Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 23152

 1                           Friday, 27 June 2014

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.31 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

 6             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.

 8             This is case IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10             While we are waiting for the witness to be brought into the

11     courtroom, I would like to remind the parties that the Chamber asked

12     them, on the 24th of June, to provide the scale of the maps which were

13     admitted as D526 and P6599.  And we refer you to transcript pages 22904,

14     905.

15                           [The witness takes the stand]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  And, therefore, if the parties have been able to

17     verify it, and if there's any agreement on it, the Chamber would like to

18     hear from them.

19             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.

20             Let me just inform you that and Mr. Shin and I met yesterday and

21     we agreed that we would do it within the next week.  After that, we will

22     submit our joint answer to you.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And apart from scales, then it's mainly also

24     the grid to be found on those maps, because if you enlarge a map, you

25     need something on that map that enlarges with the map or is reduced in

Page 23153

 1     size with the map because, otherwise, you'll not be able to draw any

 2     conclusions.

 3             Good morning, Mr. Radojcic.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  I would like to remind you again that you are still

 6     bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your

 7     testimony, that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but

 8     the truth.

 9             And Mr. Groome will now continue his cross-examination.

10             Mr. Groome.

11                           WITNESS:  VLADIMIR RADOJCIC [Resumed]

12                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

13                           Cross-examination by Mr. Groome:  [Continued]

14        Q.   Good morning, Colonel.

15        A.   Good morning.

16        Q.   Now yesterday -- I want to begin with going back to something

17     that was raised yesterday.

18             Yesterday, at your request, I promised you an opportunity to

19     review your Karadzic statement to find when you used the term

20     "encirclement" or "semi-encirclement," and just to remind ourselves what

21     you said in this regard, you said at transcript page 23108:

22             "As for that problem that we had with the terms of encirclement

23     and semi-encirclement, if you can find my statement given to

24     President Karadzic, I think it is the term 'semi-encirclement' that is

25     used there.  I would kindly ask you to do that in order to resolve this

Page 23154

 1     dilemma.  I was in -- at the Military Academy I was a professor of

 2     tactics and I really doubt that I could have used the word 'encirclement'

 3     instead of 'semi-encirclement.'  So I can only attribute this to an

 4     unintentional mistake."

 5             Now, yesterday I provided with you a copy of your Karadzic

 6     statement and can I ask you first:  Did you have an opportunity to review

 7     it?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And were you able to find any instance in which you used the term

10     "semi-encirclement"?

11        A.   No.

12             MR. GROOME:  Could I ask that the statement be brought to our

13     screens.  It's 1D02128.

14        Q.   Now when can you see it on your screen, I want to first draw your

15     attention to paragraph 4.  Now, in paragraph 4, you make a reference to

16     ABiH troops being deployed in an outer ring; correct?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Now, if we look at paragraph 6, in the first sentence we can see

19     that you describe the SRK being "inside an outer encirclement."  If we

20     look at the second sentence, you refer to "the outer encirclement ring."

21             MR. IVETIC:  If I could be of assistance, the B/C/S appears to

22     have those paragraphs in different order.  5 and 6 are interposed.

23             MR. GROOME:

24        Q.   Okay.  So with Mr. Ivetic's comment in mind, it appears that it's

25     a different paragraph, so paragraph 5 for you and paragraph 6 for us.

Page 23155

 1     The third sentence of that paragraph reads:

 2             "My brigade was encircled throughout the war."

 3             And finally, in the fourth sentence we see you say:

 4             "The BHA corps that held the SRK in [sic] encirclement had more

 5     manpower than necessary."

 6             Am I correct in thinking that in light of your testimony

 7     yesterday, each of these references to encirclement is incorrect?

 8        A.   Yes.  And could this be corrected and made to read

 9     "semi-encirclement."  I don't know how this mistake came about.  If you

10     look at a map, you will see that we were not encircled.  My brigade

11     wasn't, nor was my corps.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Radojcic, nothing can be changed in a statement

13     you gave to other persons.  It is on the record here now, and your

14     testimony what your testimony in this case is.

15             Please proceed.

16             MR. GROOME:

17        Q.   Now, yesterday in reference to this issue, you said:

18             "I was in -- at the Military Academy I was a professor of tactics

19     and I really doubt that I could have used the word 'encirclement' instead

20     of 'semi-encirclement.'"

21             And frankly, Colonel, I wondered the same thing.  How could an

22     instructor of tactics at the Military Academy misuse the term

23     "encirclement" repeatedly, when it is obvious, as you have just said,

24     looking at a map that was not possible and to misuse that term

25     "encirclement" before two Trial Chambers of this Tribunal.

Page 23156

 1             Are you able to explain to us how that happened?

 2        A.   I have no explanation.  Not a logical one.  During the first time

 3     I testified nobody noticed that.  I didn't either.  I can see it now.  I

 4     don't have a logical explanation.  In my view, it could be a typo, and it

 5     is my mistake that I didn't notice that earlier.

 6        Q.   Did anyone suggest to you that you used the term "encirclement"

 7     to describe the -- the location of troops in the Sarajevo area?

 8        A.   I claim categorically that that was not the case.

 9        Q.   Now, I'm happy enough to leave it there, but I will give you an

10     opportunity if there's anything else you want to say about this issue

11     before I move on.  Is there anything else that you wish to, in fairness,

12     say about this issue?

13        A.   It is very embarrassing for me to find myself in a situation like

14     this.  I -- that in my statement it reads "encirclement," whereas one can

15     see clearly that that was not the case.  This must be a mistake obviously

16     because all the other documents, all the maps show that we were not

17     encircled.  So for me to claim that we were would not make much sense.

18        Q.   Okay.  So I want now to return where we left off yesterday.

19             MR. GROOME:  And could I ask that P6616 be brought to our

20     screens, and this is the collection of several photographs.  And could I

21     ask that we go to the last page.

22        Q.   Now, you -- I'll wait till it comes up on the screen.

23             You agreed with me yesterday that a turret could not be seen on

24     the modified air bomb launcher which is the larger of the pictures that

25     we now see.  Do you agree with me that if, in fact, this launcher does

Page 23157

 1     not have a turret to move the rails laterally on a horizontal axis to

 2     change the bearing or the azimuth, that to change the bearing of the

 3     tubes or the rails that could only be done by adjusting or turning the

 4     wheels of the truck and moving the truck slightly backwards or slightly

 5     forwards?

 6        A.   I can only speak from my experience, i.e., from the experience of

 7     the technical solution of my launcher.  Even without a turret we could

 8     move the aerial bomb and change the azimuth of its trajectory.

 9        Q.   Okay.  It seems that you are saying that your -- the error -- the

10     launcher that was made by your brigade, it did not have a turret; is that

11     correct?  Do I understand you correctly?

12        A.   Not the kind of turret that we saw on Plamen, but we had a

13     different technical solution.  There was a rail and the aerial bomb could

14     be moved laterally on a horizontal axis, even without a turret.  Our

15     engineers saw to that.

16        Q.   And could I ask then maybe to -- to help us understand this with

17     an example.  Let's say when the truck is parked, the rails are facing so

18     that the launcher is facing due north.  Now, if you want to fire those

19     modified air bombs due east, how would the launcher be adjusted to do

20     that?

21        A.   The launcher was not supposed to move that much, from due north

22     to due east, for example.  The vehicle had to be aimed towards the target

23     and then the crew would make a fine-tuning or, rather, fine adjustments

24     with a lever in order to aim the bomb straight at the target.

25        Q.   And so as I understand you, the truck is pointed in the general

Page 23158

 1     direction and then there is some type of lever which can be used to make

 2     finer adjustments to the exact direction of the rails.

 3        A.   Correct.

 4        Q.   Now, is there anything on the vehicle which allows the lever to

 5     be adjusted in a way that you know the precise bearing that the rocket is

 6     being fired, or is it done simply with a compass?

 7        A.   I can't answer your question precisely because really ...

 8        Q.   Okay.  And just to be clear, the movement that you're talking

 9     about now with the lever would be a side-to-side movement; correct?

10        A.   Yes.  And vice versa; i.e., from right to left or from left to

11     right, depending on how you actually move the lever.

12        Q.   Now, when I asked you the vehicle -- was there any specific

13     vehicle that you were to use, you said, no, but that it should have some

14     type of hydraulics to change the incline of the back of the vehicle.  Do

15     you remember giving that evidence?

16        A.   Yes, this is what I said.

17        Q.   Now, the most common vehicle that I'm aware of that has that type

18     of hydraulic piston would be a dump truck, you know, something used to

19     transport gravel and then used to dump that gravel out by extending the

20     piston.  Is that the type of vehicle that was used for the brigade's

21     launcher?

22        A.   I think so.

23        Q.   Okay.  Now, I want to stay with aiming these modified air bombs.

24     The launcher did not have tubes; correct?  It was simply fired from

25     rails; correct?

Page 23159

 1        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 2        Q.   Now, let's put the modified air bomb to the side for a moment.

 3     The rocket itself, it could not be fired accurately outside of the tube

 4     that was supplied by the manufacturer; correct?

 5             MR. IVETIC:  Objection.  Calls for expert testimony and

 6     speculation.  I'm getting the wrong translation.  I don't know why.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome.

 8             MR. GROOME:  Mr. Ivetic led substantial evidence from this

 9     witness on the operation of an air bomb.  I'm simply exploring it.  I

10     think he is certainly entitled to talk about his knowledge of the weapon

11     and how he used it.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Objection is denied.

13             Please proceed.

14             MR. GROOME:

15        Q.   Sir, in your view, could a Plamen rocket be fired accurately

16     without using the tube?

17        A.   I'm afraid I can't answer your question.  Not in a very precise

18     way.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  And in a non-very precise way, what could you tell

20     us about it?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that I couldn't give a

22     precise answer because my knowledge does not allow me to present relevant

23     evidence on this issue.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  If you say:  My knowledge doesn't allow me to say

25     anything about it, that is what I understand.  But to present anything

Page 23160

 1     which is relevant, you can leave it to the Chamber whether your answers

 2     are considered to be relevant, yes or no.

 3             Can you say anything about it or can't you say anything about it?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I came here to testify, I

 5     wanted to testify about the things that I know well and on which I can

 6     tell you something without any problem and discuss them fully.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, you are here to answer to the best of your

 8     abilities, give answers to questions that are put to you, and whether

 9     it's good enough or not good enough, tell us what your answer could be.

10     If you say, I can't say anything about it; fine.  Then we'll just move

11     on.  If, however, you have anything to say in response to the question

12     that was put to you, please do so.  And we'll then consider whether the

13     quality or the relevance is such that we would give weight to it.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted to be fair and I wanted to

15     assist everybody in clarifying the mystery of this aerial bomb.  However,

16     now we're talking about construction, about expert issues, so you have

17     put me in a situation where I am invited to give an answer for which I'm

18     not sure that it would be 100 per cent correct.  Bear in mind that I was

19     a brigade commander.  I was never an engineer or a constructor in charge

20     of crafting aerial bombs.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Just tell us whatever you want to tell us and if you

22     say:  I'm not completely sure but this is what I think it is on the basis

23     of my experience, on the basis of my knowledge, please tell us.  Don't

24     enter into a debate with the Chamber.  Just focus on what Mr. Groome asks

25     you.

Page 23161

 1             Can you say anything about it, or can't you?  And if you can say

 2     something about it, please do so.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can only say that an aerial bomb

 4     launcher is similar to a Kacusa [phoen] launcher.  It didn't have a

 5     barrel, it only had rails on which the aerial bomb moved.  Kacusa was

 6     reputed as a precise asset.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Just to be fair to you, this Chamber heard evidence

 8     that it was very imprecise.  Any explanation as to why others considered

 9     it very imprecise?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I heard from my colleagues about

11     this bomb.  Some of them were not competent.  Still, they talked about

12     the bomb.  They did not have it in their catalogue of armaments.  Still,

13     they talked about it.  And I heard them talk about the hole that it made

14     as being 3- to 400 metres deep, which is absurd.  I heard a lot of things

15     that were not correct.  I wanted to be a bit more precise because I had

16     an aerial bomb and I gave you as much detail as I could, in order to help

17     the Trial Chamber to resolve the mystery of the tactical use of that

18     asset.  I didn't want to dwell on the details of construction and some

19     other expert details.  I really wanted to help with you the use of that

20     bomb.  I wanted to tell you whether we used it, and if we did, why we

21     used it.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  So your explanation is that others didn't have the

23     knowledge and didn't have the experience to -- were therefore not

24     qualified to say anything about the precision.  That's, in short, what

25     I -- is your answer.

Page 23162

 1             Mr. Groome, you may proceed.

 2             MR. GROOME:

 3        Q.   Colonel Radojcic, if I can return to my question and, if you

 4     recall, my question really wasn't about the modified air bomb, it was

 5     about the Plamen rocket system.  So let me ask my question in a different

 6     way.

 7             During your tenure as commander of the Ilidza Brigade, did you

 8     ever issue an order for someone to fire a Plamen rocket without using the

 9     tubed rocket-launcher equipment?

10        A.   Not a single brigade of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps had the

11     Plamen multi-rocket-launcher.

12        Q.   Did you have any rocket-launcher system?

13        A.   My brigade didn't, and I say that categorically.  The

14     Plamen rocket system, according to the establishment of the JNA, could

15     only be found in operative units in the corps and in the land forces.

16     Not as part of the equipment of tactical units.

17        Q.   Let me put the question this way.  Based upon your experience as

18     a brigade commander and your experience as an instructor, did you ever

19     hear of any rocket system being used, Plamen, the Orkan, the Grom, being

20     used without the tubes.  Just taking a rocket somehow and igniting the

21     engine and letting it go.  Did you ever hear of that as an appropriate

22     use of a rocket system?

23        A.   No, I never heard that.

24        Q.   Now yesterday you likened the purpose of the rocket tube to a

25     mortar.  Did you ever give an order for a mortar to be fired without

Page 23163

 1     using the tube?

 2        A.   This would be technically impossible.

 3        Q.   And am I right in thinking that it is technically impossible

 4     because it's simply incapable of being aimed if the charge is ignited

 5     without the fuse -- without the tube?

 6        A.   To put it simply, it is an entirely different technical solution.

 7     The principal of mortar is that you drop the shell into the barrel or

 8     into inertia.  It falls, it activates the charge, and it is projected

 9     towards -- through the tube towards the target.  The rocket-launcher tube

10     follows a different principle.  The tube functions as a guiding system

11     that propels the rocket towards the target.

12        Q.   Okay.  Now, the -- the rocket-launcher, am I correct in thinking

13     that the weight of the modified air bomb kept it on the launcher until

14     such time as the rockets ignited and overcame gravity and off it went?

15     Am I correct in -- in that?

16        A.   No comment.

17        Q.   You don't know?

18        A.   I don't.

19        Q.   okay.  Now if we can shift -- as you remember now from yesterday,

20     I want to go -- focus on particular aspects of this.  I want to now talk

21     about the temporary firing tables that you have spoken about.  And it's

22     your evidence that they were temporary or provisional firing tables for

23     the modified air bombs?  Is that your evidence?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Now just to make sure I understand the concept of firing tables,

Page 23164

 1     am I correct that the firing tables for a Plamen rocket system would be

 2     different from an Orkan rocket system?

 3        A.   I believe that the tables are different for the two.

 4        Q.   So every weapon system, every weapon that uses a ballistic

 5     trajectory will have its own unique firing table; correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   So if an expert technician were to create firing tables for a

 8     modified air bomb, he or she would have to make separate firing tables

 9     for the 100-kilogram bomb and separate -- and different tables for the

10     250-kilogram bomb; correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And then separate tables would then have to be made for each

13     configuration in use.  For example, we would need three sets of firing

14     tables for a 100-kilogram bomb that used the Plamen rocket, an Orkan

15     rocket, or a Grom rocket.  Each of those would require a separate firing

16     table?

17        A.   Since these are different rockets with different ranges and

18     charges, it would only be logical that each would have its own firing

19     table.

20        Q.   And would it also be logical - and perhaps this is an obvious

21     question - that if one configuration of a 250-kilogram bomb used three

22     rockets, three Plamen rockets, and another used four Plamen rockets, each

23     of those two bombs would have to have its own unique firing table?

24        A.   I said yesterday that we had the kind of launcher who could

25     launch rockets with three engines.  In the previous proceedings, I was

Page 23165

 1     mistaken when I said four engines.  So I can only discuss my experience

 2     with the launchers launching rockets which had three engines.

 3        Q.   And my question is:  If there was another system in use with a

 4     different number of rockets, that system would have to have its own

 5     unique set of tables; correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Now, to create a firing table, expert technicians fired dozens of

 8     a particular munition until they can establish with a high degree of

 9     reliability its ballistics trajectory; is that correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Now, is it your evidence that given the severe shortages of

12     munitions that the VRS experienced during this latter period of the war,

13     that significant amounts of munitions needed to create firing tables were

14     expended in order to create them?

15        A.   It is a question to be put to an expert.

16        Q.   Okay.  Well, last -- the last witness before you, Mr. Veljovic,

17     just this week, at transcript page T-22949, asserted unequivocally that

18     this were in fact no firing tables, temporary or otherwise, for the

19     modified air bomb.  Obviously you both cannot be correct on this issue.

20             Is it possible that no temporary firing tables were ever sent to

21     the brigade?

22        A.   I don't know what Mr. Veljovic stated.  But it is absurd to say

23     that firing is carried out without any initial elements whatsoever.  I

24     claim responsibly that we did have temporary firing tables.  They were

25     temporary because the asset was not an establishment asset.  The rest are

Page 23166

 1     my assumptions.  I assume that no one would provide such firing tables

 2     unless test firings were carried out.  What Mr. Veljovic said could

 3     probably be explained by his lack of knowledge of launchers and bombs.

 4     As far as I know, he didn't have one.

 5        Q.   Let me ask you -- I want to read you something -- a question that

 6     you were asked by Mr. Edgerton in the Karadzic case about the test firing

 7     of these air bombs.

 8             MR. GROOME:  And this is at transcript page 31250 and that can be

 9     brought up in 65 ter 30850 at e-court page 43.

10        Q.   So the question you were asked was:

11             "Q.  How many times was it fired?

12             "A.  If you mean in the area of responsibility of my brigade --

13             "Q.  No.  In testing.  How many times was it fired?

14             "A.  Unfortunately I can't tell you that.  However, if we

15     received the so-called temporary firing tables, that means that those who

16     delivered the firing tables to us had some relevant information based on

17     which he was of the opinion that launching the bombs from launchers was

18     okay."

19             So my question is:  Do you stand behind this evidence?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   In your answer in the Karadzic case, you used the phrase "if we

22     received" when referring to firing tables.  While I accept that you

23     believe that you must have received firing tables, am I correct that you

24     do not have a specific recollection of having actually seen with your own

25     eyes a firing table for a modified air bomb?

Page 23167

 1        A.   I saw the firing table pinned on the launcher, and I asked the

 2     chief of artillery about it.  He told me that these were firing --

 3     temporary firing tables that they used to direct the bomb and insert

 4     initial elements for firing.  That is what I referred to.

 5             When I said "if we received it," it doesn't mean perhaps we had

 6     received it.  I wanted to say "when we received it."

 7        Q.   Can you tell me who the -- the name of the chief of artillery who

 8     showed you these temporary firing tables and explained them to you?

 9        A.   I think his name was Predrag Bosiljcic.

10        Q.   Could I ask you to please spell that last name.

11        A.   B-o-s-i-l-j-c-i-c.  There's no E between the last two Cs.

12        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  Now, you didn't have temporary firing tables

13     for mortars, did you?

14        A.   For mortars, we had standing firing tables in the form of a

15     manual, and the firing tables or an excerpt was always attached to the

16     tube of each mortar.  It was a small piece of metal attached to the tube.

17     It enabled the operator to enter the necessary elements in order to

18     direct the tube adequately.  It was simply done for practical reasons.

19        Q.   Now you've mentioned a manual.  Am I correct that each specific

20     type of mortar had a manual that provided information to soldiers about

21     how to maintain the weapon, how to load the weapon, how to aim the

22     weapon, how to fire the weapon?  Is that correct?

23        A.   Yes.  Each mortar had its rules.  No instruction but rules, the

24     rules of 120-millimetre mortars, 82-millimetre mortars, or 60-millimetre

25     mortars, which contained all information about that particular type of

Page 23168

 1     mortar.  At the end of such manuals were the firing tables, and as I said

 2     already, excerpts from those firing tables were also attached to the

 3     tubes themselves.

 4        Q.   Did these rules include information about which type of targets a

 5     particular mortar was effective against?

 6        A.   Yes.  The rules also contained information on what type of shell

 7     is used by the mortar and one could target different kinds of targets

 8     with different shells.  I can explain it in detail because when I was a

 9     very young lieutenant I commanded one such unit.

10        Q.   I think for now this is probably a sufficient amount of detail.

11             Did these rule-books also identify targets that a particular

12     weapon should not be used against; in other words, say, do not use in

13     this particular instance.  Did it provide information of that nature?

14        A.   No, there was no such information.  What it read, approximately,

15     was there are three types of shells for a mortars.  Direct impact shell,

16     which is used for open areas.  It meant they exploded immediately upon

17     touching the ground, dispersing and destroying an enemy force by

18     shrapnel.  Next, there were smoke shells, which could screen a certain

19     area in order to camouflage our movement.  For example, when approaching

20     the enemy during an attack, then we used the so-called smoke shells.  And

21     there was a third kind.  They were called marking shells because in the

22     downward part of the trajectory, it actually had a small parachute come

23     out and it would light up and show the area where the enemy was so that

24     we could target more precisely.

25        Q.   Am I correct in thinking that you had a standard rule-book

Page 23169

 1     including firing tables for each piece of equipment that you had in the

 2     brigade?  So for your Howitzers, for your other artillery pieces, for

 3     each of them had you a rule-book with a specific unique firing table?

 4        A.   You are correct.  We had all those rules at our disposal, and

 5     anyone interested in the brigade could rely on them.

 6        Q.   Now you said there were temporary firing tables for the modified

 7     air bomb.  Am I correct that there was no such manual for their use or

 8     operation?  That had not been written?

 9        A.   No, it had not been written.  Because it was not a standard

10     establishment asset.  You yourself said it was modified.  It was modified

11     in the process, and in order to be used, it required temporary firing

12     tables.  We discussed what temporary meant.  What I wanted to say was

13     that such temporary firing tables were to be used until such time when

14     there are permanent rules in place, but the parameters included therein

15     are nonetheless relevant.

16        Q.   Okay.  Now --

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could I --

18             MR. GROOME:  Yes.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  At this point in time talking about the firing

20     tables for modified air bombs.  You said previously, and I quote:

21             "I saw the firing table pinned on the launcher."

22             Can you explain how it looked like?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not in detail.  I don't think it

24     was metal, though.  I think it was glued on a piece of cardboard and

25     attached to the launcher.  I don't remember exactly, but I was really not

Page 23170

 1     interested in it at that point in time so much.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You have been interested at that time because you

 3     said:  "I asked the chief of artillery about it."

 4             Therefore, I'm asking you:  What was the size of this firing

 5     table?  You assume it was on a metal ground.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it was an A4-sized format.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I have some further questions for you.  Was is it

 9     handwritten, typewritten, or printed?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Printed.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  How many lines, approximately, on this A4?  Was it

12     ten lines, 20 lines?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think I can provide an

14     accurate answer.  But the necessary elements were there --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  [Previous translation continues] ...

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- in order to operate the range

17     finder.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Now tell me what the necessary elements were.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In order to operate any asset such

20     as mortar or, in this case, air bomb launcher precisely, one needs to

21     determine the exact distance to target.  Unless you have that kind of

22     range finder, no precision can be guaranteed.

23             The next element requires the application of an artillery

24     protractor.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  What did you see on that piece of paper or metal,

Page 23171

 1     whatever it was?  What did you see?  Just tell me what you saw there and

 2     you are familiar --

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I discussed it with the chief of

 4     artillery.  We were some 20 metres away from the asset.  I didn't

 5     approach it and check.  We were talking about it, and I was observing

 6     their activity.  I didn't go into any further details.  I apologise, but

 7     I really can't be precise.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Would you agree with me that in order to have an

 9     accurate firing table, even if only temporary, that you need at least a

10     full list of angles of firing and the corresponding distances?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly.  One must know or have a

12     table and depending on the distance from the minimum to maximum distance.

13     Between these two extremes, there is information in, say, 2:15-metre

14     scale.  The parameters changed every 10 to 15 metres, I guess, although

15     I'm not certain.  So the principle was minimum distance, maximum

16     distance, and between them graded information.  It included different

17     elements.

18             If one is targeting directly and the distance had been measured

19     accurately, then the asset was very precise.  If an asset is used

20     indirectly, when you can't see your target, the angle and the azimuth, as

21     we say, is increasingly important.  We use artillery protractors to

22     determine that and we need to rely on a compass, making it that much less

23     precise.  In any case, what we used was a laser range finder and we were

24     precise in achieving the goal.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  The times you fired was direct fire?

Page 23172

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  What was the -- more or less the range covered by

 3     the modified aerial bombs?  What was the minimum, what was the maximum

 4     range?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't answer precisely.  I know

 6     that there was a minimum and a maximum.  I can suppose that the minimum

 7     range was between 5- and 600 metres and the maximum one was between 3 and

 8     4 kilometres, perhaps.  And I speak from experience.  Although I can't be

 9     any more precise than this.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I'm just trying to understand what you mean by

11     that.  So the whole range was, in your estimate, and let's take the

12     highest, 600 metres as minimum range, and the shortest, 3 kilometres,

13     maximum range, that is 2400 metres difference.

14             Now you say a firing table would be for every 10 or 20 metres.

15     Let's take the most, the largest one, that is, 20 metres.  That is, you

16     need at least well over 100 lines of tables, and that all on one A4?  Is

17     that what you're telling us?  Let's be --

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Wishing to explain to you as best I

19     can how such assets are used, I relied on these figures.  But as I said,

20     we don't know what was the minimum and the maximum range determined.  I

21     was just trying to explain to you how it was graded in between.  I said,

22     conditionally speaking, that the minimum value was 600 metres and the

23     maximum value may have been 3 kilometres.  But I repeat:  I'm not certain

24     of it.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  But then, of course, I must say that I have seen in

Page 23173

 1     my life, in my present job, I've seen firing tables which are very

 2     complex and long documents.  No way to get it on one A4.  Therefore, I'm

 3     wondering, with your experience, whether you have ever seen a firing

 4     table for a -- such a weapons system just on one A4.  That's what I'm

 5     putting to you and I'm starting with what you said from your experience

 6     you would expect, that is, 600 metres to 3 to 4 kilometres.  I took the

 7     better side, 3 kilometres.  I didn't take the 500 metres but the

 8     600 metres.  And I put it to you that you would then need -- that would

 9     result in a firing table which would take far more than one A4.

10             I'm asking you whether -- you say it was just a guess, my

11     600 metres to 3 to 4 kilometres or ...

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you take, for example, the rules

13     of use of 82-millimetre mortars, you will see there that the firing

14     tables contain several pages.  But an excerpt of those firing tables is

15     always attached to the tube.  And it is not an A4 even.  It is an A5,

16     half the size.  So the list is certainly incomplete.  It is but an

17     excerpt.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Would you agree that if you work exclusively

19     on the basis of an excerpt, where there is no complete firing table

20     available, that it impacts hugely on the precision of that weapons

21     system?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With a well-trained crew, the

23     answer is no.  Because, for example, they have the piece of information

24     2500 metres and 2600 metres, they use the protractors, and they can

25     operate it to come up with a median value which would be the closest

Page 23174

 1     approximation to the exact distance.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  You said if you have a well-trained crew.  You also

 3     told us that you were aware of modified air bombs being fired three

 4     times.  Where did the crew get its training in firing modified air bombs?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They probably took an active part,

 6     that is to say, their commander took an active part with working with the

 7     engineers who devised the contraption based on sketches, designs,

 8     et cetera.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's the production of the system.  But you

10     would say working in a work-shop in constructing these is -- equals to

11     the training in the field of the use of those systems when firing?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that's not what I wanted to

13     say.  I wanted to say that since it was done in the area of the brigade,

14     the commander must have taken an active part in the making of it.  So

15     from the start, he was familiar with the details.

16             As for the crew required for launching, it would have been an

17     experienced crew with previous experience with Howitzers and other

18     artillery assets.  It wasn't a problem for them to engage successfully,

19     provided they had tables.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  What happened with -- you were talking about

21     three aerial bombs, modified aerial bombs, being fired.  Did you have any

22     others; and what happened with those?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To the best of my recollection,

24     since it was in the department of my logistics assistant, I think we had

25     about ten such air bombs.  We used three, and the rest were not.  After

Page 23175

 1     the Dayton Accords were signed, together with the rest of the arsenal,

 2     they were transferred to Mount Romanija, in Sokolac, to the location

 3     designated by the corps command as the place where the arsenal would be

 4     deposited.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Judge Fluegge has one or more questions for you.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I have one follow-up question.

 7             You -- just a moment.  You said in response to Judge Orie -- one

 8     moment.  In relation to the A4 temporary firing table.

 9             "I discussed it with the chief of the artillery.  We were some

10     20 metres away from the asset.  I didn't approach it and check.  We were

11     talking about it ..."

12             Earlier you said:

13             "I saw the firing table pinned on the launcher."

14             From a distance of 20 metres, what could you see what was -- what

15     kind of metal was pinned on the launcher?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, before the crew prepared

17     the air bomb for launching, I walked around the asset.  I saw it for the

18     first time and I was curious.  Among other things, I noticed the firing

19     table.  Later on, I moved away, and while the crew was working, I

20     discussed it with the chief of artillery.  So it wasn't that I simply

21     observed from 20 metres away.  I had approached it before it was used.  I

22     wanted to see what it looked like because it was a novel thing, and then

23     I moved away.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Why did you say:  I didn't approach it, if you

25     did?

Page 23176

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was around 20 metres away when

 2     the bomb was launched, that's what I said.  And before that, I had walked

 3     around the asset.  It's logical when you received something new, you go

 4     and see it, and then you move away and let the crew do their work.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I'm really not asking about logic.  I'm asking

 6     what happened on the ground.  On one hand, you said you saw it; on the

 7     other hand, you say:  I didn't approach it.  Now you say you approached

 8     it and but later on you discussed it 20 metres away.  Did you approach it

 9     or not?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said, I went close to it and

11     then moved away.  Everything I said is true.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, if I may point out, temporary

14     transcript page 18, lines 21 through 25, the witness never said it was

15     metal.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  If I look at page 18, line 23, Mr. Ivetic, it

17     seems that you are right.  I heard it in a different way.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

19             MR. GROOME:

20        Q.   Colonel, in that last exchange, I think --

21             MR. GROOME:  Well, I see that we're at the time for a break,

22     Your Honour.  I'll make the correction -- well, Your Honour, it might be

23     wise for me just to make -- I think there's been a mistake on the

24     transcript.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If so --

Page 23177

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I would like to go to the point that is raised by

 2     Mr. --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  For the witness?

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, for the witness.

 5             Now, at page 16, lines 15 to 20 -- to 19, this is the answer you

 6     gave, sir:

 7             "For mortars we had standard firing tables in the form of a

 8     manual and the firing tables or an excerpt was always attached to the

 9     tube on each mortar.  It was a small piece of metal attached to the

10     tube."

11             JUDGE ORIE:  I do see that the witness, I think -- let me try to

12     summarise it.

13             You referred to the excerpts of the firing tables on mortars

14     being a piece of metal which was attached to the mortar.  Whereas you

15     said -- I think you -- you do not know exactly how it was attached to the

16     launching system when it concerned modified aerial bombs.  You guessed

17     that it may have been something glued, cardboard glued on, et cetera.

18     That's -- that's how I think your evidence in total now looks like.

19             Mr. Groome, is there any matter you would like to raise in the

20     presence of the witness or can the witness be released --

21             MR. GROOME:  No, Your Honour, I think the witness has been

22     mis-recorded and I think it might sense to do to it before the break

23     while it's fresh in his memory, if that's --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please.

25             MR. GROOME:

Page 23178

 1        Q.   Colonel, I think there's been some misunderstanding on the record

 2     so I'll read Judge Orie's question to you and your answer, and then ask

 3     you to confirm or correct.  So at transcript page 23, Judge Orie asked:

 4             "Yes, that's the production of the system.  But would -- but you

 5     would say working in a work-shop in constructing these is equal to the

 6     training in the field of the use of those systems when firing?

 7             Your answer, the record records you as saying:

 8             "No, that's not what I want to say.  I wanted to say that since

 9     it was done in the area of the brigade, the commander must have taken an

10     active part in the making of it.  So from the start, he was familiar with

11     the details."

12        A.   I said that, but I didn't say "commander."  I didn't mean myself.

13     I meant the chief of the artillery and the commander of the artillery

14     from the ground.  That's what I meant.

15        Q.   Thank you.

16             MR. GROOME:  That's clarified now.  Thank you.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Then could the witness be escorted out of the

18     courtroom.

19             We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes, Witness.

20                           [The witness stands down]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  We take a break, and we resume at five minutes to

22     11.00.

23                           --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.

24                           --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.

25                           [The witness takes the stand]

Page 23179

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Radojcic, we'll continue.

 2             Mr. Groome.

 3             MR. GROOME:  Thank you.

 4        Q.   Now, Colonel, yesterday you were -- you made a kind offer to

 5     provide or make -- make it possible for me to see this book that this

 6     French officer gave you, this memento.  I'm wondering, given the novelty

 7     of the rocket launcher, is there any possibility that among your

 8     belongings you may have a photograph of the brigade's launcher or perhaps

 9     even a video of the brigade's launcher in operation?

10        A.   Unfortunately, no.  Now that we're on the subject of the book,

11     though, now that we're on the subject of the book, I wanted to say

12     something, if you allow me.  Maybe it's faster if I bring it while I'm

13     still here, so then we do this through Mr. Ivetic, that I instruct him so

14     that you would get it as soon as possible.  I would really like you to

15     see it while I'm still here.

16        Q.   Since you are a sworn witness now, you're not allowed to have

17     contact with anyone in the Defence, anyone in the Prosecution.  So we may

18     just have to wait until you're discharged and I'm happy enough to wait

19     until that time to see it, okay?  But thank you for the offer.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  At the same time, Mr. Groome, if it could be

21     realised through simple, practical instructions through the Victims and

22     Witness Section, then, of course -- but you cannot have any contact

23     either with the Defence team or the Prosecution.  But, for example, if

24     some of your relatives would know where it is, in what desk, in what

25     room, then, of course, you could ask through VWS to ask them whether they

Page 23180

 1     could send the book with title so-and-so, located there and there, to VWS

 2     or to you here in The Hague.  That is still a possibility.  The Chamber

 3     has no opinion about how important it is or how -- whether it is

 4     important at all that we see it.

 5             Please proceed.

 6             MR. GROOME:

 7        Q.   Now, sir, before I continue on, I just believe there may be

 8     something else in the record that you may wish to correct and you

 9     commendably have admitted where you have perhaps said something that is

10     less than fully accurate.

11             At today's transcript at page 11, you are recorded as saying:

12             "Not a single brigade of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps had the

13     Plamen multi-rocket-launcher."

14             Now the Chamber has heard evidence from members of other brigades

15     or one other brigade about Plamen rocket.  The Chamber --

16             MR. GROOME:  And I refer the Chamber to transcript page 21204.

17        Q.   And the Chamber also has an exhibit, P4404, which records the

18     Sarajevo-Romanija Corps as having used 390 Plamen rockets in the year

19     1995.  So I want to give you this opportunity, are you -- are you

20     confident in your assertion that the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps did not have

21     a single Plamen rocket-launcher?  Or did you mean just your brigade

22     didn't?

23        A.   When I stated that my brigade did not have this, I know that with

24     100 per cent certainty the adjacent brigades, they didn't either,

25     according to establishment.  Quite simply, a Plamen is not supposed to be

Page 23181

 1     in brigades, according to establishment.  It should be in operative

 2     units.  As far as I know, even the corps did not have it.  Maybe they got

 3     it from the Main Staff for temporary use for a certain period of time.

 4     But according to establishment, we did not have it.  So that is an

 5     accurate answer.  That is a precise answer, and I stand by it.

 6        Q.   Okay.  Fair enough.  Now I want to -- I believe there's a

 7     contradiction between some evidence you gave in the Karadzic case and

 8     some evidence that you gave here this week.  I'm going to read you both

 9     portions and then ask you to explain the apparent contradiction.

10             Now during your Karadzic testimony, and let me just get the --

11             MR. GROOME:  Thank you, Ms. Stewart.

12        Q.   During your Karadzic testimony at transcript page 31250, and this

13     is 65 ter 30850, e-court page 43 --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  If could you pronounce the numbers at such speed

15     that --

16             MR. GROOME:  I apologise --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  -- that our transcriber is able to put them on the

18     record.

19             MR. GROOME:  So it's transcript page --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not saying that she did not perform

21     surprisingly well, but just for future --

22             MR. GROOME:  Future reference.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  -- reference.

24             MR. GROOME:

25        Q.   So you were asked the following question and gave the following

Page 23182

 1     answer:

 2             "Q.  So you have no information as to any testing that was done

 3     to the same exigencies as would have been the case in the normal arms

 4     industry of the former Yugoslavia?  You don't know?  Or to the same

 5     exigencies, pardon me.

 6             "A.  Unfortunately, I cannot answer your question because I don't

 7     know."

 8             Now this week at transcript 23040, you said in response to a

 9     question Mr. Ivetic asked you:

10             "Q.  Did you ascertain if the launchers for the modified aerial

11     bombs had been tested?

12             "A.  Of course.  Not a single piece of armament or weaponry that

13     is introduced into a military is introduced without previously being

14     tested by the manufacturer.  In this specific case, as far as I know,

15     that testing was done at Kalinovik, which is an old artillery shooting

16     range intended for such testings.  And the firing tables we received were

17     based and crafted based upon those testings."

18             Do you see that there is a contradiction between those answers,

19     and can you explain -- do you have an explanation for it?

20        A.   Certainly, I can explain.  I think, as a matter of fact, that in

21     giving an answer to the lady who put questions to me in the Karadzic

22     case, there is a reference to Kalinovik precisely in terms of this

23     explanation as to whether it had been tested or not, that's for sure.

24             Please try to find it.  I think there's a reference to Kalinovik

25     because I gave a similar explanation there.  It is illogical, it defies

Page 23183

 1     common sense to have something used without having been tested

 2     beforehand.  I agree with you that the entire procedure was not followed

 3     here, as was the case in the former JNA, but it was certainly done

 4     because this air bomb was used across the heads of one's own troops, if

 5     you will.  So any mistake would have affected our own people as well.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honours.  I direct everyone's attention to

 8     line 1 on the document on the screen, which is Mr. Groome's 65 ter

 9     number, where indeed this Kalinovik testimony is located in Karadzic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  But then we would need the previous page as well,

11     because what now exactly was done in Kalinovik.

12             MR. GROOME:

13        Q.   So Mr. Ivetic and yourself are correct.  You did mention

14     Kalinovik in Karadzic.  So do you know this from your personal knowledge

15     that there was testing, or are you drawing a conclusion because based

16     upon your experience as a military officer, all equipment is tested

17     before it is put into theatre.

18        A.   The second thing you said is correct.  That is to say, I did not

19     talk to these people directly, whether this had been done, where, how,

20     et cetera.  I'm just saying on the basis of my knowledge as an officer, I

21     know that nothing can be used without going through a testing stage.  In

22     this case, I mentioned Kalinovik.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Can we move to the next page in the transcript.  Let

24     me see.  Yes, I've read it.

25             Please proceed.

Page 23184

 1             MR. GROOME:

 2        Q.   Okay.  The launcher that was manufactured in your brigade, was

 3     that ever sent to Kalinovik for testing?

 4        A.   No.

 5        Q.   Did anyone ever come from Kalinovik to look at the launcher and

 6     verify that it had been built properly, according to the plans you say

 7     you were provided?

 8        A.   Kalinovik is just a testing ground.  It doesn't really have

 9     people who deal with this subject matter.  The institute that constructed

10     this, they did the experiments and then they made firing tables on that

11     basis.  And, also, they established the rules and instructions for

12     building this asset.  Probably my engineers from my brigade who worked on

13     this asset, they probably contacted people from Pretis.  So everything I

14     know is based on that.

15        Q.   Now, what institute are you referring to?

16        A.   When I used the word "institute," I meant a proper institution

17     that deals with this.  In this case, it was the Pretis ammunition

18     factory.  They were the ones who constructed this.

19        Q.   Did anyone from Pretis come to the Ilidza Brigade after the

20     launcher was manufactured to examine it and to verify that it had been

21     built properly?

22        A.   I don't have any precise knowledge, but I know that they were in

23     contact and that they co-operated in the building of this asset.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome.

25             Could you tell us something about what series of products, in

Page 23185

 1     terms of bombs and in terms of launchers, if you would know, in what

 2     series were they produced?  I mean, you told us you had all together ten.

 3     You fired three.  Have you any knowledge about the total production being

 4     100, 50, 2.000, whatever would it have been?  If you know.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are questions for the

 6     Main Staff.  What the reserves were and --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  If you know, tell us.  If you don't know --

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  -- tell us that you don't know.  And that would be

10     true both for the launchers and for the bombs?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for bombs and launchers in the

12     Army of Republika Srpska, their exact levels, I really don't have that

13     information.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

15             MR. GROOME:

16        Q.   Sir, I now want to focus on the accuracy of the modified air

17     bombs.  And you state in your statement at paragraph 55, the average

18     range of deviation for these weapons was up to 10 metres per 1.000 metres

19     of distance.

20             Am I correct in thinking that your evidence regarding the

21     accuracy of these modified air bombs is limited to the three that you

22     personally were involved in launching and that's from where you -- you've

23     derived this deviation figure; correct?

24        A.   Precisely.

25        Q.   And am I correct in thinking that these rule-books or manuals

Page 23186

 1     that come with other weapons, that in those manuals there would be

 2     information about the deviation of the -- of the particular weapon?

 3        A.   I cannot give a precise answer.  I do not remember.

 4        Q.   About suffice to say, the figure of 10 metres per 1 kilometre

 5     is -- is not information you received from Pretis or from any -- any

 6     other outside source.  It's your personal assessment having seen three of

 7     these things go off.

 8        A.   Precisely.  The experience of my brigade.

 9        Q.   Now, we -- we briefly talked about Mr. Veljovic, that's

10     Major Stevan Veljovic, and it appeared that you were unsure what position

11     he may have had.  Were you aware that he was an operations officer in the

12     operations and training department of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?

13        A.   Yes, I knew that.

14        Q.   So in terms of the structure of the army, he was at the corps

15     level, one level above your level, brigade level?

16        A.   Yes.  He was in the corps command, in the operations and teaching

17     department.  As far as I know, he wasn't the chief of that department.

18     He was just a desk officer there.

19        Q.   Now, this week at transcript page 22949, Major Veljovic gave

20     evidence regarding the accuracy of these modified air bombs and he

21     testified that they could be off target by as much 2 kilometres.

22             My first question to you is:  You do recognise that this is a

23     very significant difference from your evidence of 10 metres; do you

24     accept that?

25        A.   Yes, the difference is striking.  And I wouldn't want to comment

Page 23187

 1     upon it because I don't know on the basis of what he said that.  Maybe it

 2     happened in the case of some launches and there were such deviations.  I

 3     don't know.  I always say that in my brigade and during those launchings,

 4     that didn't happen.

 5        Q.   He further gave evidence that this range of deviation of

 6     2 kilometres was known throughout the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps.  Is it

 7     your evidence, as a member of that corps, that you were not aware of this

 8     large range of deviation?

 9        A.   No, I did not know that.  To be quite frank, I wasn't interested

10     in that.  I dealt with the problems of my brigade.  And if that is his

11     statement, I mean, well, you know, that we all knew, I don't know how he

12     could have thought that, that we all knew that.  Maybe he meant the corps

13     command.

14        Q.   He also testified that because of this range of deviation,

15     modified air bombs were not supposed to be used in urban areas.

16             Were you aware that such devices were considered inappropriate

17     for use in built-up areas?

18        A.   The air bomb itself is something that is used in all armies of

19     the world in built-up areas as well for engaging military targets.

20     Please don't hold it against me if I give this example.  During the NATO

21     bombing of Serbia, these contact-fuse shells were used even in the very

22     centre of the city of Belgrade, Novi Sad, so indeed built-up areas, and I

23     don't see why this wouldn't be used in other built-up areas.

24        Q.   I'm not going to debate the particular NATO example with you.

25             Let me ask my next question --

Page 23188

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome, I would like to ask one question.

 2             Were the Belgrade projectiles, the shells, were they guided

 3     projectiles; or were they just ordinary air bombs as were modified in the

 4     Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, of course, those were the

 6     most up-to-date bombs with television guidance, state-of-the-art

 7     equipment, different kinds of guidance, and its tens of centimetres that

 8     are the standard there.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I -- thank you.

10             Please proceed, Mr. Groome.

11             MR. GROOME:

12        Q.   Sir, isn't it a fact that on one occasion - maybe this is a

13     fourth bomb that was launched - that an air bomb fell on your positions

14     but luckily did not explode; didn't that happen?

15        A.   Maybe you confused it with the first one that we launched that I

16     talked about.  The first one that did not explode, and I attended its

17     launching.  If that is what you have in mind, then the answer is yes.

18        Q.   So the first one that you mentioned, it actually landed on

19     positions held by your men.  Is that how I should understand your

20     evidence?

21        A.   No, it didn't fall on our positions.  It fell between our

22     positions and the cooling plant; that is to say, outside our positions.

23     And just in case, for the sake of safety, I moved our people left and

24     right.  Because this was the first launching, I wanted to be 100 per cent

25     sure that it would be efficient and safe.

Page 23189

 1        Q.   Let me read to you evidence that Major Veljovic gave two days ago

 2     from this very place where are you now and that's at transcript

 3     page T-22956.

 4             "Q.  Okay.  I'm going to return to the question I asked you at

 5     the outset of today.  Yesterday at transcript page 22956, you stated that

 6     Mr. Radojcic knows of one instance when a modified air bomb fell on his

 7     own positions but went unexploded.  How do you know that

 8     Vladimir Radojcic knows of this one instance?"

 9             Major Veljovic's answer:

10             "Well, I know because I was operations officer in the corps and

11     he told me about it.

12             "Q.  When did he tell you about it?

13             "A.  1995."

14             Does this refresh your recollection of having told Major Veljovic

15     in 1995 that a modified air bomb fell on your positions but did not

16     explode?

17        A.   It is certain that I did not say that to him.  Perhaps he

18     confused things.  This bomb that I launched, if I talked about its

19     launching and that it fell close to our positions, maybe it remained in

20     his memory as a bomb that fell on our positions.  So it is more likely

21     that this is a misunderstanding or his poor memory.

22             This had not happened.  Had this happened, I would have mentioned

23     this in the daily report, and you have all the daily reports and it's

24     easy for you to check that.

25        Q.   So it seems that you disagree with his recounting of the

Page 23190

 1     conversation.  Do I take from your last answer that you confirm that

 2     yourself and Major Veljovic did speak about an unexploded modified air

 3     bomb?

 4        A.   I don't remember that.  That was 20 years ago, 19 years ago.  I

 5     certainly don't remember that.

 6        Q.   Colonel Radojcic, in April 1995, can you tell us approximately

 7     how many modified air bombs did you have available for use in the

 8     brigade?

 9        A.   I cannot remember exactly how many I had in April, but I know

10     that I had a total of ten.  I know that I got ten air bombs and that out

11     of these ten, I used three.  That's what I know for sure.

12             Now, how they arrived, I mean, they certainly didn't all come at

13     the same time.  They did not arrive in the brigade at the same time.  It

14     is only my chief of logistics that give could give a precise answer to

15     that because he is the one who dealt with this directly.  I only received

16     indirect information about this.  When I would receive a report, I would

17     see what the ammunitions levels were and then I would notice that they

18     were coming in.  But as for the actual dynamics at a given point in time,

19     I really cannot say.

20        Q.   Are you able to say, was there ever an occasion when you

21     contemplated using an air bomb around this period but you were told by

22     your logistics officer:  Sorry, we don't have any in stock?

23        A.   No, no, never.

24        Q.   I now want to address the -- the air bomb that fell on Hrasnica

25     on the 7th of April, 1995 --

Page 23191

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we move to that, Mr. Groome --

 2             The air bomb that didn't explode, it was intended not to explode?

 3     Or was it by mistake that it doesn't explode?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Our intention was not for it not to

 5     explode.  It was an error on my part and the crew.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  You've answered my question.

 7             From where was it fired, the exact position?  Where was the

 8     launcher located when you fired that bomb that didn't explode?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was on the road between Ilidza

10     and Sarajevo.  For your information, it had been closed for traffic and

11     it had not been used from the beginning of the war.  So as soon as you

12     leave Ilidza, the street forks towards Kasindolska Street and it is from

13     that area that we launched this air bomb.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  And where did it land?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was supposed to hit a facility

16     that is called Hladnjaca, a cooling plant.  On some military maps it is

17     marked.  It is made of concrete, reinforced concrete, and before the war

18     it was used for cooling meat.  It's very big.  It's dominant in that

19     neighbourhood.  There weren't any civilians around it because this is a

20     place where there were only troops.  And they were targeting us from

21     there, and then I thought that we should do that first test by targeting

22     that cooling plant.  And if you're interested in details, perhaps I can

23     repeat some of the things I said yesterday.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I'll re-read it.  Would be able on a map to

25     locate exactly where you fired from and where the cooling plant was?  And

Page 23192

 1     could you already now give me some idea as to the size of that cooling

 2     plant in -- was it 100 by 100 metres or was it 200 by 100 metres?  Could

 3     you give us any indication as to the size?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly I can.  I think it's

 5     about 50 to 70 metres basically.  But maybe 50 by 70.  And then it's

 6     about 50 or 60 metres high.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And it was approximately at what distance from

 8     the firing position?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I think about 600 metres;

10     perhaps a bit more, perhaps a bit less.  But around 600.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  And it missed the target by how many metres?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Never reached the target.  That is

13     to say, in order to be certain that it would hit the cooling plant, I

14     asked the crew for them to opt for a lower elevation than the minimum one

15     that is allowed because I was afraid that if it would fly over the

16     cooling plant, that it would hit the inhabited part of Stupska Petlja.

17     So I asked them to reduce the elevation so that they would be sure to hit

18     the target.  However, precisely because of this small elevation, the bomb

19     set out and about 300, 400 metres later it fell on the side to the land,

20     and then it did not explode because the fuse was not activated.  But it

21     was directly targeted, the cooling plant.  That was good.  It was sighted

22     properly, but it never reached the cooling plant.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  And that was the experienced crew you told us about?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The crew was good.  The commander

25     was experienced.  It was I who asked for them to reduce the elevation.

Page 23193

 1     It was my mistake.  I admit it was much -- much of it was my doing, so it

 2     was not their fault at all.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And this was one of the three occasions where you're

 4     able to form your opinion about the precision of the weapon system?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that was my first experience

 6     with an aerial bomb.  Unfortunately, it was negative because it did not

 7     hit the target.  Based on that experience, later we corrected our actions

 8     and parameters.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Groome.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Sorry, before you proceed, I really didn't get

11     from your answer where this bomb fell.  How far away from the target of

12     the cooling plant?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The bearing was good, but it fell

14     before it reached the cooling plant, perhaps 100 to 150 metres before,

15     but not on the positions where my soldiers had been deployed.  It flew

16     over and it fell so far away from the cooling plant that we could not

17     come closer to it to inspect what had happened because we would have

18     already found ourselves near the positions of the Muslim army.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Groome.

21             MR. GROOME:

22        Q.   What's your best recollection of when this happened?

23        A.   It happened before the second and the third launches.  That was

24     the first launch.  I can't remember the date.  But it was certainly our

25     first aerial bomb launch.  So if the other one happened in April, this

Page 23194

 1     first one must have been a few days before that.

 2        Q.   So your best recollection is it's a few days before the Hrasnica

 3     aerial bomb?

 4        A.   Yes.  If the date that you mentioned was in April and it

 5     concerned Hrasnica, then it was a few days before, a couple of days, or

 6     five days, I don't know exactly.

 7        Q.   Let me ask you what is perhaps too obvious a question, but if

 8     you -- if you did, in fact, have temporary firing tables that, according

 9     to you, allowed you with your laser measuring device to calculate the

10     distance, look on the firing table, know precisely where the bomb is

11     going, if you really did have that, why are you deciding to adjust the

12     elevation down?  It doesn't make any sense.

13        A.   Well, in hindsight, no.  However, at that moment, I wanted to see

14     the effect of that bomb.  I had not seen it before.  And I wanted to do

15     it at a distance where I could see it myself.  That's why I ordered that

16     to be the first target, but obviously the distance was shorter than

17     necessary.  The elevation was very low, and as a result of the earth's

18     gravity, the bomb fell short.  It was a small elevation.  There is a

19     maximum elevation and a minimum elevation, and obviously I actually

20     decided to reduce the evaluation below the allowed minimum, if you know

21     what I'm saying.

22        Q.   So your evidence is that the first time you deploy this weapon,

23     you take it upon yourself to ignore the firing tables that have been

24     provided and to essentially guess at an elevation to hit that target.

25     That's what happened?

Page 23195

 1        A.   Correct.

 2        Q.   Okay.  Now let's go to Hrasnica.

 3             MR. GROOME:  Could I ask that P592 be brought to our screens.

 4        Q.   Am I right in thinking that between the time you let off this air

 5     bomb and then, a few days later, the Hrasnica bomb, you didn't receive

 6     any additional information from Pretis or you didn't receive any updated

 7     tables, you didn't receive anything additional regarding the use of this

 8     weapon, did you?

 9        A.   No, not from them.  But I analysed the situation with my men.  We

10     analysed the mistake.  We established what its cause was.  And we did not

11     really need any other instructions.

12        Q.   Okay.  Now, I believe this is -- this is an order by

13     General Dragomir Milosevic.  I believe you're fully familiar with it and

14     you speak about it in paragraph 107 in your statement.  And in it,

15     General Milosevic gives an order that:

16             "The most profitable target must be selected in Hrasnica or

17     Sokolovic colony where the greatest casualties and material damage would

18     be inflicted."

19             Now in paragraph 107 of your statement we see that you say:

20             "The brigade to which this order was sent and I myself as its

21     commander understood this order as an order to open fire at military

22     targets."

23             Have I restated your evidence correctly?  No need to repeat all

24     your evidence, but that's a correct assessment or a correct recounting of

25     your evidence; right?

Page 23196

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Now I want to test your evidence on this point but I want to get

 3     some details about what happened on the 7th of April.

 4             Now, under order, paragraph 1, sentence 1, we read:

 5             "The Ilidza Brigade will immediately prepare a launcher with an

 6     aerial bomb and transport the bomb for launching."

 7             Now, you as the brigade commander, you implemented this order;

 8     correct?

 9        A.   I implemented this order.  Just for your information, every

10     aerial bomb launched was within the charge of the corps commander.  I did

11     not have the right to make such decisions independently.

12        Q.   Okay.  Understood.  It was a 250-kilogram bomb; correct?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   It had three Plamen rockets attached; correct?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Each of those rockets had its warhead; correct?

17        A.   No.  The engines -- there were three engines, but there was just

18     one bomb.

19        Q.   You gave evidence yesterday that the warhead could not be removed

20     from the rocket, did you not?  Do you recall that?

21             MR. IVETIC:  Objection, Your Honour.  Misstates the evidence.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome, could you take the witness to his

23     evidence yesterday.

24             MR. GROOME:  Well, let me move on and I'll have one my colleagues

25     give the precise reference to that, Your Honour.

Page 23197

 1             MR. IVETIC:  I can give you the reference:  Transcript

 2     page 23143.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, if you would pronounce the numbers --

 4             MR. IVETIC:  Sorry --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  -- as slowly as Mr. Groome does --

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Transcript page 23143.  Mr. Groome never asked about

 7     the rockets.  He talked about the bomb and the rockets and then used the

 8     [indiscernible] there.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, let's have a look.

10                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  The question was:

12             "Do you know if when they were attached" -- and we are talking at

13     this moment about rockets being attached to air bombs for propelling

14     purposes.  The question that was put to you is:

15             "Do you know if when they were attached that they were attached

16     with their warheads intact?"

17             Your answer was:

18             "Yes.  You can't touch it.  It's full of TNT.  You can't remove

19     it and then return it.  It's impossible."

20             That is apparently what you were referring to, Mr. Groome.

21             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you for that assistance.

22        Q.   So, sir, you've heard your -- Judge Orie read the -- how the

23     transcript has recorded your evidence yesterday.  Have I misunderstood

24     your evidence on this point?

25        A.   I believe that we were talking at cross-purposes.  Namely, when

Page 23198

 1     you asked me whether explosive could be removed, I meant the aerial bomb,

 2     because it's TNT.  It cannot be removed.  However, when it comes to the

 3     multiple rocket-launcher, its rocket consists of two parts.  It has the

 4     casing with the gunpowder which can be removed and the mobile part which

 5     is the part of the bomb on the rocket of the multiple rocket-launcher.

 6     That part had been removed because it was not needed to launch an aerial

 7     bomb.

 8        Q.   Okay.  You ordered only one air bomb be fired that day at

 9     Hrasnica; correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And now your statement also says that they were legitimate

12     military targets in Hrasnica and the two you mention were the

13     Aleksa Santic school and the Hrasnica post office; correct?

14        A.   That's correct.

15        Q.   Which -- my light is on but I'm -- now I'm audible.

16             Was one of these your intended target?  Was one of these the

17     targets that you ordered your men to aim for?

18        A.   Yes.  I ordered my men to target either the post office or the

19     school because the two were close to each other.  I believed that they

20     targeted the school because that school was the training centre for the

21     special units of the 1st Corps of the BiH army.

22        Q.   Now is it your evidence that you believed that one bomb could

23     destroy both of those targets or is it simply you left it to your

24     subordinates to pick which one they wanted to fire at?

25        A.   My artillery officers were locals.  They'd always lived there and

Page 23199

 1     they were familiar with the terrain and the situation.  They knew what

 2     would be easier to target, and they told me that the school was an easier

 3     target because the effect would be better and that's what they did.  They

 4     targeted the school.

 5        Q.   I'm sorry, why was the school a better target?

 6        A.   Because the post office building housed the command of the

 7     104th Mechanised Brigade.  Since at that moment, on that day, there was a

 8     combat ongoing, it meant that most of the command staff were engaged in

 9     combat, i.e., that they were not in the building itself.  That's why we

10     considered that we would achieve a better effect if we destroyed the

11     centre for the training of special units.  That's the explanation.

12        Q.   Now --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome, could I ask one clarification.

14             You earlier said that you ordered your men to target either the

15     post office or the school because the two were close to each other.

16     What's the relevance of the nearness?  I mean, if the school would have

17     been at a distance of 500 metres from -- from -- from the other target,

18     what's -- what's the -- what's the relevance of saying that they were

19     close to each other?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that the two were close and

21     they were of an equal importance for us.  So I left it to themselves to

22     choose what they targeted.  Whichever of the two targets we had hit, the

23     effect would be big.  And I left it to my chief of artillery to choose

24     the target, and he told me that he had chosen the training centre for a

25     better effect, and he told me that it would have fulfilled

Page 23200

 1     General Milosevic's order better.  And I agreed with him.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  It was a long answer, but I have to establish that

 3     you have not given the explanation of the relevance I asked for.

 4             Please proceed, Mr. Groome.

 5             MR. GROOME:

 6        Q.   Colonel Radojcic, although the bomb came close, it in fact did

 7     not strike either the post office or the school; is that correct?

 8        A.   Correct.

 9             MR. GROOME:  Can we -- can we -- again I'm having problems with

10     the audio.  I can hear myself now.

11             Can we please see Exhibit P591 on our screens, and this is a

12     report for -- the report from the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps to the

13     Main Staff on the 7th of April, 1995, the same day the modified air bomb

14     struck.

15        Q.   I believe you've seen this already, but I'll give you a moment to

16     orient yourself with the front page.

17             MR. GROOME:  And then I'll ask that we go to page 2.

18             If we could go to page 2, I'll -- I'll read it to you, the part

19     I'm interested in.

20             "In Ilidza pbr, one 120-millimetre mine was fired and one

21     250-kilogram AB was launched at the centre of Hrasnica.  According to the

22     interception centre, the Muslims claim that the Luna rocket has landed."

23             This report by General Milosevic to the Main Staff contains

24     information about this air bomb that would have been provided by you to

25     Milosevic; correct?

Page 23201

 1        A.   Correct.

 2        Q.   This would have been based on the daily written, or perhaps oral

 3     in this case, reports that you would have made to your superior,

 4     General Milosevic; correct?

 5        A.   I believe that we communicated directly, so I could convey the

 6     information immediately.  That was subsequently followed up by a regular

 7     daily report which was sent sometime in the evening.

 8        Q.   I want to remind you of something you said yesterday and then ask

 9     you a question.

10             This is from transcript pages 23120 to 21.

11             "Q.  Apart from misrepresenting, did you have to report on

12     unsuccessful tasks; that is, you were asked to do something and your

13     brigade was unable to achieve success in the task?  Were you obliged to

14     report that to your superiors as well?"

15             Your answer:  "Yes, of course.

16             A few questions later I asked:

17             "Well, let me ask you the question theoretically.  Let's say

18     there was a lesser commander than yourself who did fail in a task, would

19     that commander be obliged to report the missed target or the failure to

20     his superiors in his daily report?"

21             Your answer:  "Yes."

22             So now my question is the following:  Your evidence about

23     targeting the school and the post office, I suggest, is not truthful.

24     Because if those were your intended targets, given the fact that you

25     missed them, you were obliged to report to your superiors that you had,

Page 23202

 1     in fact, missed the targets.  Is that not correct?

 2        A.   After the rocket was launched, I received information what we had

 3     hit, from my observers, then from the international military observers,

 4     and UNPROFOR.  I reported back to General Milosevic where the bomb had

 5     fallen.  He told me:  Okay, be on a standby.  If there's anything else to

 6     do, I am happy with what you did.  And that was the end of our

 7     conversation, which obviously I can only paraphrase.  I can't remember

 8     word for word how it transpired, but this is more or less the gist of

 9     that conversation.

10        Q.   As you've already just indicated a few moments ago, we have a

11     awful lot of daily reports from the brigade.  I'm not aware of you ever

12     recording that you missed the intended target.  Do you recall putting in

13     a written report that you missed the target?

14        A.   I'm sure that it had to have been in the regular combat report.

15     However, since the bomb fell some 20 metres away from the target, we

16     believed that the effect had been achieved.  Shortly after that, the

17     Muslim attacks subsided, and there was no need to launch any more bombs.

18     So it was only a relative failure.  If a bomb like that misses the target

19     by no more than 20 metres, the effect is still achieved.

20        Q.   Let's look at this from a slightly different perspective and to

21     do that I need to remind about your answers to several questions posed to

22     you by Judge Orie.  And this was recorded on yesterday's transcript at

23     T-23122 to 23.

24             "Judge Orie:  Now, if -- and you hinted at the lack of precision

25     of mortars, for example, then even if the first projectile didn't hit the

Page 23203

 1     target, then, as you told us, you would perform the task anyhow, so I

 2     take it that you would then do that by the second or third or the fourth

 3     shot.  Is that correctly understood?"

 4             Your answer:  "Certainly."

 5             "Judge Orie:  Would --

 6        A.   That's correct.

 7        Q.   -- "that also mean that if an artillery projectile falls at a

 8     certain location, which is -- well, let's say, near, yes, which is

 9     near ... to what you considered to be a military target and if there is

10     no follow-up hitting that military target, that then apparently was --

11     what was hit must have been the target.  You understand what I mean?

12     Because if where the projectile landed was not the target, you told us

13     that you never failed to perform your task and then hit the target with

14     one of the next projectiles."

15             Your answer:  "Yes."

16             Sir, I put it to that you the reason you only fired one air bomb

17     was that you were not aiming at either the school or the post office, but

18     simply at the centre of Hrasnica, and the bomb exploded in the general

19     area where it was intended.  Isn't that the truth?

20        A.   Absolutely not true.

21        Q.   Sir, according to your own sworn testimony, if you had been

22     aiming at the school or the post office and missed your target, you would

23     have sent additional projectiles until you succeeded in hitting the

24     target; correct?

25             MR. IVETIC:  Again, Your Honours, misstates the evidence.  As

Page 23204

 1     Mr. Groome testified -- and Mr. Groome read back the question, it was in

 2     relation to mortars.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome.  The question --

 4             MR. GROOME:  I'll await the Chamber's ruling on the -- I have

 5     nothing to say, Your Honour.  This is happening now very frequently.  I

 6     will rely on my question and the Chamber's ability to deliberate on the

 7     objection.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  You may put the question to the witness.  The

 9     objection is denied.

10             Please proceed.  Or let the witness answer the question.

11             MR. GROOME:

12        Q.   And just so it's clear, Judge Orie, the first sentence:

13             "Would that also mean that if an artillery projectile," not

14     limited to mortar, and you said that you would send -- continue to send

15     projectiles until you succeeded in hitting the target.

16             Now, I put my question again.  According to your own sworn

17     testimony, if you had been aiming at the school or the post office and

18     missed your target, you would have sent additional projectiles until you

19     succeeded in hitting the target.  Is that not correct?

20        A.   It is absolutely wrong to compare an artillery projectile and an

21     air bomb -- aerial bomb.  When I answered Judge Orie, I had in mind a

22     cannon or a Howitzer and an artillery projectile.  An aerial bomb is an

23     entirely different story.  As soon as the launch was over, as soon as my

24     subordinate told me where the bomb had fallen, I conveyed the message to

25     my superior, who said:  Fine, okay, I'm happy.  Abort until my further

Page 23205

 1     order.  And this is what I did.  My superior gave me a direct order, and

 2     I continued to wait for his further instructions.

 3        Q.   So, sir, what we're dealing with here is General Milosevic tells

 4     you he is happy.  You've -- aren't we talking about mission accomplished

 5     here?  Your report to General Milosevic records a successful

 6     implementation of Milosevic's order.  He ordered an air bomb be launched

 7     into the centre of Hrasnica.  You did that.  It landed in the centre of

 8     Hrasnica, mission accomplished.  He was happy.  You didn't need to do

 9     anything else.  Correct?

10             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honour, objection.  Mr. Groome is again

11     misstating the contents of General Milosevic's order.  It is said to set

12     it to a target in the centre of Hrasnica --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic --

14             MR. IVETIC:  -- not the centre of Hrasnica.  He is doing this

15     time and time again.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, Mr. Ivetic, what are you doing time and

17     time again is to intervene in the questioning, giving clear clues and

18     hints for the witness what your concerns apparently are with the

19     questions, matters which you could have dealt with in re-examination of

20     the witness.

21             MR. IVETIC:  I take exception when a counsel misrepresents the

22     contents of a document that objection is appropriate.  I'm entitled to

23     make a record of my objections.  I'm entitled to have the Chamber rule on

24     those objections.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic --

Page 23206

 1             MR. IVETIC:  I've made an objection, please rule on it.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.  You can make an objection.  First of

 3     all, I gave you instructions about the objections yesterday.  You didn't

 4     follow them.  True or not?

 5             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honour, when it comes to documents --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  My question is whether I gave you instructions on

 7     objections yesterday and whether you did not follow them at this very

 8     moment.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  I believe this objection is in concordance with your

10     guidance yesterday --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay --

12             MR. IVETIC:  -- because I don't believe this adds anything to the

13     witness.  I'm talking about documents that exist, words that exist on

14     paper, prior testimony.  Those are not giving aid to a witness.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic -- Mr. Ivetic, you answered my question.

16     You believe it was in accordance with the instruction I gave yesterday.

17     That's on the record.

18             Any objection you make from now on, you'll have to announce that

19     you make an objection.  We'll then take the appropriate measures as far

20     as the circumstances are concerned under which we'll hear your

21     objections, and that's how we will proceed.

22             We have heard the answers of the witness.  Now --

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  But ...

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 23207

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome, would you please repeat your last

 2     question and that would include the -- well, it was a relatively long

 3     question.  Please proceed.

 4             MR. GROOME:  I think Colonel Radojcic remembers the question.

 5        Q.   Sir, wasn't this the case that the task, the order that

 6     General Milosevic gave to you was successfully carried out, and he was

 7     happy with that?  He was happy with the result.  Isn't that what has

 8     happened here?

 9        A.   Yes, he was satisfied with the precision.  He said:  It's fine.

10     Sit and wait for further instruction.

11             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I believe it is time for the break.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  It is time for the break.

13             We'll take a break, and we resume in 20 minutes from now.

14             The witness may follow the usher.

15                           [The witness stands down]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we take that break, could the parties try to

17     agree on what portion of a clear map we would need in order to invite the

18     witness to make -- to mark the position from where the first aerial bomb

19     was fired and where it landed, and where the cooling plant exactly is

20     located.  If you could find the most suitable map for that purpose

21     together, and I wouldn't even mind if either of the parties would invite

22     the witness to make the markings as I consider them to be relevant.

23             MR. GROOME:  Mr. Weber has some proposals and we'll remain here

24     during the break to discuss that.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then we'll take a break, and we'll resume at

Page 23208

 1     20 minutes past 12.00.

 2                           --- Recess taken at 12.03 p.m.

 3                           --- On resuming at 12.22 p.m.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Any agreement among -- Mr. Mladic, Mr. Mladic, I can

 5     hear you.  You're supposed not to speak aloud.

 6             Have the parties agreed on a --

 7             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, we will work with page 32 of P3.  I'm

 8     happy to do it after I finish this section related Hrasnica, if that's

 9     okay with the Chamber.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I take it that there's no objection to that,

11     Mr. Ivetic?

12             MR. IVETIC:  No, Your Honours.  Mr. Weber and I had looked

13     through the map book, and we believe that that is perhaps the best choice

14     that allows us to manoeuvre the map so as to get to the precise location.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

16                           [The witness takes the stand]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Radojcic, Mr. Groome will now continue his

18     cross-examination.

19             Please proceed, Mr. Groome.

20             MR. GROOME:  Could I ask that P582 be brought to our screens.  It

21     is a handwritten UNPROFOR report regarding the air bomb that landed in

22     Hrasnica.

23        Q.   Now, Colonel, while that is being called up, Captain Overgard, a

24     witness in this case, was present immediately after the modified air bomb

25     landed in Hrasnica, and I want to show you a report about the

Page 23209

 1     investigation that was done by UNPROFOR members after -- in response to

 2     this -- this event.

 3             MR. GROOME:  Could I ask that we go to page 4 in both documents.

 4        Q.   Now, sir, I'm interested in the diagrams that were drawn, and

 5     they were not obviously translated so I will ask you to look at the

 6     pictures that I describe on the English version.  So here we see a

 7     drawing of what they believed fell on Hrasnica that day.  Now we have

 8     your evidence that the -- the modified air bomb only had three rockets

 9     attached.  But with that in mind, am I correct in thinking that the

10     diagram that they've drawn approximates the way the air bomb would have

11     looked that day?

12        A.   I think that this drawing is neither precise nor does it reflect

13     what it actually looked like.  It looked differently.  I do know that

14     there were three carrying rockets, rather than -- rather than four.  The

15     drawing of the vehicle with the launcher does include some of the main

16     elements but no detail whatsoever.

17        Q.   If I were or the Chamber were to permit to you have a piece of

18     paper, a blank piece of paper during the next break, would you be

19     prepared to draw a picture of what the air bomb that landed in Hrasnica

20     looked like, a better depiction than what we have here?

21        A.   I'm very bad at drawing.  I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to do

22     much.  I am more than ready to describe it in words rather than make

23     drawings.

24        Q.   Okay.  I won't ask you to do anything that you don't think you

25     can do well --

Page 23210

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome.

 2             Witness, you told us that there were three rockets attached to

 3     the bomb.  Now that's clear.  Mr. Groome hinted at that already.

 4             So let's just imagine this sketch not to have four but three

 5     rockets attached.  Then you said:

 6             "The drawing of the vehicle with the launcher does include some

 7     of the main elements but no detail whatsoever."

 8             Okay.  Now, could you tell us what is really wrong about it, as

 9     far as the main elements are concerned?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that here -- I think it

11     shows the armed 128-millimetre rockets, as can you see in the upper

12     right-hand side portion.  We can see some pellets at the top of the

13     casing but in real life it was not so.  They had been taken out.  And all

14     that was left was the rocket with its powder charge.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  You say the warheads were removed from it, as

16     we discussed earlier.  What else is -- apart from there being four

17     instead of three, what else is basically wrong in this sketch?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The engines are too close to the

19     warhead.  The length of the rocket was bigger.  Actually, the size of the

20     modified air bomb was bigger.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Which means that, relatively, the length of the

22     rockets is a bit too long here in relation to the size of the aerial

23     bomb.  Is that well understood?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  I wanted to say that the

25     rockets shown here are placed around the body of the bomb, and the

Page 23211

 1     impression is that it is all one large chunk, but in real life, they were

 2     removed.  They were further away, and the air bomb itself and the entire

 3     device looked longer.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If you say they were further away from the

 5     aerial bomb, what was approximately the distance between the rockets and

 6     the body of the aerial bomb?  Was it 2 centimetres?  Was it

 7     10 centimetres?  Was it 50 centimetres?  Could you give us an indication?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  We see the rockets here

 9     placed on the bomb itself, around it.  In real life, they were drawn

10     back, and the -- they were fixed onto the bomb near the tail fins.  This

11     thing wouldn't even fly, as shown here, because the aerodynamics of it

12     are zero.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, apart from your expertise on that matter, you

14     say they were positioned differently.  They were shorter, the rockets.

15     Apart from that, they were with the warheads.  What else is wrong on this

16     sketch?  On the basics, not on details.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, basically the air bomb

18     launcher is shown here with the railings alone, without any additions.

19     But, as I testified before, there were levers which could move the

20     launcher to the left or right in order achieve the right azimuth, as

21     Mr. Prosecutor said.  And they could also change elevation, depending on

22     what was needed.

23             As a whole, you can see the basic elements in the drawings,

24     however, without these very important details.  And I didn't even begin

25     to explain the electronic system which was attached to it all.

Page 23212

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Electronics was attached to what exactly?  And

 2     electronics for what purpose?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In order to activate the rockets,

 4     the charge.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Ignition.  That's what you're talking about.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.  Ignition had to be

 7     simultaneous because otherwise there was a problem.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  And the trigger was electronically done.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

11             Please proceed, Mr. Groome.

12             MR. GROOME:  Could I ask that we go to page 2 in the B/C/S and

13     page 3 in the English.  And I want to direct the witness's attention to

14     paragraph 4.

15        Q.   Let me read you the -- or summarise the portion that I am seeking

16     your comment on.

17                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

18             MR. GROOME:  Ms. Stewart thinks it might be on page 1, e-court

19     page 1.  I apologise.  So 1 of the B/C/S and 2 of the English.  Okay.  So

20     paragraph 4 in the English is up, and -- okay.  There we go.

21        Q.   Now, in paragraph 4 it states that the time of flight of the bomb

22     was approximately 20 seconds and it left a trail of black smoke.

23             Do you agree -- you observed this.  Do you agree with that

24     characterisation of the flight of the bomb?

25        A.   I did not observe this launch because I was at the command at the

Page 23213

 1     moment.  When ignited, there is a trail of smoke, although I wouldn't

 2     call it black smoke.  The flight time, well, it should be around that.

 3     Perhaps a bit faster, not 20 seconds, but ten.

 4        Q.   The report goes on to characterise the projectile being slow in

 5     flight.  Would you agree that a modified air bomb travelled slower than

 6     mortars, rockets unencumbered by air bombs, and artillery shells?

 7        A.   Certainly.

 8        Q.   And does it make or did it make a noise as it travelled through

 9     the -- through the sky?

10        A.   Yes.  It created quite a terrifying sound because during its

11     flight and due to the emission of powder gases, one could hear a very

12     strong hiss.  That sound was not at all pleasant to the ear.

13        Q.   And are you able to estimate how far away this sound would

14     travel?

15        A.   It could be heard at least 500 metres away, maybe more.  My

16     command was some 500 metres away from the place of launch, and I did hear

17     it.

18        Q.   The first projectile that you sent up, or first air bomb, that

19     did you see, how far away was the distance between where it was fired and

20     where it landed?

21        A.   Perhaps 450 to 500 metres.  If you have in mind the one which

22     fell near the refrigeration facility.

23        Q.   So it's your evidence that this hissing, terrifying sound could

24     be heard approximately a half kilometre away from the path of the air

25     bomb; is that correct?

Page 23214

 1        A.   Yes.

 2             MR. GROOME:  Now, can we go to page 5 in both versions and I

 3     apologise in advance --

 4                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 5             MR. GROOME:  Sorry, it's 4 in B/C/S and 5 in English.

 6        Q.   Now, the report says based on fragments that were found, the

 7     people investigating this said:

 8             "We believe that the MBRL mortars had warheads."

 9             Now you have given evidence that they did not have warheads, so

10     can I ask you to take a look at the -- their report as well as the

11     fragments they have drawn and perhaps offer an alternative explanation to

12     them regarding whether or not -- what they perceived indicated there were

13     warheads attached?

14        A.   Certainly.  If it had a warhead where the powder charge was, it

15     would not be preserved like this.  It would have been completely

16     destroyed.  However, we see it rather intact here, given the fact that

17     there was no warhead.

18        Q.   Okay.  Thank you for that.  I'm going to now move to a somewhat

19     different, although related, topic, so I'm finished with this exhibit.

20             Now, Colonel Radojcic, in paragraphs 107, as we've already seen,

21     and now in paragraph 88 of your statement, you assert that when

22     General Milosevic issued an order to attack the town without specifying

23     particular targets, brigade commanders knew that this meant only military

24     targets.  In fact, you say in paragraph 88:

25             "All brigade commanders were trained officers who knew which

Page 23215

 1     targets could be fired upon."

 2             I want to now test this evidence of yours.

 3             MR. GROOME:  And could I ask that P923 be brought to our screens.

 4        Q.   And this is the document that you use in paragraph 88 to make

 5     this point.  This is an order from General Milosevic in response to

 6     information that the ABiH is preparing some action against the VRS.

 7             MR. GROOME:  Could I ask that we go to page 2 in the B/C/S and 1

 8     in the English.

 9        Q.   Now, as part of this particular order, there is a long list of

10     tasks to be undertaken, and we can see one of them is underlined in the

11     original and the English, which says:

12             "Have launching pads and aerial bombs ready for firing on the

13     town ..."

14             Now, my question to you, as you point out in paragraph 88, is

15     that he does not specify a target in this order; is that correct?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   And it's your evidence to this Chamber that this reference to

18     preparing to send modified air bombs into the town should be understood

19     by the Chamber to mean only known military targets; is that correct?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Now, this document is classified as strictly confidential.  This

22     is a high level of security; correct?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And the SRK Command had the act to provide brigade commanders

25     with information confidentially; correct?  You had secure communications.

Page 23216

 1        A.   We had secured and non-secured communication.  We had telephone

 2     lines going across the airport runway and they were not safe.  There were

 3     such lines also which went through our territory and they were not

 4     mounted to repeaters and, thus, they were much more secure.

 5        Q.   I guess the point I'm trying to make is that General Milosevic

 6     had the ability to send you information in a secure way and be quite

 7     confident that the enemy would not get that information.

 8        A.   Yes, he did.

 9        Q.   Now, the first sentence of this order is quite vague and in

10     contrast to other orders the Chamber has seen.  It simply indicates that

11     there is information that the enemy is planning something, some action

12     against the SRK, without any indication of where or what type of action.

13             Does this indicate that the corps command had limited knowledge

14     about the specifics of the operation that was being planned by the enemy?

15        A.   This is merely a preparatory order.  Detailed orders came as a

16     follow-up.  This is just in terms of preparation, so that we should

17     undertake all measures, raise combat readiness, and, later on, a new

18     order would arrive that was more precise.  If you have one such order,

19     you will see for yourself that I'm telling you the truth.

20        Q.   Let's take a look at another order and this order is just a

21     matter of days after this one.

22             MR. GROOME:  And could I ask that 65 ter 18618 be brought to our

23     screens.  It is an order from Major-General Dragomir Milosevic dated the

24     30th of April, 1995.

25        Q.   I'm going to give you a moment to study the first page to

Page 23217

 1     familiarize yourself with the basics of the document.  Let me know when

 2     you've had a chance to read that.

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Okay.  Now I'm interested in particular in number 10.

 5             MR. GROOME:  And if we could please advance the English copy to

 6     the second page.

 7        Q.   Now item number 10 reads:

 8             "Locations with buildup of enemy forces (the tunnel, Igman,

 9     Pazaric and so on) must be constantly monitored and targets observed

10     attacked with precise fire."

11             My first question is:  Here, General Milosevic indicates the type

12     of target to be engaged, locations with buildups of enemy forces;

13     correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And in addition to the type, he indicates three specific

16     locations:  The tunnel, Igman, and Pazaric.  Were these locations where

17     were there buildup of forces as you recall?

18        A.   Yes.  And I can explain, if you're interested.

19        Q.   I'm more interested in the procedure than the actual events

20     underneath this order so hold the more detailed description for a bit.

21             So, in this order, he not only gives the type of locations, he

22     gives specific examples to make clear his intention.  Am I correct in

23     saying that?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Now, let's focus on the phrase "targets observed."  This means

Page 23218

 1     that before firing on the target, that is, the group of enemy forces, it

 2     had to be observed; correct?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   So according to this order, if you can't see the enemy, you're

 5     not to fire?

 6        A.   Certainly.

 7        Q.   Now let's focus on the phrase "with precise fire."

 8             By using this phrase, "with precise fire," General Milosevic left

 9     it to his subordinate brigade and battalion commanders to determine what

10     weapon to use.  In other words, he left it to subordinates to decide

11     whether to use a cannon, a Howitzer, a mortar, or perhaps even rifle

12     fire; is that correct?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And he doesn't want a weapon used with a large deviation, a

15     weapon which may miss the buildup of troops; correct?

16        A.   When one says "precise fire," it is understood that we are

17     expected to target precisely.

18        Q.   And would that mean if you are -- if you have a choice of

19     weapons, that you are to choose the one with which the greatest precision

20     can be achieved?

21        A.   Yes.  The best possible precision and effect.

22             MR. GROOME:  Can I ask that we move the English back to the first

23     page.

24        Q.   And I want to draw your attention to item 1.  In fact, he also

25     orders that:

Page 23219

 1             "Artillery pieces must be prepared for night-time action."

 2             So, sir, this included making sure that artillery pieces

 3     contemplated by this order would be -- were to be prepared so as to allow

 4     them to be accurately aimed even in the dark of night; correct?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   So I want to give you my understanding of the logic of this order

 7     and see if you agree.  The logic of this order is as follows:  There is a

 8     buildup of enemy troops and efforts should be made to neutralise them or

 9     at least disperse them by targeting them precisely.  Correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11             MR. GROOME:  So could I ask that we now go back to P923, and

12     while that is being brought I want to recap what we know from this order.

13        Q.   On the 30th of April, Milosevic gives the type of location to be

14     targeted; two, several examples of the type of target to be engaged;

15     three, leaves it to subordinate commanders to select the weapon; four,

16     requires that the target can be seen; and, five, requires artillery

17     pieces to be prepared so that they can be aimed at night and requires the

18     attack to be done with precision.

19             Do you agree with my characterisation of this -- that last order

20     that we looked at?

21        A.   Yes, completely.

22        Q.   Now 923 is back up on the screen.  This is the order from the

23     19th of April.  Now, it's your evidence that the phrase "firing on the

24     town" means military targets known to the brigade commanders; correct?

25     Where he uses that phrase here.

Page 23220

 1        A.   Exactly.

 2        Q.   Unlike the 30th of April order, in this 19th of April order,

 3     General Milosevic does not leave it to the brigade commander to choose

 4     the appropriate weapon for the target.  In fact, he gives an explicit

 5     order that you prepare an air bomb, which, it is the Prosecution's case,

 6     is the most imprecise weapon at your disposal.

 7             But do you agree that in this 19th of April order, General

 8     Milosevic is dictating in the order itself -- you don't have a choice

 9     about the weapon to use.  You must use the aerial bomb; correct?

10        A.   No, he just said that we should prepare air bombs for activity.

11     That meant to prepare air bombs, to take up positions from where

12     targeting is the most favourable, and this order does not exclude the

13     possibility of using other artillery pieces for targeting different

14     objectives in town in line with that explanation of yours.  Selected

15     targets, targets selected in advance, civilian ones -- no, sorry, not

16     civilian ones, military ones.

17        Q.   Of the military targets that you were aware of, would you agree

18     with me that a modified air bomb would be inappropriate for use with

19     respect to some of them?

20        A.   Yes.  Certainly I could not hit all the targets that I had with

21     that air bomb.

22        Q.   Now --

23        A.   In order to be sure.

24        Q.   -- in this 19th of April order, there is not only no mention of a

25     specific target but there is no mention of even a type of target.  I'm

Page 23221

 1     correct in that, am I not?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   So now let me characterise what I see the logic in this order and

 4     let me ask you whether you agree.

 5             The logic of this order is as follows:  We have non-specific

 6     information that the enemy is preparing for an action against the VRS.

 7     It's unclear what that is.  One of the options to repel this action is to

 8     use a modified air bomb somewhere in the city.  Is that the logic of this

 9     order?

10        A.   My understanding of this order was that it was a preparatory

11     order to raise combat readiness, to inform all officers down to the

12     lowest level about the possible consequences in terms of what would

13     happen if we did not do that.  Then to prepare for night action.  Then

14     also to get ammunition.  Quite simply to prepare for possible combat.  So

15     I understood this as a preparatory order.  It is rather imprecise, I must

16     admit.  And without that additional sentence, military targets.  Which

17     certainly does not mean that when receiving this order I would have fired

18     an air bomb or would have used artillery to fire at different targets

19     without any kind of selection.  And I'll explain later on - we'll

20     probably get to that - how I would do the targeting.

21             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, the Prosecution tenders 65 ter 18618.

22             MR. IVETIC:  No objection.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 18618 receives number P6617,

25     Your Honours.

Page 23222

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  P6617 is admitted.

 2             MR. GROOME:  Now I want to return to the air bomb that was

 3     launched against Hrasnica.  Can I ask that we bring up P1048 and this is

 4     a report from the VRS Main Staff to the RS president dated the

 5     7th of April, 1995, the same day.

 6        Q.   Now keeping the differences between the two orders that we've

 7     just looked at, the 19th of April and the 30th of April, okay, now, the

 8     portion -- I'll give you a moment to look at the -- the heading.  There's

 9     a lot in this particular report that I'm not interested in at the moment.

10     Once have you oriented yourself to the -- the date and nature of the

11     report generally, let me know and I'll go to the page that I want to draw

12     your attention to specifically.

13        A.   You can move on because this is --

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We did not hear the end of

15     the sentence.

16             MR. GROOME:  I think --

17        Q.   It's okay to move on, I believe, is what you're indicating.

18             MR. GROOME:  Can we go to page 3 in the B/C/S and page 5 in the

19     English.

20        Q.   And if I can ask you to draw your attention to where the bombing

21     of Hrasnica is reported to Karadzic.

22             Okay.  And for the -- it's (b).  It's 3(b).  Hopefully that helps

23     you find it.  Have you found out?

24             MR. GROOME:  And for the Chamber's benefit, it's at the top of

25     the page.

Page 23223

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 2             MR. GROOME:

 3        Q.   So it's reported:

 4             "(B), situation in the corps:  The enemy activity was adequately

 5     responded to whereby an air bomb (250 kilogram) was launched on the

 6     centre of Hrasnica."

 7             Now, General Milovanovic, who authored this report, is informing

 8     President Karadzic that the enemy activity was adequately responded to;

 9     correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   The bombing of Hrasnica was a decision that was taken in response

12     to something that the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina had done; correct?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   So now let's go back to Milosevic's order to bomb Hrasnica and

15     see what the enemy had done that had to be responded to.

16             MR. GROOME:  Can we please have P592 on our screen again.

17        Q.   And this time I want to focus on not the actual orders but the

18     situation that Milosevic seeks to respond to.

19             So this order to bomb Hrasnica, Sokolovic, where the greatest

20     casualties and material damage can be inflicted is in response to:

21             "For the past three days, Muslim forces have been attacking the

22     positions of the 2nd Sarajevo Light Infantry Brigade, and the attacks are

23     particularly pronounced in the sector of the Famos factory.  Several of

24     our soldiers and a large number of civilians had [sic] been wounded."

25             Colonel Radojcic, I put to you that the logic and the motivation

Page 23224

 1     of this order, which I submit you fully appreciated at the time you

 2     implemented this order, was that the ABiH had injured a large number of

 3     Serb civilians, and the VRS was going to respond by firing a modified air

 4     bomb into middle of a built-up area with many civilians with the intent

 5     to injure a similarly large number of civilians.

 6             Isn't that the truth of what happened on the 7th of April, 1995?

 7        A.   In order to give a precise answer to this question of yours,

 8     allow me to say that, according to international law of war, the

 9     commander of a unit in whose zone activity is taking place is duty-bound

10     to evacuate the civilian population in order to avoid civilian

11     casualties.  So the commander of 104th Brigade, Mr. Fikret Prevljak, if

12     he intended to attack the 2nd Sarajevo Brigade, he also had to inform the

13     civilian population that they should be evacuated.  Or at least that they

14     should seek shelter, in shelters, because of the forthcoming combat.  He

15     had not done that.  That is the first thing that I wish to say.

16             Secondly, I, as a trained officer, if I would receive an order to

17     target civilians, especially with an air bomb, I would know that that

18     order constitutes a crime and I would not have carried it out.

19             This order, I must admit, is written very unskillfully.  I doubt

20     that it was General Milosevic who wrote that.  It must have been one of

21     his duty operations officers on his instructions.  So when I am told to

22     hit a target, for me there are only military targets.  Anything else

23     would constitute a crime, as far as I'm concerned.  And trust me when I

24     say that I would not have carried out such an order.

25        Q.   But, sir, earlier today you told us that Milosevic was happy with

Page 23225

 1     the result of the air bomb.  You didn't hit a military target.  You hit a

 2     civilian target, did you not?

 3        A.   No, I did not hit a civilian target.  I did not hit exactly the

 4     facility that I had targeted.  Now why was General Milosevic satisfied?

 5     Because of the effect that this fired air bomb had caused.  It's not the

 6     losses that were inflicted.  They probably concluded:  If you do not

 7     stop, we will go on.  So they did stop.  So claiming that we wanted to

 8     target civilians, that can only be viewed in the context of the answer

 9     that I provided about the obligations of the commander of the Muslim side

10     and my understanding of the order, no other way.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask for -- you say he was happy about the

12     effect.  Now, when did he tell you that he was happy with that result of

13     your action?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After carrying out his order to

15     launch the air bomb and when I received the exact information as to where

16     it had fallen.  I used radio communication and ...

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Was it one hour after it was fired, two hours after

18     it was fired?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Less.  Less.  I think about 30 or

20     40 minutes.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, what did you report to him as being the effect?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I knew at that moment.  So I

23     did not know about the effects in terms of possible casualties.  I knew

24     where it had fallen and I said that we had carried out his order.  The

25     target was not hit, but it fell close to the target.  And I asked for

Page 23226

 1     further instructions.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  You were apparently informed in detail about where

 3     the shell had fallen, or where the bomb had fallen?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that moment, not in detail.

 5     Because my observers from the observation posts saw where the bomb had

 6     fallen, and I knew the location as to where it had fallen, but I did not

 7     know of the possible casualties or losses that had been inflicted by the

 8     bomb.  It was only later that I learned about that from the members of

 9     UNPROFOR.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Did you know what the -- that the school was located

11     in the centre of a village or town, whatever you call it?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not a village.  It's an

13     integral part of Sarajevo, it's just on the periphery, and it is

14     inhabited and it consists of -- yes, I knew what I was targeting.  And I

15     understood that, at that point in time, at that place there should be no

16     civilians.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Because they should have been evacuated, is that

18     what you're telling us?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  I expected the commander of

20     the 104th Brigade to observe international law too.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  So you considered that there should be no civilians

22     but did you verify whether there were any civilians?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I knew that there were civilians in

24     Hrasnica and in Sokolovic Kolonija, which is an integral part of

25     Hrasnica, a newer part, closer to the river.  I knew that, but I also

Page 23227

 1     that I was targeting a facility where there were no civilians.  So this

 2     was the centre for training the special forces of the BH army.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And you missed that target.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I've said "yes" several

 5     times.  But it wasn't that much of a miss, so it's not that civilians

 6     outside that zone were affected.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  You told us about the destructive power of an aerial

 8     bomb and this was a 250-kilogram one.  Have you considered, when

 9     reporting about the effect, what the effect would have been on the houses

10     and constructions next to what you told us the target was?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I considered that, and I knew

12     that an air bomb directly destroys a target.  But it falls outside of

13     that, most of its force is spent beyond.  For example, I received

14     information to the effect that if it falls 50 metres away or 30 metres

15     away from a human being, the worst thing that can happen is that that

16     person's eardrum bursts.  So that is what I learned from people who are

17     better versed in this subject matter.

18             So the air bomb caused a crater there.  The dimensions I already

19     mentioned to you.  It was 5 metres deep and it was about 15 metres wide,

20     which speaks in itself that it was intended to destroy a building, not

21     kill civilians.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I may have a further question for you later, but I

23     have to verify part of your testimony of yesterday.

24             Please proceed, Mr. Groome.

25             MR. GROOME:

Page 23228

 1        Q.   Colonel Radojcic, maybe it will help if we remind ourselves of

 2     what happened when your aerial bomb fell.

 3             MR. GROOME:  I'm going to ask Ms. Stewart now to play P839.  It's

 4     a report of the BBC correspondent Martin Bell, dated the 7th of April,

 5     1995.  I'm playing at 17 seconds of the exhibit.

 6                           [Video-clip played]

 7             "The cease-fire appears to be crumbling rapidly.  Today there was

 8     offensives on at least two fronts in Bosnia and south of Sarajevo.  The

 9     suburb of Hrasnica came under Serbian attack for the third successive

10     day.  A rocket levelled five houses, killed one person, and injured

11     several more."

12             MR. GROOME:

13        Q.   So, sir, from your earlier evidence that you expected the ABiH

14     commander to remove civilians, does that indicate that you knew this

15     contraption was being fired into an area densely populated by civilians?

16     You just expected them to have been moved?

17        A.   First of all, I had expected that because, in similar situations,

18     when I received information or if activity of this kind would start, I

19     would order people to move to shelters.  So I expected -- since fighting

20     had been going on for three days, I expected the population to have been

21     removed to shelters, and it is only commonsensical.  These are distances

22     that are not measured in terms of kilometres but the distance between our

23     lines is in the hundreds of metres.  So, of course, I expected that next

24     to the centre for training special forces there wouldn't be any civilians

25     living there and it's only natural that I would have expected that.  This

Page 23229

 1     just shows a fragment.  I see that this was filmed at 2114; that is to

 2     say, almost 12 hours after the explosion.  Now, whether that is that

 3     place, whether those are the actual affects, I don't know.

 4        Q.   So is it your evidence now that what we've seen here you believe

 5     to be false evidence or concocted evidence; is that what you're saying?

 6        A.   That is too grave a word.  I did not say "false" or "concocted."

 7     I am just saying that he hasn't convinced me that these are the affects

 8     of an air bomb.  Don't forget that area of Sokolovic Kolonija, Hrasnica,

 9     and Ilidza, during the many years of war -- this is 1995.  All of it had

10     been destroyed completely.  There were very few buildings that hadn't

11     been damaged.  On the basis of what can I know that this is an air bomb?

12     Are there any remnants of those fragments that you showed me?  Can we see

13     any of that in this?  When you show me that, I can believe this.

14        Q.   Perhaps it's time to move from air bombs for a time.

15             I'm going to go through some miscellaneous questions I have about

16     your statement and your associated exhibits --

17             MR. GROOME:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Just before we move.  I notice that you -- you do

19     say that this video is at 21 hours 14 minutes and you say there were many

20     destructions happening during that year.  But this video is dated the

21     7th of April.  Were there many such incidents on the 7th of April?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for my command, the command of

23     the Ilidza Brigade, there weren't any other incidents.  There was

24     shooting there all the time.  We don't count that as incidents.  There

25     was always small-arms fire even when there was a cease-fire on, let alone

Page 23230

 1     when there wasn't.  However, the thrust of this activity was on the

 2     opposite side from me.  The 4th Brigade was between us.  There was this

 3     corridor that leads from the airport runway towards Igman, so Hrasnica

 4     and Sokolovic Kolonija was between the two brigades of ours.  On my side

 5     there wasn't any activity, and on the other side there had been intensive

 6     activity going on for already three days.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you for that long answer.  Can you please

 8     answer my question.  My question simply is:  Were there incidents -- many

 9     incidents on the 7th of April of similar magnitude; yes or no?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  No.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

12             MR. GROOME:  Could I ask that 65 ter 07625 be brought to our

13     screens.

14        Q.   Now, sir, paragraph 113 of your statement begins:

15             "I was shown document 65 ter 07625.  There was a meeting of the

16     commanders of brigades or regiments and the independent battalions with

17     the commander of the SRK."

18             Now when I call up -- when I call up 65 ter 07625, I see that it

19     is the shorthand notes of the 58th Supreme Defence Council meeting held

20     on the 21st of November, 1996.  It is clearly not a meeting of the SRK

21     commanders.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Groome, we have documents on the screen which

23     don't correspond.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Madam Registrar tells me that there's no B/C/S

25     version of this document and --

Page 23231

 1             MR. GROOME:  So --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  -- from what I see in my e-court system, there seems

 3     to be only an English translation.

 4             MR. GROOME:  So, Your Honour --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  I see that there are two -- as a matter of fact, it

 6     seems that two times the English version is uploaded.

 7             MR. GROOME:  So this is a document that's being tendered by the

 8     Defence as an associated exhibit.  I believe there's a mistake.  So what

 9     I want to ask the witness is the following --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If it is uploaded by the Defence, then I would

11     invite the Defence to also upload the B/C/S version if there's --

12             MR. GROOME:  No, Your Honour, I think --

13             MR. IVETIC:  It's a Prosecution document, Your Honours.

14             MR. GROOME:  It is a Prosecution document, but as I said, the

15     paragraph 113 says that it's a document related to a meeting of brigade

16     commanders and we can clearly that this is a meeting of the

17     Supreme Defence Council.

18        Q.   Sir, just to be clear, you've never attended a meeting of the

19     Supreme Defence Council, have you?  General Perisic ever ask you to come

20     to a meeting up in Belgrade at the Supreme Defence Council?

21        A.   No, no.  No.  I was too small a person for that kind of meeting.

22        Q.   So I believe this is an error.  So take a look at paragraph 113

23     of your statement and my question to you is:  The document that you were

24     referring to, can you tell us what was the approximate date of that

25     document so we can try to figure out what is the document that you

Page 23232

 1     describe in paragraph 113 of your statement.  Again, what you say is

 2     there was a meeting of the commanders of brigades or regiments and

 3     independent battalions with the commander of the SRK.

 4        A.   You really have to familiarize me with this a bit more.  I really

 5     don't know.  There were so many meetings.  I really cannot remember.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can we have D535 on the screen, especially

 7     paragraph 113.

 8             MR. GROOME:

 9        Q.   So perhaps the best question for me to ask you is:  Do you recall

10     now what the document is that you were shown and for which paragraph 113

11     refers?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Can you tell us the approximate date of that document?

14        A.   I think it was approximately 1994, but I don't know the exact

15     date.

16        Q.   Can you give us a month?

17        A.   No.

18        Q.   No.  Do you know who the author was of the document?

19        A.   I think that this document was probably written by one of the

20     operations officers from the corps command.

21        Q.   And can you tell us, in substance, what the document said?

22        A.   I can.  As I've already said, within my brigade there weren't any

23     professional officers.  In addition to myself, there was only one more

24     professional officer.  All the rest were reserve officers who had

25     completed reserve training, reserve officers' schools before the war, and

Page 23233

 1     that is where they were taught about carrying out high positions in the

 2     army.  In addition to that, many persons figured prominently in fighting,

 3     and they were appointed commanders although they had not had proper

 4     training.  I mean, I didn't have a single commander who had even

 5     completed reserve officer school.

 6             Would you please allow me to finish what I started?

 7             From that point of view, I asked the corps command that at that

 8     time of cease-fire, measures be taken for such officers to enrol in

 9     courses so that the duties that they carry out would be carried out in

10     the best possible way.  So that order has to do with that.

11             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, I may be able to assist.  The similar

12     text from the Karadzic witness statement refers to a Karadzic document

13     which I have been able to locate, which is in our case Defence exhibit

14     D00094, which had the Prosecution 65 ter number of 28501.

15             MR. GROOME:  I think the most appropriate thing at this stage

16     is -- and I certainly have no objection to Mr. Ivetic re-opening his

17     direct examination once I finish my cross-examination to -- to show that

18     document to the witness to confirm.  But certainly, as an associated

19     exhibit, 07625 fails to meet the test.

20             MR. IVETIC:  It's already been admitted.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Therefore, Mr. Ivetic, may I then take it that you

22     withdraw it as an associated exhibit, it already being in evidence?

23             MR. IVETIC:  Correct.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

25             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, maybe my memory is failing me, but I

Page 23234

 1     thought we agreed that we would postpone the discussion of associated

 2     exhibit until after the witness --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but if an associated exhibit by mistake is

 4     presented as such, where that same document is already in evidence, then

 5     what still is relevant, Mr. Ivetic, is to establish that what is by

 6     mistake referred to as associated exhibit number so-and-so, that in

 7     reality is a reference to a document which is already in evidence, and I

 8     take it that you will take care of that during re-examination.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

11             MR. GROOME:  There's one more similar document.  Can we please

12     call up 1D02129.

13        Q.   Now at paragraph 116 of your statement it begins:

14             "I was shown a document, 65 ter 1D02129.  The corps and brigade

15     intelligence organs reported to us that Muslim forces were preparing a

16     major offensive from the inner and outer ring in order to lift the

17     blockade of Sarajevo."

18             Now when I look at this document, it appears to a gazette entry

19     recording President Karadzic's appointment of a War Presidency in Ilidza.

20     It's on the screen before you.  This is not the document you're referring

21     to in paragraph 116, is it?

22        A.   Paragraph 116 certainly doesn't speak about this.

23        Q.   Okay.  So rather than me ask you any more questions about it,

24     I'll leave it to Mr. Ivetic in his reopened direct examination to see if

25     he can sort that out.

Page 23235

 1             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I see that it's time for the break.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  It is time for the break.

 3             We'll ask for the witness to be escorted out of the courtroom.

 4                           [The witness stands down]

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome, I think that yesterday we established

 6     already that there was no real chance to conclude the testimony of this

 7     witness today, but could you tell us how much time you would still need.

 8             MR. GROOME:  I believe I'll still use the full six hours,

 9     Your Honour.  I'm not sure how much time -- they tell me I've used about

10     five hours so far.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that means that we'll also most likely not even

12     conclude the cross-examination today.  Since the Chamber has taken quite

13     some time as well, we're the last ones to blame you for that situation.

14             We take a break, and we resume at 20 minutes to 2.00.

15                           --- Recess taken at 1.23 p.m.

16                           --- On resuming at 1.43 p.m.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  While we are waiting for the witness to be brought

18     in, the Chamber would very much like the Defence to clear -- to

19     thoroughly verify whether there are any other clerical errors, or

20     whatever, in associated or non-associated exhibits.  And, Mr. Groome, if

21     you find some -- something that really makes no sense at all, because the

22     document doesn't relate to anything the witness said, to already inform

23     the Defence in advance so that they are still in a position to correct

24     that.

25             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, I can provide some additional

Page 23236

 1     information as to the document that was dealt with before the break.

 2     Although I still have not been able to locate the document, in my binder

 3     I have the same document that Mr. Groome pulled up.  But that evidence in

 4     the Karadzic statement related to Karadzic 65 ter number 1D6414.  But

 5     again, I don't have that document to know where it is our system.  I'll

 6     still have to look.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  At the same time, if you present this as evidence

 8     and then apparently not even knowing what it is about, let alone that the

 9     witness would have known about it, that, of course, is a mistake which

10     certainly is not any less than not attaching a translation to a

11     65 ter document.

12                           [The witness takes the stand]

13             MR. IVETIC:  I agree.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Let that be clear because it goes to content and not

15     to form.

16             Mr. Groome.

17             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, just on this point before we leave it.

18     There's a voluminous number of documents with this witness so I haven't

19     been able to check them all, although I have tried to check many.  One

20     other error that I see, which I would ask, encourage, Mr. Ivetic to

21     examine over the break, for example, I think there are several documents,

22     and one is in paragraph 103, where it refers -- the witness says

23     something along the lines:  "I have the same comment as I did to 1D8390."

24     As far as I have been able to determine, that is not a document that's

25     referred to in this witness statement.  It is not a 65 ter number in this

Page 23237

 1     case, in the Karadzic case.  I'm not sure where it comes from, but it

 2     might be useful to reexamine all of those cross-references because

 3     obviously when the witness is saying, "My evidence is the same about

 4     this," if we can't find the "this," we have no idea what his evidence is

 5     about.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  And I would like to add, Mr. Ivetic, that, of

 7     course, if the Defence wants the Chamber to carefully consider all the

 8     evidence, then this kind of error should be avoided to the extent

 9     possible because we usually go through all those documents attached to

10     statements, et cetera.  If we can't find them, that might become an

11     obstacle.

12             Mr. Groome, you may proceed.

13             MR. GROOME:

14        Q.   Sir, I want to draw your attention to paragraph 28 of your

15     statement.

16             MR. GROOME:  And perhaps we could bring that up.  It's D535 and

17     paragraph 28.

18        Q.   In it you say that fire could only be opened on identified

19     military targets and firing positions.  You say:

20             "We did not even return fire until we received permission from

21     the superior command."

22             My question to you is -- is very limited and very simply:  Was

23     this true throughout the conflict?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And your reference to superior command, you're referring to the

Page 23238

 1     corps level -- the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps; correct?

 2        A.   Yes, that's right.

 3        Q.   When you say you sought permission before you fired, was this

 4     true for munitions of all calibres or only for munitions of a particular

 5     size and above or ...?

 6        A.   Sarajevo, as a part of the Bosnia-Herzegovina theatre of war, was

 7     specific because often truce was fined [as interpreted] and even more

 8     often it was not -- the agreement was not honoured.  So there were

 9     intermittent periods of truce and combat.  Perhaps I can explain, if you

10     wish.

11        Q.   Well, my question is very specific now so -- and it relates to

12     paragraph 28, where you say did you not return fire unless you received

13     permission.  So my question is limited to:  Did that -- does your

14     evidence apply to all calibres of weapons or just to some?

15        A.   Only calibres larger than 20 millimetres.

16        Q.   So that calibres smaller than that, you did not and your

17     subordinates did not seek permission to fire; is that correct?

18        A.   There was standard procedure in place.  If the forces of the ABiH

19     army set out on a direct attack, it would have been absurd for me to ask

20     permission to open fire.  However, if there was sporadic fire which did

21     not place our entire firing positions in danger, I would be informed what

22     to do, and then the procedure was different.

23        Q.   So, in essence, the procedure was where you can safely obtain

24     advance permission, you should do so?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 23239

 1        Q.   I now want to deal with another one of your associated exhibits

 2     and this is 1D02179.  That's 1D2179.

 3             Now I want to deal with two documents that you give evidence

 4     about in paragraph 136 of your statement which reads:

 5             "These are documents of the Ilidza Brigade Military Police which

 6     obtained the necessary information in this case about our enemies in

 7     Hrasnica from Serbian civilians who had escaped."

 8             Before we look at the -- the documents in detail, I have a

 9     general question.  These two documents you refer to in this paragraph,

10     are they typical of the types of intelligence information which you had

11     access to?

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Could we have the statement on the screen, please.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was one of the ways for me to

14     obtain enemy information.  It was only one way from those Serbs who had

15     fled from the other side and from some captured Muslims.  I received such

16     information from the organ for intelligence and security.

17             MR. GROOME:

18        Q.   Okay.  And my question at this moment is:  Do these two examples

19     that have now been tendered through you as a witness, do they fairly

20     represent the type of intelligence that you received about military

21     targets?

22        A.   It was just one or perhaps the first kind of gathering

23     intelligence information and that information was then included into the

24     puzzle I was putting together.  The rule of thumb in an army is if you

25     have two or three sources corroborating the same information, then it was

Page 23240

 1     safe to conclude that it was so.  If there was only one or two, they had

 2     to be checked additionally.

 3             So we took all such single-source information with a grain of

 4     salt and carried out additional checks, as I've already explained.

 5        Q.   Let's take closer look now at 1D02179.  In paragraph 136 of this

 6     report -- sorry, you now say in paragraph 136 that this report is from a

 7     Serbian civilian who escaped.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can you repeat the document number, please?

 9             MR. GROOME:  It's 1D02179.

10             Let's take a look at what the document itself says.

11        Q.   In the first paragraph summarising the interview of

12     Ilija Mocevic, it says:

13             "His best man, Mensur Tenzo, persuaded him to join the so-called

14     ARBiH where he stayed from 19 July 1992 until 5 December 1992.  He left

15     the so-called ABiH because, according to him, there were no Serbs in it

16     or very few."

17             So --

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And the document number is 1D02179.

19             MR. GROOME:  I'm perhaps starting to think that maybe it's not,

20     Your Honour.  Ms. Stewart does confirm that it is --

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It was not recorded properly.

22             MR. GROOME:

23        Q.   So I guess my question is your assertion in your statement that

24     this person has escaped is simply not true.  He didn't escape.  He joined

25     the ABiH, decided he didn't want to stay, and he left.  That's the truth

Page 23241

 1     of what happened with this person; right?

 2        A.   Based on this statement, I can conclude that this man before the

 3     war lived in Hrasnica or Sokolovic Kolonija.  When the roads were

 4     blocked, he remained there with his family.  This best man of his, or a

 5     friend, probably with good intentions to keep him safe, advised him to

 6     join the ABiH.  He left it after a while for the reasons he stated

 7     therein.  It was not a unique case.  There were many such cases in the

 8     1st Corps of the ABiH.  Those people were then later mobilised into

 9     so-called work platoons and used to dig trenches and carry out

10     engineering works in risky areas.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me stop you there.  I'd like to know about your

12     source of knowledge.  Do you know this person, this person which gave

13     this statement, Mr. Mocevic?  Do you know him personally and his personal

14     circumstances?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  So what you're telling us is your interpretation of

17     this document?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  Based on this document you

19     can see, more or less, how things developed.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, the Chamber can read the document and see what

21     is stated in there, and if you have no personal knowledge about the

22     circumstances, then is that what you add as information from, until now,

23     rather general and unknown sources.

24             Please proceed, Mr. Groome.

25             MR. GROOME:

Page 23242

 1        Q.   Let's take a look at the other document that you referred to in

 2     this -- in this paragraph.  And this is 1D02180.

 3             Now, here we have another typical intelligence report.  It

 4     reports to record [sic] information provided by Ognjen Damjanac.  Now, I

 5     want to draw your attention to just below the middle of the

 6     paragraph containing Damjanac's information and read you a particular

 7     line from this quote -- from this:

 8             "The interviewee has not provided any information of interest

 9     except that he confirmed what we already know."

10             So the person that interviewed Mr. Damjanac had the view that he

11     did not provide information of interest; correct?

12        A.   If you keep reading, you will get to an interesting part of what

13     he said.

14        Q.   Perhaps you read the part that you found interesting.

15        A.   I'll start reading from where you left it off.  I lost the image.

16     Perhaps it can be zoomed in.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Don't touch the screen.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.  Except that he

19     confirmed what we already know.  Meaning information.

20             "The only thing he mentioned was that recently a work platoon

21     from Hrasnica has been clearing up the area on Mount Igman, repairing

22     communication trenches, and constructing the so-called grill covers.

23     (Made of two layers of wooden logs with a layer of earth in between).  So

24     far they have built a cover about 300 metres long.  He also confirmed

25     that the command of the 4th Motorised Brigade had moved from Hrasnica to

Page 23243

 1     Sokolovic Kolonija and occupied the ground floor business premises

 2     opposite the Enker-Sokotrans warehouse."

 3             So there were pieces of information that we had not been able to

 4     corroborate before.

 5        Q.   Now, sir, this report is less than a month before the Hrasnica

 6     bombing.  Were you aware that the command of the 4th Motorised Brigade

 7     had moved out of Hrasnica before you launched the air bomb into it?

 8        A.   Had I known that, my intelligence officer would not have flagged

 9     this as new information.  He did say he only mentioned something we know

10     but then he added the information about communication trenches and the

11     moving of the command.  They probably moved their command post because of

12     the air bomb.

13        Q.   Well, sir, this is -- this is before the air bomb.  And now just

14     to be clear, the command of the 4th Motorised Brigade was what you were

15     referring to when you talked about the post office; correct?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   So --

18        A.   And I still think --

19        Q.   So here we have intelligence, which you've said you used in

20     determining where military targets were, that you had possession of

21     intelligence three weeks before you fired the air bomb that the military

22     target at the post office, the command, had moved; correct?

23        A.   I have to say this.  A brigade command is not the commander alone

24     but everyone else and everyone -- everything else that accompanies him,

25     including the communications centre of the 104th Motorised Brigade.  A

Page 23244

 1     communication centre is a key element of command and control.  The postal

 2     building made it possible for the commander to have it in place.

 3             Secondly, as a commander, I do not have only one command post.  I

 4     have the main command post, a fake command post, and so on.  This witness

 5     statement can be only relevant to the extent of indicating one such place

 6     where the brigade command may have been.

 7        Q.   And it seems to indicate that at least as the post office is

 8     concerned, it was an empty command post.  They had left.

 9        A.   Never during the war was it empty.  The communications centre was

10     there throughout the war, and the other organs of the command were there

11     throughout.  I know that.

12        Q.   Okay.  I want to switch to a different topic and explore one of

13     the targeting decisions that you made.

14             Can we --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask the witness.  Have you not now changed

16     the military target the post office would have been from a command post

17     to a communications centre?  I think we earlier heard that it was because

18     there was a command there and after being -- now having looked at

19     documents which says that the command may not have been there any

20     further, that you are saying:  Well, it's still a communications centre,

21     so that makes it a military target.  Is that the shift from the one to

22     the other?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no shift.  The postal building

24     was the basic, the main command post of the 104th Motorised Brigade

25     throughout the war.  In addition to that location, the commander had

Page 23245

 1     several forward command posts.  In this specific case, he probably moved

 2     closer to the 2nd Sarajevo Brigade because of the forthcoming offensive.

 3     So perhaps he went to his forward command post number one, two or three.

 4     It is crystal-clear.  I remain with my position.  The postal building was

 5     the command post of the 104th Motorised Brigade throughout the war.  The

 6     commander alone does not amount to an entire command post.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honour, I would direct your attention to

 8     transcript 47, lines 2 through 8.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Witness, that sentence in this document which is

10     on the screen says:

11             "The command of the 4th Motorised Brigade ..."

12             The command, not the commander.  It doesn't say anything about a

13     forward command post but "the command."

14             Can you comment on that?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can.  A fleeing Serb cannot be

16     familiar with military tactics and what is contained as part of a single

17     command.  To him as a layperson, where the commander is is the command

18     post.  But to me who is familiar with it, that simply isn't true.  I had

19     three or four brigade command posts, depending on the focus of our

20     activity, and the command post is not where the commander is only.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  I have -- and I thank Mr. Ivetic for that.

22             You earlier talked about the post office housing the command of

23     the 104th Mechanised Brigade.  Is that -- that's different from the

24     command of the 4th Motorised Brigade, or is it ...

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In 2004, there was a change of name

Page 23246

 1     for the units.  The 4th became the 104th.  The 2nd at Stup became the

 2     102nd, and the 5th in the -- in Dobrinja, became the 155th.  Hence, the

 3     difference in the statements.  In any case, it is the same brigade.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Is that in 2004 you said there was a change of

 5     name, or was it a different year?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I must have misspoken.  1994.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  So the 4th and the 104th is actually the same.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  Commanded by Fikret Prevljak.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. GROOME:  Can I ask that we now have 1D02087 on our screens.

12     It is an interim report authored by Colonel Radojcic dated the

13     14th of July, 1995.

14        Q.   And you deal with this in paragraph 86 of your statement.  It's a

15     relatively short report.  Now, in this report, it states:

16             "At 1850 hours today, we started an artillery attack on an

17     unannounced convoy of lorries travelling along the so-called Igman road

18     in the direction of ... and," you can't read it, "and escorted by

19     UNPROFOR combat vehicles."

20             My first question is:  Did you give the order to fire upon this

21     convoy?  A simple yes or no, if that's possible.

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   The lorries that you fired upon, you had no intelligence

24     information regarding what they contained, did you?

25        A.   No.

Page 23247

 1        Q.   They could have contained flour to feed the people of Sarajevo

 2     but you just didn't know at the time; correct?

 3        A.   Yes.  But they could have contained ammunition too.

 4        Q.   And they also could have contained children being brought to the

 5     hospital; correct?  You just didn't know.

 6        A.   Yes, I didn't know.  They could have contained ABiH fighters.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we start repeating from the one side that it

 8     could all be food, children, elderly people, and you saying it could be

 9     rifles, mortars, let's move on because that doesn't bring us that far.

10     You didn't know what it was.  And let's proceed from there.

11             MR. GROOME:

12        Q.   Sir, in paragraph 86 you say:

13             "What is more, there were vehicles of the BiH army 1st Corps in

14     the convoy because we saw when we hit the vehicle that the trucks of the

15     Muslim forces were also lit up."

16             So according to your own account, the first information that you

17     had that there may have been a military vehicle in the convoy only came

18     after you fire and that fire illuminated the convoy; correct?

19        A.   Correct.

20        Q.   The fact is that you fired on this UNPROFOR convoy because you

21     had not been informed of it in advance; correct?

22        A.   Correct.

23        Q.   So absent any information about the convoy, you gave the order to

24     fire upon it.

25        A.   Yes.

Page 23248

 1        Q.   Did you consider the possibility that the VRS had been informed

 2     of the convoy and that somehow there'd been some breakdown in

 3     communication that the information had not been passed down to you?  Is

 4     that something you considered?

 5        A.   In this case there was no possibility of a mistake.  Before I

 6     ordered that fire be opened, I called Lieutenant-Colonel Indjic, liaison

 7     officer, and asked him whether were any announced convoys to be moving at

 8     6.30 p.m. across Igman.  He said no, and to me it was a clear sign that

 9     there was some foul play.  I have to mention that at 6.30 p.m., it is not

10     as if one were in The Hague, where it -- it is still day-time.  At

11     6.30 p.m. at Igman, it is already dark and one cannot see very well.  The

12     distance from my positions was perhaps between 2 and a half and

13     3 kilometres, so between my positions and the convoy itself.

14        Q.   We have heard earlier today that you had night-vision equipment;

15     isn't that correct?

16        A.   Certainly.  That is how we noticed it.  We had such equipment and

17     a T-12 cannon, which is provided with an optical device.  That is why we

18     were successful in hitting it.  Without it, we would not have been able

19     to do so during the night.

20        Q.   So you took the decision that it was to be attacked, irrespective

21     of whether it was a military target or not, because no one told you about

22     it in advance.  Is that how I am to understand your testimony?

23        A.   You did understand some of it well, but I have to clarify.

24             It was a war zone.  Anything that was not announced was

25     potentially an enemy.  As a commander, I have no right to make a mistake

Page 23249

 1     because it would come very dear to us.  In order -- that is why I had to

 2     open fire, and that is the context you have to view it in.

 3             I hope later I will be able or allowed to explain my agreement

 4     with UNPROFOR with regards to using the Igman road and the movement of

 5     humanitarian convoys.

 6        Q.   Before that, let me just ask that we pull up P11 and this is the

 7     UNPROFOR report prepared by David Harland on the 15th of July, 1995.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we look at it, could I ask the witness --

 9             Did I understand you well that you could fire -- could engage any

10     target which was potentially a military target?  You said ...

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  And you -- there was no need to verify first?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Verify how?  It is night-time.  You

14     see vehicles moving in your direction.  You cannot use IC equipment to

15     detect whether it was an UNPROFOR or ABiH vehicle.  With IC equipment,

16     that is to say, infrared equipment, you cannot tell with any certainty

17     what kind of vehicle it is.  When the first vehicle was set on fire, we

18     saw then that there were other vehicles moving alongside it as well.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Other than what?  Other than UNPROFOR?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said to Mr. Prosecutor, in the

21     convoy, save for UNPROFOR vehicles there were also ABiH vehicles.  One

22     could clearly see them.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  You said:  "We only then saw that there were

24     other ..."

25             So it was then that you found out that there were other than

Page 23250

 1     UNPROFOR vehicles.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correctly.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Since we have it on our screen, I suggest that we

 4     take two or three more minutes and then adjourn for the day.

 5             MR. GROOME:  Can we go to e-court page 4 in both versions.  I'll

 6     read the relevant part to accelerate this process.  It says:

 7             "On Friday evening, (14th July), an UNPROFOR UNHCR convoy of four

 8     vehicles carrying flour over Mount Igman was attacked from Serb-held flat

 9     below the mountain."

10             And it goes on to describe the attack in more detail.

11             Now you ordered the attack on this convoy, and you've expressed

12     your concerns about a war-time situation.  What do you think UNPROFOR

13     would have done had you fired a warning shot that safely missed the

14     convoy but clearly gave the indication you knew they were and there's a

15     real problem.  What do you think UNPROFOR would have done?

16        A.   I would continue movement because we had fired that shot and with

17     the second shot we hit the vehicle.  But that is a section where it is

18     possible to target UNPROFOR.  It's a couple of hundred metres.  If we had

19     a map I could show it to you.  If you let it pass during those few

20     hundred metres, then you can no longer target them because there is a

21     this mask, if you will, consisting of trees and you can no longer see it.

22        Q.   So rather than fire a warning shot and take the risk that you

23     might not be able to reacquire the target, you fired on a convoy that you

24     really had no certainty or any kind of reliable information was a

25     military target?

Page 23251

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  Objection.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then I suggest that we adjourn for the day,

 4     Mr. Groome, and that you either again put this question to the witness

 5     when we have resumed on Wednesday and that we now hear the objection by

 6     Mr. Ivetic, but after the witness has left the courtroom.

 7             MR. GROOME:  Yes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, I again instruct you that you should not --

 9     you hear me now?

10             I again instruct you that you should not speak or communicate --

11     no.  One second.  There's more to be said.  But the instruction is the

12     same as I gave yesterday, not to speak, not to communicate in any way

13     about your testimony.  We will, however, resume only on Wednesday,

14     because on Monday and Tuesday, two of the Judges of this Chamber have

15     duties elsewhere, so we can't continue.  Otherwise we would not have to

16     wait for -- we had not to make you wait for such a long time.  But,

17     unfortunately, we'll have to ask you to stay until Wednesday.

18             Does that cause any serious problems to you?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It will not because I have already

20     taken certain measures.  I had assumed that this might happen, so no

21     problem whatsoever.  I'm prepared to stay for as long as you think is

22     necessary.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  That's appreciated.  I think we will conclude on

24     next Wednesday.

25             You may now follow the usher.

Page 23252

 1                           [The witness stands down]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome.

 3             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, in this regard, if -- can I ask the

 4     Chamber to pass on an instruction to VWS that if it's their intention to

 5     send him home and bring him back, which I think is probably likely given

 6     the length of delay, that --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I think, as a matter of fact, that it's not --

 8             MR. GROOME:  No?  Okay, then [overlapping speakers] --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  My information is that a scheduled flight back is

10     cancelled.

11             MR. GROOME:  Okay.  Thank you.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  So, therefore, they wouldn't have done that even if

13     he would have returned.

14             Mr. Ivetic, we'd like to hear your objection.

15             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

16             Mr. Groome's question misstates the witness's prior evidence at

17     temporary transcript page 96, lines 21 through 25, where he says:  "...

18     because we had fired that shot and with the second shot we hit the

19     vehicle," so it's not true that the warning shot was not fired.  At least

20     not from the evidence that is of record.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, there's more evidence.  I think the -- the

22     report is there in evidence as well.  So therefore -- but let's -- let me

23     see exactly where the question appear on the transcript.

24             MR. IVETIC:  Question is on line number 17 of page 96.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me see.

Page 23253

 1             MR. IVETIC:  In the middle of that line.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  No, but the question last put by -- the witness

 3     to --

 4             MR. IVETIC:  Oh, I see.  Page 97, line 2.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, one second, please.  I did not see any

 6     reference in that question to the evidence of this witness.  I see that a

 7     position, apparently based on the totality of the evidence on this matter

 8     we have until now, is put to the witness in order for him to give his

 9     comment on it.  I do not see that -- so rather than fire a warning shot,

10     I do understand that the witness says that he did.  However, the report

11     doesn't say anything about that.  They just say that "we were attacked,"

12     not "we were warned and then attacked."

13             So if you say that this does not fully reflect the evidence of

14     the witness, I think you're right.  Whether that makes it an

15     impermissible question is a different matter and whether it misstates the

16     evidence we'd have to analyse the evidence and the evidence certainly

17     contains elements which are more in line with this than perhaps with the

18     testimony of this witness.

19             MR. IVETIC:  But, Your Honour, if it comes as the second question

20     right after the witness has said:  "I did fire a warning shot," it seems

21     to imply that it is representing the answer of the witness in a different

22     light.

23             MR. GROOME:  I'm missing something.  Where did the witness say:

24     "I fired a warning shot"?  I guess that's --

25             MR. IVETIC:  I gave the citation earlier, the prior page, lines

Page 23254

 1     21 through 25, Mr. Groome.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  It was not very explicit there --

 3             MR. IVETIC:  Agreed.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  -- but he hinted at --

 5             MR. GROOME:  He hinted.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  -- at their firing a shot and then whether that's a

 7     warning shot and how long he gave an opportunity to stop moving is all

 8     still relatively unclear but certainly is a matter which we could further

 9     clarify.  But the objection to the question should be clearly

10     distinguished from further matters to be clarified.  That in the question

11     the witness's evidence was misstated, where no reference was made to the

12     evidence he gave, seems not to be a good basis for an objection.  Mr. --

13                           [Trial Chamber confers]

14             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, could I find out where in the document

15     it says that a warning shot was not fired?

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If it is not mentioned, it won't be in the

17     document.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I think on the reasons I -- let me just se what

19     Mr. Ivetic said because I haven't seen that.  One second.

20             Well, if you want to revisit the matter, as matters stand now,

21     the objection is denied, Mr. Ivetic.  If there's any reason to revisit

22     the matter on issues we have overlooked at this moment, we'll hear

23     further from you.

24             We adjourn for the day, and I apologise to all those assisting us

25     for our late adjournment.

Page 23255

 1             We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume on Wednesday, the

 2     2nd of July, in this same courtroom, I, at 9.30 in the morning.

 3                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.25 p.m.,

 4                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 2nd day of July,

 5                           2014, at 9.30 a.m.