but just a camera that
10 records the initial stages of the flight and trajectory and sends back
11 information about how to correct the figures for the next rocket.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Black, do you have any response to that?
13 MR. BLACK: I don't disagree with that, but I don't see the
14 objection, Your Honour. I certainly didn't suggest that the witness had
15 said anything. I don't think I've mischaracterised the evidence. I don't
16 understand the objection, quite frankly.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is your objection, Mr. Milovancevic? What are
18 you objecting to specifically? The fact that the witness did not mention
19 a rocket that -- I beg your pardon, a camera that records the effects of
20 the rocket?
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] The question that the
22 Prosecutor asked indicate -- says that allegedly the camera records and
23 films the impact of the rocket, which is not what the witness said and
24 that is why I am objecting. The expert explained in great detail what the
25 camera actually does.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's how I understood the question. It was a
2 question: So does the television camera or in any other way does the M87
3 Orkan observe the impact points? The answer could be yes or no on that.
4 I don't know what is --
5 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Your substantive point is that it's not arising
6 out of the cross-examination that was given, having regard to the question
7 itself? It is a very technical area.
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour.
9 That's right. We did not in the cross-examination make any mention about
10 the camera recording or filming the place of the impact, the point of
11 impact. The witness never mentioned that. He was speaking about
12 something quite different. But in the question the Prosecutor has just
13 asked there is a suggestion of that possibility.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Black.
15 MR. BLACK: Could I respond, please, Your Honour.
16 I certainly didn't mean to suggest the possibility. I was simply
17 asking so that we can clarify this. And the reason, with respect, I do
18 think it arises from the cross-examination. A number of questions were
19 put about this TV adjuster, and the suggestion was made that the TV
20 adjuster adjusts the firing of the rocket in a similar way as to what
21 traditional adjustment of firing is by someone who is observing the impact
22 points and can say: You're 50 metres too far to the left, or you're 20
23 metres too far to the right based on observation of impact. Those are not
24 the same thing, as I understand it, and I wanted the witness to explain
25 that so that it's clear. Because I think the cross-examination confused
1 that point.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed. Ask the question.
3 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: The objection is overruled.
5 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Lieutenant-Colonel Poje, the question was simply: Does the TV
7 adjustment camera of the M87 Orkan, does that observe the impacts?
8 A. No. That camera which is on the Orkan is used to record the
9 rocket once it is launched on its trajectory for 4.3 seconds, its active
10 phase flight. This trajectory, the real trajectory, which the first
11 rocket follows, is calculated with the pre-calculated trajectory so that
12 the following, the next, rocket is launched with new initial elements
13 which calculate this difference between the theoretical trajectory and the
14 actual trajectory.
15 So with the system of a television camera and recording from the
16 Orkan, you don't see the effect, the impact, of the rocket projectile on
17 the target. All you can see is the active phase of the flight immediately
18 after the rocket has been launched, and that active phase lasts 4.3
19 seconds which is the time that the motor is working. And then you use an
20 algorithm to calculate the trajectory, and then that trajectory is
21 compared, the real trajectory is compared to the theoretical trajectory
22 calculated by the computer on the basis of initial firing data. And if
23 these two trajectories differ from each other, then the following rocket
24 is launched with these adjusted values and corrected launching.
25 Q. Thank you for that explanation. I guess my primary question:
1 Does this TV adjustment, does this eliminate the impact dispersion pattern
2 that you talked about at length yesterday?
3 A. The dispersion pattern, regardless of the way observation is
4 carried out or in which measurement is carried out, is what I calculated
5 it to be yesterday. The parameters of this dispersion pattern are in the
6 table -- in the firing tables, and we cannot influence it. In other
7 words, independently of the method used to observe the rocket trajectory,
8 even if we have secured observation of the target area, we cannot
9 influence the dispersion area, because there is no mechanism by which the
10 dispersion pattern can be immediately reduced. It can be introduced by
11 more modern methods, collecting ballistic and meteorological data and so
12 on and so forth, but the means that were used could in no way have reduced
13 the dispersion pattern.
14 Q. Thank you very much. I think you've made that quite clear. You
15 were also asked a number of questions during the cross-examination about
16 whether the Orkan may have been the only weapon available to the SVK with
17 a sufficient range to reach Zagreb. Do you remember that line of
19 A. Yes, I remember the question. But I answered that at the time the
20 Orkan was used to target Zagreb, I don't know whether at that time the
21 Serb Army of the Krajina had other weapons available which they could have
22 used against Zagreb. Certain documents I have seen do mention other
23 weapons, but I assume that the organ could have been the only artillery
24 piece in the area capable of reaching Zagreb. I don't know. I cannot say
25 whether they had other means available.
1 Q. I understand that. My question is really this: If firing the
2 Orkan at Zagreb was inappropriate for all the reasons that you set forth
3 in your report, does it somehow become appropriate simply because it's the
4 only weapon with sufficient range?
5 A. I really don't know what led the Main Staff and Supreme Command to
6 use the Orkan. I can only assume that at that point in time the army, the
7 Serbian Army of the Krajina, did not have other artillery pieces or
8 weapons -- weapons systems in the area that they could have used against
9 targets in Zagreb, which is probably why they decided to use this, but I
10 can't say that for sure. Because it's a range of about 50 kilometres.
11 And I think we've already said that the only other system that could have
12 been used would have been the Luna system, the ground-to-ground missile.
13 And I think that we concluded that the effect would also have been
14 enormous. And, again, there would probably have been civilian victims,
15 just as there were with the use of the Orkan. But I don't know whether
16 those launchers were within range of Zagreb or not and whether they
17 existed still at that point in time or not.
18 Q. Perhaps if I put my question this way. Does your opinion about
19 the appropriateness of the Orkan, is it changed at all by whether or not
20 the Orkan was the only weapon available to the SVK at the time?
21 A. Well, you see, someone decided to use the Orkan to fire on targets
22 in Zagreb. That person would have to be acquainted with the consequences.
23 It is very easy to conclude what the consequences would be, just as I did
24 yesterday. I sat down, I took a pencil and paper, and calculated the
25 dispersion pattern. Possible military targets in Zagreb, such as the ones
1 enumerated today, the General Staff, the presidential palace, the Supreme
2 Command, or a communications centre, for example. These would all be
3 relatively small facilities. I don't know what the size of the General
4 Staff is, whether 100 by 100 metres or 100 by 150 metres. It was a
5 building or a compound. The size of those buildings is smaller than the
6 dispersion ellipsoid or ellipse.
7 So it's easy to calculate, even a layperson could calculate, that
8 when using the Orkan with this large dispersion pattern would certainly
9 lead to civilian victims and that civilian facilities would also be
10 targeted. I therefore asked myself whether it makes sense to use that
11 weapon and cause so many casualties. I, however, was not the one to make
12 that decision. The person who made that decision probably had reasons of
13 his own when he made it.
14 Q. [Microphone not activated].
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
16 MR. BLACK: Thank you.
17 Q. You gave a detailed answer and I understand what you said, but
18 perhaps you're just missing the narrow point of my question, which is the
19 following. You've explained -- in fact, just now you've explained quite
20 clearly why it is inappropriate to use the Orkan against Zagreb. Is that
21 opinion about its inappropriateness, is it affected, is it changed, would
22 it be changed if the Orkan were the only weapon available to them? I'm
23 sorry to persist on this, but I just want you to answer that question for
24 me, please.
25 A. I think that even if Orkan were the only system which it would be
1 possible to use to target Zagreb, for the reasons I have just mentioned
2 because of the high probability that a large part of the dispersion
3 pattern would fall outside the target, I think it was inappropriate and
4 made no sense to use it.
5 Q. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your patience. I have just one
6 final question for you.
7 Has anything that you -- that has been put to you by the Defence
8 counsel on cross-examination or any other thing that you've heard in the
9 discussion over the last two days, does any of that change your opinion as
10 stated in your expert report regarding the appropriateness -- in fact, the
11 inappropriateness of firing on Zagreb with the M87 Orkan?
12 A. Over the two days I have been testifying here, and based on the
13 task I was given to calculate the dispersion pattern on the basis of data
14 and to establish the effects on facilities and military facilities in
15 Zagreb, I remain convinced that firing the Orkan on targets in Zagreb
16 should not have been done.
17 Q. Thank you very much.
18 A. Because according to the report I studied, and I see today how
19 many victims there were, I think it made no sense to use it against
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. BLACK: No further questions, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Black.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Lieutenant Poje. I also have
1 no questions for you. Let me thank you formally on behalf of the Chamber
2 for coming to testify. This brings us to the end of your testimony. You
3 are excused now. You may stand down.
4 [The witness withdrew]
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I guess this will be a convenient time?
6 MR. BLACK: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
8 Court adjourned. We'll resume tomorrow morning at 9.00.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m.,
10 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 8th day of
11 June, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.